Comments on: New Hampshire results

By: Cicero

Cicero — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 04:32:58 +0000

When all else fails, Art, resort to ad hominem.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 02:48:41 +0000

Maybe you don’t give a toot.

You’ve made a number of lunatic remarks in this thread. Why not come back to Earth?

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 02:47:41 +0000

I’m not babbling about ‘moderates’. They are moderates compared to Bernie. Their views on illegals is right in line with Bush and Obama, which believed in a path to citizenship for those that are not convicted criminals. But they are not opposed to enforcing laws at the border. Few are. I have news for you. The border hasn't been 'enforced' with any degree of rigor in over 50 years.

By: Montage

Montage — Thu, 13 Feb 2020 01:07:45 +0000

Art Deco

I’m not babbling about ‘moderates’. They are moderates compared to Bernie. Their views on illegals is right in line with Bush and Obama, which believed in a path to citizenship for those that are not convicted criminals. But they are not opposed to enforcing laws at the border. Few are. Only Bernie wants to halt deportations.

By: Cicero

Cicero — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 23:56:15 +0000

Art Deco:
Well, one thing is clear: there were a lot of commies and near-commies in the burgeoning Deep State in 1950…and subsequently too, I am sure.
Maybe you don’t give a toot.
But I’m glad you had a look at Evans’ book and its 24 pages of end notes, which I consider documented evidence of research.
The congressional hearings were to minimize McCarthy’s claims and to demonize him; Alinsky at work: bash the SOB into oblivion.

By: AesopFan

AesopFan — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:44:25 +0000

Richard Saunders on February 12, 2020 at 1:29 pm said:
I once tried to explain to an actor why communism, “in theory,” as the useful idiots like to say, is bad. …
At that point I gave up. You can never explain anything to an actor. They have the brains of gnats. And those are the smart ones.
* * *
I have heard of some teachers trying to illustrate socialism by telling their students that, after an exam, the grades will be averaged and each student will receive that score, rather than the one they actually made.
Of course, the smart students are appalled and the not-so-smart enthralled.

I have never seen any follow-up story indicating that the smart ones thereupon renounce their previous approval of socialism.

In re actors: I know some smart people do take up acting, but having met some of the run-of-the-mill “talent” myself, your overall impression is correct.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:29:03 +0000

Sure Bernie came out ahead but the moderates actually won – granted with a split up vote.

Identify one willing to enforce the immigration laws before you begin babbling about ‘moderates’.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:27:54 +0000

The Venona papers confirm his concerns.

No they don’t. The federal government already had counter-espionage programs underway in 1950. McCarthy added nothing.

By: Art Deco

Art Deco — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:25:48 +0000

Unless you have read Stanton Evans’ thoroughly documented bio of McCarthy, I suggest you limit your vehemence.

Howlers like, “He was widely and viciously smeared and his concerns were essentially ignored” don’t turn into truths even if Stanton Evans ever uttered them. McCarthy was in the newspapers continually for 4 years and change and he was able to place a minion in charge of the State Department’s personnel office.

The ‘thoroughly documented’ Evans book published in 2007 has no bibliography. It has about 24 pages of end notes. It does list primary sources: Congressional committee hearings, publications of the Subversive Activities Control Board, archival collections associated with several of McCarthy’s antagonists (e.g. Millard Tydings) and about a half dozen FBI files. If his concerns are ‘ignored’, what are these congressional hearings about?

By: Cicero

Cicero — Wed, 12 Feb 2020 20:00:05 +0000

Art Deco:
Unless you have read Stanton Evans’ thoroughly documented bio of McCarthy, I suggest you limit your vehemence.
Artfldr: The source of the smear word “McCarthyism” is the question, and you do not quote Lattimore as the source. Tydings was the source, in 1950.

Quoting from Evans’ book on the 1950 Tydings ad-hoc Senate subcommittee, p. 238:
” …the report next considered the public cases McCarthy had presented to the Tydings panel. As foretold by the conduct of the hearings, the method used throughout was to take the denials of each and every suspect at face value and adopt these as ‘findings’. Whether it was Dorothy Kenyon, Philip Jessup, Esther Brunauer, Owen Lattimore, Haldore Hanson, or John Service, the verdict was the same: the accused was free of subversive taint, was indeed an outstanding scholar or public servant, and McCarthy’s charges were baseless slanders.”

Kindly note what Artfldgr posted above on Lattimore.

The whole McCarthy history needs to be carefully reviewed by those who are used to using McCarthyism as an epithet.

Yes, McCarthy was unsavory and crude, given to drama and hyperbole. He was also an alcoholic. But he did his own poor best to bring the communist infiltration of what has become the Deep State to America’s attention, and there is no sin in that. He was widely and viciously smeared and his concerns were essentially ignored, blown away. By both Dems and Republicans, who were willfully blind to the truth.

The Venona papers confirm his concerns.