The Bush 43 presidential library will soon be dedicated, and as such, many folks are revisiting his legacy. Of course, I was a big Bush fan, though I'm rational enough to admit he wasn't flawless, for example...the federal response to Katrina was inexcusable (though state and local leaders deserve even more blame, it could have been handled if the mayor & governor had a clue); the strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan was short-sighted and flawed. And he failed to make meaningful reforms to social security and medicare. The economy collapsed on his watch, but no one can tell me what Bush did to help cause that...

I can't give him sufficient credit for his response to 09/11. And for what he did in Africa with AIDS, if there was any fairmess in the world, he would have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Bush's AIDS relief plan, PEPFAR, saved more than one million lives. That's staggering, absolutely staggering.

I miss him more and more every day of these last 4 long, long years.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/25/george-w-bush-has-saved-more-lives-than-any-american-president/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/25/democrat-reveals-3-things-liberals-dont-get-about-george-w-bush/

It is unfortunate that because he was a puppet for a bunch of greedy warmongers that everything else is brushed under the rug... But then again he let himself be a puppet to a bunch of war mongers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is unfortunate that because he was a puppet for a bunch of greedy warmongers that everything else is brushed under the rug... But then again he let himself be a puppet to a bunch of war mongers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, I'll bite...who exactly were these warmongers for whom Bush was a puppet? The Koch brothers? The Board of Directors at Halliburton?

If I remember correctly, Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden (1) were in the Senate when the wars were launched, and (2) both voted in favor of the war in Iraq.

So that begs the question...if those Senators allowed themselves to be pushed into war by greedy warmongers, how come Obama selected them as his VP and SecState? Same for his current SecState, John Kerry...

though I'm rational enough to admit he wasn't flawless, for example...
You left out the rapid deterioration of civil liberties of US citizens under the Patriot Act (not to mention the illegal warrantless wiretaping), the abuse of Executive Privilege and burning the economy-candle from both ends by starting two wars while also pushing for massive tax cuts.

You often point out the economic irresponsibility that comes from the Left. However, I find the Bush tax cuts during time of war to be just as irresponsible.

Let's also not forget that the explosion of our national debt started at the end of Bush's first term, not to mention he pushed for the first wave of financial bailouts.
http://2ndgreenrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/United-States-national-debt.png

You left out the rapid deterioration of civil liberties of US citizens under the Patriot Act (not to mention the illegal warrantless wiretaping), the abuse of Executive Privilege and burning the economy-candle from both ends by starting two wars while also pushing for massive tax cuts.

You often point out the economic irresponsibility that comes from the Left. However, I find the Bush tax cuts during time of war to be just as irresponsible.

Let's also not forget that the explosion of our national debt started at the end of Bush's first term, not to mention he pushed for the first wave of financial bailouts.
http://2ndgreenrevolution.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/United-States-national-debt.png

"You left out the rapid deterioration of civil liberties of US citizens under the Patriot Act (not to mention the illegal warrantless wiretaping),"

I didn't leave that out...see my comment about how much I admire his reaction to 09/11, which covers this. I don't see that I've lost a single liberty, I just have to put up with some tolerable inconveniences.

I have seen you refer to the quote "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither libetry nor security". What that quote means, is, those who don't want to be blown up by terrorists, deserve to be blown up by terrorists? I don't buy it. I don't view the constitution as a suicide pact. Maybe that's the start of a slippery slope, but I just don't see that I'm less free than I was before 09/11.

If you want to say that he over-reacted, many would agree with you. Not me.

"burning the economy-candle from both ends by starting two wars while also pushing for massive tax cuts."

Good points. Bush didn't help the debt, that's for damn sure. You seem to have left out though, that one large reason was that he had to build a massive anti-terror infastructure, literally from scratch. It's also worth noting that government tax revenue hit an all-time high after his tax cuts. I don't think you can simply say that if he raised taxe rates by X%, then tax revenue would have increased by the same X%. Maybe the tax cuts were stimulative?

"not to mention he pushed for the first wave of financial bailouts."

Also a valid point, and something I disagreed with at the time, and still do. Although I'm not a macro-economist...Also, remember that the vast, vast majority of those bailouts have been repaid. So while I didn't like TARP, the fact is, it didn't cost us a ton of money.

I guess the point of this post was to point out the enormous, and alnost completely untold, story of what he did in Africa. Libertals don't like to concede that, nor do they like to concede that he's a genuinely good man.

I was proud to serve under him, and thrilled as hell that I didn't have to serve under the current Mao-ist President.

?

If I remember correctly, Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden (1) were in the Senate when the wars were launched, and (2) both voted in favor of the war in Iraq.



And they voted based on the intelligence (or in this case lack of intelligence) that was shared with them. Whether it was Rice w/Aluminum tubes, Cheney's office w/yellow cake or Powell w/anthrax, etc., the intel was all wrong.

Either the admin. lied, were bumbling idiots (which I don't think was the case) or had preconcieved notions of what they would find and ignored or didn't look in depth at what they saw that didn't fit those preconcieved notions. (which is what I think happened).

My vote for him was wasted and I view it as my biggest voting mistake.

I guess the point of this post was to point out the enormous, and alnost completely untold, story of what he did in Africa. Libertals don't like to concede that, nor do they like to concede that he's a genuinely good man.



You constantly say that yet people here give him praise for that.

Did you even read anything about the ceremony today?

"Mr. Obama praised Mr. Bush for his resolve after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his compassion in fighting AIDS in Africa and his commitment to overhauling the immigration system. Treading lightly over their disagreements over Iraq and other issues, the president said his predecessor had fought for what he thought was best for his country.

Mr. Carter, who was a fierce critic of Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq during his presidency, praised not only the AIDS program but also recalled how Mr. Bush had helped stop more than two decades of war in Sudan. “George W. Bush is responsible for that,” Mr. Carter said."

I guess people only see what they want to see.

Here is another quote

“We know President Bush the man,” Mr. Obama told the crowd in front of the brick-and-limestone center on a bright, sunny Texas day. “To know the man is to like the man. Because he’s comfortable in his own skin. He knows who he is. He doesn’t put on any pretenses. He takes the job seriously but he doesn’t take himself too seriously. He’s a good man.”

And they voted based on the intelligence (or in this case lack of intelligence) that was shared with them. Whether it was Rice w/Aluminum tubes, Cheney's office w/yellow cake or Powell w/anthrax, etc., the intel was all wrong.

Either the admin. lied, were bumbling idiots (which I don't think was the case) or had preconcieved notions of what they would find and ignored or didn't look in depth at what they saw that didn't fit those preconcieved notions. (which is what I think happened).

My vote for him was wasted and I view it as my biggest voting mistake.

"Cheney's office w/yellow cake "

Can you elaborate? Lots of yellowcake uranium was found in Iraq.

PaulS for the win!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you guys know Bush has taken up painting?? Aside from dog portraits he has done a few portraits of himself in the shower and the tub. It doesn't take an art critic to come to the conclusion that inside he feels dirty and needs to clean himself. His a very good painter btw. It could be the one thing he will be successful at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not going to really go point by point because I think the topic is very much a "agree to disagree" type of situation. However...
"not to mention he pushed for the first wave of financial bailouts."

Also a valid point, and something I disagreed with at the time, and still do. Although I'm not a macro-economist...Also, remember that the vast, vast majority of those bailouts have been repaid. So while I didn't like TARP, the fact is, it didn't cost us a ton of money.
The banks paid us (the American Taxpayer) back with our own money. Banks literally took money out of the taxpayer's left pocket and then put it into their right pocket - borrowing money at a lower rate while also fulfilling the requirements placed on them through TARP. This is completely confirmed by the TARP Inspector General.
http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports/congress/2012/April_25_2012_Report_to_Congress.pdf

The US Treasury were pretty much the only ones claiming they'd earn a profit on TARP. Zero Hedge has couple great articles the sum things up.
Myth Buster: TARP Bailout May Realize A Positive Return for Taxpayers? | Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-17-28/myth-buster-tarp-bailout-may-realize-positive-return-taxpayers)

You constantly say that yet people here give him praise for that.

Did you even read anything about the ceremony today?

"Mr. Obama praised Mr. Bush for his resolve after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, his compassion in fighting AIDS in Africa and his commitment to overhauling the immigration system. Treading lightly over their disagreements over Iraq and other issues, the president said his predecessor had fought for what he thought was best for his country.

Mr. Carter, who was a fierce critic of Mr. Bush and the war in Iraq during his presidency, praised not only the AIDS program but also recalled how Mr. Bush had helped stop more than two decades of war in Sudan. “George W. Bush is responsible for that,” Mr. Carter said."

I guess people only see what they want to see.

"You constantly say that yet people here give him praise for that."

I follow politics closely, and I look at a lot of different outlets, from Foxnews to MSNBC and everything in-between. In my opinion, Bush hasn't gotten nearly the credit he deserves. Many people have no idea what he did.

Good to see Obama mention that. I also remember Obama's inauguration speech, with Bush standing 10 feet away, and Obama said nothing positive whatsoever.

"I guess people only see what they want to see"

Obama and Carter are 2 people, who said very nice things about Bush at one event. If you think that refutes the notion that deranged Bush-bashing is a favorite hobby of the media and the left, I respectfully disagree.

Eben thinks Bush was pushed into war by greedy warmongers. Where do you suppose he got that notion?

Here is another quote

“We know President Bush the man,” Mr. Obama told the crowd in front of the brick-and-limestone center on a bright, sunny Texas day. “To know the man is to like the man. Because he’s comfortable in his own skin. He knows who he is. He doesn’t put on any pretenses. He takes the job seriously but he doesn’t take himself too seriously. He’s a good man.”

Again, if I stated that no one in the Democratic party has ever aid anything complimentary about Bush, your rebuttal would make sense. One statement by Obama, while certainly gracious, doesn't mean there is no deranged hatred of Bush by the majority of liberals.

Obama also stated that Bush was "unpatriotic" for raising the debt ceiling. And Obama has incessantly blamed Bush for everything bad that has happened in the last 4 years. Maybe you hadn't noticed that.

PaulS for the win!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still waiting for you to inform us who the greedy warmongers are, who pushed Bush into war?

And as another example of Bush-bashing, you can infer from his painting that he feels dirty inside. Must be nice to be a mind-reader. Can you tell from the way he signs his name, that Bush was responsible for the Holocaust?

You can't argue with hard evidence like that...

I got that notion from reading the news. Furthermore if you remember after 9-11, the bush administration started to make connections to Iraq and wage a case for war. Every time they were shot down, they came up with more evidence. It was all planned..

Your a fool if you think that the intelligence that was used in regards to proving Iraq was a threat to US safety was legitimate. The only threat to the us that Iraq posed was that they were going to sell their oil based on the price of the euro and ditch the US dollar.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, if I stated that no one in the Democratic party has ever aid anything complimentary about Bush, your rebuttal would make sense. One statement by Obama, while certainly gracious, doesn't mean there is no deranged hatred of Bush by the majority of liberals.


But you're the one who frequently starts threads about which basically say you saw/heard/read about 1 liberal doing something and then you attribute that to all liberals. I've pointed that out frequently in the past.

:confused:

Must be nice to be a mind-reader. ..

One statement by Obama, while certainly gracious, doesn't mean there is no deranged hatred of Bush by the majority of liberals.



Isn't this an example of mind reading?

I'm checking out of this thread. No sense focusing on the past.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But you're the one who frequently starts threads about which basically say you saw/heard/read about 1 liberal doing something and then you attribute that to all liberals. I've pointed that out frequently in the past.

:confused:

You have pointed it out frequently in the past, and I disagree each time you say that (or at least most of the time). I might point out one or two examples that illustrate a pattern. But I understand enough about math to know that one observation does not establish a pattern.

I'm checking out of this thread. No sense focusing on the past.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd really, really like to see your news source that says that Bush sent me to war because he was ordered to do so by a greedy warmonger.

Isn't this an example of mind reading?

In this thread, we have someone stating that Bush got pushed into war by a greedy warmonger, and that Bush's self-portraits illustrate a self-loathing.

I am not reading minds, when I say that some here have an un-supported dislike of the man. I am re-stating what actually took place.

I did like Obama's comments, and I give him credit for that. I'd like to see Obama as gracious in front of a wider, and more politically diverse, audience.

Nebe, I liked that paper you wrote and sent me. Your theory that sees the agrarian peasantry, rather than the working class, as the key revolutionary force which can fundamentally transform capitalist society towards socialism was interesting. I liked your views about the industrial-rural divide as a major division exploited by capitalism, identifying capitalism as involving industrial urban developed "First World" societies ruling over rural developing "Third World" societies.

Although your theory is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialization as a required prerequisite to expand economic development and socialist reorganization to the countryside, with the goal being the achievement of rural industrialization that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside.

:grins:

"You left out the rapid deterioration of civil liberties of US citizens under the Patriot Act (not to mention the illegal warrantless wiretaping),"

I didn't leave that out...see my comment about how much I admire his reaction to 09/11, which covers this. I don't see that I've lost a single liberty, I just have to put up with some tolerable inconveniences.

I have seen you refer to the quote "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither libetry nor security". What that quote means, is, those who don't want to be blown up by terrorists, deserve to be blown up by terrorists? I don't buy it. I don't view the constitution as a suicide pact. Maybe that's the start of a slippery slope, but I just don't see that I'm less free than I was before 09/11.

Interestingly relevant article I just read...
America Made a Pact With the Devil After 9/11, Let's Not Do It Again After Boston - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/25/america-made-a-pact-with-the-devil-after)

y'all are missing the point. Opening a library in Texas? thats like opening a barber shop at a baldness convention.

I'd really, really like to see your news source that says that Bush sent me to war because he was ordered to do so by a greedy warmonger.

Here is one of them.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube (http://youtu.be/o-zoPgv_nYg)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, I liked that paper you wrote and sent me. Your theory that sees the agrarian peasantry, rather than the working class, as the key revolutionary force which can fundamentally transform capitalist society towards socialism was interesting. I liked your views about the industrial-rural divide as a major division exploited by capitalism, identifying capitalism as involving industrial urban developed "First World" societies ruling over rural developing "Third World" societies.

Although your theory is critical of urban industrial capitalist powers, it views urban industrialization as a required prerequisite to expand economic development and socialist reorganization to the countryside, with the goal being the achievement of rural industrialization that would abolish the distinction between town and countryside.

:grins:

Don't know how this got into a thread about the Bush library, but it sounds very interesting. It deserves a thread of its own. Could Nebe's paper or a synopsis of it be shared with the rest of us?

Did you guys know Bush has taken up painting?? Aside from dog portraits he has done a few portraits of himself in the shower and the tub. It doesn't take an art critic to come to the conclusion that inside he feels dirty and needs to clean himself. His a very good painter btw. It could be the one thing he will be successful at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush a "very good painter"--that must mean he is a "liberal," being artistic, and creative, and such.

Could Nebe's paper or a synopsis of it be shared with the rest of us?

It read like it was a cut and paste from Wikipedia on the def. of Maoism.






or my post read that way:)

Don't know how this got into a thread about the Bush library, but it sounds very interesting. It deserves a thread of its own. Could Nebe's paper or a synopsis of it be shared with the rest of us?

or go to the wiki page on Maoism...none are original thoughts

y'all are missing the point.

I think this quote means you need to spend some time back up north.

allot of bother for three cat in the hat books

Did you guys know Bush has taken up painting?? Aside from dog portraits he has done a few portraits of himself in the shower and the tub. It doesn't take an art critic to come to the conclusion that inside he feels dirty and needs to clean himself. His a very good painter btw. It could be the one thing he will be successful at.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the "classy" obsessed might enjoy this....

CURL: W outclasses Barack and Bill, without even trying - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/w-outclasses-barack-and-bill-without-even-trying/)


"Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama.

“Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”

Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat."

or go to the wiki page on Maoism...none are original thoughts

You're always on the ball!

It read like it was a cut and paste from Wikipedia on the def. of Maoism.






or my post read that way:)

Interestingly relevant article I just read...
America Made a Pact With the Devil After 9/11, Let's Not Do It Again After Boston - Reason.com (http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/25/america-made-a-pact-with-the-devil-after)

Johnny, I see you as one of the more thoughtful and reasonable folks here, and I always consider what you say, especially in cases where we disagree..

I agree with you, in that I don't like it when the federal government ignores parts of the constitution that it happens to not like at that time. I just don't feel that's what's happening with anti-terror security. Bush implemented these policies, and Obama has kept all of them in place (except waterboarding, I believe)? So if those 2 guys, who are as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, both agree that these protections are legal, I sleep OK at night.

The author of that piece starts to lose me when he said "The American people...bought the Bush-era argument that by surrendering liberty they could buy safety. But that type of pact has never enhanced either liberty or safety"

So the author seriously doesn't think we are safer now than we were on September 10, 2001? Ridiculous. We can disagree over whether or not Bush over-reacted. But if someone says we are not safer today that 12 years ago, I assume that person is blinded by political ideology, because you must admit that is an absurd statement.

"the Bush-inspired new FISA statutes permit search warrants of some Americans' phone calls without a showing of probable cause as the Constitution requires"

I'm sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that you need probable cause for wiretaps? I have read the Constitution, and I don't recall that. Because it's not there. Which means that's something that's open to interpretation.

If the Supreme Court rules that these measures are unconstitutional, and the feds continue anyway, THAT would be scary.

Cameras on the corner? I just don't see why I should be concerned. If the cops want to watch me walking down the street with my kids, who cares? Those cameras helped catch the Boston terrorists. How is society better served if those cameras didn't exist, and maybe he gets away to bomb Times Square as he planned?

I'm pretty conservative as you know. That doesn't mean I view the feds as the enemy every time they try to do something. If the feds want to watch me for some reason, I assume they have probbale cause, and they will very quickly determine that I'm not doing anything wrong, and since they have limited resources, they will move on to someone else.

If the feds overstep their bounds, there are still all kinds of mechanisms there to protect me.

Tens of thousands (at least) of Muslim whack-jobs want to kill our kids. We can ignore that, or we can deal with it.

I don't think the feds are going to watch my house just because they want to get a glimpse of my wife naked (and I know for sure they aren't going to do it to see me naked). I trust that they act on reasonable, probable cause. I have seen zero evidence to indicate that there is widespread abuse. Of course, honest mistakes will be made, and those can be tragic.

The alternative to being diligent, is to make it easier for the jihadists to bomb your house or my kids' school. If we're going to err, I want us to err on the side of public safety. I'm not willing to sacrifice large numbers of innocent lives to appease the ACLU.

You can't have it both ways. In the world we live in, we have to choose between increased safety and decreased liberty. That's the unfortunate reality.

When I hear people bemoaning lost liberty, I rarely hear them discuss the consequences.

As always, you bring up tough, probing points, and as always, you do it respectfully. As you said, we'll agree to disagree.

the "classy" obsessed might enjoy this....

CURL: W outclasses Barack and Bill, without even trying - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/w-outclasses-barack-and-bill-without-even-trying/)


""

Thanks for posting that. It was nice to have a leader who didn't endlessly attack those with whom he disagreed.

Thanks for posting that. It was nice to have a leader who didn't endlessly attack those with whom he disagreed.

That's because he didn't have the mental capacity... :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because he didn't have the mental capacity... :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So in your opinion...attacking those with whom you disagree is a sign of heightened mental capacity...and showing respect toward those with whom you disagree is a sign of diminished mental capacity. Do I have that right?

You can believe what ever you want. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;996362]Bush implemented these policies, and Obama has kept all of them in place (except waterboarding, I believe)? So if those 2 guys, who are as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, both agree that these protections are legal, I sleep OK at night.

Because Bush and Obama agree, that makes it constitutional? Whaaa . . .

But if someone says we are not safer today that 12 years ago, I assume that person is blinded by political ideology, because you must admit that is an absurd statement.

Uhhh . . . two twenty-year-olds with back packs and pressure cookers, in spite of the Bush era/Obama era "safeguards" succeeded in blowing up the Boston Marathon.


I'm sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that you need probable cause for wiretaps? I have read the Constitution, and I don't recall that. Because it's not there. Which means that's something that's open to interpretation.[QUOTE]

That's not how it's supposed to work, Jim. If something "is not there"--doesn't fall within an enumerated power--the Federal Government has no right to do it. What the SCOTUS has to "interpret" is if the action falls within the purview of powers granted to any branch of the Federal Government by the Constitution. If it does, so be it--the government can act in a nearly unlimited capacity. If it doesn't, it has no power to act. Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants, to permit search warrants without probable cause, to spy on personal computer communications, to fund the installation of cameras and microphones on nearly every street corner, or to expand the 10 second window to collect "excited utterance" to 72 hours of interrogation before Miranda begins?

The use of "interpretation" to go beyond the determination of government power as constitutionally granted into spheres of social or economic "good" or necessity is the very thing that has reduced the Constitution to a meaningless tool used as a cover which allows government to rule without limits.

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;996362]Bush implemented these policies, and Obama has kept all of them in place (except waterboarding, I believe)? So if those 2 guys, who are as far apart as you can get on the political spectrum, both agree that these protections are legal, I sleep OK at night.

Because Bush and Obama agree, that makes it constitutional? Whaaa . . .

But if someone says we are not safer today that 12 years ago, I assume that person is blinded by political ideology, because you must admit that is an absurd statement.

Uhhh . . . two twenty-year-olds with back packs and pressure cookers, in spite of the Bush era/Obama era "safeguards" succeeded in blowing up the Boston Marathon.


I'm sorry, where in the Constitution does it say that you need probable cause for wiretaps? I have read the Constitution, and I don't recall that. Because it's not there. Which means that's something that's open to interpretation.[QUOTE]

That's not how it's supposed to work, Jim. If something "is not there"--doesn't fall within an enumerated power--the Federal Government has no right to do it. What the SCOTUS has to "interpret" is if the action falls within the purview of powers granted to any branch of the Federal Government by the Constitution. If it does, so be it--the government can act in a nearly unlimited capacity. If it doesn't, it has no power to act. Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants, to permit search warrants without probable cause, to spy on personal computer communications, to fund the installation of cameras and microphones on nearly every street corner, or to expand the 10 second window to collect "excited utterance" to 72 hours of interrogation before Miranda begins?

The use of "interpretation" to go beyond the determination of government power as constitutionally granted into spheres of social or economic "good" or necessity is the very thing that has reduced the Constitution to a meaningless tool used as a cover which allows government to rule without limits.

"Because Bush and Obama agree, that makes it constitutional?"

Neither one claimed that it was unconstitutional, and that covers a huge political divide. Also, has the Supreme Court deemed the Patriot Act to be unconstitutional? Not as far as I know..

"Uhhh . . . two twenty-year-olds with back packs and pressure cookers, in spite of the Bush era/Obama era "safeguards" succeeded in blowing up the Boston Marathon"

Come on, you are better than that. I did not say we are "invulnerable". I said we are "safer". In other words, we are not "perfectly safe". But we are obviously "more safe" than we were on 09/11...you are the first person I have ever heard deny that.

Al Queda still exists, and they are lethal. But they don't have the operational capacities they once had. We are better at anti-terror than we were 15 years ago. Do you really deny that?

"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...

[QUOTE=detbuch;996525][QUOTE=Jim in CT;996362]Bush
"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We just saw Watertown cops busting into houses and searching them without a warrant.

We just saw Watertown cops busting into houses and searching them without a warrant.
The police can search your house without a warrant if they believe there's an issue of public safety...which there certainly was. I'd note that what was reported was the police knocking and asking for permission to search...not exactly jackbooted thugs kicking down doors.

-spence

[QUOTE=detbuch;996525][QUOTE=Jim in CT;996362]

Come on, you are better than that. I did not say we are "invulnerable". I said we are "safer". In other words, we are not "perfectly safe". But we are obviously "more safe" than we were on 09/11...you are the first person I have ever heard deny that.

I did not deny that we are "safer," I honestly don't know. We may be "safer" in one respect but more in danger in another. Less hampered "surveillance" may discover various chatter that could lead to the foiling of plots. It is said that has happened. Much of the security measures, such as were used in solving the Boston Marathon bombing, are useful in catching the bad guys after the fact, but don't prevent the fact. I don't know if we are "safer" from terrorists after 9/11, but the number of attacks doesn't appear to have diminished. Several have occurred since then and several are claimed to have been thwarted. I don't "know" if the resolve to attack us by various radical Islamist groups has lessened, and if our "surveillance" will cause them to wither and die away. I understand that the intricacies of todays foreign relations are supposed to be very entangled, subtle, and difficult to manipulate, but my preference after 9/11 would have been to reduce Afghanistan to rubble then leave, with a calling card placed on top of the heap inviting whoever remained to have peaceful, "reasonable" relations, or we could show them more of the same. I know that's "extreme" and very disturbing to saner folks than me, but it might lead to a quicker resolve of the issue than this slow bleeding to see who can outlast who.

So I don't "know" if we are safer from terrorism because of the patriot act, but I think we are less safe from an ever expanding government control.

Al Queda still exists, and they are lethal. But they don't have the operational capacities they once had. We are better at anti-terror than we were 15 years ago. Do you really deny that?

I really don't "know." I am in no position to deny that you do "know."

"Where, in the Constitution, did you read that the Federal Government, or any branch thereof, has the power to write its own search warrants"

You got me there...

Well, read the Constitution again and find it. It was written by, for, and of the people, not by, for, and of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS was to protect it from government usurpation. But it was written so that ALL of us could understand, preserve, protect, and defend it. When we sheepishly wait for the Supreme Court to decide, we wait for a case to be brought to them, and then often wait for wolves in black robes to decide.