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

allot of bother for three cat in the hat books

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

CURL: W outclasses Barack and Bill, without even trying - Washington Times


"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."

You're always on the ball!

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.

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

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=detbuch;996525][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."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=Jim in CT;996550][QUOTE=detbuch;996525]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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=Jim in CT;996550][QUOTE=detbuch;996525]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.