CAN THIS HAPPEN HERE ?

The liberals of today have absolutely nothing in common with "the radical 60's". They are polar opposites.

Arlen, I think you would change your mind AFTER seeing the doc. Creating affiliations/movements
that mobilize ACROSS the globe, speaking their minds via computer,ACTIONS that get the results
they intend....GOING TO JAIL for their beliefs.....standing up and saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm
not going to take it any longer".....bringing to the surface,secrets that REQUIRE EXPOSING.....
see the documentary.

I am fully aware of ANONYMOUS and what they are about. And I fully sympathize and agree with Wiki-leaks and Snowden giving sunshine to government activities.
Liberals today are directly in opposition to Wiki-leaks and Snowden. These guys are for limited and open government, civil liberty, personal responsibility, and personal freedom. They are reminiscent of the 60's era. Everything that today's liberal/progressive is against.
I am also aware that they also serve a vital service to e-commerce security and government security. That is just another of many facets that they do.

Arlen wrote: Liberals today are directly in opposition to Wiki-leaks and Snowden.

You mean like this liberal...

King criticized the activities of WikiLeaks and in December 2010 suggested that the group be designated a "terrorist organization" and treated as such by U.S. agencies.[23] In 2011, King became a co-sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).[24]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013, Peter King stated that not only should Edward Snowden be punished for releasing information to the American public that Verizon customers were being spied on, but so should the journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras for publishing Edward Snowden's classified documents. On June 12, 2013, on Fox News King once again called for prosecution of Greenwald, alleging, that the journalist was said to be in possession of names of CIA agents around the world and would be "threatening to disclose" them. Via Twitter, Greenwald immediately refuted King's claim and called it a "blatant lie".[75]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King

I thought so.

I mean like the leader of the Progressives, Obama. Obama speaks for them all and they fawn over Obama.

I do not know that Republicans are conservatives. Those in the establishment are much more liberal than conservative.

But, I imagine that you thought so.

You said...

Arlen wrote: Liberals today are directly in opposition to Wiki-leaks and Snowden.

Yea sure... Peter King not conservative?

Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans. (Jul 2010)
Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
Prohibiting forced abortions by UN Population Fund. (May 2011)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 92% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
End Birthright Citizenship; no more anchor babies. (Apr 2009)
Rated A- by the ALI, indicating a strongly anti-amnesty stance. (Nov 2010)
Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)
Religious affiliation: Catholic. (Nov 2000)
Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state separation. (Dec 2006)
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)
Voted YES on banning armed forces in Libya without Congressional approval. (Jun 2011)
Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan. (Mar 2011)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition. (Apr 2008)
No contact & enforce sanctions on Iran until threat is gone. (May 2011)
Boycott & sanctions against Iran for terrorism & nukes. (May 2011)
Counter Iran's growing presence in Latin America. (Jan 2012)
Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment. (Mar 2012)
Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program. (Apr 2009)

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Peter_King.htm

You want me to go on. Any further to the right and he would be a Nazi.

First off, Peter King is an obscure politician. But, any Republican from an east coast state cannot be conservative by definition.
I do not belong to the Republican party and have no desire to join. If you want to bash them I will be very happy to join you and we may have a merry time.
I do not see your point in bashing Republicans with regard to any statements made by me. Bash away and if I can help in any way, let me know.

Arlen wrote: First off, Peter King is an obscure politician. But, any Republican from an east coast state cannot be conservative by definition.
I do not belong to the Republican party and have no desire to join. If you want to bash them I will be very happy to join you and we may have a merry time.
I do not see your point in bashing Republicans with regard to any statements made by me. Bash away and if I can help in any way, let me know.

I don't think so. If you call King obscure, and consider most Republican lawmakers as not really conservative, then I'm not interested in debating with anyone further right than the Tea Party. Which is what I'm hearing from you.

Lock yourself up, stock up and point that barrel.

I'm stocked up.