Hoyer votes against Homeland Security!
- Thread starter voter
- Start date
Whether it's one agency or six is irrelevant. What needs to be completed out of this is information centralization and sharing and ramping up the capabilities of intelligence gathering and analysis.
Critical goals to protecting the nation and duties performed by personnel (CIA, NSA etc.) Agencies that democrats regularly display open hostility or disdain, and a willingness to undermine these departments’ capabilities of accomplishing their tasks.
Critical goals to protecting the nation and duties performed by personnel (CIA, NSA etc.) Agencies that democrats regularly display open hostility or disdain, and a willingness to undermine these departments’ capabilities of accomplishing their tasks.
The homeland security bill is a flawed act. President Bush proposed this in order to increase information sharing between government agencies, which was questioned after 9/11. The agencies that were pointed out the most for their inability to share info was the FBI and CIA, two agencies that will not be affected byt the creation of the Homeland Security department. The bill will merely put the NSA, Coast Guard, and other small agencies into one department. Will this prevent terrorism? Probably not, but right now I think were doing a pretty good job of keeping the whole terrorist thing under wraps without a homeland security department. The key is to get the FBI and the CIA to get along and do what is the best for the nation's security and not the director's personal interests.
This bill from a conservative president and supported by conservatives throughout the nation will increase the size of government drastically... a no-no in true conservatives' ideas. Why would you anti-government conservatives support this? As a sidenote, under George W. Bush, the nation has experienced the greatest expansion of government since the Great Society. He's a real conservative isn't he? Of course, you could say well since I'm liberal why do you oppose it? Well, I want a smaller government as well, as most moderate to liberals want. The homeland bill is merely a political move by Bush to gain more popularity. He wants to appear to be doing something when in actuality the bill does little. The civil service protection clauses of the bill are also weak, which is Hoyer's problem due to a large portion of his consituency being part of the civil service.
It doesn't matter, homeland security will pass and the government will yet again expand its size and power during a Republican presidency. And Hoyer (the new party whip) will again win reelection in two years with over 60% of the vote.
This bill from a conservative president and supported by conservatives throughout the nation will increase the size of government drastically... a no-no in true conservatives' ideas. Why would you anti-government conservatives support this? As a sidenote, under George W. Bush, the nation has experienced the greatest expansion of government since the Great Society. He's a real conservative isn't he? Of course, you could say well since I'm liberal why do you oppose it? Well, I want a smaller government as well, as most moderate to liberals want. The homeland bill is merely a political move by Bush to gain more popularity. He wants to appear to be doing something when in actuality the bill does little. The civil service protection clauses of the bill are also weak, which is Hoyer's problem due to a large portion of his consituency being part of the civil service.
It doesn't matter, homeland security will pass and the government will yet again expand its size and power during a Republican presidency. And Hoyer (the new party whip) will again win reelection in two years with over 60% of the vote.
H
Heretic
Guest
The size of government is quite a misnomer. Whether or not a job is done by a civil servant or a contractor it is still paid for by the government. If its a civil servant the government pays their salary and their benefits, if its a contractor the government pays their salary, their benefits, and in addition the contractor makes a profit off of them and the huge political contributions that they make to get the contracts. If the job has to be done it really doesnt matter civil servent or contractor we still pay for it in the end. What most people that want smaller government really mean is that they want more efficient, less wasteful, less silly government controls, and less created "just because". For example a job now contracted out part time on the base is that of a plumber, a plumber isnt needed all of the time so we call up rotorooter when we have a clogged toilet instead of paying a civil servent full time to unclogg toilets. Now if that was truely a full time job it really wouldnt save any money to contract it out. Eliminating jobs like "official white house tea taster" and cow fart analyist are what need to be reduced to make government smaller. Even in the private sector leaner and meaner doesnt mean anorexic.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
The primary job of government is to provide security to its people. The people want air marshalls on planes. They want better security at airports where the guards are accountable to someone. We don't want a repeat of 9/11/2001, so things are being restructured. If a corporation fails its shareholders, the corporation gets reorganized. The people began the restructuring of government, when we threw the bums out of the White House. That continued this year with Congress, and here locally. We gave President Bush the job to do, and he's doing it, and he will be accountable for his actions in 2 years. Hopefully, he will be rewarded with another 4 years, because I think he's doing a bang-up job! And I thank goodness that we don't have Al Gore as President right now. Many liberals agree with that sentiment.
I agree that the people want better security and that the concept of government reorganization is generally sound. But the two agencies that were the most responsible for 9/11 were the FBI and the CIA. As I have said, the Homeland Security Act does not cover those two agenices. Nod provided the analogy of corporations reorganizing when it comes on hard times. The creation of a homeland security department is like an international corporation reorganizing the foreign segment of its company when the domestic side is what causes profit loss. I have to question if this whole Homeland Security Act will truly make us safer. Maybe if we did not have such a divisive tone in diplomacy, 9/11 could have been avoided as well as many of our international problems. Here's some true liberal hippie sentiment: Why can't we all just love each other?
H
Heretic
Guest
Demsformd
We are the most generous, most supportive, most helpful nation on earth. Before 9/11 America was the largest foreign aid supplier to Afganistan. When any shithole country that spits on our flag has a natural disaster guess who is there first giving food, money, and assistance unless it is turned away.
Its simply a case of the tree with the best apples gets the most rocks thrown at it. Bill Gates, the richest man in the world has at time been a very cutthroat buisnessman, but there are others out there that are far worse than him, but who do we still love to trash every day?
If you think our policies are divisive look at other nations out there. What about Iraq and Iran, one used chemical weapons on the other I dont see how you could get much worse than there aren't terrorist acts caused by that.
A document just was found from Al Quada that states America must stop supporting Israel and Convert to Islam or there will be more attacks. Its just a peaceful religion wanting to spread, more people in the world wanting to impose their views on another group of people. The Christians did it like this hundreds of years ago, heck some would still if they could (Robertson, Falwell) but we are civilized here. Common sense is thrown out the window when religion is involved, we are hated because we are not Muslim plain and simple. We are hated because we allow our people to pick their own religion. We are hated because we allow our people to go as far in this world as they can, not what a religion says they can. Have you seen some muslims on TV saying "a Muslim could have never done such a thing (while firing off an automatic weapon in the background)". Muslims dont hate Israel for their treatement of the Palistineans, they hate Isreal because they are not muslim, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt all treated the Palistineans in a similar manner before so whats different....they were muslim.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Diplomacy against religious zealots?? (To use a term the Dems liked in this election...)
These people strap bombs to themselves and blow up coffee shops. They have no more interest or comprehension of diplomacy than I have in giving birth. The only way to stop them is to hit them harder than they hit us. That's what they understand. The failed diplomacy and foreign policy of the Clinton administration led to the attacks on September 11.
You mentioned the FBI and CIA, but I believe CIA still had the Clinton appointee at the helm when Sept 11 rolled around. Indications that I have read, and accounts from FBI employees is that there is a far greater inter-operation, and efforts to exchange information with CIA.
You are right about one thing though, and I read this into what you are saying. In some ways, the administration should be less secretive about some things. But at the same time, we elected them to do a job, and we have to have a certain amount of faith in the job we have charged them to perform. Somewhere, there's a happy medium.
K
Kain99
Guest
Aren't you missing the whole point Dems? Homeland Defense will consist of the Coast Guard, the Secret Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Customs Service etc... but that is only the begining.
Among other things Homeland Security will act as a "Notification Hub" Contacting and coordinating with local Police, Fire and Rescue agencies. Let's face it, It is through these agencies that the battle will be won.
It only makes sense that the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation remain independent agencies.
Turf battles at home and in Washington will have to be overcome in the name of national security. That's why I love the idea of Homeland Security!
All those entrenched bureaucracies and congressional committees that are used to having oversight of the above named agencies will effectively be removed from the loop.
In case ya didn't catch it this means LESS GOVERNMENT!
Among other things Homeland Security will act as a "Notification Hub" Contacting and coordinating with local Police, Fire and Rescue agencies. Let's face it, It is through these agencies that the battle will be won.
It only makes sense that the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation remain independent agencies.
Turf battles at home and in Washington will have to be overcome in the name of national security. That's why I love the idea of Homeland Security!
All those entrenched bureaucracies and congressional committees that are used to having oversight of the above named agencies will effectively be removed from the loop.
In case ya didn't catch it this means LESS GOVERNMENT!
I agree with you that we are hated merely because we aren't Muslim or communist but I still think that maybe if we were a little less divisive in our rhetoric we could be doing a little better. President Bush is telling the Iraquis to disarm while our nation controls over 1,200 nuclear warheads. Isn't it only fair that other nations build up their nuclear arsenals? Why should we be permitted to have large arsenals that are ready to be launched while other nations have none? Maybe we should lead by example or just shut up about the whole ordeal. Or maybe we should just go in and take Hussein out. Let's do something rather than incite more anger and hatred through Bush's simplication of complex international relations into a "good vs. evil" soundbite. Thank God, Colin Powell is there to ensure that at least some deep thought goes into international diplomacy.
H
Heretic
Guest
Only Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction because of a silly thorn in his side. Remember it isnt a nation that wants hundreds or thousands of nukes that we need to worry about, its Saddams ability and probably his willingness to give them to people that only want one.
India and Pakistan have them, but will never use unless something really really major happens. North Korea will also never use them either. The fact remains that we need to keep ours as a deterent, the Russians need to keep theirs also they just need to take better care of them to make sure they don't get stolen.
Alot of the reason for all the rhetoric and not getting Saddam already was due to the liberals resistance to go get Saddam and to first get the UN support. Convincing the UN that they actually need to enforce their resolutions is what caused the all the rhetoric.
I do agree I am sick of hearing about it, we should have done something the first time allied aircraft patroling the no fly zone were fired upon, last time I checked firing at a nations planes was an act of war. We should have done something when the weapons inspectors were thrown out four years ago.
Disarmament of Iraq was a condition of their cease fire during the Gulf War, they agreed to it.
India and Pakistan have them, but will never use unless something really really major happens. North Korea will also never use them either. The fact remains that we need to keep ours as a deterent, the Russians need to keep theirs also they just need to take better care of them to make sure they don't get stolen.
Alot of the reason for all the rhetoric and not getting Saddam already was due to the liberals resistance to go get Saddam and to first get the UN support. Convincing the UN that they actually need to enforce their resolutions is what caused the all the rhetoric.
I do agree I am sick of hearing about it, we should have done something the first time allied aircraft patroling the no fly zone were fired upon, last time I checked firing at a nations planes was an act of war. We should have done something when the weapons inspectors were thrown out four years ago.
Disarmament of Iraq was a condition of their cease fire during the Gulf War, they agreed to it.
They can't be allowed to obtain, develop or build nuclear weapons because they WILL use them.
WILL not might
The more civilized nations are trusted, or initiate little concern, because their mutual assured destruction is a deterrent to nuclear attack. The muslim nations cannot be counted on to behave in that manner. Exactly the opposite is likely.
These religious lunatics believe that by attacking their enemy (i.e. anyone not muslim), they are engaging in a holy quest. If their enemies kill them... They get to heaven with a string of virgins!
So how will MAD work with that mind set? It can't.
They have everything to gain by instigation of a nuclear conflict, in their minds. That in combination with the fact they live in a virtual stone-age existence... OK... Perhaps "bronze-age"... They have every reason to ignite Armageddon.
WILL not might
The more civilized nations are trusted, or initiate little concern, because their mutual assured destruction is a deterrent to nuclear attack. The muslim nations cannot be counted on to behave in that manner. Exactly the opposite is likely.
These religious lunatics believe that by attacking their enemy (i.e. anyone not muslim), they are engaging in a holy quest. If their enemies kill them... They get to heaven with a string of virgins!
So how will MAD work with that mind set? It can't.
They have everything to gain by instigation of a nuclear conflict, in their minds. That in combination with the fact they live in a virtual stone-age existence... OK... Perhaps "bronze-age"... They have every reason to ignite Armageddon.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Although it pains me greatly to do so, I have to agree with Demsformd. The Homeland Security bill should have been voted down. It started out as 32 pages, and is now well over 400 pages, and no one has the first clue what's in those extra pages. Based on what I've heard so far, it's nothing good for the American people.
I'm all for deomestic security, but not at the expense of our freedoms. I would rather face bomb-wielding terrorists than expanded wire taps, electronic snooping, national ID cards, a national squeeler agency, tracking of all personal and professional transactions, etc. The granting of expanded powers like these has always led to problems that are worse than the problems they were intended to solve.
Let's keep killing terrorists and leave the American way of life alone.
I'm all for deomestic security, but not at the expense of our freedoms. I would rather face bomb-wielding terrorists than expanded wire taps, electronic snooping, national ID cards, a national squeeler agency, tracking of all personal and professional transactions, etc. The granting of expanded powers like these has always led to problems that are worse than the problems they were intended to solve.
Let's keep killing terrorists and leave the American way of life alone.
K
Kain99
Guest
Hey Bru... "If your not doing anything wrong why the heck would you care about being snooped on?" The whole idea of privacy went right out the window long ago!
We are all on video tape everytime we go in public... All of our finacial transactions are computerized and recorded. Forget worrying about wire taps, your neighbors are listening to your phone calls through their baby monitors! Even mildly intelligent computer geeks can capture your personal information, passwords etc..when you log onto public web sites such as this. There are people out there who need only recieve an e-mail from you and they can remotely view every place you visit on the web.
The only thing to fear is the loss of the illusion that your life is private. Why not trust your Government to use the information to protect you? Every bored techno idiot in the world is already capable of "watching you"
J
justhangn
Guest
.......and they ARE out to get you too........
SmallTown
Football season!
The notion of privacy depends on how you look at it. Unless you stay in your house with all of the windows blackened, never use the phone , and never talk to anyone and never throw away any garbage, then your idea of privacy is just a fantasy. From things I did when I was a kid, I can insist that your life really is not private. We like to pretend we have privacy, because it makes us feel better. And if someone mentions something that you feel disrupts this fantasy, you go crazy..
If the government can do something to protect me, I say go for it. Of course, there is always a chance of abusing it. But it is the chance we have to take.
And while people are sitting their caressing their precious civil liberties, the bad guys are out there picking us apart by using those same civil liberties against us.. So what is more important to you and your family? Your so called civil liberties, or your life? Sadly, people get so caught up in their "rights" that they would chose the former over the latter.
If the government can do something to protect me, I say go for it. Of course, there is always a chance of abusing it. But it is the chance we have to take.
And while people are sitting their caressing their precious civil liberties, the bad guys are out there picking us apart by using those same civil liberties against us.. So what is more important to you and your family? Your so called civil liberties, or your life? Sadly, people get so caught up in their "rights" that they would chose the former over the latter.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Kain... it's not a question of doing anything wrong or not. It's just that we have spent most of our 230+ years of existence fighting against totolitarian governments and expousing the benefits of freedom. Over a million Americans have died upholding these beliefs, and there are a lot of people who are cowardly enough to sell them out in a second for a false sense of security.
When I hear about National Security Agencies I start thinking of guys in fedoras and black leather coats hanging out at airports asking for papers. I could better understand the need for all of these security precautions if we were under regular attacks, but we aren't. We're running about chasing shadows because of one well-planned attack. Not all of us want our lives to be an open book for anyone who approves or disapproves of how we live to read. One need not look any further than J. Edgar Hoover to see how this type of information can be misued in the name of one crusade or another.
And yes, all of this information is available already, but no government agency has the time, money, or resources to have even a slim hope of keeping up with it all. I think this Homeland Security Act will help them get the tools they need to make this happen.
When I was in the Navy, we had a hollier-than-thou Commander who was mad because one of his division officers had given a sailor who had had an abortion high marks in personal reliability. The Commander found out about the abortion and demanded that the sailor be given lower marks, and her division officer responded with "I'm sure you could go back through the records of a lot of guys and see where they have had STDs. Would you mark them lower?" The Div O told me he said it as an exageration, but the Commander sat there and gave the idea some serious thought. Information in the hands of the wrong people is a bad idea.
When I hear about National Security Agencies I start thinking of guys in fedoras and black leather coats hanging out at airports asking for papers. I could better understand the need for all of these security precautions if we were under regular attacks, but we aren't. We're running about chasing shadows because of one well-planned attack. Not all of us want our lives to be an open book for anyone who approves or disapproves of how we live to read. One need not look any further than J. Edgar Hoover to see how this type of information can be misued in the name of one crusade or another.
And yes, all of this information is available already, but no government agency has the time, money, or resources to have even a slim hope of keeping up with it all. I think this Homeland Security Act will help them get the tools they need to make this happen.
When I was in the Navy, we had a hollier-than-thou Commander who was mad because one of his division officers had given a sailor who had had an abortion high marks in personal reliability. The Commander found out about the abortion and demanded that the sailor be given lower marks, and her division officer responded with "I'm sure you could go back through the records of a lot of guys and see where they have had STDs. Would you mark them lower?" The Div O told me he said it as an exageration, but the Commander sat there and gave the idea some serious thought. Information in the hands of the wrong people is a bad idea.
K
Kain99
Guest
Your feeling is that she was judged unfairly? What are high marks on personal reliability usually based on in the military?
What's the damage? With every decision/action there are consequences. How reliable is a young lady who has unsafe sex and then rushes out to have an abortion. In my opinion she is just as unreliable as a male sailor who contracts an STD. But.....This is a prejudice issue and If I go there we will spend all day dukeing it out.
Bottom line.. personal privacy is dangerous when your talking about Military personnel or Federal employees. These people have access to Secret and Top Secret information and must be held to the highest standards.
I'm not really sure why you choose this as your supporting argument... It's a lot like apples and oranges.