The actions of the Bush Administration have not imperiled you. They have not imperiled Mercenary. They have not imperiled me. They haven't even imperiled that leftist ass tw. Objective observers will agree with me, noting full enjoyment of the Bill of Rights, no impairment of legal gun trafficking, and no effectual terrorist assaults on US soil, the battle having been carried to the terrs rather than fought in our streets. They will note there has never been a knock on the door at midnight at the Administration's behest. My civil rights have not been reduced in the slightest, nor have yours. Even radar, who could generate some verbiage about this thing or that being a violation of civil rights, is only going to come off like a madman when he tries. (His ideas of what are civil rights violations seem more akin to offenses to his bloated ego than anything unconstitutional.)

The actions of the Bush Administration have made the Left howl, and as a general rule, what's bad for the Left benefits the Republic. You could examine matters from that angle and see if I'm right.

Really, you are where you were in 2000, and with regard to gun rights, you've been better off in the eight years between then and now. This is at least a small net plus.

The Left has attached itself to this remarkably stupid, blatantly pro-fascist idea that actively trying to win a war with undemocratic, explicitly fascist shitheads should be not merely somehow reprehensible, but somehow should be made illegal too. Absurd, and demonstrative of just how Nazi the Left is, and how closed its mind is to the wonders, rewards and joys of republican democracy. It tells me the farther left of center your philosophies are, the less likely you are to be competent at anything of value in this world, exceptions like George Soros notwithstanding -- but George never did strike me as a poster boy for wellgroundedness either, what with being the billionaire communist. It may be illustrative that he's approximately the sole example to be found on all the Earth.

UG...the facts speak for themselves.

Circumventing FISA and spying on citizens w/o a warrant.

Politiicizing the DoJ, particularly the civil rights division and using DoJ resources to attempt to create bogus voting rights cases to block minority voters.

Blocking or delaying FOIA requests and limiting the "peoples" right to know.

Blocking or editing federal science research that did not meet their ideological test.

The politicizing of Inspectors General in many executive branch agencies.

The list is endless.

Gun rights? WTF?

And your condescension it just a load of crap in attempt to divert the facts.

In fac, the Bush administration has made most of the country howl...not just the left.

You're an adult thinker..so am I ....and we both know the game you're playing.

And how about those Republicans of "integrity" in the 109th Congress...and the K Street influence peddling (I thought you might another reminder :) )

You mistake me for playing a game. What I am doing is enlightening you whether you're with it enough to appreciate it or not. The blinkers have to come off, and then you are fully free, adult, and human.

When were you or anyone you know wiretapped? I haven't been, either, and I might theoretically be a better candidate for monitoring: decades ago, I held compartmented access to top-secret information, pursuant to my job at the time. Could somebody wonder if I have secrets to sell?

People have hollered that "FISA is being circumvented" but a closer look says they're still controlling intelligence gathering on communications between foreign "persons of interest" and US persons speaking with them.

FOIA's access frankly goes up and down, broadening and then narrowing, and its determination of what is releasable and what isn't remains closed to the public -- just as it always was. As a onetime intelligence professional, I can say I understand why this must be. It boils down to one thing: you never compromise your sources. Make your targets figure 'em out themselves. Meanwhile, you do all in your power to let the targets stay complacent. All in your power amounts to quite a bit.

"Bogus voting rights cases to block minority voters" is a popular shibboleth among the Left, but evidence remains lacking. Even the most determinedly anti-Administration newspapers have nothing they'd call solid. And if they have no confidence, as much as they'd prefer to...

That you would say "Gun rights? WTF?" that blankly illustrates how terribly unversed you are in a republic's fundamentals -- that you don't know enough to value even this basic thing. Sorry, Redux, but that was patronizable in the largest manner. You must grasp this national fundamental before you can think intelligently, and if you're a man of parts, you can grasp it with ease. If you're not smart, you will exhibit no understanding. It is a basic mechanism for "a Republic, if you can keep it."

Nobody I know was howling in this country, Redux, and I'm no hermit. Your circle of friends seems too small, too cloney, and too much an echo chamber. Never confuse the Left with "the country;" the data do not support this idea.

Thanks for your revisionist enlightenment.

"Fully free, adult, and human"....could you be more childish in your characterizations of those who disagree with you?

But if you want to play that game, I think you're an arrogant blowhard.

BTW, its a game with me...I dont take people like you in a political forum very seriously. But its fun to cut you down with facts. :)

If you had facts at your disposal, I daresay you could have fun. But you aren't having the fun you think you're having.

Let's see, no wiretapping of self or friends, or even enemies, correct? No midnight knock on the door either, I daresay.

No labor camps for citizens either, come to that.

Arrogant? Maybe: and look at what I have for opposition. Try three of the examples: one who cannot escape a taint of antisemitism and has no clear idea maybe she should, and a couple of neurotic bellowers I'd not invite to dinner, one who believes everything the Soviets ever said about the United States, and one who doesn't, but is a strict Constitutional obstructionist. Can anyone besides themselves take them seriously? I've earned every atom of arrogance I command, and I've earned it here.

No support for the "blocking minority votes" idea comes to mind, I see.

Nonetheless, I do respect your intellectual abilities. You can write. I think you try and be fair -- I'm just still reckoning "garbage in -->garbage out." Time to take out the garbage.

Then why am I sitting here laughing at you...you pompous ass.

I'm off to bed now...still laughing :D

Couldn't tell ya. If you can't believe me, how does that turn me into a liar, or an anything?

Indeed, do you see how your replies progressively retreat from cogency? You shouldn't do that.

Now off to insert a damning Janet Reno quote -- maybe the Blagojevich thread.

Let me guess, talking points lifted from MoveOn.whoreg?

As you well know, I provided cites for many of those in other discussions...(FISA, FOIA, DOJ politicization, politicization of IGs...) ..none of which was moveon.org

I can give you more cities if you like, when i have time :)

I dont think I ever called you a liar. I did respond in kind to your name-calling with your childish characterization of those who disagree with you as somehow less than "fully free, adult, and human"

I would prefer to focus on the issues and the facts. I try to document my posts when I think my opinion needs support with cited sources.

I would hope you would want to do the same.

No, as I clearly pointed out, you are concentrating on some very small segments of the last 8 years. Not that some of them have not had a significant impact on that single narrow area of government cited. But the fact remains that the example you have cited are very small and detract from the fact that there are a lot of good people in the rest of these agencies who have worked hard for all the right reasons for the last 8 years, and they have done a good job making things work. So far I have not seen anyone getting dragged into the Senate to be Impeached before Congress. Wait, that did happen before Bush. I think it was for Lying Under Oath.

I have never impugned the reputation of the honest workers in the executive branch.

My focus has been the political appointees at the top. And the evidence of questionable practies, some of which were violations of administrative policies and practices and others violation of law.

The number of such questionable actions across the executive branch over the last eight years exceeds any recent administration and that is a fact.

added:

Here is an example I raised before....the appointment of Inspectors General in the Executive Branch.

The IGS are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal agencies. There are guideline for their appiointment that makes it clear that the appointment should not be political but rather merit based.

In nearly 2/3 of the agencies of the executive branch, the Bush appointment to the position of IG did not meet those guidelines, but were political (former WH employees, RNC employees, staff members of Republicans in Congress) with no auditing, investigation or legal experience. In the Clinton admin, it was less than 1/3.

This action is not illegal or even a violation of administrative laws or procedure...IMO, it is unethical.

And it is not a small matter...it runs across the board of the executive branch and impacted the manner in which impartial oversight was not in place to ensure that federal agencies acted legally, ethically and in the public interest.

So that would include tax dogers like Geithner?

LOL....Merc, you crack me up :eek:

First you complain that I was "sensationalizing a few bad apples at the top. Their rot did not always trickle down..."

So I showed you how it trickled down at DoJ wth five examples of improper and/or illegal conduct in the agency that is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws of the US.

And I point you back to the issue of IGs, who are responsible for providing impartial oversight and upholding the integrity of the agencies in the executive branch..and where 2/3 of Bush's appointments across the board in such agencies were political (and not qualified based on legal, audit or investigation experience) ignoring the standards identified in the law for the appointment of IGs...far more than Clinton.

Then you "sensationalize" by pointing out one guy's tax problems that has no bearing on his performance in office since he just took office.

Damn...denial ain't just a river in Africa...its alive in well in the Cellar.

One guys tax problem that heads up the people in charge of taxes? It is not against the law to not pay your taxes? Certainly we don't want to rehash the events of 8 years of Clinton's failures and contributions to the present crisis.