http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/ts_nm/religion_robertson_dc

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

And god said Pat shut up and why don't you actually do me a favor and quit chasing people way from me!!!!

Is this guy a fruit cake or what!!

He has always been a fruit cake!!!!!!

just watched a report on TV , the guy needs to think about what he says. He is presuming to know what god would do to those people!!!!!

Typical.

That's not exactly what he said, but I'm not about to waste the energy to defend him. He's not worth defending.

I didn't mind the Chavez statement, but statements like this are uncalled for. Even when they are taken completely in context.

just watched a report on TV , the guy needs to think about what he says. He is presuming to know what god would do to those people!!!!!

As if he's God's appointed spokes person! -

He's an air bag out for his own personal gain..

As if he's God's appointed spokes person! -

He's an air bag out for his own personal gain..
:I

Wouldn't it be interesting if he ended up being right?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051110/ts_nm/religion_robertson_dc

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting "intelligent design" and warned them on Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

And god said Pat shut up and why don't you actually do me a favor and quit chasing people way from me!!!!

Is this guy a fruit cake or what!!
He's a Televangelist, of course he's a total fruit cake. Lol!!

Not all televangelist are fruit cakes, but this guy sure is!!!!!!

Wouldn't it be interesting if he ended up being right?

I can't believe that God would hurt a town because they voted out the school board. If he's making a list, I can only imagine there are other cities closer to the top of the list.

Pat Robertson has become some kind of radical as of late. He wanted someone to bump off a president of another country and now this? Something has gone haywire with this man.

Bumping off Chavez isn't 'that' outrageous.... really, it's not.
That guy is a growing problem.

Bumping off Chavez isn't 'that' outrageous.... really, it's not.
That guy is a growing problem.


That's great foreign policy, let's kill all the world's leaders that do not agree with us. While were at it, let's invade Venezuela, they have oil after all and I'm sure we could 'spin' in a WMD campaign. Some of you conservative types are seriously out there.

WWJD

Wouldn't it be interesting if he ended up being right?

Guess what, he isn't. God will not come down and rain fire and brimstone like he did in the Sodom & Gomorrah story. If the town does get destroyed by some unexplainable event, I'll print out this web page and eat it with mustard.

You often refer to me as a 'Libwacko' among other things. If you believe God will destroy a town because of a school board vote, then seriously take a long look into you own psyche.

God taking vengeance on a town for voting out a school board would be completely against his own word. God does not dabble in politics. He also would be providing reason for disliking him, which he does not do.

God does not dabble in politics.

Would that be the same as "Separation of Church and State"? :gr_hail:

Would that be the same as "Separation of Church and State"? :gr_hail:

It *should* be the same as separation of church and state.

Not all televangelist are fruit cakes, but this guy sure is!!!!!!
99.9 percent are not worth a sh!t.. IMHO.

The only two Televangelists i will watch are Rev. Billy Graham, and Bishop T.D. Jakes!!!!!!

billy graham is the exception.I have not seen the other guy.

I was fortunate in 73 to go to one of Rev. Graham's crusades, that was an awesome experience!!!!!!!!

he seems to be genuine and not just a money grubber..

That's great foreign policy, let's kill all the world's leaders that do not agree with us. While were at it, let's invade Venezuela, they have oil after all and I'm sure we could 'spin' in a WMD campaign. Some of you conservative types are seriously out there.
Chavez is more than a world leader who just happens to disagree with us. And it is in the strategic interest of this country for him to be overthrown. Apparently your grasp of world power is as limited as your understanding of economics.

I didn't say we should kill the guy. But it is in our distinct interest for him to lose power. He's an OPEC nation, he's a communist leader aligned with Castro, and he has a great deal of influence in the South America. That's our backyard. We need to keep an eye on him.

I was fortunate in 73 to go to one of Rev. Graham's crusades, that was an awesome experience!!!!!!!!

I agree with you Pepps... Billy Graham's I feel is genuine..

He preaches scripture.. Offers all a way, and doesn't go around condemning everything that he doesn't quite agree with.


Too bad he's only shown in Re-runs.. Then I guess he's pretty old by now...

Chavez is more than a world leader who just happens to disagree with us. And it is in the strategic interest of this country for him to be overthrown. Apparently your grasp of world power is as limited as your understanding of economics.

I didn't say we should kill the guy. But it is in our distinct interest for him to lose power. He's an OPEC nation, he's a communist leader aligned with Castro, and he has a great deal of influence in the South America. That's our backyard. We need to keep an eye on him.

Apparently you are all wise and knowing, does it make you feel better trying to belittling my intelligence with the constant comments?

You said 'bump off' that can be taken as 'to kill'..... Oh no! A communist! Are we going back to the McCarthy way of thinking?

You said 'bump off' that can be taken as 'to kill'..... Oh no! A communist! Are we going back to the McCarthy way of thinking?

Actually you are misusing Robertson's words. He actually said "take him out," which can be anything from kill to capture, like we did with Saddam. The only people twisting words here are you fiberals.

Actually you are misusing Robertson's words. He actually said "take him out," which can be anything from kill to capture, like we did with Saddam. The only people twisting words here are you fiberals.

Actually Calabrio did say "Bumping Off" which is what I was responding to. See the quote below which started the debate between Calabrio and I. I even took the liberty of putting it in BOLD print for you. Nice try.

Bumping off Chavez isn't 'that' outrageous.... really, it's not.
That guy is a growing problem.

Oh no! A communist! Are we going back to the McCarthy way of thinking?

Perhaps you could explain why you think McCarthy was such a villian?
And bonus points to you if you can tell us who Alger Hiss is without Googling it.

Perhaps you could explain why you think McCarthy was such a villian?
And bonus points to you if you can tell us who Alger Hiss is without Googling it.


Black listing people and using the now again popular "You must hate America" line for the sole reason of disagreeing with him and his agenda is a disgusting tactic. This was shown to be true after he fell from power.

Hiss was accused of being a spy and a communist colaborator.

Black listing people and using the now again popular "You must hate America" line for the sole reason of disagreeing with him and his agenda is a disgusting tactic. This was shown to be true after he fell from power.
That's really not even close.

He did attempt to expose subversive Soviets who were here working against America. And despite the leftist revision of history, he was doing good. It wasn't a political hunt, it was a nationalistic one.

McCarthy had nothing to do with the fact that communist tend to find shelter within the Democrat party. Infact, I think McCarthy started out his carear as a Democrat himself.

Hiss was accused of being a spy and a communist colaborator.
Accused? No, it is proven fact.
And he wasn't just "some guy". He was a high ranking official working for Roosevelt and Truman.

That's really not even close.

He did attempt to expose subversive Soviets who were here working against America. And despite the leftist revision of history, he was doing good. It wasn't a political hunt, it was a nationalistic one.

McCarthy had nothing to do with the fact that communist tend to find shelter within the Democrat party. Infact, I think McCarthy started out his carear as a Democrat himself..

That's one side of the story. He was shown to use name calling and slandering as his tactics to shut anyone who spoke out against him (ie Anti-American). His own people finally shut him down, that should tell you something about the man.


Accused? No, it is proven fact.
And he wasn't just "some guy". He was a high ranking official working for Roosevelt and Truman.

I never said 'some guy' and what I said was all I could remember from high school. I did Google it afterwards and it came up that he was found guilty, spent time in jail, but was readmitted to the bar after massive judicial misconduct by the FBI (& Nixon, go figure) was proven at this trial. He held his innocence to the end, so controversy lingers.

That's one side of the story. He was shown to use name calling and slandering as his tactics to shut anyone who spoke out against him (ie Anti-American). His own people finally shut him down, that should tell you something about the man.
No, but it tells me something about the power of the media. And their ability to redifine an issue and shape public opinion.

It also tells me that the media has had a leftist agenda all the way back to at least the 40s.

McCarthy was attacked by the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the NY Post all at once. After that, Murrows jumped on the bandwagon.

McCarthy succeed in uncovering an alarming amount of communist, payrolled by the USSR, working inside our government. This wasn't paranoia or manufactured by McCarthy. To put this in 21st Century terms, imagine we had a guy from Al-Queda working in the Pentagon and State Department. Hollywood was actively engaging in propoganda as well. It was because of his exposure to subversive communists in hollywood while SAG President that Reagan learned the true nature and threat associated with Communism.


I never said 'some guy' and what I said was all I could remember from high school. I did Google it afterwards and it came up that he was found guilty, spent time in jail, but was readmitted to the bar after massive judicial misconduct by the FBI (& Nixon, go figure) was proven at this trial. He held his innocence to the end, so controversy lingers.

OJ says he's innocent too.

But, while knowledgable people had little doubt that he was working for the Soviets and he was only spared a conviction on espionage because of the statute of limitations, subsequent information that has been released by the old Soviet Union has confirmed it as well. However, leftists still want to hang onto the lie that he wasn't a communist and soviet agent. For some reason it doesn't bother the Democrat party to have soviet agents working for them in high level sensitive positions that compromise national security.

No, but it tells me something about the power of the media. And their ability to redifine an issue and shape public opinion.

It also tells me that the media has had a leftist agenda all the way back to at least the 40s.

McCarthy was attacked by the NY Times, the Washington Post, and the NY Post all at once. After that, Murrows jumped on the bandwagon.

McCarthy succeed in uncovering an alarming amount of communist, payrolled by the USSR, working inside our government. This wasn't paranoia or manufactured by McCarthy. To put this in 21st Century terms, imagine we had a guy from Al-Queda working in the Pentagon and State Department. Hollywood was actively engaging in propoganda as well. It was because of his exposure to subversive communists in hollywood while SAG President that Reagan learned the true nature and threat associated with Communism..

So the media made up his name calling, badgering, demeaning and sometimes illlegal tactics? He did uncover communist working to undermine the government, but his own people say he went to far. He was no hero, maybe at the beginning his cause was justified, but his ego was his downfall. Look were he ended up.


OJ says he's innocent too.

But, while knowledgable people had little doubt that he was working for the Soviets and he was only spared a conviction on espionage because of the statute of limitations, subsequent information that has been released by the old Soviet Union has confirmed it as well. However, leftists still want to hang onto the lie that he wasn't a communist and soviet agent. For some reason it doesn't bother the Democrat party to have soviet agents working for them in high level sensitive positions that compromise national security.

I'm not argueing that he wasn't guilty, evidence points heavily that he was indeed guilty, but it was proven that his trial was fixed. That's were the controversy comes from, if he was infact guilty, why did those accusing him break the law to bring him down?

He did uncover communist working to undermine the government,
As long you acknowledge this- I see no point in aguing any farther.
Too often that point is completely missed. He's portrayed as some kind of paranoid political opportunist, and that wasn't the case. He was responding to a very real thread.

What is so outrageous is the fact that some people opposed, not him personally, but what he was trying to do, so passionately. And, in response to it, the combined forces of the mainstream media and hollywood set out to destroy his reputation and him as a person.

Look were he ended up.
When every major newspaper, broadcast media outlet, and hollywood all decide they want you destroyed- let's see what would become of anyone.

The broader question, why were those groups so motivated to protect the communists, and why have the fought so hard to defend Alger Hiss.

As long you acknowledge this- I see no point in aguing any farther.
Too often that point is completely missed. He's portrayed as some kind of paranoid political opportunist, and that wasn't the case. He was responding to a very real thread.

What is so outrageous is the fact that some people opposed, not him personally, but what he was trying to do, so passionately. And, in response to it, the combined forces of the mainstream media and hollywood set out to destroy his reputation and him as a person.

Doing right doesn't expunge you of doing wrong. That's why he's seen as he is. This example is extreme but: I could be a mass murderer, but on weekends I donate my time to help the elderly, does that make me a good person? No, it does not.

When every major newspaper, broadcast media outlet, and hollywood all decide they want you destroyed- let's see what would become of anyone.

The broader question, why were those groups so motivated to protect the communists, and why have the fought so hard to defend Alger Hiss.

I don't think those groups (media, hollywood etc.) were trying to protect communist, it would be against their best interest to do so. The media and hollywood would have a hard time staying in business under Stalin.

Doing right doesn't expunge you of doing wrong. That's why he's seen as he is. This example is extreme but: I could be a mass murderer, but on weekends I donate my time to help the elderly, does that make me a good person? No, it does not.
If you can tell me what he did that was "wrong"- except being rude, I'll entertain your argument.


I don't think those groups (media, hollywood etc.) were trying to protect communist, it would be against their best interest to do so. The media and hollywood would have a hard time staying in business under Stalin.
You would think so, but that wasn't the case. Especially back then, Hollywood was a hotbed for communist activity.


Interstingly enough, Ann Coulter wrote a story about this subject today:

ARE YOU NOW OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN A SECOND-RATE FILMMAKER?
November 16, 2005

As noted here previously, George Clooney's movie "Good Night, and Good Luck," about pious parson Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy, failed to produce one person unjustly accused by McCarthy. Since I described McCarthy as a great American patriot defamed by liberals in my 2003 book, "Treason," liberals have had two more years to produce a person — just one person — falsely accused by McCarthy. They still can't do it.

Meanwhile, I can prove that Murrow's good friend Lawrence Duggan was a Soviet spy responsible for having innocent people murdered. The brilliant and perceptive journalist Murrow was not only unaware of the hundreds of Soviet spies running loose in the U.S. government, he was also unaware that his own dear friend Duggan was a Soviet spy — his friend on whose behalf corpses littered the Swiss landscape.

Contrary to the image of the Black Night of Fascism (BNOF) under McCarthy leading to mass suicide with bodies constantly falling on the heads of pedestrians in Manhattan, Duggan was the only suicide. After being questioned by the FBI, Duggan leapt from a window. Of course, given the people he was doing business with, he may have been pushed.

After Duggan's death, Murrow, along with the rest of the howling establishment, angrily denounced the idea that Duggan could possibly have been disloyal to America.

Well, now we know the truth. Decrypted Soviet cables and mountains of documents from Soviet archives prove beyond doubt that Lawrence Duggan was one of Stalin's most important spies. "McCarthyism" didn't kill him; his guilt did.

During the height of the Soviet purges in the mid-'30s, as millions of innocents were being tortured, exiled and killed on Stalin's orders, Murrow's good pal Duggan was using his position at the State Department to pass important documents to the Soviets. The documents were so sensitive, Duggan had to return the originals to the State Department before the end of the day. Some were so important, they were sent directly to Stalin and Molotov.

On at least one occasion, Murrow's dear friend Duggan sat with his Soviet handler for an hour as the handler photographed 60 documents for the motherland. In other words, Duggan was the kind of disloyal, two-faced, back-stabbing weasel you rarely see outside of the entertainment industry. (He certainly was perceptive, that Murrow.)

All this time, people Duggan knew personally were being falsely accused and executed back in the Soviet Union. Duggan expressed concern about Stalin's purges with his Soviet handler, but he didn't stop spying. As Allen Weinstein describes it in "The Haunted Wood," Duggan was mostly concerned about being falsely accused by Stalin himself someday.

Because of Murrow's good buddy Duggan, innocent people were killed. Not just the millions murdered during the purges while Duggan was earning "employee of the month" awards from Stalin. At least one man was murdered solely to protect Duggan's identity as a Soviet spy.

Ignatz Reiss had been the head of Soviet secret police in Europe. As such, he was aware of Soviet agents in the U.S., including Duggan. But unlike Duggan, Reiss was stunned by Stalin's bloody purges. In 1937, Reiss defected from the Soviet Union, threatening to expose Duggan if they came after him. It was his death warrant.

Two months later, Soviet secret police tracked Reiss to a restaurant in Switzerland. According to the official memo describing Reiss' murder, Soviet agents dragged Reiss out of the restaurant, shoved him in a car, shot him and dumped his body by the side of the road. (Or, in Soviet parlance, he was "debriefed.")

Soviet officials later happily informed Duggan's handler in America: "(Reiss) is liquidated, (but) not yet his wife. ... Now the danger that (Duggan) will be exposed because of (Reiss) is considerably decreased." Despite all Clooney's double-sourced fact-checking, he missed the part about Murrow's good friend Duggan being an accomplice to murder.

To hear these liberals carry on, "McCarthyism" was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe. No one has ever been so persecuted or so heroic as Hollywood actors in the '50s.

At the exact same time as these crybabies were wailing about McCarthyism, there was much worse going on in the parts of the world so admired by the Hollywood left. It's not as if we have to go back to the Peloponnesian War to find greater suffering than that of Hollywood drama queens during the BNOF under McCarthyism.

I believe anyone would find it preferable to have been a "target" of McCarthy in the '50s than to have been an ordinary citizen living in the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland, the Ukraine or any nation infected by the Red Plague.

Thanks to McCarthy, and no thanks to Murrow, the worst horror to befall an American citizen in the '50s was the dire prospect of losing a movie credit — although, since then, I suppose having to watch a George Clooney movie would run a close second.

Excellent info.

If you can tell me what he did that was "wrong"- except being rude, I'll entertain your argument.

I see branding anyone who disagreed with him as disloyal, un-American or communist sympathizer as being more than just rude. Forcing someone to shut up because you wield a weapon doesn't make it necessarily right. You're opinion (may) differs.

You would think so, but that wasn't the case. Especially back then, Hollywood was a hotbed for communist activity.

I read the article, it was well put together, had some vaild points, but logically, I can't see the masses of Hollywood actors being pro-Stalin. They would be out of business in a Stalin era communist society. I'm sure some did use the 'McCarthy is after us" bit to place the spotlight on them, but the majority of Hollywood doing this? As far as the media, in a Stalin regime, you either print what he say's or you're dead. Again, I can't see the media masses being pro-communist.


P.S. Clooney is a decent actor I think.

You have a very limited understanding of what was going on it the 50s. You keep applying what you know and what you understand to be the truth to the situation, though it doesn't apply. This is understandable, because without independent reading, all of us are taught a lie regarding this era in our history.

You have a very limited understanding of what was going on it the 50s. You keep applying what you know and what you understand to be the truth to the situation, though it doesn't apply. This is understandable, because without independent reading, all of us are taught a lie regarding this era in our history.

Were you politically active/aware in the 50's? Older than a child? I ask to help me better understand your point of view. I do read more than just one-side, one can't logically come up with a conclusion otherwise.

Were you politically active/aware in the 50's? Older than a child? I ask to help me better understand your point of view. I do read more than just one-side, one can't logically come up with a conclusion otherwise.

But what your doing isn't analyzing the historica fact. You're taking what little you know about the situation and then processing it with you information you understand from personal experience.

This is foolish. And this is one of the problems the political left always runs into. It's like the people who use Western values when addressing the problems created by Islamic-fundamentalists.

The fact that you can't understand why people in the media would embrace the Soviet system doesn't mean jack. The fact is, many did. So many, that it was a hot bed of communist activity.

But McCarthy's investigations weren't about targeting political disention. It was to catch the hundred of Soviet spies who were working with government.

Your conclusion is based on your lack of understand, not your depth of knowledge. You neither understand what McCarthy was doing. who he was investigating, or the political and social situation that existed at the time. And then, by examining your incomplete mental image through a 21st century liberal perspective, you end up with a completely distorted mental image.

So what is your conclusion?

McCarthy was just a mean guy who sought to destroy his political opposition and it doesn't make sense for those in the media to embrace Socialism and the Soviets, therefore they didn't after WW2?

O.K.
But you're wrong. Every single fact that exists is the exact opposite of what you "think" happened.

Why don't you answer his question? Were you politically aware in the '50s? If not, you got your knowledge from books, just like we did.

We don't doubt that you believe your "facts" to be true but you certainly know that writings are slanted by the author.

Why don't you answer his question? Were you politically aware in the '50s? If not, you got your knowledge from books, just like we did.
I did answer it.

We don't doubt that you believe your "facts" to be true but you certainly know that writings are slanted by the author.
That's my point exactly.

Unfortunately, DeVille isn't even relying on facts, just his perception of things. "Those in the media couldn't have support Stalin" is a conclusion he's made independent of facts. He's apply a modern perspective to a historical analysis. And you can't do that.

Now, since you appear to be interested in getting involved in this discussion, what do you think.

But what your doing isn't analyzing the historica fact. You're taking what little you know about the situation and then processing it with you information you understand from personal experience.

This is foolish. And this is one of the problems the political left always runs into. It's like the people who use Western values when addressing the problems created by Islamic-fundamentalists.

The fact that you can't understand why people in the media would embrace the Soviet system doesn't mean jack. The fact is, many did. So many, that it was a hot bed of communist activity.

But McCarthy's investigations weren't about targeting political disention. It was to catch the hundred of Soviet spies who were working with government.

Your conclusion is based on your lack of understand, not your depth of knowledge. You neither understand what McCarthy was doing. who he was investigating, or the political and social situation that existed at the time. And then, by examining your incomplete mental image through a 21st century liberal perspective, you end up with a completely distorted mental image.

So what is your conclusion?

McCarthy was just a mean guy who sought to destroy his political opposition and it doesn't make sense for those in the media to embrace Socialism and the Soviets, therefore they didn't after WW2?

O.K.
But you're wrong. Every single fact that exists is the exact opposite of what you "think" happened.


What you're basically saying is the way I interpret facts/history is wrong (the liberal way I guess?) but the way you interpret them is correct. I'll take you not answering my question about your political state in the 50's as equal to mine, not alive yet or not old enough to be aware, so I must assume that you get your information that same way I do, through books and media sources, then study both sides and come up with the most logical answer. Are you going to tell me I am reading the wrong material? Should I only read material that has a heavy inclination to the conservative/right point of view?

You said "It's like the people who use Western values when addressing the problems created by Islamic-fundamentalists" as an example. Who do you think is on the forefront to bring democracy to the Middle East? I believe that is in the most part a conservative/right side of the fence idea. Maybe we should stop and consider 'do they want democracy, is democracy the best choice suited to their ideals?’ It is foolish not to do so.

.................................................. .................................................. ..

"McCarthy was just a mean guy who sought to destroy his political opposition and it doesn't make sense for those in the media to embrace Socialism and the Soviets, therefore they didn't after WW2?"

A bit over simplified, but the exact opposite (your point of view over simplified)

'McCarthy was an American hero on a crusade to single handily destroy all communist attempting to undermine the government and bring Western civilization to an end all the while Hollywood was in Stalin's pocket and nothing more than super soviet pawns.'

Sound acceptable to you?

You say you view all the facts, but you refuse to acknowledge both sides. McCarthy was taken down by his own people, which at least should tell you something about the man. Not that he was evil through and through, but something.

I did answer it.


That's my point exactly.

Unfortunately, DeVille isn't even relying on facts, just his perception of things. "Those in the media couldn't have support Stalin" is a conclusion he's made independent of facts. He's apply a modern perspective to a historical analysis. And you can't do that.

Now, since you appear to be interested in getting involved in this discussion, what do you think.

So, if I understand you correctly you believe that once something is written, it automatically becomes gospel? Don't you ascribe to the fact that the history is written by those in power?

Did you read Michael Crighton's book about global warming? The facts he presented were so convincing that he created many converts. The fact is, what he wrote wasn't based on all the data. It was just snapshots of data that made his point.

I was born in '52. All I remember anyone saying about McCarthy is that he unnecessarily ruined some innocent people's lives just by issinuation of guilt. I was not touched personally by those hearings.

I don't believe that those hearings could take place today. I don't think those tactics would be tolerated today.

What you're basically saying is the way I interpret facts/history is wrong (the liberal way I guess?) but the way you interpret them is correct.
No, you're not interperting facts.
The number of communists and soviet sympathizers in Hollywood is FACT.
Why you think it was or wasn't in their interest to align themself in such a way, therefore there may or may not have been many hollywood socialist is your guess. It's not based on fact. It's just a hunch. A hunch that doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny.

I'll take you not answering my question about your political state in the 50's as equal to mine...
I accidentally erased the "Of course I'm not..." response to the question in the prior post. However, my profile makes it clear I was not politically active in the 50s.

not alive yet or not old enough to be aware, so I must assume that you get your information that same way I do, through books and media sources, then study both sides and come up with the most logical answer.
Well, you'd be right if you were using books and other resources that emphasized historic accuracy to come to you conclusion. Unfortunately, you've been taking information, without out a historical context, then using your modern perspective to analyse it. This is why you come to an erroneous conclusion.

Are you going to tell me I am reading the wrong material?
No, I'm going to say you probably haven't read any material specifically related to the subject were discussing. Furthermore, I can say with certainty, your point, the one I'm taking greatest issue with CLEARLY isn't based on something you read, just your assumption based on a flawed premise.

Should I only read material that has a heavy inclination to the conservative/right point of view?
You tell me. What's the "right view" of facts, and what's the "left" view of facts.

Either there were many supporters of the Soviets in Hollywood or there wasn't. I don't care whether you think it made sense for this to be, it either was or it wasn't.


You said "It's like the people who use Western values when addressing the problems created by Islamic-fundamentalists" as an example. Who do you think is on the forefront to bring democracy to the Middle East? I believe that is in the most part a conservative/right side of the fence idea. Maybe we should stop and consider 'do they want democracy, is democracy the best choice suited to their ideals?’ It is foolish not to do so.

Let me give you an example...
"We shouldn't address the threats presented by Al-Queda with violence. We need to find out WHY Bin Laden hates us, and then maybe we can talk out a solution."
that's approaching the problem with a Western value system.

The example you go on to make does not apply. We are attempting to influence the enviroment and culture. We are not expecting rabid fundamentalist, a movement where people are willing to blow themself up inorder to kill children, to come sit at a table and come to a compromise. You don't deal with a sub-culture that had no value for life like you would one that values each individual life.

Furthermore, are you saying that the only form of government that applies in the Middle-East are dictatorships and theocracies? Why are you saying that Democratic principles are incompatible with Arab culture? Turkey and Israel are functioning Middle Eastern Democracies. Your implication is false.

But what's the point of bringing up another topic you don't know much about?

Unfortunately, DeVille isn't even relying on facts, just his perception of things. "Those in the media couldn't have support Stalin" is a conclusion he's made independent of facts. He's apply a modern perspective to a historical analysis. And you can't do that.

I'm relying on what I read and how I perceive it, just like you. I didn't say the media couldn't of supported Stalin, I said it would be illogical if the media masses supported Stalin communism. They would be tying the noose around their own necks. If it sounds logical that the majority of Hollywood and the media would willingly commit professional suicide, then that’s your point of view. To me it's not logical.

I've just read you're last post.... I'm done debating with you on this.... All you can do is talk down to me like you are the end all to all knowledge. As far as I can tell you operate on three simple laws.

1) Only your viewpoints are worth anything
2) Only what you read is worth anything
3) You read and preceive only facts

So, I have no arguement against those three laws. It would be illogical for me to do so. I'm not crying about it, it just pointless.

I'm relying on what I read and how I perceive it, just like you. I didn't say the media couldn't of supported Stalin, I said it would be illogical if the media masses supported Stalin communism. They would be tying the noose around their own necks. If it sounds logical that the majority of Hollywood and the media would willingly commit professional suicide, then that’s your point of view. To me it's not logical.

Whether it makes sense to you or I does not matter.

In my mind, it NEVER makes sense to align yourself with the socialist party. But this is totally irrelelvant. This is the simple point that you seem unwilling to grasp.

The issue isn't subjective. I'm not touching on the issues of motivation. I'm taking issue with your claim that Hollywood and the media didn't have a large number of communists "because it doesn't make sense."

It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you. I don't understand the motivations for many things that happen around the world, however that doesn't mean they don't happen.

I was born in '52. All I remember anyone saying about McCarthy is that he unnecessarily ruined some innocent people's lives just by issinuation of guilt. I was not touched personally by those hearings..

I'm glad someone with some real life knowledge spoke up, but I am sure you were influenced by the 'RED MEDIA' Barry. Hopefully someone else can chime in with a non-liberal point of view, that experienced McCarthy first hand.

I don't believe that those hearings could take place today. I don't think those tactics would be tolerated today.

I hope not, but you'd be surprized. Yesterday I heard Cheney accuse anti-war politicians as being guilty of killing US Soldiers. Similar tactics don't you think? I am sure that 'issinuation of guilt' will shut up a few people.

I've just read you're last post.... I'm done debating with you on this.... All you can do is talk down to me like you are the end all to all knowledge. As far as I can tell you operate on three simple laws.

1) Only your viewpoints are worth anything
2) Only what you read is worth anything
3) You read and preceive only facts

So, I have no arguement against those three laws. It would be illogical for me to do so. I'm not crying about it, it just pointless.

No, you have no argument period. You've made a statement, supported by your hunch. You seem to have no interest, and I suspect no ability, to support it. If you have read something to the contrary, something that would dispute anything I've said, please, post it. If you know of a resource that contradicts anything I've said, please, post it. If you have a logical argument that contradicts anything I said, please, present it.

All informed and articulated viewpoints are valued. You just haven't presented any regarding McCarthy part of this thread.

You're hunch certainly makes sense, but it just isn't the case. Here's a quick example to help put things in perspective. While everyone in Hollywood and the media weren't a communist, many were. A disporportionate amount were.

And by virtue of that, most influencial people had at least one friend who might have been under the McCarthy microscope. They may not have even known that they're friends were communist, the Communist party frequently relies on lying to slowly advance it's agenda, and they reactively defended their friends. And now you have the backlash from media against McCarthy.

Does that make sense?

So, if I understand you correctly you believe that once something is written, it automatically becomes gospel? Don't you ascribe to the fact that the history is written by those in power?
Yes, and that's why I realize that history surrounding the McCarthy hearings has been horribly one sided. Unfortuantely, it's been one side AGAINST McCarthy. If the revision of history had been favorable, would we be having this discussion right now?

Did you read Michael Crighton's book about global warming? The facts he presented were so convincing that he created many converts. The fact is, what he wrote wasn't based on all the data. It was just snapshots of data that made his point.
I haven't read this book, but it has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Or my main criticism of DeVille's logic.

I was born in '52. All I remember anyone saying about McCarthy is that he unnecessarily ruined some innocent people's lives just by issinuation of guilt. I was not touched personally by those hearings.
First of all, you do not have first hand knowledge of the events either.

Second, can you can name one innocent person who was ruined by the insinuation of guilt.

As far as I know, the only person who has ruined because of it was Elia Kazzan, and that's because he provided the names of communists, and he was forever condemned and villified by Hollywood. There was even controversy when he was awarded an achievement award recently, 50 years later. McCarthy didn't ruin him, Hollywood did.

I don't believe that those hearings could take place today. I don't think those tactics would be tolerated today.
Are you taking issue with the tactics or the purpose.
And everyone talks about the tactics, but no one can ever say provide contextual examples of what he did wrong. We've just all been taught that "McCarthy was bad." I was taught this. Everyone is taught this. But we never actually learn the whole truth.

No, you have no argument period. You've made a statement, supported by your hunch?

You make the above statement to discredit me.......

You're hunch certainly makes sense, but it just isn't the case. Here's a quick example to help put things in perspective. While everyone in Hollywood and the media weren't a communist, many were. A disporportionate amount were.

And by virtue of that, most influencial people had at least one friend who might have been under the McCarthy microscope. They may not have even known that they're friends were communist, the Communist party frequently relies on lying to slowly advance it's agenda, and they reactively defended their friends. And now you have the backlash from media against McCarthy.

But then you say the above based on a hunch.......

Does that make sense?

You make the above statement to discredit me.......
No, I don't need to discredit you, nor would I want to.

I've stopped trying to discuss the broader Soviet influence in post WW2 America and whether McCarthy's response was heavy handed or adequate. At this point, I'm just pointing on your incorrect assumption that those in Hollywood wouldn't have supported the Communists because its against their interest to do so.


But then you say the above based on a hunch.......

Does that make sense?
No, that's not a hunch. You can call that either research or analysis, either one will work for the sake of discussion.

Here's an idea, instead of squirming around, noting that we're using the damn internet, why don't you just do a google search and you'll see for yourself how popular communism was inside hollywood in the post-war era. You'll see how many people were members of the party, how many felt they were "tricked" into joining later in their lives.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=7625
I'm not going to say I agree with the above linked article, but... I think it reinforces my point.