Favorite Lib Logic Quote for the day!

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
A prime example of the bias of "real news" outlets is the lack of a vetting process for B. O.

We know more about even the most obscure Republican candidate at this point in the process than we know today about the POTUS after three years in office.

Obama was put under the microscope by Fox and many other groups, then was fairly elected by the PEOPLE.

When you say vetting process, do you mean like what is going on now with the Republican candidates?


This current "vetting process" has shown that...................

Rick Perry is stupid, incompetent and supported Al Gore.

Cain, the pizza guy cheats on his wife, is a molester and is stupid

Gingrich cheats on several wifes, takes big$ from Freddi mac and supported Al Gore

Bachman is stupid

Rommny is smart but has to pretend to be stupid and supports Obama care.

*************

Are these candidates going through any other "vetting process" that you know of?
 
Last edited:
Jim Craik, a product of the vastly superior Left Wing thought process on display:


When you say vetting process, do you mean like what is going on now with the Repoblican candidates?

This current "vetting process" has shown that...................

Rick Perry is stupid, incompetent and supported Al Gore.

Cain, the pizza guy cheats on his wife, is a molester and is stupid

Gingrich cheats on several wifes, takes big$ from Freddi mac and supported Al Gore

Bachman is stupid

Rommny is smart but has to pretend to be stupid and supports Obama care.

*************

Are these candidates going through any other "vetting process" that you know of?
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
I've got to give Bob credit in all the "Fox News" complaints. He's got to be more balanced than others assume being none of the stuff that would be "golden opportunities" for posting have appeared, such as the GOP candidate issues, Brownback in Kansas, etc. So give him credit on that.
 
I've got to give Bob credit in all the "Fox News" complaints. He's got to be more balanced than others assume being none of the stuff that would be "golden opportunities" for posting have appeared, such as the GOP candidate issues, Brownback in Kansas, etc. So give him credit on that.

Terry, I have to admit that your last two posts have gotten a little too cryptic for me to get a handle on.

Care to elaborate, please?
 
Nick, the bureaucracies don't change with the current administration. They go on and they are liberal here.

A prime example of that in the US was the revelation of the openly Communists in the federal bureaucracy installed by the Roosevelt administration. When one would be found in, lets say Dept. of State, they would resign and be reinstated in another, such as the Dept. of Interior . They never went away, and this has been throughly document with congressional records.

Bob,

That is a very valid point, but it is a point that works both ways.

My American history is not that good but I seem to remember a similar thing with McCarthy which were entitled the "Witch Hunts" for a reason.


"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence.

During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being Communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists.

Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,laws that would be declared unconstitutional, dismissals for reasons later declared illegal or actionable, or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.

The most famous examples of McCarthyism include the speeches, investigations and hearings of Senator McCarthy himself; the Hollywood blacklist, associated with hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC); and the various anti-communist activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under Director J. Edgar Hoover.

McCarthyism was a widespread social and cultural phenomenon that affected all levels of society and was the source of a great deal of debate and conflict in the United States."

Bob, Ever get that Déjà vu feeling for the second time? I know I have. ;)
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Nick,

McCarthyism was one of our Countries lowest spots in my lifetime.

Accusing folks of being Communist or socialist with no evidence, it hard to believe that that could happen in America!

But, now that I think of it, Lonsomebob has called me a Communist, Socalist and many other names with absolutly no evidence. Perhapes the Comittee investigating un-American activity should look into this?

Bob, have you no sense if decency?
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Terry, I have to admit that your last two posts have gotten a little too cryptic for me to get a handle on.

Care to elaborate, please?

I guess I went a little too weird on that (sorry). My point was with all the mud throwing going on about the libs, no mention has been made about the GOP candidate issues, Brownback's tweet situation in KS, Gingrich's hypocrisy with FANNIE MAE, or Pelosi's inside trading called out by the liberal news media.

My assumption is that you're a balanced critic of anything not morally or ethically correct about our politics, economics, or social ills, yet your lack of posts related to the above (for example), indicates the assumed balance is skewed. I can only come to the conclusion that those noteworthy issues are not accessible to you (thus countering the claims of your rivals that you get all your information from Fox News), or else you'd have called them out as well?
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
If you have one guy that says our economy is booming, and that our current president is uniting us and doing a bang up job....and then you have another guy that says our economy sucks and our current president has divided us as a nation further than before, and overall doing a crap job..
One of these two guys are misinformed..


Craig, there in one post is the root of all the problems, you think that one is wrong and one is right!

Craig, the fact is that they are both wrong!!!

That is just the point I'm trying to make, one side is not always right and one side is not always wrong. But we have "news" services that act that way.

MSNBC almost never reports positive stories about conservatives.
FOX almost never reports positive stories about liberals.

If you get your information from a one sided "news" service you are being fooled. Yet folks continually come here and report one sided stories as fact!

So sad.
 
Last edited:
MSNBC almost never reports positive stories about conservatives.
FOX almost never reports positive stories about liberals.

If you get your information from a one sided "news" service you are being fooled. Yet folks continually come here and report one sided stories as fact!

So sad.

Jim,

Stick to the BBC

Speaking to journalists at a Broadcasting Press Guild lunch in 2009, Jeremy Hunt, the Shadow Cabinet Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, claimed that BBC News needed more Conservatives: "I wish they would go and actively look for some Conservatives to be part of their news-gathering team, because they have acknowledged that one of their problems is that people who want to work at the Corporation tend to be from the centre-left. That's why they have this issue with what Andrew Marr called an innate liberal bias."

In contrast, writer and journalist John Pilger has frequently accused the BBC of a right-wing bias, a view shared by the left-wing Media Lens website. The editors' of Media Lens claim that the BBC acts to narrow the range of thought and like most commercial broadcasters it inherently portrays the opinions of the powerful.

Former Director General of the BBC, Greg Dyke, has criticised the BBC as part of a "Westminster conspiracy" to maintain the British political system. The former Respect MP George Galloway has referred to it as the "Bush and Blair Corporation".
 
Nick, McCarthy is exactly who I'm referring to. Anyone who tells you he was "accusing innocent folk" of being Communist is downright mislead, a repeater of false propaganda, or a Fellow Traveler.

If you're up to it, the following book details the truth of Senator McCarthy's accusations. The only evidence the author brings forward is the Congressional records of the people accused. McCarthy WAS 99% accurate with his accusations and was destroyed for it by the Communists in this country.


http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/140008105X
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
So now we are to the point of defending Senator Joe McCarthy and McCarthyism. I see.

We really are taking backward steps in this country.

What's next, Jim Crow was great for African-Americans!
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Jeff, I'm not sure facts really matter.......

Next he'll be saying that the founding fathers ended slavery
 
Last edited:
Since you gentlemen are so concerned about factual history, I would ask you to read the book. It is available through the library system.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I've read some of the attempts to rehab Senator McCarthy (not Blacklisted, but others). In general, a few facts get extrapolated into "he busted the commies and saved the world!" and ignore what a truly paranoid guy he was who destroyed a lot of lives with rumor and innuendo.

What fascinates me though is that this has come up in a thread where I posted a very telling quote from a lifelong Republican who has noticed what others have as well: the rightwing media industry has created its own alternative history. Wilson as a fascist. Progressivism as a precursor to Naziism. Naziism as a movement of the "left." JFK as a conservative. And so on.

This -- the rehabilitation of the leader of one of the most embarassing incidents in post-war American history -- is another example of this.

What I find is that a lot of the guys eating this stuff up are a lot like Nutjob. Didn't care much about history, or economics or learning in school. Dropped out, didn't finish high school or college. But where smart and had business sense and became reasonably successful. And then got turned onto politics and history and economics by Rush or Beck or some such.

They are smart, but they completely lack the broad based grounding in history that allows them to place a book like Blacklisted in context. So they end up believing any single version of history they read that they happen to like.

And what is that context? History becomes a consensus of historians who look at events and develop conclusions and analysis based on what they see. Some see it one way, some another, and eventually an overall view emerges that is an amalgamation of arious viewpoints. With no single viewpoint being the absolute truth.

Blacklisted is but a single viewpoint. Has some truth in it, but is not "the answer."

So what is the real story with McCarthy?

Let's start back in the 20s/30s. During the early years of the Depression, you have to understand that there was a pretty prevalent strain of thought amongst industry leaders, intellectuals, economists and the government that capitalism, and society, had failed. It seemed that Marx's dialetic was correct, and we were coming to the next "stage" of society - an egalitarian, communist utopia.

Stalin's Russia outwardly appeared to be the coming of this, and in marked contrast to the authoritarian right wing regimes in Italy, Spain and Germany. So for a lot of American thinkers, Communism was seen as the future. They were wrong, but that did not make them "disloyal."

Membership in the Communist Party in the 30s and 40s did not carry the stigma it does now. It was seen as another political movement and a lot people participated, not knowing that Stalin's regime was just as authoritarian and just as much of a killer as Hitler's. It was NOT utopia.

A very few Americans continued their sympathy (remember they were our allies in WWII) for Stalin's regime into the post-war period even after some of the atrocities it committed came to light, and the iron curtain descended on Eastern Europe. Some of those individuals worked in the Government. A very few were security risks who passed information to the Soviets.

So was McCarthy right that there were "Communists" in some areas of government? Yes, in the sense that people wh sympathized with the movement without in any way being unAmerican or "traitors." Political affiliation is NOT a crime, and should never be.

But was McCarthy right in launching a campaign based on innuendo and rumor and "your name was on a list in 37" to discredit people and destroy careers? Absolutely not.

He was an evil man. He used evil methods. And America rejected him. Nutjob needs to do more reading.
 
Blacklisted by History uses nothing but Congressional records to prove McCarthy's case. It is a tough read. As a lawyer you might be interested.
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I am familiar with its assertions by reading other similar works.

You have a lot of backfilling to do on context, and on what else was going on at that time, much less just getting other perspectives on history and that time period.

I may read it, I may not. But I'm confident that I understand that period very well, and what McCarthy was right about, and what he was not. I can assure you he was not right about his view of the seriousness of the "threat" and his methods in addressing it.

All mainstream scholars, and most journalists/politicians/businessmen from the time period agree.

McCarthy was right that some folks in the administration in the 50s had been members of the Communist party, or had read/bought Communist literature, or had been sympathetic to Soviet Russia in the 30s/40s. He was entirely wrong on what this meant, and how to deal with it.
 
Forgive my ignorance...but I must ask, anyway.

Is it Conservative to preserve the life of an invalid, or Liberal? And by extension, is it Conservative to profit from the preservation of life of an invalid, or is it Liberal?

Is it Conservative to preserve the rights of individuals, or Liberal? And by extension, is it Conservative to profit from the fight to preserve the right of individuals, or is it Liberal?

Is it Conservative to let a man/woman/child starve, go homeless or otherwise fall out of favor, or is it Liberal? And by extension, is it Conservative to profit from the prevention/preservation of these individuals situation, or is it Liberal?

I really don't see the desire to label oneself for the benefit of those who would manipulate you with the moniker you so freely wear. Nor do I see any benefit in allowing either/or to enjoy the fruit of the others labors if they are so adamantly at odds with eachother in philosophy and lifestyle.

Seems to me, it's pretty fucking "Liberal" to go to war with the Mother-land in order to be considered free citizens, rather than remain reluctant subjects. Seems to me, it's pretty fucking "Conservative" to maintain the defense of said freedom once it's won. They go hand-in-hand, not hand-at-throat as so many of you seem to be fond of.
 
Back
Top