Coulter Explodes Hollywood's Blacklist Myth

NewsMax.com ^ | 6/30/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[Your Nightmare]

Why not read Colter's book, to at least get another perspective, and THEN comment on McCarthy?

Because I can't stand Ann Coulter. She does more for the liberal cause than just about anybody I know.

Question: If Joe McCarthy was such a conservative hero, why didn't the conservatives of the time support him during and after his decline?

[Your Nightmare]

Honestly, do you defend 50 years of communist propaganda?

What communist propaganda are you referring to?

[FreedomPoster]

You need to read Ann's book. I used to think that, too, but now, I don't even think that's the case. I now think he just experienced The Big Lie in action, as practiced in the days before the Internet, talk radio, and Fox News Channel.

[FreedomPoster]

Still avoiding #35? Please ping me if you respond to it.

[FreedomPoster]

And I expect cinFLA refers to 50 years of leftist propaganda about McCarthy. The Big Lie in action.

Go read the first 150 pages of Treason, and you'll understand.

[Your Nightmare]

He stated to the public press on November 13, 1954, that the chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Watkins) was guilty of "the most unusual, most cowardly things I've ever heard of" and stating further: "I expected he would be afraid to answer the questions, but didn't think he'd be stupid enough to make a public statement"; and in characterizing the said committee as the "unwitting handmaiden," "involuntary agent" and "attorneys-in-fact" of the Communist Party and in charging that the said committee in writing its report "imitated Communist methods -- that it distorted, misrepresented, and omitted in its effort to manufacture a plausible rationalization" in support of its recommendations to the Senate...

That's from the censure of Joe McCarthy the Republican Senate voted for, 65-22. Were they all just victims of revisionist history? Duped by the liberal media? They were there at the time, they lived through it, some of them were participants in the hearings, and they rebuked his methods.

You may also want to read some of the Army-McCarthy hearings, which the entire nation was able to view in over 30 days of live TV coverage. The American public saw McCarthy in action -- uncensored and unedited -- and rejected him and his methods.

[Spirited]

"why didn't the conservatives of the time support him during and after his decline?"

We did, but we had already been crippled by the fact that the "liberals" who, like you, couldn't believe that they were in danger (or who were perhaps influenced by Commie interests)would print nothing that was entirely truthful. They considered themselves the intelligencia and the elite and looked on conservatives with as much disregard as you likely use on what some call "right wing nuts"...in fact that is the seed bed for that phrase used to marginalize people who understood/understand and don't forget the lessons of Hitler's reign and/or Stalin's reign.

In just the way that you treat Ann Coulter who dares to speak up they all treated the Conservatives and since they outnumbered and outpowered them while most people just believed the press anyway and others were too busy making ends meet, there was little anyone would do.

Communist or Nazi types go for the intellectuals, "do gooders" and the press. They cannot make headway for control using farmers and mechanics. Want to know how it works down? Read Alexander Solzhenitzen for a better "feel" on it unless you consider him unqualified to speak, too.

You need to remember that there are people who enjoy the concept that without working for it they can/will dig into your pockets and share (commune) what you have built up. They don't understand that it is the Government and the elite who will be the only ones to profit. Or that they are being used.

They began to print bogus history which you and succeeding generations have swallowed hook, line and sinker. They still will not print the truth because they are far less interested in it now than ever before. They are too near their goal.

The only thing which served to wake me up to a great deal of this was listening to a lecture by a General on the papers from the proceedings of, I think, the third Commintern. (I may be mistaken on the date, but think it could have taken place in the 30's.)

[demkicker]

My question:Why not read Colter's book, to at least get another perspective, and THEN comment on McCarthy? Because I can't stand Ann Coulter. She does more for the liberal cause than just about anybody I know.

What a pathetic excuse. Coulter's research doesn't lie, but you'd rather keep the liberal lie alive by condemning McCarthy AND Ann because you can't stand her?

(Your) Question: If Joe McCarthy was such a conservative hero, why didn't the conservatives of the time support him during and after his decline?

Obviously, many conservatives were of your ilk. Ann Coulter is a modern day hero to conservatives, but look at you. You "can't stand her" and don't believe her because you merely don't like her. I believe it's called shooting the messenger, which is exactly what happened to McCarthy.

Nothing like using ones own words to illustrate a point! Touchee'

[Spirited]

"The American public saw McCarthy in action -- uncensored and unedited -- and rejected him and his methods."

No, the American people had a hard time understanding or even believing there could be anything but "peace in our time". The American Press pushed rejection on the whole of the public. The press had already been so "influenced" that the elected knew that to get press backing they needed to be re-elected they would have to be spineless.

We haven't seen a statesman since the press began ruling the people and telling them what to think.

[Your Nightmare]

No, the American people had a hard time understanding or even believing there could be anything but "peace in our time". The American Press pushed rejection on the whole of the public. The press had already been so "influenced" that the elected knew that to get press backing they needed to be re-elected they would have to be spineless.

This is gross rationization.

[Your Nightmare]

We did, but we had already been crippled by the fact that the "liberals" who, like you, couldn't believe that they were in danger (or who were perhaps influenced by Commie interests)would print nothing that was entirely truthful.

Huh? Was the Republican Senate that censured McCarthy "crippled" in the manner you describe?

[Your Nightmare]

Nothing like using ones own words to illustrate a point! Touchee'[sic]

Wow, you really got me there. You say "why don't you read Coulter's book" and I say "because I don't like her" and you accuse me of "shooting the messenger". There are other sources of information out there, you know. And some of them aren't full of personal insults and hyperbole.

[Paulus Invictus]

It's COJONES! (Spanish language police action # 36).

[Thommas]

This is gross rationization.

Well, even if you mean rationalization, I don't see what's so gross about it. The concept is clear and to the point. What do you find painted too broadly?

[Lee'sGhost]

"Nothing like using ones own words to illustrate a point! Touchee'"

Well done.

[Your Nightmare]

Well, even if you mean rationalization

I did, thanks for the correction.

[Your Nightmare]

Well done.

Except for the fact that I didn't say I don't believe her and didn't "shoot the messenger".

[RonDog]

ANN COULTER's new book

(Image from amazon.com)

[hopespringseternal]

While I would certainly support investigating someone who was actively seeking to overthrow the government, I do not support interrogating those who simply considered themselves communists.

Congress can subpoena anyone they want to testify under oath, like a court. Unlike a court, you can't plead the fifth because it isn't a criminal trial and incrimination is not an issue. That is why so many witnesses use phrases like, "I don't know" and "I can't remember."

Of course, you can't lie without being charged with perjury, and if you refuse to answer questions, you can be held in contempt.

As far as whether these movie people were a threat, what you or I think fifty years later is moot. The House committee thought the matter was at least worth looking into. The silence of the ten about their political affiliation says a lot too.

[Your Nightmare]

Well, even if you mean rationalization, I don't see what's so gross about it. The concept is clear and to the point. What do you find painted too broadly?

To start off with, how were the conservatives of the time "crippled"? They had the presidency, the House, and the Senate.