I'm actually shocked there are still McCarthy supporters - Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005) Discussion

[–] twm-2 17 years ago

Even if he had lived to a ripe old age, it wouldn't have mattered. He had been uncovered for the unprincipled, cruel, power-mad blowhard that he was before his death. His ability to cause further mischief had already been stripped away.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dblouin 17 years ago

What difference would that make? On the other hand, if their lives and careers were destroyed, then we probably wouldn't know their names, now would we?
The hardest hit was Hollywood, blacklists etc.
What is YOUR point?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mndude 17 years ago

Is this Anna Rosenberg episode is the worst you've got? Senator MacCarthy's role in that case was largly periferal. What evidence is there he was going to use her as pawn in a larger battle? The people who attacked her reputation came from the HOUSE UnAmerican Activities Commitee, Mccarthy was a SENATOR. There were bigots on HUAC, mostly southern Democrats.
Seriously, if this is all you got, game over. I used to believe like you that tailgunner Joe was some horrible monster, untill I decided to research the era myself. If you want to see sanctimonius blowhards, smearing the reputations of innocents, turn on c-span 2 any time congress is in secsion.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rpzowie 17 years ago

Mccarthy was going after communists in the government. He had nothing to do with the HUAC and, therefore, had no direct involvement with the blacklists in Hollywood.

You do realize that the Venona Project confirmed that many of the people McCarthy was after were indeed spies working for the Soviet Union, right?

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BerkSOL 15 years ago

You do realize that the Venona Project confirmed that many of the people McCarthy was after were indeed spies working for the Soviet Union, right?

How many, or what percentage of, people that he confronted, or was "after", turned up in Venona? By "many of the people" I'm assuming it's 90%+. This was all I could find on the internet:

Below are listed the names that various authors have alleged were "correctly identified by McCarthy". As the footnotes show, in almost all cases this assessment is questionable or demonstrably incorrect.

* Solomon Adler[90]
* Cedric Belfrage[91]
* T.A. Bisson[92]
* Lauchlin Currie[93]
* Gustavo Duran[94]
* Theodore Geiger[95]
* Haldore Hanson[96]
* Mary Jane Keeney[97]
* Owen Lattimore[98]
* Leonard Mins[99]
* Annie Lee Moss[100]
* Franz Leopold Neumann[101]
* Edward Posniak[102]
* William Remington[103]
* John Carter Vincent[104]

If one looks at the notes, there are two who were identified by Venona, Mary Jane Keeney (accused of being a Communist by McCarthy in 1950; Venona and other evidence indicates Soviet espionage activity) and Lauchlin Currie (Briefly mentioned by McCarthy in 1951). A third, Annie Lee Moss, implicated by other evidence (Later evidence indicates her name was on CPUSA membership list.)

reply

[–] first_sentence 17 years ago

Oh wow. Are you serious! he ruined incredible amounts. Famously, he destroyed the career of Zero Mostel for a while (broadways Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof). He was barred from the movie and theater industry as well as countless others in the entertainment business. Paul Robeson (Curly from Oklahoma), silent film star Charlie Chaplin (who was deported), Jack Gilford completely lost his career for a while after winning an Oscar because he was under suspicion of being communist, and Edward Dymytryk (director of the Caine Mutiny with Marlon Brando) was sent to jail. And these were all famous people with money. Just think of poorer people unable to restart their lives.
Outside of Hollywood, professors at MIT were under suspicion in John Nash's biography, the book A Beautiful Mind. People got fired and detained left and right in academia and it was a source of serious paranoia for the professors, especially for the mathematicians who would occasionally work as code breakers for the government. You had to be completely above board. The slightest suspicion could have you tried as a communist, blacklisted, and prevented from working. This info is easy to find. For the Hollywood blacklist just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Blacklist

reply

[–] alicecbr 17 years ago

Don't worry. As usual, the ignorant bigots try to put the rational people on the defensive with their rhetorical questions that are meant to get you off his case. This guy is just one of the many American Nazis that have surfaced under the Bush war criminals. Their fascism and frustration with civilization screams for justification. He is but one of many.

He may not know how many movies have been made about this same subject. And in fact, Zero Mostel starred in a movie that has him stepping out of a hotel window. That scene, with the curtains flapping in the breeze around the open window, will stay with me forever. McCarthy, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly....they're all very similar. They depend on screaming and hollering to make you forget that they actually know nothing but how to stir up trouble against whoever their target may be.

Another writer that most of us studied in college moved to Mexico for awhile, and returned to write under a pseudonym. Dalton Trumbo, I think is his name.
Our children should study those wonderful writers who refused to give in.
By the same token, they know the names of the rats, and one was given some kind of acting award a year or so ago. He was in "The Misfits".
Arthur Miller by the way, also went to jail, rather than give names that he knew they already had. It was all about power and humiliation, courage and cowardice. And this poor fool, questioning us, knows nothing but how to parrot the right wing crazies on the air. Chris Matthews put one to shame the other night on his show, after the guy was comparing Obama to Chamberlain, as an 'appeaser'. "What did Chamberlain do?" was the question Matthews asked repeatedly. The guy kept ducking the question. Finally, letting him hang out there in full view of the nation, making it completely obvious what a fool he was, Matthews finally let him off the petard by saying, "you don't know, do you? You accuse people falsely because you don't even know what Chamberlain did. He hung Czechoslovakia out to dry, giving that country to Hitler. Obama, conversely, says that we must talk with our enemies, as Kennedy talked to Kruschev, as Nixon talked to Mao, as Carter has been talking/did talk with Sadat (and any ruling Palistinean) and whatever Israeli guy happens to be in power." thank you, Chris Matthews.

"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

[–] sra-7 15 years ago

For a portrait of Paul Robeson, read [i]Radical Son [I] by David Horowitz. He was despicable, though I grant you, he was a great singer.
"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

reply

[–] twm-2 12 years ago

Just a side note: Marlon Brando was not in The Caine Mutiny. It was Humphrey Bogart, Van Johnson, and Fred MacMurray, among others.

Fighting for Truth, Justice, and making it the American way.

reply

[–] tyrone-jones 17 years ago

read the Venona documents.

there WERE communists trying to bring down the US

communists were the cause of over 100 million deaths at that point (stalin, mao, lenin)

stop and ask yourself "What if McCarthy was Right?"

then ask, "what if he was hunting Nazis?"

reply

[–] first_sentence 17 years ago

But McCarthy was not chasing after credible people. He would hear something like a Hollywood star had a girlfriend who went to a communist meeting once ten years prior to meeting the star and then tried to get that person fired, prosecuted, and/or imprisoned. It was really ridiculous some of the people he thought were spys. He thought ZERO MOSTEL, the Hollywood comedic celebrity actor of his day, was a spy! That's like saying Britney Spears, who is constantly in the public eye, is a secret spy for the Taliban on the side. And then proceeding to blacklist her from working, try her, and then imprison her...

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] first_sentence 17 years ago

Actually your right. During the first Hollywood blacklist he was not involved. But he was involved later.

1951: The second wave of HUAC hearings begins with McCarthy leading the charge. Over the next three years McCarthy is a mainstay in the public eye, and he subpoenas some of the most prominent entertainers of the era (e.g. Orson Welles, Lucille Ball, Dashielle Hammett, and Lillian Hellman) before HUAC, demanding "the naming of names."

http://huac.tripod.com/

It doesn't matter that the McCarthy investigations were different from HUAC. He was not directly involved with them, but he fed the fire to help keep them going at least by 1951. Even before that, he was waving around a giant list of names of communists. He helped to empower HUAC and create a threat that did not exist to the extent that he was making it out to be. He took advantage of fear and got everybody all riled up by pointing fingers, and there were horrible consequences. It's no different than using flimsy evidence and the fear of terrorism to convince the American public to support a war with Iraq (though I never supported it). It's all based on bull. And apparently it works...

And it did ruin Mostel's career for a time. There was a reason the 60s had his best work and the 50s was a dry spell. Thankfully, he was not totally ruined. Unlike some that have already been mentioned on this board.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] first_sentence 17 years ago

You think Mostel was a hack comedian? He was in the original "The Producers" and originated the role of Tevye on broadway. How is that a hack?

Do we actually care about the phrasing about leading the charge (which is more like a philosophical debate anyhow)? It's the facts that matter. Yes, McCarthey's investigations were different. The point is that he subpoenaed these people that the HUAC was picking on. He got around. He knew what was going on at the HOUSE. He did get involved with HUAC even if indirectly by subpoenaing people who had to show up there. He subpoeneaed all sorts of people. Why shouldn't he pick up a few names from HUAC along the way. As far as goals go they were related.

It was this ideology, McCarthyism, that he created that made him such a notorious figure. There's communists everywhere! Notice how that list of communists he claimed were working in the government dwindled. He made fantastic claims. That was the bull I was referring to. He kept trying to make things look worse than they were and it created paranoia. It reminds me of the orange alerts after 9-11. It got to a point where it was like, "Oh really? Wer'e on orange alert again? I hadn't noticed." Or that one small town on the news a really really long time ago that named a rollerskating rink and other meaningless buildings as possible terrorist targets, and then it turned out that they had listed more buidlings that New York City as possibilities for attack. It's not healthy to do that. Even New York isn't that paranoid, and they actually got attacked. McCarthy spread fear. Other people should take the blame for their own actions (HUAC, Roy Cohn, etc.), it's just that McCarthy had so much influence as a senator and then he used it to scare the crap out of everyone. This was what ruined lives.

Abigail never hanged anyone in The Crucibe. She never really murdered anyone. The court did that for her. All she had to do was kick up a fuss and scare all the right people to ruin lives.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] first_sentence 17 years ago

Dude chill out. I never said McCarthy was a representative. Try reading the post. That is why I said his investigations were different from HUAC. I said he subpoenaed people who went before HUAC. Yes, just because a person went before HUAC does not mean they cannot get subpoenaed by McCarthy afterwards, before, or whenever. A person is not immune to the McCarthy investigations just because they went before the House. McCarthy had the right to serve anyone with a subpoena if he could find a reason. People served with a McCarthy subpoena could also be summoned before the House and vice versa. I am sure the FBI and god only knows who else were doing investigations as well. This sucks because I did read a book by a guy who was summoned by HUAC and got a McCarthy subpoena, but I don't remember what it was called. Is it really that difficult to concieve that McCarthy and HUAC might investigate the same people at some point? Whatever. Find your own sources. I think you just like causing a fuss on the internet. Why don't you take a class? Become a historian, get a phD, and spend the rest of your days researching this if you want. Why are you seriously trying to learn more about this on IMDb? Go back to college...if you ever went.

Read a book or read the other posts if you want to know about people ruined by McCarthy and the ideology he created, McCarthyism. You already got tons of names from other people that were even better than mine. I have a life to get to, so I can't keep going on with this. Try that John Nash book where the MIT professors were under suspicion for the stupidest stuff. It's mostly about math and his life, but there is a part about McCarthyism and even going after homosexuals. It is seriously not difficult to find primary sources.

(Sigh) Time to get back to the real world.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BostonDave1 15 years ago

One thing I find very interesting is alot of the people who are on the McCarthy was evil bandwagon, are the same who support Che Guevara, a murderous scumbag who frequently had his suspected political opponents (including kids) homosexuals and others lined up and shot in the head.

reply

[–] foxy123elm 15 years ago

McCarty was the one who seemed to start the real witch hunt.

Mulder: Nobody likes a math geek, Scully.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"There WERE communists trying to bring down the US".

Yeah - just as there may truly be a couple of actual terrorists among the scores of Muslims indefinitely stashed away in Guantanamo.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] AtheistRevolution 17 years ago

He used fear tactics to push his personal agenda. Its amazing how history repeats itself.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[–] pathxe 17 years ago

Clinton was not a rapist? Sure he fooled around but that is not rape.

Bush did turn his back on New Orleans, he can find all kinds of money to fight in Iraq but can't seem to find a dime for Katrina victims. But then again, there is no profit in New Orleans for him. If the Ninth Ward was an oil field, he would have sent every man, women and child in there to help.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Bush did turn his back on New Orleans, he can find all kinds of money to fight in Iraq but can't seem to find a dime for Katrina victims

As I said to the other guy, you're misrepresenting the truth. I'm no fan of the Bush Administration AT ALL but you don't help your cause with lies.

Homeland Security spent (wasted?) MILLIONS in post-Katrina relief, and I'm talking about the immediate aftermath, not the months and years afterwards. The problem was poor planning, poor communication, and horrible execution...they didn't "turn their backs" on the victims and they DID try to help them, the point is THEY DID A REALLY BAD JOB OF IT. Never mistake incompetence for depraved indifference.

You want to accuse Bush and DHS of incompetence in Katrina? Be my guest...I'll support you in that. But do not say they intentionally left them to die because IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. But at least you didn't make this about race, I'll give you credit it for that.

reply

[–] cheeseland 17 years ago

You know what irks me is when someone states money as their first example of effort put forth. Georgie is the president of the United States. This tragedy occured on U.S. soil. As our countries leader he should have been there immediately, and used every resource at his disposal to fix the situation. When did Georgie finally step in? Not right away. Secondly no one has mentioned race, so why tyou have brought it up at all was curious. Many of these people who incidently are still victims have not been able to return home. Instead they have been living in trailers across the country, which apparently some of the trailers had a high level of toxicity. But of course you're right he's helping them out so much.

Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Why should it irk you? It's true. They obviously must have done SOMETHING, otherwise the money wouldn't have been spent. I never said they didn't screw it up, but don't tell us the Feds didn't act because that's just not true.

As our countries leader he should have been there immediately

So if his photo-op tour of the region had happened earlier, that would have made you happy?

and used every resource at his disposal to fix the situation

Such as?

When did Georgie finally step in? Not right away

What does that mean? Define "step in" and inform of us precisely when it happened, according to your definition.

Many of these people who incidently are still victims have not been able to return home.

And they will continue to live that way as long as they expect someone to fix all their problems for them. The trailers were supposed to provide them with a place to live as they took the personal initiative of rebuilding their lives, nothing more.

You're arguing with the wrong person. I'm no friend of the Bush administration, and DHS's bungled efforts at relief are a prime example of the administration's incompetence. They added an extra level of bureaucracy above an agency (FEMA) that was specifically designed to be outside the bureaucracy so it could act fast in an emergency, which was stupid. Then they put a man with totally inadequate credentials in charge of it all. That was even more stupid. They screwed up and more people died than was necessary. There are plenty of legitimate complaints and accusations you can make, and I'll probably agree with you if you keep them honest.

But "they did nothing" is a lie.

reply

[–] AtheistRevolution 17 years ago

There is no doubt Bush did a terrible job. Europe and Japan were rebuilt faster.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[–] pathxe 17 years ago

Iraq is being rebuilt faster than New Orleans!

I never mentioned race did I? Only money. Though now that you bring that up, it is a good point. Had the Ninth Ward been full of rich white people, once again he would have moved heaven and Earth to help them.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Had the Ninth Ward been full of rich white people, once again he would have moved heaven and Earth to help them.

To suggest the horrific aftermath was a direct result of race is a personal insult to the people of all races that suffered just as badly, just as it's insulting to the whole rest of the region that you pretend "the Lower Ninth Ward" was the limit of the devastation. It wasn't about race, it was about CLASS, because as the storm approached the rich and middle class hopped in their cars and drove to safety and the poor were left behind to fend for themselves, and all races were represented on both sides...rich blacks left the poor behind and those poor people included whites. The water didn't care what color anybody was.

Anyway, what precisely are you so sure would have been done differently?

reply

[–] blacksoldier 17 years ago

I know this question isn't directed to me but I figure that I will answer it anyway if you don't mind?

If I was Mr. Bush I wouldn't have appointed Michael Brown who was the former head International Arabian Horse Association from 1989-2001. Also from what I've heard about his job, (as an administrative assistant to the city manager of Edmond, Oklahoma), it didn't really prepare him for his job as head of FEMA. So I guess if I were Mr. Bush I would have focused less on loyalty, and ideology,(whatever that ideology is), and focus more on talent and competence. Unfortunately, Brenner, Brown, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Gonzales have far out weighed Powell,(when he was there), Gates, and even Ms. Rice. But I guess the point is when Mr. Bush took on the responsibility of the Presidency he should have known what was required of him. Competence....

We can't blame him for Katrina, or any other disaster that comes our way...however what the American people have every right to expect from their President is competence. But not just competence...courage was also needed. The courage to face the American people and admit to his mistakes, and take responsibility for those mistakes.

In other words leadership....he failed that test from his slow reaction to Katrina, to his inability to admit to mistakes in Iraq until after the Midterm elections. Now I like you have never been a fan of the Bush Administration, however I did hope that his Presidency would turn out well. I mean regardless of what your political affiliation is we all know that a disastrous Presidency is bad for the country. Now I am far from being expert on politics, and at the end day I think it's premature for any of us to say that Mr. Bush will be a bad or good President. However I can honestly say this...to me Mr. Bush has not been a good leader, and I can only hope that our next President,(regardless of who it is), learns from the mistakes of this one.

reply

[–] pathxe 17 years ago

I use the Ninth Ward because it was hit really hard, and it seemed to be where allot the poor people were located.

At the time of Katrina I was working for a media agency, we worked with CBS News and NPR, the coverages I saw and read, painted a pretty grim picture of what was going on there. I probably saw more coverage than most average Americans did. I kept saying where is the help? We are supposed to be this powerful, rich, great country, but we could not even get people out of there in any kind of timely manner. But we could attack Iraq seemingly overnight? Bush was not concerned about Katrina and still isn't. Brad Pitt has done more for Katrina survivors than Bush has!

I am just saying had there been an oil well or a bunch of rich people, things would have been handled differently. The place would be all rebuilt.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

I use the Ninth Ward because it was hit really hard, and it seemed to be where allot the poor people were located

The whole region was hit hard. And no offense to anyone from there, but most of the region is very poor. Have you seen the Louisiana and Mississippi bayou? Rich and middle class people don't live in swamps, dude. I don't fully understand why the media perpetuates the myth that the L9W was the only place where entire neighborhoods were wiped out, but it's just not true.

We are supposed to be this powerful, rich, great country, but we could not even get people out of there in any kind of timely manner. But we could attack Iraq seemingly overnight?

Once again, the fact that they messed up the operation doesn't mean they didn't try. No matter how many times you repeat the charge that we didn't get to the victims in time (which is true), that still doesn't mean it was a policy decision to let them die.

LOL who told you we rushed into Iraq overnight? The Pentagon had been working on that ever since the Gulf War, so they'd be ready if such a thing came to pass. On 9/12/01, they took those notes and immediately started working on a full invasion plan. As occurred in the Katrina wake, they messed up the operation...mostly because the DoD (under Rumsfeld) was convinced they could pull it off using a much lighter, faster, cheaper, more mobile force with far less personnel, and they refused to listen to the field commanders and generals that told them the idea wouldn't work. While this was going on, the State Department was busy trying to convince the rest of the world to go along with the plan while others in the Administration worked on convincing Congress to authorize it. It was A YEAR AND A HALF after 9/11 that the invasion finally occurred, about a year after the President started seriously talking about it publicly. The war was was senseless, stupid, destructive, and horribly mismanaged, but saying we rushed into it overnight is inaccurate, and it's irrelevant to any discussion of how we responded to a natural disaster that unfolded in just a matter of hours, anyway.

Bush was not concerned about Katrina and still isn't.

You keep saying that, but the only evidence you've provided is the badly executed relief efforts and I've already explained that's not nearly enough. Since you're so sure the outcome was a result of the demographics of the victims, I asked you to explain precisely what you think the government would have done differently if "Bush cared" about them, and you didn't answer me. If you can't support your accusation that he purposely let them die because he didn't care, you should stop making it.

reply

[–] cheeseland 17 years ago

What did 911 have to do with Iraq?

Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Nothing at all. What's your point?

reply

[–] cheeseland 17 years ago

You're the one that has associated the two by saying we invaded Iraq a year and a half after 9/11.

Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Uh, yeah...nice try. I didn't associate them, the President did. And you know darn well that I was specifically responding to the claim that we rushed into war "overnight," which isn't true at all. The President used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, but it took almost a year and a half to do it so it's completely untrue to say that we rushed in "overnight," and it shouldn't be compared to the Katrina relief efforts as evidence that the United States can mobilize massive resources on a moment's notice if the President feels like it.

Don't you DARE try and portray me as some war hawk and Bush apologist just because I pointed out that what's being said about his response to Katrina is a lie. If you want to criticize the job he's doing as President, by all means go ahead and I'll probably support you...but keep it honest. Don't make up stuff just to make him look even worse than he really is. Why would you want to do that, anyway? There's plenty of REAL things to attack him for.

reply

[–] cheeseland 17 years ago

I misunderstood you earlier response, and I apologize.

Good, Bad...I'm the one with the gun.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Mistakes happen. Apology accepted. Take it easy.

reply

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

I agree with most of what you said, blacksoldier. But I'd go further than you did: I think he's a bad President. History will NOT look back kindly on him, unless by some miracle Iraq eventually emerges as a strong and reliable ally (something we really need in that region since Israel is the only country there we can really trust), at which point people will begin to forget the road we took to get to that point. But short of that, his legacy will be one of failure and incompetence.

But I reject the notion that he intentionally turned his back on Katrina victims. That kind of hyperbole and distortion of the truth accomplishes nothing productive and harms the credibility of the political opposition.

reply

[–] rudin_sajan 17 years ago

talking about Bush and his criminal war against Iraq is a little OFF Topic in this case, but nevermind, let's concentrate about McCarthy.

point is, history already judged him, pointing out that his methods were unethical and unrespectfull of the most basic istitutional rights of every man or women in America (that's interesting the part in the film in which, during a hearing, the ex secretary who was judged was said accused but couldn't see the accuser)

this fuzz we are all doing is useless, it's like discussing if Nazi killed millions of Jews or they didn't, we have not enough dignity and experience, compared to History, to judge someone for his actions.

i took this report from wikipedia:

This (Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations)subcommittee would be the scene of some of McCarthy's most publicized exploits. When the records of the closed executive sessions of the subcommittee under McCarthy's chairmanship were made public in 2003–4,[57] Senators Susan Collins and Carl Levin wrote the following in their preface to the documents:

Senator McCarthy’s zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.

reply

[–] cheeseland 17 years ago

and yet the right still supports a president that turned his back on fellow americans in New Orleans.

All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream
E.A.P.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Quit whining. Saying President Bush turned his back on the people of New Orleans because of DHS's gross incompetence is no more dishonest than calling Clinton a rapist for having an affair. If you're going to engage in hyperbole and distortion of the facts, you can't complain when someone else does the same.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

Clinton was a rapist. I have not distorted anything.

My mistake. You just made it up entirely.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

No, just the facts involving them. Paula Jones never even accused anybody of rape, Juanita Broaddrick signed a sworn statement saying she was never raped, and Kathleen Willey is - according to both the FBI and the US Independent Council - a pathological liar. The FBI did her the favor of promising not to prosecute her for interfering with their investigations if she detailed all the times she lied to them. It's quite a list.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

i am sorry, he only sexually harrassed paula jones and payed her out of court.

And it only took how long for you to admit it? You said it was rape. That's not even in the same ballpark.

Kathleen willey was never proven wrong.

So the burden of proof is on the accused. I see.

There have been claims clinton raped his own wife.

From whom?

Considering his affairs, monica lewinsky, his lying to the congress and country, i think there something there.

Being a sleezebag womanizer isn't even close to evidence of being a rapist. And as far as lying to Congress and the country...well, I'll just let you figure out the logical extension of that argument.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

You have this really bad habit of citing sources that harm your credibility instead of bolstering it.

Even mainstream media outlets that tend to align themselves with the GOP have dismissed Kline's work.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gotham23 17 years ago

So you're comparing Kline to God. I see.

reply

[–] BerkSOL 15 years ago

I mean come on, what is wrong with people?

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

reply

[–] fcolli 15 years ago

I'm shocked! I thought McCarthy-ites had all been rounded up and put into concentration camps by now.

We just do the concentrating, they do the camping.

reply

[–] BerkSOL 15 years ago

I'm shocked! I thought McCarthy-ites had all been rounded up and put into concentration camps by now.

There are a few crackpots left, like redstate (a.k.a. notmenotme and ollie scoot), who get spanked when they post laughable, idiotic "defenses" of Tail Gunner Joe, then reveal their sick, demented, tortured souls (red has recently been posting links to and excerpts from a porn site he gets off on).

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]