The Conservative - Liberal Debate Thread

[eclectics]

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.

You still seem to be missing the point that what the DHS that actually went into effect and what it has turned into today is hardly what the Dems had high hopes for. Sorry, but I can't think of many other ways to keep putting it. FEMA needs to revert to it's original position, DHS needs a complete overhaul and The Patriot Act needs to be scuttled in favor of something less prone to abuse. You can dredge up all the six year old statements you want to. It doesn't change the fact that the DHS is inefficient and bloated and hardly what was promised to the Dems, and to all of us for that matter.

 

[eclectics]

it doesn't change the fact that not all conservatives agree with everything Bush has done

In our defense, not a statement heard very often around here. I have no qualms with disagreeing with some of the things Clinton did and have said it often enough. So have others. Seems like it's pulling teeth however, for your side to admit the same with W. Just sayin'.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

this is interesting - So Bush established the OHS which did not have to be approved nor did people have to testify. Therefore members of Congress put forth the legislation for the Department of Homeland Security in order to keep checks and balances in place......but the original idea and formation was 100% President Bush.

On Sept. 20, 2001, Bush announced to Congress the creation of the Office of Homeland Security. Two weeks later, he issued Executive Order 13228, which established OHS in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and appointed Tom Ridge as director. OHS's mission was to develop and coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the United States from terrorist threats or attacks. The order also established the Homeland Security Council, made up of top executive branch officials, to coordinate the homeland security efforts of the executive departments and agencies.

Many members of Congress took issue with the executive order creating OHS. Because it classified Ridge as the assistant to the president for homeland security, Senate approval was not required for his appointment (presidential advisers don't need confirmation). Nor could Congress compel Ridge to testify, because he was not a Cabinet officer. And, because of OHS's location in the EOP, Congress had no oversight of the new office.

The pressure on the Bush administration to make OHS a Cabinet-level department continued unabated during the next few months. Ridge did submit to some informal questioning before Congress on the administration's progress in securing the homeland, but they weren't official hearings. In the meantime, frustration mounted on the Hill, and the House and Senate held a number of hearings on homeland security, prompting lawmakers to take matters into their own hands. In April 2002, at a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, senators—Lieberman, Specter and Bob Graham (D-Fla.)—submitted a bipartisan proposal to create a National Department for Homeland Defense, which would combine the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Customs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and three smaller critical infrastructure offices.

It was a shrewd move politically—Bush grabbed the initiative back from Congress and took on the new department, which he had previously resisted, as his own cause.

Here is the source - http://www.csoonline.com/read/030104/ground.html

I know nothing of this source so if it has any bias I am no aware of them - I simply did a google search for "Formation of DHS"

~Amanda

 

[eclectics]

this is interesting - So Bush established the OHS which did not have to be approved nor did people have to testify. Therefore members of Congress put forth the legislation for the Department of Homeland Security in order to keep checks and balances in place......but the original idea and formation was 100% President Bush.

Exactly. And what they got was something not at all what they originally envisioned as a 'check and balance'.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

In our defense, not a statement heard very often around here. I have no qualms with disagreeing with some of the things Clinton did and have said it often enough. So have others. Seems like it's pulling teeth however, for your side to admit the same with W. Just sayin'.

I can give you a laundry list of things I do not agree with...I'm just speaking in terms of a point counterpoint debate for someone to say do not raise taxes, lets cut spending...to come back and say "well GWB did not cut spending" is not a valid response.

The "conservative" viewpoint has not become any less valid because of one president's actions.

Its like saying Democrats cannot support the idea of monogamy after Bill Clinton...

 

[TCPluto]

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

You'll not get an answer to this. No one, who posts on these boards, has been affected.

 

[eclectics]

I can give you a laundry list of things I do not agree with...I'm just speaking in terms of a point counterpoint debate for someone to say do not raise taxes, lets cut spending...to come back and say "well GWB did not cut spending" is not a valid response.

The "conservative" viewpoint has not become any less valid because of one president's actions.

Its like saying Democrats cannot support the idea of monogamy after Bill Clinton...

If a current or past President did or does something relevant to ones argument, I see no reason not to use it. However, if someone is legitimately complaining about a President's actions and someone pipes in and said well what about "so and so", or worse yet, brings up a past personal issue of the President that's not even remotely germane, then yes, that's irritating...for both sides, I'm sure.

 

[TCPluto]

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

Your evidence that soemone has listened to your phone calls?

Guess what? It hasn't happened.

 

[crcormier]

I can give you a laundry list of things I do not agree with...I'm just speaking in terms of a point counterpoint debate for someone to say do not raise taxes, lets cut spending...to come back and say "well GWB did not cut spending" is not a valid response.

The "conservative" viewpoint has not become any less valid because of one president's actions.

Its like saying Democrats cannot support the idea of monogamy after Bill Clinton...

Well, I think part of that is for a long time there was such a vocal support of GWB and any thing he did that drowned everyone else out on both sides of the aisle. A few are still there, but reason has tempered everyone else.

 

[JennyMominRI]

You'll not get an answer to this. No one, who posts on these boards, has been affected.

Things are only important and should only be of interest to me If I am directly effected? It's effecting others..It's not all about me me me

 

[TCPluto]

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.

That's comicla, you think your haqve a FBI file. Ddoes that make you feel improtant?

The 2nd bolded statement is exactly why the government hasn't done any of the things you suggest. Resources are precious and few, listening to neighborhood gossip and Oprah's book of the month purchase is of interest to no one.

 

[crcormier]

That's comicla, you think your haqve a FBI file. Ddoes that make you feel improtant?

The 2nd bolded statement is exactly why the government hasn't done any of the things you suggest. Resources are precious and few, listening to neighborhood gossip and Oprah's book of the month purchase is of interest to no one.

Then why is it in there?

 

[chobie]

You'll not get an answer to this. No one, who posts on these boards, has been affected.

I have a relative who was affected.

 

[TCPluto]

Things are only important and should only be of interest to me If I am directly effected? It's effecting others..It's not all about me me me

I've no interest in protecting information from those suspected with links to terrorism, I suggest that's a good course.

 

[TCPluto]

I have a relative who was affected.

Please share.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Not to end the above discussion, but does anyone think the allegedly leaked memo from an Obama advisor to the Canandian embassy will have any legs at this stage in the game??

 

[Miss Jasmine]

You'll not get an answer to this. No one, who posts on these boards, has been affected.

You may not even know how you have been affected. Seriously, think about it. Also there are people that have been affected and that concerns me as well

That's comicla, you think your haqve a FBI file. Ddoes that make you feel improtant?

The 2nd bolded statement is exactly why the government hasn't done any of the things you suggest. Resources are precious and few, listening to neighborhood gossip and Oprah's book of the month purchase is of interest to no one.

I'm not important, I just know what I had to submit to the FBI, such as fingerprints, background information, etc. for my position. But I guess you don't want people checked out who have access to sterile areas, air operation areas, aircraft, security documents, etc. at an airport.

As for precious resources, all the government needs are computers drawing down information.

 

[DISUNC]

Not to end the above discussion, but does anyone think the allegedly leaked memo from an Obama advisor to the Canandian embassy will have any legs at this stage in the game??

No.

It falls under 'Dont shoot the messenger" file!

 

[Mr.Monk]

Just wanted to congratulate the OP for his thread making it so far.
Haven't read all of the posts, but it does seem that you've gotten some interesting discussions.

I like this idea of this thread.

 

[TCPluto]

You may not even know how you have been affected. Seriously, think about it. Also there are people that have been affected and that concerns me as well


I'm not important, I just know what I had to submit to the FBI, such as fingerprints, background information, etc. for my position. But I guess you don't want people checked out who have access to sterile areas, air operation areas, aircraft etc. at an airport.

As for precious resources, all the government needs are computers drawing down information.

So you're concerned about the possibility? Guess what? It's there everyday, Patriot Act or not, you're still not going to know about it.

The FBI doesn't have a "file" on you because you work at an airport. You're employer likely does. You were checked against FBI records, you didn't have one created. Because you weren't a law enforcement target on any level, you got the clearance/job.