AL GORE sore looser

[wrag]

Even with the evidence right before your eyes! LOL

The dates of the articles say ALLOT!!!!!!

AS I SAID why should I bother showing you the information????

You seem to have already made up your mind and further more give the impression that NOTHING will change it!  Not even the truth.

In my experience certain people will almost always claim they are open minded liberals and yet refuse to believe evidence when it is put in-front of them.  They hang on to their beliefs as if their very existence requires it.

Are you such a person?

OK is everyone ready?

Cause here come the insults

I don't challenge you to anything.  I suggest you look it up for yourself because I think you will not believe anything I direct you to.

Also I think you are capable of looking things up on your own.

I hope all people are capable of examining their own beliefs and reconsidering those beliefs if evidence indicates they could be incorrect or when they hold a belief that may be due to being missinformed.

It is possible that many did not see the Soviet admission to putting out "disinformation".

I was attending college at the time and my sociology professor fairly crowed about a memo that was later proven to be "disinformation".

This same professor was continually proclaiming the virtues of the People Republic of China (the mainland).

It was claimed to be a memo from a government orgainization that was telling all America how terrible the situation was.  This same memo was later shown to be totally bogus from a totally nonexistant branch of the government.

[midnight Target]

Trying to stay civil here...

I took one small part of Sabre's post.. this one:

Perhaps because the charges were so bogus, perhaps because he wanted publicity, Joe McCarthy avoided several opportunities to dismiss the censure resolution (which was so poorly worded that it didn't even have the word 'censure' in it). He welcomed a vote. It went against him. Although meaningless in itself, it gave the liberal press the excuse to ignore and/or bash McCarthy the rest of his life. In June 1953, McCarthy was a normal Senator with a 35 percent favorable rating and 30 percent unfavorable. In January 1954 he was 50 percent favorable; in March he had 46 favorable, 36 against. Then the liberal media did a hatchet job on him and in August 1954 he had 36 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable rating. McCarthy retained about 35 percent favorable ratings throughout the rest of his life.

and compared it to the actual transcript of the censure motion. Now one of us (Sabre and I) posted a one sided view about the Senator, and the other posted an actual document from the Senate Archives.

You can feel free to rant away.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by DmdNexus
He "invented  the internet" (aka funded ARPA)which is allowing YOU to write your opposition to his policies and his political career.

He funded ARPA?  I didn't know he was so rich.  I thought the taxpayers funded it.  

Learn something new every day.

[Dago]

I'd vote for McCarthy before I would vote for Hillary.

McCarthy worked for Americas best interest as he saw it.

Hillary works for Hillarys greedy self- interest.

Gore is not dynamic enough to lead, so shouldn't be considered worth electing.


dago

[wrag]

Hmmm...

Trying to stay civil?  Hmmm..

Note: thus far I have not made any accusations or statements regarding you or your personal beliefs.  I have only put forward questions and repeatedly used the word seems and impression.  If anyone has doubt's please reread my post.

As to a Senate document means?

I hope that an attempt is not going to be made to claim politicians don't lie or do things to save their political position.

As too the article....  the KGB, etc... admitted a very great deal of their actions after the demise of the Soviet Union!

THEY (meaning the KGB, etc...) even said the individuals McCarthy said were spy's were in FACT SPY'S.  Dispute the article if you wish but at least try and find the correct information.  Did the former KGB personnel make those statements???  

While the article may be one-sided if the KGB personnel did make the statement that the individuals McCarthy claimed were spy's actually were spy's then perhaps McCarthy's actions make a little more sense?

Consider please the possibility that while his actions may have been way outa line his reasons may have been extremely VALID!

Consider that the former communist nation expressed the ACTUAL INTENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!  And if necessary the destruction of the American people.

From where I sit that is an attack on my nation, my constitution, my freedom, and my liberty.   I further heard and experienced a portion of that attack while in college and put forth a portion of it in my previous post.

Please also consider that the communist party has NEVER, even now, said it has any other intention but the above.

Please further consider that the intention is such that even if every person within the U.S. does NOT want it!, it makes NO difference to these individuals or their party.  They will still continue their course.

[StSanta]

So, which people were spies?

Of the ones he accused of being communist spies, how many have been found to be so?

Midnight: nice job on getting the actual transcripts. I'll take those to an arse licking book with only one agenda.

Think I'm gonna write a book about Stalin in which he's all good and stuff and misunderstood coz of the right tilting media

[midnight Target]

I'm with Santa, which spys were named first by McCarthy?  Hiss? Rosenburg? I don't think so. But here are a few of the "commies" who were attacked by the Senator and his committee. I guess we should thank him for saving us from:

Zero Mostel


Herschel Bernardi


Lee Grant:


and especially:

[wrag]

OK I don't think the actors and such mentioned were considered spy's.

I think the list of such is what turned the entire thing into a witch hunt mentality for so many Americans.

Although there are some that think there is a link to the current condition of our society, the work done, and the manner that work was accomplished by those actors, there really is no supporting proof/evidence.



I think perhaps there were some that read and feared the following.  It was written by Tsun Tzu and is or was required reading for both the KGB and the Chinese communist.


"     The direct tactic of war is necessary only on the battlefield, but only the indirect tactic can lead
to a real and lasting victory.

     Subvert anything of value in the enemy's country.  Implicate the emissaries of the major powers
in criminal undertakings; undermine their position and destroy their reputation in other ways as well; and
expose them to the public ridicule of their fellow citizens.

     Do not shun the aid of even the lowest and the most despicable people.  Disrupt the work of
their government with every means you can.

     Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens of the enemy's country.  Turn the young against
the old.  Use every means to destroy their arms, their supplies, and the discipline of the enemy's forces.

     Debase old traditions and accepted gods.  Be generous with promises and rewards to purchase
intelligence and accomplices.  Send out your secret agents in all directions.  Do not skimp with money
or with promises, for they yield a high return."



I must confess that from my view point Hollywood (the industry) is much too far left leaning in it's views.  There appears to very little balance politically.

Furthermore the people running or in charge of hollywood seem far too willing to force those that disagree with them politicaly out of the system and away from any real work.  At least those seem to be the reports coming out of there.

Reports of a left leaning media are not new however.

I confess I find myself getting tired of the Media doing it's best to force it's view points on the rest of America.

Personal Freedom and Personal Liberty, and Equal Justice for ALL!

To me those are just a portion of the reasons for the Constitution as it was originally INTENDED.  Jefferson and many others objected to slavery and tried at the time to ban it.  Sadly it is reported that something like half the states refused to sign on to the Constitution if they had to give up their slaves!  So it seems that in order to create the U.S. and do so in a manner that gave our country enough states to make it strong enough to survive, they accepted the slavery issue with hopes that in time they could ban it.  I seem to recall Jerfferson and Washington and several other signers had some comments to that affect in letters they wrote.

[Dago]

Wrag, read the book "Bias"  by Bernard Goldberg, a former CBS employee.


dago