why do people want to be liberals?

[2bighorn]

So you don't work for any agency within the dept so how would you know what it's like at the operational level, and at operational level I mean the guys like me that are out there every day doing the actual work.

Ah c'mon. All what was needed is shared database. Instead we created monster Stalin could be proud of.

[FrodeMk3]

Resist partisan labeling and herd politics.

Become an American. Do what you think is best for the country on election day.

And remain an American.

Ok, you've got the easy part done, Hang. Now, the hard part, is to get everyone to agree on what course of action to take.

[FrodeMk3]

We're talking about a dictator that lit oil wells on fire with the purpose of making the world pay in 1991...a man who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted to eventually destroy Israel and the U.S. It's not just about Iraqi killing Iraqi, it was about having a neighborhood watch program on a stationary carrier called "Iraq". I'd hate to think of the alternative had he been left in power.....

If you're going to bring the Civil War into the discussion, then let's play "What if" had we taken out Hitler before he gained too much momentum.

Take Saddam's rhetoric aside, and you'll see that he did that in an attempt to delay our advance. He was "our" man in the Middle East at one time...It would have been smarter to have brought him back in line with us (dropping the sanctions, and maybe giving him a little financial support) and we could have used him as a Bulwark against Iran, instead of having to go over there and do it ourselves. I know hindsight is 20/20, but giving him a little aid right after the Iran/Iraq war ended in '88 would have been quite a bit cheaper than Gulf wars' one and two...

[alskahawk]

please if there any liberals on this forum tell me why you are a liberal

i don't understand the concept and just want to get your point of view

a liberal the way i see it, wants to make government more powerful and wants a socialist democracy.

is this true, why have some of you chosen the path of a liberal for the USA?

I'm just curious i want your point of views!

 I'm a conservative Democrat and a ex-Republican. To me a lot of the Republican rhetoric is thinly veiled racism.  The Republican party has become the white peoples party. I resent their attempts to push their religious views into our schools. The total allegiance to big business. Attacking personal freedoms.

 --Your kidding right? "a liberal the way i see it, wants to make government more powerful and wants a socialist democracy." President Bush has increased the government astronomically and has demonstrated his social democracy by bailing out airlines and now banks. Republicans are supporters of all sorts of corporate welfare. From no tax bonus' to CEO's to cheap exploitation of federal lands if big business wants it, the Republicans are for it. The banking lobby wanted deregulation, the Republicans pushed it through, getting the Democrats to support it with promises of home ownership for the masses.  

[crockett]

Ah c'mon. All what was needed is shared database. Instead we created monster Stalin could be proud of.

Exactly.. There is nothing wrong with having these agencies work together and share databases. It's another thing to create a monster inside our govt.

[Hornet33]

Ah c'mon. All what was needed is shared database. Instead we created monster Stalin could be proud of.

There is ALOT more to it than that. Trust me. We had "shared" data bases before and they didn't work. Care to take a guess as to why? Politics. Every former dept and agency HAD to have their very own software systems and communications systems to "protect" their individual budget. They could ALL claim, well we are the ONLY ones who use this system and it works great for "us" so we need more money to manage and expand "our" systems.

HUGE waste of time and money. Now that everyone is under the same roof, so to speak, everyone is having to change to a common system, and with that common system now in place someone in the Coast Guard can send an e-mail to someone in Customs, or Imigration, and it's all done on the same network, in house, and it's fast.

I konw because the last command I was at did a ton of R&D for the new computer system and SATCOM systems for the entire dept.

Case in point. Katrina. 2 days before the storm hit NOLA, FEMA realized they didn't have enough experianced SATCOM techs to handle the job of setting up emergancy communications. At my command the CO recieved an internal e-mail from the communications director at FEMA requesting personel to help them out. 2 hours latter I had typed orders in hand for Detached Duty from my current command to the regional FEMA communications director gulf coast for an unspecified amount of time and to be ready to depart on 4 hours notice from activation of those orders.

Prior to the dept being set up that request would have taken days to process if it was even allowed to get past Coast Guard HQ.

It isn't about "just" sharing data, it's about sharing all the unique resources avaible from each agency and being able to quickly put them where they are needed, when they are needed.

And before you go off on how bad the response was after Katrina hit, remember that we couldn't move in until the Governor asked for federal assistance, days after it hit. I'm sure you've noticed that in the last several hurricans in the US the Governors have declared states of emergancy and requested federal assistance before the storms even hit. With those requirements already in place, so was the federal support.

Sorry but your theory of DHS being a monster that Stalin would be proud, and that it's a huge drain on resources, and moves too slow to do any good, doesn't stand up. You also have to consider that 80% of the members of the House and Senate agreed that the dept was a good idea and voted accourdingly.

[crockett]

There is ALOT more to it than that. Trust me. We had "shared" data bases before and they didn't work. Care to take a guess as to why? Politics. Every former dept and agency HAD to have their very own software systems and communications systems to "protect" their individual budget. They could ALL claim, well we are the ONLY ones who use this system and it works great for "us" so we need more money to manage and expand "our" systems.

HUGE waste of time and money. Now that everyone is under the same roof, so to speak, everyone is having to change to a common system, and with that common system now in place someone in the Coast Guard can send an e-mail to someone in Customs, or Imigration, and it's all done on the same network, in house, and it's fast.

I konw because the last command I was at did a ton of R&D for the new computer system and SATCOM systems for the entire dept.

Case in point. Katrina. 2 days before the storm hit NOLA, FEMA realized they didn't have enough experianced SATCOM techs to handle the job of setting up emergancy communications. At my command the CO recieved an internal e-mail from the communications director at FEMA requesting personel to help them out. 2 hours latter I had typed orders in hand for Detached Duty from my current command to the regional FEMA communications director gulf coast for an unspecified amount of time and to be ready to depart on 4 hours notice from activation of those orders.

Prior to the dept being set up that request would have taken days to process if it was even allowed to get past Coast Guard HQ.

It isn't about "just" sharing data, it's about sharing all the unique resources avaible from each agency and being able to quickly put them where they are needed, when they are needed.

And before you go off on how bad the response was after Katrina hit, remember that we couldn't move in until the Governor asked for federal assistance, days after it hit. I'm sure you've noticed that in the last several hurricans in the US the Governors have declared states of emergancy and requested federal assistance before the storms even hit. With those requirements already in place, so was the federal support.

Sorry but your theory of DHS being a monster that Stalin would be proud, and that it's a huge drain on resources, and moves too slow to do any good, doesn't stand up. You also have to consider that 80% of the members of the House and Senate agreed that the dept was a good idea and voted accourdingly.

Yes but what you are describing could have been solved with out having to create a new monster govt organization. That's where a real leader steps in and says enough of the BS.. You guys will work together and sort out the issues.

It's just like the views of many here in the O'club that think Bush's illegal wire taps were ok claiming.. "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about".

That was the same deal. the FBI already had the ability to do what they needed legally and within our Constitutional frame work. Instead they wanted it to be "easier". So what happens we ended up with illegal wire taps.. Prisoners being held off of American soil in a attempt to skirt by our own laws. Then of course we now have the govt buying up personal data on US citizens from private organizations because by doing it that way they don't need a warrant.

We didn't need a new govt organization to make things easier and work smoother, we just needed our leader ship to get things done. However instead of getting things done we create a monster and bigger govt that has almost unchecked power. Who knows what kind of problems this will cause in the future.

[AKIron]

Whatever happened to the Patriot Act? I'm sure the democrats voted it into nonexistence when they took control of congress right? As much belly aching as they did about that and other security measures I'm sure they never would have voted for even more privacy intrusions, right? Right?

Oh, seems they were all just full of hot air afterall.

[Ripsnort]

Crockett, if the wiretapping was illegal, why was no one arrested?

These wiretappings were not domestic but rather "foreign intelligence" essential to the conduct of war and they warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

So, show me the persons convicted for your so-called "liberal left wing parrotted" information.

You've been called out on this before on this BBS, by Toad and others, yet you bunny hop down another trail to deflect from the conversation.

[2bighorn]

Sorry but your theory of DHS being a monster that Stalin would be proud, and that it's a huge drain on resources, and moves too slow to do any good, doesn't stand up.

You must be one of those who believe including FBI and CIA would make DHS perfect. Fact is, DHS does nothing what couldn't be achieved without it, with less bureaucracy and for less $$. Oh wait, except for threat level advisories.

You also have to consider that 80% of the members of the House and Senate agreed that the dept was a good idea and voted accourdingly.

That's probably reason for Congress's high satisfaction rate among voters...

[crockett]

Crockett, if the wiretapping was illegal, why was no one arrested?

These wiretappings were not domestic but rather "foreign intelligence" essential to the conduct of war and they warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

So, show me the persons convicted for your so-called "liberal left wing parrotted" information.

You've been called out on this before on this BBS, by Toad and others, yet you bunny hop down another trail to deflect from the conversation.

It's only because the Bush admin caved on the issue and essentially went back to the way it was legal to do. Bush and Co agreed to use the so called secret court to get approval for wire taps deemed to be important for national security for limited amounts of time with out a standard court ordered warrant. In short Bush and Co agreed to follow the law other wise there likely would have been charges filed. 

[Charon]

The Republican party is fiscally liberal in illinois because big govt. programs are where the pork is at. The fewer taxpayer funded programs passed through springfield the less pork to take home or distribute. Why should the Democrats have all the fun? The Democratic machine(s) usually manages to pack some pork for the Republican minority to grease the wheels. A wasteful schools or infrastructure bill for Chicago, with a nice slice for downstate, etc.

Wonder if that transfers to the current Republicans in Washington

Charon

[crockett]

Whatever happened to the Patriot Act? I'm sure the democrats voted it into nonexistence when they took control of congress right? As much belly aching as they did about that and other security measures I'm sure they never would have voted for even more privacy intrusions, right? Right?

Oh, seems they were all just full of hot air afterall.

Much of it has been over turned by the courts for being unconstitutional.

[Sixpence]

See Hang, I told you it was a 6.5, and you wanted to give it a two

[DYNAMITE]

No one "wants" to be a liberal, they're born that way.  Just like the gays that wouldn't "choose" to be gay but are born that way.  Why would one "choose" or "want" to be liberal?  That's just dumb.


How's that?

Ok... now that's funny