Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/31/07 09:18 PM, Christopherr wrote: It's far more logical to reason that he was trying to turn attention to communists.

What communists?

At 12/31/07 09:22 PM, Proteas wrote: What communists?

He drew attention to the vast spy networks of communist countries. For example, he said these spies were stealing atomic secrets. Now, old Soviet files from Moscow and the Vanona Intercepts have proved that.

He also drew attention to the spies who were influencing foreign policy, and these allegations have also proven to be true.
Here are some of these security risks:
-The Morganthau Plan- created by Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White at the Treasury Department to slow German reconstruction. This ultimately forced the Germans into communism.
-Yalta and Pottsdam agreements- Disastrous meetings partly orchestrated by Roosevelt's closest advisor, Harry Hopkins. He had numerous secret contacts with the Soviets.
-China Hands- a group led by John Service, John Davies, and Owen Lattimore, whose product was the abandonment, the denial of military support, to Chiang Kai-shek
- TheBurgess-Maclean group-a spy network around the time that infiltrated both British and US governments.

At 12/31/07 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: He drew attention to the vast spy networks of communist countries.

He also accused thousands of innocent Americans of having communist affiliations, and destroyed their very livelihoods because of it. He was also notoriously anti public health campaigns (i.e.; the polio vaccine) because he viewed it as a tool of communism, capable of brainwashing the public at large.

At 12/31/07 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote: He also accused thousands of innocent Americans of having communist affiliations, and destroyed their very livelihoods because of it. He was also notoriously anti public health campaigns (i.e.; the polio vaccine) because he viewed it as a tool of communism, capable of brainwashing the public at large.

As I have said, I do not agree with all of the things he did. You, however, are ignoring everything but the things you don't like out of stubbornness.

At 12/31/07 11:03 PM, Christopherr wrote: You, however, are ignoring everything but the things you don't like out of stubbornness.

I think it was Julius Cesar who said that, "The evil a man does lives on after him, the good a man does is inturred with his bones." In your mind he will be remembered as a man who during a decade in office managed to shine a spotlight on 4 conspiracies, whereas the rest of us will remember him as a crackpot who ruined more lives with a single accusation and turned congress into a three ring circus whilst doing it.

At 12/31/07 11:17 PM, Proteas wrote: I think it was Julius Cesar who said that, "The evil a man does lives on after him, the good a man does is inturred with his bones."

Close, but no cigar. Marc Antony said that at Julius Caesar's funeral, in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. By the way, one of the major themes in Julius Caesar is that no men are perfectly good or perfectly evil, but a mix of both.

In your mind he will be remembered as a man who during a decade in office managed to shine a spotlight on 4 conspiracies, whereas the rest of us will remember him as a crackpot who ruined more lives with a single accusation and turned congress into a three ring circus whilst doing it.

I see both the good things and the bad things he did, and have already stated that. Now this is getting repetitive. It's just that the education system never taught what McCarthy really did along with The Crucible. It would do you no harm to read of Joseph McCarthy outside your 10th grade literature book.

At 12/31/07 11:43 PM, Christopherr wrote: It would do you no harm to read of Joseph McCarthy outside your 10th grade literature book.

He did more capitalize on the paranoia of a nation in his time in office that most dems claim President Bush has done in his. Not much to expound upon there.

At 12/31/07 11:57 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/31/07 11:43 PM, Christopherr wrote: It would do you no harm to read of Joseph McCarthy outside your 10th grade literature book.

He did more capitalize on the paranoia of a nation in his time in office that most dems claim President Bush has done in his. Not much to expound upon there.

All so he could get in some history books as a terrible person, according to the man who incorrectly quoted Shakespeare.

However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

More recently, Judicial Watch has also sued the George W. Bush administration for access to minutes of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force[5] and has also sued the Secret Service to force the release of logs detailing corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits to the White House.[6]

You're making it partisan again. I'm not arguing that it supports the republicans, but that it does have an agenda and is promoting a certain political opinion.

Simply because they're funded by conservatives doesn't mean you get to write off their opinion as a whole, slizor.

I'm not trying to. What I'm trying to get at is not that they are funded by conservatives and so are biased, but are conservative in themselves - which they openly admit to. As such, their views should be taken with a good hit of salt and shouldn't be used to make partisan claims.

At 12/28/07 07:21 PM, Musician wrote: Yeah exactly what I was thinking, George Bush broke the Geneva Convention and his administration leaked the name of a CIA agent (treason). How could he not be in the top 10.

It is not necessarily treason; at this level they are the supreme classifying authority. Therefore, they have the power to declassify whatever they wish (still waiting on those Roswell Files folks!). If done improperly it could be illegal...but treason is simply too strong of a word.

u know what this is sopposed to be about the politicians and i havent really heard alot obout the biggest dumb ass of em all i just cant wait till bush goes away forever!

At 1/1/08 12:25 AM, Christopherr wrote: All so he could get in some history books as a terrible person, according to the man who incorrectly quoted Shakespeare.

I got the quote correct, I only attributed it to the wrong character ("I think it was..."). You're the one excusing McCarthy's actions simply because a small handful of his (at that time unfounded) accusations only proved true later on, and you are truly a sorry excuse for a human being because of it.

The ends do not justify the means in this instance.

At 1/1/08 09:26 AM, Slizor wrote: As such, their views should be taken with a good hit of salt and shouldn't be used to make partisan claims.

I won't disagree with you there, but what I was pointing out is that despite their political inclinations, they do not consider themselves above pointing out the indiscretions of their own kind. They don't tow the party line that way, which I find interesting in and of itself.

At 1/1/08 05:49 PM, Proteas wrote:

I won't disagree with you there, but what I was pointing out is that despite their political inclinations, they do not consider themselves above pointing out the indiscretions of their own kind. They don't tow the party line that way, which I find interesting in and of itself.

Example:

Clinton busted for an affair and lying to a grand jury.

Outcome:
-Republicans demand he step down for his action/impeachment.
-Democrats defend Clinton's action saying "It doesn't affect his job as president"

Senator Greig is busted soliciting sex in an airport restroom.

Outcome:
-Democrats outraged, demand he step down immediately.
-Republicans distance themselves and also demand he step down immediately.

Fascinating.

At 1/1/08 06:04 PM, Memorize wrote: Fascinating.

I personally don't think Craig should HAVE to step down. But seriously, someone who spends their entire political career speaking out against gays when they're really gay themselves are filthy hypocrits. The scum of the earth.

At 1/1/08 07:47 PM, Musician wrote:

At 1/1/08 06:04 PM, Memorize wrote: Fascinating.

I personally don't think Craig should HAVE to step down.

I think the only thing more fascinating than Craig being caught is the cop who caught him. This wasn't just some random cop who was sitting on the commode in an airport restroom, no no... this guy was involved in a sting operation to catch people in the act of soliciting sex in bathrooms like this. His entire job was to sit on the commode for 8 or so hours a day and WAIT for people to solicit sex from him.

It must say a lot about the crime rate in Minneapolis that the cops have this much time on their hands.

At 1/1/08 05:49 PM, Proteas wrote: I got the quote correct, I only attributed it to the wrong character ("I think it was..."). You're the one excusing McCarthy's actions simply because a small handful of his (at that time unfounded) accusations only proved true later on, and you are truly a sorry excuse for a human being because of it.

For the third or fourth time, I do not agree with everything he did.
A large number of accusations he made were found true. It was no small thing, the communist spy network. It was massive, and included probably thousands of people, more than those who lost jobs. You're not even acknowledging that he did as much good as he did bad. I already said that he did plenty of things that were wrong, but you still say that I ignore that and am a horrible person for.

The ends do not justify the means in this instance.

At 1/1/08 08:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: For the third or fourth time, I do not agree with everything he did.

I don't agree with everything Charles Manson did either, but you don't see me defending his ability to influence others or praising his skill as a musician.

You're fighting an uphill battle.

I would also like to take this opprotunity to point out some conflicting statements you have made in this topic thus far with regards to the issue of McCarthy.

At 12/30/07 03:55 PM, Christopherr wrote: There really were communist spies, and he was trying to find them, but failed.

By you're own admission, McCarthy failed to successfully accuse a true communist during with his efforts. The 4 conspiracies pointed out later on were not uncovered by McCarthy, they were just used as political ammunition against the administration at the time.

At 12/30/07 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: Err, tear tear? Many of them were socialist nutjobs, and most of them were authors, directors, and actors. Whoop-de-doo, we went without some B-rate movies.

Here, you fail to show any remorse for the fact that despite his misguided effort, McCarthy wronged innocent individuals.

Even if he did ruin some careers, he still thought he was doing the right thing. Don't make him out as too bad of a guy.

And here you justify his actions simply because he thought himself right in his own mind.

At 12/30/07 11:52 PM, Christopherr wrote: It was the wrong way to do it, but he was trying to get America to fight against communism.

I don't really a problem with fighting communism, but he did do it in a stupid way. My point is that he was not corrupt, but misguided.

Here we have you admitting that his actions were merely stupid and misguided, and you even agreed that he had no list of actual communists from which to accuse people with.

At 1/1/08 08:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: A large number of accusations he made were found true.

And lastly, we have you going back on several previous statements.

I don't have to make a pariah out of McCarthy in order to not respect him... or you for that matter... you've given us all plenty of reason to do that yourself.

At 1/1/08 09:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/30/07 03:55 PM, Christopherr wrote: There really were communist spies, and he was trying to find them, but failed.

By you're own admission, McCarthy failed to successfully accuse a true communist during with his efforts. The 4 conspiracies pointed out later on were not uncovered by McCarthy, they were just used as political ammunition against the administration at the time.

He was the one who brought attention to the matters, encouraging others to uncover the plots. He failed to find the communists, but inspired others to succeed where he failed.

At 12/30/07 10:28 PM, Christopherr wrote: Err, tear tear? Many of them were socialist nutjobs, and most of them were authors, directors, and actors. Whoop-de-doo, we went without some B-rate movies.

Here, you fail to show any remorse for the fact that despite his misguided effort, McCarthy wronged innocent individuals.

Whether I have remorse or not for the jobs of people who I never knew is irrelevant to this matter.

Even if he did ruin some careers, he still thought he was doing the right thing. Don't make him out as too bad of a guy.

And here you justify his actions simply because he thought himself right in his own mind.

That's one of the ways I was saying he was not corrupt. I was not justifying his actions, but correcting someone for calling him corrupt.

At 12/30/07 11:52 PM, Christopherr wrote: It was the wrong way to do it, but he was trying to get America to fight against communism.
I don't really a problem with fighting communism, but he did do it in a stupid way. My point is that he was not corrupt, but misguided.

Here we have you admitting that his actions were merely stupid and misguided, and you even agreed that he had no list of actual communists from which to accuse people with.

Another part of that same argument.

At 1/1/08 08:17 PM, Christopherr wrote: A large number of accusations he made were found true.

And lastly, we have you going back on several previous statements.

Well, in your mind you may be right, so on, and so on.

I don't have to make a pariah out of McCarthy in order to not respect him... or you for that matter... you've given us all plenty of reason to do that yourself.

Is that a poorly worded personal attack, or words of praise? I could change one word in the sentence to make it mean either one.

At 1/1/08 07:47 PM, Musician wrote:

I personally don't think Craig should HAVE to step down.

They BOTH should've stepped down.

They were both stupid.

They both comitted a crime.

They were both busted for it.

At 1/1/08 11:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

I personally don't think Craig should HAVE to step down.

They BOTH should've stepped down.

They were both stupid.

They both comitted a crime.

They were both busted for it.

pfft what? soliciting for sex? lying about a blowjob? no those aren't serious crimes in my book. I think the sheer hypocrisy of Senator Craigs actions were worse than the actions themselves.

At 1/2/08 01:38 AM, Musician wrote:

pfft what? soliciting for sex? lying about a blowjob? no those aren't serious crimes in my book. I think the sheer hypocrisy of Senator Craigs actions were worse than the actions themselves.

Translation: It doesn't matter if you do anything illegal. If you're in a position of power, you can get off without even so much as a slap on the wrist.

People have fired from jobs for doing much less.

At 1/2/08 01:54 AM, Memorize wrote: Translation: It doesn't matter if you do anything illegal. If you're in a position of power, you can get off without even so much as a slap on the wrist.

Yeah, I mean just look at bush, violates human rights right and left and doesn't even get prosecuted.

At 1/2/08 02:09 AM, Musician wrote:

Yeah, I mean just look at bush, violates human rights right and left and doesn't even get prosecuted.

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

1) We're in a time of war.
2) He does not order torture or any such else that would violate human rights.
3) Waterboarding is a matter of opinion, nor does it cause physical pain/time of war.
4) Happenings of human rights abuses are isolated incidents that happen in EVERY major battle/war.

Good luck in facing reality.

At 12/31/07 07:40 AM, Slizor wrote: I'm not denying that it does not support one party in particular. However, it openly admits to promoting a certain political viewpoint and, as such, should not be viewed as a source that is trying to take a balanced view.

That's idiocy. "It supports a viewpoint so..." EVERYTHING supports a view point. "Partisan" means that it plays to a particular party. And it doesnt.

At 12/31/07 08:39 PM, Proteas wrote: Being right in your own mind does not make you right in practice. McCarthy ruined people's careers with unfounded accusations and caused a sensation not unlike Satanic Panic to grip the country for decades to come.

And for what? The greater good of the country? What good comes from fear mongering like that?

McCarthy accused people in government positions, with access to sensitive material, of being communists. The later decriptions of the Venona Cables justified about 85-90% of his accusations.

At 12/31/07 09:14 PM, Proteas wrote: The only thing he is famous for is making unsubstantiated accusations against members of the government and actors/writers in Hollywood. He capitalized on the fear created by the cold war to make his mark on the political landscape of this country and get his name in the history books.

That, my friend, is the most self serving and corrupt thing any man can do.

Except he never accused a single member of Hollywood of anything.

At 12/31/07 10:58 PM, Proteas wrote: He also accused thousands of innocent Americans of having communist affiliations, and destroyed their very livelihoods because of it.

No, he didn't.

The website is about McCarthyism, not the trials McCarthy stood over. McCarthy was a member of the Senate, and did not run the HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Commission.

At 1/1/08 09:26 AM, Slizor wrote: I'm not trying to. What I'm trying to get at is not that they are funded by conservatives and so are biased, but are conservative in themselves - which they openly admit to. As such, their views should be taken with a good hit of salt and shouldn't be used to make partisan claims.

Yet, as such, they blame any conservative who is even accused of wrongdoing, or corruption.

At 1/2/08 02:09 AM, Musician wrote: Yeah, I mean just look at bush, violates human rights right and left and doesn't even get prosecuted.

Wow, hmmmm.

Clinton lied in a civil suit to protect himself. He convinced others to commit perjury, hid evidence, etc.

Bush condoned waterboarding.

I have proven Democrats knew about it, and (as predicted), you have not condemned them. Only Bush. Go back to shutting up now.

At 1/2/08 03:15 AM, Memorize wrote: 3) Waterboarding is a matter of opinion, nor does it cause physical pain/time of war.
Good luck in facing reality.

Actually, it's been legally defined as torture, even in a wartime setting by, guess who? The united States! Yukio Asano was prosecuted for waterboarding a US citizen during World War II. Not to mention that the Department of State has declared "submersion of the head in water" to be torture when we were busting Tunisia's chops over human rights. So it's okay for us to do it, but not other countries?

I found all of that out in less than 5 minutes. I think you're simply ignoring reality on this one.

At 1/2/08 04:39 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Actually, it's been legally defined as torture, even in a wartime setting by, guess who? The united States! Yukio Asano was prosecuted for waterboarding a US citizen during World War II.

The Japanese form of waterboarding fit the form of torture as they physically beat the peaople they waterboarded. It was common to break limbs (hence the modern injunction against it). Moreover, they used to beat the water out of the stomachs of those they water boarded.

Not to mention that the Department of State has declared "submersion of the head in water" to be torture when we were busting Tunisia's chops over human rights. So it's okay for us to do it, but not other countries?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/200 5/61700.htm

Hmmm, the most interesting case I have come across so far.

Now the question is...are they dunking the subjects head in water, or waterboarding them?

At 1/2/08 04:39 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

Actually, it's been legally defined as torture, even in a wartime setting by, guess who?

To any idiot who things the vague "extreme mental discomfort" is torture.

It's pathetic.

It might cause depression.
It might cause mental instability... years later in life...

Weak.

It's fit into the vague definition of "mental discomfort". Which could literally apply to anything, no matter how small it might be.

The CIA recently came out and said it was a "necessary torture" like the little morons they are.

The united States! Yukio Asano was prosecuted for waterboarding a US citizen during World War II. Not to mention that the Department of State has declared "submersion of the head in water" to be torture when we were busting Tunisia's chops over human rights. So it's okay for us to do it, but not other countries?

It's not ok to use it against other organized countries who follow war time regulation (ie. not attack civilians).

And despite the popular liberal myth that it doesn't give accuracy information, we've saved hundreds and possibley thousands of lives in Iraq.

I found all of that out in less than 5 minutes. I think you're simply ignoring reality on this one.

You still have no idea the legality of it, do you?

Not even basing the argument on common sense. Waterboarding works. It doesn't cause physical pain. And we're only using it on a VERY FEW select top rank Al Qaeda individuals who specialize in killing the civilian population.

People are ignorant. Those who claim life is priceless. The life of an Al Qaeda is not worth the life of an innocent civilian.

At 1/2/08 04:32 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Wow, hmmmm.

Clinton lied in a civil suit to protect himself. He convinced others to commit perjury, hid evidence, etc.

Bush condoned waterboarding.

It's kinda sick that you think what Clinton did was worse.

I have proven Democrats knew about it, and (as predicted), you have not condemned them. Only Bush. Go back to shutting up now.

So what if Nancy Pelosi and several other democrats approved of the CIA's methods? That doesn't mean they represent the entirety of the democratic party. Just like Bush doesn't represent the entirety of the republican party.

And it seems to me just recently the democrats pushed for the banning of waterboarding, while republicans pushed against it. Not to mention George Bush repeatedly threatened to veto the bill.

But yeah, keep pushing you're biased and uninformed belief that both the democrats and the republicans condone torture.