THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Wednesday, November 14, 2012

IN DEFENSE OF SENATOR JOE McCARTHY ON HIS BIRTHDAY

.
.
INTRODUCTION :
.
In honor of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s birthday (Nov. 14, 1908), I have decided to show my few blog readers something they’ve occasionally heard about but never seen.
.
Some have heard that back in my glory days (oh, years and years ago), it was not unusual for me to take on Liberals who publicly denigrated Senator Joseph McCarthy and whup their asses somethin’ fierce. Why did I do it? Because when you’ve denigrated Superpatriot Senator McCarthy, you’ve gotten on ‘The Fightin’ Side Of Me’. [“Andy”, what would Merle Haggard say?]
.
See, for many years I have maintained a very strict 'Zero Tolerance For McCarthy-Bashing' policy. What you do when I ain’t around to police you, that’s your business. But spout a syllable o’ sh!t about McCarthy in my presence, and you have CALLED DOWN THE THUNDER!
.
Calling down the thunder
.
.
.
I haven’t had a Loony Lib challenge me about McCarthy in nearly two years [Dec. 11, 2010], and prior to that last time, it had been at least three years. (Maybe they’ve gotten word not to call down the thunder?) Unfortunately, all of my “classic” McCarthy Internet debates have since been deleted from the World-Wide Web. However, just before the last one disappeared, I decided to copy it for posterity.
.
I’m posting the whole lengthy thing below, because I wanted to put up something special today in honor of my human hero and one of the greatest American patriots this country has ever known. So here it comes. It’s lengthy, VERY lengthy... maybe even boring. Read ‘til ya fall asleep.
.
NOTE: I’ve changed all the names (pseudonyms) because I feel I embarrassed this Lib sufficiently two years ago, and I don’t really want to do it again. Yeah, there’s a streak of mercy in me, and that’s one of the (many) things that makes me different from a liberal.
.
THE SET-UP :
.
In a political chat room on 12/11/2010, some Liberal – I’ll call him Redrum – challenged someone to name a genuine communist that Senator McCarthy “outed”.
.
Redrum
Which Marxist did McCarthy out, exactly?
.
A friend of mine, “SlicesAndDices”, mentioned about half-a-dozen names, and he followed up his roll call with the remark, "So, was that as good for you as it was for me?"
.
Naturally, his closing question cracked me up, and so I posted my first-ever comment on that website. I wrote:
.
Ha! Now THAT was classic!

To the list of names supplied by SlicesAndDices, I will add Owen Lattimore, Philip Jessup, John Stewart Service, Annie Lee Moss, Irving Peress, William Remington, and John Carter Vincent. And I’m not even warmed up yet!
.
That is just a small sampling of some of the more well-known Joseph McCarthy “victims” who have been shown beyond any resonable doubt whatsoever to have been communists or Soviet espionage agents who were on the Federal payroll and most of whom played instrumental roles in helping to shape American foreign policy.
.
Various types of evidence against the aforementioned McCarthy “victims” includes, but is not restricted to, the Venona decrypts, sworn testimony from ex-communist government informers, FBI undercover agents, and the now released official records of the former Soviet Union.
.
I love it when uninformed, non-researching, mainstream media-trusting liberals attempt to denigrate Senator McCarthy and to debate the issue of “McCarthyism”. They always start out so loud and cocky but end up slinking away so quietly.
.
But that’s what they deserve for not objectively fact-checking their (lying and misrepresenting) liberal sources before spewing the commonly accepted McCarthy myths. Defeating these “innocents” in debate is a simple matter; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel... with a shotgun!
.
~ D-FensDogg
‘Loyal American Underground’
.
THE “DEBATE” :
.
Well, later that same day, some loony liberal – I’ll call him Red Dog – decided to call my bluff. The only problem for him, however, is that I was NOT bluffing! DOH! (Don’t they hate it when that happens?)
.
12-11-2010, 03:05 PM
RED DOG:
That list is just about every single one. McCarthy's successes were few (totaling maybe 40), and consisted of mostly minor players.
.
Contrast that with the number of people whose careers were ruined and it's quite clear that he is the spiritual predecessor of today's right wing heroes: Beck, Breitbart and Limbaugh.
.
And it was ON! This loony lib was throwing hanging curveballs right into my wheelhouse! The home runs were money-back guaranteed! I responded with this:
.
How could my list of seven include "just about every single one" if, by your own admission, a person could come up with 40 McCarthy successes? (Which, by the way, is true.)
.
And to think that I always thought MY math was bad!
.
And they were "mostly minor players"? What part of "played instrumental roles in helping to shape American foreign policy" did you not understand?
.
Don't you miss "the good ol' days" when communist defenders such as yourself could just say things like "McCarthy did not discover a single Communist" and you could actually get away with falsehoods like that because most of the public didn't know any better and couldn’t prove you wrong? Wasn't that so much fun? And ain't history a bitch when it makes a monkey out of a liberal?
.
Now you sad people are reduced to making far less strident comments like "McCarthy only found about 40 communist subversives, and they were mostly minor players." When compared with the statements of yesteryear, that's downright FUNNY!
.
Of course, the second half of that statement is still falsehood, as he exposed important subversives and, in fact, when we're talking about communists with access to classified American government information or who are in positions of influence, there's NO SUCH THING as a "minor player".
.
YOU:
"Contrast that with the number of people whose careers were ruined"
.
Name the innocent victims of McCarthy. We're all waiting. Give us all the names of the innocent individuals who McCarthy accused of being communists and/or security risks and whose careers were thus wrongly ruined. (This is where you people yak yourselves right into a corner. And I LOVE IT!)
.
Go ahead. Names please . . .
.
~ D-FensDogg
'Loyal American Underground'
.
The following day, Red Dog came back with this:
.
We will just start with the well documented, and very real, Hollywood "Blacklist".
.
Here's a nice link which debunks this whole silly theory that McCarthy was some sort of misunderstood patriot
There are more than a few names mentioned the link in conjunction with his Voice of America hearing.
.
McCarthy undoubtedly exposed some Communists spies. But, not all Communists, or former communists are spies. That's what you don't understand and it's what McCarthy didn't care about.
.
I replied as follows:
.
You're right, that is a nice link.
Gee, I didn't know about all that stuff.
Well, definitely some food for thought there.
.
And I let that sit there for most of the day, leading Red Dog to believe that he had an easy victory.
.
But in truth, I was at home and composing my in-depth reply – something not unlike Kirk Gibson’s home run in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series.
.
At 16:13 on 12-13-2010, I returned with my real response. I wrote the following:
.
AH!-HA!-HA!-HA!
Gotcha!
.
Red Dog, you thought it was over, didn’t you? Thought you had won? No, my friend, for you this nightmare has just begun!
.
I have been through this same drill with innumerable liberals before you. I have been having this same damned debate for years and they always end the same way. This one will end no differently. In fact, the outcome of this debate was decided before it had even begun, you just didn’t know that. Although you are about to find that out. However, unlike most liberals, you have spoken with a civilized tongue, and therefore I will not treat you harshly, as I have treated your comrades who preceded you in this debate with me. But you’re going to regret having shoved your nose into a fight that wasn’t yours and which you could have stayed out of.
.
RED DOG, you wrote:
McCarthy undoubtedly exposed some Communists spies. But, not all Communists, or former communists are spies. That's what you don't understand and it's what McCarthy didn't care about.
.
In the first place, not knowing the first thing about me, you ought to be careful in assuming you can guess what I understand and don’t understand. And secondly, any Communist is a potential spy, thus making him or her a “security risk”, and thus NO Communists should be holding down Federal jobs, let alone be working with confidential information or be placed in sensitive departments where they might be able to cause real harm to the nation on a whole. Only a suicidal Constitutional Republic would allow subversives (who wish to completely undermine the governmental form which the people benefit from and replace it with a wholly different form of government) to earn their livings on the backs of the taxpayers and leave them in potentially hazardous positions. THAT’S what Senator McCarthy “cared about”.
.
As for what I understand . . .
.
I understand that I wrote,
I love it when uninformed, non-researching, mainstream media-trusting liberals attempt to denigrate Senator McCarthy and to debate the issue of “McCarthyism”. They always start out so loud and cocky but end up slinking away so quietly. But that’s what they deserve for not objectively fact-checking their (lying and misrepresenting) liberal sources before spewing the commonly accepted McCarthy myths.”
.
And the first thing you did was go Internet surfing, found some article by a liberal, Pamela Troy, living in San Francisco (the ‘Frisco home should have been the first tip-off that you would be in trouble if you relied on her information in a debate with me), and without doing any of your own research, without “objectively fact-checking your liberal source”, you posted a “nice link” to her liberal nonsense and thought this debate was over with.
.
Hell, I said right from the start that this sort of approach would only hurt someone in a debate with me, but you went right ahead and tried it anyway. Dude, if you are “smarter than the average bear”, it sure didn’t show in that ill-conceived tactic!
.
I studied the subject of Joe McCarthy for years and years and years. I have on my bookshelves all of the A-List books published on him (yes, including the anti-McCarthy books, because I believe in studying the opposition’s viewpoints, too). I have some of the B-List books as well, and I have articles and copies of the Congressional Records which pertain to McCarthy. I am “on a mission from God” to set the McCarthy story straight for those who really wish to know it.
.
You, Red Dog, were in deep doo-doo the moment you got it into your mind that you could post a link to some brief, libby-authored article and best me in a debate with it. And you were in even deeper doo-doo when you selected Pamela Troy’s article, which relies so heavily on the Thomas Reeves biography “The Life And Times Of Joe McCarthy”.
.
While there is some valid information in Reeves’ book, it is so outdated and so full of misinformation, misinterpretations, significant omissions, and liberal truth-twisting, that it’s barely worth the paper it’s printed on. Working 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, it would take me until this time next month to go through the Thomas Reeves biography and point out every incorrect item in it. Suffice to sum it all up this way:
.
 After writing 674 pages of text, Reeves arrives at this conclusion: “The cliché is true: he [McCarthy] did not discover a single Communist.”
.
You yourself know that is bunk, as you have conceded that McCarthy found at least 40 communists (of which no less than 5 were certifiable espionage agents).
.
I will now go through the useless, truthless Pamela Troy article, hitting all of the significant points, ignoring the minor ones because I have other things to do, like put up and decorate a Christmas tree. And then I’ll wait for you to post the names of some “REAL” McCarthy “victims” (for me to also correct you about).
.
Pamela “Truth-Twisting” Troy:
McCarthy was viewed with contempt not just by liberals and leftists, but by many conservatives and anti-Communists … In reality, many of McCarthy’s most ardent critics were anti-Communist liberals and conservatives who were themselves concerned about Communists spying for the Soviets.
.
The fact of the matter is that many so-called “conservatives” in Washington were conservatives in name only, and the same goes for many of the so-called “anti-Communists”. As McCarthy well knew and pointed out repeatedly, a lot of Communists pretended to oppose Communist ideology and would speak out against it in general terms, but when it came time to really root out the Commies and to single out and name the Communist front groups, suddenly these same anti-Communists were doing everything in their power to undermine those very efforts.
.
True, some fellow conservatives did not like McCarthy, but that usually pertained to personal issues and personality conflicts. Some genuine but lukewarm anti-Communists caved in to pressure from the White House and State Dept. and made concessions and compromises for the sake of their political careers. That’s one reason I care so much about McCarthy; here was a genuine anti-Communist patriot who wouldn’t sell-out and compromise.
.
Pamela “Truth-Twisting” Troy:
New York Post editor James Weschler, for instance, was an ex-Communist turned anti-Communist … Wechsler’s concerns about espionage did not prevent him from being an early and vehement critic of McCarthy …
.
Wechsler was a valid subject for McCarthy’s Committee to question in regards to the Voice Of America (VOA) Reading Center probe, as he had been fervently and very vocally pro-Red at one time, and his books were found in the overseas Reading Centers. Wechsler is a prime example of the aforementioned “Anti-Communist In General Terms Only”. Although he claimed and wrote that he was now a reformed former Commie, it was odd how he seemed to also oppose genuine efforts to expose and remove Communists when it got down to the real details of that work. He opposed the FBI, he opposed former Commie government informers, and he opposed McCarthy. Because he wrote so disparagingly of McCarthy, it was a poor P.R. move on McCarthy’s part to call him as a witness and to grill him, as it appeared to be “revenge” (which it probably was to some degree). Nevertheless, McCarthy had valid reasons to question Wechsler.
.
Pamela “Truth-Twisting” Troy:
It’s interesting to note that one non-leftist critic of McCarthy who is mentioned in Conservapedia is not cited as a critic, even though she was one of McCarthy’s most famous detractors. In Conservapedia’s reference section is a link to Republican Senator Margaret Chase Smith’s June 1, 1950 “Declaration of Conscience,” …
.
In the first place, although Margaret Chase Smith was a Republican, she was hardly a conservative. And secondly, she was a widow who evidently had “a thang” for Joe McCarthy. Even the liberal (author) Reeve’s admits that “Mrs. Smith’s attack on McCarthy may have had roots deeper and more personal than her devotion to civil liberties.” Joe occasionally flattered her and evidently she took it too seriously and wrote him personal letters in which she alluded to having something more than just good professional thoughts about him. Joe ignored these allusions, and so, although she would deny it, there were some who viewed her “Declaration of Conscience” as mostly the fury of a woman scorned.
.
Joe would later refer to Margaret Smith and those who signed her “Declaration of Conscience” as “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”. Ha! God knows I love McCarthy!
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
As anyone actually familiar with that exchange is aware, Welch was not shocked and angry at the news that Fred Fisher had been in the Lawyer’s Guild. He was shocked and angry because McCarthy had violated an earlier private agreement that McCarthy would not bring up Fred Fisher if Welch would not bring up McCarthy aide Roy Cohn’s military record. … In fact, Welch’s response makes it plain that he was aware of Fisher’s affiliation with the Lawyer’s Guild. 
.
Now, here, “Truth-Twisting” Troy actually mixes a little truth with falsehood. It’s true that Roy Cohn had a private agreement with Joe Welch not to go into the Fred Fisher issue if Welch would agree not to mention that Cohn had failed to meet some military physical ability standards.
.
Joe knew of the agreement and, unfortunately, he broke it in a moment of anger. Welch had Cohn on the stand and he was goading him and mocking him unmercifully - teasing Cohn about his anti-Communist work and playing up the idea that Cohn was not serious about it and lax in performing it, and that he [Welch] was actually more concerned about rooting out Communist subversives than was Cohn.
.
Finally, McCarthy couldn’t stand it anymore and he, in essence, told Welch that if he were REALLY so concerned about communists, he ought to speak with a lawyer in his own law firm named Fred Fisher who belonged to a well known Communist legal organization. This information was nothing new, as Welch himself had previously revealed the Fred Fisher situation to reporters, and a few articles mentioning it had run in newspapers some weeks earlier.
.
But where “Truth-Twisting” Troy twists the truth is when she writes: “Welch was not shocked and angry at the news that Fred Fisher had been in the Lawyer’s Guild. He was shocked and angry because McCarthy had violated an earlier private agreement…”
.
That’s bald-faced balderdash, as this secret agreement between Cohn and Welch wouldn’t become generally known until Cohn revealed it in his 1968 biography of McCarthy. Welch was playing up the information about Fisher for all it was worth, acting for the TV audience as if McCarthy had just outed Fisher in public for the first time, doing some terrible, reckless, injustice to Fisher.
.
Welch’s own words to McCarthy PROVE this point: “Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. …I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you.”
.
Well, that part was wrong too. Fisher remained with the law firm and went on to have a very long, successful, and prosperous career in the legal profession.
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
The fact that he cited 205 “members of the Communist Party” in the State Department one day, 57 “card-carrying Communists” a day or two later, and 81 on the floor of the Senate a week or two later matters less if you think of everyone on those lists as guilty anyway.
.
To begin with, McCarthy was using numbers and not names to protect the identities of these suspects until more information could be obtained through standard, legal, Congressional investigative methods. (He refused to do what the Democrats were literally demanding he do, which was to commit “McCarthyism” by naming suspects before they could be fully investigated and a solid determination of their guilt or innocence could be arrived at. The Congressional Record shows that despite the demand of Democrats to “name the names” McCarthy refused and said, “If I were to give all the names involved, it might leave a wrong impression. If we should label one man a Communist when he is not a Communist, I think it would be too bad.”)
.
Also, the whole question about the numbers of Communists and security risks that McCarthy was initially aware of and claimed to have is one of the longest, most well-worn myths of liberal, anti-McCarthy dogma. That question has been well put to bed. The Wheeling Intelligencer newspaper ran an article on Feb. 11, 1950, the day after McCarthy’s speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, when he dropped the bomb about Communists and security risks in the Federal government, and the article clearly states that he said there were “over fifty” known Communists still in the State Dept. at that time. That same day, after his speech in Denver, The Denver Post specifically printed that McCarthy stated there were “57 Reds” he was concerned about. It also said that the 205 number that he used related not to known Commies but to “bad risks” or security risks. This whole nonsense about the numbers McCarthy used is a dead issue. Only the most dishonest or uninformed McCarthy-haters still mention it.
.
Finally, we get to the question of the names of the “innocent” McCarthy victims I asked you to provide me with:
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
So who are some of these innocent victims? Carl Greenblum, an engineer at the Monmouth facility of the Army Signal Corps. While being cross-examined by Roy Cohn, Greenblum, whose mother had died two days before, broke down and wept and had to be led, visibly upset, from the closed-door session. McCarthy announced to the press that “I have just received word that the witness admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” Greenblum’s name was leaked and he and his family were harassed, a hammer and sickle was painted on the door of their house. Greenblum explained that he'd been upset about the death of his mother and that after he’d broken down he’d “sent word that I wanted to go back and tell my story from the beginning. That may have been interpreted to mean I was lying but that certainly was not the case.” Greenblum was fired from his job, but reinstated in 1958.
.
Of the Monmouth Investigation, only 39 of the 126 persons were questioned in public sessions. The rest were carried on in private, executive sessions. And Carl Greenblum was not questioned publicly. Notice how McCarthy is quoted as saying, “...THE WITNESS admits he was lying the first time and now wants to tell the truth.” McCarthy did not reveal Greenblum’s name. It has never been conclusively determined who publicly named Greenblum, but I think we can probably safely guess it was some Democrat, because they, from the beginning, wanted all of the suspects’ names released to the public before all of the facts could be determined privately to see whether or not they would be convicted or cleared. They were hoping that by releasing names, some of them would be cleared and it would all backfire on McCarthy. In other words, it was the Democrats who wanted McCarthy to commit “McCarthyism”.
.
Now, what your “Truth-Twisting” savior, Pamela Troy, conveniently left out of her little story is the fact that, although Greenblum did continue to deny being a Communist himself (and was likely telling the truth), he also admitted that, although under oath, he had not been forthcoming in his first session; that he had been deceptive in that first round of questioning. Greenblum later admitted [and I quote]: “I want to explain the circumstances of coming here and trying to hide an association with Levitsky, whom I know to be a Communist… because he told me he was a Communist.”
.
You see what kind of trouble you get yourself into when you trust liberal writers to tell you the truth about McCarthy? You see why you need to do your own in-depth research and fact-checking before you start publicly slinging mud about a massive story you know little to nothing about?
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
A teacher named Julius Hlavaty testified at the VOA hearings, and refused to answer whether he had been a Communist or had tried to recruit students to the Communist Party. He lost his job as a distinguished public school teacher and had to take a job at Columbia University.
.
The Voice Of America was a program run by the State Dept. It was a taxpayer-funded program meant to spread the word overseas about American principles and to engender good will between the U.S. and other nations.
.
So, Hlavaty felt that although he refused to testify about any Communist connections he had, on the grounds that his testimony might incriminate him and be used against him (claiming his 5th Amendment right), he still had a right to work on the behalf of the U.S. and collect a paycheck from American wallets while engaging in VOA programs meant to promote the “American” cause?
.
As McCarthy correctly said several times: A government job is a privilege, not a right.
.
And then when he lost his Federal job with VOA he was forced to take a job at COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY? Man, what a “VICTIM”! I wish I had a job at Columbia! I would sure as hell be making more money than I do right now and with far better medical and dental benefits. If that’s what happens to McCarthy “victims” then sign me up to be “victimized”! [11/14/2012 Note: Coincidentally(?), back in McCarthy’s day, Columbia University was known to be a hotbed for Communist subversives.]
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
Critics say that McCarthy should have ignored Communists making broadcasts on VOA because exposing them might have personally embarrassed them.
.
Oh, yeah, what a shame if Communists are personally embarrassed while using American taxpayer’s equipment to broadcast un-American ideas and to promote Communist propaganda! Boo-Hoo! Well, I have already established that Pamela Troy is dishonest, but now we see she is a raving idiot, too!
.
And by the way, McCarthy’s investigation into the VOA overseas libraries showed that there were approximately 30,000 taxpayer-purchased books found on those bookshelves that were written by Communists and pro-Red writers - including Earl Browder, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. Many of the books were nothing more than Communist propaganda and anti-American disinformation campaigns.
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
Note the manner in which Conservapedia trivializes the firing of Hlavaty, implying that he had been a Communist at the time of the broadcast (Dr. Hlavaty denied this)
.
Yeah, yeah. They ALL denied being Communists. Not one person suspected of Communism said, “Well, yep, you got me, Joe. You’re right, I am a Communist”. All of the true Communists questioned by Joe lied about being Communists or took advantage of their 5th Amendment right.
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
The hundreds of employees who endured McCarthy’s investigation of the presumed sabotage of equipment at the VOA were also more than “personally embarrassed” by their experience. Many found themselves being interrogated by McCarthy’s committee, not about the placement of transmitters, but about their personal religious and political beliefs.
.
The only time questions of this nature were asked was when they directly pertained to the charges or the suspicions that had been reasonably raised against the person being interviewed… for instance Reed Harris.
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
After being grilled about a book he’d written twenty years before, VOA employee Reed Harris turned in his resignation. The Director of VOA’s religious programming was asked if he were an atheist. (“I believe in God,” he explained to the Committee) and questioned about his church attendance.
.
Reed Harris was asked these questions because he was in charge of the religious programming and (as “Truth-Twisting” Troy forgot to mention) he was an open supporter of known Communists and the Soviet Union, and he had written a book that slandered the U.S. in general and denigrated organized religion. There were damn good reasons the taxpayer-funded Harris was questioned by the Committee about both his Communist connections and his views on religion.
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
Edwin Kretzmann, a VOA policy director, “was assailed for having told a supposedly closed-door conference of Voice officials that an order by Dulles to cooperate with the subcommittee was ‘rather depressing'."
.
Just prior to Korean elections, Kretzmann appeared to be using VOA facilities to oust the anti-Communist Snyghmann Rhee and by default promote Rhee’s rivals. His actions were worth questioning!
.
“Truth-Twisting” Troy:
That level of pressure puts in context the case of one of McCarthy’s most well known victims, VOA engineer Raymond Kaplan. After being summoned to testify before McCarthy’s committee, he killed himself by jumping in front of a truck. The suicide note he left for his son explained, “once the dogs are set on you everything you’ve done since the beginning of time is suspect.”
.
This is another one of those issues that Libs and Commies try to twist 180-degrees the other way. Raymond Kaplan was eager to testify before McCarthy. He felt McCarthy had discovered some significant problems at VOA and he actually sided with McCarthy. He didn’t get that chance to testify because it seems he was being pressured by some “mysterious” others who were concerned about what he might say. And he was afraid that he would be made out to be the “patsy” by these mysterious others.
.
But even Kaplan’s co-worker Dorothy Fried testified after his death that he was actually eager to testify:
.
Roy Cohn:
As a matter of fact, from what he said to you, he [Kaplan] was anxious to testify?
.
Dorothy Fried:
Yes.
.
Cohn:
Rather than being anything to be afraid of, he would show up very well. Isn’t that the impression you got from him?
.
Fried:
Yes.
.
And now, Red Dog, we get to your own statement
“We will just start with the well documented, and very real, Hollywood "Blacklist".
.
McCarthy had nothing whatsoever to do with that. What you are referring to are investigations conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). McCarthy was a Senator, not a Congressman from the House of Representatives.
.
It just so happens that HUAC did a lot of excellent, excellent work over the years. They also, in my opinion, got a bit too carried away with the investigations into Communists and Communist propaganda emanating from Hollywood.
.
There were many Congressional investigations of Communist infiltration of the government both before and after Joseph McCarthy, but McCarthy is responsible only for those investigations in which he took part. A lot of you liberals like to try to blame every improper thing that may have been done in the name of Congressional investigations into Communist subversives on McCarthy and categorize it all as “McCarthyism”. But since when is a person guilty of the things that others may have done?
.
I must answer for my own actions and no one else’s, as I have no control over others and no way of dictating what they can or can’t do, will or won’t do. Each person is responsible for their own deeds and that is all.
.
However, if you insist on labeling McCarthy guilty of everything anyone else ever did in the (false) name of “McCarthyism”, then I am going to call you somewhat responsible for every misdeed perpetrated in the name of “Liberalism”, since you too are a liberal. That's a sword that cuts both ways! If McCarthy is even partly guilty for anything the HUAC did, then you are also partly guilty for the approximately 100 million persons murdered in the name of “Communism”. As well as for those who were tortured and wrongly imprisoned in the name of “Communism”. If McCarthy is guilty, then so are you. GUILTY! Thank you. That is all.”
.
Now then… now that I have wasted a large part of my day correcting “Truth-Twisting” Troy’s B.S. which you incorrectly thought was going to help you in your debate with me, I am going to try to catch up on all the chores and errands I am now behind on.
.
But any time you feel you can supply us with all these many names of supposed “REAL”, authentic McCarthy victims, please be sure to post them here, and I will give them the same sort of treatment that I gave to the pseudo-victims you have thus far come up with.
.
I can save you some time, however, by telling you that there is no Internet article you can find to help you in this – you will need to do your own SERIOUS research. And I can save you even more time by telling you that THERE WERE NO INNOCENT McCARTHY VICTIMS, because if there were, I would not be a McCarthy fan and defender.
.
Also, I could recommend some good books to you that will teach you THE TRUTH about Senator Joseph McCarthy. But I’m already sure that you haven’t the slightest desire to learn the truth about McCarthy. Sadly, I’ve yet to meet one liberal whom I consider to be genuinely intellectually honest.
.
.
.
.
And that, ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ fans, was the conclusion of the so-called “debate”. What about Red Dog? He never posted another comment on that thread. I told him at the beginning of the debate that the debate would end with him “slinking away so quietly”, and that’s exactly what he did.
.
Been there, done that, seen it before... many times - it was easy to predict.
.
And that, you Loony Liberals, was an example of what happens when you “Call Down The Thunder”.
.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SENATOR JOE!
“Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”
.
I’m still standing, and I’m still ready to defend your honor against anyone at any time.
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

26 comments:

  1. You mean to tell me that Red Dog never a)posted back with insults b)accused you of getting all that information from"FauxNews" c)demanded you "answer my question" without answering any directed at him? Because that's what all the libs I ever joust with do. I was really at the end speed reading just toi see what he called you when you were done. I'm kinda disappointed, and pretty much suspect he got through about a paragraph before shouting at his computer, "ARRRGH! Facts!!! Getting weaker... weaker..." and deleting it as he passed out.

    I've always thought that there was more to Joe than what we were taught. Thank you for an enlightening post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CW ~
    Good comment, Bro. Thanks.
    Work calls at the moment, but a proper reply is forthcoming.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, that was a real slice and dice job!

    Ann Coulter does a fine tush-kicking, but her style is short and slashing. Blood drips from the walls as she trots off seeking her next victim.

    With, you, the walls are clean and white. Nobody does that sort of delicate vivisection like you do. I mean, the victim remains alive for the longest possible time. The time you take and your relish for the task at hand are unmatched.

    It is a good thing I hate commies and like McCarthy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. C.W. MARTIN ~
    Thanks for checkin' in here and for your humorous comment.

    >>...You mean to tell me that Red Dog never a) posted back with insults b) accused you of getting all that information from "FauxNews" c) demanded you "answer my question" without answering any directed at him? Because that's what all the libs I ever joust with do.

    HA!-HA!
    Well, for one thing, this exchange took place on a website affiliated with a University, so although there were plenty of loony leftists there, the discussions tended to be more civilized than you’d find on most political websites.

    Also, I think Red Dog had to have realized before getting too deep into my response that this was a subject I know inside and out, right to left, and seven times on Sunday. So I’m sure he knew it was pointless to try bluffing me with bullshit, and he just had no where left to go but... away. (The sort of information I had/have access to could never be found at or via Fox News. It requires a very extensive McCarthy-related library, such as I have.)

    But you’re right, Brother, the vast majority of the time, when liberals meet up with a conservative they can’t beat with facts, they go to Plan B: ad hominem attacks and nasty slurs and name-calling. Ann Coulter nailed it exactly: “Liberals think they can defeat the truth with loudness.”

    The McCarthy debate posted here was my last, and the most civil one. In the many I’d engaged in for years prior to this one, the liberals ALWAYS tried Plan B with me. Then it got even WORSE for them, because after all the Mark Twain I’d read and the countless times I’d listened to Bob Dylan’s album ‘Bringing It All Back Home’, I’d acquired the skill of Wielding Words like Weapons.

    If they wanted to roll around in the mud while debating, I could do that too. And it was as if they brought butter knives to razor fights.

    Although I was certain I could win the war on BOTH fronts (if they chose a two-front war), my personal choice was always to debate objective facts in a civilized way. As a person who wants (and tries) to follow Jesus Christ, I never genuinely enjoyed Wielding Words like Weapons. But if a commie-lovin’ lib started it... so be it.

    Thanks again for the good comment.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  5. SHEBOYGANBROTHER 6 ~

    Ha! Thanks, man.

    >>...The time you take and your relish for the task at hand are unmatched.

    Well, when it comes to the McCarthy question, I really FEEL it. No American politician ever suffered more unjust abuse than McCarthy did, and yet he kept up the fight. Almost all other men would have crumpled and crawled off. But NOT McCarthy! He was too courageous and too patriotic to surrender to a bunch of America-hating commie fascists!

    I'd been a fan of the man for a long time, but then I read something in a book years ago that just - I don't know how to describe it - but it just made McCarthy's fight seem real personal to me.

    That Biblical quote that I used in this blog bit - "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" - in one of my many McCarthy books, I learned that some anonymous woman wrote that verse in the visitor's book at the funeral home where McCarthy's body was on display.

    I don't really know why, but when I learned that fact, I was just FILLED with this sense of being on a mission to undo the wrong that had been done to McCarthy and his memory.

    So, in every debate I ever had with a liberal about McCarthy and "McCarthyism", I always entered the argument with this exact goal in my mind: When this debate comes to an end, I don't want there to be ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind WHO GOT THEIR ASS KICKED!

    And that's the honest truth about why I always "took the necessary time and relished the task at hand".

    This particular debate covered more McCarthy ground than most of my earlier "classic" debates, when usually only a few issues were being disputed. But they were all as one-sided as this one was, and they all ended with the liberal silently leaving and my last post standing as the final word on the subject.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow. I must run out the door, but apparently I'm a slacker. Didn't want you to think I'm not reading your efforts. More later when time permits.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If it's true that McCarthy was considered the worst senator in Washington (prior to 1950) according to other senators, he must have been doing something right.

    According to Kenneth Davis, McCarthy lied about his wartime service record, and jumped onto the hot topic of communism, not because he was doing any patriotic service, but to "keep his leaky political boat from sinking". He did nothing more that fan the flames of fear, and labeled anyone who disagreed with him a "Communist sympathizer".

    Davis devoted three pages in a chapter entitled 'What is McCarthyism'. This was one of the most biased three pages on any topic I have read in a while which made me question the rest of the book. The book is aptly titled 'Don't Know Much About History'!

    Not many would take the time to study the opposition's view point as you have in order to seek the truth. Thanks again for making me question what the truth really is.

    What do you think is the best book you have read on this subject? By best, I mean heavy on the facts, light on conjecture. Is 'Blacklisted By History' a good choice? Not sure if you gave that one a review in Amazon but its in one of your favorites list. (It's in the local library. I'm cheap.)

    I think a shift in public opinion could occur if it was made clear that there were no innocent victims who's lives were ruined; that McCarthy didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Even if there was "collateral damage", "McCarthy is responsible only for those investigations in which he took part" as you stated.

    It makes me wonder if they teach this history differently in Appleton WI, and if the people who live there think of their town with a sense of pride because it's JM's birthplace, or if they avoid the subject. I was driving through Appleton late last summer trying to outrun a thunderstorm no less thinking about this. Might be a ridiculous thought. I lived in Lizzy Borden's hometown and never gave it two thoughts until the hundredth anniversary of her alleged crime of giving her father forty whacks (and then giving her mother forty more) was "celebrated" in the local paper.

    SigToo


    ReplyDelete
  8. Amazing how easy it is for some to rewrite history. Amazing how easy it is to lead people to a certain conclusion. Amazing how one man standing for truth and opposing those who would destroy his heritage can be turned into a villain, because others took his crusade to the extreme. Interesting that those assessments can be applied to many.

    Thank for you for a most informative history less, setting the record straight. I'm sure the good Senator appreciates your fervor in defending his honor. I for one appreciate knowing the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 1 Of 3:

    Great comment, SuperSigAlso.

    McCarthy was a human being, thus he was flawed like the rest of us. He had his good points as well as a few negative points. I have never made him out to be perfect. But he might well have been the most courageous politician this country has ever produced, as well as one of the most courageous Americans in general.

    >> . . . The book is aptly titled 'Don't Know Much About History'!

    I've heard of that book you mentioned, and it seems the title was aptly chosen indeed. Glad now that I never bought it.

    >> . . . According to Kenneth Davis, McCarthy lied about his wartime service record, and jumped onto the hot topic of communism, not because he was doing any patriotic service, but to "keep his leaky political boat from sinking".

    There is no truth to the second part of that statement. There is a degree of truth (I believe) to the first part of it. It seems to me that McCarthy did later somewhat inflate the magnitude of his wartime adventures in order to capitalize on them. And he was probably untruthful when it came to how he sustained an injury during his time of service.

    But . . . it's also true that McCarthy put himself in harm's way to a far greater degree than his job title required. In other words, he voluntarily put himself right into the action, where he could have been killed in an airplane while manning a machine gun over the war theater, when he wasn't required to be in the plane at all, and could have remained on solid ground well behind the front lines.

    Also, you'd never know this by reading the stories published by the mainstream-lamestream news (because it would humanize McCarthy way too much), but Joe was naturally somewhat shy and actually had a really GREAT sense of humor. He joked that on the missions he flew while performing as a Marine tail-gunner, coconut trees were more likely to be hit by his bullets than was anything else.

    Of all the utter bullshit I've read that was published about McCarthy, Richard "Dick" Rovere deserves special mention for his book 'Senator Joe McCarthy' (1959), as does Carroll Quigley for the pages he spent lying about McCarthy in his tome 'Tragedy And Hope' (1966).

    Roy Cohn humorously wrote of Rovere that he had become "a kind of one-man bureau of misinformation".

    >> . . . Not many would take the time to study the opposition's view point as you have in order to seek the truth. Thanks again for making me question what the truth really is.

    Believe it or not, I actually enjoyed major portions of some of the anti-McCarthy books. Yes, sometimes I knew they were telling huge whoppers, lying about the super patriot, and I just felt like slamming the book against the nearest wall. But I also found information in some of the anti-McC books that I was pleased to learn. Sometimes the authors were telling stories that they felt portrayed McC in a bad light, but which highly amused me and even made me want to cheer!

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Part 2 Of 3:

    >> . . . I think a shift in public opinion could occur if it was made clear that there were no innocent victims who's lives were ruined

    To some (unsatisfactory) degree, a shift in public opinion about McCarthy has already occurred. There are now far more people on the www. defending McC than there were when I first started publicly fighting for him.

    Unfortunately, though, as long as most Americans continue to get their information (read: brainwashing) from mainstream media sources, the misinformation and disinformation about McC will continue to prevail in the collective consciousness.

    >> . . . if it was made clear that there were no innocent victims who's lives were ruined

    It’s very difficult to get people to understand that fact after so many decades of so many lies being written and spoken about McC. I mean, even back when McC was still alive, he was publicly stating that fact, but most of the American People chose to listen to the media’s liars than to McC and his supporters:

    Whenever I ask those who object to my methods to name the “objectionable methods”, again I hear parroted back to me the Communist ‘Daily Worker’ stock phrase “irresponsible charges” and “smearing innocent people”. But as often as I have asked for the name of a single innocent person who has been “smeared” or “irresponsibly charged”, nothing but silence answers.
    ~ Senator Joe McCarthy
    ‘McCARTHYISM: The Fight For America’
    (Copyright, 1952)


    And that’s why, when Red Dog wrote, “Contrast that with the number of people whose careers were ruined [by McCarthy]”, I responded with this: “Name the innocent victims of McCarthy. We're all waiting. Give us all the names of the innocent individuals who McCarthy accused of being communists and/or security risks and whose careers were thus wrongly ruined. (This is where you people yak yourselves right into a corner. And I LOVE IT!)”

    I already knew that he would come up with (or refer me to) some names. But I also knew that I would be able to prove beyond any doubt that the people McC named were NOT “innocent” or “irresponsibly charged” with anything. Any Lib who claims to be able to name EVEN ONE innocent victim of McCarthy is either bluffing or misinformed. But because I KNOW the WHOLE TRUTH about McC, they will NEVER, EVER be able to get that bullshit past me!

    Continued Below...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Part 3 Of 3:

    >> . . . What do you think is the best book you have read on this subject? By best, I mean heavy on the facts, light on conjecture. Is 'Blacklisted By History' a good choice?

    The best! You’re right, I never got around to writing a BigBitch.com (Amazon.com) review of that book because they banned me from their website not long after it was published. But I had a copy of it in my hands within 2 days of its publication and read it for the first time during its first week of existence.

    That is definitely the best pro-McCarthy book available, because it’s the most up-to-date and the author, M. Stanton Evans, is the foremost McCarthy expert extant. Even so, I disagree with him on a couple of points. But if you’re only going to read one book about McCarthy, that should be the one. Although there is plenty more to know about McC than is contained in Evans’ 600+ page book, the info in that one tome will give you the ammo to defeat ANY ComSocLib in a debate.

    In fact, the author’s Dad, Medford Evans, also wrote a really good pro-McCarthy book as well, back in 1970. It was titled ‘The Assassination Of Joe McCarthy’. One of my favorites!

    But listen, Brother! When I flew to Appleton to visit McCarthy’s gravesite in 2010, I purchased a second copy (paperback) of ‘Blacklisted By History’ at a Barnes & Noble in Grand Chute, WI. - the place of McC’s birth. Send me your address and I’ll give it to you (we’ll call it a Christmas gift). . . . If you don’t mind that I wrote “STMcC” across the top of the book.

    I’ve been reading your blog posts. Some of the terminology is beyond me, and there’s no way to comment, but I AM checkin’ in on it, Bro.

    >> . . . I lived in Lizzy Borden's hometown and never gave it two thoughts until the hundredth anniversary of her alleged crime of giving her father forty whacks (and then giving her mother forty more) was "celebrated" in the local paper.

    Ya know, I’m actually a little interested in that and have read conflicting stories about the “murders”. I was left with the impression that she was probably guilty of it, but I sure don’t know Lizzy like I know Joe. Do YOU have any opinion on her guilt or innocence?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete
  12. FarAwayEyes ~
    I'm just doing what I feel is my patriotic duty in defending one of America's greatest patriots.

    I don't actively seek out the Anti-McCarthy maroons like I once did, but if any one of them wants to take up the debate with me, I think they'll find me more than willing and... more than they can handle.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    POSTSCRIPT: How many know that the 'Loyal American Underground' portion of my sign-off block is related to Senator McCarthy? One would have to dig pretty deep into the McCarthy story to learn about that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. SUPER-SIG ALSO ~
    I copied your address from the comment you submitted and then deleted the comment. (I assumed you probably wouldn't want the address posted for the whole world to see.)

    I'll get the book in the mail to you soon, Bro - within a week fo' sho.

    The name you mentioned - would it be safe for me to assume that's "the real you"? And should any inscription I write in the book use THAT name rather than "Sig"?

    >> . . . I still think American history books in general need a good re-write. 'Blacklisted By History' will counter the garbage I have read so far about Joe McCarthy.

    I agree with both of those sentences (but then you knew I would).

    What about Lizzy Borden though? I was serious in saying I'd like to know what your take on that is. Probably innocent? Probably guilty? No strong (or even mild) opinion?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  14. SJM,

    Yes, the name with address is the real "Sig" and you could use that for any inscription. That would be great, and thanks again.

    I must have bungled the copy and paste because I wrote my opinion about the Borden murders in the last paragraph which is posted below. I looked a little more into this today. Funny how history is in my own backyard but I never bothered to take advantage of that fact. As for recent history, the cemetery where the Borden family as buried (including Lizzy)is close to where my wife grew up. there are actually arrows painted on the pavement as you enter the cemetery leading to the grave. The house where the murders occurred was turned into a museum/bed and breakfast sixteen years ago. The owners finally got wise and realized the interest and potential income this would generate.

    Here's the last part of the previous reply...

    Thanks for checking in on the 'monkey site'. Sometimes I think I am just contributing to the deliquency of retail investors/traders using technical indicators and terminology, once learned, give these guys an even a better chance of losing their money. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Self-directed IRA's, day trading, market timing, etc. lead 99% of these 'gamblers' into the financial abyss. The casino is a safer place for money. I guess if I can get that point across, it's worth doing. Of course that's coming from someone who is still searching for the holy grail; the ultimate system that generates consistent income in any market condition. (I should get a day job!)

    If you supply a return address, I will forward you the original 1992 local paper "hatchet job" on the 100th anniversary of the Borden murders. Just happened to find it today.

    I'll stick with my assumption that Lizzy and Bridget, the maid, conspired to "off" step-mom and dad. I'm not sure how close Bridget and Lizzy were, but Lizzy had some real issues with her father and step-mom, many of them had to do with money, of course. Even with her mental issue, Lizzy was smart, and Bridget may have held similar points-of-view regarding her parents. If it's true that Lizzy was asking pharmacists to supply her with poison just days before, makes me wonder if she was really starting to lose it. Sort of reminds me of a 1950's murder in Christchurch, New Zealand where two girls conspired to kill one of the girls' mother. I think there was a bizarre little movie called 'Heavenly Creatures' that was based on this.

    SIGcognito

    ReplyDelete
  15. SUPER-SIG ALSO ~

    >> . . . I must have bungled the copy and paste because I wrote my opinion about the Borden murders in the last paragraph which is posted below.

    No, you probably didn’t bungle it at all. I think when a comment is submitted to my Dashboard, it only shows me a certain amount of it. So when I copied what was there and then deleted it, I never knew that there was more to it than what was displayed on my Dashboard.

    >> . . . the cemetery where the Borden family as buried (including Lizzy) is close to where my wife grew up. there are actually arrows painted on the pavement as you enter the cemetery leading to the grave.

    That’s kind of . . . weird . . . tacky. There’s nothing like that in the cemeteries where James Dean and Senator McCarthy are buried.

    Which reminds me . . . I was once in Salem and visited the Witch-Hunt Museum. I was kind of surprised there was no mention of Senator McCarthy there. Ha!

    >> . . . The house where the murders occurred was turned into a museum/bed and breakfast sixteen years ago.

    I read about that some time ago. Weird . . . tacky . . . good business move!

    >> . . . Of course that's coming from someone who is still searching for the holy grail; the ultimate system that generates consistent income in any market condition.

    My Pa had the same idea, only he was always trying to develop a system that could accurately predict the horses, not the market.

    One of those little news items from the ‘Who Cares?’ Department: Circa 1985, I once quit a job (designing commercial signs) to play the horses full-time at Hollywood Park. (About 4 weeks later I was looking for my next job.)

    >> . . . If you supply a return address, I will forward you the original 1992 local paper "hatchet job" on the 100th anniversary of the Borden murders.

    THANKS! Will do.

    >> . . . I'll stick with my assumption that Lizzy and Bridget, the maid, conspired to "off" step-mom and dad. I'm not sure how close Bridget and Lizzy were, but . . .

    I’ve never read a book about Lizzy Borden, but I’ve read a few articles over the decades (couldn’t tell you what or when) and I was left with the same impression: She probably really was guilty – hacked ‘em up in their sleep. (Make Lizzy male and Black and she’s the O.J. of her generation?)

    And I think that something I read somewhere also left me with the impression that Lizzy MAY have been a lesbian. With that thought in mind, I wrote something years ago on this blog in which I made Janet Napolitano the New Lizzy Borden. Don’t know if you ever saw that, but you’ll find it at the very bottom here:

    http://xtremelyun-pcandunrepentant.blogspot.com/2009/01/7-remastered-random-thoughts-1.html

    Thanks for the prompt reply, Bro. Be watching your mail box as you may be the next winner of the American Family Publishers Sweepstakes. (But more likely just a book about the most evil man of the 20th Century. However, everyone agrees that Hitler runs a close second.)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    ‘Loyal American Underground’

    ReplyDelete

  16. Stephen,
    I read this one the other day too. I have to say that more and more it doesn't surprise me that amazon wiped out your comments. How could they allow you to have that kind of audience. I mean, you might make a real difference or something. Heck, I'm won't be surprised if they eventually try to bring suit against you for copying home boy comments from their site. Seriously, it wouldn't surprise me. After all Monsanto puts farmers in jail for seed sowing because their GMO products cross pollinate (read pollute) with the seeds of neighboring farms who don't use their products. They have found a way to copyright life, and bring suit against people for the laws of nature. Amazing. We the people let them.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
  17. BR'ER MARC ~
    In this particular case, Amazon.com (read: BigBitch.com) COULDN'T sue me for copying these comments because none of them actually came from their site.

    This debate took place on a University affiliated website and didn't have anything at all to do with BigBitch.com.

    Yeah, the Monsanto thing... I've read a little about that. Human beings trying to play "God". That cannot POSSIBLY end well!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete

  18. Stephen,
    First, I want to add that which I should have said the first time, "Red Dog got his ass handed to him." I had a similar thing happen on facebook the other day. I just couldn't resist when they started talking about Jon Bon JoVi opening a new restaurant. See, he is making it a voluntary payment option. You pay what you can afford, or you can donate your time and work their for such and such hours. All the liberals used it to show that socialism works. This about made me want to vomit. So I quickly pointed out that 1) Jon Bon Jovi is a million plus dollar man with multiple businesses. He could use his losses here as a tax exemption and probably make more money losing money here. 2) Another poster pointed out that this can be construed as charity (he is a private citizen) and is not government sanctioned which is exactly what we should encourage. 3) I pointed out that 99.9% of these boobs didn't know they are in fact socialists. They want and actually openly encouraged the nanny state. I also informed them that their precious democratic party was actually just a different version of the same thing as the republican party. This of course they couldn't accept, and I got tired of pointing them toward books that prove them wrong. So I left them to their stupidity. One person told me I had no idea what fascism was. They didn't respond when I told them I got the definition from one of the originators of Fascism I Moussolini. They never responded back when I told them that.Instead they just kept spewing that I was making this into a political debate while they were just praising Jon. I thought they were making this into a political debate by taking a socialists right to initiate a charity restaurant and turning it into a platform to promote socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. BR'ER MARC ~
    Excellent comment, sir! I would love to see the whole thing if you'd care to post a link or URL to it.

    You're right on the money, as usual, Bro! And, yes, of course the moment they (stupidly) tried using the situation as an example of Socialism "working" they turned it into a political discussion. And of course Fascism comes in a variety of forms but its basic principle remains the same. Anyone who endorses big government is begging for a fascistic regime and every single Communist country was straight Fascism, no chaser.

    Liberals are stupid, brainwashed monkeys. Those Americans who vote Republican are blind as a bat, but many of them at least SAY the right things. The liberals aren't even bright enough to speak some truth.

    I've said it many times before and will likely say it many times again: There is simply NO EXCUSE for any informed Constitutionalist (i.e., a genuine conservative) to ever lose ANY debate to an uninformed liberal. And make no mistake, EVERY liberal is uninformed!

    Good comment, Brother. I would enjoy seeing where this debate took place.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete

  20. Stephen,
    The debate (if we can call it that) took place on facebook. It was posted by the other 98%. Which of course is a liberal propagandist site posing as a free thinking site. There are more than 1,500 posts on it. It's hard to find my past comments, the comments by others, or to even have a debate. Basicly, I'll give you the link to the post but it's hardly worth it. I'll write back.

    Br'er Marc

    ReplyDelete
  21. https://www.facebook.com/TheOther98

    You can find the site here. However, it's probably so far barried that you won't find it anymore. But if you want to look you can find it somewhere there.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BR'ER MARC ~
    Aww, well, thanks for taking the time to post the URL. I tried to go there and see if I could locate your comments, but I see that first I'd have to sign up for a Facebook account. I've never had one and have no intention of EVER having one, so...

    ....so much for that idea. But thanks anyway for your time and effort.

    You KNOW I would have been siding with YOU if I had been able to view the dispute.

    I haven't slapped a Liberal around for awhile now, and my hand is itching to do it again.
    Ha! :-)

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  23. ANDREW LEON, where are you?

    How are we going to debate Senator Joe
    if you don't show?

    ~ D-FensDogG
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  24. Part 1 Of 2:

    ARLEE BIRD ~
    I don't think Andy is enjoying this discussion the way I am. I wonder why that is. I'm having a blast, and I'm grateful that he referred to me as a "GIANT DOUCHE BAG" on Bryan and Brandon's blog and inspired me to return here.

    ANDY ~
    I SINCERELY invite you to debate the issue of "neo-Hitler McCarthy" with me at my blog. And you can say what you want and I won't whine and cry about you being "an unwelcome guest" in "my house" and "ask you to leave". Here's a place where we can do it: 'IN DEFENSE OF SENATOR JOE McCARTHY ON HIS BIRTHDAY'

    [You might want to read the debate that's already posted there first though and determine whether or not you think you can do better than "Red Dog" (and his main source, Pamela Troy) did, because he ducked outta the debate before I was even close to full speed. Of course, you won't debate Joe McCarthy with me, just like you dodged a Gun Control debate with me two years ago. You're just a lot of Pseudo-Intellectual 9th-Grade-Playground bloviating, and you cry, "My house! Unwelcome guest!" when it starts to get hot in the kitchen.]

    >>... "I'm asking you to leave."

    Translation: I'm about to block you from commenting because you're making me look bad on my own blog.

    Come on, Dudley Do-Left, the Second Round has just started! Are you throwing in the towel ALREADY? With your vastly superior intellect and wit you should be able to clobber me in slingin' slurs and whatnot. You're not going to let li'l ol' "psychologically abnormal" me frighten you into an act of censorship, are ya? I thought you libs despised censorship.

    "Oh, Johnny, come on! ...You're no daisy. You're no daisy at all!"

    >>... LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

    Bravo! Every bit as clever as calling me a "GIANT DOUCHE BAG". Your original mind and unique put-downs never fail to... disappoint me.

    >>... Man, you make me not have to say anything at all to prove my stance.

    And then you follow that with four paragraphs of superficial assumptions about me and some babble from a psychology class you took. How much would you have written if you DID have to say something to "prove your stance"?

    "...the most rude and uncivilized guest I've ever had."

    Funny, coming from the guy who referred to me as a "giant douche bag" ON SOMEONE ELSE'S BLOG! At least I was civilized enough to keep the slurs in the appropriate boxing ring. Take a good look at yourself, Andy!

    >>... you would be wrong to assume that I made that comment thinking you wouldn't see it.

    There's nothing like good, clear writing. If you're TRYING to say you left that comment on Bryan and Brandon's blog with the expectation I would likely see it, well, I ALREADY said that SAME THING in my previous comment. [Me: "you had to post the comment on the blog 'A Beer For The Shower', where you figured I might see it".]

    OK, now that it's been patently established for me that you sometimes have difficulty writing, understanding, and retaining ideas in just plain, basic English, I'm going to take this next part real slow for you. Just try hard to focus on the meaning of each word, try to remember what was just said, and follow the bouncing ball...

    Continued Below

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2 Of 2:

      >>... "Having said that, NO, you have still not even acknowledged the alien question."

      TAKE 3: "Wow! Look at that, Andy Leon! Aliens from the Pleiades have just landed and have proven to us that they are the REAL creators of Earth and mankind. I see it with my own eyes, and it's true, True, TRUE! I didn't think space aliens really existed, but now I see them with my own eyes and realize I was wrong, Wrong, WRONG! I admit it, I was totally wrong about them. They DO exist, and they are indeed our creators."

      [Are you with me, Andy? I'm acknowledging, Acknowledging, ACKNOWLEDGING your question, and I'm even playing along with it. I am pretending that this event REALLY HAS happened, and I'm pretending that I really said everything to you that I wrote in the previous paragraph Remember this, you'll need it later. Now, let's move on to the NEXT thing I say to you, while we both stand transfixed by the fleet of spaceships and aliens that are only 20 yards from us...]

      "But you know what, Andy? All those years that I WRONGLY believed that space aliens didn't exist, and didn't think they were our creators - even though I turned out to be 100% wrong about those things - I was still being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, despite my error, despite turning out to be wrong about the aliens. The reason I can say I was INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, while also being simultaneously mistaken, is BECAUSE... (drumroll here!!!)...

      "...I had spent decades studying all, All, ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE THAT I COULD REGARDING SPACE ALIENS, and I determined in a 100% objective way that what evidence there was did not warrant a belief in them. I looked at BOTH SIDES of the question, analyzed and weighed the available evidence, and HONESTLY came to the conclusion that there was no valid reason that I SHOULD believe in them. Boy, the joke's on me because - look! - there the aliens stand right before our eyes. How WRONG I turned out to be in my HONEST evaluation of the question. But at least I did not, Not, NOT(!) ignore any evidence, I did NOT turn a blind eye to anything, just because I feared it might lead where I feared to go. I was being intellectually honest WITH MYSELF when I studied this question over the decades".

      Sheesh! Did I ACKNOWLEDGE your question and ANSWER it in a way that illustrates how I could have been WRONG about the aliens but STILL "INTELLECTUALLY HONEST" in my assessment that there was no LOGICAL reason to believe beforehand that they existed? ...Or do you need me to try a TAKE 4?

      REMINDER: All the poop you're flinging notwithstanding, our disagreement here still boils down to one simple thing: I say that for some decades, "confirmed atheist" Barbara Ehrenreich had been intellectually dishonest with herself in her search for truth. And since you seem to have great difficulty grasping the meaning of "intellectual dishonesty", I will reiterate for the umpteenth time that it simply means she consciously avoided examining and considering available evidence that would be at odds with her "confirmed" atheistic mindset. That's the whole issue in a nutshell. Now, you gonna just admit what is an OBVIOUS FACT, or remain in blind, "confirmed" denial?

      >>... I'm asking you to leave.

      "If you invite me to stay, then I'll go. You've gotta invite me to stick around."

      ~ D-FensDogG

      Delete

--> NOTE: COMMENT MODERATION IS ACTIVATED. <--
All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.