Sounds like the last 8 years.

dans please, just because you call yourself conservative or neo-con doesn’t mean you truly are. Why, your own peers do not even recognize Bush as a conservative.

So, you agree that the last 8 years have proposed the myth of ethnic or national renewal, a conception of a nation in crisis, and anti-conservatism?

During the campaign AKA/Soretoro hired a firm to comb the internet looking for websites that were reporting his negative side, their job was to have them shut down.

Embarrassing YouTube videos disappeared sometimes within minutes. National TV stations were warned not to print negative stories about him and they threatened litigation.

Basically, he won because no one would report anything but his stolen slogan, “Yes We Can,” Change and Hope, all worthless without substantiation, context or plan of action, empty, empty, empty.

If the media would have acted, inquired or demanded the documents that have been requested for several years from many sources (that is if any documents even exist)he would have saved about $1million dollars instead of spending it on lawyers to fight the release of any documents and bully poor old men.

It is just the beginning, AKA and the DC Syndicate are just getting started, Chicago Style.

I question your patriotism, Kevin.

For once, I agree with you Kevin — such bills are fascist, but really, given his “Truth Squads”, is it really any surprise? (http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1)

In fact, be careful using the “f” word — soon, it will be “Hate Speech”, and you’ll find yourself incarcerated for violating the government’s civil rights …

Funny how the left howled in agony over the monitoring of phone calls between known terrorist-connected phone numbers and numbers in the United States — wanted to sue the telecomm companies out of existence for cooperating with the Federal Government, and you’d have thought puppies were being slaughtered hearing the shrieks of pain and betrayal when those companies were given cover by the (Democratically-controlled) Congress.

After years of smirking allusions to the Patriot Act, and how we lost so many civil rights since 9/11, now when it’s the Left that wants to invade our privacy or control our behavior, then it’s okay, and now it’s the *complainers” who are “facist” – what are we, in 2nd grade – “I know you are but what am I?”

You know, a quick change of subject to:

a. George Bush,
b. Haliburton, or
c. America’s Genocidal Wars against the American Indian

just isn’t going to work anymore. Gonna have to deal with the “here and now”, and “from now on” …

Joe, being “anticonservatism” is not a label I would stick on Bush.

However, given the current administrations attacks on Limbaugh and others, it does seem appropriate…

Government control of information (under the guise of cybersecurity), government control of pay (Pay for Performance), government control of health care, government control of banking: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Fascism Light.

“It does not mean that this bill doesn’t mirror what’s been going on for the last 8 years.”

Kevin, if this is true, so is one of the following two points :

1 -As you defend this invasion of Internet privacy, you were also in agreement with what Bush had done.

2- As you are against what Bush did over these 8 years, you are also opposed to this invasion of Internet privacy.

Which is it ? You can’t have it both ways.

dans, “As you defend this invasion of Internet privacy”
Show me where I defend it? It’s your assumptions that are problematic. I know it’s hard to think outside the box and, well, you and I haven’t spent much time together in person, so I understand you’re a bit confused.

You, however, appear to be in agreement with me that this is nothing more than a continuation of what’s been going on for the last 8 yrs. I’ll give you 7 and 1/2, actually.

btw :

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/privacy/eprivacylaws.htm

dans, you man up. What’s you’re problem? Is it possible that I can be unhappy with the government’s invasion of privacy (ill-assumed privacy or actual) regardless of which administration is in charge? What’s ridiculous, or a lame defense as you put it, is your insistence that this bill has anything to do with one party over the other when it’s got bipartisan sponsorship. You blatantly remind everyone, in your words, to “Recall this last sentence the next time you hear Obama speak” as though it has anything to do with the current president.

Get a clue. You’ve been pwned on this one.

So in a round about way, you chose door #2.

“anticonservatism, a myth of ethnic or national renewal, and a conception of a nation in crisis”

These three elements are present in one form or another in most if not all of Obama’s speeches. Face the music comrade Kevin, you and your party have given us a fascist…

Whatever you say Peter Pan…

ZS3F4 DH5IU KGF79 WFQ4T LPTE4 QK88M 3DKPE GFJSK TL8RT XM66Y DTYLM 2UFQI …. Oh, don’t mind me. I’m just devising a secure e-mail code for when the new cybersecurity bill goes into effect.

Wolv, fyi, there used to be, and still may be, a free version :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

I generally don’t consider someone wearing tights to be a threat

ACT — You Rebs never learn anything! There are three sub-codes within that coded text, and you have to speak a rare foreign language to break out the last one. How do you think I stayed alive all those years?!!! Oh, well, to be expected. None of you Rebs ever caught on to the fact that the smoke rings being emitted from Grant’s cigars were actually troop movement signals. No wonder Grant took Richmond.

Grant was not pot bellied..