Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

On the Fournier article. Just, that Fournier should be ashamed of himself.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #1

---

Ron Fournier, writing for The National Journal, is to be congratulated. In a world rife with foul “journalism” it isn’t just any, garden variety, “mainstream media” stooge that could manage to turn the worst, consecutive set of presidential scandals in American history, into an indictment ... of a president that has been out of office for five years

Fournier’s article, entitled “Welcome to the Bush-Obama White House: They're Spying on Us” begins:

“Welcome to the era of Bush-Obama, a 16-year span of U.S. history that will be remembered for an unprecedented erosion of civil liberties and a disregard for transparency. On the war against a tactic — terrorism — and its insidious fallout, the United States could have skipped the 2008 election.”

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #2

---

Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #2

---

Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

"Over the top"? It doesn't even break the surface.

WHO created the new Office of Reich Security and bragged about it?

WHO used Executive Orders to create the first federal gun bans in history?

WHO went public several times with the statement that he would sign any bill congress put forward that would re-instate those gun bans after congress over-ruled the XO's?

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #2

---

Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

"Over the top"? It doesn't even break the surface.

WHO created the new Office of Reich Security and bragged about it?

WHO used Executive Orders to create the first federal gun bans in history?

WHO went public several times with the statement that he would sign any bill congress put forward that would re-instate those gun bans after congress over-ruled the XO's?

---

You know, Pete, you could well be right. Blame Bush more or at least as much as 0, is what the article was saying and what you appear to be saying. Could be, I don't know. But, the infamous words of Hilary Clinton may actually apply here: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

We've got a problem, and existential one. Counting how many corrupt politicians can dance on the head of a pin is just a diversion.

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #10

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

[quote=Sanguine|p42174]Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

"Over the top"? It doesn't even break the surface.

WHO created the new Office of Reich Security and bragged about it?

WHO used Executive Orders to create the first federal gun bans in history?

WHO went public several times with the statement that he would sign any bill congress put forward that would re-instate those gun bans after congress over-ruled the XO's?

---

You know, Pete, you could well be right. Blame Bush more or at least as much as 0, is what the article was saying and what you appear to be saying. Could be, I don't know. But, the infamous words of Hilary Clinton may actually apply here: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #11

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #10

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

[quote=Sanguine|p42174]Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

"Over the top"? It doesn't even break the surface.

WHO created the new Office of Reich Security and bragged about it?

WHO used Executive Orders to create the first federal gun bans in history?

WHO went public several times with the statement that he would sign any bill congress put forward that would re-instate those gun bans after congress over-ruled the XO's?

---

You know, Pete, you could well be right. Blame Bush more or at least as much as 0, is what the article was saying and what you appear to be saying. Could be, I don't know. But, the infamous words of Hilary Clinton may actually apply here: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

---

Yes,that is what I am saying. Which is just another way of saying what the cartoon character "Pogo" said back in the 60's,"We has met the enemy,and he is us!"

I am to the point in life where I have nothing but contempt for Party People who blindly keep repeating the "it's the OTHER guys who are at fault" line.

The real problem is basic. We are now a One Party Nation,and until and unless we create a viable 2nd party in opposition to the ruling party,we are no different than Germany in the 20's,and heading down that same road to fascism.

While the bands play on......

---

Quote: algernonpj wrote in post #10

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #7

---

Quote: sneakypete wrote in post #6

---

Quote: Sanguine wrote in post #2

---

Way over the top. I made a comment on the site.

---

"Over the top"? It doesn't even break the surface.

WHO created the new Office of Reich Security and bragged about it?

WHO used Executive Orders to create the first federal gun bans in history?

WHO went public several times with the statement that he would sign any bill congress put forward that would re-instate those gun bans after congress over-ruled the XO's?

---

You know, Pete, you could well be right. Blame Bush more or at least as much as 0, is what the article was saying and what you appear to be saying. Could be, I don't know. But, the infamous words of Hilary Clinton may actually apply here: "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

We've got a problem, and existential one. Counting how many corrupt politicians can dance on the head of a pin is just a diversion.

---

True. However we need to recognize abuse of power and corruption whether or not the politician has an -D or -R after their name. If we don't out existential problem will never be solved. We' ll just keep swaping out -D's and -R's and accelerating toward the left, big government, and a police surveillance state.

For example if we ignore that the DHS was created by GW by Executive Order 13228 of October 8, 2001 (Establishing the Office of Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council) to fight a war on a nebulous enemy 'Terror' we ignore how GW set the stage to Obama. DHS is the apparatus of a Police State. The eGOP doesn't disown it or defund it, it argues over how much freedom ought to be sacrificed to big government to create an illusion of security.

Then there's that nebulous term 'Terror' instead of naming the enemy as jihad out of the political arm of Islam (which defines peace as a world wide caliphate under sharia).

By 2007, perhaps earlier, there were Fusion Centers under the control of the DHS which blurred the line between local, state, federal law enforcement, and private corporations, and which were performing 'data mining' in the name of fighting 'terror'.

The definition of terrorism and terrorists slowing evolved in the expected mission creep. By early 2009 the infamous MIAC report was released. Ideologies characteristic of right-wing extremist movements included: being against against illegal aliens and the federal income tax, Christian Identity, displaying Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or libertarian material, supporting Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul. How far is that from declaring insulting Islam (by pointing out certain facts) or not supporting gay marriage is a hate crime?

.sneakypete

---