Forum Index Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Join to post comments.

Is your name welcomed below? Then you are invited to post in these forums: Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

mccarthy was right

Posted by txcup 
mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 10:05AM
[www.wnd.com]

Although Joseph McCarthy was one of the most demonized
American politicians of the last century, new information — including
half-century-old FBI recordings of Soviet embassy conversations — are
showing that McCarthy was right in nearly all his accusations.

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right.

He had many weaknesses, but almost every
case he charged has now been proven correct. Whether it was stealing
atomic secrets or influencing U.S. foreign policy, communist victories
in the 1940s were fed by an incredibly vast spy and influence network.

Although most of McCarthy’s cases involved actual spies and “security
risks,” the really important issue was that of communist influence over
American foreign policy, argued Evans. Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt’s
closest advisor who lived in the White House, had regular contacts with
Soviet intelligence.

He helped bring about the disastrous Yalta and
Pottsdam agreements. The Morganthau Plan, to prevent German
reconstruction and starve the Germans to make them desperate enough to
go communist, was the product of Laughlin Currie and Harry Dexter White
at the Treasury Department.

The abandonment of Chiang Kai-shek by
denying military support was the product of “China Hands” led by John
Stewart Service, John Patton Davies, and Lattimore. Evans described
other major spy networks — in England, the Burgess Maclean group which
infiltrated Washington as well as London.

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 01:54PM
mccarthy was right

NO.
He wasn't.


Mac
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 03:00PM
Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right.

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 03:25PM
Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to accept as “fact” anything that comes out of a lying source like World Net Daily?

"Notable staff includes Jerusalem Bureau Chief Aaron Klein, White House Correspondent Lester Kinsolving, and Staff Writer Jerome Corsi.

“Its commentary pages feature editorials from the site's founder,Joseph Farah and other social conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck Norris.” [en.wikipedia.org]

In August 2004, Corsi's Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, with attributed coauthor John O'Neill, was published by Regnery Publishing. The book sold more than 1.2 million copies.

The main theme of Corsi's portion of the book was to criticize Kerry's antiwar activities after returning from Vietnam, and to dispute many of his and other antiwar activists' assertions that U.S. soldiers had committed war crimes and atrocities, burned down villages, and murdered innocent civilians in Vietnam. Kerry gained notoriety, the book argues, by bringing to light such horrific events as the My Lai Massacre, thus damaging the image of the U.S. Military in the Winter Soldier hearings.
[en.wikipedia.org]

Get real.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 05:42PM
Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right.


Where's the proof that the people he accused of being communists were Soviet spies?
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 08:41PM
jazzman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to
> accept as “fact” anything that comes out of a
> lying source like World Net Daily?
>
> "Notable staff includes Jerusalem Bureau Chief
> Aaron Klein, White House Correspondent Lester
> Kinsolving, and Staff Writer Jerome Corsi.
>
> “Its commentary pages feature editorials from
> the site's founder,Joseph Farah and other social
> conservative authors such as Pat Buchanan, Ann
> Coulter, David Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Chuck
> Norris.”
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> In August 2004, Corsi's Unfit for Command: Swift
> Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, with
> attributed coauthor John O'Neill, was published by
> Regnery Publishing. The book sold more than 1.2
> million copies.
>
> The main theme of Corsi's portion of the book was
> to criticize Kerry's antiwar activities after
> returning from Vietnam, and to dispute many of his
> and other antiwar activists' assertions that U.S.
> soldiers had committed war crimes and atrocities,
> burned down villages, and murdered innocent
> civilians in Vietnam. Kerry gained notoriety, the
> book argues, by bringing to light such horrific
> events as the My Lai Massacre, thus damaging the
> image of the U.S. Military in the Winter Soldier
> hearings.
> [en.wikipedia.org]
>
> Get real.


you lose that argument. wnd outranks the other side's credentials (district of columbia + nyc)

fail

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 09:54PM
I think that the saddest aspect of Txcup post is that he really believes it.
Then there is usual tactic of equivocation baseless charges and tine of authority etc etc.

A couple of points need to be made even though there are more.

First of all WTF does the statement "McCarthy was right" Does that mean he was right about everything, something’s or very little. What about the "list: he waved about in Wheeling West VA?

Second: The so called VENONA Intercepts are suspect at best and certainly not admissible evidence and they are very obtuse and from a limited period of time. Remember Colin Powell using Iraqi conversation intercepts in his dog and pony show at the UN. That is the reliability of the VENONA Intercepts


Third: As with most true believers the poster arguments are totally discredited by the lies regarding Yalta and The China Desk( more commonly called who lost China). It continue with the slander of two fine State Department employees John Patton Davie and John S. Service. He attempts to buttress his argument with bull shirt from the past and not being a student of the Far East and SE Asia he is unaware that both Service and Davies were exonerated.
The "crime: that both Service and Davies committed was they told the truth and the true believers of the right did not want to accept that. What they reported, and they were the experts on the "China Desk" is that Chiang Kai-shek was little more that a bandit/warlord and that is we wished any influence in China we should make a rapprochement with the Communists and these recommendations were made very
early on in the 1940s. They of course were right. One of the sad results was that in the witch hunt that smeared Service and Davies decimated the "Asian Desk" of the State Department left us with no experts on Asia Most damaging was the Dulles role. The result was that the only person left as a "Far East expert" was one Dean Rusk a man who wouldn’t and didn’t even say shirt when his mouth was full of it. So with a "quieted" Asian Desk and a compliant Rusk John Foster Dulles engineered our takeover of the failed French colonial war in Indo-China and the subsequent ills of the war on Viet-Nam.

PS Another casualty of the witch hunt was General Stilwell’s forced resignation. He also was an early opponent of Chiang

Book recommendations:

"China Hand: An Autobiography," John Paton Davies, Jr. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-8122-4401-4

Tuchman, Barbara (1971). Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911-45. Grove Press. p. 526. ISBN 0802138527.

Service, John S. (1974). Lost Chance in China: The World War II: Despatches of John S. Service. Random House. ISBN 0394484363.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 13, 2012 11:31PM
brigade, we've heard the howls from the official story. i'm presenting evidence from the other side. i see why the left stays on the bottom of the food chain. they aggressively attack any theory that doesn't support what their masters taught them. statist dupes -

how's it feel watching european countries implode under leftist progressive doctrines? reality sux

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 14, 2012 12:41AM
Sorry Tx what little respect I may have had for you has simply vanished. I know you really believe the crap you peddle but you remain unable and unwilling to address an issue. In this particular case you simply beg the question. You think you have new information but you do not you simply parrot the voice of some malcontent scribler. You sound much like a John Bircher. It is like the quote you have by Ron Paul whic is just fantasy and you fail to understand that correlation is not causation. It is the blathering of a loony tunes individual who knows next to nothing about economics. In fact you posts and replies show a decided disinclinatiomn to think and study. I have spent a lifetime studying and paying attention to these issues and you have not. Your biggest problem is that you believe that what you "think" is reality and it is not it is delusional

PS Your a*s ho*le comment about Europe "imploding" is just hysteria and the anti intelectualism of the demented right



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2012 12:59AM by A.L. Brigade.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 14, 2012 04:02AM
Quote

Using new information obtained from studies of old Soviet files in
Moscow and now the famous Venona Intercepts — FBI recordings of Soviet
embassy communications between 1944-48 — the record is showing that
McCarthy was essentially right.
The information from the "studies" is FALSE.
False information leads to FALSE conclusions.

Sometimes referred to as GIGO.
garbage in = garbage out
With Tex as the garbageman.


Mac
Re: mccarthy was right
April 14, 2012 08:39PM
here's the program that produced the info that mccarthy was running with

interesting read imo

[en.wikipedia.org]

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 03:24AM
Anyone can post information on Wiki.
I guess you don't question info that comes from the KGB.


Mac
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 09:53AM
Opinions are like a*s ho*es, everyone has one

Please note that agian Tx fails to address the issue.

A simple task for you Tx: Try and defend the views expressed in your post regarding Davies and Service and "the loss of China"
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 10:36AM
Mac McFadden Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> False information leads to FALSE conclusions.
>
>
> Mac


No big deal, Mac, but your claim here is false. False information (or a false premiss) doesn't mean that a conclusion inferred from that information is false. It just means that the information offers no reason to believe that the conclusion is true.

False information --> "All pets are dogs."

True conclusion --> "Dick's pet is a dog."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 05:33PM
That conclusion simply happens to be true though, Dick (if you say it is).

"False information (or a false premiss) doesn't mean that a conclusion inferred from that information is false." -Dick

It means it certainly may be though.

Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 10:26PM
Nope. That's not what it means, Pondy.

The conclusion above may be wrong all right -- but not because the information contained in a premiss has been shown false. It may be wrong because the conclusion of any argument may be wrong if it's just possible for any premiss of the argument to be wrong.

Again, it's kind of important to understand that a false premiss in an argument doesn't mean that the conclusion of that argument is false.

So when txcup argues . . .

P1. blah blah blah
P2. yada yada yada
Therefore McCarthy was correct.

. . . and you show premiss one or premiss two or even both premisses to be false, you haven't shown that McCarthy was mistaken. You've shown only that, based on txcup's argument, there is no reason to believe that McCarthy was right (or, BTW, that McCarthy was wrong).

To show that McCarthy was wrong it's necessary to give reasons that show McCarthy was wrong. Merely showing that a reason txcup gives for his belief that McCarthy was right is false, doesn't mean that McCarthy was wrong. It just means that txcup (or no one else) should believe that McCarthy was right based on txcup's argument.

Back to my hypothetical argument . . .

Assume the following facts:

Fact: Not all pets are dogs.
Fact: Dick doesn't have a pet but Dick, being blind, does have a service dog.

Now the argument:

P1 All pets are dogs.
P2 Dick has a pet.
Therefore Dick has a dog

This is a valid argument with a true conclusion; yet, the argument gives no one any reason to believe anything in particular about its conclusion.

You cannot show that the conclusion of this argument is false by proving that P1 is false or by proving that P2 is false or even by proving that both premisses are false. All you can show by proving that one or more premisses of an argument are false is that the argument gives no reason to believe anything about its conclusion.
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 11:27PM
It appears as if someone is mixing apples and orages here.

There is a difference between validity and truth to wit:

Validity: Used to designate the correctness of an act of reasoning with respect to the manner in which the conclusion logically follows from the premise.

Truth: The known conformitythat exists between our judgement about things and the things themselves

also

conclusion which is the proposition that any argumentis intended to prove

Premise: A proposition that is used in an argumentor a sylgism as a means of establishing a conclusion

Proposition: A statement that expresses something that is true or false

Equivocation: The assigment of more than one meaningto the same word or phrase withing the context of the same argument

In a categorical sylogism the third proposition must be true if the propositions from which it derived are true and if the reasoning itself in valid.
On the other hand if either of the two conditions is lacking there can be no guarantee of truth of the conclusion
Re: mccarthy was right
April 15, 2012 11:58PM
You guys need to go over to the philosophy board.
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 12:31AM
Jazz, this kind of stuff is almost never talked about on the philosophy board.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 12:52AM
"The Paranoid Style in American Politics," by Richard J. Hofstadter, is an historical essay tracing the influence of conspiracy theory and “movements of suspicious discontent” through the course of American history. It was written in 1964, but perfectly describes people like Txcup today:

"American politics has often been an arena for angry minds...The paranoid spokesman, sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms . . . Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes."

"The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman — sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed, he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often, the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional)."

"... this enemy is, on many counts, the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations, set up to combat secret organizations... The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developing an elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy. The John Birch Society emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy. Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth."
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 12:55AM
A.L.Brigade wrote: It appears as if someone is mixing apples and orages here. There is a difference between validity and truth to wit:

If this is directed to me, and I'm not sure that it is, then please give a reason that you believe that I'm "mixing apples and oranges."

What I've said -- and what you haven't replied to -- is the fact that an argument:

A ) can be valid,
B ) can have a true conclusion, yet
C ) still give no one a reason to believe that the conclusion is true or that the conclusion is false.

Do you or do you not agree with that statement?

If you do agree with it (and you will if you understand basic logic) then you will also agree txcup's conclusion cannot be inferred to be false simply because txcup may have a false premiss (or two or three or more) in his argument.

If, contrary to basic logic, you believe that a false premiss always leads to false conclusions, then explain why it does not do so in this example:

Fact: Not all pets are dogs.
Fact: Dick doesn't have a pet but Dick, being blind, does have a service dog.

P1 All pets are dogs.
P2 Dick has a pet.
Therefore Dick has a dog


Despite both premisses in this valid argument having a "false" truth value, the conclusion nonetheless is true, as is shown by the stipulated facts.

It should be obvious to you then, that the conclusion of an argument is not shown to be false by showing that a premiss (or even all the premisses) in the argument is false.

Showing that a premiss in an argument is false shows only that there is no reason to believe anything about the truth value of the conclusion of the argument.
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 01:07AM
What I stated was:
In a categorical sylogism the third proposition must be true if the propositions from which it derived are true and if the reasoning itself in valid.
On the other hand if either of the two conditions is lacking there can be no guarantee of truth of the conclusion

That is clear English prose so what is you difficulty with it?
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 01:12AM
Linc

Thanks for bringing up The Paranoid Style in American Politics,"
There is anoter book of his "Anti-Intellectualism in America which along with the other pretty much cover the right in this country.

Have you read any of Jacques Barzun's books? He is a teacher whp approaches the subject from a different point
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 01:19AM
A.L. Brigade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I stated was:
> In a categorical sylogism the third proposition
> must be true if the propositions from which it
> derived are true and if the reasoning itself in
> valid.
> On the other hand if either of the two conditions
> is lacking there can be no guarantee of truth of
> the conclusion
>
> That is clear English prose so what is you
> difficulty with it?


Why would you think that I or anyone else would have difficulty understanding such a simple statement?

What I'm asking and what you either refuse or cannot answer is, What does that have to do with anything I wrote?

I wrote that simply because an argument contains a false premiss does not mean that the conclusion of that argument is false.

For the second time, do you or do you not agree with that statement?
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 02:26AM
The Vernona Intercepts came from the KGB.
They KNEW we were listening.
Just as we knew from day one that the U.S. Embassy built in Moscow was infested with Soviet bugs.

A high-mucky-muck KGB officer who defected in the '70s confirmed that Vernona was filled with false info.
I don't remember his name.


Mac
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 04:46AM
No response, A.L. Brigade?

I'm still waiting for you to show that a false premiss in a valid argument is a good reason to believe that the argument's conclusion is false.

If you can't do it, just put on your big girl panties and admit that you are mistaken.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 16, 2012 06:07AM
A.L. Brigade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry Tx what little respect I may have had for
> you has simply vanished. I know you really
> believe the crap you peddle but you remain unable
> and unwilling to address an issue. In this
> particular case you simply beg the question. You
> think you have new information but you do not you
> simply parrot the voice of some malcontent
> scribler. You sound much like a John Bircher. It
> is like the quote you have by Ron Paul whic is
> just fantasy and you fail to understand that
> correlation is not causation. It is the
> blathering of a loony tunes individual who knows
> next to nothing about economics. In fact you
> posts and replies show a decided disinclinatiomn
> to think and study. I have spent a lifetime
> studying and paying attention to these issues and
> you have not. Your biggest problem is that you
> believe that what you "think" is reality and it is
> not it is delusional
>
> PS Your a*s ho*le comment about Europe "imploding"
> is just hysteria and the anti intelectualism of
> the demented right


yeah, europe is doing fine. turn off msnbc and do 5 minutes of dd before you embarrass yourself again.

cental banking enabling war is FACT. if the US populace was forced to pay for the wars through direct taxation, rather than central bank currency devaluation we would see A LOT less wars and a lot more dialogue about should/should not be warring all over the globe. my quote is golden. your statist learnings have failed you. your lack of knowledge renders you useless in economic discussions.

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 17, 2012 03:52AM
false premise: WTC-1 was wired with explosives

false conclusion: WTC-1 was brought down by explosives, not by an airplane crashing into it


Mac
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 17, 2012 06:57AM
false premiss #1: All pets are dogs.
false premiss #2: Dick has a pet.
-------------------------------------------

true conclusion: Dick has a dog.
==========================


Simple logic lesson #1: You cannot determine whether an argument's conclusion is true or false based on the fact that a premiss (or all premisses) in the argument is false. You can, however, determine that an argument with a false premiss offers no support for the argument's conclusion.

I might argue crazily, citing all sorts of mistaken information, for the conclusion "The theory of evolution is true." But just because my argument fails as support for the theory of evolution does not mean that the theory of evolution is false. It only means that the argument I gave for the conclusion "The theory of evolution is true" fails as an argument to support that conclusion.
Re: mccarthy was right
April 17, 2012 11:38AM
The Vernona Intercepts are false.
Therefore conclusions BASED on the Vernona Intercepts are based on false information.
Ergo, the conclusions are incorrect (aka: "false"winking smiley.

Garbage in = garbage out

Changing garbagemen doesn't change the garbage.


Mac
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 20, 2012 06:35AM
Mac McFadden Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Vernona Intercepts are false.
> Therefore conclusions BASED on the Vernona
> Intercepts are based on false information.
> Ergo, the conclusions are incorrect (aka:
> "false"winking smiley.
>




OK, Mac, so what you are saying is that any argument which contains a false premiss will inevitably lead to a false conclusion. Have I got you right?

I'll use txcup's argument as an example. His argument was something like:

------------------------------------------------
p1: If the Verona Intercepts are accurate, then Joe McCarthy's accusations were, for the most part, spot on.

p2: The Verona Intercepts are accurate.

concl: Therefore, Joe McCarthy's accusations were, for the most part, spot on.

------------------------------------------------


So you're saying that since premiss 2 in txcup's argument (i.e., the premiss that says "The Verona Intercepts are accurate") is false this proves, then, that the conclusion of txcup's argument ("Joe McCarthy's accusations were, for the most part, spot on") is also false?

How about you, A.L. Brigade? Is this what you're saying too?
Re: mccarthy was right
April 20, 2012 07:14AM
these supporters of 'science' cling to their blanket and blinders any time someone challenges their programmed groupthink

the perfect pawns

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 01:55AM
Dick,
Stop living up to your name.
THIS is what I said:
The Vernona Intercepts are false.
Therefore conclusions BASED on the Vernona Intercepts are based on false information.
Ergo, the conclusions are incorrect [aka: "false"]

Joe McCarthy's accusations were lies.
Even HE couldn't keep the numbers straight.
That's why he kept CHANGING the numbers.
"I have in my hand a piece of paper containing the names of _______ (fill in the number of your choice)."
It was a lie from the very beginning.
He never had any such information.


Mac
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 05:28AM
Since Mac is apparently incapable of articulating precisely where he believes the problem lies with my interpretation of the reasoning he's using to criticize txcup's argument, perhaps someone else can explain where they believe Mac sees a problem. If anyone can do this then, please, jump in and explain, because at this point quite frankly I'm stumped.


Txcup argued this:
Quote

p1: If the Verona Intercepts are accurate, then Joe McCarthy's accusations were, for the most part, spot on.

p2: The Verona Intercepts are accurate.

concl: Therefore, Joe McCarthy's accusations were, for the most part, spot on.


In response to txcup's argument, Mac wrote:
Quote

The Vernona Intercepts are false.
Therefore conclusions BASED on the Vernona Intercepts are based on false information.
Ergo, the conclusions are incorrect [aka: "false"]


So far, so good, right? Seems pretty clear to me that Mac is saying that a false premiss leads to an "inaccurate [aka: "false conclusion."]

Yet when I asked Mac if this indeed was the logic behind his argument he calls me a dick (pretty original, huh?) as if I'd somehow distorted his criticism.

I don't get it. I don't believe that I've distorted his reasoning in the least.

If he is not arguing that a false premiss leads to a false conclusion then what is the logical principle behind his criticism?
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 05:30AM
dick....

welcome to my world

mostly nice people though smiling bouncing smiley

==============================================================================

"The masses... do not conceive any ideas, sound or unsound. They only choose between the ideologies developed by the intellectual leaders of mankind. But their choice is final and determines the course of events. If they prefer bad doctrines, nothing can prevent disaster."
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 05:52AM
So cutting thru all the egos at work here... we're still waiting on anything that supports the idea McCarthy was correct.
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 06:28AM
txcup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dick....
>
> welcome to my world
>
> mostly nice people though smiling bouncing smiley


Probably, but don't you find it frustrating to try to logically and reasonably discuss issues with people who understand little logic, who value it even less, and who believe that truth depends on how loudly and emotionally you shout?
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 06:41AM
What's even more frustrating is people who only bring provocative statements to the table.
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 07:01AM
Dick,

It's "premise", not "premiss".

I follow the diagram of your logic. But where is the meat in the premise in regards to Congress?

I looked up the Venona Intercepts. There were some who apparently were involved in espionage and some served prison time. There was a German refugee scientist named Fuchs, a guy named Harry Gold and a few other scientists. So where are the names of the Communists in Congress who supposedly were on Tailgunner Joe's list?
See [www.pbs.org] and
[en.wikipedia.org]
Anonymous User
Re: mccarthy was right
April 21, 2012 09:23AM
TX writes
"yeah, europe is doing fine. turn off msnbc and do 5 minutes of dd before you embarrass yourself again.

cental banking enabling war is FACT. if the US populace was forced to pay for the wars through direct taxation, rather than central bank currency devaluation we would see A LOT less wars and a lot more dialogue about should/should not be warring all over the globe. my quote is golden. your statist learnings have failed you. your lack of knowledge renders you useless in economic discussions."

You still fail to grasp the issue. The issue is not the perfect functioning of the Fed but rather what you would replace it with. In addition the Feds errors are far less egregious than that of capitalism yet you do not call for the abolition of capitalism nor any meaningful regulation.

Your arrogance is palpable I have a BA in Economics as well as a Masters in Finance equivalent) and worked as a minor partner for the 4th biggest firm on Wall Street. In addition I wrote a weekly investment newsletter for Dow Jones, so kindly kiss my a** you ignorant a** ho*e
Can you engage an issue or are you totally ignorant?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


This forum powered by Phorum