Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush Admin Uses Anti-terror funding for pork
Topic Started: May 31 2006, 06:07 PM (1,598 Views)
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT - If AQ wanted to blow up a person in a shopping mall in the midwest, they could have done so easily years ago. Such an act is easy and trivial. This is of no meaning to them. Such an act would not resonate for their audience in the Muslim world, nor would it cause nationwide damage. Again, you have little understanding of the psychology or goals of this particular organization.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
May 31 2006, 09:26 PM
IT - If AQ wanted to blow up a person in a shopping mall in the midwest, they could have done so easily years ago. Such an act is easy and trivial. This is of no meaning to them. Such an act would not resonate for their audience in the Muslim world, nor would it cause nationwide damage. Again, you have little understanding of the psychology or goals of this particular organization.

I have no idea why you rush to judgment on this, Jeff. If there were widespread suicide bombing across the US, American's would freak. I am just glad that AQ doesn't understand the psychology of America, which extends far to the west of the Hudson. .
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jeffrey
May 31 2006, 08:11 PM
The point of anti-terror funding is to protect the nation's high-symbolic value targets of world interest, from Muslim terrorists who care about only those sites widely known in their world and that have meaning to them.  When Oklahoma was bombed or a serial killer killed people at gas stations in Virginia, the nation did not come to a halt, no UN resolutions were needed, the stock market did not reel with uncertainty, no jobs were lost on a national scale as people stopped traveling.

Exactly, and this is how we need to prioritize our resources to secure the country.

As an example, there are likely few things in Jacksonville FL that are true targets, whereas DisneyWorld in Orlando is an obvious one.

In New York, perhaps the entire island of Manhattan has to be viewed as a target, or maybe just specific landmark buildings and facilities; whereas in Queens, it may only be the subway that needs protecting.

The dams in the Pacific Northwest may need to be protected because they are such a massive supplier of power to most of the Western portion of the country, including California. But there may be little else there other than perhaps some sports stadia when in use and the ports along the coast which need protection.

We need to be smart about this and focus our expenditures on terrorist targets. We should not worry about parochial political sensitivities or making sure every congressman and senator can take some pork home to their district or state, as is being done by the Bush Administration in this proposed distribution.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
May 31 2006, 08:19 PM
Jeffrey
May 31 2006, 09:11 PM
No one in Yemen has ever heard of Georgia or Oklahoma.  That's just a fact. 

Are you certain of this "fact"? :blink:

As for distribution of resources, if suicide bombers started popping off in Peoria and Pensacola and Pittsburgh, I suspect that you would see general nationwide moral, economic and psychological damage.

Suicide bombers are handled by inspections, check points and things of that sort. Security against them does not require massive expentures of funds. However, it would be smart of the Bush Administration put together plans and tactics that can be implemented anywhere in the country that suicide bombers start appearing.

Spreading scarce resources needed to protect us against terrorist attacks to all corners of the country just so every state can say they got their share is not needed to solve this problem.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I get tired of hearing the "I'm from New York, and we're more important than the rest of you" bull ****.

I live in what most NY'ers would think of as the middle of nowhere. Certainly not a place Jeffrey would consider "worthy" of spending much money protecting. But he'd be wrong - I can get in my car and within 20 minutes or so be at any one of three different nuclear reactors. They sit on three sides of me. You can walk right up to the front door of any one of them without being asked a single question. But I guess Sak's Fifth Avenue is more important, huh?......

As far as I'm concerned, you self important NY'ers can keep the money. Down here, we know how to take care of ourselves.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
May 31 2006, 09:44 PM

Suicide bombers are handled by inspections, check points and things of that sort. Security against them does not require massive expentures of funds. However, it would be smart of the Bush Administration put together plans and tactics that can be implemented anywhere in the country that suicide bombers start appearing.

Precisely my point. Suicide bombers across the country, along with random bombing, sniping, poisoning, etc would create havoc across the country. And while "inspections, check points and things of that sort" are completely untenable without massive suppression of civil liberties -- real suppression, Rick, not the snarky sort of thing you have in your av -- "plans and tactics" of some sort need to be planned and implemented. These things of course cost money -- which is why all the money cannot be confined to only certain areas.

And in terms of the bogus argument that the Bush voting states got the funding, Phoenix (5th largest city in America) was cut from $9M to under $4M. We aren't whining though, as they do east of the Hudson.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
ivorythumper
May 31 2006, 09:09 PM
Precisely my point. Suicide bombers across the country, along with random bombing, sniping, poisoning, etc would create havoc across the country. And while "inspections, check points and things of that sort" are completely untenable without massive suppression of civil liberties -- real suppression, Rick, not the snarky sort of thing you have in your av -- "plans and tactics" of some sort need to be planned and implemented. These things of course cost money -- which is why all the money cannot be confined to only certain areas.

And in terms of the bogus argument that the Bush voting states got the funding, Phoenix (5th largest city in America) was cut from $9M to under $4M. We aren't whining though, as they do east of the Hudson.

And if suicide bombings are believed to be a major concern and money needs to be spent planning to prevent/react to them, then money should be spent to do so.

And to the extent that Phoenix has targets, the money should be spent to secure them. It may well be that $4 million is not enough for Phoenix.

The same for Larry's three nuclear facilities. If they are viable targets, they need to be protected and secured.

It is the facilities which need to be identified to decide where the money is to be spent. The money should not be allocated by some predetermined formula intended to spread the pork around.

From what Jeffrey has said, I don't see him saying money should not be spent on viable targets anywhere they may exist. He is simply saying what I am saying -- this formula model does not work and is the wrong way to distribute the money.

We are not talking about distributing public works pork or housing pork. This is a different situation and we need to spend our money where the greatest risk is.

This is exactly the type of thing I have complained about many times on here when I say that Bush has not done what needs to be done to secure and protect this country.

He is failing to do so again.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
BTW, thumps...

I'll bet if I open up tomorrow's edition of any Phoenix newspaper, I'll find the mayor and others complaining about the cut. <g>

They are doing it here in Orange County as well -- we got cut.

But as far as I can tell, the only potential targets in OC are Disneyland, Anaheim Stadium (when it is in use) and the Arrowhead Pond (when it is in use) -- the latter two only because I think major sports venues are potential targets when they are in use.

I can't think of another likely target, although perhaps one might add Knotts Berry Farm, but I can't imagine them attacking that when Disneyland is much more of an American icon and is only ten miles away.

I don't really care if OC got a cut or an increase -- as long as the potential targets are secured as well as we can reasonably secure them.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Rick Zimmer
May 31 2006, 10:31 PM
BTW, thumps...

I'll bet if I open up tomorrow's edition of any Phoenix newspaper, I'll find the mayor and others complaining about the cut. <g>

From the Arizona Republic, May. 11, 2006

Quote:
 
"We recognize we're not entitled to federal dollars," said Marcus Aurelius, the city's homeland security coordinator. "But it was made available for the defense of the nation, . . . and we don't think the risks have diminished by any means."


What do you want to bet?

(Of course, with a name like Marcus Aurelius, I'd expect him to be stoical about such things).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garrett
Middle Aged Carp
Rick Zimmer
Jun 1 2006, 12:22 AM
And to the extent that Phoenix has targets, the money should be spent to secure them. It may well be that $4 million is not enough for Phoenix.

The same for Larry's three nuclear facilities. If they are viable targets, they need to be protected and secured.

It is the facilities which need to be identified to decide where the money is to be spent. The money should not be allocated by some predetermined formula intended to spread the pork around.

From what Jeffrey has said, I don't see him saying money should not be spent on viable targets anywhere they may exist. He is simply saying what I am saying -- this formula model does not work and is the wrong way to distribute the money.

We are not talking about distributing public works pork or housing pork. This is a different situation and we need to spend our money where the greatest risk is.

This is exactly the type of thing I have complained about many times on here when I say that Bush has not done what needs to be done to secure and protect this country.

He is failing to do so again.

You said in an earlier post that we are dealing with limited resources.

The above quote seems to contradict that point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Jun 1 2006, 12:19 AM
As for distribution of resources, if suicide bombers started popping off in Peoria and Pensacola and Pittsburgh, I suspect that you would see general nationwide moral, economic and psychological damage.

I agree.

During the anthrax scare, it occurred to me that if terrorists were to send anthrax to 20-30 random addresses throughout the country they would have shut down the entire mail system as millions would refuse to open their mail.

This would have especially been true had they found normal, every day correspondence to lace such as phone bills, utility bills, etc.



Although to Jeffrey's point it doesn't seem like AQ are focused on this. In fact, OBL has written that he doesn't believe it possible to change US behaviour by having ordinary citizens view the cost of our middle east policies as being too high (he contrasts today to the vietnam era, where in his view popular pressure was able to stop the war). Instead, OBL maintains, he has to get the economic and political elite to view the cost of our policies as being too high. Hence the focus on economic and political targets.

Back to Larry's point, there are refineries and reactors and power plants all over the country. I could easily imagine many of these being attacked simultaneously.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
(whenever i post something with 'terrorist' 'attack' 'anthrax' etc in it I always wonder how many alarms have been triggered in the NSA databases)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
jon-nyc
Jun 1 2006, 04:19 AM
(whenever i post something with 'terrorist' 'attack' 'anthrax' etc in it I always wonder how many alarms have been triggered in the NSA databases)

Jon, I think it's for you...

Posted Image
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
phykell
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 1 2006, 03:11 AM
You can apologize for your incorrect thread title anytime. ;)

...and perhaps even change it?
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. - Ghandhi

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Remember, bones heal and chicks dig scars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
garrett
May 31 2006, 10:21 PM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 1 2006, 12:22 AM
And to the extent that Phoenix has targets, the money should be spent to secure them. It may well be that $4 million is not enough for Phoenix.

The same for Larry's three nuclear facilities.  If they are viable targets, they need to be protected and secured.

It is the facilities which need to be identified to decide where the money is to be spent.  The money should not be allocated by some predetermined formula intended to spread the pork around. 

From what Jeffrey has said, I don't see him saying money should not be spent on viable targets anywhere they may exist.  He is simply saying what I am saying -- this formula model does not work and is the wrong way to distribute the money. 

We are not talking about distributing public works pork or housing pork.  This is a different situation and we need to spend our money where the greatest risk is.

This is exactly the type of thing I have complained about many times on here when I say that Bush has not done what needs to be done to secure and protect this country.

He is failing to do so again.

You said in an earlier post that we are dealing with limited resources.

The above quote seems to contradict that point.

Resources are limited, but there are places to get the money. Here's two ideas....

Turn off the spigot for Iraq. Stop pretending like we are defending Iraq or doing much good there and bring the troops home, spend the money we save on actually protecting the US.

Americans might even be willing to pay additional taxes to protect themselves frm terrorist attacks! (Now THAT's an interesting concept -- actually tax ourselves to pay for what we need!)
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I am actually astonished by what I am reading here. To Jeffrey, spending homeland security money anywhere but NYC is "pork". He then goes on to maintain that there are no targets of value to Al Qaeda outside NYC and a few other metroplitan areas (we will see what he thinks when a couple of good size refineries or a nuclear reactor are taken out). Then he goes on to say that I am a welfare recipient due to the largesse of, again, his precious NYC.

Does he have any idea what a whiny self-centered bitch he looks like to us out here in "flyover country"?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Jeffrey
May 31 2006, 11:11 PM


The point of anti-terror funding is to protect the nation's high-symbolic value targets of world interest, from Muslim terrorists who care about only those sites widely known in their world and that have meaning to them.

you assume alot Jeffrey, and i don't know that symbolism is as important as logistics or 'lives' in the mind of terrorist groups.

There are many places in America that if destroyed, would seriously interrupt life and commerce that would be far easier to destroy because of their diversity,,,, dams, stadiums, rail hubs, nuclear power plants, airports, universities.

the felling of the twin towers was indeed a brilliant move.

it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Does he have any idea what a whiny self-centered bitch he looks like to us out here in "flyover country"?


No, and he doesn't care. He's from NY City you know, and the only reason the rest of the country is allowed air is because he and his precious city isn't using it at the moment..... hell, he has already written the entire state of Georgia off as not being worth protecting. Imagine how he feels about a state that doesn't have a major metropolitan city the size of Atlanta in it.....
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
apple - If AQ wanted to send some guys with guns to shopping malls around the country and have them start blazing away, they would have done it a long time ago. If a couple of teenagers in Columbine could do it, surely even a weakened AQ could do it. They have no interest in such an action. Nor could we stop it even with near unlimited funds if they did.

As for nuclear reactors - it makes much more "sense" (from an AQ perspective) to get one near a population center than in the middle of Georgia. It is, or course, foolish of us to build them near population centers, not just for terrorism reasons. (And before I hear about how I am biased against Georgia, my wife was born there, grew up there, went to college in Atlanta and I was married there. So phooey. Simply stating that no landmark in Georgia has the worldwide recognition of NYC, DC, Las Vegas or Disneyworld does not make one biased. I am trying hard - maybe the Coke headquarters??)

What I am getting from the rather heated responses to my post is that everyone likes to think that where they live is symbolically important enough on a world-wide scale to be targeted by Islamic terrorists. It seems very important to many people to believe this. However, it is simply not true. Look at insurance company rates for terrorism insurance - they are lower in Georgia than NYC. Go ahead - look it up!

Again, the point of anti-terror funding is (or should be) to protect the nation from events of such scale and magnitude that they are a general threat to the morale and economic functioning of the whole nation, not from every crime of local importance. Business did not stop in Wisconsin when a sniper was found in Virginia. Over 60k people die each year in car crashes; "only" 3k people died on 9-11 due to terrorism. If our only goal was to save 3k people a year from random violent death, we would lower the speed limit or require airbags or something like that. That is not the point of anti-terror funding or activity.

New York City is a prime target for obvious reasons. Before the latest funding cut, it was already receiving less per capita than Wyoming or Idaho, which was idiotic. The people who did the latest redistribution are the same people who gave us the Katrina response. My point is not that it is unsafe to live here - NYC is the safest large city in the country. My point is that the Bush administration has done almost nothing to actually protect the country from terrorism and this latest pork funding package is an example of this.

And finally, yes, tax dollars from the blue states are apparently going to fund the "anti-terror" funding of the red states, as is usual in these matters.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
No, and he doesn't care. He's from NY City you know, and the only reason the rest of the country is allowed air is because he and his precious city isn't using it at the moment..... hell, he has already written the entire state of Georgia off as not being worth protecting. Imagine how he feels about a state that doesn't have a major metropolitan city the size of Atlanta in it.....


What is "Georgia" and what is "Atlanta".
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jeff

Quote:
 
And finally, yes, tax dollars from the blue states are apparently going to fund the "anti-terror" funding of the red states, as is usual in these matters.


If you don't know how taxes work...they are collected from every state. Some states make more, some make less. It's all put together to protect our country as a whole. That's why it's a federal tax and a federal program. If you wanted to keep more of your money, work on it from a local and state level. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
What I am getting from the rather heated responses to my post is that everyone likes to think that where they live is symbolically important enough on a world-wide scale to be targeted by Islamic terrorists.


No, what you are getting is a natural response to someone with the arrogant point of view that where they live is the only part of the country worth protecting. All based on a rather silly supposition that terrorists are only interested in targets that are "symbolically important".
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
And to further show that you are a geographical snob, the three nuclear reactors that I live near aren't in Georgia. I don't live in Georgia any more, and haven't for over 4 years now.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
My wife grew up in Ga and I was married there in her parent's house. So you all are going to have to do better than that. How about focusing in the issues?

Let's go to Yemen and ask a tribe there if they have heard of (1) Las Vegas (2) DC (3) NYC and (4) Atlanta. Ask then which they would rather see attacked. Then get back to me.

In general, people are viewing terrorism not through the eyes of the terrorists, but through the lens of their own concerns. Again, people should actually read the AQ targeting manuals, get some knowledge of the topic, and then post again.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Personally, I think DC is at the biggest risk, and has the most to lose politically and symbolically.

And also, I think the next to be attacked will either be Chicago, LA, or Las Vegas. There might be a transporation attack in NYC or DC, but these are all just my opinions anyway.

Let the experts decide where to spend it Jeff.

I think the bubble of collective arrogance emitting from NYC can shield the city from any terrorist attack anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply