quade 3 #1 November 30, 2004 What is the freekin' deal? I do NOT understand what the hold up is. GWB sits in the White House and his party controls both the House and the Senate. Cheney is threatening them and -still- there are some dumb-assed folks (Republicans by the way) that are holding it up. What is their damn problem? http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/congress.intelligence/index.html Oh wait . . . it's all about who controls the pork. Idiots.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #2 November 30, 2004 So let me see if I get this right.... The Republicans are in control, and you are upset that things are not just flying through and becoming law? QuoteHouse Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, wants the bill changed to prevent states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. OK so I don't want ILLEGAL immigrants getting a license either. QuoteHouse Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, has expressed concerns that the new intelligence director might hamper efforts to get critical intelligence to military troops in the field. So you would rather he just follow the party line and ignore his responsability to the troops? QuoteAnother chief sticking point to the bill is how much control the intelligence director would have -- particularly over the estimated $80 billion intelligence budget. Don't you bitch about the government having to much power? I don't follow your logic at all. You bitched about the fact that the Reps being in control would make it easy for the evil Bush group to pass things that are not in the best interest of America...Then you bitch about people trying to do what they think is right.... Would you bitch so much if it was Dems that were holding it up? You bitch that the government has to much power....But you seem to be OK in THIS case?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #3 November 30, 2004 I don't get it either. The one representative wanting to add the provision not allowing states to issue driver's licenses to illegals, while not a bad idea, has NOTHING to do with the bill at all. If he feels that strongly about it, he should introduce a new bill to do just that, instead of holding up valuable legislation to get his rider attached. You're right, that is shitty.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #4 November 30, 2004 Here's my point . . . There are several items that -could- be added to the proposal that would make it better. The driver licence inssue is one of them. Me, living in SoCal, think this is a pretty damn fine idea. However, there is no need whatsoever, to stop -this- to include -that-. A new proposal to address that could be introduced in the next session with time for reasoned discourse of the pros anc cons of it. Meanwhile, we could move on this and actually get something done rather than simply talking about it. -That- wasn't the show stopper anyway -- it's all about the pork -- who controls the money. The Republicans holding this up are doing so for their own personal benefit rather than the benefit of the troops or the citizenry -- and GWB can't control them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #5 November 30, 2004 QuoteOK so I don't want ILLEGAL immigrants getting a license either. Me either. But what does that have to do with Intelligence Reform? Sensenbrenner is trying to tack something on that is controversial to an otherwise popular bill to try to force it in. He should let the intelligence bill get passed without that unrelated line item and then introduce a separate bill for that instead of holding up the whole process. And yes, democrats do it to. And it's just as wrong then. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-California, has expressed concerns that the new intelligence director might hamper efforts to get critical intelligence to military troops in the field. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you would rather he just follow the party line and ignore his responsability to the troops? Actually that sounds like the party line. Make important decisions based on your concern about what might happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #6 November 30, 2004 Quotevaluable legislation While the reasons these two Reps are delaying may not have the highest of purposes, I'm not sure that the result is holding up valuable legislation. I agree intelligence reform is badly needed, I do not agree that the creation of another intelligence bureaucracy is the way. From what I can tell, the legislation in question is 214 pages of more government to tell the members of the intelligence community to do what they are already tasked to do... Kinda like DoHS. The reason there are so many different intelligence organizations, why the CIA doesn't do it all in the first place, is because all of the parent organizations have different priorities and needs. Taking control away from those "customers" may not result in better intelligence, more probably worse. Does there need to be a way to have efforts coordinated? Absolutely! But I'm not sure this legislation even accomplishes that. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #7 November 30, 2004 QuoteI do NOT understand what the hold up is. Just because a committee makes some recommendations, doesn't mean that the President and Congress should automatically implement everything they recommend, as is. These things should be given lengthy debate and careful consideration, by our legislators. The reason there is griping about the speed of implementation is just simple political partisanship. If Bush went ahead and did the whole shebang immediately, then the Dems would instead gripe about how he moved too fast. It's just something for the losers to bitch about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #8 November 30, 2004 Quote These things should be given lengthy debate and careful consideration, by our legislators. The reason there is griping about the speed of implementation is just simple political partisanship. If Bush went ahead and did the whole shebang immediately, then the Dems would instead gripe about how he moved too fast. It's just something for the losers to bitch about. I'm sorry, could you tell me the date from which these recommendations stem? Nothing, has been rush through in this except the late additions by the people holding it up. These recommendations have been researched by a bi-partisan commission appointed by the President and passed 96-2 in the Senate. 96-2 sounds pretty bi-partisan to me. If 51% is a "mandate", then what the hell is 96%? What's holding it up in the House are a couple of knuckleheads that want to remain in charge of the pork. They put their own interests ahead of the country.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #9 November 30, 2004 Quote98-2 sounds pretty bi-partisan to me What did the Patriot Act pass by? I think a lot of the left, center, and even some of the right think that was knee-jerk in retrospect... reform for reform's sake is not always a good thing, and more government is almost never the right answer. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #10 November 30, 2004 Patriot act -was- pushed through too quickly. This is NOT the same.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 November 30, 2004 QuoteNothing, has been rush through in this except the late additions by the people holding it up. That's not my understanding. For example, there are serious issues such as who gets to be in charge of tasking satellite photos, which can affect troops in combat. That's not something that should be changed in blind haste. And I don't think that item is a late addition to the recommendations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #12 November 30, 2004 QuotePatriot act -was- pushed through too quickly. This is NOT the same. See what I mean, folks? Go too fast, the Dems complain. Go too slow, the Dems complain. Like the fable of the race between the tortoise and the hare, what counts is that we finish the race, and get it done right. "Right" is better than "quick". ---- Edited because the "n" key on my keyboard oly works about half of the time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #13 November 30, 2004 QuoteIt's just something for the losers to bitch about. Amen. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #14 November 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's just something for the losers to bitch about. Amen. Seems like (almost) everyone loses when needed reforms fall to political maneuvering.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #15 December 1, 2004 No John, obviously I'm just bitching because I'm pissed GWB is in office. It has nothing to do with the fact that HE wants this passed and I'm on the same side of this issue as him. "My guy" lost so I'm not allowed to complain that Hastert is playing politics when it comes to national security. I mean -- it's obvious -- right? Anything said by a Democrat must just be "just something for the losers to bitch about" because obviously national security isn't a concern of the folks in the blue states like New York or California.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #16 December 1, 2004 QuoteAnything said by a Democrat must just be "just something for the losers to bitch about" Name 10 things that Bush is doing very well in. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #17 December 1, 2004 What's the matter? Can't name 10 yourself? Besides which . . . as previously stated I'm not really complaining about GWB, but the other Republicans, notably Hastert. My only complaint about GWB in this is that he doesn't seem to have control of his party in this case.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #18 December 1, 2004 Quoteas previously stated I'm not really complaining about GWB, but the other Republicans, notably Hastert. My only complaint about GWB in this is that he doesn't seem to have control of his party in this case. So you blame him for not having control and not passing this fast, but you also blame him for having control and passing the patriot act? See you just want to complain."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #19 December 1, 2004 Is the concept of someone doing two different things in two different sets of circumstances, and them both being wrong, really that impossible for you to grasp? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #20 December 1, 2004 QuoteIs the concept of someone doing two different things in two different sets of circumstances, and them both being wrong, really that impossible for you to grasp? Is it impossible for you to grasp the fact that you guys are gonna bitch about anything? You bitch about the patriot act for being to fast, and now you bitch about this going to slow. The one common thing here is you guys bitching."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #21 December 1, 2004 QuoteQuoteIs the concept of someone doing two different things in two different sets of circumstances, and them both being wrong, really that impossible for you to grasp? Is it impossible for you to grasp the fact that you guys are gonna bitch about anything? You bitch about the patriot act for being to fast, and now you bitch about this going to slow. The one common thing here is you guys bitching. The Patriot Act was a panicky, knee jerk reaction to a calamity. It needs serious review and reform. The intelligence reform bill has been carefully considered over a period of years by a blue ribbon committee. It doesn't need more study.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #22 December 1, 2004 No, the one common thing here is you constantly defending every bad move. How about discussing the issue instead of who's on what side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #23 December 1, 2004 QuoteThe Patriot Act was a panicky, knee jerk reaction to a calamity. It needs serious review and reform. The intelligence reform bill has been carefully considered over a period of years by a blue ribbon committee. It doesn't need more study. In YOUR OPINION the reform bill is good. A few members of Congress don't agree. Sorry Doc, I will tend to listen to you over some members of Congress when it comes to Physics...But I will tend to listen to members of Congress when it comes to bills."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #24 December 1, 2004 QuoteBut I will tend to listen to members of Congress when it comes to bills. But only the 3 that agree with your position while ignoring the rest, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #25 December 1, 2004 QuoteNo, the one common thing here is you constantly defending every bad move. How about discussing the issue instead of who's on what side. Actually I tried...then you came in with this gem QuoteActually that sounds like the party line. Make important decisions based on your concern about what might happen. Then you tried to make it personal: QuoteIs the concept of someone doing two different things in two different sets of circumstances, and them both being wrong, really that impossible for you to grasp? I see a bill that has some questions left. I LIKE a member of Congress to not just pass any bill that the public wants. You bitched about the Patriot act....Well this could easily be another really stupid bill. Just because it was created by a task force does not make it good...The Patriot act was created by a task force INCLUDING Kerry. So the PA was bad and it was passed to fast. But you think this is good and is passing to slow? Given the choice of going with you (Who I am sure have not read the entire bill) or a guy that has to vote on it....I'd rather put my trust in the guy that has to vote for or against it and be held accountable for his vote. So since I have some trust in the system we have, and I am glad that ANY member of Congress has the right to question a bill, or parts of a bill. I support the members right to stop and askk questions. I think taking the ability to see, interpret and give information to the troops on the battle field as a BIG issue. You may not."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
