The Department of Homeland Securistazi

Post #41,511 by jb4 6/7/02 8:21:41 AM Reply	The Department of Homeland Securistazi . With an estimated 169,000 employees, the new agency would be second only to the Defense Department in terms of size. So lemme get this straight: Largest department of the gov'mint: The DoD, the Second largest: Our very own Stazi. Hmmmm... MAYDAY! MAYDAY! We're going down.... Blub Blub Blub jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,524 by bepatient 6/7/02 10:16:42 AM Reply	Nobody new. Some 30,000 of the total are airport security personell. Another couple thousand federal air marshalls. The Secret Service (already exists) The Coast Guard (already exists) They're all >already there<...now they just have a new boss. (or will...most likely Ridge) And the boss will now require congressional approval...so they can veto shrub. Thought you'd be happy with at least >that< part. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,553 by marlowe 6/7/02 12:40:25 PM Reply	Aw, there you go spoiling the fun. It's hard to have a proper self-righteous conniption fit when people keep bringing up inconvenient facts. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes. If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
Post #41,557 by Brandioch 6/7/02 1:01:33 PM Reply	You mean there's no breeding program in effect? Nobody new. Then you go on to detail people who had not previously been involved in this as their primary responsibility. Now, to me, that sounds like Somebody new. They're all >already there<...now they just have a new boss. (or will...most likely Ridge) Like I said, no new breeding program. But combining the SS and CG into one organization isn't bringing new people to that organization? Noting that the plan would move the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and other units to the new department, he said that would give the secretary of homeland security responsibility for: Counterfeit and credit card fraud, handled by the Secret Service. Oil spill cleanups, recreational water safety and enforcement of fisheries laws, handled by the Coast Guard. Pest control, handled by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Response to floods and hurricanes, handled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Regulating commercial activities and collecting duties on shipments, handled by the Customs Service. And the design of nuclear weapons and scientific programs handled by the Department of Energy's Livermore Lab. "By the administration's own estimates, the new Homeland Security Department would employ at least 160,000 people," Obey said in a written statement. Ring Ring Ring "Thank you for calling Homeland Security. How may we assist you?" "I'd like to report a 'possum that's been going through our garbage." "Thank you, we'll get right on it. Have you seen any terrorists around lately?" "No. No terrorists. Just that 'possum. Do you think the 'possum might be working for Osama?" "We'll get right on it." Ring Ring Ring "Thank you for calling Homeland Security. How may we assist you?" "I'd like to report a credit card fraud incident." "Thank you, we'll get right on it. Have you seen any terrorists around lately?" "No. Do you think that the person with the fake credit card might have been a terrorist?" "We'll get right on it." and so on.
Post #41,561 by bepatient 6/7/02 1:25:55 PM Reply	Nope. But have anything change... ...in Washington and you're sure to get alot of chest-beating about how they're turning the government into Big Brother. There is exactly 2 differences in what he announced and what is being already happening. One is congressional approval of the person in charge. 2 is reporting hierarchy. <sarcasm>Damn...must be the beginning of the SS in the US!!!</sarcasm> ring ring "Hello...and thank you for calling "Over-reactions R Us" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,593 by Brandioch 6/7/02 5:54:33 PM Reply	You don't pay much attention to the news, do you? Nope. But have anything change... ...in Washington and you're sure to get alot of chest-beating about how they're turning the government into Big Brother. Hmmm, perhaps you managed to miss the fact that the government is now imprisioning people and denying them the right to see an attourney and not releasing their names? How soon they forget. Not to mention removing certain restrictions on wire taps. Now certain agencies who had VERY distinct and different mission before are being combined into one. No, no problems that I see. None at all.
Post #41,596 by jb4 6/7/02 6:10:42 PM Reply	OK, Mr. Smartypants... What the over/under for the amount of time this ">already< there" Dept. sponsors legislation mandating a national ID card, in months? (For the record, I give it till Feb03, so that makes my bet 8. I suspect that the over/under would be 7, as we don't want to even suggest it before the Holy Elections. Hmmmm... I guess that makes be betting the Over, which, I suppose, make me an optimist. Egad....!) jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,604 by bepatient 6/7/02 7:31:07 PM Reply	I'm on the >over< They essentially already have one. Its called an SSN. It just doesn't have your picture on it. You get it when you're born. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,693 by jb4 6/9/02 12:19:41 AM Reply	I didn't get mine until I was 16... Ahhh, the good ol' days... jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,719 by Simon_Jester 6/9/02 9:54:26 AM Reply	Except that... legally speaking...a social security card can't be used for identification purposes. (It's against the law.)
Post #41,729 by bepatient 6/9/02 1:59:54 PM Reply	Yeah...thats a good one, ain't it? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,742 by Simon_Jester 6/9/02 3:53:26 PM Reply	Yepperz...just like the CIA can't share information with the FBI. :-)
Post #41,751 by Ashton 6/9/02 4:48:32 PM Reply	(You were expecting 'consistency' too? from Ashcroft et al)
Post #41,780 by bepatient 6/9/02 10:44:31 PM Reply	Re: Yepperz...just like Except no one gets the "Inquisition" when they require an SSN. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,653 by kmself 6/8/02 4:50:42 PM Reply	What really matters By your logic (and since we've already abrogated Godwin), the Nazi party in Germany was merely a reorgainization of the 17 million people (they already existed), businesses (they already existed), gymnastics clubs (they already existed), civil organizations (they already existed), and army (it already existed), with some minor rebranding and logo changes (and I wonder why I'm still so innately averse to such things). Fact is: organization is the most important thing, after innate existence, in determining the function, flow, and nature of things. Ask anyone who's assembled a crossword puzzle (or carburator) what the difference between a pile of parts and the assembled product is. Or of the assembly missing, say, a ball float. If organization didn't matter, we'd pay it no heed in business, sports, or government. Thing is...we do pay it much heed. Go figure. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand? Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead. [link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/...a_alert.html]]`
Post #41,547 by Andrew Grygus 6/7/02 12:10:55 PM Reply	Stazi? The Register calls it Gestapo Pretty much the same thing though. The Register: [link\|http://www.theregus.com/content/6/25175.html\|Dubya calls for US Gestapo] This is not an American move, this is a Republican Party move to increase control and further erode the Bill of Rights. This move has been very well prepared in advance as evidenced by the email I have just received: [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/gestapo.html\|President Bush Announces Department Focused on Protecting the American People] including an invitation and sign-up form to become a [link\|https://www.gopteamleader.com/livepage.asp\|Brown Shirt Team Leader]. Remember: "Its for the Children". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #41,550 by rsf 6/7/02 12:23:46 PM Reply	It's not brown shirt It's [link\|http://www.gopteamleader.com/benefits.html\|brown polar-fleece]. Ray
Post #41,554 by jb4 6/7/02 12:42:31 PM Reply	Toothsome morsel from your eChampions screed: One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources; [emphasis mine] All the jokes about "synthetic intelligece" aside, the fact that the USStazi is interested in manufacturing "intelligence" (no doubt to further some agenda somewhere) should be all you need to know... Duh-beyew, your Freudian Slip is showing....! jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,563 by bepatient 6/7/02 1:35:42 PM Reply	Aren't you forgetting one little inconvenient fact... "My hope is that we can effectively and expeditiously receive this plan from the president, work it through the Congress, and try to make it a reality as quickly as possible," Gephardt told reporters. In the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota called the proposal "encouraging." "Many of us in Congress have said for some time that domestic security should be coordinated under a cabinet-level position," he said in a written statement Democrats. Lieberman's proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security was approved by his committee 9-7, with all the "no" votes coming from Republicans at a time when the White House opposed the move. Democrats. This was not Bush's idea. This was the idea of the Democrats. I know its inconvenient...since y'all think Bush is the next Hitler and all that. (Does that qualify for a Godwin in this thread...since we've already mentioned Stazi and Gestapo?) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,581 by Ashton 6/7/02 4:01:19 PM Reply	Thank you for pointing out the (now regular) irony As with Doug M's nice essay relating the model for container-ships and their expeditious handling of cargo -- to XML 'encapsulation' of data, a rather nice analogy I thought: The commonality (or extension...) with the above encapsulation - evokes similar what-ifs. To me, anyway. ie How many novels and screeds have taken for their underlying theme: The synergy of [that which market droids have come to euphemistically call data mining] ?? (Gawd we Love our Euphemisms!) Now why do you suppose that this "mere concentration towards the holy-grail of Efficiency" could evoke such trepidation? Just.. maybe a bunch o' Librul Chicken-Little wacko pods have taken over the brains of ordinarily decent writers? After all: Econ is about creating just such correlations.. and bizness is about exploiting all possible means towards maximizing short-term profits. [OK we needn't here go into whose? final pockets these reach and what the trends are. And what else might exist in the world .. besides the profit-motive] Obviously then.. for you - this is just a natural progression towards overall Efficiency in Everything. Right? And "data mining" is no more ominous a development than: er, paging through the encyclop\ufffddia for.. a killer class Power Punt demo which substitutes for having actually done any thinking on a topic. I guess then, you'd debate another chestnut with origins lost in antiquity: Knowledge is power. (So what would "concentration of power" connote? No fair looking it up - closed book.) Surely then, this shibboleth has been wrong, all along. Funny though, for all your previus broadsides about Govmint Power -- that you don't see any connection between [Corporate] DMCA and the other similar [Corp-oriented] "Efficiencies" and the new Titanic consolidation: of whatever interests weren't already exactly-Corporate? I guess it will be reassuring fo some that - it all looks just hunky-dory to a practicing Economist. Just business as usual - or is that just your first-glance automatic OK, from deeply-ingrained worship of Efficiency, no matter the small detail of, cui bono ?? Ashton Drat.. why can't I just roll over and let my belly get scratched and .. wag my tail with the rest? Hell, it must be Mo(u)rning in America Again !! yet I still see the faces of Ashcroft n'Dubya.. Bein called "Leaders"! and there go the harp arpeggios, replaced by a dirge, shadowy images in lockstep. With right arms raised in salute? [or is it an outstretched arm saying, "pull me up -- get me outta here!" ?]
Post #41,582 by bepatient 6/7/02 4:11:05 PM Reply	It can never be... ...that simple with you, can it? Here we have jb4 making sure to continue the illusion that this was the doing of shrub/asscroft et al...so I bother to point out that this was all done in the spirit of "bipartisan" politics. I also bother to point out that there is NOTHING NEW in the proposal. And I'm greeted with another Ashton screed about the "evuls" of everything. Hint... Theres NOTHING NEW in the proposal. It is >bizness as usual< inside the beltway. And yes thats a >bad thing< tm. Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,587 by Ashton 6/7/02 4:54:41 PM Reply	Er.. 'irony' means Your message of Demorat participation was noted. Just thought I'd find out the extent to which 'Efficiency' as an aim: cancels out all further inspection of motives and future use of the new 'synergy'. Ah.. so you ~ agree on >bad< as a suitable description.. Kewl. Just checkin-in, since it's not always clear whether yer defendin stuff - or have just become reconciled to certain stuff's inevitability. Ashton er, why IS it that.. this kinda stuff is? inevitable? Plain sloth + current marketing of fear - izzat it? (We ain't smart enough for it to be a Conspiracy.)
Post #41,594 by Brandioch 6/7/02 5:59:35 PM Reply	So..Republicans are "bad" and Democrats are "good"? So if a Democrat supports a plan, that plan can't be "bad"? Or a plan is "good" if both Republicans and Democrats support it? Didn't we go through this right after the attack with the passage of the "PATRIOT" bill? Ah, I see. You're still limited to "Republicans good" and "Democrats bad". Some of us are not limited to that. Some of us can see that BOTH sides can support bad laws. I do not expect you to be able to understand this.
Post #41,602 by bepatient 6/7/02 7:20:40 PM Reply	Are you that big of an idiot? Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k? Was that statement too advanced for you??? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,605 by bepatient 6/7/02 7:39:39 PM Reply	In case you are... ...I should also quote the previous 2 sentences... It is >bizness as usual< inside the beltway. And yes thats a >bad thing< tm. There. Should be simple enough for >even< you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,632 by Brandioch 6/8/02 2:01:09 AM Reply	I'm still not following your "logic". You say: Let's just make sure we understand that they are >all< in on it, k? Was that statement too advanced for you??? Hardly. Well, the statement itself isn't. Buy your "logic" behind it leaves something to be desired. Like logic. Or do you believe that just because you can get Democrats and Republicans to support an issue, it is a "good" thing? Or are you saying that they will be equally to blame for doing something "bad"? Why are you focusing on who is supporting an issue rather than the issue itself? Hmmmmmm?
Post #41,635 by bepatient 6/8/02 10:44:48 AM Reply	I guess you are. Why are you focusing on who is supporting an issue rather than the issue itself? Play..."Follow the dancing thread" up to jb4's post. The one that I was responding to before you started the patented "bepatient bash" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,638 by Brandioch 6/8/02 11:07:48 AM Reply	Ummm, remember, you are the one with the memory problem. I did follow the thread. Allow me to refresh your memory. Here is where you started pointing out who is supporting it. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41563\|Here] Need another? [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41588\|Here] So, I think I've established that you are focusing on WHO is SUPPORTING this issue rather than the issue itself. Which is what I asked you in this post: [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41632\|Here] So, you're not focusing on who is supporting the issue because everyone saying that Bush is bad for supporting it but it was the Democrats who supported it. Nice use of "logic" there.
Post #41,639 by bepatient 6/8/02 11:22:11 AM Reply	I should learn to expect this.. ...from you. Up one more post....thats a good boy...you'll see where jb takes a stab at GW...I just wanted him to be aware that it was essentially good old >no work on Saturday< Joe's deal. Thats all. Then you decided to jump in and make yourself look foolish. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,647 by Brandioch 6/8/02 1:41:42 PM Reply	So you're changing your story? Since I linked to your earlier posts, which do seem to support my statements, you say that a post after your earlier posts contradicts my statements? But they're all your posts. So, a post from you contradicts another post from you and it's MY problem?
Post #41,654 by bepatient 6/8/02 4:54:08 PM Reply	Brandioch's IQ strikes a new low. you say that a post after your earlier posts contradicts my statements? I did? Isn't this where I say (a la Planet Brandioch) that you are lieing about my position? Or do you need a lesson in what "up one more" means in a threaded discussion? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,660 by Brandioch 6/8/02 5:17:46 PM Reply	Let's take this chronologically, shall we? I start this thread. jp4 posts about the USStazi. You post "This was not Bush's idea. This was the idea of the Democrats." Ashton follows your post. You follow with: "Here we have jb4 making sure to continue the illusion that this was the doing of shrub/asscroft et al...so I bother to point out that this was all done in the spirit of "bipartisan" politics." Was it? Let's see what you say about that. You claim that this plan was voted on before Bush. "Recommendation BEFORE Bush. All 9 D versus all 7 R" Yet that wasn't THIS plan, was it? You say: "Closer to Lieberman's proposal" Yes, note the word CLOSER. So the vote you claim happened did NOT happen regarding the plan that is being suggested by Bush. Which was what your ORIGINAL point was. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41563\|Aren't you forgetting one little inconvenient fact...] This was not Bush's idea. This was the idea of the Democrats.
Post #41,667 by bepatient 6/8/02 6:26:40 PM Reply	Poor baby just can't seem to get it right. Duh-beyew, your Freudian Slip is showing....! That was what prompted my response to jb4. The rest is you stretching trying to make some kind of point to win an argument that you started about something that has nothing to do with my point. Got it? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,704 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:25:13 AM Reply	Oh, I get it. I have just ripped your position to shreds by pointing out that the plan which you CLAIMED was previously voted upon and proposed by Democrats IS NOT THE PLAN WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING DISCUSSED. Do you really need me to link to your posts about how two Republicans didn't vote for the OTHER plan? You're just mad 'cause you've been caught AGAIN with another of your memory problems.
Post #41,730 by bepatient 6/9/02 2:11:26 PM Reply	Ah...semantics. You're just mad 'cause you've been caught AGAIN with another of your memory problems. I'm actually rather amused at this. You seem to think I give a shit about the sematics. Bush and Leiberman...sittin in a tree...la dee da... Yep...I guess you've got me...this EXACT plan isn't the one that Lieberman proposed. Its just "pretty close"..in his own words. Very close to Hart/Rudman...in >your< words. Yes Brandioch..in your world where the actual semantics actually >mean< something...I guess you are right. Since you like the semantics game...it was actually 7 Republicans that voted against the plan. Get it right. Or is 9-7 too hard for you? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,736 by Brandioch 6/9/02 3:11:03 PM Reply	No semantics. Very close to Hart/Rudman...in >your< words. If by "Very close" you mean "not at all close" then you are right. Or did you miss the part where I quoted a paragraph from them and pointed out that what Bush's plan was was the exact OPPOSITE? You seem to think I give a shit about the sematics. No. I think you don't understand semantics. Yep...I guess you've got me...this EXACT plan isn't the one that Lieberman proposed. Its just "pretty close"..in his own words. And "pretty close" means what? 169,000 people? How many would Lieberman's plan have required? Ah, once again, you're focusing on who is supporting a plan rather than what the plan says.
Post #41,737 by bepatient 6/9/02 3:25:12 PM Reply	Whatever I guess Lieberman doesn't understand it either. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,754 by Ashton 6/9/02 5:19:35 PM Reply	[Contest!] ___ Such 'plans' are not Meant to be understood, they are intended just to comfort with slogans about "theSafetyoftheMuricanPeepul", no matter how ineffectively. Ignoring the ever-unwanted side effects all around, is relatively easy for a theologically-motivated Admin such as this one proves to be, on its record. (There's a certain fatalism which appears to comfort o'erweeningly, those who imagine Gawd Be on Our Side; so never mind actually Thinking about root causes n'such - y'know?) Some may think that Gawd will work out the division between C\ufffdsar \|and\| Her, as in, not-to-worry.. Others prefer retention of the Constitutional separation of personal fanciful musings and The State. I wonder why it is that, Republicrats (Democans?) so frequently manage to come up with proposals which insult the intelligence of a guinea hen - meanwhile it's coming up on 7 months since the dastardly deed. Has this all just been paralysis by analysis? [Contest!] C'mon BeeP: craft us a workable Plan already! - enough of these amateur Pols with eyes on the Prize. We need something Clever AND Constitutional, and with some vague chance of actually allowing individual intelligence to aid effective noticing of weirdness which suggests malevolence. And a means for separating-out the inevitable cockamamie Alarmists from.. the shrewdly Observant folk. (Hey, it's OK if it is also Economically feasible too ;-) Trying to spell-out in great detail, what we are supposed to be vigilant about is to: focus on the box-cutters and airplanes as if... So.. how do we legislate the umm "unleashing of Native American Intelligence" with the words Democrat- Republican- completely eliminated from the prose? [/Contest] Ashton
Post #41,784 by bepatient 6/10/02 12:15:22 AM Reply	Mental... gamesmanship, eh? Craft us a plan that would make those thoughtful Americans actually notice a bomb being constructed next door...without actually having someone invade their "personal space". Rationally explain how you can defend against the irrational...and while your at it...solve World Peace(tm). Is time travel an alternative? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,787 by Ashton 6/10/02 1:02:56 AM Reply	So then perhaps you even agree (!) That there is no plan which could reliably (80%? 90%? but are those Good enough for a nuke?) 'prevent' the aberrrant homo-sap from striking, since: no one could possibly list infinite possibilities [??] (Creating a locked-down fascist State is not a viable option, we see.) OK - if that's the case, then we may have no alternative to learning how to effectively address the root causes, once there's a certain semi-agreement upon the first 25, say. Where no defense is possible, 'offense' is not the only response, even if it is the automatic one. Alas, this would prove much more difficult than - throwing techno amd LOTS of $$$ at the selected target du jour, and pretending that escalated violence will lead to anything other than: further escalated violence. Will we have to go to this mode only AFTER the first really hideous next event? History suggests: yes. Most sadly. (Unless.. something New occurs in the perennial Israel/Palestine madness -- which points a direction for defuzing our own position as well ??) Some homo-saps had best devise Something New soon, and before India/Pakistan events produce that panic which leads to spasm war. It's a time to wish that we had a few wise people near that button - but we don't. Just Pols, inarticulate ones at that. \ufffd Hermann Kahn, eons ago. Ashton Nope, don't see a plan that ain't the Same-old same old.. random acts of bestiality - anywhere.
Post #41,797 by Brandioch 6/10/02 2:14:59 AM Reply	Two options. Or is it three? #1. Attempt to solve it via root cause. #2. Continue with the same plan that has failed for how many years? #3. Surrender our freedoms with the knowledge that we're still not doing anything to stop them? Personally, if we can't stop them, I'd feel better facing death with my freedoms intact. I'd hate to end up fighting both the terrorists AND my government.
Post #41,868 by Ashton 6/10/02 5:24:51 PM Reply	Precisely. Agreed. As to #3: (Even I..) believe that Murica ain't so universally ovine that an inexorable tide towards a Security Theocracy could proceed as slickly as - those with the brains of a Dubya, a Cheney or an Ashcroft (obviously) suppose. I have no illusions of belonging to "a plurality" - but I have no doubt whatsoever that - I represent a minority which is neither small nor unmotivated. The rationale for actual anti-Government action resides firmly in the wording of the Constitution; that is phrased not as an 'option' but as a Duty: whenever a government has committed actions which are prohibited in that Constitution. 'My Group\ufffd' would be a subset (superset?) of those who have read this document with comprehension and recognize what 'Duty' might mean. Of course, were this to be an actual next development: nobody could tell the form which such action might take. But - as you say - for me and mine: Option #3 can be dismissed in the Elder Bush-speak (with the characteristic language mauling of the entire Prescott Bush clan): This Will Not Stand (He meant the didactic 'Shall' connotation - in other than first-person usage - but then.. he just read it somewhere, and still: got it Wrong.) Aux armes! mes amis Better Dead than Unread and Illegible
Post #41,585 by jb4 6/7/02 4:42:55 PM Reply	Inconvenience is so...inconvenient... First, the easy stuff: "Stazi" has an automatic Godwin exemption, as it is(was) the East German "security police", and as such postdates Nazism. ;-) Second, Congresscritters are trying to protect their phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen, and are going to say anything necessary to keep from being tarred by the "unpatriotic" brush. (Hey, just because they're Demos, doesn't mean they have the strength of their convictions. Strength is in rather short supply these days...) And Daschle...well, he's positioning himself for a run at the presidency, himself. Do you think he'd be caught dead saying what he actually thinks? ( Ah, Mel Brooks...where is he when you need him...?) jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,588 by bepatient 6/7/02 5:02:35 PM Reply	9-7 Recommendation BEFORE Bush. All 9 D versus all 7 R Come on now. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,591 by Simon_Jester 6/7/02 5:41:20 PM Reply	Bepatient...you have to chalk up their complaints.... to ignorance. Look guys, these proposals were all before Bush even came online as President. Take a look at the Hart/Rudman security proposal: We therefore recommend the creation of an independent National Homeland Security Agency (NHSA) with responsibility for planning, coordinating, and integrating various U.S. government activities involved in homeland security. NHSA would be built upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency, with the three organizations currently on the front line of border security\ufffdthe Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Border Patrol\ufffdtransferred to it. NHSA would not only protect American lives, but also assume responsibility for overseeing the protection of the nation\ufffds critical infrastructure, including information technology. [link\|http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/ISTS/counterterrorism/rmap_ns1.pdf\| source ] Good god...you people are beginning to sounds like Republicans. [link\|http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/\| source ]
Post #41,597 by Brandioch 6/7/02 6:22:56 PM Reply	So Bush is only implementing the Hart/Rudman proposal? Hmmmm, I see a bit about education in that proposal. Did I miss that bit in Bush's plan? And so on. The recommendations for actions were there. But I don't agree with Bush's implementation. Not that I agree with the original proposal, either. To put it in clear terms, one new man will be in charge of the second largest organization in the US. This organization will have TOO MANY responsibilities. I'm predicting either: #1. Bureaucratic breakdown: The sub-units will be concerned with grabbing more personel and funding and empire building. This is because there is not a clear goal that they can focus on. #2. Fascism: Too many responsibilities for too many different areas result in the treatment of EVERY item as if it were a "terrorist threat". Most broadly, the first instrument is U.S. diplomacy. U.S. foreign policy should strive to shape an international system in which just grievances can be addressed without violence. Diplomatic efforts to develop friendly and trusting relations with foreign governments and their people can significantly multiply America's chances of gaining early warning of potential attack and of doing something about impending threats. Intelligence-sharing with foreign governments is crucial to help identify individuals and groups who might be considering attacks on the United States or its allies. Cooperative foreign law enforcement agencies can detain, arrest, and prosecute terrorists on their own soil. Diplomatic success in resolving overseas conflicts that spawn terrorist activities will help in the long run. [link\|http://www.mipt.org/srchnatlstrat03272001c.html#_ftnref3\|Here] Now, where have I seen THOSE recommendations before?
Post #41,603 by bepatient 6/7/02 7:27:47 PM Reply	Closer to Lieberman's proposal [link\|http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/press/02/05/2002502651.html\|Here] You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,610 by Brandioch 6/7/02 9:02:01 PM Reply	Technically "closer", I guess. Okay, he recommends merging the CG, FEMA and Customs. I can see doing that. And he wants to combine this with border patrol (logical) and a few other, minor, departments/missions. Strange, no matter how I evaluate that, I can't get anywhere near 169,000 people in that recommendation. Closer to Lieberman's proposal I guess "closer" is used in a rather broad sense in your post. Hmmmm, and yet you still maintain that Bush's new plan isn't a "new" plan at all. I guess "new" is used in a rather broad sense, also.
Post #41,616 by bepatient 6/7/02 10:45:32 PM Reply	Perhaps you missed... ...Lieberman saying so >himself< on the Hill today. I'm sure C-Span will show it again. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,627 by Brandioch 6/8/02 1:41:53 AM Reply	Seems you flunked English, too. Try saying what you mean instead of these cute non-references you seem so fond of. Ah, but, once again, I'm sure you're having trouble with context.
Post #41,636 by bepatient 6/8/02 10:47:45 AM Reply	Laugh. It was an absolute reference. But its not my job to keep you informed of current events. C-Span webcasts...maybe you could watch sometime...stay informed. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,637 by Brandioch 6/8/02 10:59:30 AM Reply	If you want to play that way. I'll counter with Torricelli. I'll even raise the stake by throwing in an "analyst", Novak. But its not my job to keep you informed of current events. No. But it is your job to provide substantiation for your claims. But we've been over that before.
Post #41,640 by bepatient 6/8/02 11:24:44 AM Reply	Perfect. Even though Torricelli is an ass and...if I'm not mistaken...was >not< on the panel...hmm...the link provides "Introduced May 2, 2002 By Senators Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Bob Graham, D-Fla., and Reps. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, Jane Harman, D-Calif., Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., and James Gibbons, R-Nev." Nope...I guess Bob is a little pissed that he didn't get to play. You might want to paraphrase a little of what they said. I may even believe you...especially since I watched last night. If you'ld have flipped to CSpan right after it was over...they were showing the program I referenced...unless the programming order is different out west. Besides...[link\|http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/cf.crossfire/index.html\|You must have ignored] the responses that Kit Bond gave. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,646 by Brandioch 6/8/02 1:39:52 PM Reply	Ah, your memory again. Did I say Torricelli was on the panel? I certainly wasn't on it and I still feel I have the right to critique it. Besides...You must have ignored the responses that Kit Bond gave. Nope. But by you bringing it up, I'm going to guess that you support his position. The new department has to have animal control because the terrorists might strike at our food supply. They were making fun of the fact that the Animal, Plant Health and Safety from USDA was moved in. Well if you -- if you think about it for a minute, one of the dangers we have is to our food supply, and those who have looked at terrorist activities know that we need to protect the safety of our food supply as well. So that does fit in. And you support this stupidity? Do you have any idea about the extent of our food processing facilities? Or how many sites there are? And that is ONLY in the USofA. We import TONS of beef EVERY DAY. Just Argentina moves over 10,000 tons a year. No. This "plan" was slapped together at the last minute without evaluating the other proposals and now people (like you) who have to support the current regime are making total idiots out of yourselves trying to justify why such unrelated departments are going to be working together. And the funny thing is that the real EXPERTS on counter-terrorism will NOT be included in this new department. The FBI and CIA will still have their own departments. All this is is more pork for the folks back home. It will not, in any way, reduce the likelyhood of a future attack. Therefore, it will NOT achieve its stated mission.
Post #41,657 by bepatient 6/8/02 5:00:51 PM 6/8/02 5:02:07 PM Reply	Sad. Have I >once< said I supported the plan? Nope...now we have you lieing about my position again. But thats par for the course with you. You seem to be inclined to invent things just so you can continue to argue with me. And thats really fucking sad. Crossfire is a panel dicussion. One side says one thing, The other side says something else. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth...and ALL of it is politics as usual...which I have already said in this thread is a >bad thing<. And...by the way...>you< brought in Torricelli and Novak. Unfortunately for you I knew what you were talking about...too bad in the other circumstances you were too fucking clueless to understand what >I< was referencing. Again...its not my job to keep you informed. But it would be nice if you were before you came in here spouting bullshit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient June 8, 2002, 05:02:07 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #41,663 by Brandioch 6/8/02 5:21:55 PM Reply	Ah, I see. Have I >once< said I supported the plan? Well, well, well...... I will admit I am WRONG... if You will clearly state that you oppose the plan. Nope...now we have you lieing about my position again. Again? I don't think so. But, as I've stated, I will admit I was wrong about your position. All you have to do is say that you oppose the plan. Otherwise, I was not wrong. Even though you did not state it, that is your position. Again, another simple test.
Post #41,669 by bepatient 6/8/02 6:34:38 PM Reply	No. The admission should already be made. I have...not once...stated that I support the plan. You invented that position to continue an argument about what >you think< I believe. True or False? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,703 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:21:31 AM Reply	Logic is beyond you, isn't it? I say you support the plan. You say that I'm lieing. Therefore, you do not support the plan. But you do support the plan. Therefore, I was not lieing. Therefore, it is you who was lieing when you said I was lieing about your support of the plan. There are things refered to as "logic" and "deduction" and "reasoning". Just because you did not say you supported something does not mean that you do not support it. Nor am I limited to what you explicitly state. There are also the phrases you use and the what is implied in your statements. As I said, I will admit that I was wrong WHEN you state that you oppose the plan. Otherwise, I will stand by my statement that you support it even though you have not said so explicitly. You invented that position to continue an argument about what >you think< I believe. There was no invention necessary. But it is what I think you believe. Again, I have said that I will admit I was wrong WHEN you state your position AND such a statement is CONTRARY to what I have stated. Notice, I have no problems stating, in no uncertain terms, what I believe. Why is it that you do?
Post #41,725 by a6l6e6x 6/9/02 12:44:08 PM Reply	OT: Amusing how you two are cooperating... in establishing a new variation of how to spell "lying". I did say OT! :) Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #41,731 by bepatient 6/9/02 2:14:01 PM Reply	Yeah.... I noticed that after I threw it up....one of those gnawing things about it "just not looking right"... Always had problems with that. Thanks for the spell-check ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,733 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:22:40 PM Reply	Spelling should be logical. :) Start with the root word. Lie. Lie'ing Lie'ed Lie's Drive. Drive'ing Drive'ed (not drove) Drive's And so forth. :) That way, learn'ing to congugate verbs take's all of one day. And spell'ing bee's become easy'er, also. Of course, it might deplete the world-wide supply of apostrophe's. But I have a plan to convert un'use'ed comma's.
Post #41,741 by a6l6e6x 6/9/02 3:52:53 PM Reply	I'm with you on that point. English could have more logic. Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #41,666 by Ashton 6/8/02 6:01:52 PM Reply	Do I espy a tiny clue-let lying behind these exercises in evasion / spot the missing surd? That is: you've said more than once that your little ripostes are about ~ "how boring it would be if everyone agreed". I guess this means to you ('guess' because I deem it a pattern): Dropping a one or another 'Crossfire'-type slogan in opposition: constitutes something of a rebuttal? Izzat it? Then leave the 6 or 12 words just lyin there like a puppy spot on the shag rug.. {sigh} Jeez BeeP - any idjit can collect fucking Polar Opposites and strew 'em around... and it's soo convenient for adding later, "where did I say THAT ???" Spy VS Spy Right-eous VS Evull RepoDemo, LibrulConservative - but don't omit Reactionary either! [you know: where 'Conserve' means, freeze-all then regress to Good Ol Days?] Kinda orthogonal.. them 'poles'. Have you no POV which you care to extend and support - or just the Tee Vee Opposite Game, to no purpose other than counter-rotating blab? That may release energy - but matter/antimatter collision produces just more of the Heat-Death of the Cosmos. Ashton OK, practical suggestion then - PS - Just once I'd like to hear you dip into your long experience since Econ school and - give us your fav Gem wherein, a cough colleague constructed a cockamamie 'proof' of some Biz Rule: which just happened to suffer from [a whole long list of logical fallacies, not to mention social consequences] (!!) ie Rat on yer Cohorts! = asif in fact, they do occasionally Misread some o' them Graph thingies, or possibly possess the human warmth of a mathematical slug? Y'Know? C'mon, I realize that would be a lot like the Sergeant in Fail Safe bein ordered to tell the Russkys loud and clear zackly how to "scan them radar frequencies real fast" = to disable One of OURS. Pain/Mute. (He had to be replaced..) But such a mini-betrayal might at least lend a bit of credence to your claim of not bein an er ideologue? You know - like er unbiased Observer n'stuff.. Ashton Always on the Side of Revealed Truth (Which eliminates most homo-sap variants, alas)
Post #41,670 by bepatient 6/8/02 6:37:21 PM Reply	Ferchrissakes. Why don't you two just french? I made what I thought was a simple point to jb4. Turned out to be too fucking complicated for Brandioch. I also thought my point to you was clear enough. At least as clear as anything you've posted in response. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,671 by Ashton 6/8/02 6:48:34 PM Reply	But Of Course! - the thread was doomed to death by ex-post-facto analysis. Again. You never state a position on anything - well, Hardly anything. You just drop an Equal-and-Opposite and then the counter 'clarifications' commence. Deconstruction - the breakfast of weasel-hints. Of course, ever to say ~~ "in this situation, I'd first try __, then if __ happens I'd reconsider or do __" leaves one open to having Missed something, originally. Maybe. Quoting (other's) slogans is ever so impersonally revealing of any thought process whatsoever. "I didn't say THAT!" is the natural denouement. Didn't I make my criticism clear, or do you deny your (I say) fav (but gotten boring) ploy? Ashton
Post #41,679 by bepatient 6/8/02 9:05:48 PM Reply	Follow the bouncing threads. I made a very simple statement. jb4 seemed under he impression that this was the work of GW. In fact...it was not...though in deference to Brandioch...the exact plan laid out 2 nights ago is GW's >version< of something thats been around for a while. That was my >entire< point. Multiple postions were then >invented< for me so that the inventor could form an argument...an unecessary one at that. They have a >plan< now in Washington...I'm sure it will work as well as every other >plan<...unless, of course, they discover a one-eyed albino slug living amongst the terrorists...then we'll have to appoint another panel to go into the Homeland defense fund to analyze the effects of the war on terror on the albino slug...and maybe we'll spend 50 zillion or so to figure out how these slugs live...then hire another 1000 civil servants to make sure we don't hurt the slugs as we take out the terrorists. Hmmm... Do you think I like the plan???? 169000 civil servants. How many >should< there be??? Half is my guess. Do I care if the meat analyzers are "accountable" to the President against terror? No. Do I think this is the 2nd coming of the SS. No. Do I think its a few hundred jerks trying to make a few million ignorant folks feel safe? I think you can answer that yourself. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,708 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:48:50 AM Reply	That's bullshit. In fact...it was not...though in deference to Brandioch...the exact plan laid out 2 nights ago is GW's >version< of something thats been around for a while. That was my >entire< point. That's pure bullshit. If you were discussing Bush's "version" then you wouldn't be outright saying that it was bipartisan. The same concept can be implemented in COMPLETELY divergent manners. And it is the IMPLEMENTATION that is being discussed. You know, the bits about combining different agencies to actually PERFORM the mission. To put it in terms that even you can understand, "government" is a concept. "Government" has been discussed before. "Fascism" is someone's "version". "Democracy" is someone else's "version". Now, claiming that someone advocating "Democracy" somehow suggests that "Fascism" is acceptable is pure BULLSHIT. And THAT is what you are doing here. You're taking votes for DIFFERENT plans and saying that this means Bush's plan was suggested by Democrats. Do I care if the meat analyzers are "accountable" to the President against terror? No. Then you are an even bigger idiot than I had previously supposed (and that is quite the achievement). Or is it that you are unfamiliar with the bureaucratic process? As I've said before, too many people on too many mission lead to BREAKDOWNS. This plan has ONE person responsible for TOO MANY UNRELATED ITEMS. It makes NO SENSE. Particularly when the EXPERTS on counter-terrorism in the FBI and CIA will STAY in the FBI and CIA. Do I think its a few hundred jerks trying to make a few million ignorant folks feel safe? I think you can answer that yourself. My, you've ALMOST stated a position there. Again, I will publicly ask why you are so afraid of just saying what you mean. Anyway, if this plan will not (as you seem to imply that you believe it will not) result in reduced terrorist attacks and/or increased security, then why do you not say so? In other words (I have to keep saying this to make sure it can be clearly understood), we'll be wasting time, manhours and resources PRETENDING that we're making the place safer when we're doing nothing of the sort. Now, given that there are still terrorists out there... -and- Given that this plan will not stop them..... -then- Who is responsible for NOT stopping the NEXT attack? We have the time now. We have the people now. We have the resources now. Someone will try another suicide bombing. Now, to me, the fault lies with everyone who doesn't stand up NOW and point out that we are NOT making this place (or the world) any safer. I've already, CLEARLY, stated my position and my plans. And this is the best that you can do? You're beneath contempt.
Post #41,732 by bepatient 6/9/02 2:15:58 PM Reply	Chuckle Shit...I give you credit for being semantically correct and you spout off again? You are one sorry asshole, aren't you? >You< are discussing implementation. >I< was pointing a very simple fact out to jb4. That this idea is NOT new...and it is what the Democrats have been trying to implement for quite a while. I >personally< think that there is >no< organization possible in the Federal government that will effectively stop a suicide bomber. There is >no< organization possible that will not include some idiotic function unrelated to fighting terror. I thought I made that point already. The Fed is too big and too cumbersome to fight this "enemy". They have a >plan<. So they will implement that >plan< and make everybody >feel< safe. You seem to be more concerned about your "fantasy" about my being a Republican...and you also seem to be concerned about where the finger gets pointed >after< the bomb goes off. I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. Will we implement a VISA system for >EVERY NON CITIZEN< who enters this country. No. We certainly won't do full backround checks against all of the applications. Surely Canadians don't need full scrutiny, right? Will we militarily seal the border between the US and Canada/Mexico? No (we even put water stations out so the poor guys don't die out there in the desert) Will we replace the current airport security personnel with fully trained >military< personnel? No Will we deport anyone that is illegally in this country? Will we allow local police to create roadblocks to check ID to accomplish this? No/No Will we control the sale of all materials that can be used to create an explosive device...requiring backround checks and reports on usage? (Waiting periods for Clorox?) No Will we allow the building of the database of information about every US citizen so that the backround checks can be done? No Just a few of the necessary ingredients needed to >guarantee< safety. We can't even agree on a proper waiting period for the sale of AK/47s. And we beat our chest against the airline records being passed through FBI checks as a huge invasion of our privacy. So...tell me your plan. If it involves a simple restructuring of the Federal government my position has been simply stated. It won't work. It will make people >feel< safe. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,735 by Brandioch 6/9/02 3:05:17 PM Reply	And this is the reason you don't ever state your position. It becomes far to easy to point out the gaps in your knowledge. There is >no< organization possible that will not include some idiotic function unrelated to fighting terror. You say that, but you don't support it. Why couldn't a department be constructed who's sole purpose and mission was counter-terrorism? I thought I made that point already. The Fed is too big and too cumbersome to fight this "enemy". We aren't talking about "The Fed". We're discussing a department dedicated to counter-terrorism. Whether "The Fed" is too cumbersome or not doesn't matter. You can have smaller, more efficient departments within that framework. They have a >plan<. So they will implement that >plan< and make everybody >feel< safe. So you support the fantasy rather than the reality? You seem to be more concerned about your "fantasy" about my being a Republican...and you also seem to be concerned about where the finger gets pointed >after< the bomb goes off. Again, you're obsessed with fantasies. Hmmm, so, if I'm saying NOW that this won't reduce the attacks AND I've already posted how it will be EASIER for said terrorists to acquire nukes because of the current regime's nuke policy THEN I'm concerned with finger pointing? Strange, to my viewpoint, I seem concerned with REDUCING the likelyhood of an attack and REDUCING the likelyhood that it will be nuclear. So, if I'm pointing out the FLAWS in the CURRENT proposals, you see that as finger pointing. You, on the other hand, will NOT say anything about the plan EXCEPT that it will produce a FANTASY of security. So, you hide in your fantasy, knowing that the attack will come and praying that it doesn't come to you while I'm pointing out the flaws and how the system can be improved. And you see the problem as being on my side. I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. Really? Yet you refused to state it again when asked? Yet I have no problem stating my position. I'm sure you THINK you stated your position. No. I think this is another of your lies. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. BZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!! Let's break that statement down. We cannot secure this country against terror. Do you mean 100%? That there will be NO terrorist attacks? Then you are right. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. If by "freedom" you mean the right to travel and learn how to fly airplanes, possibly. If by "freedom" you mean "free speech" and such, then you are wrong. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. So, if we give up "certain freedoms" then there is 100% certainty that future terrorists will not be able to strike us? Pure bullshit. What "freedom" did they use that you are willing to sacrifice when they hit the WTC? The "freedom" to travel. The "freedom" to train in a new skill. Once again, your rhetoric sounds nice (to likeminded fascists) but it tends to break down when reduced to specifics. We are not willing to do that. That is correct. But not for the reasons you imply. #1. It would turn the US into another totalitarian state. #2. It would NOT stop terrorist attacks. So, we lose our freedoms for the fantasy of security. Oh, wait, that WAS your position. See above where you support Bush's plan. We certainly won't do full backround checks against all of the applications. Surely Canadians don't need full scrutiny, right? Why not? Aren't there any Muslims living in Canada? Will we replace the current airport security personnel with fully trained >military< personnel? "Military" is not "Magic". Being military does NOT mean you are any better at detecting terrorists. All it means is that you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 in training. Will we deport anyone that is illegally in this country? Will we allow local police to create roadblocks to check ID to accomplish this? You've combining two concepts here. #1. Deport all illegals. #2. Restrict travel for all citizens. Will we control the sale of all materials that can be used to create an explosive device...requiring backround checks and reports on usage? (Waiting periods for Clorox?) If I recall correctly, they didn't use explosives. They used box cutters. Just a few of the necessary ingredients needed to >guarantee< safety. Okay. You say that if we follow your plan, then 100% of the terrorist threat will be eliminated. Yet I don't see how those items would have stopped someone from taking over a jet with a box cutter. So...tell me your plan. If it involves a simple restructuring of the Federal government my position has been simply stated. It won't work. Gee, I seem to recall stating my plan over and over and over and over. In fact, people have even managed to post specific questions to me about it. Does the word "blockade" ring any bells? How about "Interpol"? You see, I don't believe that ANYONE can EVER stop a terrorist from attacking. But I don't believe that building a fantasy for people is the answer. While we cannot prevent 100% of the attacks, we can REDUCE the THREAT. Again, this gets back to ROOT CAUSES. WHY is Osama targetting us? And do NOT say it is because he "hates freedom". THAT is the kind of bullshit that passes for "thought" in your circles. Once you find out WHY, you will know how to reduce/remove that threat. And we will NOT do this because it will require a COMPLETE re-structuring of how we (the US) operate in the world. And it wouldn't cost us a SINGLE freedom. You're focusing on the following: #1. How to stop terrorists from entering the US. #2. How to find terrorists already in the US. #3. How to limit their attack options once #1 and #2 have failed. And you're saying that you can prevent 100% of the attacks when your plan already dictates that 2/3'rds of the objectives will fail.
Post #41,740 by bepatient 6/9/02 3:51:03 PM Reply	Nope. Because you will then mis-state it to suit yourself. So. Continue on your mission with the fantasy that 1) I support Bush's plan...even though I have stated that I do not. and 2) There is the possibility that the Federal Government..or some efficient department within it...that can stop terrorism in this country. You seem to want to point out that things in my plan wouldn't have stopped people taking over jets with boxcutters. How many of the 19 were in this country legally? Less than half. None were required to submit for visas and have backround checks done before they entered the country. On the explosives front...are you conveniently forgetting that the first attempt on the WTC was with a really big bomb? I guess you are. I guess you think that military training doesn't provide better tools than an ordinary high-school dropout would have...after all...having military secure the airport doesn't mean they're better at detecting terrorists. I didn't offer my suggestions as a 100% foolproof way of stopping terrorists. I don't think 100% security is possible. But you have stated that I did. So, you see...I don't have these discussions with you because you make shit up. And you can >never< be wrong. So...continue your discussion with someone who gives a shit. To make it easy in you... I've created a user ID strawman The password is your user ID. So feel free to invent more of my position. You can post it to your hearts content. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,753 by Brandioch 6/9/02 5:01:21 PM Reply	Let me explain ONE thing to you. 1) I support Bush's plan...even though I have stated that I do not. Right. Whatever. And you will notice that there is no one STOPPING you from saying that you do NOT support it. But you KEEP phrasing it the same way. You have never SAID that you support it. I expect that kind of "logic" from a CHILD. Unless there's something you're trying to hide, why is it that you just can't post whether you support it or not? Why the bullshit with the "I never SAID that I supported it"? Grow the fuck up and scrape together whatever passes for balls in your family and just BE AN ADULT and SAY WHAT YOU MEAN. On the explosives front...are you conveniently forgetting that the first attempt on the WTC was with a really big bomb? I guess you are. No. But if you will recall, that failed. I'm looking at what SUCCEEDED. It was box cutters and plane tickets that succeeded. Low tech. Low organization. High success rate. Learn from that. I guess you think that military training doesn't provide better tools than an ordinary high-school dropout would have...after all...having military secure the airport doesn't mean they're better at detecting terrorists. Shall I say it again? Military training means you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 under training conditions. No. I do NOT think that military training makes anyone better able to detect a terrorist. Again, you keep mentally switching "military training" with "magic". Let me try another tact. What is it, specifically, about military training that you believe would better equip someone to detect a terrorist? I didn't offer my suggestions as a 100% foolproof way of stopping terrorists. Yes you did. That is what "ensure" means. I don't think 100% security is possible. But you have stated that I did. So, you see...I don't have these discussions with you because you make shit up. Re-read your previous post. Better yet, I'll quote it back at you. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. That sounds pretty 100% to me. Particularly when you take it in context: I stated my position fairly clearly quite some time ago. We cannot secure this country against terror. They will continue to use our stregth (freedom) against us. To ensure that they cannot strike against us here..we must give up certain freedoms. We are not willing to do that. There, we cannot protect ourselves 100% BECAUSE the terrorists will use our "freedoms" against us. -THEREFORE- The only way to ENSURE that they cannot strike us is to give up some of those freedoms. Your words. In context. Go and run. You don't even have the guts to state your opinion and have to hide behind child'ish games.
Post #41,782 by bepatient 6/9/02 11:23:00 PM Reply	Nitwit 101. Hmmm...I must have to use short,choppy sentences for you to actually get it. I don't like the plan. Short and choppy enough for you? And the list was nowhere even close to exhaustive. Just a few that will NEVER happen. And having those few NEVER happen will mean that any >plan< will only give the >illusion< of security. Short and choppy enough for you? No. But if you will recall, that failed. Got a half dozen dead that would disagree. Nope...its not 3000...but its dead people as the result of terrorists and explosives. And...if you think the next attack will be planes I want what you're smoking. Besides...you brought up suicide bombers. Most of them use themselves (or a car) full of explosives. Let me try another tact. What is it, specifically, about military training that you believe would better equip someone to detect a terrorist? Lemme see. A high school equivalence, no rap sheet, an understanding of the word >duty< maybe. Or aren't you aware of just who the airlines were entrusting your >life< to? Unfortunaltely for you...you seem to believe in some fantasy that the Fed will get something right...that complaining will work. Too late...everyone on the hill is in love with this new plan...its going to be implemented and the masses will >feel< safe. I'll make sure I keep the rest of my sentences short enough for you to understand. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,796 by Brandioch 6/10/02 2:11:52 AM Reply	Oh that is too good. So, Bill Pathetic says that military training will enable people to detect terrorists. What, specifically, about military training will do so? A high school equivalence, no rap sheet, an understanding of the word >duty< maybe. A high school equivalence. You see, you can join the military even if you have a "rap sheet". And an "understanding" of the word >duty<. So, someone who manages to graduate high school is equiped to detect terrorists? Just because s/he knows what "duty" means? Remember the other war over there? When some of our people died because they were too fucking STUPID to follow instructions and get to the shelter when the missle alert sounded? Prior to exercises, I had to call up the WIVES of my troops to make sure their HUSBANDS had left them the checkbook (with enough money in the account) and emergency phone numbers. I cannot begin to describe how stupid and irresponsible the average soldier is. And you think that 6 weeks of Basic and some AIT is going to change that? Remember the female pilot with the affair and her court-marshal? And she was college educated. All military training means is that you can march, salute, know your chain of command and have fired an M16 under training conditions. It does NOT make you a responsible individual. (The platoon sergeant gets the calls to get the troops out of jail and when they've stopped paying the bills and for every other infraction.) It does NOT make you an educated individual. It does NOT make you a more aware individual. It does NOTHING that will enable you to better detect terrorists. If anything, the near constant indoctrination and propaganda would do the OPPOSITE. Or aren't you aware of just who the airlines were entrusting your >life< to? I KNOW who they have working security. The lowest bidder. By way of comparision, I made $15K a year as E-6(p) after 7 years. Pay attention to the phrase "lowest bidder". Rather than believing in the magic of the military, why don't you join? Then you could see how stupid they are. Or, if you can't manage that, why don't you talk to people who were in and listen to the stories of stupidity from them. If you can't find any friends, why don't you read about the problems that were reported with the military doing security in the airports just a few months ago. I know they were posted here. Unfortunaltely for you...you seem to believe in some fantasy that the Fed will get something right...that complaining will work. Too late...everyone on the hill is in love with this new plan...its going to be implemented and the masses will >feel< safe. You see, "The Fed" is us. If you don't like the plan, write to your congress critter about it. Have you? I have. Make sure you point out the flaws and recommend ways it could be improved. This is the US government. There is no magic involved. I don't like the plan. Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my. Just a few that will NEVER happen. And having those few NEVER happen will mean that any >plan< will only give the >illusion< of security. Strange. You see, I pointed out how having those implemented would STILL not stop the attack. But you DID use the word "ensure" in your statement. Got a half dozen dead that would disagree. Nope...its not 3000...but its dead people as the result of terrorists and explosives. Sorry, I was using the word "failed" as in "failed to achieve the terrorist's objective". They didn't do what they set out to do. They failed. And...if you think the next attack will be planes I want what you're smoking. I was illustrating the holes in your "logic". You need more illustration? NYC. Rush hour. A small plane (prop) with a guy tossing out pipe bombs as he flies along the streets. Or, if that is too complicated for you, there are always Mexican airliners. Sure, the explosion wouldn't be as big as with a full fuel tank, but the terror would be maintained. And security in Latin America isn't as strict as in the US. More? Does Saudi Arabia have it's own airline with stops in the US? Why yes they do. Even to NYC. Would it be simplier for a terrorist to just get a job as a pilot or co-pilot? Sure, it would take a few years to get in the right spot, but Allah doesn't care. More? Well there are more, but I think I've made my point. Even when we KNOW we're vulnerable from aircraft, we STILL cannot defend ourselves. Well, not with a plan as stupid as that one. The point is that we CAN defend ourselves. Just as was outlined in that OTHER plan. But it will require that the US change it's policies and mindset. Something that you have demonstrated is impossible for the average idiot to comprehend. Rather than dealing with the problem, we'll just piss away our freedoms while knowing that we aren't any safer and that will be that because that's the way it is. And anyone who disagrees with you is living in a fantasy. Whatever. You still haven't answered WHY Osama is targetting us. #1. Know your enemy. Besides...you brought up suicide bombers. Most of them use themselves (or a car) full of explosives. And I file "hijackers who crash planes into buildings" as "suicide bombers". And your point is? The explosives are used because it is the simplest method. You don't need to be particularly intelligent or adept to manage that. Now, the problem they have is that there are a limited supply of those kind of people. Of course, more are born everyday. But we could practically dry up their supply in one generation. Ever wonder why there are so few US citizens who become suicide bombers in the US? We have our fundamentalists. We have our poverty. We have fundamentalists in poverty. So, what is the difference? Why do we see so many in the mid-east but NONE in our mid-west? Again, the root cause. Find that and you can end the supply of bomb carriers. That will leave the few professionals. Which will have to be dealt with differently.
Post #41,808 by bepatient 6/10/02 9:02:02 AM Reply	That pretty much settles it... Strange, you were defending it just a little while ago. My my my. Where? Who's posts were you reading? This is why I created the "strawman" login...so you could use it when you decide to invent my position. There are quite a few other places in this post that also qualify... So why don't you just log in and have your own discussion. It'll save me the time of posting things that you'll subsequently ignore or misstate. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,829 by Brandioch 6/10/02 12:24:22 PM Reply	Awww, are the facts too much for you? Run away now.
Post #41,831 by bepatient 6/10/02 12:33:34 PM Reply	So when you make things up, they're facts??? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,933 by Brandioch 6/11/02 11:08:22 AM Reply	You must provide support for you statement. It isn't sufficient to start screaming "He's lieing! He's lieing!". As when I was providing support for my position that you were resorting to strawmen and lies, I provided links to previous posts and compared the content there with the content in current posts. You seem to believe that by mere shrill repetition your lies will be mistaken for facts. But I've already established that you follow that pattern. Back when I established that your primary "debate" tactics were lies and strawmen. And you continue to engage in them. You want to call me a liar? That is your perogative. You want to PROVE that I'm a liar? Well, that takes some linking. Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot.
Post #41,948 by bepatient 6/11/02 12:06:36 PM Reply	Simple. Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it. I can't link to something I never stated nor ever did.. yet you claim it to be so and I have already quoted the statement. Beyond that, I have no interest in proving >anything< to you. Once again, I can provide links, you cannot. I can provide support, you cannot. Well...goody for you. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #42,010 by Brandioch 6/11/02 7:27:09 PM Reply	And once again, you lie. Show where I stated I was in favor of Bush's plan...or more precisely...where I >defended< it. I didn't say that you said you supported it. I said you supported it. You said I was incorrect. So I told you to clearly state that you didn't. You had a problem with that. You seem to be operating under some childish notion about what you say/don't say. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41703\|here] As for "supporting" it... [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41640\|here] Or do you call it something else? You're attempting to counter my points against it by linking to someone who counters my points against it. But you don't support it? Did you just feel the need to argue with me? If so, why? Either you support the points of the person you linked to or you do not. If you do, you support the plan. If you do not, why did you link to them?
Post #42,022 by bepatient 6/11/02 8:52:40 PM Reply	Wow. There must be a new definition [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41782\|Hmmm...I must have to use short,choppy sentences for you to actually get it. I don't like the plan. Short and choppy enough for you?] I guess it wasn't short and choppy enough for you. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41646\|Nope. But by you bringing it up, I'm going to guess that you support his position.] That would be a >no<..excepting you never bother to ask...you just make up my position and then continue on your merry way. ID=strawman password=brandioch. If you want to fight with yourself...be my guest. In addition...that post was a response to [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41637\|this one] where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same. That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41704\|claimed] to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan. Wow. You win. Rip me to shreds baby. Like it makes any difference. And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole. Like I said. You've created an all new definition of "lie". Funny how it now means the opposite of what you thought. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #42,030 by Brandioch 6/11/02 10:08:57 PM Reply	No new definition. Look up "chronology". You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements. You refused to post that you didn't support it. Later, after it became apparent even to you that this was an unsupportable plan, you changed your tune and decided to not support it anymore. Otherwise, how do you explain that you posted a link to someone claiming that including animal control would protect our food supply from terrorists? In addition...that post was a response to this one where you felt the urge to tell me you watched crossfire...without bothering to at least give a relevent snip...after I told you that Lieberman was just on Cspan telling the camera's that Bush's plan and his proposal were damn near the same. No. I did not tell you that I watched crossfire. I got that off the CNN website. As for your point about Lieberman, if you will recall, I had previously pointed out that you seemed overly concerned with who was supporting the plan rather than what the plan was. You Lieberman link is more proof of that. Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it? That prompted a semantics rant on your part where you claimed to have ripped my position to shreds...because it was "bush's" actual plan instead of Lieberman's "really close" (his own words) plan. It wasn't a claim. It was a fact. Again, you seem to be obsessively focuses on who supports this plan. But now you claim to oppose it. But you're still linking to your posts pointing out all the people who support it. Yet you haven't linked to any posts where you point out anyone who opposes it. Very strange behaviour. Or are you indicating your opposition by pointing out the "bad" people who support this plan? Does that make Bush and Lieberman "bad" people, in your opinion? And if calling Bob T an asshole means I support GW's plan....I've been a supporter of the plan since long before 9/11...since Bob's one of >my guys (NJ)< in Washington...and he >is< an asshole. Well, you're starting to see the whole picture. When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words). You were posting links to people who attempted to justify things like including animal control in the plan. You would not say you opposed the plan. You were posting all of those in response to other people's posts in which they opposed the plan. But you really oppose the plan. What is it that you didn't like? That people were saying Bush was fascist for proposing this? Allow me to kill this thread now. Hitler proposes a Nazi regime. People say Hitler is a fascist. You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans. You provide links to people who justify the specifics of Hitler's plan. And that SOMEHOW, in YOUR mind, translates to you opposing Hitler's plan? Now.... Bush proposes a plan. People say it is fascist. You say that OTHER people have proposed SIMILAR plans. and so forth. And you think that >I< am the one with the problem? godwin
Post #42,035 by bepatient 6/11/02 11:08:38 PM Reply	Please use the strawman login...and this isn't usenet If you are going to continue to invent my position...post it yourself. I did all the work for you. login=strawman password=brandioch You posted a link that was an attempt to refute my statements. I posted a link to counter an assenine post by you. That post was an attempt, by you, to act informed by referencing that day's episode of Crossfire...which I happened to have watched. I then called Torricelli an asshole. My prerogative...since he's one of my reps in Washington. I then mentioned that Kit rebutted each one of his statements. A simple effort to point out that one side says one thing...the other another...and in the end its all politics as usual...which I had stated [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41582\|long before] is a >bad thing<. Again, if you opposed the plan AT THAT TIME, why were you busy pointing out to me who supports it? In case you missed it...I had already [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=41602\|explained] that way up at the top of the thread. Right before you decided to invent my position. (on several occasions...by the way...one of those inventions was linked to in my previous post) When you started, you were focusing on the people who were supporting this plan (or ones similar to it, in their own words). No shit Sherlock. My entire fucking point was to point out to jb4 that they were ALL in on it...not just GW. Are you >really...really< that stupid???? Or do you just play an idiot on the internet? And you want to lecture me on chronology? Follow it yourself. I've made these explanations on more than one occasion...each time to be ignored by you as you continue to further invent my position. You are pitiful. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,707 by Brandioch 6/9/02 2:31:55 AM Reply	I think you give him far too much credit. You just drop an Equal-and-Opposite and then the counter 'clarifications' commence. He doesn't even get that far. I have posted NUMEROUS times about his "strawman" crap. He will lie about what he posted, what I posted, and then will "forget" and demand I re-explain what I had JUST finished explaining to him. He SELDOM states an actual position because this will require that he defend it. And, as I have shown, he doesn't have the background knowledge to defend his position. So he attacks others with lies and strawmen. Bill "Strawman" Pathetic. Why he does so is anyone's guess.
Post #41,818 by screamer 6/10/02 11:25:10 AM Reply	ROTFLMAO... Hello, my name is Dan and I'm a pedantic... Were you referring to kissing or ... You can't win... You get it. You CAN'T win... You get it? But you said french... Is that a capital F or a small f? Don't trust your faulty memory. Is it capital F or capitol F? Don't look... You can't win... You get it? Did I tell you, you CAN'T win... Get it? Just a few thoughts, Screamer "As people assemble, civilization Is trying to find a new way to die, But killing is really, merely scene changer,all men are bored, with other men's lives" ... "We all know success, when we all find our own dreams And our love is enough to knock down any walls And the future's been seen, as men try to realize The simple secret of the note in us all in us all" P. Townshend - Pure and Easy
Post #41,996 by Ashton 6/11/02 5:46:56 PM Reply	french redux. Well BeeP, you've blown our cover now! Yes, actually we do have a kinda plan to meet sometime, french-fry some small Republican children and possibly pickle some of the sweetmeats. May have a bit of an argument about whether to use My Gramma's recipe (originally for CommiePinkoDupes) or just work backwards from the human skin lampshades, sorta like disassemblin code, y'know? But we're always willin to learn some new techniques from the bible (currently, edition in use is Blinded By The Right). Lots of meaty stuff there too.. readin aloud, sittin by the camp pyre and enjoyin a virgin jugular vein (aperitif). 'Course I don't quite see the connection between our just havin some good clean Ol Boys fun reminiscin about the old days, (about the Strange Fruit n'stuff we read in the civics courses) - and something like: a rebuttal to assertions? Guess I just don't have the imagination to keep up with modern Language usage. But s'OK - maybe you can come along to one of our Lodge meetings and elucidate. Bring a fiend along! Ashton (Depraved Member of the Spiro T. Agnew Memorial Association) but Feeling Good about Myself, in Search of Excellence and Growing the Bizness by All Means Possible.
Post #42,003 by bepatient 6/11/02 6:43:06 PM Reply	Yum... whadderya gonna have fer deeezurt? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #42,019 by Ashton 6/11/02 8:03:17 PM Reply	Ahh.. candied Repo brains, prolly. but it will be just a light dessert - sorta like meringue? But we color it Red White and Blue, as the otherwise pinkish color tends to offend some donors (dunno why), and we are sensitive to their feelings. Afterwards. BTW - did you know how sausages are made? Ummm lots of raw materials for some rilly Huge ones in some of the older ones, and they are already stretched full (but of course there's a lot of stuff set like cement.. for bein there so long) Lotta work, that. Still, great chefs are proud of what they can make out of almost anything :-) Ashton What's Fer Dinner? Y'All. glorp :-\ufffd
Post #42,023 by bepatient 6/11/02 8:54:51 PM Reply	Can I at least have... ...some Greens to go with my brains? Doc says I need my Greens;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,699 by jb4 6/9/02 1:33:21 AM Reply	So what? It finally dawned on me what the fallacy of your "argument" is: You ass-u-me that because some Democrat somewhere thought a domestic Stazi would be a really kewl idea, that that makes it any less reprehensible (and, worse, that I and others who think that Duh-beyew is dumber that a sack of hair) would suddenly think the plan is any less represhensible. Its a bad idea. I don't care if every Democrat in the House, Senate, Supreme Court (oh, waidaminnit...there ARE no Democrats in the USSC...that would be against the LAW...) and in every legislature in every State, Territory, Possesion, and Protectorate think is a very Kewl idea, and that every Repuiblican in the House, Senate, Supreme Court (plenty of them there, all right...), and in every legislature in every State, Territory, Possesion, and Protectorate are dead-set against it, it is still a bad idea, and shame on Duh-beyew and ttLPJA for suggesting it. And shame on you for creating yet another strawman argument. The point af all this is that George Shitferbrains Bush II is championing the idea. It sucks. It sucks regardless of whether there is a Democrat, or two, or 700 million, who support it. I don't care who supports it, they will garner my eternal disdain, disrespect and what ever wrath I can leagally rain down upon them for suggesting, supporting, and fomenting this final assault upon the Constitution. And that goes for your too, Mr. Strawman! (Just remember, Jesse Helms is a Democrat, and I'm sure he supports it, too!) jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,734 by bepatient 6/9/02 2:24:51 PM Reply	Nice to hear you say it. An I must say that is, at least, a refreshing break from "Its all George's fault". If I oversimplify...sue me...it just seems to me that you and many others here like to blame things on "the other side"...when there is no "other side". Mr Strawman? If you're gonna call me names...be creative :=) ...pick your own...that one's taken. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,739 by Simon_Jester 6/9/02 3:49:36 PM Reply	Mind if I ask a silly question? I've been listening...and this is what I'm hearing.... Don't blast Bush for this plan (irregardless of whether or not it's any good) because both sides have produced similar plans... I'm just curious...because...I heard on here a lot of people blasting at Gov. Davis' energy plan for it's problems...and Pete Wilson (other party) admitted it was his plan and it was flawed. Just curious.
Post #41,743 by bepatient 6/9/02 3:56:45 PM Reply	Not a silly question. Because...I fear...it is something that needs to be pointed out around here. Don't blast GW...blast >all of them<. Its a shit plan. Its a simple shuffle of the deck. Brandioch thinks some magic will befall us and the Fed will be able to create a department solely for counterterrorism. Funny. Their suggestion was >this< plan...and they're all so damned happy about it they're gonna run it right through Congress. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,744 by Simon_Jester 6/9/02 3:58:39 PM Reply	Now that.... I can agree with.
Post #41,746 by a6l6e6x 6/9/02 4:41:26 PM Reply	Re: shuffle of the deck Chapaquidick [link\|http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/ny-usbush072736308jun07.story?coll=ny-news-print\|Ted ] (Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusettes) called it "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". It's not an original use of the expresssion, of course. Alex "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Post #41,764 by Brandioch 6/9/02 7:20:04 PM Reply	I gotta agree with Ted on that. --Informational analysis and infrastructure protection to "fuse and analyze" threat-related intelligence information from the FBI and CIA and other agencies, but not gather intelligence itself. As anyone who's done support knows, there is no substitute for getting the information first hand. Bush's proposal leaves the FBI and CIA, the agencies under the most scrutiny for possible intelligence failures, virtually intact. So, the two agencies that had the problem are the two agencies that won't be touched? Strange. When asked why intelligence agencies with no history of exchanging information with each other would share it with the homeland security department, the administration officials said the only answer he could offer was that legislation would direct them to do so. Damn. There is some hope for journalism. So, we're basing the anti-terrorism defense on second hand info from agencies that have a history of not sharing such information. And the last attack occured because they didn't share information (and there was a top-down attitude that terrorism wasn't important). Instead of treating the cause, we'll re'org the departments. Dilbert goes to Washington.
Post #41,783 by bepatient 6/9/02 11:42:53 PM Reply	Dilbert's been there for quite a while. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,809 by jb4 6/10/02 9:04:55 AM Reply	Perhaps I just start calling you "Red" ...as in Herring ;-) jb4 "I remember Harry S. Truman's sign on his desk. 'The buck stops here.' Strange how those words, while still true, mean something completely different today." -- Brandioch
Post #41,813 by bepatient 6/10/02 10:31:10 AM Reply	That'll work... ..considering now that I'm a fascist or a Stalin protege. Red seems to be my color;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #41,619 by Silverlock 6/7/02 11:05:00 PM Reply	The word from Mordor is..... " One department to synthesize and analyze homeland security intelligence from multiple sources" One ring to bind them.... "As people do better, they start voting like Republicans... ...unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing." KARL ROVE
Post #41,629 by Ashton 6/8/02 1:51:14 AM Reply	Thar be Dragons_______\ufffdThere\ufffd

Welcome to IWETHEY!