PDA

View Full Version : The Hollywood Ten - McCarthyism Communist Hunts



Qtec
07-01-2011, 03:28 AM
link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nublLQDGbU&feature=related)....now in prison.


Q

LWW
07-01-2011, 05:34 AM
Let's review:

1 - This "McCARTHYISM" witch hunt was conducted by the HOUSE Unamerican activities commission.

2 - These hearings were conducted in 1947.

3 - Joseph Raymond McCarthy was never a member of the HUAC.

4 - Joseph Raymond McCarthy never testified before the HUAC.

5 - Joseph Raymond McCarthy was never a member of the US House of Representatives.

6 - Joseph Raymond McCarthy was a senator.

7 - You are a useful tool of the regime who can be brainwashed to believe anything.

8 - The only innocent victim of "McCarthyism" was Joseph Raymond McCarthy.

9 - You already knew this.

10 - You regurgitated the known lie anyway.

Next myth that you need slain?

Gayle in MD
07-01-2011, 07:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nublLQDGbU&feature=related)....now in prison.


Q

</div></div>

One of the worst, most disgraceful exhibits of Anti_Americanism, ever seen on American soil, and who didn't know, it was all executed by a typical, egomaniac, fear mongering Repiglican.

Some things never change!

G.

LWW
07-01-2011, 09:25 AM
And McCarthy's link to this was?

LWW
07-02-2011, 06:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And McCarthy's link to this was? </div></div>

Surely at least one of the cabal can answer this simple question.

hondo
07-02-2011, 11:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review:

1 - This "McCARTHYISM" witch hunt was conducted by the HOUSE Unamerican activities commission.

2 - These hearings were conducted in 1947.

</div></div>


Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between April 1954 and June 1954.

When I pointed out that as a wee child I watched this
dearless leader over and over again denied that anything happened after 1947.
When I offered proof, he would remain silent until the next time.
Gets tiresome watching him spin and spin and weasel.

LWW
07-03-2011, 03:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's review:

1 - This "McCARTHYISM" witch hunt was conducted by the HOUSE Unamerican activities commission.

2 - These hearings were conducted in 1947.

</div></div>


Army–McCarthy hearings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Army–McCarthy hearings were a series of hearings held by the United States Senate's Subcommittee on Investigations between April 1954 and June 1954.

When I pointed out that as a wee child I watched this
dearless leader over and over again denied that anything happened after 1947.
When I offered proof, he would remain silent until the next time.
Gets tiresome watching him spin and spin and weasel. </div></div>

And that post is wrong headed and delusional.

1 - The McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with HUAC.

2 - The HUAC hearings resulted in the Hollywood Black List.

3 - Snoopy is dishonestly trying to hang the 1947 HUAC hearings to McCarthy.

4 - You claimed that you watched the Hollywood Ten, Lucille Ball, Ronald Reagan, Charlie Chaplin et al all hauled before the McCarthy hearings on TV.

Now ... how's that work coming on the innocent victim's of senator McCarthy?

It is so funny to watch the cabal squirm under the magnifying glass of truth

hondo
07-03-2011, 09:09 AM
4 -" You claimed that you watched the Hollywood Ten, Lucille Ball, Ronald Reagan, Charlie Chaplin et al all hauled before the McCarthy hearings on TV."


And I said that where? SSDD.

LWW
07-03-2011, 10:15 AM
Here's the bottom line - are you ready to admit that after several years of looking by Q, Gayle, Bazooka Joe, Patrick Johnson, No Balls Paul, yourself and others ... there had been no innocent victim of senator McCarthy yet to be found?

Are you ready to admit that what has been beat into the skulls of the US population for half a century as <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"McCARTHYISM"</span></span> was actually the fault of the HUAC hearings of 1947?

Are you prepared to admit that the Venona cables verified that both the FDR and Truman regimes were riddled with Soviet agents as McCarthy claimed?

hondo
07-03-2011, 11:51 AM
Didn't figure you would answer my question. SSDD.

LWW
07-03-2011, 04:48 PM
Why can't you answer?

hondo
07-03-2011, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why can't you answer? </div></div>

Why can't you?

What a loser you are!
On another thread you ask me what Obama's done.
I answer.
You respond, " Are you still cling[sic] to mythology?"
Your games are old and tiresome.And your intellect is failing you.
dearless leader has no clothes.

LWW
07-03-2011, 05:00 PM
And still you bury your head in denial.

hondo
07-03-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And still you bury your head in denial. </div></div>

Weak. I'm gonna let you "win" another, champ.
I'm bored with your tepid responses.
See ya.

LWW
07-03-2011, 05:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And still you bury your head in denial. </div></div>

<s>Weak. I'm gonna let you "win" another, champ.
I'm bored with your tepid responses.
See ya.</s>

WAAAAAAH!</div></div>

LWW
07-02-2012, 04:43 AM
So ... how is that search for innocent innocent of senator McCarthy coming along?

LWW
07-03-2012, 06:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the bottom line - are you ready to admit that after several years of looking by Q, Gayle, Bazooka Joe, Patrick Johnson, No Balls Paul, yourself and others ... there had been no innocent victim of senator McCarthy yet to be found?

Are you ready to admit that what has been beat into the skulls of the US population for half a century as <span style='font-family: Comic Sans MS'><span style='font-size: 11pt'>"McCARTHYISM"</span></span> was actually the fault of the HUAC hearings of 1947?

Are you prepared to admit that the Venona cables verified that both the FDR and Truman regimes were riddled with Soviet agents as McCarthy claimed? </div></div>

How about you honduh?

Any names ... EVEN ONE ... of an innocent victim of McCarthy?

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 05:40 PM
If he was right, then he himself was an innocent victim of himself. Took a promising career as a drunken alcoholic senator and just ended up a disgraced dead drunk. Sad.

However, you are asking to be proven a negative, that cannot be accomplished absent a trial that never took place, and 60 years back to boot.

But YOU KNOW they were ALL guilty as charged (although presumed innocent until proven guilty), based on.... ???

Your opinion. Isn't that about it?

LWW
07-04-2012, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If he was right, then he himself was an innocent victim of himself. Took a promising career as a drunken alcoholic senator and just ended up a disgraced dead drunk. Sad.

However, you are asking to be proven a negative, that cannot be accomplished absent a trial that never took place, and 60 years back to boot.

But YOU KNOW they were ALL guilty as charged (although presumed innocent until proven guilty), based on.... ???

Your opinion. Isn't that about it? </div></div>

Close ... but as I have often said, he was the only truly innocent victim of the entire history of McCarthyism.

And, I notice you can't cite an innocent victim of the senator either.

Imagine that?

Soflasnapper
07-04-2012, 11:42 AM
To say no innocent was harmed, you have to say people who were fired and lost their wages were not really harmed, because after they were found innocent, they were rehired and got their back pay.

That happened a lot. Were those people really not harmed?

So says the magisterial William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell (??? who knew he went back to the McCarthy days?), from whose co-authored book these claims of 'no innocent was ever harmed' came from.

But isn't that highly arguable? That these people were eventually made whole, as to employment and back wages, doesn't mean they weren't harmed in the middle of that process when they HAD been forced out of their jobs and into a no-income situation.

And were all those who were innocent rehired and repaid back wages? That claim simply begs the question, that supposedly if not, they were really guilty. Really? Then why were so many fired and lost their jobs and wages when they really WERE innocent to begin with?

LWW
07-04-2012, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To say no innocent was harmed, you have to say people who were fired and lost their wages were not really harmed, because after they were found innocent, they were rehired and got their back pay.

That happened a lot. Were those people really not harmed?</div></div>

That's what I keep hearing ... yet nobody can name them.

Why do you suppose that is?

Soflasnapper
07-04-2012, 05:25 PM
Nobody can name them?

There were like 400. I'm sure you know of them, as you probably got all your 'no victims' from the web summary that comes from the Buckley/Bozell book, which details these facts.

THEY admit some sizable numbers were fired, lost their pay, and claim that was no injury to them because they got it back. As you must be aware.

LWW
07-05-2012, 04:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There were like 400. I'm sure you know of them ... </div></div>

I only asked for one?

If you are so absolutely sure they exist then asking you to name 0.25% of them oesn't seem to such a high hurdle ... unless, that is, that you simply believed what the party told you to believe.

Gayle in MD
07-05-2012, 07:10 AM
One would have to believe that spreading vicious slander about others, that isn't true, is perfectly fine as a government policy, in order to presume that none of those innocent people who were targeted by a PIG like McCarthy, weren't harmed.

There is a reason why McCarthy was asked, "Sir, have you no shame?"

Republicans were behind one of the most unAmerican activities to ever mar the American spirit, and then they proceed to do as they always do, re-write the facts, which are so shameful, in order to cover up their un-American activities, same thing they are doing right now in their Holder witch hunt, and with their disenfranchising of our American Voters!

Typical Republican skewing of facts, to avoid admitting to, and forever being known for their gross, vicious, un-American acitvities and indecent behavior.

Of course they were harmed! Slander harms. Unfounded accusations, taken out of context, harms, and is a vicious practice prosecuted by irrational, hateful people.

G.

LWW
07-05-2012, 09:08 AM
Oddly enough I am being shadow posted by a member ... but I still haven't seen a single example?

LWW
07-08-2012, 04:06 AM
So you can't name anyone either?

Soflasnapper
07-08-2012, 12:53 PM
Drew Pearson was one such victim, merely for criticizing McCarthy (although quite strenuously).

McCarthy mounted a strong counter-attack, mused when drunk that maybe he should just have him killed, but then 'only' ruined his career and his income sources.

If you are claiming that nobody actually lost their job and then got it back, then you have done no research.

This is the alibi from which the claim of Wm F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell's book, McCarthy and his Enemies, that nobody was victimized, is first found. Surely you must be familiar with their claims, as they are the ones who invented this idea that NOBODY was harmed, and he had not innocent victims.

THEY THEMSELVES give these large numbers, in the hundreds, but claim no harm, no foul, no victimization, since eventually, they got back their jobs.

Since these are his original apologists, who apparently invented this meme you recite, perhaps you would accept THEIR admissions that yes, indeed, hundreds lost jobs that were eventually regained. If you had only known of it, of course.

hondo
07-08-2012, 01:12 PM
Those on the dole find the concept of losing a JOB difficult to comprehend. Right, Larry?

Soflasnapper
07-08-2012, 01:15 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Drew Pearson definitely was smeared by McCarthy on both counts ; and the only defense McCarthy could possibly make (which we do not propose to encourage) would run in such terms as, "Those who live by the smear shall perish by the smear ."</span> " (Pear- son's case is treated in another section of this chapter, where it is particularly relevant .) This, then, is McCarthy's record." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>As regards one of the two fundamental questions we have been asking (are McCarthy's spe- cific charges warranted in the light of his evidence?), it is clear that he has been guilty of a number of exaggerations, some of them reckless; and perhaps some of them have unjustly damaged the persons concerned beyond the mere questioning of their loy- alty. For these transgressions we have neither the desire to defend him nor the means to do so . Measured against the moral command that proscribes every witting divergence from the truth, they are reprehensible .</span> It remains only to be said that McCarthy's record is nevertheless not only much better than his critics allege but, given his metier, extremely good . As regards the other standard for determining whether smearing has been a characteristic of McCarthy's method (Does the evi- dence McCarthy presents justify calling into question his targets' loyalty?), the case-by-case breakdown clearly renders a verdict extremely favorable to McCarthy. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>With the two exceptions of Drew Pearson and George Marshall, not a single person was ac-cused by McCarthy whose loyalty could not be questioned on the basis of a most responsible reading of official records. </span>And this is the only test that seems to be relevant for deciding whether Mc- Carthy "habitually smears people ." When a man's loyalty is ques-tioned, more often than not it makes little difference to him just how and in what terms it is questioned . * Five of McCarthy's cases are not discussed because the information on them is too scanty to make possible even a preliminary judgment as to whether they were smeared . We refer to Stephen Brunauer, Leon and Mary Keyserling, David Demarest Lloyd, and Philleo Nash .[/img]

From McCarthy and his Enemies (1954), (online version, here. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/82896755/McCarthy-and-His-Enemies-Wm-F-Buckley-Jr-L-Brent-Bozell-1954-421pgs-POL)

Apologies for the formatting issues, but that's how it came over.

Oh, and that he made charges that were false, and without evidence, as when he characterized Lattimore as the chief Soviet spy in our country.

I haven't found where they alibi that people who lost jobs and income were not harmed, because they were eventually reinstated with back pay, but check out the link for the entire text to see it.

But see the alibi above. Yes, they admit, he did do many of the things he's charged with. And it was indefensible, and reprehensible, THEY SAY (as his strong defenders).

Yet, on balance, it wasn't as bad as was said, they claim.

Talk about damning with faint praise!

Their method of excusing him is to say, sure, he lied his ass off about many of his targets, which was unjust, untrue, despicable and reprehensible, BUT!!! they actually were security risks (even if not card-carrying members of the CP, as he originally smeared them to be).

Soflasnapper
07-08-2012, 07:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To say no innocent was harmed, you have to say people who were fired and lost their wages were not really harmed, because after they were found innocent, they were rehired and got their back pay.

That happened a lot. Were those people really not harmed?</div></div>

That's what I keep hearing ... yet nobody can name them.

Why do you suppose that is? </div></div>

If you know the answer, I will credit you with a diabolical deception. If not, you know little of the details of what happened.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BACKGROUND AND DISPOSITION OF CASES GIVEN BY MCCARTHY
TO THE TYDINGS COMMITTEE

The lists of names given by Senator McCarthy to the Tydings Com-
mittee break down into three classifications: (z) Public Cases,(2)Numbered cases, (3) Non-Public and Non-Numbered cases. McCarthy's public cases are treated in detail in the text</div></div>

The inability to 'name names' comes from the fact that many of those he accused and passed over on his list were 'numbered cases' to which no names were associated in public release.

Which is the answer you seek, perhaps knowing it already, or perhaps not.

LWW
07-09-2012, 03:28 AM
How incredibly lame that was ... even below the typical leftist smarmy attacks against McCarthy.

Let me educate you with the truth:

1 - Pearson was never called before McCarthy's committee.

2 - It was Pearson which attacked McCarthy.

3 - The feud began due to McCarthy claiming that Pearson's employee David Karr ... exposed by HUAC in 1943 ... was Pearson's KGB contact.

4 - The Venona cables verified this to be true.

So ... If this is the best you can do, you have less than nothing as all you have supplied us with is the name of yet another person whom senator McCarthy was correct about.

WHAT IN THE NAME OF HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pearson_(journalist)#Conflict_with_Senator_Mc Carthy)

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karr)

LWW
07-09-2012, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those on the dole find the concept of losing a JOB difficult to comprehend. Right, Larry? </div></div>

Actually that's true, and with you being on the dole it doesn't surprise me that you know this.

LWW
07-09-2012, 05:07 AM
I wanted to bump this back to the top o that the haterade drinkers had every opportunity to name an innocent victim of senator McCarthy.

Tell us also again about how yo watched McCarthy heading the HUAC in 1947 before he was even in the senate ... and even though e was never in the house ... and even though WV had no TV stations then ... and even though you weren't et born.

It's almost as good as you seeing Obama as Jesus in the shroud of Turin ... or when the hoy spirit of Obama possessed you in the vting booth ... or your clse enounter of the first kind with aliens out behind the still.

hondo
07-09-2012, 06:49 AM
All those years you were on forums blowing hard I was working. Next?

hondo
07-09-2012, 07:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wanted to bump this back to the top o that the haterade drinkers had every opportunity to name an innocent victim of senator McCarthy.

Tell us also again about how yo watched McCarthy heading the HUAC in 1947 before he was even in the senate ... and even though e was never in the house ... and even though WV had no TV stations then ... and even though you weren't et born.

It's almost as good as you seeing Obama as Jesus in the shroud of Turin ... or when the hoy spirit of Obama possessed you in the vting booth ... or your clse enounter of the first kind with aliens out behind the still. </div></div>

Never said that. Have explained dozens of times what I watched and when. I used to take the trouble to explain your accusations to the few who took you seriously. You simply wait a while and come back with the same old tired lies.
As for your other comments you have your head so far up limberger's ass that you can't recognize jokes when you see them.
Everybody else laughed. You take those posts literally.
You're at the bottom of the totem pole on here anymore.
You're gone and you don't quite recognize it.

You're making a total fool of yourself and it is really time for you to move on. You add nothing to this forum with your anal retentive one liners.
It must be tough, larry wilson. Imagining you're the top dog when the rest of us consider you a bottom feeder. Even your so-called friends ignore you anymore. Move on, old buddy. There's nothing for you here anymore.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2012, 06:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How incredibly lame that was ... even below the typical leftist smarmy attacks against McCarthy.

Let me educate you with the truth:

1 - Pearson was never called before McCarthy's committee.

2 - It was Pearson which attacked McCarthy.

3 - The feud began due to McCarthy claiming that Pearson's employee David Karr ... exposed by HUAC in 1943 ... was Pearson's KGB contact.

4 - The Venona cables verified this to be true.

So ... If this is the best you can do, you have less than nothing as all you have supplied us with is the name of yet another person whom senator McCarthy was correct about.

WHAT IN THE NAME OF HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pearson_(journalist)#Conflict_with_Senator_Mc Carthy)

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Karr)
</div></div>

Stop clowning. McCarthy used 7 Senate speeches to smear Pearson, using his typical MO to smear him and call for a patriotic boycott of him, caused him to lose his radio show sponsor and a number of papers carrying his column, and caused him substantial financial losses as a result.

Even McCarthy's great defenders Buckley and Bozell admit it, and decry it. I notice your howling omits any mention of those quotes-- a most honest treatment and answer, not.

You appear to think Pearson was under his aide as his aide's employee, instead of the boss of his aide. Karr was Pearson's KGB contact? No, the claim was he was Pearson's KGB CONTROLLER, for which there is no evidence, isn't that right?

B&B say McCarthy's smearing of Pearson has no justification, is indefensible, and etc. You? Applause all the way, apparently.

Was McCarty right about PEARSON? Not on any record I saw, not as B&B saw it, and not by anything developed by the HUAC, or contained in the Venona cables.

As for other names, I suggest you look into, and then respond, about the NUMBERED persons who were never named. Of course if their names were kept off the record, NO ONE can name them who wasn't privy to those personnel files. Yet we know many were investigated and then re-hired as innocent of the charges.

B&B list them in the appendix from which I quoted, which is toward the end of their book (which see).

Other facts include that about a dozen of the ones McCarthy charged were never employed by the State Dept., and he had to slide over to claims of other subversive organization memberships after it was shown that many had never been and were not then members of the CPUSA or any CP.

LWW
07-10-2012, 04:08 AM
It's irrelevant ... through the Venon cables the KGB verified that Pearson was exactly what he was accused of being.

Y'all have ran out a long list of the guilty exposed by senator McCarthy.

I'm waiting for the often claimed innocent victim to be named.

LWW
07-11-2012, 04:54 AM
Anyone?

hondo
07-11-2012, 06:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone? </div></div>

LMAO! You're starting to remind me of HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey.

" I DON'T WANT TO DIE! ....... i don't want to die."....

eg8r
07-11-2012, 07:43 AM
Reminded me of the teacher in Ferris Beulers Day Off, "Bueler, Bueler, " /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-11-2012, 09:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone? </div></div>

LMAO! You're starting to remind me of HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey.

" I DON'T WANT TO DIE! ....... i don't want to die.".... </div></div>

Daisey, Daisey, give me your answer, do...

hondo
07-11-2012, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone? </div></div>

LMAO! You're starting to remind me of HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey.

" I DON'T WANT TO DIE! ....... i don't want to die.".... </div></div>

Daisey, Daisey, give me your answer, do... </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
07-11-2012, 03:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone? </div></div>

LMAO! You're starting to remind me of HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey.

" I DON'T WANT TO DIE! ....... i don't want to die.".... </div></div>

HAL never said that ... But, I have an unfair advantage in that I lso read that book.

LWW
07-11-2012, 03:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone? </div></div>

LMAO! You're starting to remind me of HAL in 2001: Space Odyssey.

" I DON'T WANT TO DIE! ....... i don't want to die.".... </div></div>

Daisey, Daisey, give me your answer, do... </div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

In spite of the lame efforts to hide the cabal's deceit ... we still don't have a single innocent victim.

Who wants to bring up HUAC again?

Soflasnapper
07-11-2012, 04:56 PM
B&B state, in their seminal defense of McCarthy in '54, that both Pearson and George C. Marshall were unfairly smeared by him.

You deny they are right about Pearson, by pointing to his employee. But McCarthy attacked Pearson, not just obliquely through his employee, but directly as to himself.

You left their similar claim about Marshall uncommented upon.

You fail to recognize or respond to the many 'numbered' cases (not provided names) who were accused by him, provided on his list, who were let go, lost their jobs, investigated, and then re-hired as passing the investigation.

So go on with your dishonest bad self. This is a pitiful and low way to insist you are right in this matter.

LWW
07-11-2012, 05:35 PM
Wrong, as usual.

McCarthy's comments were provencorrect by no less than the KGB itself.

Pearson was, in fact, exactly what he was accused of being.

Soflasnapper
07-12-2012, 10:17 AM
The employer of that guy?

Sure, but we all knew that before McCarthy said a thing.

LWW
07-13-2012, 05:16 PM
What part of the KGB confirming that he was Pearson's KGB contact ... whch is exactly what McCarthy said he was ... leads you to believe he was n inncent victim?

What's that?

Because you ould rather believe the moonbat cay left's lies without question thn even consider the truth?

But ... I already knew that.