RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Why do "conservatives" support this Homeland security thing?(17 posts)

Why do "conservatives" support this Homeland security thing?Matno
Mar 2, 2003 8:22 AM
Seems like the most blatant display of "Big Brother" that we've seen to date. I guess people just automatically assume that because something comes from a Republican president that it's safe? Sheesh. GW could just as easily have run as a democrat, and nobody probably would have noticed the difference. He's certainly no conservative. (Maybe not as bad as Mike Bloomberg in terms of playing both sides, but bad enough...)

Anybody remember when the economy was bad? I guess this whole war thing is really working to divert attention...
re: Why do "conservatives" support this Homeland security thing?hycobob
Mar 2, 2003 10:39 AM
Really and truelly, there's not alot homefront wise that can be done. None that would go unbattled by the "party out of power". When I went to Itally in 1983 there were soldiers with SMGs locked and loaded at every Roma Airport metal detector...my baby pocket knife set it off and almost got me shot, the guy was so scared! We can and should close our boarders to all those without visa to enter lawfully (just like every other country) and deport every single illegal alien that can be found...asian, arabic, hispanic, etc... The key word there was "ILLEGAL". The US Coast Guard can be stepped up to use radar to check and board if in suspect,
any vessel in and entering US territorial waters. If a vessel runs when hailed, SHOOT THE BASTARDS OUT OF THE WATER! The same goes for planes, cars and trucks. These sound harsh, but you asked.
Hycobob? Or Psychobob?carnageasada
Mar 2, 2003 4:47 PM
Seriously Bob, "SHOOT THE BASTARDS OUT OF THE WATER?" That does seem a bit harsh, unless, maybe it was my mother-in-law out for a sail and wasn't heeding the Coast Gaurd again.
That was meant to be tongue in cheekhycobob
Mar 2, 2003 5:04 PM
But seriously, we do need to do something besides nothing. Its too late to be proactive...now we have to be reactive. Its easy to talk about what needs doing, but alot harder to actually do it. Come on...I've got a million of 'em.
Okaycarnageasada
Mar 3, 2003 8:47 AM
I'd debate some more but I know better than to argue with a man of your high posting energy levels.
Shoot the bastards out of the water?!sn69
Mar 2, 2003 7:35 PM
Or planes, trucks, whathaveyou?!

Not hardly Bob. International Law also applies within our territorial waters as well as Federal Statutes. Even when operating in International Waters, there are strict regulations that govern what the USCG or the Navy can or cannot do. Provocation, probable cause and right to self-defense are the most compelling of these.

We're already walking a tight rope with regards to International Law; the same law, incidentally, that we quote to conduct VBSSes in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Med, the Yellow Sea and other places that I cannot mention. If we take it upon ourselves to arbitrarily conduct offensive, unrestricted seaborned operations against those only suspected of illicit operations, then we are no better than the Nazis.

Rather, our military forces (and our feaux military...the Puddle Pirates, er, I mean Coast Guard), operate based on STRICT adherence to very specifically regulated Rules of Engagement. I can go more in-dpeth if you'd like, but suffice it to say that "shoot first, ask later" is not the American way, the LAPD notwithstanding.

Incidentally, the guards in Europe's airports in the 80s still DID NOT stop Lybian sponsored terrorist activity. ...But the strikes on Lybia did....

Scott
A lot of us conservatives don't support itAlpedhuez55
Mar 2, 2003 1:18 PM
I, like a lot of conservatives, think it is much too big. Sure I think all the agencies should share information, but there are better ways of doing it than create a huge agency. That usually slow things down. Plus you do not want to have J. Edgar Hoover type in charge of an agency like this.

The economy was much worse in the late 70s than it is now. Double digit inflation and high unemployment. Carter inherited a weak economy from Ford and it got worse. Same happenned with Bush, but it is not fading as fast. The manufacturing sectors were showing improvement & the housing market is stable thanks to low interest rates. The most effected sector seems to be Technology.

The war is harldy a diversion. If Bush wanted to stabilize the markets, he would have went in last month so the uncertainty would not be hanging over the market. The recovery is slow, but will is starting.

Mike Y.
Here, hereMcAndrus
Mar 3, 2003 8:22 AM
Personally, I think the Homeland Security Department is unnecessary and the mischief that can be done by another bloated bureaucracy is very real.
aren't Conservatives normally pro law enforcement and defense?DougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 7:36 AM
I don't understand the confusion. While some Conservatives are on the libertarian end of the sprectrum, most are hard core pro law enforcement and strong defense. This seems perfectly consistent.

Now, a few got bent out of shape by Reno and Clinton, but that's just because Reno was such a screw-up. Don't confuse that with Conservatives being anti-law enforcement.

Doug
Difference between law enforcement and federal intrusion.OldEdScott
Mar 3, 2003 8:51 AM
Don't you guys hate it when the federal government meddles in your stuff (unless it's drugs, sexual activity etc.)?
fine line that movesDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 9:12 AM
I suppose an one person's intrusion is another's enforcement.

I didn't say I was one of the Conservatives. At most, I'm a mix of Libertarian and Conservative. I was simply trying to describe the usual Conservative views.

Nonetheless, no, I don't think the government, federal or local, should be violating civil rights. For the most part, I think less government, particularly federal, is good, too.

However, I don't want terrorists to be the ones who primarily benefit from our civil rights laws. It would be stupid to just roll over and put our paws in the air, and tell them to have their way with us, all because we value our civil rights too much to fight them. At some point, there is a balancing between civil rights and defense. The line might have to move one way or the other now and then, depending upon the threat. It's a tough call, and not one that can be easily made by simple reference to political ideologies, like "conservative," "liberal," or "libertarian."

Doug
Excellent point. Most Conservatives yearn for totalitarianism.czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 4:27 PM
They only champion states rights when it means giving the states free reign to further their oppresive and coercive agenda (e.g with the war on drugs and the war on women's rith to choose). Then, they espouse a desire for a weak federal government, neglecting to mention that they'd like to replace it altogether with an abolutist theocracy.

I don't understand why Libertarians put up with these nuts.
Because they're very insecure.Funston
Mar 3, 2003 10:16 AM
They need to get outdoors more and leave the gun behind. Practice at having faith beyond the hours of their Sunday mass. Learn how to trust. Change up their routine once in a while so as to expand their horizons; drink a sixpack of good microbrew instead of Bud. Make and eat some tabouli for a change. Rent a XXX movie and invite the neighbors over for dinner. Etc. etc.
but then who will kill all the terrorists? nmDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 10:33 AM
Who will incite them? (nm)czardonic
Mar 3, 2003 4:14 PM
the amoral Liberals, of course nmDougSloan
Mar 3, 2003 8:35 PM
Sounds like terrorist talk. (nm)czardonic
Mar 4, 2003 11:40 AM