SkipCaptcha
33
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: − + Line 242:
Line 242: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
additional reply
:::::Andy is spot-on that the courts often are biased against conservatives -- particularly in the liberal-dominated courts before conservatives even began taking serious action to counter judicial activism. Also, I wouldn't view the deep state as authoritative when it reports on left-wing influence within its own ranks. That's almost like an MSM news agency reporting on the level of bias within itself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
:::::Andy is spot-on that the courts often are biased against conservatives -- particularly in the liberal-dominated courts before conservatives even began taking serious action to counter judicial activism. Also, I wouldn't view the deep state as authoritative when it reports on left-wing influence within its own ranks. That's almost like an MSM news agency reporting on the level of bias within itself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:47, 23 June 2019 (EDT)
===REPLY TO ANDY SCHLAFLY and "Sguy"===
===REPLY TO ANDY SCHLAFLY and "1990'sguy"===
ANDY: Nobody rational disputes the notion that there was infiltration into our society by Communists. But acknowledging that does '''NOT''' mean that we must accept '''EVERY lunatic assertion made by political extremists''' (right or left).
ANDY: Nobody rational disputes the notion that there was infiltration into our society by Communists. But acknowledging that does '''NOT''' mean that we must accept '''EVERY lunatic assertion made by political extremists''' (right or left).
:::This was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R7p80hTCfc just posted today] on youtube, a short clip of a Robert Welch speech from 1958. Prophetic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:06, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
:::This was [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R7p80hTCfc just posted today] on youtube, a short clip of a Robert Welch speech from 1958. Prophetic. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 22:06, 4 July 2019 (EDT)
=="A FEW SELECTIVE QUOTES" ??==
Your comment (quoted below) is so preposterous that it deserves its own separate section for a reply. You wrote:
::''"Not only are you trying to discredit the entire, modern JBS through a few selective quotes from the 1960s/1970s (I wonder if Larry McDonald, murdered by the USSR in 1983, was also some Soviet double agent as you claim?), but you're also trying to argue against several facts accepted by the broad majority of conservatives today, who have realized that "Conservative Inc.", found in the National Review and Weekly Standard, have been ineffective at promoting conservatism and have even allowed the Left to make gains". -''
:: One of the reasons I devoted so much time to presenting factual rebuttals to many different JBS accusations was specifically because I wanted to demonstrate that the JBS has been gravely mistaken about numerous subject matters over the past 6 decades. Incidentally, it is significant that even though the JBS is incorporated as an ''"educational"'' organization, it has never once acknowledged serious materially important errors which it has made about any person or organization during its entire existence.
:: Oddly, my previous presentation was rejected by you as "''You're not going to prove your point through long-winded walls of text"'' -- so, apparently, your position becomes a flawless self-sealing argument where heads you win and tails I lose. If I present detailed critiques about a range of subject matters along with specific bibliographic citations, THEN that is NOT acceptable evidence to you AND if I cite only a few representative quotations in support of my statements that ALSO is NOT acceptable (to you). Thus, no matter what is presented, (short or long) you supposedly win the argument?
::BTW-- I'm not sure I know what you mean by "''few selective quotes''". As in the case in ANY debate, representative examples are used to make a point. By contrast, you presented your unsubstantiated personal opinions and then you expect me to just mindlessly accept whatever you present as accurate, truthful, and factual even though you have not provided one iota of actual evidence. For example: you never bothered to QUOTE what anybody you listed has said about the Birch Society. '''Instead''', you used lowest-common-denominator (LCD) reasoning to make your point. LCD operates this way: (1) All cats have four legs (2) All elephants have 4 legs, so therefore (3) All cats must be elephants and vice-versa. YOU think that because someone like Rush Limbaugh or Tucker Carlson might share some viewpoint with the JBS, THAT means (ipso facto) that they also accept the JBS as a factual and reliable and authoritative source of conservative commentary or analysis.
::BTW--you included the conservative newspaper, ''Human Events'' in your list. Unlike yourself, as part of my research, I wrote to Thomas S. Winter, the Editor of ''Human Events'' to inquire about the position of his newspaper re: the JBS. Just so you know his background, I copy the following info about him below:
:::"''For more than four decades, Mr. Winter has been the guiding force behind ''Human Events''. He joined the conservative weekly in 1961 at the age of 24 as an assistant editor after earning a bachelor’s degree (1959) and MBA (1961) from Harvard University. In 1964, he took over the paper as its editor, and in 1966 he became co-owner and president. He also serves as vice chairman of the American Conservative Union and treasurer of the Conservative Victory Fund. He assumed the title editor in chief in 1996."'' '''So does HE qualify (in your scheme of things as a genuine conservative'''?
This is what Mr. Winter wrote to me about the JBS:
::::“'''We have never taken a ‘''public position''’ as such, on the John Birch Society or many other groups. We believe many well-meaning conservatives are members of the JBS, but that if they buy all the talk of ‘''Insiders''’ running everything, they get a distorted view of political reality and their effectiveness is reduced accordingly. ‘''Conspiracy''’ theories are convenient and they answer many people’s cravings for total explanations. They just happen to be false.” '''
::More importantly, ''Human Events'' allied itself with numerous prominent conservative authors and columnists who rejected the Birch Society as an extremist organization which injured the conservative movement.
:: Lastly, when you read ANY history of the postwar conservative movement in our country, there are always chapters devoted to the important contributions made by conservative publications. Nobody EVER mentions the JBS magazines (i.e. ''American Opinion, Review of the News'', or its current ''The New American'') in those histories because the JBS has had no discernible positive impact upon our country.
:: This is also a function of circulation. Obviously, a magazine or newspaper which has hundreds of thousands of subscribers has more impact than one with less than 15,000. As I have mentioned previously, conservative magazines and newspapers such as ''National Review'' or ''Human Events'' or the ''American Spectator'' and many others were able to attract as contributors the best and brightest and most respected and accomplished conservative minds of the 20th century. '''BY CONTRAST:''' The Birch Society rarely published anybody who rose above third-or-fourth tier in terms of the conservative movement's most respected and accomplished authors and intellectuals. '''Most JBS magazine contributors were totally unknown outside the orbit of the JBS itself'''. '''In fact, even most JBS members never bothered to subscribe to the magazines published by the JBS!''' I won't even go into the JBS contributors who eventually were dropped because of their bigotry (such as Westbrook Pegler and Revilo Oliver. BTW, after Oliver left the JBS, he wrote articles for ''Liberty Bell'' magazine -- which was published by the neo-nazi George P. Dietz!!) [[User:Ernie1241|Ernie1241]] ([[User talk:Ernie1241|talk]])ernie1241[[User:Ernie1241|Ernie1241]] ([[User talk:Ernie1241|talk]])
===FURTHER REPLY TO "SGUY"===
===FURTHER REPLY TO "SGUY"===