Poll
Question:
Bork
Option 1: I'm a lefty, he's a bully.
votes: 6
Option 2: I'm a lefty, he's not a bully.
votes: 3
Option 3: I'm a centrist, he's a bully.
votes: 9
Option 4: I'm a centrist, he's not a bully
votes: 6
Option 5: I'm a righty, he's a bully.
votes: 4
Option 6: I'm a righty, he's not a bully.
votes: 3
So I've been having a running debate with my pop (who's pretty lefty) about Christie being a bully. I asked him for some links to videos of him bullying, this is one of them he pointed me to.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/01/chris-christie-bullying-videos
My theory is that whether one views him as a bully is a function of one's politics. I was hoping the good folks of Languish could help answer this question.
I'm particularly interested in the opinions of the non-political posters.
I forgot the Jaron option. :face:
He strikes me as a typical New Jersey resident. Course, my understanding of that is heavily colored by mob shows & movies, so he may be a bully anyway. :P
Do you count me as a lefty, a centrist or a righty?
Based on the clips I don't think he's a bully. Telling morans to STFU isn't bullying.
Quote from: The Brain on January 31, 2014, 07:02:47 PM
Do you count me as a lefty, a centrist or a righty?
Not sure.
Quote from: The Brain on January 31, 2014, 07:02:47 PM
Do you count me as a lefty, a centrist or a righty?
Definitely not a lefty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 06:50:26 PM
with my pop (who's pretty lefty)
Good for him. Now we know why you ended up the way you did.
He seems like a bully on all 8 of the videos. I'll give you the reasons why I think that after the videos finally load.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 07:11:31 PM
Good for him. Now we know why you ended up the way you did.
That, and the econ degree, and experiencing zero Kelvin political correctness at the Kennedy School.
re: Chris Christie; he's not necessarily a bully, but he is a bit of a dickhead with the media, which I would consider unbefitting of his office if he were from anywhere else but New Jersey.
On the other hand, his schtick got sour about 1 year into it. After a while, dressing people down in public just isn't that amusing to watch anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 07:12:35 PM
He seems like a bully on all 8 of the videos. I'll give you the reasons why I think that after the videos finally load.
:P
I assume "all 8" is part of the same joke?
I'm not yet convinced he's done anything wrong, but he's enough of a bully I wouldn't want to work for him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 07:11:31 PM
Good for him. Now we know why you ended up the way you did.
That, and the econ degree, and experiencing zero Kelvin political correctness at the Kennedy School.
Wait, you got an econ degree and never got past the first chapter of the General theory of Employment, interest and money?
I am unconvinced of him being a bully. I talk to people like that in public.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 07:33:10 PM
Wait, you got an econ degree and never got past the first chapter of the General theory of Employment, interest and money?
:face:
That was my reaction.
I think whether he's a bully or not kind of depends on how you view the other person. I've said before I think his schtick is very direct and aggressive - or very Jersey. I wonder if Christie may just be quite honest and up front about it. I imagine politics is fall of this sort of alpha male testosterone ('keep walking') but most politicians hide it behind anodyne statements and 'with all due respect', whereas Christie's out and proud. But I thought it would have limited appeal elsewhere (though I changed my mind after Sandy) and also thought it would fall foul if one of these magic moments was with a very sympathetic 'victim'.
Kind of like how Brown's 'bigoted woman' comment was so much worse because she turned out to be a former Labour voting grandmother who spent her time volunteering with disabled kids. Had she turned out to be a BNP activist then it wouldn't have mattered.
The 8th clip doesn't have context which is annoying but it does seem very strange for an elected official (especially the guy who isn't Christie joining in with the 'keep walking'). On the other hand it reminds me of a Labour MP who I quite liked, in 2005 he was part of a fly on the wall. He was on the stump in Wolverhampton, I think, and some woman started shouting at him about immigration and so on and he confronted her and basically 'you're wrong madam and here's why'. She told him it was all lies they're all the same and started walking away. He followed her carrying on making her point and then chased her while she was trying to run away.
Edit: And I am unsure how I feel about it in terms of how an elected official should behave to voters.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
I think whether he's a bully or not kind of depends on how you view the other person.
TOTALLY CORRECT
It's unfortunate that with the exception of the lady asking about Christie's kids in private school (which, incidentally, I consider the most questionable of the 7 clips) none of the interlocutors' comments are recorded on tape. Well, the teacher is, but the part that Christie objected to ("the giggle") is not.
That given, can we safely assume that the comments were rude? Then the question becomes what is acceptable behavior in an elected official in response to baiting/hectoring/heckling. I think it's perfectly acceptable to respond in kind to a provocation. Never draw first blood, and tit for tat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:05:49 PM
That given, can we safely assume that the comments were rude? Then the question becomes what is acceptable behavior in an elected official in response to baiting/hectoring/heckling. I think it's perfectly acceptable to respond in kind to a provocation. Never draw first blood, and tit for tat.
Christie's comments?
I don't know. On the one hand I think I quite like direct politicians - but I still think they should play the ball - no need for 'idiot' comments, or 'keep walking'. On the other hand I think baiting and hectoring are part of the job and you should still treat voters with respect, Tony Blair's masochism tour springs to mind.
Well, I'll also reiterate my previous statement that heckling et al are generally the province of the left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:12:22 PM
Well, I'll also reiterate my previous statement that heckling et al are generally the province of the left.
?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:12:22 PM
Well, I'll also reiterate my previous statement that heckling et al are generally the province of the left.
YOU LIE!
Why do you assume that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:16:04 PMCan you narrow down the question a smidge?
if you're saying those on the left are more prone to heckling/etc. than the right, then where do you get that from?
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:21:32 PM
Why do you assume that?
Because if Christie were responding like that to a neutral, benign comment or question, he would be a psychotic. And his numerous enemies in the media would be bending over backwards to demonstrate how benign the comments were.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 08:24:09 PM
if you're saying those on the left are more prone to heckling/etc. than the right, then where do you get that from?
Observation. The media.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 08:15:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:12:22 PM
Well, I'll also reiterate my previous statement that heckling et al are generally the province of the left.
YOU LIE!
I was going to post that. :P
Here's one. http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2011/01/06/heckler-interrupts-nj-congressmans-constitution-reading/
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:25:21 PMObservation. The media.
why would that be the case, though? i'm not flat out denying it since i don't have the numbers, but how would that make sense that a certain political ideology (when it's a 50-50 ideological split across the nation) has more hecklers?
also, to answer your OP's question: i'm not sure that he's a bully, but he does seem to have problems handling criticism from strictly those videos
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 08:39:13 PM
why would that be the case, though? i'm not flat out denying it since i don't have the numbers, but how would that make sense that a certain political ideology (when it's a 50-50 ideological split across the nation) has more hecklers?
:huh:Why would it not make sense? We see all the time generalizations about the differences between red state voters and blue state voters. This one goes to church more, this one has higher education, etc., etc.
As to a theory to explain it, I believe it's a result of 1960s protest politics.
Quotealso, to answer your OP's question: i'm not sure that he's a bully, but he does seem to have problems handling criticism from strictly those videos
:huh:We don't even know what the other person said in most of the videos.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:47:27 PM
:huh: We don't even know what the other person said in most of the videos.
Do we really need to know what the other person said to conclude from his responses that Christie has issues handling criticism? Really?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 08:53:30 PM
Do we really need to know what the other person said to conclude from his responses that Christie has issues handling criticism? Really?
Absofuckinglutely. "Christie, you're a douchebag" is not criticism that people are expected to "handle."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:47:27 PM:huh: Why would it not make sense? We see all the time generalizations about the differences between red state voters and blue state voters. This one goes to church more, this one has higher education, etc., etc.
As to a theory to explain it, I believe it's a result of 1960s protest politics.
:huh: We don't even know what the other person said in most of the videos.
we're not including protesters, correct? just hecklers? also, could it be that liberal hecklers annoy you more (for whatever reason), hence you're more prone to remembering their heckles over the conservative ones?
yes, and of the videos i saw, it didn't seem like he could handle criticism very well. especially with the constituent, but also the doctor and the heckler. the street video - no idea what occurred there. SEAL video, criticism, again. it's witnessed again with the teacher. i question whether he's a bully because i'm not sure if he's intentionally trying to use power to beat others into submission. but he does seem to have a problem with handling someone disagreeing with him in a conversation
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 31, 2014, 07:21:48 PM
I'm not yet convinced he's done anything wrong, but he's enough of a bully I wouldn't want to work for him.
Bingo. Whether governor or president, it's kinda hard to justify his behavior in a job that's supposed to be virtually all leadership. There's a difference between taking charge and being an asshole.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 08:53:30 PM
Do we really need to know what the other person said to conclude from his responses that Christie has issues handling criticism? Really?
Absofuckinglutely. "Christie, you're a douchebag" is not criticism that people are expected to "handle."
Do you remember the time that Romney got glitterbombed, and he played it off as "alright! thanks guys! we are having a party throwing confetti! you're excited, i'm excited, things are going great!"
I thought that was his most awesome moment in the campaign.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:59:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 08:53:30 PM
Do we really need to know what the other person said to conclude from his responses that Christie has issues handling criticism? Really?
Absofuckinglutely. "Christie, you're a douchebag" is not criticism that people are expected to "handle."
When you're governor it is.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:00:20 PM
we're not including protesters, correct? just hecklers?
We're including people that yell shit while someone else is giving a speech.
Quotealso, could it be that liberal hecklers annoy you more (for whatever reason), hence you're more prone to remembering their heckles over the conservative ones?
Sure, in the same way that you don't pay attention to something that might be unpleasant is a possibility. I'll make you a bet: Republican candidates for president in the next election get heckled more than Democratic candidates. You watch out for heckling of Democratic candidates, I'll watch out for heckling of Republican candidates.
Quoteyes, and of the videos i saw, it didn't seem like he could handle criticism very well. especially with the constituent, but also the doctor and the heckler. the street video - no idea what occurred there. SEAL video, criticism, again. it's witnessed again with the teacher. i question whether he's a bully because i'm not sure if he's intentionally trying to use power to beat others into submission. but he does seem to have a problem with handling someone disagreeing with him in a conversation
The doctor didn't criticize his policies AFAICT, she made a medical diagnosis. Christie responded politely and informatively to the actual question raised by the teacher, he objected to her behavior while he was responding. The SEAL video we don't know what the other guy said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 08:59:33 PMAbsofuckinglutely. "Christie, you're a douchebag" is not criticism that people are expected to "handle."
these aren't people we're referring to, though. these are elected officials who are held to a higher standard
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:08:16 PM
these aren't people we're referring to, though. these are elected officials who are held to a higher standard
Well, if that's what you meant by not handling criticism, then I agree. And I think no one should be expected to "handle criticism." I think people who want to get attention for being dickheads should post a video of themselves on Youtube.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 09:06:49 PMSure, in the same way that you don't pay attention to something that might be unpleasant is a possibility. I'll make you a bet: Republican candidates for president in the next election get heckled more than Democratic candidates. You watch out for heckling of Democratic candidates, I'll watch out for heckling of Republican candidates.
The doctor didn't criticize his policies AFAICT, she made a medical diagnosis. Christie responded politely and informatively to the actual question raised by the teacher, he objected to her behavior while he was responding. The SEAL video we don't know what the other guy said.
that's a very flawed system of finding out who heckles more, though. i spent a little bit looking on google but couldn't find any hard evidence either way
i'm not referring to strictly policies. christie responded when he perceived disagreement during the conversation. same with the SEAL guy. we don't hear what SEAL said, but you could tell he was disagreeing with christie. christie seems fine with responding to a constituent who has made a point, but then he wants that person to shut up and not disagree any further - maybe because it's now "personal" as opposed to strictly re: policies? now, that's just from the videos. maybe those are cherry-picked, i don't know
:yeahright: They were cherrypicked by Mother Jones.
Mother Jones has a responsibility to democratic discourse.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 09:11:46 PMWell, if that's what you meant by not handling criticism, then I agree. And I think no one should be expected to "handle criticism." I think people who want to get attention for being dickheads should post a video of themselves on Youtube.
nah, separate comment. the constituent video really shows off about the guy. it could be that was a particularly bad day, but it was so uncalled for. same with the teacher, and the SEALs guy who seemed like he wasn't doing anything too crazy
do you think politicians should not be held to a higher standard with how they act in public?
(fyi, i don't personally mind christie from what i've heard of him)
How do you draw your conclusion about the SEALs guy? We don't hear a word he says.
I've already agreed that the lady asking about private schools is the best case for the Christie haters.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 09:17:50 PM
How do you draw your conclusion about the SEALs guy? We don't hear a word he says.
I've already agreed that the lady asking about private schools is the best case for the Christie haters.
listen to the video again with the SEALs guy. does it sound like the guy is screaming "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU" ?
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:15:52 PM
do you think politicians should not be held to a higher standard with how they act in public?
Well, he hasn't punched anyone in the face like Buzz Aldrin, at least not yet...
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:15:52 PM
(fyi, i don't personally mind christie from what i've heard of him)
Don't start apologizing or qualifying your answers ex post facto. Yi just sees that as weakness, and will use it against you later.
:weep:
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:18:43 PM
listen to the video again with the SEALs guy. does it sound like the guy is screaming "FUCK YOU FUCK YOU" ?
It doesn't sound like anything.
It does seem from Christie's response that he goes on ranting after Christie has started to answer his question.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 06:50:26 PM
I'm particularly interested in the opinions of the non-political posters.
Do we have this on Languish?
Seriously, is he, like, the Rob Ford of America, but without a drinking problem as an excuse to smoke crack and push people around? :D
Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
Do we have this on Languish?
Seriously, is he, like, the Rob Ford of America, but without a drinking problem as an excuse to smoke crack and push people around? :D
He's got a penchant for shouting and insulting people that question him. Also, there are now three scandals surrounding him involving potential misappropriation of relief funds for recovery from Hurricane Sandy: 1) allegedly bypassing the bidding process and using Sandy funds to produce commercials featuring him and his family (this one is the subject of a NJAG investigation right now), 2) the lieutenant governor reportedly implying that Hoboken was getting screwed for funding because they weren't approving projects the Governor's office liked, and now 3) allegedly diverting unnecessary Sandy relief funds to Belleville (where no citizens were displaced) to bankroll a senior housing complex.
I don't know if he is a bully, but he seems like a pretty serious douchebag to me.
He is a politician, acting like a jerk to people who question him is d-bagish.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 31, 2014, 07:53:30 PM
I've said before I think his schtick is very direct and aggressive - or very Jersey.
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you people think we just sit around and verbally abuse each other all day long? I wonder how many of these newly-surfaced experts on New Jersey culture actually spent a day in New Jersey.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 10:59:26 PM
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you people think we just sit around and verbally abuse each other all day long? I wonder how many of these newly-surfaced experts on New Jersey culture actually spent a day in New Jersey.
Seriously. Most people think of New Jersey as what they've seen on The Sopranos, Jersey Shore, and The Real Housewives of New Jersey. :bleeding:
Film hasn't been much kinder, either, thank you, Kevin Smith: Jersey Girl, Dogma, Garden State, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, etc.
Speaking of Christie - apparently Wildstein, his appointee to the Port Authority, whom he claims to have barely known when they went to high school together, has come out and said that Christie knew all about the lane closings when they were going on (contarary to his public statements). He claims to have evidence to that effect. I guess Wildstein didn't enjoy the view from underneath the bus where he found himself,
http://gothamist.com/2014/01/31/port_authority_official_claims_chri.php
Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 31, 2014, 06:50:26 PM
I'm particularly interested in the opinions of the non-political posters.
Do we have this on Languish?
There are different degrees of political. Some of you obsess about this stuff way too much.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 31, 2014, 10:44:46 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 31, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
Do we have this on Languish?
Seriously, is he, like, the Rob Ford of America, but without a drinking problem as an excuse to smoke crack and push people around? :D
He's got a penchant for shouting and insulting people that question him. Also, there are now three scandals surrounding him involving potential misappropriation of relief funds for recovery from Hurricane Sandy: 1) allegedly bypassing the bidding process and using Sandy funds to produce commercials featuring him and his family (this one is the subject of a NJAG investigation right now), 2) the lieutenant governor reportedly implying that Hoboken was getting screwed for funding because they weren't approving projects the Governor's office liked, and now 3) allegedly diverting unnecessary Sandy relief funds to Belleville (where no citizens were displaced) to bankroll a senior housing complex.
Bypassing a bidding process can get you in serious trouble. Far more then shouting at people.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 01, 2014, 12:11:49 AM
Bypassing a bidding process can get you in serious trouble. Far more then shouting at people.
:huh: I never claimed otherwise. Anyway, so can diverting federal funds.
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 07:12:35 PM
He seems like a bully on all 8 of the videos. I'll give you the reasons why I think that after the videos finally load.
^_^
Quote from: DGuller on January 31, 2014, 10:59:26 PM
What the fuck does this even mean? Do you people think we just sit around and verbally abuse each other all day long? I wonder how many of these newly-surfaced experts on New Jersey culture actually spent a day in New Jersey.
No-one's claiming expertise or saying this is what New Jersey's like. But he fills the stereotype as surely as Haley Barbour. There's a stereotype from popular culture. Just be glad you're not in Mississippi or, say, Appalachia :P
QuoteBecause if Christie were responding like that to a neutral, benign comment or question, he would be a psychotic.
Haven't most of these videos started from his office? I remember reading about his team filming these 'magic moments' to put on Youtube to build his brand.
That's another issue I have. I'm more sympathetic to a politician who loses it and is rude than to someone who is rude to voters in a calculated way.
QuoteAnd his numerous enemies in the media would be bending over backwards to demonstrate how benign the comments were.
'Numerous enemies'. Which Roger Ailes biography were you reading? :lol:
I think the press probably love him because he's good copy.
QuoteObservation. The media.
What about all the town hall hecklers during Obamacare? That seemed to really help catalyse the Tea Party during 2010. I've seen numerous anti-immigration and Europe hecklers here. A fair few Republican politicians and Democrats (including Obama) have been heckled over immigration in the last year or two.
My view is that it's people who feel they're not heard. During the 80s and the 2000s it was the left. During the 90s I imagine it was the anti-NAFTA/Buchananist wing of things. At the minute I think it's the right. In addition there's groups who feel alienated or ignored by the entire political class, rightly or wrongly, such as gay rights activists until very recently.
I think your point's like if someone said political violence is the province of the right.
Quote:yeahright: They were cherrypicked by Mother Jones.
Okay. But one of them is from the Governor Christie Youtube channel and four of the others are from a 'Chris Christie' Youtube channel. I don't know if that's connected to him at all, but it's got plenty of views and videos. Here's the six most popular from that channel:
Chris Christie calls reporter stupid...
Chris Christie owns hecklers...
Chris Christie gets into a shouting match... (there's two versions of this, both in the most popular)
Chris Christie destroys reporter...
Chris Christie destroys President Obama... It's almost impressive in the last one that he's picking on someone his own size.
For me that's the issue. This is his schtick and these videos are used by him and his supporters to boost him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 01:40:42 AM
'Numerous enemies'. Which Roger Ailes biography were you reading? :lol:
Oh puleeze. You think the editorial boards of Mother Jones, The Progressive, Soujourners, the New York Times, and the management of MSNBC would shed copious tears of joy if Christie weren't seen by the American public badly??
QuoteWhat about all the town hall hecklers during Obamacare? That seemed to really help catalyse the Tea Party during 2010. I've seen numerous anti-immigration and Europe hecklers here. A fair few Republican politicians and Democrats (including Obama) have been heckled over immigration in the last year or two.
I'll offer you the same bet I offered La Croix, then you'll say you don't bet, then I'll say just keep a weather eye during the next presidential election and then tell me if you still think I'm wrong.
QuoteOkay. But one of them is from the Governor Christie Youtube channel and four of the others are from a 'Chris Christie' Youtube channel. I don't know if that's connected to him at all, but it's got plenty of views and videos. Here's the six most popular from that channel:
Chris Christie calls reporter stupid...
Chris Christie owns hecklers...
Chris Christie gets into a shouting match... (there's two versions of this, both in the most popular)
Chris Christie destroys reporter...
Chris Christie destroys President Obama... It's almost impressive in the last one that he's picking on someone his own size.
For me that's the issue. This is his schtick and these videos are used by him and his supporters to boost him.
If you can demonstrate to me that Christie, or his administration, or his personal staff, or anyone fucking related to the guy by marriage has control over that site, I'll concede he's the worst asshole ever considered for federal office and nuke this poll from orbit.
Of course he's a fucking bully, he's a former US Attorney for New Jersey.
How is this a debate?
The man is a thug, in charge of a state full of thugs. It's where he belongs. He's the capo di tutti capi of mesh-shirt wearing Jerseyite assholes. And the people of the state love it.
Quote from: Scipio on February 01, 2014, 10:41:39 AM
Of course he's a fucking bully, he's a former US Attorney for New Jersey.
How is this a debate?
The man is a thug, in charge of a state full of thugs. It's where he belongs. He's the capo di tutti capi of mesh-shirt wearing Jerseyite assholes. And the people of the state love it.
The Republican narrative has always been that he was surprisingly popular, but frankly, it was almost an even split until Sandy boosted his ratings:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fw_652%2Ftreehslkfkyv0twwzhag.jpg&hash=ea2773939568f58fbf7a84069cd30567c01aae19)
It's surprising for any Republican to be even somewhat popular there, so the narrative holds IMO.
Quote from: derspiess on February 01, 2014, 01:22:34 PM
It's surprising for any Republican to be even somewhat popular there, so the narrative holds IMO.
:rolleyes: Another non-resident expert on New Jersey.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2014, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 01, 2014, 01:22:34 PM
It's surprising for any Republican to be even somewhat popular there, so the narrative holds IMO.
:rolleyes: Another non-resident expert on New Jersey.
Only the truest of the true conservative faithful can be found in the south and midwest; the rest are poseurs, or emotionally compromised.
It's really not about that, but rather about combining two big fallacies at once. One fallacy is that being a local Republican means the same thing in every state, and the other fallacy is that New Jersey is a very blue state. Apart from that, it's also about extreme intellectual laziness. A simple Google search can show you that New Jersey governors have been pretty evenly split between Republicans and Democrats going back quite a long time, even during the last two decades when New Jersey always voted for a Democratic presidential candidate.
Quote from: DGuller on February 01, 2014, 02:18:55 PM
Apart from that, it's also about extreme intellectual laziness.
derspiess is not intellectually lazy. :mad: It's a lot of work to develop those fucked up viewpoints. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 03:17:27 AMOh puleeze. You think the editorial boards of Mother Jones, The Progressive, Soujourners, the New York Times, and the management of MSNBC would shed copious tears of joy if Christie weren't seen by the American public badly??
No. I think they'd shed tears if he left the scene to be replaced by someone like Mitch Daniels.
Also none of them really matter (maybe MSNBC and NYT), you may as well throw in New Left Review.
QuoteI'll offer you the same bet I offered La Croix, then you'll say you don't bet, then I'll say just keep a weather eye during the next presidential election and then tell me if you still think I'm wrong.
I don't bet. But why just focus on Presidential candidates (incidentally the most prominent recent heckle, 'you lie!' aside, was 'iron my shirt'). And surely what matters is the message of the heckler not the victim?
QuoteIf you can demonstrate to me that Christie, or his administration, or his personal staff, or anyone fucking related to the guy by marriage has control over that site, I'll concede he's the worst asshole ever considered for federal office and nuke this poll from orbit.
Most of these were originally on his YouTube channel - if you go to the original articles about them the links take you to his account but they're not all there anymore. You'll also note in most of the videos the audio is from the mic - not from a camera or a phone recording - so often we can't here what the offending person's done to Christie because they don't have the mic after they've asked their question.
But here's the source:
QuoteBut Christie was holding the town hall to do more than just promote his agenda; he was also trying to gin up some Internet content. While his fellow governors tend to use their official YouTube channels to show ribbon-cuttings and speeches, Christie, a former federal prosecutor who relishes the thrust and parry of political debate, has turned his into a video library of gubernatorial smackdowns—which, after just ten months in office, are already so numerous that his admirers are able to rank their favorites. Like the one he delivered at a town hall in Rutherford, where he told a public-school teacher complaining about her salary that "teachers go into it knowing what the pay scale is" and that if she didn't like what she was being paid, "then you don't have to do it." Or another he dished out to a reporter who asked him about his "confrontational tone." "You must be the thinnest-skinned guy in America," Christie replied, "because you think that's a confrontational tone? Then you should really see me when I'm pissed."
Almost everywhere Christie goes, he is filmed by an aide whose job is to capture these "moments," as the governor's staff has come to call them. When one occurs, Christie's press shop splices the video and uploads it to YouTube; from there, conservatives throughout the country share Christie clips the way tween girls circulate Justin Bieber videos. "The YouTube stuff is golden," says Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review. "I can't tell you how many people forward them to me." One video on Christie's YouTube channel—a drubbing he delivered to another aggrieved public-school teacher at a town hall in September—has racked up over 750,000 views.
Now in Moorestown, Christie was hoping to create another such moment. After some introductory remarks, he opened the floor to questions. "For those of you who have seen some of my appearances on YouTube," he cautioned, peeling off his suit jacket as he spoke, "this is when it normally happens." Then, recognizing the man who was first in line at the microphone, Christie began to grin. "This could happen right here, ladies and gentlemen! This guy at times has the tendency to annoy me ... Get ready! If you have your own cameras, start rolling!" But the man proceeded to lob Christie a softball, asking why the Legislature wouldn't pass the governor's education proposals. And the subsequent questions from the audience only got softer, as it seemed that everyone at the town hall was a supporter. "I want to take this moment to say two words to you, and that is thank you," said one woman, not even bothering with a question. Christie did his best to pepper his responses with bombastic shots at his absent political opponents—"This is the crap I have to listen to," he said of some of their criticisms—but the performance soon became like watching a prizefighter shadowbox.
Finally, after more than an hour, it was time for the last question. A middle-aged African-American woman stepped to the microphone. "I did not vote for you," she said in a strong voice, "and I reject your unwillingness to reconsider the tunnel." The previous day, Christie had announced he was killing a proposed train tunnel under the Hudson River between North Jersey and Manhattan because his state's share of the construction costs was too high. "I reject the notion that we can't afford an investment," the woman said. "I want the governor to address this issue of investment."
"Sure, okay, well, here we go," Christie replied, before the woman started to interrupt him. He held up his hand. "Hold on! I've listened, so now let me answer." Christie is the rare politician who is obese—his weight probably approaches 300 pounds—and, up on the stage, he now appeared to loom even larger. Staring down at the woman, he launched into a lengthy, at times pedantic, explanation of the tunnel's funding formula, the likelihood of cost overruns, and the budgetary calculations that led him to conclude that New Jersey simply didn't have the money to pay for the project. Each time the woman tried to interject, he cut her off—"Look at me, please," he instructed her at one point—until eventually, she fell silent and stood awkwardly as he continued his monologue.
http://nymag.com/news/politics/69677/
From the NYT when these videos first started taking off:
QuoteSince Mr. Christie took office in January, his staff has spread his message on YouTube, posting sharply edited videos of him talking tough or dressing down hostile questioners, a stark contrast with the set pieces that make up most other politicians' offerings online.
The style and sheer size of the oeuvre — 163 videos — has helped make Mr. Christie, a Republican in a largely Democratic state, a YouTube sensation, with myriad fans around the country who can describe his goals, dislikes and manner.
"A lot of the political stuff online is really dry, but with Christie, there's an entertainment factor," said Nicco Mele, who teaches a class on the Internet and politics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "These videos don't seem professionally produced, even though they are."
Mr. Mele, who worked on Internet strategy for Howard Dean's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, noted that "until now, the most visible impact YouTube has had on politics is catching gaffes, but that's changing." He said Mr. Christie's approach was "very smart and unusual," predicting "you'll see other people adopt it."
In the last two years, it has become standard for major political figures to have their own YouTube channels, allowing them to present a carefully tailored image directly to the public. But Mr. Christie's effort, and its response, have been anything but standard.
...
But experts said Mr. Christie's effective, animated speaking style was enhanced by the videography style of his aides.
Many clips are less than five minutes long, and generally have an impromptu, almost homemade feel, shot with a hand-held camera in school gyms and firehouses, carefully edited to show Mr. Christie at his most earnest and funny, pacing with a microphone and giving detailed answers to constituents' questions.
There he is at an October town-hall-style meeting in Monmouth Junction, dripping with sarcasm as he characterizes the Legislature as being overly concerned with trivial issues. There he is ridiculing the teachers' union this fall in Scotch Plains, and back in June in Robbinsville, comparing it to a playground bully.
"I've said, 'You punch them, I punch you,' " he said. "The fight is about who is going to run public education in New Jersey — the parents and the people they elect, or the mindless, faceless union leaders who decide that they're going to be the ones who are going to run it because they have the money and the authority to bully around school boards and local councils."
People who have worked for Mr. Christie say that he is perfectly capable of modulating his tone and that he can use scolding and ridicule strategically. YouTube viewers, though, hear the governor saying with a shrug that this is just who he is.
"I have an Irish father, and I had — and I had before she passed away six years ago, a Sicilian mother," he told an audience in May. "For those of you who have been exposed to the combination of Irish and Sicilian, it has made me not unfamiliar with conflict."
As I say it's his brand which has been scrupulously built and maintained but could be a problem. There's a reason the Chris Christie YouTube channel (don't know who runs that) and the Governor Christie one have way more subscribers than any other GOP politician I can find and it's not because people are desperately interested in New Jersey.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 08:06:49 PM
Also none of them really matter (maybe MSNBC and NYT), you may as well throw in New Left Review.
What does mattering have to do with anything?
I said that if the unrecorded questioner/commenter/ranter had something that was truly undeserving of a verbal smackdown, there are numerous media sources that would have gleefully reported it. The fact that no one has demonstrates that the questioners were being dickheads.
QuoteI don't bet. But why just focus on Presidential candidates (incidentally the most prominent recent heckle, 'you lie!' aside, was 'iron my shirt'). And surely what matters is the message of the heckler not the victim?
The presidential race is easier to keep track of than umpteen House and Senate campaigns.
Whether the message matters or not is a question I'm happy to discuss with you after you have conceded that heckling is a province of the left.
QuoteMost of these were originally on his YouTube channel - if you go to the original articles about them the links take you to his account but they're not all there anymore.
But that's not the accusation I was responding to: that Christie was responsible for titling videos with "Christie tears douchebag a new asshole," or "Christie publicly castrates a retard."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 08:19:28 PMI said that if the unrecorded questioner/commenter/ranter had something that was truly undeserving of a verbal smackdown, there are numerous media sources that would have gleefully reported it. The fact that no one has demonstrates that the questioners were being dickheads.
We can't hear. On the videos the audio is from the mic so we don't hear what they're saying. The teacher's reaction is hardly outstandingly rude or heckling, but we can see that on the video. Also at the event with a reporter we have the 'look at me' line, which I find most unpleasant.
But as I say for me I don't like the artifice of it. If he genuinely does get riled by anyone showing him disrespect that's one thing, but I think it's calculated which is worse. He doesn't accidentally get into these fights, he looks for them.
QuoteWhether the message matters or not is a question I'm happy to discuss with you after you have conceded that heckling is a province of the left.
So Rubio's recent anti-immigration hecklers (several men and women shouting 'no amnesty' and 'secure the border' interrupting his speech several times) are of the left?
QuoteBut that's not the accusation I was responding to: that Christie was responsible for titling videos with "Christie tears douchebag a new asshole," or "Christie publicly castrates a retard."
Oh okay. You should have made that clear because the point I was making was that that's Christie's schtick.
As an aside though you think the naming's the worst bit of that?
Edit: Finally voted - think he's a bully. I think that he seems to be looking for conflict is key. Whether the other people are sympathetic or not matters less if he's out to smack them down regardless.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 08:19:28 PM
But that's not the accusation I was responding to: that Christie was responsible for titling videos with "Christie tears douchebag a new asshole," or "Christie publicly castrates a retard."
I missed seeing those. :(
They sound great. So great, in fact, that I would think they were strawman titles, if I didn't know you would never stoop so low.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 08:33:20 PM
But as I say for me I don't like the artifice of it. If he genuinely does get riled by anyone showing him disrespect that's one thing, but I think it's calculated which is worse. He doesn't accidentally get into these fights, he looks for them.
If by looking for them you mean he stages town hall type events, then yeah. I don't know a US office holder that doesn't.
QuoteSo Rubio's recent anti-immigration hecklers (several men and women shouting 'no amnesty' and 'secure the border' interrupting his speech several times) are of the left?
I could keep typing "generally," "disproportionately," or "a preponderance" every time, but I was hoping to save myself the effort.
QuoteOh okay. You should have made that clear because the point I was making was that that's Christie's schtick.
My bad. I was kind of stoned when I responded.
QuoteAs an aside though you think the naming's the worst bit of that?
I think the naming is the only bad part of it. As I've said before people who act like dickheads in public theater *should* get smacked down.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 08:41:59 PM
If by looking for them you mean he stages town hall type events, then yeah. I don't know a US office holder that doesn't.
Did you read the two bits I quoted?
QuoteI could keep typing "generally," "disproportionately," or "a preponderance" every time, but I was hoping to save myself the effort.
But that's why the message matters rather than the politician.
QuoteI think the naming is the only bad part of it. As I've said before people who act like dickheads in public theater *should* get smacked down.
Okay. Then we disagree. I think it is the behaviour of a bully. I've no issue with John Prescott punching someone because he egged him. I'd have a problem if John Prescott travelled round the country challenging people to egg him so he could fight them, film it, edit it and add it to his burgeoning 'TwoJabs' YouTube channel.
Edit: Also just searching for recent hecklers I think the one who called Elizabeth Warren a 'socialist whore' is probably winning :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
Did you read the two bits I quoted?
Yes. They are about Christie's staff filming his public appearances and posting them on Youtube. I don't understand how you get from there to "looking for fights."
QuoteBut that's why the message matters rather than the politician.
You've lost me.
QuoteOkay. Then we disagree. I think it is the behaviour of a bully. I've no issue with John Prescott punching someone because he egged him. I'd have a problem if John Prescott travelled round the country challenging people to egg him so he could fight them, film it, edit it and add it to his burgeoning 'TwoJabs' YouTube channel.
See above. I don't see any evidence of Christie challenging people to egg him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 08:51:25 PMYes. They are about Christie's staff filming his public appearances and posting them on Youtube. I don't understand how you get from there to "looking for fights."
Okay then I think you're naive and giving Christie way, way too much benefit of the doubt and regular people filmed by his staff without mics far too little.
I think at best one of these was accidental and since then it's been a part of his media strategy. I've no doubt if he runs for President he'll do the same to some inane Tea Party questioner and be cheered for it too, including by people who call him a bully now. For some people his John McCain without the manners schtick is appealing personally I think it's inappropriate in a politician.
The other interesting thing about it is how often we've talked about Christie's style - especially in these videos - and how rarely we've talked about the content.
QuoteYou've lost me.
He's a right wing politician being heckled by the right.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 09:04:55 PM
Okay then I think you're naive and giving Christie way, way too much benefit of the doubt and regular people filmed by his staff without mics far too little.
This is remarkably content-free for a Shelf post.
QuoteI think at best one of these was accidental and since then it's been a part of his media strategy. I've no doubt if he runs for President he'll do the same to some inane Tea Party questioner and be cheered for it too, including by people who call him a bully now. For some people his John McCain without the manners schtick is appealing personally I think it's inappropriate in a politician.
What's been part of his media strategy? Planting phony ranters in town halls? Dosing attendees at his events with drugs that induce ranting?
He holds town halls and Q&A sessions. Everyone does. Some people do staged town halls in which all the attendees are guaranteed to be sympathetic to the principal. Is holding non-staged events in which whackos can ask question "looking or a fight" in your mind?
QuoteHe's a right wing politician being heckled by the right.
Of yes, of course. Agreed.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 09:18:26 PMHe holds town halls and Q&A sessions. Everyone does. Some people do staged town halls in which all the attendees are guaranteed to be sympathetic to the principal. Is holding non-staged events in which whackos can ask question "looking or a fight" in your mind?
Again you're assuming they're whackos and rude which isn't an assumption I can think you can make when the sound is what's picked up on the mics. We don't know what they're saying. What do you think that woman could have done for Christie to say 'look at me'?
Regardless Christie's a grown man who can choose how he responds to that. Elizabeth Warren's response to being called a 'socialist whore' was to say something along the lines of 'we're here to do work and as you can see we've got a lot more to do'. She later said she felt sorry for the guy because he'd apparently been unemployed for 18 months, was in a tough situation and wanted to shout and call her names to feel better.
Christie's got his schtick and plays to it, "For those of you who have seen some of my appearances on YouTube," he cautioned, peeling off his suit jacket as he spoke, "this is when it normally happens." Then, recognizing the man who was first in line at the microphone, Christie began to grin. "This could happen right here, ladies and gentlemen! This guy at times has the tendency to annoy me ... Get ready! If you have your own cameras, start rolling!"
And of course if they are being rude, where could they have got the idea that the way you debate is through verbal smackdowns? It reminds me of Christopher Hitchens. He was a great writer and a great speaker, but I think his worst legacy are the pub bore imitations.
That post had a lot of interesting things in it, but none, as far as I can tell, concerned the question of "looking for a fight."
As I say I think you give him a lot of doubt - but that's no doubt a function of your politics :P
He wants to film the moments. He creates them at any given provocation. He basically says at the events 'roll on up'. Short of solely addressing Occupy Trenton, I can't think what more he could do.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 09:39:35 PM
As I say I think you give him a lot of doubt - but that's no doubt a function of your politics :P
I could say the mirror image to you, but what would be the point?
QuoteHe wants to film the moments. He creates them at any given provocation. He basically says at the events 'roll on up'. Short of solely addressing Occupy Trenton, I can't think what more he could do.
OK, I think I might understand what you mean by "looking for a fight." You mean he's happy to respond to a provocation, whereas previously I had thought you were using it in the sense of challenging someone into taking him on, baiting people. Trying to start a fight.
I agree that he's happy responding to provocations.
Quote from: Jacob on January 31, 2014, 11:35:47 PM
Speaking of Christie - apparently Wildstein, his appointee to the Port Authority, whom he claims to have barely known when they went to high school together, has come out and said that Christie knew all about the lane closings when they were going on (contarary to his public statements). He claims to have evidence to that effect. I guess Wildstein didn't enjoy the view from underneath the bus where he found himself,
http://gothamist.com/2014/01/31/port_authority_official_claims_chri.php
Christie responds:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-text-chris-christie-email-family-friends/story?id=22330561
My favourite section:
Quote4. In David Wildstein's past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as "tumultuous" and someone who "made moves that were not productive."
• As a 16-year-old kid, he sued over a local school board election.
• He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.
• He had a controversial tenure as Mayor of Livingston
• He was an anonymous blogger known as Wally Edge
• He had a strange habit of registering web addresses for other people's names without telling them
• Thomas L. Adams, Wildstein's Council Running Mate: "It Was A Tumultuous Time." (Shawn Boburg, "Ex-Blogger Is Governor Christie's Eyes, Ears Inside The Port Authority," Bergen Record, 3/3/12)
• Robert Leopold, Livingston's former Democratic Mayor: Wildstein Was "A Political Animal" Who "Frightened People." (Shawn Boburg, "Ex-Blogger Is Governor Christie's Eyes, Ears Inside The Port Authority," Bergen Record, 3/3/12)
• "He Was A Very Contentious Person." (Shawn Boburg, "Ex-Blogger Is Governor Christie's Eyes, Ears Inside The Port Authority," Bergen Record, 3/3/12)
• Wildstein Created "Culture Of Fear" Within Port Authority. "He and others referred to a 'culture of fear' within the authority, reflected in testimony from other authority officials about their reluctance to report to Mr. Foye or others what they considered an 'odd' request from Mr. Wildstein—to abruptly realign lanes that had been in place for decades and to tell no one about it." (Ted Mann, "Port Authority Chief Testifies in George Washington Bridge Flap," The Wall Street Journal, 12/9/13)
5. David Wildstein has been publicly asking for immunity since the beginning, been held in contempt by the New Jersey legislature for refusing to testify, failed to provide this so-called "evidence" when he was first subpoenaed by the NJ Legislature and is looking for the Port Authority to pay his legal bills.
• Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich: "Look, from my perspective and Fort Lee's perspective, we have credibility issues with Mr. Wildstein...He is certainly bucking for immunity." (Susan K. Livio, "GWB letter raises credibility questions for Chris Christie, Port Authority official, politicians say," Star-Ledger, 2/1/14)
• Assemblyman John Wisniewski: "'I am curious (Wildstein) has documents ... he did not provide them to the committee when he was subpoenaed,' Wisniewski added." (Susan K. Livio, "GWB letter raises credibility questions for Chris Christie, Port Authority official, politicians say," Star-Ledger, 2/1/14)
Some of these are amazing - as a 16 year old David Wildstein encouraged other kids to smoke - but also, if they're a problem, why did Christie appoint him? :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 09:48:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 09:39:35 PM
As I say I think you give him a lot of doubt - but that's no doubt a function of your politics :P
I could say the mirror image to you, but what would be the point?
Didn't stop him from falling for Shucksabee.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 09:48:08 PM
I could say the mirror image to you, but what would be the point?
I think it'd be nonsense.
I'm not a partisan hack, despite having relatively strong views on everything - especially things I know little about. But you won't find me eulogising politicians I don't like but are on my side - say, Ed Miliband, or any other Labour frontbencher :bleeding: - or searching out ways to slam the ones I disagree with. In general the only thing I am partisan for is entertaining characterful politicians - Christie, Huckabee, Ken Clarke, Joe Biden, Boehner. It's the ones who are the opposite of that I hate - Romney. Them and Boris Johnson.
For what it's worth I think Christie would be the wrong way for the GOP to go, even if this whole bridge story didn't exist. I think his style wouldn't work everywhere. Also I think he's a decent establishment candidate. The GOP need to embrace the Tea Party/reformist wing, populism and attack the establishment that's lost them so many elections. I'm not sure who that candidate would be right now.I like Rand Paul and he's a very positive figure, but I also like America giving a shit about national security, so not him.
Edit: Also I'm very in favour of old politicians. Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and David Cameron are in their 40s they should be junior ministers or rising stars in the Cabinet. They shouldn't be competing for Downing Street :bleeding:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 10:34:27 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 01, 2014, 09:48:08 PM
I could say the mirror image to you, but what would be the point?
I think it'd be nonsense.
I'm not a partisan hack, despite having relatively strong views on everything - especially things I know little about. But you won't find me eulogising politicians I don't like but are on my side - say, Ed Miliband, or any other Labour frontbencher :bleeding: - or searching out ways to slam the ones I disagree with. In general the only thing I am partisan for is entertaining characterful politicians - Christie, Huckabee, Ken Clarke, Joe Biden, Boehner. It's the ones who are the opposite of that I hate - Romney. Them and Boris Johnson.
For what it's worth I think Christie would be the wrong way for the GOP to go, even if this whole bridge story didn't exist. I think his style wouldn't work everywhere. Also I think he's a decent establishment candidate. The GOP need to embrace the Tea Party/reformist wing, populism and attack the establishment that's lost them so many elections. I'm not sure who that candidate would be right now.I like Rand Paul and he's a very positive figure, but I also like America giving a shit about national security, so not him.
Edit: Also I'm very in favour of old politicians. Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and David Cameron are in their 40s they should be junior ministers or rising stars in the Cabinet. They shouldn't be competing for Downing Street :bleeding:
What's wrong Them?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FnSbRDUq.jpg&hash=9da1893fee21b550c4f5d6b16b50d1f4dfdf3bd4)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 01, 2014, 09:52:44 PM
Some of these are amazing - as a 16 year old David Wildstein encouraged other kids to smoke - but also, if they're a problem, why did Christie appoint him? :mellow:
:lol: Looks like Christie doubled down on his "I didn't know him in high school, I was a jock, I didn't hang around with dorks" defense. It would be just desserts if that was the move that seals his political fate.
Joe McCarthy was a bully, a man who used the power of his office to intimidate, coerce, silence and ruin others.
Christie is just a fat guy from Jersey with a loud voice.
I think the traffic thing could be seen that way too. But not the clips Yi posted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2014, 11:32:51 PM
Joe McCarthy was a bully, a man who used the power of his office to intimidate, coerce, silence and ruin others.
Yeah, but he gave those commies what-fer.
Interesting poll results.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 09:01:57 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 02, 2014, 11:32:51 PM
Joe McCarthy was a bully, a man who used the power of his office to intimidate, coerce, silence and ruin others.
Yeah, but he gave those commies what-fer.
Were any actual Commie spies found by McCarthy? I thought it was just leftwing Hollywood types and New Dealers. I figured it was just revenge for all the hell the Roosevelt Administration gave the Isolationist Republican types during WWII-pretty much declaring them Fascist and Nazi sympathizers. Turn-about is fair play and all that.
Anyway I don't think Christie is a bully.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 03, 2014, 09:09:41 AM
Interesting poll results.
guess the bully/no bully view comes down to whether you were bullied by a fat kid growing up :D
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 09:15:50 AM
Were any actual Commie spies found by McCarthy? I thought it was just leftwing Hollywood types and New Dealers. I figured it was just revenge for all the hell the Roosevelt Administration gave the Isolationist Republican types during WWII-pretty much declaring them Fascist and Nazi sympathizers. Turn-about is fair play and all that.
There were quite a few communists, sympathizers, and outright Soviet agents in various branches of government and throughout the entertainment industry. This was well-known in some circles but most Americans seemed unaware. In hindsight, McCarthy was probably too blunt an instrument for the job, but his heart was in the right place.
QuoteAnyway I don't think Christie is a bully.
I think he probably is, but in the context of New Jersey politics it's kind of a non-issue.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
There were quite a few communists, sympathizers, and outright Soviet agents in various branches of government and throughout the entertainment industry. This was well-known in some circles but most Americans seemed unaware. In hindsight, McCarthy was probably too blunt an instrument for the job, but his heart was in the right place.
How could they be unaware after the Rosenberg fiasco? Anyway McCarthy pissed all over the US Constitution and achieved zilch in actually catching any spies. But he was not really interested in going after actual Soviet Spies, this was about revenge on left wing Americans.
Hey derspiess, random question...if the bengals win the super bowl, will you get a ring?
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
How could they be unaware after the Rosenberg fiasco?
Good question-- you'd have to think people would be suspicious. But the fact that McCarthy's Wheeling speech caused such a stir indicates that they were not.
QuoteAnyway McCarthy pissed all over the US Constitution and achieved zilch in actually catching any spies.
I did say he was a bit of a blunt instrument. He did shine the light on a few rats, at least.
QuoteBut he was not really interested in going after actual Soviet Spies, this was about revenge on left wing Americans.
He had it in for a few Dems, that's for sure. But I don't see anything to indicate he was an insincere anti-communist.
Quote from: alfred russel on February 03, 2014, 10:57:21 AM
Hey derspiess, random question...if the bengals win the super bowl, will you get a ring?
Maybe if I buy one, lol.
My brother definitely would and he would've definitely earned it. I'm just a part-time consultant/go-fer of sorts.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
How could they be unaware after the Rosenberg fiasco?
What was the Rosenberg fiasco?
Maybe Valmy's mad they got caught? :P
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 09:41:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 09:15:50 AM
Were any actual Commie spies found by McCarthy? I thought it was just leftwing Hollywood types and New Dealers. I figured it was just revenge for all the hell the Roosevelt Administration gave the Isolationist Republican types during WWII-pretty much declaring them Fascist and Nazi sympathizers. Turn-about is fair play and all that.
There were quite a few communists, sympathizers, and outright Soviet agents in various branches of government and throughout the entertainment industry. This was well-known in some circles but most Americans seemed unaware. In hindsight, McCarthy was probably too blunt an instrument for the job, but his heart was in the right place.
QuoteAnyway I don't think Christie is a bully.
I think he probably is, but in the context of New Jersey politics it's kind of a non-issue.
Being a communist is not actually a crime. Was he able to prove anyone was actually a soviet agent?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2014, 01:46:30 PM
Being a communist is not actually a crime.
Given the high correlation between CPUSA membership and Soviet spying, being a communist is a red flag (of sorts) that people should know about. And it should definitely disqualify someone from a federal government position of any importance.
QuoteWas he able to prove anyone was actually a soviet agent?
Dunno, but he sure did out a bunch of communists.
I'll go on the record as having no opinion on Chris Christie being a bully.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
How could they be unaware after the Rosenberg fiasco?
What was the Rosenberg fiasco?
People giving Nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? I figured that was a bit of a fiasco.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 01:08:54 PM
Maybe Valmy's mad they got caught? :P
Huh? Um...touché. I guess.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2014, 01:46:30 PM
Being a communist is not actually a crime.
Given the high correlation between CPUSA membership and Soviet spying, being a communist is a red flag (of sorts) that people should know about. And it should definitely disqualify someone from a federal government position of any importance.
QuoteWas he able to prove anyone was actually a soviet agent?
Dunno, but he sure did out a bunch of communists.
So despite all his talk about treason, you can't name any actual spies he outed? Anyone he was able to prove actually committed treason? Remember, his claims were that communist agents in the government were handing the communists victories, most notably in China.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 02:06:36 PM
People giving Nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? I figured that was a bit of a fiasco.
Ah. I guess we just have different definitions of "fiasco." Not all espionage cases are fiascos to me, and certainly Rosenberg was not the only, nor was he by any means the most important, figure passing atomic secrets to the Soviets.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 02:15:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 02:06:36 PM
People giving Nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? I figured that was a bit of a fiasco.
Ah. I guess we just have different definitions of "fiasco." Not all espionage cases are fiascos to me, and certainly Rosenberg was not the only, nor was he by any means the most important, figure passing atomic secrets to the Soviets.
Well whatever it was it definitely brought the issue to public attention.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2014, 02:09:47 PM
So despite all his talk about treason, you can't name any actual spies he outed? Anyone he was able to prove actually committed treason? Remember, his claims were that communist agents in the government were handing the communists victories, most notably in China.
Is this one of those Razz tricks where I answer the question and then you change your criteria from "actual spy" to "convicted spy"? Anyway, I believe the Venona transcripts corroborated some of the people on his list.
But even with zero evidence of espionage, communists in sensitive federal agencies represented a security risk in that day & age and it was well worth the effort to identify them.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
But even with zero evidence of espionage, communists in sensitive federal agencies represented a security risk in that day & age and it was well worth the effort to identify them.
As well as efforts to uncover homosexuals as they represented a security risk by virtue of blackmail of their identities.
Quote from: garbon on February 03, 2014, 02:26:40 PM
As well as efforts to uncover homosexuals as they represented a security risk by virtue of blackmail of their identities.
Okay.
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
It had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:06:23 PM
I'll go on the record as having no opinion on Chris Christie being a bully.
After he beat me up and stole my lunch money, I voted "yes".
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
It had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
Something with no tangible positive results that violates the basics of the Bill of Rights does not have to be done. I know that seems to be a difficult concept for our politicians to swallow.
Anyway what is cultural Marxism?
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 02:17:49 PM
Well whatever it was it definitely brought the issue to public attention.
I'd say it was the execution of the Rosenbergs that made the headlines. Klaus Fuchs gave away more important secrets for a longer period of time, and this didn't seem all that traumatic to the public.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 02:44:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
It had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
Something with no tangible positive results that violates the basics of the Bill of Rights does not have to be done. I know that seems to be a difficult concept for our politicians to swallow.
Anyway what is cultural Marxism?
A "cultural" Marxist is just like a real Marxist, only without the Marxism. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2014, 02:46:08 PM
A "cultural" Marxist is just like a real Marxist, only without the Marxism. ;)
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PMIt had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
What's cultural marxism?
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PMIt had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
What's cultural marxism?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cultural+marxism
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 02:44:08 PM
Something with no tangible positive results that violates the basics of the Bill of Rights
How so?
Quotedoes not have to be done.
I disagree. We fell asleep on communism during World War II and even allowed communists, some of them Soviet agents, to infiltrate deep into the federal bureaucracy. The general population had a right to know about that.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PMIt had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
What's cultural marxism?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cultural+marxism
That doesn't sound so bad. Anything in particular in this piece you think applies to me?
Quote from: Spicy's Wikipedia LinkCultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized. An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity; are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact ideological.
"We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations."
— Martha E. Gimenez, Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy
According to UCLA professor and critical theorist Douglas Kellner, "Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukács, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life." Scholars have employed various types of Marxist social criticism to analyze cultural artifacts.
Frankfurt School and critical theory
The Frankfurt School is the name usually used to refer to a group of scholars who have been associated at one point or another over several decades with the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt, including Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, Wolfgang Fritz Haug and Jürgen Habermas. In the 1930s the Institute for Social Research was forced out of Germany by the rise of the Nazi Party. In 1933, the Institute left Germany for Geneva. It then moved to New York City in 1934, where it became affiliated with Columbia University. Its journal Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was accordingly renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. It was at that moment that much of its important work began to emerge, having gained a favorable reception within American and English academia.
Among the key works of the Frankfurt School which applied Marxist categories to the study of culture were Adorno's "On Popular Music," which was written with George Simpson and published in Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences in 1941. Adorno was worried by signs of conformity in contemporary mass society and also at the conversion of individual artistic expression into the mass production of standardised commodities. He argued that popular music was, by design and promotion, "wholly antagonistic to the ideal of individuality in a free, liberal society", Adorno and Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", originally a chapter in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), which argued that culture reinforced "the absolute power of capitalism", and "Culture Industry Reconsidered", a 1963 radio lecture by Adorno.
After 1945 a number of these surviving Marxists returned to both West and East Germany. Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Frankfurt in 1953 and reestablished the Institute. In West Germany in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a revived interest in Marxism produced a new generation of Marxists engaged with analyzing matters such as the cultural transformations taking place under Fordist capitalism, the impact of new types of popular music and art on traditional cultures, and maintaining the political integrity of discourse in the public sphere. This renewed interest was exemplified by the journal Das Argument. The tradition of thought associated with the Frankfurt School is Critical Theory.
Birmingham School and cultural studies
The work of the Frankfurt School and of Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci was particularly influential in the 1960s, and had a major impact on the development of cultural studies, especially in Britain. As Douglas Kellner writes:
Cultural Marxism was highly influential throughout Europe and the Western world, especially in the 1960s when Marxian thought was at its most prestigious and procreative. Theorists like Roland Barthes and the Tel Quel group in France, Galvano Della Volpe, Lucio Colletti, and others in Italy, Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and cohort of 1960s cultural radicals in the English-speaking world, and a large number of theorists throughout the globe used cultural Marxism to develop modes of cultural studies that analyzed the production, interpretation, and reception of cultural artifacts within concrete socio-historical conditions that had contested political and ideological effects and uses. One of the most famous and influential forms of cultural studies, initially under the influence of cultural Marxism, emerged within the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England within a group often referred to as the Birmingham School.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PMIt had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
What's cultural marxism?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cultural+marxism
That doesn't help. It gives a wikipedia entry and a bunch of screeds denouncing "cultural marxism' without ever saying what it is.
You should probably rely on something more definitive than wikipedia and some blogs for your terms. What IS "Cultural Marxism?"
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:35:59 PMIt had its excesses, but something had to be done. Meanwhile, your Cultural Marxism never surprises me :hug:
What's cultural marxism?
The longer version of my flippant answer is that it is two things:
(1) a somewhat obscure offshoot of Marxist theory, briefly popular in the 1960s, that proposes that culture is part of the legitimation of oppression; or
(2) a vast conspiracy of multi-culturalists, liberals, etc. - indeed, everyone in the "elite" - devoted to tearing down the sacred order of western civilization in the minds of some extreme right-wing types. An example of this sort of thing:
http://www.westernrevival.org/who_stole_our_culture.htm
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 03:38:49 PM
I disagree. We fell asleep on communism during World War II and even allowed communists, some of them Soviet agents, to infiltrate deep into the federal bureaucracy. The general population had a right to know about that.
We fell asleep on Communism during WWII and during the New Deal era because being a lefty was not just allowed but almost fashionable. Anyway the letting the general population know part was not the problem. The problem was acting like they were enemy agents out to undermine the US which was not necessarily true. No more than guys who thought Mussolini and Hitler were good for Italy and Germany in the 30s were enemies of the US war effort during WWII.
Saying 'there are Soviet Spies in the government, we are going to find them' is different than what was sold to the public.
But, as I said, McCarthy and his allies were targets during WWII of this exact same sort of thing.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:52:51 PM
We fell asleep on Communism during WWII and during the New Deal era because being a lefty was not just allowed but almost fashionable.
Plus the Soviets being our allies & whatnot.
QuoteAnyway the letting the general population know part was not the problem. The problem was acting like they were enemy agents out to undermine the US which was not necessarily true. No more than guys who thought Mussolini and Hitler were good for Italy and Germany in the 30s were enemies of the US war effort during WWII.
Okay, agree to disagree then.
QuoteSaying 'there are Soviet Spies in the government, we are going to find them' is different than what was sold to the public.
How so?
QuoteBut, as I said, McCarthy and his allies were targets during WWII of this exact same sort of thing.
I think you're overstating that a bit.
Funny derspeiss and his cultural Marxism.
Being against McCarthyism doesn't make you a Marxist.
George Marshall occupied Frankfurt but that didn't make him part of the School.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
I think McCarthy apologism is rather common among historically minded right wing conservatives.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 03:38:49 PM
The general population had a right to know about that.
McCarthyism was a mechanism for obscuring such knowledge not elucidating it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2014, 04:05:53 PM
Funny derspeiss and his cultural Marxism.
Being against McCarthyism doesn't make you a Marxist.
I never claimed that.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
QuoteSaying 'there are Soviet Spies in the government, we are going to find them' is different than what was sold to the public.
How so?
QuoteBut, as I said, McCarthy and his allies were targets during WWII of this exact same sort of thing.
I think you're overstating that a bit.
Because that was not what he said. He said Commies had infiltrated the government and he had a list of them. But the issue was not Commies and left-wingers but actual spies and he had no clue who they were.
And yes the wartime harassment of right wingers was a lot less public but it was pretty bad. McCarthy himself had been dragged through the mud for doing things like questioning the treatment of prisoners (obviously because he was pro-Nazi).
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
He isn't the only one.
Oh Joe. :wub:
Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2014, 03:49:14 PM
(2) a vast conspiracy of multi-culturalists, liberals, etc. - indeed, everyone in the "elite" - devoted to tearing down the sacred order of western civilization in the minds of some extreme right-wing types. An example of this sort of thing:
http://www.westernrevival.org/who_stole_our_culture.htm
Ah... so just name calling.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 04:15:33 PM
Because that was not what he said. He said Commies had infiltrated the government and he had a list of them.
Okay. Communists are a security risk. Some of them may not be spies, but their very nature as communists made them unfit for many positions in the federal government. Are you of the opinion that communists were not security risks?
QuoteBut the issue was not Commies and left-wingers but actual spies and he had no clue who they were.
Not true. He had access to lots of FBI case info with evidence that some individuals on his list(s) could possibly be spies.
I'd like to round up some on Languish. I have lists!
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 04:20:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 03, 2014, 03:49:14 PM
(2) a vast conspiracy of multi-culturalists, liberals, etc. - indeed, everyone in the "elite" - devoted to tearing down the sacred order of western civilization in the minds of some extreme right-wing types. An example of this sort of thing:
http://www.westernrevival.org/who_stole_our_culture.htm
Ah... so just name calling.
Well, maybe a little :)
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:21:42 PM
Okay. Communists are a security risk. Some of them may not be spies, but their very nature as communists made them unfit for many positions in the federal government. Are you of the opinion that communists were not security risks?
Are you or are you not in favour of abolishing the right of free association?
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 04:23:26 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:21:42 PM
Okay. Communists are a security risk. Some of them may not be spies, but their very nature as communists made them unfit for many positions in the federal government. Are you of the opinion that communists were not security risks?
Are you or are you not in favour of abolishing the right of free association?
Not. Next question.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:21:42 PM
Okay. Communists are a security risk. Some of them may not be spies, but their very nature as communists made them unfit for many positions in the federal government. Are you of the opinion that communists were not security risks?
I am of the opinion we should have been damn sure they were security risks before we violated the Constitution. In any case most of them were former CPUSA members, the party pretty much imploded in the 30s. That is part of what made it so ridiculous, Communism was all but dead in the US by the 50s. I guess if you had proof they were current members of the Comintern taking their orders from Moscow then sure.
Should have cut off their heads and hands and nailed them to the senate door.
There were serious problems with Soviet infiltration (which didn't normally coincide with party membership). McCarthy's flamboyant, theatrical media whoring and pissant hypocrisy did far, far more harm than good to anti-communism at the time and historically.
You could almost wonder if he were on the Kremlin payroll.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:25:33 PMNot. Next question.
Yet you advocate destroying peoples careers and branding them spies, without evidence of actual spying but rather based on their previous association.
How do you reconcile these to positions?
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 04:26:18 PM
I am of the opinion we should have been damn sure they were security risks before we violated the Constitution. In any case most of them were former CPUSA members, the party pretty much imploded in the 30s. That is part of what made it so ridiculous, Communism was all but dead in the US by the 50s.
CPUSA as a viable competitor in US politics was dead by then-- you're right. But there were still plenty of communists and it's still shocking IMO that some of them infiltrated the system as far as they did, e.g. Alger Hiss.
QuoteI guess if you had proof they were current members of the Comintern taking their orders from Moscow then sure.
Wow. I'm not talking about convicting someone on 20 counts of espionage-- I'm talking about identifying communists as security risks during the Cold War (and before, for that matter). Communists & communist sympathizers were much more likely to spy for the Soviets.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 04:31:15 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:25:33 PMNot. Next question.
Yet you advocate destroying peoples careers and branding them spies, without evidence of actual spying but rather based on their previous association.
How do you reconcile these to positions?
It's all about Risk Management. Communists were risky people to put in important positions.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:41:18 PMIt's all about Risk Management. Communists were risky people to put in important positions.
No further questions.
It is clear that derspiess advocates suspending the Constitutional rights of people he dislikes. As such, it is fair to consider him Anti-American.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:40:40 PMCommunists & communist sympathizers were much more likely to spy for the Soviets.
Do you have any evidence of this?
I wasted a good Cicero reference on this crowd. Goddamn hippies.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:40:40 PM
Communists & communist sympathizers were much more likely to spy for the Soviets.
I am saying that is not good enough to prove somebody is a security risk. Not the least since proving somebody is a Communist or a Communist Sympathizer is pretty damn hard especially without current party membership, in that case you have to guess what their thoughts are and then make decisions based on those thoughts they might be having. Much easier, and more Constitutional, to not waste time doing that and look for evidence of espionage or something they are actively doing that would compromise national security.
Roy Cohn is also awesome.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:41:18 PMIt's all about Risk Management. Communists were risky people to put in important positions.
No further questions.
It is clear that derspiess advocates suspending the Constitutional rights of people he dislikes. As such, it is fair to consider him Anti-American.
What constitutional rights?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 03, 2014, 04:45:51 PM
I wasted a good Cicero reference on this crowd. Goddamn hippies.
Well, we could always pierce your tounge with a hairpin if it would make you happy ... ;)
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 04:47:46 PM
I am saying that is not good enough to prove somebody is a security risk. Not the least since proving somebody is a Communist or a Communist Sympathizer is pretty damn hard especially without current party membership, in that case you have to guess what their thoughts are and then make decisions based on those thoughts they might be having. Much easier, and more Constitutional, to not waste time doing that and look for evidence of espionage or something they are actively doing that would compromise national security.
So then by that logic we ought to forego security & background checks on those applying for sensitive/important positions and then wait until they sell secrets before we do anything. Brilliant.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 03, 2014, 04:09:00 PM
McCarthyism was a mechanism for obscuring such knowledge not elucidating it.
Exactly.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 05:15:10 PM
So then by that logic we ought to forego security & background checks on those applying for sensitive/important positions and then wait until they sell secrets before we do anything. Brilliant.
Ah yes this old canard. Our nation will be doomed unless we over-react and persecute innocent people OH NOES. Yeah ok whatever. Still waiting for that sky to fall.
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 05:27:16 PMAh yes this old canard. Our nation will be doomed unless we over-react and persecute innocent people OH NOES. Yeah ok whatever. Still waiting for that sky to fall.
Let's not go mad. We should still spy on communists and vet sensitive position (and politicians), we just shouldn't make it a theatrical event.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 05:09:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 04:43:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 04:41:18 PMIt's all about Risk Management. Communists were risky people to put in important positions.
No further questions.
It is clear that derspiess advocates suspending the Constitutional rights of people he dislikes. As such, it is fair to consider him Anti-American.
What constitutional rights?
The right of freedom of association as per the First Amendment (see: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama); which is curtailed if group membership is punished absent evidence of actual wrongdoing.
I'm surprised that a conservative such as yourself thinks that the government should punish thoughtcrime.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2014, 05:31:57 PM
Let's not go mad. We should still spy on communists and vet sensitive position (and politicians), we just shouldn't make it a theatrical event.
I'll admit it did get a bit theatrical.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 05:32:39 PM
The right of freedom of association as per the First Amendment (see: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama); which is curtailed if group membership is punished absent evidence of actual wrongdoing.
Okay. So how am I advocating group membership be punished?
QuoteI'm surprised that a conservative such as yourself thinks that the government should punish thoughtcrime.
I generally don't. But I think communists during the Cold War should've been looked at very closely. Just as Nazis/Fascists/sympathizers should have been looked at closely during WWII.
Quote from: derspiess on February 03, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2014, 02:09:47 PM
So despite all his talk about treason, you can't name any actual spies he outed? Anyone he was able to prove actually committed treason? Remember, his claims were that communist agents in the government were handing the communists victories, most notably in China.
Is this one of those Razz tricks where I answer the question and then you change your criteria from "actual spy" to "convicted spy"? Anyway, I believe the Venona transcripts corroborated some of the people on his list.
But even with zero evidence of espionage, communists in sensitive federal agencies represented a security risk in that day & age and it was well worth the effort to identify them.
My question was that was he able to actually prove anyone was a spy or committing treason. That is not a shift in criteria. I was clear about that from the beginning. Was he able to prove someone was actually a spy? As far as I know he was not able to.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:29:01 PM
I shouldn't be surprised that derspiess thinks favourably of McCarthyism; but somehow I still am.
Damn right you shouldn't be. What has derspiess ever done or said to deserve such ridiculous benefit of the doubt?
You know, It just occurred to me, this who Christie thing is just too convenient. The story broke less then 500 days after the Benghazi attacks. What is Obama hiding? :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 03, 2014, 05:31:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 05:27:16 PMAh yes this old canard. Our nation will be doomed unless we over-react and persecute innocent people OH NOES. Yeah ok whatever. Still waiting for that sky to fall.
Let's not go mad. We should still spy on communists and vet sensitive position (and politicians), we just shouldn't make it a theatrical event.
Thing is many of these people were not in sensitive positions, or even employees by the State department. Grilling people who worked in the cafeteria over being a member of a communist group 15 years ago isn't helpful.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 03, 2014, 08:53:25 PM
Thing is many of these people were not in sensitive positions, or even employees by the State department. Grilling people who worked in the cafeteria over being a member of a communist group 15 years ago isn't helpful.
Obviously. If you have to grill them you're doing it wrong :P
An interesting thing to note is that by the time McCarthy was doing his thing the big soviet spy rings were already broken up. And from then on, people who spied for the Soviet Union did so for monetary gain rather then out of ideological conviction.