Posted on 10/14/2007 10:41:22 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Right about what? That there were card-carrying Communists in the government? Everybody knew that. Was he "right" when he slandered General George C. Marshall? Was he "right" when attempted to "investigate Reds in the Army" because the US Army wouldn't play along with his attempt to secure a commission for notorious homosexual Roy Cohn's "assistant"? Was he "right" when he allowed his excesses to torpedo the anti-Communist movement, thereby allowing a lot of Reds and fellow travelers to escape public scrutiny, or to achieve "martyr" and "victim" status? I'll take history lessons from you, bucko when you stop defending a blustering alcoholic who brought discredit on his Party and his Country.
Could you be specific about how exactly McCarthy “slandered” George Marshall?
And did you actually read Treason? Coulter goes on for several pages regarding Marshall’s record, and why precisely McCarthy opposed him. The stated reasons seem to be pretty damn good ones to me.
Here’s a short excerpt, but she goes on about his record for several more pages.
“George Catlett Marshall was the prime example of the ruling elite’s exasperating self-satisfaction. Marshall had been a superb military leader in World War II - principally by choosing General Dwight Eisenhower to lead the Allied forces. But Marshall went on to serve President Truman in various capacities, including as ambassador to China, secretary of state and secretary of defense, and as a policy maker. Marshall was the Zelig of disaster. He supported enormour concessions to Stalin at Yalta, including turning over Poland to the USSR. He helped consign a billion people to a totalitarian dungeon in China. He played a central role in Truman’s firing General Douglas MacArthur. One has to observe only the veneration of Marshall on the PBS webpage to realize that his civilian career was not all sunshine and song.
“There was rarely as incompetent a figure as Marshall, but the blue bloods brooked no criticism of their boy. When McCarthy attacked Marshall, the establishment reacted with sputtering rage. Contrary to popular mythology, McCarthy never called Marshall a “traitor”, a “Communist” or a “coward”. He simply detailed Marshall’s record.”
“Marshall had been implacably blind to the intentions of Mao’s Communists. He doggedly refused to believe Mao was anything other than a simple agrarian reformer. An OSS officer desperately tried to warn Marshall that Mao was a Marxist, but Marshall was too busy putting the final touches on his bow tie for a fancy dinner party to listen. When Mao’s second in command, Zhou En-lai, left a notebook on Marshall’s private plane containing the names of Maoist spies who had infiltrated the Nationalist Chinese government, Marshall ordered his underling to return the notebook without taking even a little peak.”
She even goes on to point out that Marshall actually wanted to include the Soviets and their satellite states as part of the Marshall Plan. He didn’t view it as the successful Cold War weapon that it turned out to be - he just wanted a world wide welfare scheme.
There’s a lot more to it. So, my question to you is - what exactly does Ann, or did McCarthy, say about Marshall that was actually false?
Qwinn
That WAS the Wheeling Speech!
“In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department’s payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals — the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.”
The scripture reads, 'my name shall be great among the nations'.
And the context of the passage is that the Jews were not honoring God, their King, with their best sacrifices as Gentiles would do with their own Kings.
Your translation is wrong. When there no word for the verb between the noun and the adjective, the missing verb is the present tense of the intransitive verb, “to be”. In the Hebrew text, there is no verb between great and My Name, therefore, the text states, “My name is great among the nations,” or “great is My Name among the nations.” Ki Godol Schmi BaGoyim.
Your stretching thing so thin, that it’s almost transparent. Jesus, if the NT is to be believed, as you have stated, yelled out “My God”. You are speculating that he was merely quoting his presumed ancestor. You don’t know, and have no authority for your claim.
No, my translation is correct, it is the King James.
Stretching and thin? Speculating? No authority? These words of accusation can flow right back at you. Where is YOUR authority that Christ uttering those words was NOT verification of King David's INSPIRED penning. If we start throwing out this and that then NONE of it has authority, now where exactly would that put your claims?
Further that Roman appointed high priest did say what King David said he would say, and those Roman soldiers did cast lots for Christ's garments.
King David is the authority that when Christ said "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, My God, why has Thou forsaken Me?", that Christ was preaching to we Christians this day, that He Christ came in the VOLUME of the Book. You surely are not going claim there was no King David now are you?????
King James is a translation from a translation. I’m using the original Hebrew, a language that I once studied enough to know what I’m talking about on this subject.
You’re asking me to prove a negative. You’re the one who has made the claim from no authority.
Sure... you just do not accept what is Written, and I stand on/in the only Authority that matters.
I am looking at the Hebrew also, and the insertion of either 'is' or 'shall be' into the sentence (note 'shall be' is in italics), is based on one's own interpretation of the context of the sentence, not the grammar.
The NIV, NASB and NKJ also have 'shall be'
Also, the King James translators used the Original Hebrew and Greek tongues, so it is not a translation from a translation.
It would if you’d step and back and look at the population percentages. Jews make up the tiniest of minorities in the US.
And where is that rule written down?
Why must the inserted verb be in the present tense?
The King James, NIV, NASB, NKJ translators must have missed it.
The TANAKH adds 'shall be' when there is no verb.
Context determines what tense the inserted verb will be.
I believe the Nazis identified themselves as Christians, however, you won’t find support for mass killings to improve the “master race” in the Bible.
In my translation, everything in that verse is present tense.
“Why must the inserted verb be in the present tense?”
If it is past tense, Hawhah is used. future tense, I’ll have to look it up, but the verb “to be” in present tense is an assumed word. It is never there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.