Chaplin Story from 1952

On Apr 10, 11:03 am, G-HE....RemoveThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> bachu....RemoveThis@rogers.com
> wrote:
>
> >>>But even they didn't consider Budenz
> >>>to be a reliable witness.
> >>How do you know this?
> >Robinson.
>
> No reference to Budenz in Robinson's
> index. What page in the book?

The reference in Robinson is interesting, and revealing, not only for
the context of Budenz' naming of Chaplin, in a "list of four hundred
'concealed communists' and alleged substantial contributions to Party
funds" (for which no corroberating evidence was ever found), but also
as a refutation of Shelps' oft-stated claim that there is no evidence
that Hoover was directly involved with McGranery in the decision to
rescind Chaplin's reentry permit.

Look it up, or are you afraid that might contradict the standard for
intellectual rigor you've established for yourself here.

>
> >It is no "personal attack" to point out the
> >dishonesty of your 'arguments', your
> >purposeful attempts to deceive in making
> >them, and your intellectual infantilism in
> >continually trying to
> >foist your extreme right-wing views on all
> >of us here.
>
> I am dishonest, deceptive, intellectually
> infantile...but....nothing personal,
> doncha know?

If you actually read what was written you will see that it is not you
but your "'arguments'" that are so characterized. If YOU consider
yourself no more than the expression of your arguments here, that's
not anyone else's fault but your own.

>
> You're a baboon. (nothing personal)

Perhaps so, but what does that have to do with his arguments or logic.
He's not the one reduced to pretzelizing logic, reason and judgement
to serve ideology as you have here with Budenz' unsubstantiated
innuendo.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachu... DeleteThis @rogers.com
wrote:


>>>But even they didn't consider Budenz
>>>to be a reliable witness.

>>How do you know this?

>Robinson.

No reference to Budenz in Robinson's
index. What page in the book?

>It is no "personal attack" to point out the
>dishonesty of your 'arguments', your
>purposeful attempts to deceive in making
>them, and your intellectual infantilism in
>continually trying to
>foist your extreme right-wing views on all
>of us here.

I am dishonest, deceptive, intellectually
infantile...but....nothing personal,
doncha know?

You're a baboon. (nothing personal)
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 10, 5:46 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >but also as a refutation of Shelps'
> >oft-stated claim that there is no evidence
> >that Hoover was directly involved with
> >McGranery in the decision to rescind
> >Chaplin's reentry permit.
>
> McGranery did not cite Budenz in the
> decision, and Truman declared Chaplin
> an "ingrate." I realize you think that
> Hoover, not the Truman, was really
> the President, but that's a deficiency
> in your education.

Just in case your reading comprehension is really as lacking as it
appears on its face, instead of this being yet another intentionally
misleading evasion, I never claimed a direct connection between
McGranery and Budenz. However you, on several occasions, have claimed
that Chaplin's reentry revocation was the exclusive action of
democrats in the Truman administration and that there is no evidence
that Hoover and the FBI were directly involved. You are just plain
wrong. "On 25 August a Mr. Noto of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service telephoned the FBI to say that Chaplin was intending to sail
for England in September, and to ask for Information. On 16 September
Hoover told the Los Angeles office that Chaplin had been issued with a
re-entry permit, and that they should advise the head office of any
information on his tour abroad. A note at the foot of the message
comments, 'INS has advised that even though he was given a re-entry
permit, this permit gives no guarantee he will be allowed to return to
the United States.' Already, on 9 September, McGranery had met with J.
Edgar Hoover and told him that he 'was considering taking steps to
prevent the re-entry into this country of Charlie Chaplin ... because
of moral turpitude'. The files on the Barry case were turned up again:
'See that all is included in memo to A.G.,' scribbled Hoover.

You are categorically and demonstrably wrong about your longstanding
denial that Hoover was directly involved in the recission.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com
wrote:

>>>>>But even they didn't consider
>>>>>Budenz to be a reliable witness.

>>>>How do you know this?

>>>Robinson.

>>No reference to Budenz in Robinson's
>>index. What page in the book?

>That'd be p. 754.

>After detailing the decades long and
>unsuccessful attempts of the FBI to
>prove Chaplin was a commie, the claim
>of Budenz was cited
>"But he turned out to be a singularly
>unreliable witness".

That is Robinson's assessment, not
a statement by the investigators.


>>>It is no "personal attack" to point out
>>>the dishonesty of your 'arguments',
>>>your purposeful attempts to deceive in
>>>making them, and your intellectual
>>>infantilism in continually trying to
>>>foist your extreme right-wing views on
>>>all of us here

>>I am dishonest, deceptive, intellectually
>>infantile

>Yes. Now you're getting it.
..

>>..but....nothing personal,
>>doncha know?

>I called your arguments dishonest
>because they demonstrably are. I made
>the logical conclusion that you advance
>such arguments in an attempt to
>deceive.

>If you're going to get personally offended
>when someone points out the obvious
>dishonesty of your arguments, then you
>probably shouldn't
>make them.

You are not merely attacking my arguments, you are alleging intentional
dishonesty, deception and misrepresentation....which
is a personal slur.


>But of course you have no choice except
>to do so, since you're trying to make
>points in service to your wild-eyed
>right-wing agenda (can anyone say
>"troll"?) that can't be substantiated by
>objective fact.

If anyone is a troll, it is you, who posts
mostly to attack me.


>So you try to mislead with rumors and
>innuendo in best McCarthyite style.
>As for the infantilism charge, I was
>actually being kind.

More slurs.


>The preposterous claims you attempt to
>foist on all of us here are offensive in the
>intellectual disrespect you display for the
>rest of the posters.

I think this statement applies to you.

>Do you take us all for such a bunch of
>rubes that you think any of us could
>be convinced by such dishonest
>claptrap? And has anyone?

I am not trying to convince left-wing
ideologues like you, but simply posting
opinions contrary to the politically
correct left-wing bias of this group so
that lurkers and newbies can get more
than a monolithic perspective.

So sorry to ruin your left-wing funfest.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>but also as a refutation of Shelps'
>oft-stated claim that there is no evidence
>that Hoover was directly involved with
>McGranery in the decision to rescind
>Chaplin's reentry permit.

McGranery did not cite Budenz in the
decision, and Truman declared Chaplin
an "ingrate." I realize you think that
Hoover, not the Truman, was really
the President, but that's a deficiency
in your education.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 10, 8:19 pm, G-HE... RemoveThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> David Totheroh wrote:
> >You are categorically and demonstrably
> >wrong about your longstanding denial
> >that Hoover was directly involved in the
> >recission.
>
> The decision was McGranery's, not
> Hoover's. Hoover supplied FBI info
> as he would be expected to do.

And Rove doesn't influence Gonzales' decisions either, right George?

>
> You have tried to depict McGranery
> as a Hoover sock-puppet. That's
> what I reject.

And what I reject is the simplistic view that McGranery's action re.
Chaplin was a reflection of a Democratic administration's policies and
priorities, while totally ignoring the historic reality of the Justice
Dept. scandal and the reactionary right-wing responses to it, yes
including those of Hoover and the FBI, that influenced and virtually
demanded the lame-duck appointment of someone like McGranery as AG.

Your view that Hoover was nothing more than the one who "supplied FBI
info as he would be expected to do" reflects, at best, a deep (and
with what is common knowledge about how Hoover operated, a feigned?)
ignorance. Given the circumstances surrounding McGranery's
appointment, it is either totally disingenuous or laughably naïve.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

On Apr 10, 7:43 pm, G-HE....TakeThisOut@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
> bachu....TakeThisOut@rogers.com
> wrote:
> >>>>>But even they didn't consider
> >>>>>Budenz to be a reliable witness.
> >>>>How do you know this?
> >>>Robinson.
> >>No reference to Budenz in Robinson's
> >>index. What page in the book?
> >That'd be p. 754.
> >After detailing the decades long and
> >unsuccessful attempts of the FBI to
> >prove Chaplin was a commie, the claim
> >of Budenz was cited
> >"But he turned out to be a singularly
> >unreliable witness".
> That is Robinson's assessment, not
> a statement by the investigators.

Oh? Then how come they didn't run Chaplin out of the
country for being a dues-paying member of the Communist party?

> >If you're going to get personally offended
> >when someone points out the obvious
> >dishonesty of your arguments, then you
> >probably shouldn't
> >make them.
> You are not merely attacking my arguments, you are alleging intentional
> dishonesty, deception and misrepresentation....which
> is a personal slur.

Well gosh, since all you offer is a bunch of cobbled-together
insinuations presented as 'fact', it's kinda hard to look at your
arguments as anything else but dishonest.

> >But of course you have no choice except
> >to do so, since you're trying to make
> >points in service to your wild-eyed
> >right-wing agenda (can anyone say
> >"troll"?) that can't be substantiated by
> >objective fact
> If anyone is a troll, it is you, who posts
> mostly to attack me.

Yeah, my original post of a 1952 article about Chaplin
was an attack on you.

> >Do you take us all for such a bunch of
> >rubes that you think any of us could
> >be convinced by such dishonest
> >claptrap? And has anyone?
> I am not trying to convince left-wing
> ideologues like you, but simply posting
> opinions contrary to the politically
> correct left-wing bias of this group so
> that lurkers and newbies can get more
> than a monolithic perspective.
> So sorry to ruin your left-wing funfest.

Aw, the right-wing maudlin crybaby fest begins.

Boo-hoo!
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>You are categorically and demonstrably
>wrong about your longstanding denial
>that Hoover was directly involved in the
>recission.

The decision was McGranery's, not
Hoover's. Hoover supplied FBI info
as he would be expected to do.

You have tried to depict McGranery
as a Hoover sock-puppet. That's
what I reject.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

David Totheroh wrote:

>>>You are categorically and
>>>demonstrably
>>>wrong about your longstanding denial
>>>that Hoover was directly involved in
>>>the recission.

>>The decision was McGranery's, not
>>Hoover's. Hoover supplied FBI info
>>as he would be expected to do.

>.And Rove doesn't influence Gonzales'
>decisions either, right George?

Irrelevant and off-topic--more politicizing
of the newsgroup.


>You have tried to depict McGranery
>as a Hoover sock-puppet. That's
>what I reject.

>And what I reject is the simplistic view
>that McGranery's action re. Chaplin was
>a reflection of a Democratic
>administration's policies and priorities,
>while totally ignoring the historic reality

>of the Justice Dept. scandal and the
>reactionary right-wing responses to it,
>yes including those of Hoover and the
>FBI, that influenced and virtually
>demanded the lame-duck appointment of
>someone like McGranery as AG.


>Your view that Hoover was nothing more
>than the one who "supplied FBI info as
>he would be expected to do" reflects, at
>best, a deep (and with what is common
>knowledge about how Hoover operated,

>a feigned?) ignorance. Given the
>circumstances surrounding McGranery's
>appointment, it is either totally
>disingenuous or laughably naïve.

Hoover did not cause McGranery to
rescind the re-entry permit. You
have not shiown one bit of evidence
to show that he did.

I am sure, of course, that Hoover was
in favor of the decision...but so was
Harry Truman.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952 

bachusio wrote:

>>That is Robinson's assessment, not
>>a statement by the investigators.

>Oh? Then how come they didn't run
>Chaplin out of the country for being a
>dues-paying member of the Communist
>party?

Budenz's testimony didn't constitute
proof. (I just happen to think it might
have been accurate, in light of the
Lillian Hellman case)

>>You are not merely attacking my
>>arguments, you are alleging intentional
>>dishonesty, deception and
>>misrepresentation....which is a personal
>>slur.

>Well gosh, since all you offer is a bunch
>of cobbled-together insinuations
>presented as 'fact', it's kinda hard to look
>at your arguments as anything else but
>dishonest.

I presented nothing as fact, liar, and
you are simply continuing the slurs
and slanders that are your uncivilized
hallmark.


>>>But of course you have no choice except
>>>to do so, since you're trying to make
>>>points in service to your wild-eyed
>>>right-wing agenda (can anyone say
>>>"troll"?) that can't be substantiated by
>>>objective fact

>>If anyone is a troll, it is you, who posts
>>mostly to attack me.

>Yeah, my original post of a 1952 article
>about Chaplin was an attack on you.

The key word above is "mostly."


>>>Do you take us all for such a bunch of
>>>rubes that you think any of us could
>>>be convinced by such dishonest
>>>claptrap? And has anyone?

>>I am not trying to convince left-wing
>>ideologues like you, but simply posting
>>opinions contrary to the politically
>>correct left-wing bias of this group so
>>that lurkers and newbies can get more
>>than a monolithic perspective.

>>So sorry to ruin your left-wing funfest.

>Aw, the right-wing maudlin crybaby fest
>begins.

>Boo-hoo!

You're nuts. I am not "crying" about
anything, merely denying that I am
posting to "convince" the likes of you.
 >> Stay informed about: Chaplin Story from 1952