Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You're missing the forest for the trees, Spank (as is Coulter).
The evil of McCarthyism was not limited to false accusations. Rather, it was the method he employed, like the one you are using to defend it. He cited tenuous connections between people and organizations, when certain other people also members of those organizations may have had ties to communism or communist thinking. It was the classic smear campaign. (For the modern-day equivalent, think of liberals lumping all members of the Federalist Society into some sort of uber-con group.) McCarthy's objective was not solely the "outing" of those with sympathies to others with left-thinking views, it rather was to chill both speech and association, two values of greater importance to citizens of this country than any other.
|
I use to think that but now I am not so sure, and everyones responses on this board is now convincing me everything I have ever heard is B.S. In this country you can be a communist and you can associated with communists. You could do that during the fifties. No one was ever jailed for being a communist and no one was every denied their constitutional right to free speech or association. What happend was that a certain social stigma was attached with being a communist or communist affiliated. Just like being called a racist carries a certain social stigma today. Today if you are called a racist then you just deny it. If someone calls you a racist, or shows that you have relations with racist organizations, this is not questioned. You just simply deny you are a racist.
What is the difference between being a racist today and communist back in the fities. Should communists be treated any different from racists?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) If you remember The Crucible the issue wasn't whether the people were or were not witches, is was the method by which they were accused, tried, and ultimately sentenced to death. It had nothing to do with facts and process, and everything to do with rumors and mob rule.
|
But no one was convicted or sentenced for exercising their first amandment rights. The communist party was being financed by the Soviet Union to subert and overthrow the government of the United States. This same group was supporting the North Korean government with arms that were being used to kill our soldiers. What is wrong with trying to see who is affiliated with the communist party.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) You ask if anyone was falsely accused. I ask in response whether a single person was convicted of a crime of treason (or similar) arising out of his investigations? I think the answer is no, which also tells you something.
|
It tells me we didn't investigate them enough. It is now clear from the KGB archives that there spied throughout the US government and their activities did a great deal of damage to national security.
Why won't anyone answer these questions. If someone would say that the following is wrong, then I wouldn't think most of the people on this board are not totally hyporcritical:
Post #686
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spanky
Would anyone on this board care if the US Congresss did an investigation into Neo-Nazis and other racist parties in the United States?
What about an investigation as to whether members of Neo-Nazi groups were working in the United States government?
What if they held hearings and interviewed the leaders about their activities?
If a lawyer defending ones of these Neo - Nazis was shown to be member of a Neo-Nazi party would people consider digging up such information as "smear tactics"?
And what if it turned out that some Hollywood writers, directors and producers may have been members of or were currently members of Neo-Nazi parties?
Would anyone have a problem with Congress investigating that?
If there was a suspicion considering whether a Hollywood writer producer or director was either a current or former member of a neo-nazi party and they refused to answer whether they were a current or former member of a Neo Nazi organization would anyone care if the studios decided not to hire them?
Would it be out of line for a studio to ask before they hire someone that they state that they are not, nor have ever been a member of a Neo Nazi group, and if they had been to disavow that membership?
Really. Who would have a problem with that?
