Good Night and Good Luck: There was fear in the room when they took on
another demagogue.


The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries. But, as a young man, I
heard the story from one who was there. I heard it from the man who
reviewed and edited Ed Murrows copy €” including those famous closing
lines €” moments before the historic CBS Broadcast of March 9, 1954.

It was Ed Bliss who recounted the story of that broadcast to a group of
university students on a Wednesday afternoon more than 45 years ago.
Bliss had been Ed Murrows editor and writer at CBS. While Murrow wrote
most of his own copy, Ed would write some and would also write the late
breaking news items and bulletins when Murrow was on the air. This was
not an easy story for Ed to tell.

The thing I remember most was Ed talking about the fear. He said you
could feel the fear in the room from the time Murrow decided to devote
an entire half-hour broadcast to McCarthy to the moment they began the
broadcast. Ed said Murrow gathered his troops in his office, closed the
door, and told them his intention, and then told them they must be
prepared for personal attacks by McCarthy. He went around the room and
asked each one if there was anything in their past €” or in their
familys past €” that could be used to attack them. The shows producer,
Fred Friendly, for example, offered up that he had changed his name from
Ferdinand Friendly Wackenheimer when he broke into the radio business in
Providence, Rhode Island in the 1930s. Other staffers spoke of their
youthful political leanings, and political meetings they may have
attended twenty years earlier. It was that kind of session, with a
shared fear as members of the team expected to be attacked, vilified,
and slandered by McCarthy and his henchmen.

Ed then showed us how Murrow used McCarthys own words €” including film
footage €” to unmask the demagogue. He explained that many of the
techniques used in the 1954 broadcast were now familiar to everyone, but
were relatively new at that time. He added that everyone held their
breath during the show, fearing technical glitches. There were none. All
the snippets of film rolled on cue.

And then, Ed Bliss passed around to us a remarkable piece of
broadcasting history. It was an original carbon copy of the final lines
of the script. He had saved it from that night, kept it in a manila
folder, and it was still as crisp as it was when it came off Ed Murrows
typewriter on March 9, 1954.

The words thundered off the page, and they still do. They resonate, and
it is impossible to read them without seeing the similarities between
1954 and 2017. Simply remove the words €œof Communism€� from the first
sentence, and replace McCarthys name and title with that of Trump
throughout the copy, and Edward R. Murrow speaks to America today €” and
speaks for all time...

His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as
between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not
confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation
is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process
of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven
by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our
doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men €“ not
from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend
causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthys methods to keep
silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our
history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no
way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a
nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We
proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever
it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our
enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didnt create this
situation of fear; he merely exploited it €“ and rather successfully.
Cassius was right. €œThe fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in
ourselves.€�

Good night and good luck.

Murrow and his troops summoned up the courage to take on a demagogue.
But, even more than that, they took on the climate of fear, suspicion,
and intolerance that was oxygen to McCarthyism. Read these lines once
again, and take them to your heart€¦

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear
into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine,
and remember that we are not descended from fearful men €“ not from men
who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that
were, for the moment, unpopular.
Ed Murrows broadcast that night changed Americas perception of
McCarthy and led to the downfall of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin.
It was the high point of the career of the patron saint of my chosen
field of endeavor.

Ed Bliss stayed on at CBS after Murrow left to join the U-S Information
Agency, and Ed became Walter Cronkites senior editor. He edited the
collected scripts of Murrow for several books, and he co-authored
Bliss/Patterson €œWriting News for Broadcast,€� which has been €” for forty
years €” the textbook for broadcast journalism students. After retiring
from CBS, he taught broadcast journalism at American University for more
than a decade, passing the torch to a new generation. He died in 2002 at
the age of 90.

Ed Murrow and Ed Bliss are gone now, but the fear and suspicion and
unreason of the early 1950s have returned, and, with them, the threat
to our democracy. And so I reach out to those two men in spirit and
memory, and the words of Edward R. Murrow, spoken March 9, 1954, help
banish our fears and fill us with an unshakable resolve:

We will not walk in fear, one of another.
We are one nation, indivisible. We were then. And we are now. And we
will always be.

Good night and good luck.

On 03/02/2017 02:36 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
Good Night and Good Luck: There was fear in the room when they took on
another demagogue.


The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries. But, as a young man, I
heard the story from one who was there. I heard it from the man who
reviewed and edited Ed Murrows copy €” including those famous closing
lines €” moments before the historic CBS Broadcast of March 9, 1954.

It was Ed Bliss who recounted the story of that broadcast to a group of
university students on a Wednesday afternoon more than 45 years ago.
Bliss had been Ed Murrows editor and writer at CBS. While Murrow wrote
most of his own copy, Ed would write some and would also write the late
breaking news items and bulletins when Murrow was on the air. This was
not an easy story for Ed to tell.

The thing I remember most was Ed talking about the fear. He said you
could feel the fear in the room from the time Murrow decided to devote
an entire half-hour broadcast to McCarthy to the moment they began the
broadcast. Ed said Murrow gathered his troops in his office, closed the
door, and told them his intention, and then told them they must be
prepared for personal attacks by McCarthy. He went around the room and
asked each one if there was anything in their past €” or in their
familys past €” that could be used to attack them. The shows producer,
Fred Friendly, for example, offered up that he had changed his name from
Ferdinand Friendly Wackenheimer when he broke into the radio business in
Providence, Rhode Island in the 1930s. Other staffers spoke of their
youthful political leanings, and political meetings they may have
attended twenty years earlier. It was that kind of session, with a
shared fear as members of the team expected to be attacked, vilified,
and slandered by McCarthy and his henchmen.

Ed then showed us how Murrow used McCarthys own words €” including film
footage €” to unmask the demagogue. He explained that many of the
techniques used in the 1954 broadcast were now familiar to everyone, but
were relatively new at that time. He added that everyone held their
breath during the show, fearing technical glitches. There were none. All
the snippets of film rolled on cue.

And then, Ed Bliss passed around to us a remarkable piece of
broadcasting history. It was an original carbon copy of the final lines
of the script. He had saved it from that night, kept it in a manila
folder, and it was still as crisp as it was when it came off Ed Murrows
typewriter on March 9, 1954.

The words thundered off the page, and they still do. They resonate, and
it is impossible to read them without seeing the similarities between
1954 and 2017. Simply remove the words €œof Communism€� from the first
sentence, and replace McCarthys name and title with that of Trump
throughout the copy, and Edward R. Murrow speaks to America today €” and
speaks for all time...

His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as
between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not
confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation
is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process
of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven
by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our
doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men €“ not
from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend
causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.

This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthys methods to keep
silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our
history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no
way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a
nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We
proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever
it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad
by deserting it at home.

The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and
dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our
enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didnt create this
situation of fear; he merely exploited it €“ and rather successfully.
Cassius was right. €œThe fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in
ourselves.€�

Good night and good luck.

Murrow and his troops summoned up the courage to take on a demagogue.
But, even more than that, they took on the climate of fear, suspicion,
and intolerance that was oxygen to McCarthyism. Read these lines once
again, and take them to your heart€¦

We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear
into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine,
and remember that we are not descended from fearful men €“ not from men
who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that
were, for the moment, unpopular.
Ed Murrows broadcast that night changed Americas perception of
McCarthy and led to the downfall of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin.
It was the high point of the career of the patron saint of my chosen
field of endeavor.

Ed Bliss stayed on at CBS after Murrow left to join the U-S Information
Agency, and Ed became Walter Cronkites senior editor. He edited the
collected scripts of Murrow for several books, and he co-authored
Bliss/Patterson €œWriting News for Broadcast,€� which has been €” for forty
years €” the textbook for broadcast journalism students. After retiring
from CBS, he taught broadcast journalism at American University for more
than a decade, passing the torch to a new generation. He died in 2002 at
the age of 90.

Ed Murrow and Ed Bliss are gone now, but the fear and suspicion and
unreason of the early 1950s have returned, and, with them, the threat
to our democracy. And so I reach out to those two men in spirit and
memory, and the words of Edward R. Murrow, spoken March 9, 1954, help
banish our fears and fill us with an unshakable resolve:

We will not walk in fear, one of another.
We are one nation, indivisible. We were then. And we are now. And we
will always be.

Good night and good luck.





The press is still doing it's job , just when I thought they had all
turned to fluff:


From Fox news (but same story on all news sources)


Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday he will recuse himself from
any investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which
would include any Russian interference.

Speaking at a hastily-called press conference at the Justice Department,
Sessions said he had met with department ethics officials soon after
being sworn in last month to evaluate the rules and cases in which he
might have a conflict.

€œThey said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not
be involved in any campaign investigation,€� Sessions said. He added that
he concurred with their assessment, and would thus recuse himself from
any existing or future investigation involving Trumps campaign.

The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that
Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not
disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that
Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not
disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

Yawn. Al Frankin asked him in the conformation hearing about the
"campaign" and his contact with Russia. Frankin never asked in general
about contact with Russia. As a Senator on the Armed Services
Committee he can talk to any damn ambassador he wants during any
campaign. Frankin tried to ask a loaded question and he ****ed up.

On 03/02/2017 04:43 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that
Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not
disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

Yawn. Al Frankin asked him in the conformation hearing about the
"campaign" and his contact with Russia. Frankin never asked in general
about contact with Russia. As a Senator on the Armed Services
Committee he can talk to any damn ambassador he wants during any
campaign. Frankin tried to ask a loaded question and he ****ed up.




Easy to Google the exact quote from Sessions from the Washington post
(but same on any publication you care to look at)

Sessions defended his comment on meetings with Russian officials to
Franken as “honest and correct as I understood it at the time,” though
he also said he would “write the Judiciary Committee soon — today or
tomorrow — to explain this testimony for the record.” His explanation,
he said, was that he was “taken aback” by Franken’s question — which
referenced a breaking news story about contacts between Trump surrogates
and Russians.



Franken, love him or hate him, burned Sessions a new asshole.



Here is the EXACT portion:



FRANKEN: CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a
news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know
whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging
that the intelligence community provided documents to the
president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian
operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial
information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote,
"There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign
between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if
it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence
that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the
Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm
unable to comment on it.




....break...

Now, even though Sessions might have had good reason to speak to the
Russians it's not a question of what he talked about, it;s simply that
he perjured himself under oath.

If he's at all smart he's resign rather then risk a jail term.

On 3/2/2017 5:37 PM, philo wrote:
On 03/02/2017 04:43 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that
Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not
disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

Yawn. Al Frankin asked him in the conformation hearing about the
"campaign" and his contact with Russia. Frankin never asked in general
about contact with Russia. As a Senator on the Armed Services
Committee he can talk to any damn ambassador he wants during any
campaign. Frankin tried to ask a loaded question and he ****ed up.




Easy to Google the exact quote from Sessions from the Washington post
(but same on any publication you care to look at)

Sessions defended his comment on meetings with Russian officials to
Franken as “honest and correct as I understood it at the time,” though
he also said he would “write the Judiciary Committee soon — today or
tomorrow — to explain this testimony for the record.” His explanation,
he said, was that he was “taken aback” by Franken’s question — which
referenced a breaking news story about contacts between Trump surrogates
and Russians.



Franken, love him or hate him, burned Sessions a new asshole.



Here is the EXACT portion:



FRANKEN: CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a
news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know
whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging
that the intelligence community provided documents to the
president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian
operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial
information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote,
"There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign
between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if
it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence
that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the
Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm
unable to comment on it.




...break...

Now, even though Sessions might have had good reason to speak to the
Russians it's not a question of what he talked about, it;s simply that
he perjured himself under oath.

If he's at all smart he's resign rather then risk a jail term.

He didn't purger himself under oath. He answered the question they
actually asked truthfully.

--
Maggie

On 3/2/2017 6:37 PM, philo wrote:
On 03/02/2017 04:43 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 15:50:06 -0600, philo wrote:

The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that
Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not
disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

Yawn. Al Frankin asked him in the conformation hearing about the
"campaign" and his contact with Russia. Frankin never asked in general
about contact with Russia. As a Senator on the Armed Services
Committee he can talk to any damn ambassador he wants during any
campaign. Frankin tried to ask a loaded question and he ****ed up.




Easy to Google the exact quote from Sessions from the Washington post
(but same on any publication you care to look at)

Sessions defended his comment on meetings with Russian officials to
Franken as “honest and correct as I understood it at the time,” though
he also said he would “write the Judiciary Committee soon — today or
tomorrow — to explain this testimony for the record.” His explanation,
he said, was that he was “taken aback” by Franken’s question — which
referenced a breaking news story about contacts between Trump surrogates
and Russians.



Franken, love him or hate him, burned Sessions a new asshole.



Here is the EXACT portion:



FRANKEN: CNN has just published a story and I'm telling you this about a
news story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know
whether or not it's true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging
that the intelligence community provided documents to the
president-elect last week that included information that quote, "Russian
operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial
information about Mr. Trump." These documents also allegedly say quote,
"There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign
between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government."

Now, again, I'm telling you this as it's coming out, so you know. But if
it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence
that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the
Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm
unable to comment on it.




...break...

Now, even though Sessions might have had good reason to speak to the
Russians it's not a question of what he talked about, it;s simply that
he perjured himself under oath.

If he's at all smart he's resign rather then risk a jail term.

I keep recalling the old LBJ tactic where when he first ran for office
he spread the rumor that his competitor had sex with farm animals.
When confronted with spreading the rumor, LBJ said he knew it was not
true but now the rumor is out there, the competitor would have to
respond to answering it.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09...e-or-didnt-he/

Story may not be true but it looks like it works.

On 03/02/2017 05:54 PM, Frank wrote:


snip

SESSIONS: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I
have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I'm
unable to comment on it.




...break...

Now, even though Sessions might have had good reason to speak to the
Russians it's not a question of what he talked about, it;s simply that
he perjured himself under oath.

If he's at all smart he's resign rather then risk a jail term.

I keep recalling the old LBJ tactic where when he first ran for office
he spread the rumor that his competitor had sex with farm animals.
When confronted with spreading the rumor, LBJ said he knew it was not
true but now the rumor is out there, the competitor would have to
respond to answering it.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09...e-or-didnt-he/

Story may not be true but it looks like it works.



The story about Johnson is an apocryphal tale and I am not concerned
with something that might or might not have occurred 50 years ago.

Back then it was hard to prove anything unless there were a number of
highly credible witnesses.

Today things are a lot different because audio.video cameras are
everywhere and everything is being recorded,

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize that when he lied.

His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians."


End of story.

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:54:51 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

I keep recalling the old LBJ tactic where when he first ran for office
he spread the rumor that his competitor had sex with farm animals.
When confronted with spreading the rumor, LBJ said he knew it was not
true but now the rumor is out there, the competitor would have to
respond to answering it.

LBJ wanted him to deny it publicly. That would have been a hoot.

I did not have sex with that farm animal, Ms. Lewinsky!!

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 5:55:02 PM UTC-6, Frank wrote:

I keep recalling the old LBJ tactic where when he first ran for office
he spread the rumor that his competitor had sex with farm animals.
When confronted with spreading the rumor, LBJ said he knew it was not
true but now the rumor is out there, the competitor would have to
respond to answering it.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09...e-or-didnt-he/

Story may not be true but it looks like it works.


Frank, when did you stop beating your wife? ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Interrogator Monster

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:44:35 -0800 (PST), Uncle Monster
wrote:

Frank, when did you stop beating your wife? ?(?)?

[8~{} Uncle Interrogator Monster

Did you wear a wife-beater shirt with dirty sweat stains?

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize that when he lied.

His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians."


End of story.

Please stop. He answered the question he was asked. Your boy Franken
doesn't know how to ask a question to get the right answer. He failed.

Like the "you libs", he tried a gotcha question and it FAILED. Pure
politics from a heathen.

On 03/02/2017 08:31 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize that when he lied.

His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians."


End of story.

Please stop. He answered the question he was asked. Your boy Franken
doesn't know how to ask a question to get the right answer. He failed.

Like the "you libs", he tried a gotcha question and it FAILED. Pure
politics from a heathen.

What part of "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians." do
you not understand?

You are totally bull ****ting and you know it.

Even Trump said Sessions did not answer the questions well.

If he did not lie then he had no reason to recuse himself.

You just can't face the fact that your baby took another hit.

as Trump would say, "SAD"

Quit whining and be a ****ing man for a change, even Trump quit his
whining at least for now.

I cannot believe you are a commie sympathizer, so wise the **** up.

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 6:30:55 PM UTC-6, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:54:51 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

I keep recalling the old LBJ tactic where when he first ran for office
he spread the rumor that his competitor had sex with farm animals.
When confronted with spreading the rumor, LBJ said he knew it was not
true but now the rumor is out there, the competitor would have to
respond to answering it.

LBJ wanted him to deny it publicly. That would have been a hoot.

I did not have sex with that farm animal, Ms. Lewinsky!!


There is a story about an old time Alabama Democrat who stated that,"My opponent is a Homo sapiens and his wife is a thespian." That kind of thing works on the "low information minimally educated voters." ヽ(ヅ)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Scandalous Monster

On 2017-03-02, ZZyXX wrote:
The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries.

Joe McCarthy's methods were execrable but he was 100% correct about
Communist infiltration in government and media. That in large part is
what has led to today's Democrat party and Left-leaning media.

Ed Murrow and Ed Bliss are gone now, but the fear and suspicion and
unreason of the early 1950s have returned, and, with them, the threat
to our democracy.

We don't have a democracy and never did. We have a constitutional
republic. There is no unreason, there is a recognition of the Left's
control of the majority of mainstream media and entertainment industry.
As I said, Joe McCarthy was right.

We are one nation, indivisible. We were then. And we are now. And we
will always be.

No, we are not. We have on one hand people who want a collectivist society
with a huge, autocratic centralized government controlling every aspect
of life and forcibly imposing liberal values on the populace. On the
other had we have people who want to live their lives as they see fit,
keeping government as local and decentralized as possible and interference
to a minimum. There is no way to reconcile these positions.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 3/2/2017 8:57 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-03-02, ZZyXX wrote:
The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries.

Joe McCarthy's methods were execrable but he was 100% correct about
Communist infiltration in government and media. That in large part is
what has led to today's Democrat party and Left-leaning media.

Ed Murrow and Ed Bliss are gone now, but the fear and suspicion and
unreason of the early 1950s have returned, and, with them, the threat
to our democracy.

We don't have a democracy and never did. We have a constitutional
republic. There is no unreason, there is a recognition of the Left's
control of the majority of mainstream media and entertainment industry.
As I said, Joe McCarthy was right.

We are one nation, indivisible. We were then. And we are now. And we
will always be.

No, we are not. We have on one hand people who want a collectivist society
with a huge, autocratic centralized government controlling every aspect
of life and forcibly imposing liberal values on the populace. On the
other had we have people who want to live their lives as they see fit,
keeping government as local and decentralized as possible and interference
to a minimum. There is no way to reconcile these positions.


Now, that was an excellent post!

--
Maggie

On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 9:59:57 PM UTC-5, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-03-02, ZZyXX wrote:
The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries.

Joe McCarthy's methods were execrable but he was 100% correct about
Communist infiltration in government and media. That in large part is
what has led to today's Democrat party and Left-leaning media.

Ed Murrow and Ed Bliss are gone now, but the fear and suspicion and
unreason of the early 1950s have returned, and, with them, the threat
to our democracy.

We don't have a democracy and never did. We have a constitutional
republic. There is no unreason, there is a recognition of the Left's
control of the majority of mainstream media and entertainment industry.
As I said, Joe McCarthy was right.

We are one nation, indivisible. We were then. And we are now. And we
will always be.

No, we are not. We have on one hand people who want a collectivist society
with a huge, autocratic centralized government controlling every aspect
of life and forcibly imposing liberal values on the populace. On the
other had we have people who want to live their lives as they see fit,
keeping government as local and decentralized as possible and interference
to a minimum. There is no way to reconcile these positions.

You won't see this because you've got GG killfiled, but there are
more than two hands. There are a hell of a lot of people who fall
midway between those two extremes, and are badly served by both
the Democratic and Republican parties.

Cindy Hamilton

On 03/02/2017 08:57 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
On 2017-03-02, ZZyXX wrote:
The story of Ed Murrow taking on Senator Joseph McCarthy has been well
chronicled in books, movies, and documentaries.

Joe McCarthy's methods were execrable but he was 100% correct about
Communist infiltration in government and media. That in large part is
what has led to today's Democrat party and Left-leaning media.




snip


Except (I guess ironically) it's the Democratic party calling out the
Republicans for "going commie." This is something I never would have
expected.

Got up this morning to see Trump going back to his whining and ranting
tweets, One quote from Trump concerning Sessions was, "He could have
stated his response more accurately."

In other words even Trump admitted Sessions lied under oath.

Were this some unsophisticated slob off the street (such as myself)
perhaps speaking "inaccurately" could be excused...but the Attorney
General of the United States? If he does not know how to speak
accurately he has no business being Attorney General.



Regardless of whether he lied under oath or not , it is absolutely
certain many of those on Trump's team spoke with the Russians.


Speaking with the enemy behind the administration's back is treason and
if those who did can get off the hook by resigning, they are certainly
getting off easy.

philo wrote:
On 03/02/2017 08:31 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo
wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize
that when he
lied. His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the
Russians."


End of story.

Please stop. He answered the question he was asked. Your
boy Franken
doesn't know how to ask a question to get the right
answer. He
failed. Like the "you libs", he tried a gotcha question
and it FAILED. Pure
politics from a heathen.

What part of "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the
Russians." do
you not understand?

You are totally bull ****ting and you know it.

Even Trump said Sessions did not answer the questions
well.

If he did not lie then he had no reason to recuse himself.

You just can't face the fact that your baby took another
hit.

as Trump would say, "SAD"

Quit whining and be a ****ing man for a change, even Trump
quit his
whining at least for now.

I cannot believe you are a commie sympathizer, so wise the
**** up.

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony

On 03/03/2017 09:49 AM, ChairMan wrote:
philo wrote:
On 03/02/2017 08:31 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo
wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize
that when he
lied. His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the
Russians."



snip

What part of "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the

I cannot believe you are a commie sympathizer, so wise the
**** up.

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony




You obviously have not read any of my posts over the past few years. I
do not own a TV and though of course I can watch news video clips
on-line one thing I don't do is watch CNN.

I do more reading than I do watching video.

I have now watched the video a few times and it looks like Franken was
not even trying real hard to trip Sessions up...
it was more like Sessions, trying to distance himself from his Russian
contact, gave away a little more info than he needed to...so more than
anything he buried himself.

I get a lot of my politician news from conservative publications such as
the National Review. The NR is not only conservative, but they are very
supportive of Trump. When they offer criticism of Trump, it holds more
water than such rags as the Huffington Post which of course would
criticism him.


Donald Trump AND the National Review have both stated that Sessions did
not commit perjury but (Trump's own words) , "He could have stated his
response more accurately."

That of course is simply a weasel way of expressing that he lied under oath.

Sessions is the Attorney General and knew full well what or what not he
was saying . He knows the full implications of what it means to speak
under oath. The old expression rings true, " A half truth is worse than
the whole lie."

On 03/02/2017 02:36 PM, ZZyXX wrote:
Good Night and Good Luck: There was fear in the room when they took on
X

snip

Now this as well:



U.S. Vice President Mike Pence used a private email account to conduct
public business as governor of Indiana, his office said in a statement
on Thursday.

The private email account was first reported by the Indianapolis Star,
which said Pence used it at times to discuss sensitive matters and
homeland security issues. The account was hacked last summer, the
newspaper added.

On 3/3/2017 9:49 AM, ChairMan wrote:
philo wrote:
On 03/02/2017 08:31 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo
wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize
that when he
lied. His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the
Russians."


End of story.

Please stop. He answered the question he was asked. Your
boy Franken
doesn't know how to ask a question to get the right
answer. He
failed. Like the "you libs", he tried a gotcha question
and it FAILED. Pure
politics from a heathen.

What part of "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the
Russians." do
you not understand?

You are totally bull ****ting and you know it.

Even Trump said Sessions did not answer the questions
well.

If he did not lie then he had no reason to recuse himself.

You just can't face the fact that your baby took another
hit.

as Trump would say, "SAD"

Quit whining and be a ****ing man for a change, even Trump
quit his
whining at least for now.

I cannot believe you are a commie sympathizer, so wise the
**** up.

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony



Chalk one up for common sense! Great catch!

--
Maggie

On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 20:44:11 -0600, philo wrote:

On 03/02/2017 08:31 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 18:08:23 -0600, philo wrote:

Sessions is "old school" and evidently did not realize that when he lied.

His exact words (once again) were , "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians."


End of story.

Please stop. He answered the question he was asked. Your boy Franken
doesn't know how to ask a question to get the right answer. He failed.

Like the "you libs", he tried a gotcha question and it FAILED. Pure
politics from a heathen.

What part of "I
didn't have — did not have communications with the Russians." do
you not understand?

You are totally bull ****ting and you know it.

Even Trump said Sessions did not answer the questions well.

If he did not lie then he had no reason to recuse himself.

You just can't face the fact that your baby took another hit.

as Trump would say, "SAD"

Quit whining and be a ****ing man for a change, even Trump quit his
whining at least for now.

I cannot believe you are a commie sympathizer, so wise the **** up.

You really are an idiot. I watched the hearing live streaming. Go find
the damn video of the exact question and the exact answer. Stop making
**** up. It was a question about the campaign, dip ****. Franke-Fraud
did not ask about contact that was related to Sessions senate duties
on the Armed Services Committee.

"You libs" are manufacturing false outrage.

_Seven Democrat senators met with Russian ambassador_

.... Sen. McCaskill walks back tweet claiming she never met with
diplomat

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5346522889001/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

Read 'em and weep

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:34:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony



Chalk one up for common sense! Great catch!

"...The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity
by asking exacting follow-up questions."

I said here before that if you want the right answer you have to ask
the right question. It really is that simple. I was a Special
Investigative Supervisor at my former work. And. I've been
investigated. :-)

On 03/03/2017 12:29 PM, Oren wrote:



Bull**** sniped, yours and mine.


Quit playing dumb. Though you and I may differ politically I never
thought you were stupid.


Here is Trump's full tweet:


"Jeff Sessions is an honest man. He did not say anything wrong. He could
have stated his response more accurately, but it was clearly
not.......intentional. This whole narrative is a way of saving face for
Democrats losing an election that everyone thought they were
supposed.......to win. The Democrats are overplaying their hand. They
lost the election, and now they have lost their grip on reality. The
real story..
...is all of the illegal leaks of classified and other information. It is
a total "witch hunt!"



End of quote.

It is naive to think that someone as experienced as Sessions would
"mis-speak" under oath. He must have forgotten that now days most
everything is on record somewhere.


But that was not my point anyway because most politicians are a bunch of
crooks so I expect that.

My question which you and everyone here ignored is this:

Why are you in favor with commie sympathizers such Trump and his people?

I honestly don't get it.


If you trust Putin you are nuts.

On 3/3/2017 1:59 PM, philo wrote:
My question which you and everyone here ignored is this:

Why are you in favor with commie sympathizers such Trump and his people?

I honestly don't get it.


After observing the democrats actions for the last decade or two, I'm totally convinced that democrats are pure evil and are out to destroy the United States of America. Democrats truly disgust me!

Remember, there is a RAT in every democrat.

"Grumpy Old White Guy" wrote in message eb.com...

On 3/3/2017 1:59 PM, philo wrote:
My question which you and everyone here ignored is this:

Why are you in favor with commie sympathizers such Trump and his people?

I honestly don't get it.


After observing the democrats actions for the last decade or two, I'm totally convinced that democrats are pure evil and are out to destroy the United States of America. Democrats truly disgust me!

Remember, there is a RAT in every democrat.

** NO THERE IS A RAT IN EVERY POLITICIAN **

On 03/03/2017 02:12 PM, Tony944 wrote:

X
snip
*_** NO THERE IS A RAT IN EVERY POLITICIAN **_*



I'd say most but not all.


I have noticed extreme silence whenever I've asked why the current
administration is trying to be buddies with Russia.

The lack of an answer makes things clear

On 3/3/2017 12:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:34:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony

Chalk one up for common sense! Great catch!

"...The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity
by asking exacting follow-up questions."

I saw that in the article a couple of times. Very informative article, too.

I said here before that if you want the right answer you have to ask
the right question. It really is that simple. I was a Special
Investigative Supervisor at my former work. And. I've been
investigated. :-)


Perhaps, the investigator didn't WANT to ask the right questions on
purpose? Since you've done it before, do you think that's what happened?

--
Maggie

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 22:08:27 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/3/2017 12:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:34:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony

Chalk one up for common sense! Great catch!

"...The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity
by asking exacting follow-up questions."

I saw that in the article a couple of times. Very informative article, too.

I said here before that if you want the right answer you have to ask
the right question. It really is that simple. I was a Special
Investigative Supervisor at my former work. And. I've been
investigated. :-)


Perhaps, the investigator didn't WANT to ask the right questions on
purpose? Since you've done it before, do you think that's what happened?

Yes, Al Franken-Fraud tried the gotcha game by asking a question in
hypothetical's. I saw, but don't is it is true.

Use factual material. Written statements. Statements sworn under oath.
Direct evidence, voice recordings, etc, etc, etc.. Ask direct question
based on known facts.

Franken-Fraud came up with a "I read on the Internet! It must be
true." Made the usual fool of himself. :-)

On 3/4/2017 1:54 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 22:08:27 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

On 3/3/2017 12:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:34:50 -0600, Muggles
wrote:

Stop watching CNN and getthe facts of what was asked
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...onal-testimony

Chalk one up for common sense! Great catch!

"...The burden is on the questioner to remove all doubt or ambiguity
by asking exacting follow-up questions."

I saw that in the article a couple of times. Very informative article, too.

I said here before that if you want the right answer you have to ask
the right question. It really is that simple. I was a Special
Investigative Supervisor at my former work. And. I've been
investigated. :-)


Perhaps, the investigator didn't WANT to ask the right questions on
purpose? Since you've done it before, do you think that's what happened?

Yes, Al Franken-Fraud tried the gotcha game by asking a question in
hypothetical's. I saw, but don't is it is true.

Use factual material. Written statements. Statements sworn under oath.
Direct evidence, voice recordings, etc, etc, etc.. Ask direct question
based on known facts.

Franken-Fraud came up with a "I read on the Internet! It must be
true." Made the usual fool of himself. :-)


I thought he did that, too!

--
Maggie