@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:David, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
You keep bandying that word 'commies' around as though it actually meant something.
It does and it did. The nazis and the commies existed and were very dangerous.
Your denial thereof does not change the historical facts.
Merry Andrew wrote:Do you have any idea of who some of the people who were persecuted by the HUAC and Sen. McCarthy were? Among them there might actually have been a few genuine Communist sympatnizers, maybe even a Party member or two. They were the exception to the vast majority of people whose only "sin" was thinking in a liberal-minded sort of way, actually believing in the provisions of the First Amendment to the US Constituation, along with a few other of the Amendments, e.g. the Fifth.
Did the NKVD check in with u to tell u who was a commie and who was not ??
What is the source of your information ?
Merry Andrew wrote:The major "crime" for which most of those folks got blacklisted was a
refusal to discuss the political leanings of their friends, neighbors and co-workers.
Congress has
BOTH the constitutional power to investigate and the war power.
Their refusal to assist Congress was "
aid and comfort to the enemy".
Tho Congress did not officially declare war against the commies,
the commies silently (among themselves) declared war against us.
Congress was
de facto participating in the anti-
Red defensive war.
I am grateful in the extreme, for all of the help from Congress
that it rendered. Tho I was no Herbert Philbrick, I did what I coud
on behalf of HUAC, spying on commies. I assure u that thay certainly
considered themselves to be commies in conversation among themselves,
and thay left no doubt which side thay were on.
Merry Andrew wrote:It was the HUAC and that idiot alcoholic McCarthy that employed the
methods of the Stalinist type Communists -- the very same methods
that the Hitlerites had employed.
That was
WAR and fought to be
won.
Fortunately, thay knew enuf to take war
seriously,
not in the light-hearted spirit of a game.
The nazis and the commies woud have enslaved us if thay had the chance.
We know that, from observation of what thay
DID when thay were able to.
Your defense of the communist slavemasters and their lackeys is shameful, Andy.
Merry Andrew wrote:The only difference was the absence of illegal arrets and/or torture on the part of the US authorities.
They couldn't quite get away with that although I'm sure there were
some legislatooors who would have loved to have tried.
U mean Abraham Lincoln? He did it successfully,
wherever he felt like in America (not the "torture").
Merry Andrew wrote:Your villifying a man whom you did not know, plainoldme's friend,
I' ll stand by what I said, but I did not vilify him, for lack of sufficient information.
He shoud have helped. He shoud have offered his assistance.
That woud have been the honorable, decent thing to do.
From Plain 's post, I infer that he was passive-aggressively in favor of the commies,
and he was dealt with accordingly. The commies woud have
done
a lot worse than
disbar him.
When I applied for admission to the Bar, I was examined as to character.
He lacked the character to help in the war against communism,
or he was on the
other side.
Merry Andrew wrote:who -- for all you know -- was not guilty of anything more egregious than refusing to answer questions about someone or something that was nobody's business, is beyond contempt. The fact that you choose to be proud (your word) of this deplorable and sickeninng behavior speaks volumes about your character, David.
Your defense of the commies likewise tells us of your
absence of character, Andy.
The commies and nazis are dead; no further threat, but if I had to spy on them again in the future,
and if I were able to do it, I 'd consider it my moral duty
and I 'd do it as
conscientiously as I possibly coud; a labor of love.
David
