Murrow - McCarthy: Good Night and Good Luck - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MS Fowler · #16 12-05-2005, 05:38 AM

No doubt that the Soviet Union feared us. So, far, no one has mentioned the leader of the USSR at that time. Stalin was a fearful, hateful,vengeful man who gained and helf power thru murder and intimidation--a closed society, run by a dictator who murdered millions of his own countrymen. Have you ever wondered why such men are so suspisious? Do you doubt that he would have used the power that the US had, if the roles were reversed? I have no doubt that he would have bombed the US into the stoneage, if he had the ability. Remember, there was a battle for world supremacy; for leadership in the realm of ideas, or idealogy. Hitler expected the US to join with him and crush Stalin; he said it was inevitable. No doubt Stalin felt the same way--after all he signed a non-agression pact with Herr Hitler which lasted only as long as it was to Hitler's benefit. No doubt that colored Stalin's thinking about other leaders.
The the US, at that time, was not like other countries. There was a clear moral superiority over the murderous dictators that ran other large countries.
The socialists in this country have suceeded in making the US resemble more the USSR of the 1940 and 1950s than the US of that same time. I remember laughing at the way USSR polical prisoners were subjected to "re-education" interment with indeterminate sentences. They were confined and re-educated until they "learned" to spout the government's line. That sounds frighteningly similar to the "political correctness" shakedown going on in the US, now. The USSR had removed all mention of God from their culture; we are now on the saem road. Leftiasts and socialists do not want freedom of speech for anyone who disagrees with their "truths". "Its bad for the children"
The US of that time was not perfect; we were still struggling with racial equality. But compared to the USSR, we did not systematically murder millions of our own people. There was no moral eqivilency.
Also remember that we did not have any delivery system other than bombers, at that time. Given the huge land mass of the USSR, I doubt that we could have destroyed that country. The fighters wee superior to the bombers of that time. Simply having a plurality of warheads would not have guaranteed a vicory. Whats more, there was not the will, other some of the joint chiefs, to undertake such a war. It was better to defeat them economically, which is ultimately how we did defeat them.

kerry · #17 12-05-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Depends on who you ask....

Each PERSON does own his own body and labor. However, the INDIVIDUAL is the important part of this principle that you, and many supporters of socialism, seem to overlook.

The use of large lobbying groups (unions) to politically bully companies into paying workers more than their labor is worth, and into providing more benefits and perks than were originally promised, is NOT "American".

Any student of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights can see that America's founding fathers obviously had the concepts of INDIVIDUAL freedoms, liberties, and responsibilities on their minds. True socialism seeks to suppress the individual, and make the individual's wishes irrelevant, in favor of the "group". If this is not anti-American, then nothing is.

Mike

Utter nonsense. Socialism is not at all opposed to individual rights. I suggest you read the life of Emma Goldman, and then explain how she was not in favor of the rights of individuals. Someone who was persecuted for years for her defense of women's rights to choose their lovers and use birth control is in no way anti-individual. Socialists are usually opposed to the centralization of corporate power but this does not correlated with lack of defense of individual rights.
The situation could be reversed. Libertarians proclaim loudly the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of government but are very happy to let large corporations tyrannize the individual by letting corporate property rights trump labor rights.
The value of labor can certainly be manipulated by unionization, that is precisely one of their purposes. You seem to hold the view that what the corporation wants to pay their workers, independent of worker organization is the 'true' value of labor. It is simply the value that coroporations wish to pay and nothing more.

Botnst · #18 12-05-2005, 08:55 AM

It depends on which flavor of socialism. It depends on which flavor of libertarianism. It depends on which flavor of conservatism.. It depends on which flavor of communism. It depends onw hich flavor of liberalism.

Etc.

The easy argument is to take a moderate definition of one and oppose it by postulating an extremist position of another.

Bot

cmac2012 · #19 12-05-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

I saw it on Friday and was not very impressed. The problem I see is that the film in some ways reinforces the idea that to be a socialist or a communist is not to be an American. In other words, McCarthy's problem is presented as one of accusing innocents, whereas the more basic issue is whether americans should be free to be socialists or communists. When Murrow was accused of having joined the IWW, the opportunity was there to defend the freedom of association and the right to organize unions. He didn't. I read the movie as an account of the conflict between the right wing of the capitalist establishment and the left wing.
Even if McCarthy was right, he was wrong.
Anyone have any links to sites that detail the opinions on Murrow of leftists of the 50's?

I agree with your point but I think guys like Murrow had to choose their battles carefully in that climate. I'm reading Ike's biography again (never finished all of it -- it's BIG), and even he was careful not to attack McCarthy imprudently. He spoke about never underestimating many politicians' lust for the spotlight, and of a belief that McCarthy would burn himself out.

Some of Roosevelt's so-called socialism had enormous benefit for our country -- GI Bill, CCC camps -- and yet he was hated by many for it. Then again, that success may have led to Johnson's less prudent social programs.

A story goes some fellow was near death and wanted to seek out a famous sage for a bit of advice. He found him and asked if there was one single bit of advice that stood out above all the rest, what would it be? The sage replied, "Moderation. In all things, moderation."

cmac2012 · #20 12-05-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Socialism is not in conflict with American principles at all. While the US might have been founded on Lockean principles of the protection of private property understand as 'real' property, those same principles also hold that each person owns their own body and its labor. So the protection of labor rights is equally as fundamental to US principles as the protection of 'real' property. Socialism is the defense of the rights of labor against the rights of capital. There is nothing anti-american about this at all.

Well put.

cmac2012 · #21 12-05-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

You imply a moral equivancy between the USSR and the USA.

Not sure that I did.

You, OTOH, IMO are too certain of our moral superiority. Your dismissal of central America as some fruit company dictatorship is way too self serving. During the cold war, we trod roughshod on numerous nations in service of our ends, Iran being a biggie that's come back to haunt us.

Furhermore, we pounded the crap out of Vietnam and I didn't see Russian pilots in Russian planes doing anything remotely like that there.

Do the man from Mars test.

And, you going to ignore the fact that if we'd been an Eisenhower short we might have incinerated a few hundred million people in the name of deterrence? Oh that would have worked. And the Russkies were the evil ones?

cmac2012 · #22 12-05-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

How convenient, leaving that factor out of the equation, eh?....

By all means, let's consider that. Get busy. You've got some catching up to do.

cmac2012 · #23 12-05-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

No doubt that the Soviet Union feared us. So, far, no one has mentioned the leader of the USSR at that time. Stalin was a fearful, hateful,vengeful man who gained and helf power thru murder and intimidation--a closed society, run by a dictator who murdered millions of his own countrymen. Have you ever wondered why such men are so suspisious? Do you doubt that he would have used the power that the US had, if the roles were reversed? I have no doubt that he would have bombed the US into the stoneage, if he had the ability. Remember, there was a battle for world supremacy; for leadership in the realm of ideas, or idealogy. Hitler expected the US to join with him and crush Stalin; he said it was inevitable. No doubt Stalin felt the same way--after all he signed a non-agression pact with Herr Hitler which lasted only as long as it was to Hitler's benefit. No doubt that colored Stalin's thinking about other leaders.
The the US, at that time, was not like other countries. There was a clear moral superiority over the murderous dictators that ran other large countries.
The socialists in this country have suceeded in making the US resemble more the USSR of the 1940 and 1950s than the US of that same time. I remember laughing at the way USSR polical prisoners were subjected to "re-education" interment with indeterminate sentences. They were confined and re-educated until they "learned" to spout the government's line. That sounds frighteningly similar to the "political correctness" shakedown going on in the US, now. The USSR had removed all mention of God from their culture; we are now on the saem road. Leftiasts and socialists do not want freedom of speech for anyone who disagrees with their "truths". "Its bad for the children"
The US of that time was not perfect; we were still struggling with racial equality. But compared to the USSR, we did not systematically murder millions of our own people. There was no moral eqivilency.
Also remember that we did not have any delivery system other than bombers, at that time. Given the huge land mass of the USSR, I doubt that we could have destroyed that country. The fighters wee superior to the bombers of that time. Simply having a plurality of warheads would not have guaranteed a vicory. Whats more, there was not the will, other some of the joint chiefs, to undertake such a war. It was better to defeat them economically, which is ultimately how we did defeat them.

Stalin was a serious case, no doubt. He did not attack Germany first, though, it's interesting to note.

I don't think pressure for political correctness here, now, is anywhere close to Stalin's re-education camps. People are free to stand up and denounce PC excesses. Also, did Stalin allow churches with large billboards urging people to come in and worship? How about TV and radio shows with preachers of various stripes?

As creepy as the Mo-Fo was, honey does catch more flies than vinegar and we were much quicker to reach for the vinegar, IMO.

You've got a good point about bombers being the only delivery system. Don't know how far fighters could have accompanied them. Did we have in-flight refueling back then? Even so, the joint chiefs' sentiments reflect the reality that it wasn't just Stalin that was a possiblility in the "bombing back to the stoneage" dept.

mikemover · #24 12-05-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

.....I don't think pressure for political correctness here, now, is anywhere close to Stalin's re-education camps. People are free to stand up and denounce PC excesses. Also, did Stalin allow churches with large billboards urging people to come in and worship? How about TV and radio shows with preachers of various stripes?.....

With your comments above, you inadvertently illustrate the seriousness of the problem....

The PC stuff is being fed to us bit by bit, slowly and with subtlety, so that people like you will think that "it's not that bad", or "jeez, it's not socialist re-education, it's just one word.....", etc.

By the time people realize how deeply it has infiltrated our culture and our politics, and how radically it has altered the way we think and live, it will be too late. So far, it is going EXACTLY according to their plan.

Mike

mikemover · #25 12-05-2005, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

By all means, let's consider that. Get busy. You've got some catching up to do.

Please tell me that you do not think the USSR at that time was even close to having the same moral standing that the US had.... If so, then you far more misguided than I ever suspected.

Mike

kerry · #26 12-05-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

With your comments above, you inadvertently illustrate the seriousness of the problem....

The PC stuff is being fed to us bit by bit, slowly and with subtlety, so that people like you will think that "it's not that bad", or "jeez, it's not socialist re-education, it's just one word.....", etc.

By the time people realize how deeply it has infiltrated our culture and our politics, and how radically it has altered the way we think and live, it will be too late. So far, it is going EXACTLY according to their plan.

Mike

People are so simple minded and unsophisticated that they are falling prey to the vast communist propaganda plot financed by the Illuminati.
Rally to the bulwarks and protect the feeble capitalist corporations against the increasing demands of left wing labor advocates before our society is destroyed. If we don't act quickly, the next thing you know gays will demanding they be treated as equals.

mikemover · #27 12-05-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Utter nonsense. Socialism is not at all opposed to individual rights. I suggest you read the life of Emma Goldman, and then explain how she was not in favor of the rights of individuals. Someone who was persecuted for years for her defense of women's rights to choose their lovers and use birth control is in no way anti-individual. Socialists are usually opposed to the centralization of corporate power but this does not correlated with lack of defense of individual rights.
The situation could be reversed. Libertarians proclaim loudly the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of government but are very happy to let large corporations tyrannize the individual by letting corporate property rights trump labor rights.
The value of labor can certainly be manipulated by unionization, that is precisely one of their purposes. You seem to hold the view that what the corporation wants to pay their workers, independent of worker organization is the 'true' value of labor. It is simply the value that coroporations wish to pay and nothing more.

One person is hardly representative of the entire socialist movement, or of its principles. Her particular slant on it obviously places her in a minority amongst socialists.

And yes, I do hold the view that a corporation should not be arbitrarily forced to pay workers more money for the same work. If the employees don't like it, they can always work elsewhere.

Mike

mikemover · #28 12-05-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

People are so simple minded and unsophisticated that they are falling prey to the vast communist propaganda plot financed by the Illuminati.
Rally to the bulwarks and protect the feeble capitalist corporations against the increasing demands of left wing labor advocates before our society is destroyed. If we don't act quickly, the next thing you know gays will demanding they be treated as equals.

Very funny.

Keep living in denial. It's healthy.

Mike

Botnst · #29 12-05-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

http://vicpeace.ca/centre/readings/nukeuse.htm...Best I can tell from this site, we had 400 warheads when the Soviets developed their first one, still a pretty serious arsenal to have pointed at them, specially after all the sabers we'd been rattling. I'm not trying to apologize for the Soviets but this is another example for me of where we seem to disregard human nature. Russia had been bludgeoned by Germany twice in 30 years, losing roughly 20 million people in each war. Then, we had Patton and others lobbying for invading Russia. WTF did we expect them to do? Commit suicide and solve our problem for us? Agree that we should just put them out of their misery?....[/I]

Moral equivalency is like the above argument. Lenin and Stalin murdered (executed without trial) millions of their own people in the Gulags and prison system and millions more through amazingly bad collectivist ideas and astonishingly weird ideas about genetics, then applied these ideas to their own people resulting in more deaths than lost in military actions or all wars ever fought by the USSR. You reduce this unconscienable immorality to arithmetic of nukular weapons counts between the USA and the USSR. Between Stalin's grab of eastern European States to Pattons big mouth. That is "moral equivalency" of an especially virulent, self-loathing anti-american sort. Congratulations monsieur, you have become nearly French in disregard of facts.

Mars test enabled: If I came to teh Earth from Mars I'd be deeply impressed by the global leadership of the USA and wonder why the pigmy self-describing "intellectuals" busy themselves with acts of self-flagellation.

What does your incredibly insightful Martian-channeling Crystal tell you? Oh I know, it is not unlike that black fortune-telling ball. No matter what the question it intones, "Vietnam!"

Bot

kerry · #30 12-05-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Moral equivalency is like the above argument. Lenin and Stalin murdered (executed without trial) millions of their own people in the Gulags and prison system and millions more through amazingly bad collectivist ideas and astonishingly weird ideas about genetics, then applied these ideas to their own people resulting in more deaths than lost in military actions or all wars ever fought by the USSR. You reduce this unconscienable immorality to arithmetic of nukular weapons counts between the USA and the USSR. Between Stalin's grab of eastern European States to Pattons big mouth. That is "moral equivalency" of an especially virulent, self-loathing anti-american sort. Congratulations monsieur, you have become nearly French in disregard of facts.

Mars test enabled: If I came to teh Earth from Mars I'd be deeply impressed by the global leadership of the USA and wonder why the pigmy self-describing "intellectuals" busy themselves with acts of self-flagellation.

What does your incredibly insightful Martian-channeling Crystal tell you? Oh I know, it is not unlike that black fortune-telling ball. No matter what the question it intones, "Vietnam!"

Bot

When did the moral subjectivist undergo such a thoroughgoing conversion?