Televangelist Robertson warns town of God's wrath

[TheDude]

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.

 

[Calabrio]

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?

 

[Calabrio]

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.

 

[TheDude]

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?

 

[Calabrio]

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.