The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[dejr_8]

This taken from the official .gov website;

DHS was created by the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002, and is an outgrowth of the Office of Homeland Security established by President George W. Bush after Sept. 11, 2001

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190015
NY Times distorted Democratic position on Homeland Security legislation
Summary: A New York Times article about the renewal of the USA Patriot Act misleadingly characterized the Democratic position about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), stating only that Democrats held up passage of the bill because of a dispute over labor rights. But it failed to note that Democrats were among the original and leading proponents of a cabinet-level DHS and that Republican opposition to the idea delayed the creation of the department for nearly twice as long as the Democrats' delay.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June and used the issue effectively on the campaign trail this past fall, criticizing Democrats who differed with him over the issue of labor rights within the new department

It was the Dems that originally wanted it and Reps were against it. Bush caved.

 

[Charade]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512190015
NY Times distorted Democratic position on Homeland Security legislation
Summary: A New York Times article about the renewal of the USA Patriot Act misleadingly characterized the Democratic position about the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), stating only that Democrats held up passage of the bill because of a dispute over labor rights. But it failed to note that Democrats were among the original and leading proponents of a cabinet-level DHS and that Republican opposition to the idea delayed the creation of the department for nearly twice as long as the Democrats' delay.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/homeland.security/
Bush initially resisted the idea of a new department, which had been championed primarily by Democrats in the wake of the attacks. But Bush embraced the concept in June and used the issue effectively on the campaign trail this past fall, criticizing Democrats who differed with him over the issue of labor rights within the new department

It was the Dems that originally wanted it and Reps were against it. Bush caved.

Oh now you didn't! You used mediamatters?

 

[dejr_8]

Oh now you didn't! You used mediamatters?

that's why I added the link from the Clinton News Network.

 

[eclectics]

It was the Dems that originally wanted it and Reps were against it. Bush caved.

What the Dems wanted was something totally different than what Bush morphed it into.



The bill passed over Democratic objections that it was loaded with provisions having nothing to do with homeland security, such as liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[dejr_8]

What the Dems wanted was something totally different than what Bush morphed it into.



The bill passed over Democratic objections that it was loaded with provisions having nothing to do with homeland security, such as liability protection for vaccine manufacturers and exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act.

Oh I got ya. The dems were for it before they were against it...

And see that's why we don't UHC. Gov programs never get executed as originally planned...

 

[Miss Jasmine]

And let's see - whose grand idea was the DHS... that would be the Dems.

You do know I am a conservative, not that I care, but yeah...

 

[eclectics]

Oh I got ya. The dems were for it before they were against it...

And see that's why we don't UHC. Gov programs never get executed as originally planned...

You were the one claiming that the DHS in place today was cooked up by the Dems, not me. Care to move on to The Patriot Act?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

You were the one claiming that the DHS in place today was cooked up by the Dems, not me. Care to move on to The Patriot Act?

Gah this needs to go away as well. And that's the Libertarian in me speaking.

 

[crcormier]

Oh I got ya. The dems were for it before they were against it...

And see that's why we don't UHC. Gov programs never get executed as originally planned...

So according to your own logic, the DHS as executed wasn't what the Dem's originally planned.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

So according to your own logic, the DHS as executed wasn't what the Dem's originally planned.

I wouldn't try to be logical with her (or him, can't remember), just sayin'.

 

[dejr_8]

You were the one claiming that the DHS in place today was cooked up by the Dems, not me. Care to move on to The Patriot Act?

Sure. I have no problem at all with the Patriot Act. We ARE at war and measures like this are required. If the Patriot Act prevents the death of even a single American civilian due to a terrorist act, then the Patriot Act was well worth it.

Your side continues to cry about how your rights on infringed. Give one tangible example of how your life has changed because of the Act.

The IRS already knows more about you than any Gov agency should know but you have no problem with that!

But I’m glad to see that you are changing the subject. That is the first rule of debating when you are losing

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Gah this needs to go away as well. And that's the Libertarian in me speaking.

Agree.

~Amanda

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Sure. I have no problem at all with the Patriot Act. We ARE at war and measures like this are required. If the Patriot Act prevents the death of even a single American civilian due to a terrorist act, then the Patriot Act was well worth it.

Your side continues to cry about how your rights on infringed. Give one tangible example of how your life has changed because of the Act.

The IRS already knows more about you than any Gov agency should know but you have no problem with that!

But I’m glad to see that you are changing the subject. That is the first rule of debating when you are losing

I have provided you with examples from a lending point of view - why do you choose not to respond?

Another way - my phone calls are MY BUSINESS not that of the government. If they want to listen in they better get a warrant and have reasoning for doing it. My Calls, My Business.

~Amanda

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Sure. I have no problem at all with the Patriot Act. We ARE at war and measures like this are required. If the Patriot Act prevents the death of even a single American civilian due to a terrorist act, then the Patriot Act was well worth it.

Your side continues to cry about how your rights on infringed. Give one tangible example of how your life has changed because of the Act.

The IRS already knows more about you than any Gov agency should know but you have no problem with that!

But I’m glad to see that you are changing the subject. That is the first rule of debating when you are losing

Not true, I do have a problem with that. I have a problem with the IRS as a whole, but that's another matter. And while we are at it, yes I have a file at the FBI, but that was by my choice. I don't have to work where I work. And Chloe's mom has many examples of how the Patriot Act has affected innocent US Citizens. I'm sorry, but the government spying on me, and what books I buy, what websites I visit, etc. is not going to do one lick to stop terrorism. Don't you think the terrorists are smart enough not to do the things that fall under the Patriot Act. They aren't stupid people.

 

[dejr_8]

So according to your own logic, the DHS as executed wasn't what the Dem's originally planned.

I would agree with but that's just the point. Gov programs never turn out as expected (the law of unintended consequence). But, the DHS as planned by the Dems was a bad idea from the start – just more bureaucracy which the Dems LOVE. Bush should have fought its formation.

 

[eclectics]

But I’m glad to see that you are changing the subject. That is the first rule of debating when you are losing

lol. If pointing out to you that the bloated, inefficient, corrupt agency called The DHS is anything even remotely what the Dems had in mind, is losing, then I guess I lost. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[dejr_8]

lol. If pointing out to you that the bloated, inefficient, corrupt agency called The DHS is anything even remotely what the Dems had in mind, is losing, then I guess I lost. Thanks for the chuckle.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/radio.addresses/index.html
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri called, in the Democrats' weekly radio address, for legislation to establish the new Homeland Security Department by the anniversary of the attacks.

Gephardt said he was "heartened" by the president's plan, which he said is similar to proposals he and others have made since last fall.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

'd like to clarify something for the record. there seems to be some confusion, so lets just get this out of the way.

Saying you voted for Bush in 00 or 04, or saying Bush did this, or Bush did that is NOT a well reasoned response to a conservative who is trying to espouse their beliefs over any given issue.

I'm really getting annoyed that somehow thats a legitimate response to an conservative viewpoint. I really do not care if Bush mortgaged the White House to the International Bank Of Communist China (and please spare me the response that thats exactly what he's done, I'm one step ahead there), it doesn't change the fact that not all conservatives agree with everything Bush has done, and given our right leaning viewpoints many people voted for Bush in lieu of Kerry. "Lesser of 2 evils". I'll be making another one of thsoe votes come November,=.

A vote for someone is not a ringing endorsement you agree with everything they do.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

'd like to clarify something for the record. there seems to be some confusion, so lets just get this out of the way.

Saying you voted for Bush in 00 or 04, or saying Bush did this, or Bush did that is NOT a well reasoned response to a conservative who is trying to espouse their beliefs over any given issue.

I'm really getting annoyed that somehow thats a legitimate response to an conservative viewpoint. I really do not care if Bush mortgaged the White House to the International Bank Of Communist China (and please spare me the response that thats exactly what he's done, I'm one step ahead there), it doesn't change the fact that not all conservatives agree with everything Bush has done, and given our right leaning viewpoints many people voted for Bush in lieu of Kerry. "Lesser of 2 evils". I'll be making another one of thsoe votes come November,=.

A vote for someone is not a ringing endorsement you agree with everything they do.

Adding to that - it works both ways.

I didn't vote for Clinton (I was to young) and I get tired of that being thrown in my face. Not to mention the fact that casting a vote for a democratic candidate does NOT mean you agree 100% with them all the time either.

Unfortunantly there are many who only deal in absolutes - to which this PSA will be ignored.

Remember - I can't post on the conservative thread because I'm not conservative enough.

~Amanda

 

[Chloe'sMom]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/radio.addresses/index.html
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri called, in the Democrats' weekly radio address, for legislation to establish the new Homeland Security Department by the anniversary of the attacks.

Gephardt said he was "heartened" by the president's plan, which he said is similar to proposals he and others have made since last fall.

being as Gephardt was my representative for the state of MO - I wouldn't believe a word the man said. Augh.

~Amanda