The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 80

Gemini Cricket · 06-01-2006, 08:37 AM

New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases.
That makes no sense to me.

JWBear · 06-01-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases.
That makes no sense to me.

New York and DC - solidly "blue". Louisville and Omaha - solidly "red". Fairly obvious, IMO.

scaeagles · 06-01-2006, 06:49 AM

I think they may be inviting terrorists to blow up Ted Kennedy....and the problem with this is what?

scaeagles · 06-01-2006, 08:48 AM

I suppose it depends on the overall figures rather than percentages and also what has been done thus far. I haven't done any research, so the following is hypothetical.

Let's say that most of the funding went to big cities originally to do things like put up concrete barriers so that car bombs couldn't drive into a building. Well, once that is done, the funding doesn't need to be there to do that and can be diverted elsewhere.

I would guess that the large portions of the funding went to large population centers to do that kind of stuff first. Once improvements like that are done, the funding then moves to smaller population centers to do similar facility improvements that only need to be done once.

Just a thought on why it may be happening. It may not be the reason, but it is plausible and logical.

scaeagles · 06-01-2006, 11:04 AM

While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters.

How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?

Moonliner · 06-01-2006, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters.

How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?

By it's very charter the NSA is prohibited from domestic surveillance and yet there is a data room in the San Francisco AT&T office crammed full of their monitoring gear. This administration does seem to be taking a very liberal attitude towards what can and cannot happen.

scaeagles · 06-01-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonliner

By it's very charter the NSA is prohibited from domestic surveillance and yet there is a data room in the San Francisco AT&T office crammed full of their monitoring gear. This administration does seem to be taking a very liberal attitude towards what can and cannot happen.

You can disagree with that all you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking that such surveillance started with the Bush administration.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the CIA should disobey the laws as passed by the congress in regards to paying informants, but yet you say that the adminstration is doesn't seem to care much about violating intelligence gathering rules.

I happen to agree with you that hey CIA should be paying informants for good intel regardless of what their past entails (of course there are concerns and verifications necessary until the informant has proven to do that, and also counterintelligence concerns).

Moonliner · 06-01-2006, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You can disagree with that all you want, but don't kid yourself into thinking that such surveillance started with the Bush administration.

I also find it interesting that you are saying that the CIA should disobey the laws as passed by the congress in regards to paying informants, but yet you say that the administration is doesn't seem to care much about violating intelligence gathering rules.

I happen to agree with you that hey CIA should be paying informants for good intel regardless of what their past entails (of course there are concerns and verifications necessary until the informant has proven to do that, and also counterintelligence concerns).

I never said it started with Bushy but I do think he has taken it to a new level. However in any case "he did it too" is hardly a defense in this case.

I never said the CIA should disobey the law, I said this administration is going to interpret the laws so that they can do whatever they damn well please. Then if/when they get in trouble they will just blame the entire thing on some mid-level manager who's dedication to duty lead him to be overzealous or some such BS.

"Unsavory" leaves a lot of wiggle room, if interpreted technically it would mean the CIA could not work with the white house.

Gemini Cricket · 06-01-2006, 11:05 AM

But isn't this administration's mantra all about national security, protecting the homeland... yaddah yaddah yaddah? Why would they cut funds from NY and yet remind us about 9/11 every chance they get?
:shrug:

scaeagles · 06-01-2006, 11:06 AM

Again, I would guess many of the funds were for infrastructure type things that only needed to be done once.

06-01-2006, 08:37 AM	#1
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	New York and DC lost 40% of their funding. Louisville and Omaha got increases. That makes no sense to me.
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2006, 06:49 AM	#3
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I think they may be inviting terrorists to blow up Ted Kennedy....and the problem with this is what?
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2006, 08:48 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I suppose it depends on the overall figures rather than percentages and also what has been done thus far. I haven't done any research, so the following is hypothetical. Let's say that most of the funding went to big cities originally to do things like put up concrete barriers so that car bombs couldn't drive into a building. Well, once that is done, the funding doesn't need to be there to do that and can be diverted elsewhere. I would guess that the large portions of the funding went to large population centers to do that kind of stuff first. Once improvements like that are done, the funding then moves to smaller population centers to do similar facility improvements that only need to be done once. Just a thought on why it may be happening. It may not be the reason, but it is plausible and logical.
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2006, 11:04 AM	#5
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	While I agree, Moonliner, a sad pathetic man named Frank Church led an effort to change the operating rules of the CIA back in the 70s. The CIA can't pay informants if those informants maintain relationships with "unsavory" characters. How can you have an informant who doesn't maintain relationships with unsavory characters?
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2006, 11:05 AM	#9
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	But isn't this administration's mantra all about national security, protecting the homeland... yaddah yaddah yaddah? Why would they cut funds from NY and yet remind us about 9/11 every chance they get? :shrug:
	Submit to Quotes

06-01-2006, 11:06 AM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Again, I would guess many of the funds were for infrastructure type things that only needed to be done once.
	Submit to Quotes