On 18 Dec 2011 13:39:42 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 17 Dec 2011 23:57:26 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 15 Dec 2011 21:59:07 GMT, Han wrote:

"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
news:jcdme4$num$1 @dont-email.me:

Ironically, it turned out that all those (and some more) were
actual communists.

This is a good analogy. Some were communists or at least not averse
to have others exercise their right for free speech.

No, the ones McCarthy was going after were Communists, as in "Soviet
agents" and their accomplices.

Huh, you're McCarthy's son?

That's a great argument. I suppose it's your best/only shot. Try
reading some *history* rather than CNBC.

I am not sympathetic to a lot of what is happening or stated in the
world, but I'd like to be able to discuss almost anything. And I'd
like to be the one to decide what I can discuss.

Go for it. No one is stopping you, even though you often don't have
the facts or are even interested in getting them.

Reading the relevant passage on a government website, it is patently
unclear whether a US citizen, anointed as an Al Quaida sympathizer or
somesuch, is automatically excluded from due process. I don't trust
lawyers on points like these. Hopefully the SCOTUS will rule soonest
possible on this IMNSHO terrible law.

That would mean that such a case would be brought before them. Not
likely.

Certainly not necessary if Gingrich becomes president:

More unsubstantiated nonsense.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...10507201025878
2.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsFifth
"Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich came out swinging
Saturday against the nation's legal system, pledging if elected to defy
Supreme Court rulings with which he disagrees and declaring that a 200-
year-old principle of American government, judicial review to ensure that
the political branches obey the Constitution, had been "grossly
overstated."

The Wall Street Journal isn't exactly left-wing, is it?

Their editorial page certainly isn't RoC. Otherwise, they're all over the
place.