Where did Joe McCarthy get his names? I mean his *real* names?

[Musicat]

@DrDeth

There were more “commies” than we thought, yes. But still McCarthy and his list were bullshit.

Or at least was a moving target.

McCarthy: I have here a list of 37 known communists…

Q: Where did you get that list?

McCarthy: I got this list of 48 communists from an unimpeachable source!

Q: And the source is?

McCarthy: My list of 59 known communists shows just how corrupt the government is!

Q: How many communists are there in our government?

McCarthy: All 82 persons on my list are communists!..

[Colibri]

@CK_JAGUAR

Today they prefer to be called either socialists or “progressives”. Those names have a more benign and peaceful ring to them. They are still afraid of Venona and even today will say anything to discredit or ridicule what it revealed. They would prefer America did not know.

Moderator Note

CK JAGUAR, political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. Since you’re new here, I’m making this a moderator note rather than an official warning. But don’t do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

PS. I would remind everyone else which forum they are in and to refrain from inappropriate political digs.

[DrDeth]

@Beware_of_Doug

What I’m getting at is that Commies were more a convenient target than the real rationale. They picked Commies not primarily because they were a threat in themselves, but because they contained large numbers of intellectuals, dissenters, social critics, etc., who were the real threat to their plans for the country.

That’s true. But the Soviets did have a surprising number of spies, informants and double agents over here.

I wouldnt be surprised if we had quite a few over there, too.

[DrDeth]

@Musicat

Or at least was a moving target.

McCarthy: I have here a list of 37 known communists…

Q: Where did you get that list?

McCarthy: I got this list of 48 communists from an unimpeachable source!

Q: And the source is?

McCarthy: My list of 59 known communists shows just how corrupt the government is!

Q: How many communists are there in our government?

McCarthy: All 82 persons on my list are communists!..

I agree. McCarthy happened to be a little bit right, by chance.

Just like today medical science has found a use for medical leeches. Doesnt mean bleeding or the Four Humours was anything but more than a way to kill people.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@DrDeth

That’s true. But the Soviets did have a surprising number of spies, informants and double agents over here.

I wouldnt be surprised if we had quite a few over there, too.

Undoubtedly on both counts. But because the CPUSA had been loyal to Stalin and sought to take over all left wing activity during the '30s, it was a ready-made excuse to say that all lefties were still working for Russia. Whether they were or not was really not of concern to anyone on the right. They wanted them all neutralized.

[Senegoid]

@joebuck20

Were there any zombies mentioned in the Venona transcripts?

samclem may have been in zombie mode when he posted above. So this thread is revived with a rabid rant, and samclem responds with a non-mod post rather than modding CK Jaguar and closing the thread? He didn’t notice it’s a zombie?

Just sayin’ – Just another reason why we need the OP dates to be shown more prominently on the thread list page.

Oh wait. I see that, even as I type this, Colibri has modded CK Jaguar for political ranting in GQ, but he too ignored that CKJ revived a zombie to do so. Don’t they close threads when that happens?

[etv78]

Reading Venona’s wiki page: It’s seems to exonerate Ethel Rosenberg, but confirm Hiss’ crimes. AM I reading it right?

[Colibri]

@Senegoid

samclem may have been in zombie mode when he posted above. So this thread is revived with a rabid rant, and samclem responds with a non-mod post rather than modding CK Jaguar and closing the thread? He didn’t notice it’s a zombie?

Just sayin’ – Just another reason why we need the OP dates to be shown more prominently on the thread list page.

Oh wait. I see that, even as I type this, Colibri has modded CK Jaguar for political ranting in GQ, but he too ignored that CKJ revived a zombie to do so. Don’t they close threads when that happens?

[Modding]

No, we don’t, and I’m not sure where you get the idea that zombie threads are automatically closed in this forum (although it is a common misconception). Zombie threads are permitted in General Questions (and several other forums) as long as new information is added. While information added by CK JAGUAR may be questionable, it is relevant to the OP.

From the FAQ:

• In Comments on Cecil’s Columns, Comments on Staff Reports, Games Room, General Questions, and Straight Dope Chicago: We’re less concerned about resurrected threads. The reasons we dislike zombie threads don’t usually apply. We’ll generally leave such threads open, unless there is some compelling reason for taking moderator action,

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Senegoid]

@Colibri

[Modding]

No, we don’t, and I’m not sure where you get the idea that zombie threads are automatically closed in this forum (although it is a common misconception). Zombie threads are permitted in General Questions (and several other forums) as long as new information is added. While information added by CK JAGUAR may be questionable, it is relevant to the OP.

Well, I was under the impression that the idea of old threads re-opened but without any “new information” was construed to also mean, without any new constructive information. And with the low tolerance for political jabs, let alone full rants, in GQ, I’d have thought that the mods would close an old zombie if it was just re-animated for a rant.

With that in mind, in conjunction with the recent ATMB discussion over showing the OP dates, I was also just kinda ribbing both mods (and not for the first time) for failing to notice (or failing to mention they noticed) that this thread is a zombie. There was a similar case very recently (I forget what it was about) of a mod seemingly re-opening and old zombie thread just to move it to another forum – which several posters got a chuckle out of. (Although there may have been another non-obvious reason why it got re-opened.)

ETA: Don’t get me wrong! I’m not categorically against zombie threads! Think of the BIG JUICY MUSHROOMS! And now, we return you to our regular programming . . .

[Colibri]

@Senegoid

Well, I was under the impression that the idea of old threads re-opened but without any “new information” was construed to also mean, without any new constructive information. And with the low tolerance for political jabs, let alone full rants, in GQ, I’d have thought that the mods would close an old zombie if it was just re-animated for a rant.

Sometimes we do, especially if there have been no other new replies. On the other hand, we may leave them open if other posters have posted useful information in the meantime (as several have here).

With that in mind, in conjunction with the recent ATMB discussion over showing the OP dates, I was also just kinda ribbing both mods (and not for the first time) for failing to notice (or failing to mention they noticed) that this thread is a zombie.

I noticed. But it was mentioned by a previous poster, so I didn’t bring it up again.

There was a similar case very recently (I forget what it was about) of a mod seemingly re-opening and old zombie thread just to move it to another forum – which several posters got a chuckle out of. (Although there may have been another non-obvious reason why it got re-opened.)

I don’t recall. It may have been reanimated by a spammer whose post was disappeared, thus making the reason for the resurrection not apparent.