In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Sanders,i do kinda like the guy but think he has zero change to win or even get nominated. Just compare him with Obama, that's a completely different level.
He would do well against trump though I think, if that would be the final ticket. Probably better then Clinton but he seems to be to low profile to me to have a decent change. On the other hand that could work in his favor IF he gets pitted against trump. People might get sick of trump after a prolonged time of exposure to him and then a quiet and calm low profile guy like sanders might just be the right alternative. Hillary would have a more difficult time against trump I think,shes also a high profile candidate and when pitted against trump people will just see 2 sharks. With sanders they would see a shark and a gold fish.
Am loving this election already lol,much better then the previous one.
Why don't republicans go back to Romney? he was a good candidate.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Why don't republicans go back to Romney? he was a good candidate.
On paper he might have been a good candidate, but in the actual election he was very weak. Besides, casting yesterday's losers for today's leading role is usually not a good political move. Otherwise I could just ask:
"Why don't Democrats go back to Kerry?"
I would say Trump has the best chances of winning nomination right now, with Cruz in a close second. Rubio a distant third, and everyone else is pretty much at zero. Carson missed his chance, and Bush is completely unpalatable to 75% of the party. I expect a Cruz win in Iowa, followed by a Trump win in NH, to set up a long-battle, possibly a brokered convention (depending on how well Rubio does.)
I also fully expect Ted Cruz, if not nominated, to become the Senate Majority leader in less than 4 years.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Are you aware of the Venona cables?
Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union?
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Are you aware of the Venona cables?
Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union?
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe.
Really? You think that perhaps it could be argued that they might have targeted innocent people?
And you think I'm painting it as black and white? Jesus. Their criteria for targeting people was about as broad as Trump's. They targeted innocent people. I'm not arguing that they did, they just did, that's a historical fact. There is no perhaps, there is no might.
You're using the same apologist language that death penalty advocates use when you show them conclusive proof that they just executed an innocent man. It's nonsense. A tiny subset of communists were spies but the majority of McCarthy's targets weren't even communists and even if they were it still wouldn't justify it because there is nothing wrong with being a communist.
On December 10 2015 08:26 Rassy wrote: Sanders,i do kinda like the guy but think he has zero change to win or even get nominated. Just compare him with Obama, that's a completely different level.
He would do well against trump though I think, if that would be the final ticket. Probably better then Clinton but he seems to be to low profile to me to have a decent change. On the other hand that could work in his favor IF he gets pitted against trump. People might get sick of trump after a prolonged time of exposure to him and then a quiet and calm low profile guy like sanders might just be the right alternative. Hillary would have a more difficult time against trump I think,shes also a high profile candidate and when pitted against trump people will just see 2 sharks. With sanders they would see a shark and a gold fish.
Am loving this election already lol,much better then the previous one.
Why don't republicans go back to Romney? he was a good candidate.
The bottom line of the Republican primary carrying into the general is that Republicans can't win with Trump and can't win without Trump supporters.
Among the most knowledgable experts on the Venona project is Harvey Klehr, a professor of politics and history at Emory University. Prof. Klehr traveled in 1992 to the former Soviet Union, where he got access to Soviet spy archives. He also studied the Venona cables after the U.S. government declassified them in the 1990s. With John Earl Haynes, Prof. Klehr co-authored Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, published in 1999 by Yale University.
In short, when it comes to Soviet espionage in America, the Venona project and Joseph McCarthy, Prof. Klehr has the credentials to show that he knows what he’s talking about. In fact, he is very critical of those who still deny the extent of that espionage or downplay its significance.
But he isn’t buying efforts to rehabilitate McCarthy’s image. Prof. Klehr told an audience at a 2005 conference that McCarthy may have been right about “some of the larger issues” — such as, that there actually were communist spies in America — but that he was recklessly wrong on much else, especially the details:
[V]irtually none of the people that McCarthy claimed or alleged were Soviet agents turn up in Venona. He did identify a few small fry who we now know were spies but only a few. And there is little evidence that those he fingered were among the unidentified spies of Venona. Many of his claims were wildly inaccurate; his charges filled with errors of fact, misjudgments of organizations and innuendoes disguised as evidence. He failed to recognize or understand the differences among genuine liberals, fellow-traveling liberals, Communist dupes, Communists and spies — distinctions that were important to make. The new information from Russian and American archives does not vindicate McCarthy. He remains a demagogue, whose wild charges actually made the fight against Communist subversion more difficult. Like Gresham’s Law, McCarthy’s allegations marginalized the accurate claims. Because his facts were so often wrong, real spies were able to hide behind the cover of being one of his victims and even persuade well-meaning but naïve people that the who le anti-communist cause was based on inaccuracies and hysteria. [Emphasis added.]
On December 10 2015 06:36 cLutZ wrote: I actually don't know why Scalia cited scientists (unless it was part of a brief he recently read). The most rigorous study I remember related to the UC system, law students, and bar pass rates. After they passed the constitutional amendment, minority students who would have gone to UCBerkley or UCLA under the old system, but ended at a T2 school (based on test scores, etc) actually passed the California bar at a higher rate.
It's not often I agree with cLutZ, but I think hyping this Scalia quote is mostly about optics and politics. I don't think Scalia was saying African-Americans can't handle top tier schools. He pretty clearly meant that for those getting admitted to a school they aren't prepared for and didn't test in to it can be a worse path for them to take than going to one that suits their preparedness. No need to try and read racism into everything your political opponents do, it's not helpful.
There is a very good piece from www.theatlantic.com about this from a while back. I'll copy a few important parts here:
The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference -- sometimes because of a student's athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student's race -- that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him -- they are teaching to the "middle" of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student. ... contemporary racial preferences used by selective schools -- especially those extended to blacks and Native Americans -- tend to be extremely large, often amounting to the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points.
At the University of Texas, whose racial preference programs come before the Supreme Court for oral argument on October 10, the typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college-aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. This is the sort of academic gap where mismatch flourishes. And, of course, mismatch does not occur merely with racial preferences; it shows up with large preferences of all types. ... But in fact it is a largely invisible issue. With striking uniformity, university leaders view discussion of the mismatch problem as a threat to affirmative action and to racial peace on campuses, and therefore a subject to be avoided. They suppress data and even often ostracize faculty who attempt to point out the seriousness of mismatch.
A lot of people who argue about this say, "why not just use income" well, the secret that these professors/admins don't want to get out is that they don't want poor black kids, they want upper class kids aka the "articulate black man" of various condescending racial stereotypes. Its basically a creepy prestige project for the professors and administrators so they can sit around dinner tables and say, "Hoohoo Reginald you'll never believe the dialogue I had in class Thursday afternoon, this smart young black man said <whatever>" and then the next guy says "ohhh that's so insightful Clyde, can you pass the merlot?" And now Clyde gets +1 social prestige in his cloistered little circle.
On December 10 2015 06:36 cLutZ wrote: I actually don't know why Scalia cited scientists (unless it was part of a brief he recently read). The most rigorous study I remember related to the UC system, law students, and bar pass rates. After they passed the constitutional amendment, minority students who would have gone to UCBerkley or UCLA under the old system, but ended at a T2 school (based on test scores, etc) actually passed the California bar at a higher rate.
It's not often I agree with cLutZ, but I think hyping this Scalia quote is mostly about optics and politics. I don't think Scalia was saying African-Americans can't handle top tier schools. He pretty clearly meant that for those getting admitted to a school they aren't prepared for and didn't test in to it can be a worse path for them to take than going to one that suits their preparedness. No need to try and read racism into everything your political opponents do, it's not helpful.
There is a very good piece from www.theatlantic.com about this from a while back. I'll copy a few important parts here:
The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference -- sometimes because of a student's athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student's race -- that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him -- they are teaching to the "middle" of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student. ... contemporary racial preferences used by selective schools -- especially those extended to blacks and Native Americans -- tend to be extremely large, often amounting to the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points.
At the University of Texas, whose racial preference programs come before the Supreme Court for oral argument on October 10, the typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college-aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. This is the sort of academic gap where mismatch flourishes. And, of course, mismatch does not occur merely with racial preferences; it shows up with large preferences of all types. ... But in fact it is a largely invisible issue. With striking uniformity, university leaders view discussion of the mismatch problem as a threat to affirmative action and to racial peace on campuses, and therefore a subject to be avoided. They suppress data and even often ostracize faculty who attempt to point out the seriousness of mismatch.
A lot of people who argue about this say, "why not just use income" well, the secret that these professors/admins don't want to get out is that they don't want poor black kids, they want upper class kids aka the "articulate black man" of various condescending racial stereotypes. Its basically a creepy prestige project for the professors and administrators so they can sit around dinner tables and say, "Hoohoo Reginald you'll never believe the dialogue I had in class Thursday afternoon, this smart young black man said <whatever>" and then the next guy says "ohhh that's so insightful Clyde, can you pass the merlot?" And now Clyde gets +1 social prestige in his cloistered little circle.
Just wow...
So it's basically glossing over the indisputable inequity and radical injustice that is the "weaker academic preparation " to say "Science says you blacks don't belong here, you'd be happier somewhere else". Which to be clear, is stupid and racist, but I just wanted to note clutz is right about "the secret" part.
On December 10 2015 06:36 cLutZ wrote: I actually don't know why Scalia cited scientists (unless it was part of a brief he recently read). The most rigorous study I remember related to the UC system, law students, and bar pass rates. After they passed the constitutional amendment, minority students who would have gone to UCBerkley or UCLA under the old system, but ended at a T2 school (based on test scores, etc) actually passed the California bar at a higher rate.
It's not often I agree with cLutZ, but I think hyping this Scalia quote is mostly about optics and politics. I don't think Scalia was saying African-Americans can't handle top tier schools. He pretty clearly meant that for those getting admitted to a school they aren't prepared for and didn't test in to it can be a worse path for them to take than going to one that suits their preparedness. No need to try and read racism into everything your political opponents do, it's not helpful.
There is a very good piece from www.theatlantic.com about this from a while back. I'll copy a few important parts here:
The mismatch effect happens when a school extends to a student such a large admissions preference -- sometimes because of a student's athletic prowess or legacy connection to the school, but usually because of the student's race -- that the student finds himself in a class where he has weaker academic preparation than nearly all of his classmates. The student who would flourish at, say, Wake Forest or the University of Richmond, instead finds himself at Duke, where the professors are not teaching at a pace designed for him -- they are teaching to the "middle" of the class, introducing terms and concepts at a speed that is unnerving even to the best-prepared student. ... contemporary racial preferences used by selective schools -- especially those extended to blacks and Native Americans -- tend to be extremely large, often amounting to the equivalent of hundreds of SAT points.
At the University of Texas, whose racial preference programs come before the Supreme Court for oral argument on October 10, the typical black student receiving a race preference placed at the 52nd percentile of the SAT; the typical white was at the 89th percentile. In other words, Texas is putting blacks who score at the middle of the college-aspiring population in the midst of highly competitive students. This is the sort of academic gap where mismatch flourishes. And, of course, mismatch does not occur merely with racial preferences; it shows up with large preferences of all types. ... But in fact it is a largely invisible issue. With striking uniformity, university leaders view discussion of the mismatch problem as a threat to affirmative action and to racial peace on campuses, and therefore a subject to be avoided. They suppress data and even often ostracize faculty who attempt to point out the seriousness of mismatch.
A lot of people who argue about this say, "why not just use income" well, the secret that these professors/admins don't want to get out is that they don't want poor black kids, they want upper class kids aka the "articulate black man" of various condescending racial stereotypes. Its basically a creepy prestige project for the professors and administrators so they can sit around dinner tables and say, "Hoohoo Reginald you'll never believe the dialogue I had in class Thursday afternoon, this smart young black man said <whatever>" and then the next guy says "ohhh that's so insightful Clyde, can you pass the merlot?" And now Clyde gets +1 social prestige in his cloistered little circle.
Just wow...
So it's basically glossing over the indisputable inequity and radical injustice that is the "weaker academic preparation " to say "Science says you blacks don't belong here, you'd be happier somewhere else". Which to be clear, is stupid and racist, but I just wanted to note clutz is right about "the secret" part.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people [...].
This, right here, is a strong contender for understatement of the year.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
You seem to be making two arguments here. "No, he isn't anything more like McCarthy than anyone else" and "McCarthy was actually right".
Others in this forum have addressed whether McCarthy was justified. I think it is pretty obvious that McCarthy deserves his ignominious reputation.
As to the comparison, of course all comparisons are just comparisons. Some comparisons seem better than others though. The "unsourced" (do you doubt its details? just google any of Cruz's statements therein to verify and get further context. It was all in the news at the time) Forbes article I cited was cited by me to indicate the comparison has been made before. In it is documented Cruz's first among many over-the-top efforts to impugn the patriotism of other officials (specifically Hagel here). Obviously smears are to be found aplenty in Washington, but Cruz has a deserved reputation for being the worst abuser of them right now. It's a matter of degree, and Cruz at times has approached McCarthy levels of random unjustified smearing, and not just smearing, but blatant questioning of the loyalty and patriotism of his colleagues.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Are you aware of the Venona cables?
Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union?
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe.
Have you ever met a communist or do they only exist in fairy tales for you?
The man accused of killing three people in a shooting at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood blurted out in court on Wednesday: “I’m a warrior for the babies” and “I’m guilty. There’s no trial.”
The outburst from Robert Lewis Dear, during a hearing for prosecutors to announce their charges, is sure to draw attention, as police and prosecutors had refrained from naming a motive behind the attack.
Since the 27 November shooting, top Planned Parenthood executives and the group’s allies have asserted that the perpetrator was motivated by his opposition to abortion. NARAL Pro-Choice America, one of the largest abortion rights advocacy groups in the country, has called for the Department of Justice to investigate the attack as an act of terrorism.
Dear is reported to have told law enforcement officers at the scene of the crime, “No more baby parts,” an apparent reference to political attacks accusing Planned Parenthood of illegally selling fetal tissue.
“I won’t be at all surprised to find out that someone who is unstable can easily be motivated or manipulated by extreme rhetoric,” Dawn Laguens, the executive vice-president of Planned Parenthood, told the Guardian.
Appearing on MSNBC last week, Cecile Richards, the Planned Parenthood president, said verbal attacks based on the videos “created the kind of climate that we are now seeing that leads to the harassment of doctors and violence at clinics”.
The November shooting claimed the lives of a police officer, Garrett Swayze, who rushed to respond to the scene, and Ke’Arre Stewart and Jennifer Markovsky, who were accompanying friends to the clinics that day.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Are you aware of the Venona cables?
Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union?
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe.
Have you ever met a communist or do they only exist in fairy tales for you?
I like how the Communist Party doesn't have a nation attached to it. Its just like the Illuminati, but all about collectivization.
Why don't republicans go back to Romney? he was a good candidate.
On paper he might have been a good candidate, but in the actual election he was very weak. Besides, casting yesterday's losers for today's leading role is usually not a good political move. Otherwise I could just ask:
"Why don't Democrats go back to Kerry?"
I would say Trump has the best chances of winning nomination right now, with Cruz in a close second. Rubio a distant third, and everyone else is pretty much at zero. Carson missed his chance, and Bush is completely unpalatable to 75% of the party. I expect a Cruz win in Iowa, followed by a Trump win in NH, to set up a long-battle, possibly a brokered convention (depending on how well Rubio does.)
I also fully expect Ted Cruz, if not nominated, to become the Senate Majority leader in less than 4 years.
Trump's going to remain out front as long as the best the media can muster is the fascism, racism, islamophobia, "against American values" charges. I thought his share of the limelight would be waning as his trade policy comes into view, economic thoughts in general, and universal healthcare (still anathema to Republicans). Now, his headline-grabbing comments keep his big plusses in view. He will be strong on immigration and national defense, signalled with the hilarious Ban-Muslim pledge (overshooting the restriction/pause on Middle East immigration because of ISIS) and Deport-Them-All position (overshooting just the secure wall with amnesty long afterwards). The mainstream media and establishment have fed the monster and built the troll hoping it would cut him off at the knees.
If the Republicans want sustained health to their Senate and indeed Congressional dominance, they'll have to place some stalwart Tea Party type in a position of power like majority leader/whip. We're talking a Sessions, Lee, or Cruz. The same forces that MADE elite Republican leadership disconnected from the conservative base originally may well keep the leadership positions as they are. This would eventually surrender seats, but I suppose the GOP leaders are willing to do that still.
On December 09 2015 23:45 Plansix wrote: Ted Cruz, man who takes money directly from the oil industry and coal industry, tells us climate change isn't real. And even if it wasn't there that air pollution issue is a big one that can be solved with alternative energy. The Ex-Governator, Arnold himself, put it best in response to people criticizing his investment in solar energy.
"I don't want to be the last guy betting on Blockbuster as Netflix is taking off." This is an industry we could be leading in if our entrenched energy industry wasn't trying to hold the government back. So other countries will lead the way, like India.
Ted Cruz imo is the most dangerous man in US. He is calculating, manipulative, and has a track record of doing anything for political gain, closest comparison I can think of is probably Joe McCarthy.
Other than Joe McCarthy being a buzz-word among the left to denote "bad person", I really fail to see the similarities you're reaching for here. I suppose if Ted Cruz was asserting that Muslims had put spies in all levels of our government then the comparison might be apt, though even then it would be questionable (as far as I know, there are few prominent Muslims in our government, whereas the Venona cables proved that there were many Communist spies inside the federal government, sometimes in very high positions).
Basically, if people aren't going to research Joe McCarthy and who he actually was and what he actually did then comparisons to him will only sound intelligent to the uninformed and uneducated. To those with some knowledge of the actual person, it will usually sound silly and wildly ignorant.
The comparison is not new and is justified. He routinely uses half-truths and innuendo to smear his adversaries, usually in the pursuit of unattainable political goals, but always with his own political aggrandizement in mind.
The comparison is as silly then as it is now, irregardless of an unsourced blog on Forbes. Without defending accusations which, ironically, are given no source, I will say that I find it interesting that we've apparently decided that only Ted Cruz and Joe McCarthy have ever used implication and inuendo to attack political opponents. I'm reminded of the "seriousness of the charge" that plagued Clarence Thomas, the "Romney hasn't paid taxes in ten years, or so I'm told" from Harry Reid, or countless examples of Clinton smears (the Santorum "abortion" lie comes to mind.)
As I said, the comparisons are either entirely superficial ("they are both Republican senators!") or just betrays a complete misunderstanding of history.
Joe McCarthy most certainly had flaws, but I do find it funny that no one who derides him ever answers the most important question of all:
"Were there, or were there not, Communist spies inside the government and military?"
A witch-hunt is only unjustified if there's no witch.
Being Communist is not illegal, the personal political views of an individual are personal until such a time as they impede the professional execution of that job.
McCarthy's witch hunt saw Oppenheimer barred from studying physics. That in itself should discredit it.
Are you aware of the Venona cables?
Did you know that the Communist Party was under the direct control of the KGB and the Soviet Union?
There are arguments to be made that McCarthy and Republicans might have gone after some innocent people, but pretending they had no reason to be wary, and no reason to investigate, is silly. It is a proven fact that Soviet spies had infiltrated the government and military. Just like with anything else, the situation was not so black and white as the high-school history books would like you to believe.
Have you ever met a communist or do they only exist in fairy tales for you?
EPT
