|
|
Post by ratty on Dec 19, 2022 0:23:37 GMT
Another one plucked from the seniors' forum:
|
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Dec 19, 2022 12:16:55 GMT
While I doubt McCarthy's motivations, let us not forget he was RIGHT - communist sympathizers HAD infiltrated the entertainment industry, government, and academia (among others). Where do you think the current crop came from?
(Edit: typo)
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Dec 19, 2022 23:23:28 GMT
While I doubt McCarthy's motivations, let us not forget her was RIGHT - communist sympathizers HAD infiltrated the entertainment industry, government, and academia (among others). Where do you think the current crop came from?A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 20, 2022 2:03:58 GMT
While I doubt McCarthy's motivations, let us not forget her was RIGHT - communist sympathizers HAD infiltrated the entertainment industry, government, and academia (among others). Where do you think the current crop came from?A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? Joe is just in it for his (and Hunter's) 10%. And he hopes the textbooks say something nice about him/ |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Dec 20, 2022 6:54:12 GMT
A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? And he hopes the textbooks say something nice about him/ Not THAT Joe, Missouri! |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Dec 20, 2022 12:20:55 GMT
While I doubt McCarthy's motivations, let us not forget her was RIGHT - communist sympathizers HAD infiltrated the entertainment industry, government, and academia (among others). Where do you think the current crop came from?A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? I don't claim to be an expert on McCarthy, and the balance of evidence is that at least some of the people he accused had no socialist or communist ties. However looking back it is quite easy to see that there were plenty of communist sympathizers (and some out and out communists) in the pack. As I noted, today's massively left-wing media and academia (etc.) didn't come out of nowhere. I trace it back to the 1930's, but that's certainly subject to debate.
You're not likely to find an unbiased account; he went after the Democratic Party early (I seem to recall a line about "twenty years of treason"), and while that at the time was the party of Truman, it had been the party of FDR (who cheerfully employed tactics we'd recognize today). So he's basically been vilified by professionals for over half a century at this point (as a minor note, take a look at the MASH episode that touches on the topic - not exactly an unbiased treatment). The one thing we can be certain of is that he didn't succeed in any meaningful fashion - communism kept right on growing both in the US and the world overall while he held his hearings.
Was Joe M grandstanding for political gain and just happened to be right overall, if not in all details? Or was he a true believer who made some mistakes? Again, I don't know. I know I'd cheerfully trade a quarter of the current US Senate for 25 clones of him. He could at least speak coherently and wasn't afraid to take a stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Dec 20, 2022 13:21:58 GMT
A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? I don't claim to be an expert on McCarthy, and the balance of evidence is that at least some of the people he accused had no socialist or communist ties. However looking back it is quite easy to see that there were plenty of communist sympathizers (and some out and out communists) in the pack. As I noted, today's massively left-wing media and academia (etc.) didn't come out of nowhere. I trace it back to the 1930's, but that's certainly subject to debate.
You're not likely to find an unbiased account; he went after the Democratic Party early (I seem to recall a line about "twenty years of treason"), and while that at the time was the party of Truman, it had been the party of FDR (who cheerfully employed tactics we'd recognize today). So he's basically been vilified by professionals for over half a century at this point (as a minor note, take a look at the MASH episode that touches on the topic - not exactly an unbiased treatment). The one thing we can be certain of is that he didn't succeed in any meaningful fashion - communism kept right on growing both in the US and the world overall while he held his hearings.
Was Joe M grandstanding for political gain and just happened to be right overall, if not in all details? Or was he a true believer who made some mistakes? Again, I don't know. I know I'd cheerfully trade a quarter of the current US Senate for 25 clones of him. He could at least speak coherently and wasn't afraid to take a stand.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly Gridley. It's hard to know the truth since history is written by the victors. Marxism is on a long relentless march, the hive mind borg knows no defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 20, 2022 21:26:51 GMT
A very good point. It's probably much worse now. Could Joe have been a little over zealous? What's your U.S. perspective, Gridley? I don't claim to be an expert on McCarthy, and the balance of evidence is that at least some of the people he accused had no socialist or communist ties. However looking back it is quite easy to see that there were plenty of communist sympathizers (and some out and out communists) in the pack. As I noted, today's massively left-wing media and academia (etc.) didn't come out of nowhere. I trace it back to the 1930's, but that's certainly subject to debate.
You're not likely to find an unbiased account; he went after the Democratic Party early (I seem to recall a line about "twenty years of treason"), and while that at the time was the party of Truman, it had been the party of FDR (who cheerfully employed tactics we'd recognize today). So he's basically been vilified by professionals for over half a century at this point (as a minor note, take a look at the MASH episode that touches on the topic - not exactly an unbiased treatment). The one thing we can be certain of is that he didn't succeed in any meaningful fashion - communism kept right on growing both in the US and the world overall while he held his hearings.
Was Joe M grandstanding for political gain and just happened to be right overall, if not in all details? Or was he a true believer who made some mistakes? Again, I don't know. I know I'd cheerfully trade a quarter of the current US Senate for 25 clones of him. He could at least speak coherently and wasn't afraid to take a stand.
I agree. Him and Elon?
Musk Asks Schiff If He Approved 'State Censorship'; Advocates Modern 'Church Commission' To Investigate FBI Corruption
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Dec 28, 2022 14:07:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 3, 2023 6:14:34 GMT
GAB sent this e-mail to me today. I like their style. 
Gab is going to begin publishing the purely censorship-based inbound requests that we receive from governments. These are the cases where for the most part European bodies like the Met and Europol send us transparently political takedown requests with no law enforcement purpose. Essentially they’re trying to silence a person that they’ve already thrown in prison or are about to. If they don’t want us to talk about these frivolous requests, they can stop sending them to us.
Welcome to the Gab Files.
Today we received one such request from the UK government.
They cited Public Order Act 1986 which says the following:
(1)A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if—(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby
They didn’t tell us who the person is who allegedly broke this dystopian nonsense law, they didn’t tell us whether the content which they convicted him of was found on our site, and they didn’t specify which posts, if any, actually violated UK law.
They simply told us that they imprisoned someone for expressing wrongthink online, that person had a Gab account and the UK government expected us to unperson this person from the Internet at their behest when no violation of our TOS was found.
Gab is an American company which operates its business in accordance with U.S. law. Gab has no business or operations in the United Kingdom of any kind, nor does it inquire as to, or log, the residence or criminal records of its users or readers.
Gab’s policy is to not remove material unless it violates Gab’s terms of service which was drafted in accordance with US law, in particular the First Amendment.
“Hate speech” or “offensive speech” as such is not illegal here and in fact benefits from unambiguous constitutional protection backed by a half-century of precedent.
Our response to the UK is the same as it is to Germany, France, China, and every other country who tries to remove lawful content from the American Internet: get bent.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jan 8, 2023 23:33:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 9, 2023 0:38:48 GMT
We don't need re-education. We don't need no thought control. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 9, 2023 4:15:02 GMT
So incredible prescient piece of music.
Wen to a London concert.
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Feb 20, 2023 13:09:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by code on Mar 2, 2023 22:57:36 GMT
|
|
