I wonder what would McCarthy do if there was no single country associated with Communism AND if Communism was protected by the Constitution as a religion. Poor silly American Communists, there was not a like of Hubbard among them to suggest it...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

"I wonder what would McCarthy do if there was no single country associated with Communism "

And I wonder what would police do if there were no criminals? I have a big list of questions like this that I like to ask myself from time to time. What would we use umbrellas for if there were no rain? What would I do with a fork if the only food was broth?

"if Communism was protected by the Constitution as a religion"

Well, Communism IS protected by the Constitution as a religion. If your communists views are just - views, you have the right to have them. However, you may not DO certai things that this ideology asks you to do: you may not violently overthrow the government, establish a dictatorship, and you can not help other countries do that. Just as no catholic can kill protestants and no follower of the ancient mayan religion can offer human sacrifice to his deities. But, as views - catholicism, communism, and mayan religion - they are all protected equally.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

And I wonder what would police do if there were no criminals?
Make sure it stays this way.

What would we use umbrellas for if there were no rain?
For their intended purpose (see etymology).

If you tried to exemplify the senselessness of my question, you've failed.

I'll try to be more specific. If the threat of Communism were as significant as McCarthy perceived it to be, his methods would likely have been found adequate.

What are you going to do with the carriers of an ideology that does not ask them to violently overthrow the government nor establish a dictatorship, nor help any particular country to do that, but simply to make the life of the law-abiding citizens a living hell up to the point when they agree to relinquish their existing government willingly?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If there were no communists, McCarthy could have made sure it stays this way (according to you answer to my first analogy), or he could have go after some other threat to the nation (as you explained in your answer to my second analogy).

"If you tried to exemplify the senselessness of my question, you've failed."

Actually, I succeeded. You failed. You failed to realize that your answers apply to the original situation just as well as they do to my examples.

Not only that. You failed History 101. You missed the last lesson, where all the questions to the important questions are finally revealed. You missed the revelations of Venona files, and you missed the answers from the Soviet Archives. Those of us who did not, know that the threat of communism WASas significant as McCarthy perceived it to be, In fact, it was worse.

As for the "carriers of the ideology", that "make the life of the law-abiding citizens a living hell" - I need to know what do you call "living hell". You think that communism was no threat - obviously, my understanding of what is hell is vastly different from yours.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"If you tried to exemplify the senselessness of my question, you've failed."

Actually, I succeeded. You failed. You failed to realize that your answers apply to the original situation just as well as they do to my examples.

Then my question was not so senseless to start with, eh?

I cannot fail a course that I do not a test on. For the purposes of the thread I have started, it does not matter what the level of commie threat there was, the only thing what matters is the methods. If you, personally, believe the methods to be adequate, transpose them to the current situation and tell if they would be helpful in the war on domestic terrorism. No ties to particular countries to inquire about, no particular level of superficial adherence to the rituals is a proof of anything...

Let me also remind you of three words "free exercise thereof". According to "Communism IS protected by the Constitution as a religion" would manipulating people's minds enough to win the elections ("Look ma, no violence") be ok with you?

An by "living hell" I meant the conditions under which the populace will be ready to say "Fine, fine, you can have your Sharia law over us, just let us fly our planes and ride our trains in peace".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Then my question was not so senseless to start with, eh?"

They were sensless as in "the answers were immediately obvious to 99% of the population". However, since you used correct English words and organized them in the readable sentences - your questions were not entirely senseless, if that is what you mean.

"If you, personally, believe the methods to be adequate, transpose them to the current situation and tell if they would be helpful in the war on domestic terrorism."

Hmmm. So, imagine there are 200 of Al Qaida spies functioning within the US government, working at different levels from Pentagon coders, who encrypt the messages to the President's advisor. Now, imagine that we organize Congressional Hearings, invite those people we suspect and ask them - "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of Al Qaida?" - and most of them, government workers and all, reply - "I take the Fifth amendment since my answer may incriminate me". Now, your question is - is this method helpful? Interesting. What do YOU think?

"Let me also remind you of three words "free exercise thereof"."

Two possibilities. Either you intend to claim that people have right to ANY form of religious expression - human sacrifice included, or this was entirely senseless paragraph. This time I use the word "senseless" as in "making no contrubition whatsoever to the discussion".

I still have no idea what you mean when you talk about "living hell". This part is getting senseless as in "I recognize all the words, but I have no idea what thoughts you were trying to convey in any of those phrases".

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

immediately obvious to 99% of the population

I like your optimism and your way of using unsubstantiated statistical rhetoric.

"Al Qaida" does not need spies. It does even need the pawns furthering its goals to belong to it. Therefore a similar method on any level, be it Pentagon or flying lessons in Nowhere, WY, will be useless, because there will be nothing specifically incriminating to ask about.

And, unlike the poor silly commies that, while conspiring to overthrow the government, still considered lying to it a no-no, the of the inquiry will not be afraid to lie. What should a new McCarthyist do?

The most important part of the free exercise of religion is the the ability to propagate its ideas in order to recruit new members, whether this recruitment goal is explicit (most religions) or implicit (some religions).

Were Communism in the U.S. a declared religion (in the sense of believing in ideas and striving to propagate them, with no bloody rituals as to render it a dangerous cult), the McCarthy way would not have worked.

If you do not understand the "living hell" part, you might be blessed in your ignorance or your short memory, I guess. How did you feel on 9/11/01?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

the of the inquiry
the ones being inquired

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Well, finally, my statement "I recognize all the words, but I have no idea what thoughts you were trying to convey in any of those phrases" applies not just to a paragraph but to an entire post of yours.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, if you need everything in the form of broth...

1. McCarthyism only worked - regardless of whether it was an overkill or not - because Communists were not sophisticated enough or subversive enough. The same crude straightforward methods are useless against the current threats.

2. Communists were, luckily, too dogmatic in not recognizing the obsession of the American society with the freedom of religion and/or not using it to their benefit.

3. The human psychology in the part of threat perception is very much exploitable.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1. McCarthyism worked because McCarthy had a clear goal and resolve to reach it. And some insider info from the FBI.

2. Freedom of Religion does not protect acts of espionage and plotting a violent overthrow of the Government.

3. Yep, and beans make people fart - which is just as banal and just as relevant to the topic of the dicussion.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1. That's exactly what I'm saying. The commie ineptitude was the reason why just a resolve to reach a goal and some insider info were enough to reach it within the boundaries of the existing laws.

2. I know. There are other subversive things that can be done to the government under the cloak of religion.

3. Yep, unless you're force-fed with beans (do you need me to explain your metaphor back to you?). By the way, what do you know about the topic of the discussion you haven't started?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1. No, not even close.

2. Meaningles statement.

3. You are obviously the only person, who knows what is the topic of the discussion that you started. I have no idea why would you brag about it, but I have seen stranger things.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1. Close to what? To your understanding of the issue? Of course not, why else would we have that conversation?
Your fascination with the way McCarthy dealt with the commies is understandable, but don't try to portray him as a genius and a savior. He was lucky that his approach worked. Good for him (and for us too, up to a few years ago); let's move on to issues at hand where no such dumb luck is possible.

2. Should it be "I don't want to try to understand what in means in context", or "I dare not think in that direction"? On the other hand, granted, discussing what the commies could have done to outwit McCarthy is not very fruitful now.

3. I'm not bragging about it, I'm merely observing that certain topics require thinking in ways uncomfortable for some.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

1. You need to choose - you can claim that you are saying the same thing as I do, or agree that your understanding is not close to mine, but not both.

Next, I did not portray him as a genius, nor as a savior. Neither did I express any "fascination with the way McCarthy dealt with the commies" - all these are just lies that you used for some third-rate demagoguery. I just said that he was determined and persistent, and he got results. Factual statements all.

On the other hand, your claim - that McCarthy was succesful only because Communists did not try harder - is a 100% banal, trivial and thus - meaningless statement. Not very much different then saying that Bulls only win over Nicks, if Nicks play worse then Bulls. I can not understand why would you want to keep saying it - does not even sound smart.

Oh, and when someone wins by being persistent, dedicated, pushing through the obstacles - only a lazy person looking for a self-validation may call it "luck".

2. "Meaningless" means "devoid of any meaning". As in "zero bits of invormation". Like the phrase "this guy won only because the other guy was worse" - no information whatsoever.

3. No, you do not "merely observe". And it has nothing to do with "uncomfortable ways". You keep make vague meaningless statements, and then insist that only you can possibly know what it is about.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

If you had been more attentive to what I've written, you'd have seen why I say that McCarthy had been lucky: because Communists, despite their alleged intent to violently overthrow the Government, had enough respect for it to agree to play by its rules. The contemporary threat carriers have no such respect.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"because Communists, despite their alleged intent to violently overthrow the Government, had enough respect for it to agree to play by its rules"

Not true. They were refusing the testimony not because they had some respect for law - but because they were afraid to be imprisoned for perjury. If you read the protyocols, you'd see that the questions were very precise, showing that those who asked them knew a great deal about those they questioned.

Also, you argue that communists who planned violent overthrow of the Government and spied on behalf of Stalin, - they were ok with murder and treason, but they had great respect for the law - so great, that they could not lie about their spying and planning murder... I guess, your ties with reality are as strong as they look.

(Reply to this) (Parent)