jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (78 posts)

Modern US politics are revisiting the basics of the past

  1. 0
    Texasbetaposted 5 years ago

    Today, neocons and liberals appear to have some basic historical points that we are still debating. The lines of the past appear to still be the lines of today.

    Separation of Church and State
    American Civil War - the right still seems to support the South
    The New Deal and Roosevelt's intervention
    Vietnam
    Red Scare and the trials of McCarthy
    Civil Rights of the 60s
    Trickle Down/Supply side economics

    Now - most of us thought these had been put to bed long ago, but is it just me, or do the fundamental differences stem from divisions from the past, the long ago past?

    1. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think you are spot on Texasbeta, I think they are un-healed wounds, that keep festering.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    The fundamental difference is conservative and progressive, other wise called socialism
    for the all, and capitalism for the one.

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is pure rhetoric and means absolutely nothing. Define socialism for me stud?
      This post you put down actually disgusts me. WORK HARDER, give real points...don't put a bumper sticker, displaying your ignorance, as a post and think proudly of it.

  3. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Socialism means I be arrested if I go into Texas. I hear left turns are illegal while driving.

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe I should have also included in the separation of ideologies, one is composed of children in grown bodies, and the other is composed of everyone else.
      When you get called out on using words you don't understand, do you decide to play in the sandbox? Bring it Uncle Buck.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "When I say I love you you say you better
    You better you better you bet
    When I say I need you you say you better
    You better you better you bet
    You better bet your life
    Or love will cut you, cut you like a knife"

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      A necon quoting The Who, nice.

  5. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    First; Socialism is an ecomnomic system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the gpvernment or the workers, and decisions on the allocation of of resources are made centrally or collectively.

    Like Capitalism, Socialism is also an ideology, a view of human nature and the way the world should work. Socialism is an umbrella term for a variety of theories sharing the general view that people are basically cooperative, and not competetive, and that systems of control based on private property , wealth, and class are harmful to the common welfare.

    It is thus applied to systems as disparate as Soviet Communism to the Capitalist Welfare State,(What America is quickly being drug down by).

    And we know that historically, Socialists have been in dis-afgreement on several basic questions of theory and practice. Which i will not bother with here.

    Second... you all seem to have this dellusion that the republicans were the Slave-holders in the South and that is false. the democrats had strict control of the Southern Legistlatures and federal offices for decades before the Civil war, and they are the ones who re-oppressed the blacks after the Civil War and Lincon's death. Dixiecrats.

    Third... anyone who reads through the Senate records of the mcCarhty hearing can see plainly the treasonous actions of the Democrats and Progressives of the 30s 40s 50s and on. The records include the FBI, DOJ, State Dept, KGB, GRU and many more. All of which supprt and evince the fact that Joseph McCarth was correct in al those he named as traitors. I would suggest reading M.Stanton Evan's "Blacklisted by history" He sources all the above mentioned records and many many more, thus proving treason on the Part of the Democrats, progressives, FDR and his aides, Truman, and the US State Dept.

    Just a few facts for you all.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, within socialism the means of production are controlled and owned by the workers.
      Too often control by the government equals state capitalism, not socialism at all.

    2. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually it leads to Communism under a Socialist doctrine.

      And you can deny it al you want, that is the definition as set forth in Rohmanns, Dictionary of Important theories, Concepts, Beliefs and Thinkers. So... you do not get to redefine it. It is also in line with most other dictionaries of ideologies.

      Of course there are those of us who would call State Capitalism, Hybrid Communism, such as China.

    3. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent definition of socialism. See, that wasn't so hard people.
      Now to address the initial issue of whether this constitutes the fundamental difference between liberals/progressives and conservatives. I do not believe that it is. Why? I am a liberal and I don't want socialism, based upon your definition...and neither do any liberals I know or have met, aside from 1 dude in college. Government regulation on the market is not socialism, by your definition. Government regulations are not socialism, by your definition. The abortion debate, separation of church and state, laissez fair capitalism vs a regulated economy is not socialism by your definition. Social security and Medicare have nothing to do with socialism by your definition. Civil rights have nothing to do with socialism by your definition. SO, the fundamental difference is NOT socialism vs capitalism, and the argument concluded.

      To the second point, I definitely do not believe that Republicans were the slave holders. Conservatives were slave holders, but not the Republican party. You have ignored how the parties have changed...but the conservative vs liberal hasn't. The modern Republican party stems from Senator Taft to Goldwater and Reagan, not back to Lincoln. The Democratic party of today stems from Roosevelt, not Jefferson. Conservatives fought the freeing of slaves; the conservatives imposed Jim Crow, and the conservatives fought civil rights in the 60s, along with women's rights, gay rights, and on through the years.
      Your third point proves the issue of the initial post - you support the McCarthy hearings.
      "Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur."
      Collins, Susan and Levin, Carl (2003). "Preface" (PDF). Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations. U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2006-12-19
      I cite that not as proof, but as a better written explanation of how "the rest of us", which is in the dramatic majority, views this time in hour history. You STILL support destroying people's lives, sacrificing their civil liberties and Constitutional rights, think that you have the right to dictate even people's thoughts, in favor of what you consider the enemy. Were their traitors? Sure. There were Israeli traitors, French traitors, Soviet traitors..or rather infiltrators, sure...there always are. Attacking people's lives for even a belief that they sympathized (even in their own thoughts) and sacrificing their right to make a living, in a zealot crusade is something we in America tend to not like. Most of us that is.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Name one person who McCarthy destroyed their career?

        You cannot. Idid not happen.

        HUAC is who destroyed careers, and that was a Democrat concieved committee.

        1. 0
          Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Walter Bernstein, Abraham Polonsky, Lester Cole, Lena Horne, Sam Jaffe, Samuel Reber...I can go on. You wanted one. There are a few.

          Show me where HUAC was a Democrat conceived committee.

          The committee's anti-communist investigations are often confused with those of Senator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee. McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate, not the House.

          Finally, every single point you made is refuted. Kneel before Zod.

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC Tex. McCarthy was a Senator and he had no interaction with the HUAC. They were HOUSE. Two different bodies.

            HUAC was originally chaired by Martin Dyes, D. It was started by the Dems.

            "The HUAC was created in 1945 and abolished by congressional action in 1975. Records of the House investigative committee that preceded HUAC—the Select Committee on Un-American Activities (the so-called Dies Committee) that functioned from 1938 to 1944—have been open to the public for some time. However, some of the important records of the HUAC—infamous for its unrelenting pursuit of communists, espionage agents, homosexuals, subversives, and others often deemed as "security risks"—have been closed for more than 50 years."

            http://www.historians.org/perspectives/ … 09new4.cfm

            Nothing to do with McCarthy. There can be found no connection to McCarthy and HUAC. All those you named were destroyed by HUAC, not McCarthy.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-A … _Committee

            1. 0
              Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Did you just ignore what I wrote?! You tell bring up HUAC and McCarthy, and I explain that they were not involved, that he was involved in an entirely different committee, and you come back and tell me the same thing...but in the guise that I am wrong? Are you freaking kidding me?

              This is REALLY your debate? You do know that the previous post I made is right above yours right? Yes, that makes you look kind of bad.

              1. 0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ...and yes, I am baiting you to tell me that the people I listed didn't testify before McCarthy himself, despite their investigations with HUAC.

              2. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am having page issues and edit button issues here... so... dont get so wired.

              3. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You still have not produced a name of someone destroyed by McCarthy. So?... you cannot find one eh? I know. it never happened.

            2. TMMason profile image73
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And yes he was with the Senate SUB Comm On Ivest. and the only people Mccarthy investigated were Govt employees, as was the purview of his committee.

              None of the people you named who are Hollywood and were destroyed by the Dems and HUAC.

              So there will be no kneeling here... cause you list is wrong and your arguement is wrong.

              1. TMMason profile image73
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually the last time I came in here there was no reply... So maybe I am just having page issues. but the fact is you named people destroyed by HUAC not McCarthy, because non were destryoed by McCarthy.

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Also there is your proof that HUAC was a democrat creation.

                  http://www.historians.org/perspectives/ … 09new4.cfm

              2. 0
                Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Two points, first you are wrong.

                http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his … cripts.htm

                Will show you quite a few people who are not involved with the government who were called to testify before McCarthy. Notice the names of Langston Hughes, Harold Sachs, AND Phillip L Cole.

                Now:
                "McCarthyism' soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries."
                To the original point, the McCarthy hearings I referred to should have been termed McCarthyism, which is my error entirely. The hunting down of communist sympathizers at the sake of civil rights, of Constitutional rights. That is my error. You still support it, and the rest of us understand don't. The issue is still there. You think a belief is justification for sacrificing rights. 17% of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth. They are still American and still have rights. I can believe anything I want to. You believe Sarah Palin isn't conservative enough. To me, that is MUCH more terrifying than a person who buys the general notion of Marx. Neither of you posses what I consider a good perspective, but you both have the right to believe it.

                1. TMMason profile image73
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  They were called as witnesses not defendents. Differentiate between the two. And you can expand the definition all you want. What McCarthy did, and what you want to link him to are to different things.

                  And McCarthyism should rightly be defined as... "McCarthyism" is the aggressive exposure of Communists influences in America and the people who protect them. "

                  Much better.

                  And the only peple MCCArthy looked at as defendents were those who worked for the Govt. not citizens. he had no Authority there, that was HUAC and the Dems.

                  And no not a belief... the defense of our Govts integrity, anyone working for the US Govt is to be held to a higher standard. thats a simple concept.

                  "The hunting down of communist sympathizers at the sake of civil rights, of Constitutional rights." Anfd that was done by HUAC, not McCarthy. see the difference tex. they are not the same no matter how hard you try to connect them.

                  1. 0
                    Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Those "witnesses" were treated like defendants...read the transcripts. That was the point.
                    There is a reason McCarthyism is called McCarthyism....after Joseph McCarthy, whom you defend, who is your avatar. We don't take the guy who has a Klan avatar too seriously either.

  6. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Oh and the Civil rights and voting rights acts of the 1960s should have been enacted in 1866, but the Democrats crushed them into sub-committee where they languished till 1965. Nice of them. Also they could have been passed in 1950 by Eisenhower and the house Republicans, but the Demmocrat Senate under LBJ again stopped them and crushed them under.

    Another lil fact for you all. Go look it up.

    And I am not ignoring the changes inthe Parties, you are ignoring the foundations of the Parties.

  7. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Appearently you posted something and then deleted it... I will wait to see what you reply tex. Nice to talk with you though.

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      True, but you aren't taking into consideration how the parties have changed, why, and the liberal vs conservative argument. Additionally, you haven't acknowledged any of the previous points.

  8. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Good film on the subject: Good Night, and Good Luck 2005, story of Edward R Murrow.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Edward R Murrow was a looser and  JOKE. McCarthy is the one who was destroyed by the treasonous left in their attempot to hide what they were doing, and that they wanted National Socialism implimented in this country. FDR's dream among many other leftists.

      1. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So sayeth Darth Vadar. Murrow was great American, one who awards are named after, one who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, countless awards himself for his work and his bravery, up to the point of having schools of journalism named after him...recognized even by other countries for his bravery and heroism in the face of such a tyrant like McCarthy, exampled in being knighted by the Queen.
        And then there is you...the guy with a ranking of 5 and a picture of McCarthy as his avatar.
        Yeah...the point of this hub is epitomized in you.
        See folks...proof point.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And you keep ignoring that the entire job of the committee ran by McCarthy, which he was appointed to, was to look for security risks in our Govt and hunt them down. that was the intent of the committee. So he wrong for doing his job.... yeah right.

        2. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And I will state it again. you have not named one person destroyed by McCarthy. Only by HUAC and the Dems, and just like a good lib you try to shift the blame through obfuscation and inference.

          Good try... but there is no bowing here.

  9. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    The McCarthy scam was used to bolster the red scare and a communist under every bed
    and used to to destroy the left in America
    especially in mass entertainment and education. Guess who benefited is who has won.

  10. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "the treasonous left" Have you ever heard of Wall Street, or the privately owned Fed?

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes I have, and I know of the treasonous Progressive Right that are nothing more than Socialist in Rpubs clothing. I am not sayiong the Right has never screwed up or screwed up. But the Left is Anti-American to the bone.

      I guess I should clearify, the leftist elites and intellectuals.

  11. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    ""The hunting down of communist sympathizers" Ya that would be union people
    in every field hated by the industrialists.
    J Edgar Hoover investigated every Democrat
    and union member in the country. He was a real American.

  12. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "you have not named one person"

    http://700326.tripod.com/id3.html

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another who cannot differentiate between what McCarthy was involved in and what the Left calls McCarthyism. All those Hollywood and teachers and others were victims of HUAC the HOUSE committee, and the Dems. Not Mccarthy's Committee who handled only Govt Employees, as was the directive of that committee.

      You need to start understanding the difference... go ask tex. he knows the difference he explained it earlier. Macarthyism... and Mccarthy... are two different things.

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Most but not all of Senator McCarthy’s numbered cases were drawn from the “Lee List” or “108 list” of unresolved Department of State security cases compiled by Lee for the House Appropriates Committee in 1947. [41] The Tydings subcommittee also obtained this list. In addition to some of the person involved in espionage identified in the Venona project listed above, there are other security and loyalty risks identified correctly by Senator McCarthy included in the following list:


        Robert Warren Barnett & Mrs. Robert Warren Barnett, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #48 and #49 respectively and both are on Lee list as #59;[42]
        Esther Brunauer, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #47 and Lee list #55;[43]
        Stephen Brunauer, U.S. Navy, chemist in the explosive research division;[44]
        Gertrude Cameron, Information and Editorial Specialist in the U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #55 and Lee list #65;[45][46]
        Nelson Chipchin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's list #23;[47]
        Oliver Edmund Clubb, U.S. State Department;[48]
        John Paton Davies, U.S. State Department, Policy Planning Committee;[49]
        Gustavo Duran, U.S. State Department, assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American Affairs, and Chief of the Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs of the United Nations;[50]
        Arpad Erdos, U.S. State Department;[51]
        Herbert Fierst, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's case #1 and Lee list #51;[52][53][54]
        John Tipton Fishburn, U.S. State Department; Lee list #106;[55]
        Theodore Geiger, U.S. State Department;[56]
        Stella Gordon, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #40 and Lee list #45[57]
        Stanley Graze, U.S. State Department intelligence; McCarthy's Case #8 and Lee list #8, brother of Gerald Graze, confirmed in KGB Archives;[58]
        Ruth Marcia Harrison, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #7 and Lee list #4;[59]
        Myron Victor Hunt, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #65 and Lee list #79;[60]
        Philip Jessup, U.S. State Department, Assistant Director for the Naval School of Military Government and Administration at Columbia University in New York, Delegate to the U.N. in a number of different capacities, Ambassador-at-large, and Chairman of the Institute of Pacific Relations Research Advisory Committee; McCarthy's Case #15;[61]
        Dorothy Kenyon, New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;[62]
        Leon Hirsch Keyserling, President Harry Truman's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers;[63]
        Mary Dublin Keyserling, U.S. Department of Commerce;[64]
        Esther Less Kopelewich, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #24;[65]
        Owen Lattimore, Board member of the communist-dominated Institute of Pacific Relations (I.P.R) and editor the I.P.R.’s journal Pacific Affairs;[66]
        Paul A. Lifantieff-Lee, U.S. Naval Department; McCarthy's Case #56 and Lee list #66;[67]
        Val R. Lorwin, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #54 and Lee list #64;[68]
        Daniel F. Margolies, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #41 and Lee list #46;[69] [70]
        Peveril Meigs, U.S. State Department; Department of the Army; McCarthy's Case #3 and Lee list #2;[71]
        Ella M. Montague, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #34 and Lee list #32;[72]
        Philleo Nash, Presidential Advisor, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman administrations;[73][74][75]
        Olga V. Osnatch, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #81 and Lee list #78;[76]
        Edward Posniak, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case Number 77;[77]
        Philip Raine, U.S. State Department, Regional Specialist; McCarthy's Case #52 and Lee list #62;[78][79][80][81]
        Robert Ross, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #32 and Lee list #30;[82]
        Sylvia Schimmel, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #50 and Lee list #60;[83][84][85][86]
        Frederick Schumann, contracted by U.S. State Department as lecturer; Professor at Williams College; not on Lee list;[87]
        John S. Service, U.S. State Department;[88]
        Harlow Shapley, U.S. State Department appointee to UNESCO, Chairman of the National Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professions;[89]
        William T. Stone, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #46 and Lee list #54;[90]
        Frances M. Tuchser, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #6 and Lee list #6;[91]
        John Carter Vincent, U.S. State Department; McCarthy's Case #2 and Lee list #52;[92]
        David Zablodowsky, U.S. State Department & Director of the United Nations Publishing Division. McCarthy's Case #103;[93]

  13. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Again what the Left calls McCarthyism was a screen to hide what they did... not what McCarthy did.


    The Venona project specifically references at least 349 pseudonyms in the United States—including citizens, immigrants, and permanent residents—who cooperated in various ways with Soviet intelligence agencies, however not all were ever identified. In public hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) conducted by McCarthy, 83 persons plead the fifth amendment right against self incrimination. An additional 9 persons refused to testify on constitutional grounds in private hearings, and their names were not made public. [27] Of the 83 persons pleading the fifth amendment, several have been identified by NSA and FBI as agents of the Soviet Union in the Venona project involved in espionage. Several prominent examples are:



    Mary Jane Keeney, a United Nations employee, and her husband Philip Keeney, who worked in the Office of Strategic Services;[28]
    Lauchlin Currie, a special assistant to President Roosevelt;[29]
    Virginius Frank Coe [30], Director of Division of Monetary Research, U.S. Treasury; Technical Secretary at the Bretton Woods Conference; International Monetary Fund;
    William Ludwig Ullman [31], delegate to the United Nations Charter Conference and Bretton Woods Conference;
    Nathan Gregory Silvermaster [32], Chief Planning Technician, Procurement Division, United States Department of the Treasury and head of the Silvermaster network of spies;
    Harold Glasser, U.S. Treasury Representative to the Allied High Commission in Italy;
    Four staff members of the LaFollette Civil Liberties Committee, a Senate subcommittee on labor rights;
    Allan Rosenberg, Chief of the Economic Institution Staff, Foreign Economic Administration; Counsel to the National Labor Relations Board;
    Solomon Adler, U.S. Treasury Dept., went to China and joined government of Mao Zedong;
    Robert T. Miller, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs; Near Eastern Division United States Department of State; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives; McCarthy's Case #16 and Lee list #12;[33]
    Franz Leopold Neumann, consultant at Board of Economic Warfare; Deputy Chief of the Central European Section of Office of Strategic Services; First Chief of Research of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal; also identified in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives;
    Laurence Duggan, head of United States Department of State Division of American Republics; [34]
    Leonard Mins, [35] Russian Section of the Research and Analysis Division of the Office of Strategic Services;
    Cedric Belfrage [36], British Security Coordination; founder the National Guardian.
    Gerald Graze, U.S. State Department; Lee List #29, confirmed in the Gorsky Memo from Soviet Archives, brother of Stanley Graze;
    Sergey Nikolaevich Kurnakov, Daily Worker; [37]
    David Karr, Office of War Information; chief aide to journalist Drew Pearson.

    And they call that several.

    http://conservapedia.com/Joseph_McCarthy

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Whats a motter this list of facts to much for you tex?

      1. 0
        Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Facts? Dude, you are still hidng behind the labels of the party and ignoring the liberal vs conservative argument. That was the 1st thing I wrote...HOURS ago. Still, you hide behind the labels and try to rewrite history. You are proving the point of this very post...over and over again.

  14. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    What is the matter guys. You do not like my lists? Facts are too uch for you all eh. I thought so.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They're all too busy looking for reds under their beds!

      1. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        John the reds are not under the bed, they are in our Govt. waiting to bow to China and their Socialist brethren in Europe.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you're saying that big business are all socialists!
          Well they are the ones selling you out to China

          1. TMMason profile image73
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            hahahaha..... no you are saying that. I am saying I do not like corporate welfare.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What, corporate welfare, like big hand outs to corporations?

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    You're like a teapot in a tempest. Even if are right so what? Shouts fire in a theater and what no blame. No forest for the trees. Stickt-to-it-nesss.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Simply rebutting your hack facts knol. You haven't a clue of the difference but you tote the Leftists line anyway. Good boy. You understand the difference now. And if I am right, then you are wrong. See how that matters.

  16. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Simply rebutting your hack facts knol. You haven't a clue of the difference but you tote the Leftists line anyway. Good boy.
    ___You understand the difference now.___
    'No I still don't know the difference my man.'__
    And if I am right, then you are wrong.___
    See how that matters." And what does these mean?

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "These"...  is the plural of "this".

      Anything else I can explain to you, let me know.

      smile

  17. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    How's the weather where you are? Fairly warm here today in Bay Area. I am predicting a cold summer like last year.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hot as hell. It has not been below 92 in over a week. But that is Florida for ya. I like the evenings and the early mornings. The afternoons are not my style, so I sit in my AC and fly the internet.

  18. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    You do fly you are fast at reply.

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I try, knol. What do consider cold for out there? I heard Cali was beautiful all year round. If your like me here in Fl, it gets below 75 and I am freezing.

  19. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "I try, knol. What do consider cold for out there? I heard Cali was beautiful all year round. If your like me here in Fl, it gets below 75 and I am freezing."
    Don't like hot weather even though I have
    Fibromyalgia. Have to wear lots of clothes
    even when hot so prefer it cool. Too cold for me below forty-five. You're not bragging are you?

    1. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No I am not.

  20. Taylor P. J. profile image60
    Taylor P. J.posted 5 years ago

    I remember a pic from a political science book a few years back.  It showed Humphrey Bogart and his wife walking out of hearing in D.C..  The pic seemd to represent Bogart supporting the people under suspicision of being communists.  However, what I found out later was that Bogart took out full page ad in the LA Times and publically apologized for offering his support to those people.  He claimed he'd been hoodwinked i.e. they were in fact communists. All one has to do is watch the movie Grapes Of Wrath. It very clearly espouses the doctine of communism - and condemns captialism.

    I always thought socialism & liberalism were the same thing. I still believe the rich are way too rich!

  21. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    You hold that line of thought and continue to ignore the facts I posted. I have made my point, as evinced by your continual personal attacks. Of course that is the way Leftists, (and I always differentiate between Liberals, Democrats, Socialists, and Progressives), think they win a debate.

    Yes Progressives destroyed our Party. And I bet your one of those who think Jefferson Davies was a Conservative like me. He wasn't. He was a Consevative democrat. You do not seem to grasp the difference between them, and us, and that tells alot about you and what you think you know.

    Have a good nite. I am tired of this conversation, especially when you think you can ignore what I ask and post, and just rant about what you think you know.

    End of the line...

    1. 0
      Texasbetaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I ignore the facts? DUDE, I have 30 posts on here explaining that the labels of the parties have changed, that the argument is liberal vs conservative, which you side with the bad guys...the same people you mention who were in HUAC became Republicans during the civil rights era, forming the Republican party of today.You haven't acknowledged any of this once...instead you hide behind the labels.
      All that aside...the point of this post was proven in every post you made.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image61
        Doug Hughesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig." Robert A.  Heinlein

        Some Wingnuts want to engage in an argument, and will ignore facts and reason but distract and divert endlessly.

        Example - you clearly and deliberately made the post about conservatism vs liberalism and he tried to make it an argument about party ideology, ignoring the historical role reversal of the parties. Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was a progressive. And dodging the point that racists in the democratic party changed flags and became republican when Reagan made it clear he sympathized.

        If mason jarhead would engage honestly, we all might learn something. But he won't - which is why the pig quote applies.

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Keep trying to pass that blame. It just won't work anymore. And his explaination are a joke... and your brown nosing is predictanle, Doug. Still the same ole Doug. McCarthy was not who did all that... it was Martin Dies and his crew of Dems, and that is a historic fact. And they were not republicans.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dies,_Jr.

          Ahh the truth hurts eh guys. The dems are an evil gang and always have been.

      2. TMMason profile image73
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        All you have done is try to push what your democrats and HUAC did on McCarthy. As usual. You Leftists are so predictable. Martin Dies was a Dem... adn he and his budies did what you accuse Joe of. They never were and never became Repubs. So get over it. The Dems destroyed peoples lives and you all want to shift the bame. HUAC was around a long timwe before Joe an they did all you try to accuse him of.

        And to sat they are the repubs is just plain wrong.

        Too bad!

        1. TMMason profile image73
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So lets review, Martin Dies and the Dems created HUAC. And NONE OF THE WERE REPUBLICANS. That is fairly simpe, and all true.

          Oh and the way all you Leftists seem to declare from the mount that anything the Right says is false, and all that your side speak is true, is also predictable. To bad it is also false.

  22. TMMason profile image73
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Even the Canadians know Joe was right.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24716

    McCarthyism -- a slander the left simply loves to hang around the necks of anybody who happens to disagree with them and tries to counter their deadly influence over American life

    And I am not argueing Liberals and Consevative... I am simply speaking the TRUTH.

 
working