Jo-
Considering that there are far more poor in this country than you folks who have worked hard to achieve 60k+ per year, I have a better proposal.  We should let everyone who makes under 60K annually have an entire week off from all work.  Not paid, not 3 months, but a single week.  Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, would come to a screeching halt on the first day.  You wouldn’t be able to go to Wal-mart (or wherever) and purchase anything.  Your electric, phone, etc. would be down in a day. 

My point is that while you “rich” all seem to think that investments are the most important thing to our economy, and that taxes kill these investments, it is the human factor that really keeps things going. 

Besides, with such huge tax cuts from Washington in the wings, won’t it be we poor people who do end up paying most of the cost of things such as the war in Iraq?  I’m not an economist by any means, but deficit spending ends up being payed for in the end by somebody, even if it is future generations (of poor working people.)

I also wonder how it is that you can criticise poor working people at all.  Have you ever experienced poverty (I know you mentioned being black in a previous post, but I am NOT assuming anything about you from that information.)

It is not easy to escape poverty by any means.  Working harder is not always an option when you can only find low paying jobs to begin with.  While some wealthy or better off people indeed have risen to their status through sheer will and determination, I know personally that it is not always possible, and in fact is very unlikely for most.  The old addage of it not being what you know but who you know surely has some role to play in this. 

In general our society is stacked against the poor, almost designed to keep them where they are.  It is for this reason that I don’t believe that socialized health care would be a bad thing (though I believe that welfare needs serious reform beyond what it has already recieved.  BTW, I am currently working a part time job and going to college to get my degree, all prompted by me being laid off from an “okay” paying job.  I have never been on welfare, medicaid or any other government program except for financial aid to help pay for my tuition.)

Anyway, As to whether or not someone who makes $60K a year is rich, you can look at the poverty line, and see the difference between the two.  While the government publishes a standard for the poverty level, wealth is subjective.  If you have ever made less than $15k a year (in the past 10 years or so), you might understand why someone who does make so little might see someone like you as wealthy.  You are entitled to your money, no doubt, but the rich are not superior to the poor.  Likewise, if the “rich” tend to use more resources through investments in industry, enjoying luxuries, or whatever, why should they not be expected to pick up more of the tab?  Perhaps I am naive here, but I really do not see a good retort to that question.

A final thought.  If you think that the rich are somehow superior to the poor, you might want to consider history, and the various peasant revolutions that have occured throughout the ages. The only thing that seperates rich from the poor is the amount of paper strips that were issued from the federal government each of them possess (or can possess by liquidating assets, etc.) That is it.  We are all human, and perpetuating a lie that basically boils down to the Divine right of Kings is not the wisest thing to do, and I believe it to be quite disgusting.  If that is class warfare, so be it.

Now go ahead and tear me a new one Jo, I look forward to you disecting my arguements and telling me how I am so wrong and all.  However I would like to see an intelligent debate far more.

Jo, if you couldn’t stand to read Ann Coulter’s book, how can you say “But on most accounts she is right"(?) In my opinion the only purpose Ann serves is to foment distrust and discourage accountability and cooperation. New information made available concerning Senator McCarthy’s credibility and intent can help in a way that only expanded information does; that’s all well and good. But Coulter has precious little business relating that information. Her impartiality and integrity is suspect by many from the get go.

,,,why should they not be expected to pick up more of the tab? Perhaps I am naive here, but I really do not see a good retort to that question.

Retort: Why should I have to work 70 hours a week to have 45% of my money go to someone else?  It’s my fucking money thats why.  I worked hard to get where I’m at.  And just because I make good money doesn’t mean I don’t work. That’s another problem with you people.  It’s only the ‘poor’ who work hard.  My ass.  Beep Beep Beep - Fries are done.  8 hours, your home.

And I’m not criticizing ‘poor working people’.  My family was poor growing up.  Very poor.  So don’t preach to me about the poor as if they’re some glorified group of people.  There are good, bad and worse poor people.  A lot are just plain lazy.  A lot want to live on the ‘draw’ as they call it.  A lot don’t want to work at all.  A lot don’t want to work hard.  It’s all thier choice.

Superior? Man, it’s your choice where you want to be.  Don’t give me that “I can’t do it cause of the white man, or I don’t know anybody, or no one will give me a break.” I don’t buy it.  I served with guys in the military who said they were in only because of the GI Bill.  Said it was the only way they could afford college.  I would tell them, you must not want college very much.

I worked 40+ hours a week to pay my way thru college.  3.65 GPA, doing well.  My choice.

Give the poor and entire week off?  You missed the point.  IF US RICH PEOPLE take off for 3 months, this government goes broke.  WHY? Cause we fund the government, the social programs, hospitals etc.  So if you want to give the poor a day off, go ahead.  The democrats and liberals don’t care, cause in the grand scheme of things, they don’t pay much in taxes. 

And ‘we poor people’ paying for the war in Iraq? If you pay less than 10% of the taxes, how do you figure that.  I’d love to see your logic on that one.

Peasant revolutions?  You do know that ‘we’ now pay more in taxes to the US Govt, per capita tax payer, than what the British wanted prior to the revolutionary war. 
With the mindset of our current ‘peasants’, we would end up with a socialist government.  Yes, a lovely marxist society.  With the best medical care, living conditions, roads, infrastructure and quality of life in the world.  Oh wait,,,didn’t the Soviet Union try that?  And Cuba,,what a paradise that is?  And who wouldn’t want to live in China?  I think the ‘poor working’ people would balk on that one big time.

How about we have a society where anyone can become anything they want, but they have to be willing to work for it.

Jo-
I agree with you that there are tons of poor people that are simply too lazy or unwilling to work.  Some of my rant was based on emotions and not facts.  However, I still believe that connections and influence play a bigger role for the majority of the rich than they have for you. 

I apologize to you that my statements sounded like an attack, I did not mean them that way, and as I stated above, I was letting my emotions get the better of me on some points. 

Even so, I did not say that you are not entitled to your money.  I in fact said that you are entitled to your money. 

As to the idea of the rich picking up the larger amount of the tax burden, my arguement is that the rich use more resources simply because they own more assets, possess more, etc.  A buisiness owner that ships products across the country uses the roads (provided with tax dollars) far more than you or I do.  Why should this person not pay a larger amount to maintain those roads?  This is just a simplified example of course, and it could easily be argued that since there are more poor people in the nation, they should pay more, because as a group they use more.  That is not my arguement, but I guess you could say it. 

The poor getting the week off thing maybe was too reactionary.  However, I have no sympathy for someone who works 70 hours a week and then complains about it.  You say that it was your choice, so deal with it.  As for the taxes, who the hell is going to pay for all these wonderful roads, schools, foreign invasions, etc. etc. etc.  You note that the poor pay less than 10% of the taxes.  Well you figure it out.  How could someone who barely makes enough to survive as it is continue to work and pay more in taxes?  Wouldn’t that put them in a worse situation than before? 

Oh, I know, work harder, make more money.  Well by doing that, they wouldn’t be poor anymore though, so they would qualify to pay less in taxes right (in the ideal system)?  How about a flat tax?  Would that work for you?  Everybody pay 15%.  Obviously the rich still pay more per person, but it would be the same percentage across the board.  I’d be willing to go with that no matter where I ended up (through my own hard work).  I wouldn’t like the sting of losing the money no doubt, but not paying for things like roads and such…

I agree with you on the society where anyone can become anything they want.  I even agree with the working for it part.  However, I do not believe that we have reached that point.  A Meritocracy would be grand, and force everyone to pull there own weight.  Even so, there would still be some that would be unable (disabled, mentally handicapped, etc.) How would these folks fit into the situation?  And where would government play a role (or would this be a lazes faire sort of thing?  Those always seem to work out, just like communism, right?)

Peasant Revolutions though.  I don’t think that the current peasants would necesarily turn us into a marxist society.  Not every poor person is just looking for a handout.  There are a lot of idiots and lazy ass people out there, true, but there are also a lot of people working full time to bring home a meager paycheck as well. Maybe I’m just looking at things too simplistically here, and perhaps the arguement/warning of peasant revolutions is not appropriate since you probably have as much political power as I do.  Then again, I see our society as class based as any in the past have been, so maybe there is some validity to my thought as well.

But, I’m not so sure that the American Revolution was what I was referring to when I said Peasant Revolutions.  After all, it was lead by some rather affluent men that wanted to be free of taxation to the British Empire.  Peasants were merely pawns in the matter, and I’d be willing to bet that most ‘peasants’ of the time felt little change from British to American rule.  Perhaps they felt a little less secure, but not much else.  Joe Minuteman saw little change between British tyranny and American rule in his day to day life most likely.  The ones that saw the real differences were the ruling class.

Okay, I apologize for having upset you Jo (And for not having answered your responses in the order that you gave them).  I am not a lazy person myself, I have just been through a bad year and a half on the job market.  I admit I let emotion play a big role in that above statement (as I said, sorry to keep beating a dead horse here.)

One last thing though, you tell me not to give you the “I can’t do it cause of the white man, or I don’t know anybody, or no one will give me a break.” I am not saying that personally.  I am working through school, though not a full time job (mostly because I haven’t been able to secure one).  I personally would not say I can’t because of the white man because I am one and see the division of people according to financial strata as far more devisive than race ever could be. 

In stating the “not what you know” phrase, I was not excusing someone that refuses to work, I was stating the fact that influence has more of a role to play in the sucess of some than you seem willing to admit.  Maybe you have never had anyone open a door for you before (figuratively speaking), good for you.  I applaud your determination and fortitude, your sheer will to succeed.  But there are those at your level of success that have had nothing but doors opened for them.  They have never had to struggle to get where they are.  I point to the man in the Oval Office as a prime canidate.

Well, perhaps if you are willing, this arguement (admittedly created whole cloth by me, after all the subject of this forum is the Anne Coulter support of McCarthy) could be continued via email, since as I just stated, it is getting a little off track.  If not I will understand.

Now I have to stop typing while I can, since I tend to ramble on here, and this is really not the place for it.

Terry,
No problems.  I get emotional about somethings too.  Sometimes I sound like an arrogant, ‘I’m better than you’ ass. (wife tells me that all the time).  And in no way do I mean to slight the poorer people of this country.  I’ve been there.

Flat tax: I squarely believe in the flat tax.  It’s equal and fair to ALL Americans.  However, I do believe their should be a threshold.  “If you don’t make $XXX you don’t pay taxes.” $20k a year for example. 

Use Tax: We already have that.  There are road surcharges, fees, license fees and taxes lumped on to businesses already.  And you know who pays those taxes?  We do, with the increased price of goods.

Gotta run now.  Will finish later.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other.”

“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without
private virtue, and public virtue is the only foundation
of republics.”

......John Adams

“John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."- Senator Joseph Lieberman, speaking at Fellowship Chapel in Detroit on Aug. 27, 2000 while running for Vice President. Quoted from AA News #808.

John Adams’ real words, not the ones Senator Lieberman puts in his mouth: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature ... [In] the formation of the American governments ... it will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of heaven ... These governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."- John Adams, second President of the United States, quoted from A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1788.

More of John Adams’ real sentiments on religion: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Thanks Brandi...isn’t it amazing what a person can find when they do some fact checking? Go figure.

Just a couple of things, then I will happily piss-off back to whatever router I crawled out from:

1. Speculative Freemasonry built this country, google about a bit on the phrase ‘Nature’s God’.
2. Joe McCarthy was a dog. J. Edgar Hoover’s dog.
3. Communist infiltration for purposes of exporting Communism was first published as a definite agenda of the Comitern by Lenin, and was only dropped by Stalin at the behest of ‘allies’ during WWII.
4. Communist, Democrat, Liberal ... whatever. We all have to live here and breathe the same air, these damn labels do not mean a thing ... they are only reasons for persecuting more people who probably do not have anything to do with the actual problems.
5. There should only be two divisons in mankind: US and THE BANKERS. The bankers are behind it all, everything bad is the fault of people who play fast and loose with economic principles. I know because I played Illuminati until all I could handle doing anymore was sitting in front of blogs and posting meaningless carp on top of meaningless carp.
My cat’s breath smells like cat food ...

More of John Adams’ real sentiments on religion: “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

And this has what to do with religion?

The cross represents Christianity.

I don’t know what most of these posts have to do with Ann Coulter. There are plenty of personal attacks on her but nobody is discussing the facts contained in “treason”. With new information becoming public, old myths are being disproven. Her book discusses this, as do many others out there. The liberal reaction to this book is along the lines of someone trying to convince everyone the world is flat.

Well RJ,

If you believe the “facts” in Treason then it would be pointless to try to refute them, you can’t be reasoned with. If you think that the big bad liberals (of which I proudly and loudly proclaim myself as one) are traitors who hate America how can anyone get through to you? Obviously we vile traitors would only lie to defend our position so why would you listen to us?

Well I have to go skewer and roast a baby to eat and pray to my dark lord satan. He thinks Bill O’Reilly is a hoot.

I haven’t read Ann’s book “Treason”, and I’ve done no research on McCarthy.  I do know that part of the Soviet Communist agenda was to enforce the communist system on unwilling and unknowing people thru subversion and secrecy.  However, AC’s tirades against liberals strike me as being ironic.  She thinks that by calling for Americans to be attacked and killed, she becomes a great patriot?  I guess the Unabomber was one hell of an American.  He didn’t write witty articles and books to encite others to violence, but he had the balls to just start killing people himself.  If Ann Coulter really believes in her views so strongly, why doesn’t she do just that?  Maybe she just isn’t as “patriotic” as Ted Kczynski.

Bless Ann Coulter, maybe she just needs to get out more. Does anyone know the economic effects of McCarthyism in the USA? Economics in Hollywood? nice one!

Well I think Joe McCarthy had good intentions at first but he began to be a real jerk about it. Then it all went to his head. I mean how could it not with the nod of your head you could be condemned. So he started to abuse his power. He might have been a hero in the beginning but definately not the ending product that was a power hungry man and I think that Mrs. Ann Coulter is a great hag for defending that side of him.

my dad is “hard” over kicking sadaams ass too!

but, i think it might be because he quit school in the 9th grade.

I notice the same patterning of “fools logic” (lyus pyritus, keekee!) in some of the above posts:

1. Either/Or Fallacy - if people really could understand how simpleton this type of logic is, they would feel extremely dumb. “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists”.

“you either support our imperialist agenda, or you are with the “Pierres"” (this means french, dad!).

the problem is that people really believe or can only conceive two different viewpoints. this creates a falsely dichotimous situation where we are forced to ascribe to one solution or the other, completely ignoring the better solution that has not been included into the rationale.

i suppose that most of the people in this country got smarts real good, but havent had the most basic level of logic in school.  i suppose that is why people are so willing to swallow shit, as long as it has a spoonfull of sugar with it. listen to how our leaders skirt logic when they speak, “the cia has learned from brittish intelligence that iraq has tried to purchase significant amounts of enriched uranium form africa”.

or ronald dumsfeld’s current foot in mouth winnner,
“We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

vrrrrrp!

listen to the state of the union address and find all of the ‘logical outs’ there are in it. “Could produce” “May have”. the list goes on and on. there is no other way to say it, they are creating deception…

the bottom line is that we are fools to let them skirt language and serve something as a threat even though it “may” not have been. now the sheople, like my dad are saying that sadaam lied to us about having weapons. its like 6 year old trying to lie to his mother about something he did, when the first excuse breaks down, on to plan b, c, d, e or f.

people are too afraid or they have too much invested to just say, “hey, i fucked up!”, i got kind of caught up in the buildup of unabashed jingoism to think about it. “i was for a short time a nazi, and for this i appologize. i am better now”.

instead we are left with sadaam was a bad guy… i guess you cant really argue with that.

perhaps we shouldnt have got all chummy with him in the 80’s.

hindsight is a bitch!

2. Appeal to Fear/Emotion. “Are you going to let a bully punch u in the ass and steal your lunch money”. my dad likes to say, “are you gonna let sadaam kick you when your down?” (i should add that he is one of the 50% of the sheople who believes iraq is responsible for 9-11).

i am for gun rights, but i have noticed a lot of gun nuts using the same rationale, “are you going to let the boogieman into your house and watch him butcher and rape yer wife and kids?”. in stats we call this a low-base rate phenomenon, meaning that you have lotto type odds of this happening, and that preparing for such phenomena is futile…

i think that as citizens of this country, there is really no place in the world where the people’s fears are used and amplified in order to make us complicit and to make us consume… “tweaking the fear knob” as it were.

3. improper comparison, “all rag-heads want death to the infidels”.

fundamentalism exists in all walks, if you think that all muslims want death to the infidels, then perhaps you should do a little research on islam. look throughout history, islam has been around for what 1300 years or so (thats an estimate).

which religion in that time has commmited the greatest attrocities in the name of their particular idol?

has much really changed as far as islam goes? or has the geo-political climate changed?

4. ad homenem abusive. “Liberal” this and “Liberal” that. i saw a simpsons recently where they were parodying fox news with a newscrawl that said, “Democrats known to cause cancer”.

if that doesnt nail it i dont know what does. It is funny to be what would be considered removed from the current partison crapfeast (that is leading to the next election). you watch these idiots try to blame everything on each other, and then you watch their corresponding sheepsiz parrot the same line.  when in actuallity they are all responsible for the space in which we currently find our country.

The democrats stood up and applauded the president’s state of the union address. they gave him a pass without even the mildest of debates. they gave him the war powers act (which basically amounts to a dictaroship). they were complicit in every way. btw, they got us fired up for vietnam too!

as long as we let the inmates run the assylum, we will have to deal with getting feces thrown in our faces everytime we turnaround in the rec yard.

5. An eye for an eye… profoundly religious people have actually used this quite a bit to justify their aggression.

the funny thing is that it really doesnt say anything like this in the bible as it pertains to interpersonal relationships or governments or anything like that.

in fact jesus was a liberal of grand proportions (kindness and acceptance being the mantra). this fact only seems to anger my dad, who likes to pick and choose his allegiances to christianity (he also seems to think that as long as he does the symbolic stuff like pray and label himself a christian hes going to “heaven"). i would think that if that entire chiritanity thing is correct, then it would be a person’s jesus like attributes that would get them into the “pearly gates” and not some symbolic crap, unless this god they speak of is just a total dumbshit like the rest of us (hehe).

the logical equation this philosophy creates has been proven to not have a solution over time (division by zero), considering there have been hatfields and mccoys throughout history who only fight because they have a legacy of fighting, and any semblance of who killed first has been long digested, crapped out, broken down by microorganisms who were eaten by more complex organisms who were in turn eaten by pregnant hatfields, only to fortify a new meat shield for the “Cause”.

what was i talking about again?

oh yeah, this ann coulter woman who is an obvious marty kroft creation gone terribly awry…

she would justify anything for the neo-cons. if the neo-cons decided they were going to take all of the poor and kill their first born, she would be on fox news trying to justify it.....

hoo-ray for our side (of sides)!!!!!!!!!!?!!

by the way i dont mean to hurt anyones feelings. i simply call it like i see it…

i have great respect for anyone with the cohonees to post their beliefs, this is what makes our country great.

Truthfully Yours.
The Hallucinating One

“If you believe the facts, you can’t refute them”

Well, I guess all of civilization back to the Greeks has been wrong.  It really is not possible to have a debate.

Just tell me which of these are wrong:
Alger Hiss was a communist spy.
The Rosenbergs were communists spys.
Krushchev thanked the Rosenbergs for their help in creating the soviet bomb.
The 57 communists named in the wheeling speech were indeed communists.
The famous Welch rebuff about McCarthy’s decency came after much sarcastic harranging by Welch and McCarthy’s lack of decency was for “outing” a “lad” that had already been “outed” (and I really want to know about this . . .I looked for transcripts of that session, but I could not find them)
Communist sympathizers in the state department were involved in policies that gave up the eastern block to the Soviets and lost China.

You can agree or disagree.  You can tell me that communism is OK, (though you have to explain the 20 million people murdered by Stalin).
But don’t tell me you can’t find fault with some of these major points while maintaining your attacks on Ms. Coulter.

[snip]
“Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.”
“[T]he left is itching to silence conservatives once and for all.”
“[I]f Americans knew what they [liberals] really believed, the public would boil them in oil.”
“"Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything.”

“[A]lmost all serious debate takes place exclusively among conservatives.”
“[C]onservatives in America are the most tolerant (and long-suffering) people in America.”
“[W]hen right-wingers rant, there’s at least a point: There are substantive arguments contained in conservative name-calling.”
[snip]

Coulter quotes snipped from Spinsanity.  Oh yeah, she’s rational and unbiased, alright. . .  if you’re a loon!

Coulter thinking runs along the lines of:

Some Communists were spies.  Therefore all Communists should have been persecuted.  Hell, I’m glad they went after Socialists and organized labor too. and Atheists.  I think they should’ve bombed the Atheists and coverted them to Xianity.

Some Muslims commited a terrorist attack against America.  Therefore all Muslims should be persecuted.  Hell, let’s go after anyone who even *looks* like they might be Muslim.  Let’s start lynching liberals too, as they’re practically traitors. . .  And let’s bomb all Muslim countries and convert them to Xianity.

[snip: End Coulter thought-- and breathe huge sigh of relief]

It’s a dangerous lapse in logic to think (just because Coulter has some of her facts right) that the conclusions she draws are somehow rational.  McCarthy was an “OK guy.” Give me a break.  There have always been spies leaking info to rival nations-- some spies are motivated by money, some by ideology, but it’s the job of our CIA and FBI to root these people out and minimize the damage that they do.  McCarthy, on the other hand, (and he wasn’t solely responsible for this by any means.  HUAC was there for the kickoff, and ran for plenty of yardage on their own) helped to create an environment in which people lost their jobs, or had their writings suppressed, or had to self-censor, just so that dangerous IDEAS wouldn’t circulate.  That’s completely anti-American.  It’s the type of thinking that’s behind the Patriot Act-- ie:  it doesn’t matter how many innocents we harm, as long as we’re really *trying* to get “the bad guys.” The American Communist party had about 75 thousand members after WWII, but that number dwindled to less than ten thousand by 1957.(Navasky 1) There were plenty of other “left leaning” people, as well, who never belonged to the Communist party, but considered themselves Socialists, or just liberals.  (The right tends to dismiss the distinction, but that’s OK, as I’m convinced that the distinction between “Right” and “Nazi” is mere semantics-- see, I can be a complete loon too! Maybe there’s a book deal waiting for me!) That number of people didn’t fall away from the Communist party because they lost faith with Communist ideals, they fell away from the ACP because membership was dangerous to their personal welfare.  What we’re talking about is an entire political movement being crushed by the power of the existing govt.  The question isn’t whether or not the 57 people in the Wheeling report were Communists, but whether their Communism was a threat to the US.  As for America “losing” China and the Eastern bloc-- did we also “lose” all the socialistic countries in Europe?  There’s plenty of industrial countries that don’t have privatized health care-- clearly they are a threat to the American way of life.  The assumption that unrestricted capitalism and corporately ruled government are the proper destiny of every country on the planet is pure hubris. China and the Eastern bloc aren’t “ours” to have.  Nor are any of the little South American or Middle Eastern countries where we’ve been mucking about, all in an attempt to make the world safe for US style Capitalism.  Yes, Stalin slaughtered millions to impose his vision on Russia, but if you’re going to lay that at the doorstep of Communism, I’ve got a few “Capitalism” related genocides we can bring up.  Manifest Destiny is just a euphemism for “steal everything that ain’t nailed down.”

That being said:

I guarantee that there are, at this very moment, terrorists in this country actively plotting to blow some shit up (and probably some people too, unfortunately).  I think that anyone who doesn’t believe this is probably living in dreamland.  But anyone who then leaps from this conclusion to the assertion that all people who oppose the war in Iraq are “traitors,” or that we should immediately remove anyone who is Muslim from their govt. position, prevent anyone who is Muslim from publishing their poetry, and incarcerate and interrogate anyone who questions American support for Israel, is clearly a loon.  And this is precisely the sort of logic that Coulter is engaging in.  On the other hand, we probably *should* try to interrogate, at least briefly, family members of the guy who claimed responsibility for 9-11.  I mean, if we’re willing to seize Canadian citizens and ship them to Syria to be tortured, you’d think we’d have the hutzpah to at least question the Bin Laden family.  But maybe not.

And finally, (if you’ve made it this far, let me apologise profusely for putting you through this!)

Is McCarthy the anti-Christ that some liberals would hold him up to be?  No.  No more than Michael Moore is the savior that some liberals would hold him up to be.  But McCarthy WAS without question a dangerous demagogue (not unlike Coulter herself), and as such he is a likely pivot upon which to hang liberal anxieties about govt. repression.

My ultimate point, however, is that Coulter herself (despite the fact that her book contains *some* factual content) routinely distorts the truth.  And I’m not going to actually bother to cite those distortions here, unless you actually insist upon it.  It would be easy enough for you to see the kinds of misrepresentations that she engages in by merely visiting Spinsanity.  I think their approach is rather even handed.

1.  Navasky http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/navasky-social-costs.html

What I wrote : If you believe the “facts” in Treason then it would be pointless to try to refute them, you can’t be reasoned with.

How Mr. B Misquoted me : “If you believe the facts, you can’t refute them”

Now unless you are trying to be just plain dishonest B old buddy, maybe you might want to try a little procedure we call cut and paste next time. Now, because you obviously have a hard time understanding what I said, let me break it down for you…

If you believe the “facts” in Treason…

Some might note that there was irony intentioned in this statement, hence the sardonic use of quotation marks around the word “facts”. That would indicate to many people that I am indicating, without actually having to spell it out, that Ann’s “facts” have questionable merit. I think that the above post by nowiser will show you why her “facts” are suspect with the kind of vile partisan hyperbole she writes without hesitation. Does she get SOME facts correct? Sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Forgive me for thinking that if someone spits “Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.” out of her mouth then I might want to go outside and look up if she also tells me the sky is blue. Ann Coulters “debate” style is straight from the schoolyard where the bully intimidates everyone into agreeing with them, not because they are right but because they are scared (or stupid). I wont give her book the time it would take to slog though it just like I wont give her my milk money. I am too old to put up with the Limbaughs, O’Reillys, Coulters, Roves, and Hannity’s of this world, they are cheap little bullies that contribute nothing to debate and everything to divisiveness.

Now to the rest of the quote

...then it would be pointless to try to refute them, you can’t be reasoned with.

What I am saying here is that if you believe the spew that Ann Coulter puts out about how vile and evil and awful we liberals are, and to suffer through her invective you must, then you are a brainless follower of all things Republican and will refuse to look beyond your parties talking points. There can be no debate with a ditto-head. No rational discussion with a partisan fanatic. I would sooner debate my parents dog than one so entrenched in hate filled dogma.

Now I will admit that I have not read “Treason” because it is a hate filled screed and I would sooner read the “Turner Diaries”. If she had ANYTHING important to say then she did herself a great disservice by immediately insulting and therefore alienating anyone who doesn’t happen to agree with her narrow fascist world view.

If I want to read about the Red scare or Joseph McCarthy there are a few slightly less biased authors to pick from. If I want to empty my stomach of its contents I will read an Ann Coulter tract.

nowiser --

>>Coulter quotes snipped from Spinsanity.  Oh yeah, she’s rational and unbiased, alright. . .  if you’re a loon!
>>

I never said she was unbiased.  All of these quotes have her name-calling liberals.  I never said she was sweet.  If you want to argue that she is caustic, granted.  If you want to argue that her style hurts her credibility, also granted.

If you want a more civil presentation of almost the same points, try

http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/people/vo03no10_mccarthy.htm

I want to get beyond calling liberals names and calling coulter names and talk about the issues surrounding McCarthy.

>>
Some Communists were spies.  Therefore all Communists should have been persecuted. 
>>

No.  She said all Communists spies are communist spies.  She was talking about people identified to McCarthy as working in the state department who were advancing the interests of the Soviets.  We are not talking about philosophically pleasant, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” equality of bank account kind of communist.  We are talking about a country ruled by a ruthless, totalitarian despot who will only agree to the dictatorship of the proletariat if he is the proletariat.  The Soviets were out to destroy this country.  Apart from the philosophical pleasantries, they were the enemy.  The issue that I am dealing with is not what their political philosophy was.  The issue was whether they were helping our enemy.

>>
Some Muslims commited a terrorist attack against America.  Therefore all Muslims should be persecuted.  Hell, let’s go after anyone who even *looks* like they might be Muslim. 
>>

Again, no.  Some militant Muslim extremists committed terrorism against America.  And yes, militant Muslim extremists should be persecuted. Your comparison would have more weight, however, if Muslims who are not militant extremists would condemn, rather than defend those who are militant extremists.

>>
There have always been spies leaking info to rival nations— some spies are motivated by money, some by ideology,
>>

Granted, but don’t you believe those nations have a right, and, indeed, a moral responsibility to protect themselves and their people from those spies?

>>
but it’s the job of our CIA and FBI to root these people out and minimize the damage that they do. 
>>

The case being made by Coulter et. al. was that the FBI knew about these people.  That their names were given to Roosevelt and, later, to Truman, but that they just laughed it off. (Is this an assertion you deny?) And only then were these lists made available to Congress to try to get the situation remedied.

>>
McCarthy, on the other hand, (and he wasn’t solely responsible for this by any means.  HUAC was there for the kickoff, and ran for plenty of yardage on their own) helped to create an environment in which people lost their jobs, or had their writings suppressed, or had to self-censor, just so that dangerous IDEAS wouldn’t circulate.  That’s completely anti-American. 
>>

HUAC is not the issue.  The environment is not the issue.  Blacklisting is not the issue.  Here is why:  McCarthy holds up the list and says, I have xx many names here (I don’t quibble about the number though it is interesting in a multimedia site on McCarthy that said “205 names” both their quotes and their image of a telegraph had a smaller number and the text of the site ignored the inconsistency) of people working in the state department who are communists or security risks.  He says he doesn’t want to make the names public because if they are investigated by the congressional committee, it may be determined that they are not, in fact, security risks.  The Democrats want to compel McCarthy to release the names.  The committee meets in closed session where the names are revealed in secret to the committee.  The names are leaked to the newspapers.  You can argue that McCarthy leaked the names, though that doesn’t make sense.  Others argue that it was the liberals who leaked the names because they wanted McCarthy blamed for making false accusations.  This makes more sense because it was the Democrats trying to get McCarthy to reveal the names in the first place.

Granted, this is not the beginning of McCarthyism.  HUAC and Alger Hiss preceded McCarthy.  He was trying to get the committee to investigate these people.  He was not trying to accuse people in public who might later be exonerated.  Does this sound like McCarthyism? You might ask what he was doing with those names in the first place, but remember that the purpose of the committee was to investigate the federal government.  His position was that if these people were working at the direction of the Soviets, they should not be in the state department.  He was trying to see if they should be fired--not imprisoned, not exported, not executed.  He really was trying to do nothing more than an after-the-fact security check.

Coulter’s position was that the environment of fear you mention is not as extensive as it is made out to be.  Something about McCarthy being very popular in polls.  But given that there was an environment of fear, however large or small its expanse, it seems to have been created by others, not by McCarthy.  You might blame HUAC.  I would blame whoever leaked the names of McCarthy’s first “victims”

>>
The American Communist party had about 75 thousand members after W.W.II, but that number dwindled to less than ten thousand by 1957.
>>

That the numbers dwindled does not, in itself, establish discrimination.  The issue about people being blacklisted is that some people simply attended a meeting in the 20’s or 30’s, and for that they were being punished.  How many of those 65 thousand lost party members felt persecuted for their beliefs and how many really didn’t believe in communism and just updated their membership information.  When something is in vogue (like communism was in the 30’s) people will join just to be in.  When they find out they might have to pay for the privilege, many people simply decide that if it isn’t something they believe in, then they don’t want to attend more meetings.  I would want to know how many of those 65 thousand really believed in the pleasant philosophy and felt they could no longer subscribe to it because of the environment of fear.

>>
That number of people didn’t fall away from the Communist party because they lost faith with Communist ideals, they fell away from the ACP because membership was dangerous to their personal welfare. 
>>

Some may have fallen away because they liked the pleasant philosophy but were disillusioned by the totalitarian reality.  The reality of communism between the 30’s and the 50’s could cause many to lose faith.  Though some may have never had faith in their communist ideals to begin with (see above).

>>.
What we’re talking about is an entire political movement being crushed by the power of the existing govt.
>>

Crushed by reality of communism in Soviet hands?  Crushed by fear of persecution?  Or popped like a fad that no one likes any more.  I think there is room for all three.  But my point is whether McCarthy should be blamed for McCarthyism.

I might also want to point out that if the existing government crushing an entire political movement is a bad thing (it is) you should really hate communist totalitarians in 50’s USSR as well as China since 1949, the eastern bloc from W.W.II until the 90’s, Viet Nam since the 70’s, Cuba since the 60’s, North Korea since the 50’s etc.  I could also throw in some fascists, though that wouldn’t advance this discussion.  I might also add governments like Jordan, Iran, Iraq prior to Bush, Syria, Lybia, the Sudan . . . this list is endless (alas) These governments don’t crush entire political movements with atmospheres of fear.  They crush these movements figuratively and literally by imprisonment, torture, and death. I hope we can agree that this is a bad thing.

>>
The question isn’t whether or not the 57 people in the Wheeling report were Communists, but whether their Communism was a threat to the US.
>>

Yes!  Finally!  Exactly!  You hit the nail on the head.  Did they have contact with the USSR, or did they promote the interests of the USSR (then our enemy) over our own national interests.  And should people like that be in the employ of the state department.  That is what McCarthy was trying to find out.

>>
As for America “losing” China and the Eastern bloc—
>>

OK.  Fine.  I’m being parsed.  Did those (and other) people in the employ of the state department, who promoted the interest of the totalitarian dictatorship ruling the USSR at the time, in whole or in part cause or allow to cause the eastern bloc and mainland china to fall under ruthless, totalitarian (and, yes, communist) dictatorships.

>>
did we also “lose” all the socialistic countries in Europe?  There’s plenty of industrial countries that don’t have privatized health care— clearly they are a threat to the American way of life. 
>>

Since those socialistic countries in Europe are not totalitarian communist dictatorships, I wouldn’t count those.  Though they might be a threat the American way of life if you consider their support of terrorism and their lack of meaningful support of American foreign policy.  But we are discussing McCarthy and McCarthyism.

>>
The assumption that unrestricted capitalism and corporately ruled government are the proper destiny of every country on the planet is pure hubris.
>>

I am not talking about “unrestricted” capitalism nor of “corporate ruled” government. (tell me you aren’t using loaded language).  I am talking about whether people should control their countries through a democratic process or whether we should just abandon them to whatever totalitarian wants to take over.  Whether we should support governments that suppress opposition not by witch hunts and black lists, but by murder en mass.  I am talking about whether we should be allowed to take the simple precaution of insisting that when there is a conflict between us and an enemy bent on destroying us that people that work in the government choose us.

Nor am I condoning witch hunts and blacklists, even as a necessary evil.  But there are gradations of evil and killing people is worse than making them unemployed.  Not being able to go outside because you are in a cell for your beliefs is worse than not being able to get published.  And, no the results are not the same, especially now in the age of the internet.  In any case, my inquiry here is just whether McCarthy was a McCarthyist.  Not whether McCarthyism was bad.

>>
China and the Eastern bloc aren’t “ours” to have. 
>>

Granted.  I’ve modified my question.  See paragraph above that begins “OK.  Fine.”

But look at it this way.  They could have been “socialistic countries” instead of communist dictatorships.  As long as they were democracies.

>>
Nor are any of the little South American or Middle Eastern countries where we’ve been mucking about, all in an attempt to make the world safe for US style Capitalism.
>>

Safe for US style Democracy.  yes.

>>
Yes, Stalin slaughtered millions to impose his vision on Russia, but if you’re going to lay that at the doorstep of Communism,
>>

Some of the millions were murdered to impose his vision on Russia, some of the millions were murdered to maintain his hold on Russia, some were murdered because he was a sadist, and some he murdered just because he could.

>>
I’ve got a few “Capitalism” related genocides we can bring up.  Manifest Destiny is just a euphemism for “steal everything that ain’t nailed down.”
>>

I wish that the genocide in Armenia hadn’t happened.  I wish that the genocide in Germany hadn’t happened.  I wish there had been no mass murder in Stalinist Russia, in Cambodia, in China.  I wish that some genocides going on now in the middle east and Africa could be stopped.  Do you wish that the genocide of Manifest Destiny had not happened?  Do you wish that these states were all indian land?  The indians were mistreated.  They were deceived and betrayed.  Some were murdered.  I wish the whole Manifest Destiny thing could have happened differently--allowing a more equitable disposition, allowing the natives to continue to live in their way of life and allowing them to assimilate when they wanted to reap the benefits technology and a Democratic society have to offer.  I do not wish it hadn’t happened.  Tell me again what this has to do with McCarthy?

In any case, that is one.  What other “Capitalism” related genocide do you have, though I prefer to defend Democracy.  You know Democracies rarely even go to war against each other?  The Civil War is an exception.

>>
all people who oppose the war in Iraq are “traitors,”
>>

I wouldn’t go that far.  But if senators and congressmen go on TV and in their opposition give the islamic militants the impression that if they continue bombing public places and shooting our troops we will eventually throw up our hands and leave, then they are aiding the enemy.  It is not treason because they do not intend to aid the enemy.  It is, however, colossal stupidity.

>>
or that we should immediately remove anyone who is Muslim from their govt. position,
>>

Not all Muslims.  Supporters of militant Muslim extremists.  And not any positions.  Just sensitive ones.  Like those that determine which Islamic clerics will become Chaplains in the Army.  We have Muslims in the Army.  We need Islamic clerics to minister to them.  We do not need Islamic clerics who smuggle messages to terrorists.  We do not need Islamic clerics who “mishandle” classified documents.  We no not need Islamic clerics who convert disillusioned Army personel to precisely the strand of Islam that the terrorists claim to adhere to.

>>
prevent anyone who is Muslim from publishing their poetry, and incarcerate and interrogate anyone who questions American support for Israel
>>

I never heard about this.  Care to explain?

>>
On the other hand, we probably *should* try to interrogate, at least briefly, family members of the guy who claimed responsibility for 9-11.  I mean, if we’re willing to seize Canadian citizens and ship them to Syria to be tortured, you’d think we’d have the hutzpah to at least question the Bin Laden family.
>>

Hear!  Hear!  Let’s do it.  And you can leave out the briefly.

>>
Is McCarthy the anti-Christ that some liberals would hold him up to be?  No.  No more than Michael Moore is the savior that some liberals would hold him up to be.
>>
Michael Moore--now there is a loon.  I might agree if you compare him to Coulter, but nothing has persuaded me that McCarthy is in this club.

>>
But McCarthy WAS without question a dangerous demagogue (not unlike Coulter herself), and as such he is a likely pivot upon which to hang liberal anxieties about govt. repression.
>>

He is a symbol.  I still don’t believe he deserves it.  If McCarthyism is bad, what specific things did McCarthy do to deserve being named the head McCarthyist?

I realize I only gave the example of the 57 from the Wheeling speech, but you gave none.  From my example, he was doing his job (trying to clean up government of spys, not just philosophical communists), he was doing it because no one else was doing it (FDR and Truman just laughed), he was trying to protect those who might be innocent (he did not release the names until the closed sesssion of the committee) and it was others who insisted the names be produced and later leaked the names.  He seems more sinned against than sinning.  Granted you may want to point out specific examples from when the republicans took over and McCarthy was the committee chair.  But the most famous example, Welch adminishing McCarthy, “Have you at last no decency”, seems to be a case of “sinned against” rather than “sinning” and if anyone who has a transcript of the minutes before this speech, I would like to see it.

>>
My ultimate point, however, is that Coulter herself (despite the fact that her book contains *some* factual content) routinely distorts the truth.  And I’m not going to actually bother to cite those distortions here, unless you actually insist upon it.  It would be easy enough for you to see the kinds of misrepresentations that she engages in by merely visiting Spinsanity.  I think their approach is rather even handed.
>>

Judging by the quotes you provide from Spinsanity, it isn’t distortions of truth, it is name calling.  As I said, it hurts her credibility.  I think I am able to look at loaded political diatribe and cull those things which are facts, which are assertions and which are opinions.  I am not defending Coulter.  I am trying to find out the truth about McCarthy.  As you say, Coulter has *some* factual content.  I am trying to extract that content.  Determine whether it is true or not, so that I can draw my own conclusions.  Most of your objections are about conservatives, capitalists, McCarthyism.  What about McCarthy?

To Eric Paulsen
>>
What I wrote : If you believe the “facts” in Treason then it would be pointless to try to refute them, you can’t be reasoned with.

How Mr. B Misquoted me : “If you believe the facts, you can’t refute them”

Now unless you are trying to be just plain dishonest B old buddy, maybe you might want to try a little procedure we call cut and paste next time.
>>

This is semantics.  Your point is that if you believe the “facts” in Treason, you have some kind of ownership and if presented with counter evidence or a convincing counter argument, then they would still believe the “facts” in Treason.  My point was that you believe there is some ownership and because of that ownership, it is useless to try to refute the argument.  What is the difference?

How do you like my cutting and pasting now?

>>
Some might note that there was irony intentioned in this statement, hence the sardonic use of quotation marks around the word “facts”.
>>

I noted that.

>>
That would indicate to many people that I am indicating, without actually having to spell it out, that Ann’s “facts” have questionable merit.
>>

That is what I am trying to get.  Counter evidence or a convincing counter argument.  (I feel like I’m trying to find out “who’s on first”)

>>
I think that the above post by nowiser will show you why her “facts” are suspect
>>

No.  I saw how her position is suspect.  Especially by those that disagree with it.  I saw nothing about her facts, and especially nothing about the facts . . . er, excuse me the “facts” concerning McCarthy.  At least the events I present about the 57 names or the scene with Welch.  But anything will do.

>>
with the kind of vile partisan hyperbole she writes without hesitation.
>>

I can wade through partisan hyperbole, thank you.  As for her writing habits, I do not know if she hesitated (like Beethoven) or if it all spewed out (like Mozart).  You may be right about her habits.

>>
Does she get SOME facts correct? Sure, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>>

Yes, that is why we carry watches.  You guys are my watches.  I ask you if it is indeed 1 p.m.  You guys tell me that humanity’s concept of time is evil.

>>
Ann Coulters “debate” style is straight from the schoolyard where the bully intimidates everyone into agreeing with them, not because they are right but because they are scared (or stupid).
>>

This may be true.  But it is possible to have a loathsome style and to still get all your facts straight.

>>
I wont give her book the time it would take to slog though it just like I wont give her my milk money.
>>

I can’t vouch for your time, though I think that actually reading the book is as good an investment of time as railing against it.  If you don’t want to give her your milk money, try your local library.  She won’t see a drop of your milk money.  It improves your diatribe.
>>

I am too old to put up with the Limbaughs, O’Reillys, Coulters, Roves, and Hannity’s of this world, they are cheap little bullies that contribute nothing to debate and everything to divisiveness.

>>

Facts are your armor and sword.  Even if those you named above have a professional interest in not acknowledging your facts, there are people like myself who are after the truth and, thus, persue both sides. But make them facts.  Not opinions.  Not interpretation of facts (which is all the Navasky was).  I want to know what happened, not what you think of what happened.

>>
What I am saying here is that if you believe the spew that Ann Coulter puts out about how vile and evil and awful we liberals are, and to suffer through her invective you must, then you are a brainless follower of all things Republican and will refuse to look beyond your parties talking points. There can be no debate with a ditto-head. No rational discussion with a partisan fanatic. I would sooner debate my parents dog than one so entrenched in hate filled dogma.
>>

So, forgive me if I just consider that paragraph hate filled dogma.  If she has a knee-jerk reaction to liberals, would you not consider that a knee-jerk reaction to my original post?  I said, (no I am not quoting, but check if this is not an accurate interpretation) Here are some facts from the book.  Please tell me whether they are wrong or not.  Yes I believe those particular “facts,” and until someone here is able to persuade me otherwise, they have a big impact on my assessment of the individual McCarthy.  For that, “I am a brainless follower of all things Republican . . . .”

I love my dog, but I am not sure I would rather debate anyone entrenched in hate filled dogma (dog-ma--a pun from Mr. Paulsen).  You see, whenever I run out of dog biscuits, I lose the debate.

Mr. B. 

1) You are clearly very invested in defending Mc Carthy from the scurrilous charges leveled against him.  I wish you luck.  I on the other hand, am simply offended by Coulter’s libelous misrepresentations of liberalism.  Granted, this thread, specifically, is about Coulter’s defense of McCarthyism, but if you want to defend McCarthy, the last person you would want doing it would be Coulter.
I’m clearly not as invested in studying McCarthyism as you are, and as my plate is pretty damn full, already, I’m afraid I can’t spare the time to make it my hobby.  So feel free to respond to this post if you wish, but I’m just not going to be able to spend more time engaging with this issue.  That doesn’t mean that I think that history is unimportant, or that this discussion would not be fruitful, it just means that I literally do not have any extra time to invest in it.  I hope someone else with a little more free time will prove willing to engage with you.  I promise I’ll read, even if I do not actively engage.  I can at least spare the time for that.

2) You say that you are not defending Coulter-- excellent!  There is hope, then, that you are at least sane.  As for AC’s distortions of the truth, they are well documented (read the Alterman text.  Or if you don’t want to contribute to his milk money, get it from a library).  Alterman has his own “agenda,” and isn’t averse to rhetorical “twisting” himself, but he does a fairly good job of laying out the actual misrepresentations and straight up errors that AC perpetrates in Treason; and as you’ve pointed out yourself, you don’t have to have a pleasant rhetorical style to get your facts straight.  Most of her distortions include exaggerating someone else’s position to the point where it appears ludicrous, misattributing her sources (in order to make a “truth” claim, not just as an error), claiming that articles came from one source when they came from some other source, and sometimes outright misrepresenting a journalist’s stated position in order to “knock it down.”

Are these bald-faced lies?  No.  Are they the “truth?” Not by a long shot!  To lie by omission, or by distortion, is still to bastardize the truth in order to serve your own agenda, as any first year rhetoric student will tell you.  It’s also a far cry worse than “name calling.” Name-calling, or ad hominem assaults serve the rhetorical purpose of denigrating not just the person, but their position, by association.  To dismiss “name calling” as harmless is to labor under the misapprehension that the majority of the population is able to “read through” these kinds of attacks.  If they were, companies wouldn’t be able to sell so much beer by putting bikini models in their ads.  So yes, AC’s book contains some “facts,” but simply put, she lies and distorts on a regular basis.  You claim to set great store by the truth, so I can only assume that you’re not a great fan of Coulter’s.

3) I never contended that McCarthy was solely responsible for “McCarthy-ism” per se, or that he deserves the level of vitriol that is routinely aimed at him.  In fact, I think I acknowledged in my previous post that he was just a useful nail on which to hang public fears about the abuse of govt. power at that time.  Those abuses, however, are not fictional.  If you truly believe that this was all a big “myth” of Hollywood, or something like that, well, what can I say-- if you really wanted examples of people who were damaged by this “climate of fear” that you seem to believe was non-existent-- you could just do a Google search.  There are plenty of artists who were called before HUAC whose chosen topics changed rather abruptly after they were questioned.  Totalitarianism doesn’t function by individually rooting out all dissidents-- totalitarianism functions through terror-- you make “examples” of a few, (or a shitload), and most people who have a healthy instinct for self-preservation will, if not fall in line, at least be silent.  Once you silence that dissenting population, public discourse becomes impoverished, and you are moving swiftly toward totalitarianism.  Right totalitarianism or left— both are incredibly destructive.

As for “proving” that there was a “culture of fear” and that it did actual damage, I may be wasting my time trying to even broach that subject. There are people, after all, who claim the Holocaust was a myth. And in that situation there were actual piles of bodies, which is rather difficult to downplay.  Granted, we don’t have such vivid evidence of the damage caused by anti-Commie hysteria.  So I would ask you, how much evidence of damage has to be uncovered before you would acknowledge the “climate of fear” was real?  Do mass graves have to be uncovered, or can the dissolution of unions, the suppression of artist’s free speech, and the lasting damage to liberal political voice in this country suffice as a demonstration of proof? 

4) At some point, you asked “what does this have to do with Mc Carthy?” Not much, I admit.  McCarthy is one face on the entire assault on the left that was happening post WWII.  I brought up Manifest Destiny because you associated Communism with Stalin’s annihilation of all who opposed him.  I merely pointed out that a similar association could be made with Capitalism.  The US has dropped quite a few bombs over the brief history of our existence, and they have not all been in support of democracy.  In fact, there are several countries who elected leaders that the US felt threatened by, because they were too “left,” and the US promptly undermined those govts.  To assert that the US is the exemplar of democracy is just a tad ingenuous.  And we’ve got plenty of blood on our hands besides Native American blood.  Furthermore, the US’s involvement in China wouldn’t necessarily have resulted in democracy— and we don’t seem too concerned with democratizing Saudi Arabia.  The comparison is not completely apt, but there are certain similarities.  Both countries had/have internal struggles that could escalate into full blown revolution.  Both countries had/have a non-democratic system.  In both countries, the revolution would merely result in replacing one non-democratic system with another one; totalitarian Communism in China, and in the other, militant Islam.  I think the main discrepancy between our positions is that you think the US should get involved in these situations, and try to influence their outcomes.  I see this as like climbing into a sack with a snake and a skunk in the hopes that you can make them “be friends.” You might end up being able to choke the snake to death, but the inside of that bag is gonna smell like shit for a really really long time.

Do I favor democracy, myself?  You better believe it.  Am I proud to be an American?  Sometimes.  Do I think that McCarthy’s “spies” were a major threat to national security?  No.  Apparently the FBI didn’t think so either.  Coulter’s position is that they were wrong.  And that McCarthy has been unfairly smeared by the left.  Fair enough.  That’s a question that’s certainly open to debate.  But the fact that McCarthy bore the brunt of the left’s wrath doesn’t mean that their wrath was illegitimate, just misdirected.  The left’s wrath at Coulter, however, is perfectly justifiable—her rhetoric is more than inflammatory, its shameless.  Coulter doesn’t want debate and discourse (no checks and balances for that girl), she wants to silence the left by making a few examples.  She’s a demagogue of the same sort who incites abortion protestors to shoot doctors.

From most of the things that you say, Mr. B, I get the impression that you want the same things that most Americans (including me) want—a just and equitable society with opportunity for all.  You also believe that this is something that most other countries should embrace.  I agree.  But I also think that you and I have completely different ideas about how that can be achieved.  If you look at history, imperial intrusion into other countries does not usually lead to democracy.  And sometimes, even if it does lead to democracy, the price is incredibly high.  There are plenty of instances where the “best intentions” led to figurative hell. 

This post lacks focus, but I think that springs from the nature of the last few postings, and the attempts by all concerned to address multiple responses and postings all at once. 

Also, Mr. B, it might help if you actually used html tags for what you’re quoting from other posts.  It makes it easier to distinguish between original material and the responses. The tag for opening a quote is just the word “quote” enclosed in brackets.  To end a quote you do the same thing but inside the brackets, just before the word “quote” you insert a forward slash /.

Oh, if it helps, anyone who is still really interested in this debate might want to check out

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3981&st=75

They have been going around on this particular issue for quite some time, and seem somewhat invested in it.

All I can add to the above post by Nowiser is that if you are interested in seeking facts and finding the truth then look to a more reputable author than Ann Coulter. But if you are here trying to tell us that Ann Coulter gets some facts right, therefore Ann Coulter speaks the truth, thus all liberals are traitors to their country then you are barking up the wrong tree. If you are not here to defend Ann then there are many other places on the web and several other books dealing with McCarthyism, Communism, and the great Red scare.

I’m sorry, but didn;t she do porn at one point?
She looks realy familiar…