DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 20, 2010, 04:44:31 PM
-
WHAT THE FRELL? Homeland Security's creation was somewhat controversial, another layer of Government bureacracy, but in theory to allow a bridge for all government organizations to better communicate with each other on SECURITY matters....you know, Terrorism, Border Enforcement, Domestic & Foreign enemies, etc.
-----------------------------------------
Janet Napolitano: DHS Creating New Task Force to Battle Climate Change
You know when the Department of Homeland Security has its priorities straight when Secretary Napolitano is creating a task force to battle climate change.
Something to note: Napolitano was at this conference just two days after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in the Arizona desert by bandits. Terry was killed on December 14, 2010.
From CNSNews:
At an all-day White House conference on "environmental justice," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic security operations.
Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday, Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department?s recently created "Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force."
Napolitano explained that the task force was charged with ?identifying and assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and operations of the Department of Homeland Security.?
According to the former Arizona governor, the task force would address specific questions, including:
?How will FEMA work with state and local partners to plan for increased flooding or wildfire or hurricane activity that is more serious than we?ve seen before? What assistance can the Coast Guard bring to bear to assist remote villages in, for example, Alaska which already have been negatively affected by changes up in the Arctic??
The findings from the Homeland Security Department (DHS) also asked: ?(H)ow can we focus on how climate change is going to affect our rural citizenry including those who live along our boarders both northern and southern??
Priorities, priorities, priorities..... (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/KatiePavlich/2010/12/20/janet_napolitano_dhs_creating_new_task_force_to_battle_climate_change)
And folks want to have THIS organization running Healthcare
-
DHS is doing what if planning and that is a bad thing?
-
It is when it's allocating tax payer resources to endeavors that have no scientific foundation/concensus, and unrelated to "security" as it relates to the foundation of the agency itself
-
I sure as hell hope HSD has a plan for when the levee breaks, no matter the cause.
Planning for the worst is always the best way to plan and is a perfectly good use of taxpayers money.
In fact i would expect the taxpayers would be rightfully disturbed if worst case scenarios weren't planned for.
When trouble strikes we expect seamless integration of the various agencies, and that can't happen without planning.
-
I sure as hell hope HSD has a plan for when the levee breaks, no matter the cause.
That's not "Global Warming" That's security contingincies as it relates to natural disasters. That's acceptable. This is our Homeland Security Secretary telling us specifically this commission is to function around the so-called effects of Global Warming
Planning for the worst is always the best way to plan and is a perfectly good use of taxpayers money.
So, obviously we need yet another task force to make plans for when the next asteroid hits. Perhaps another one for when our sun goes supernova. I mean, preparing for the worst, is "obviously" the best way to plan, and perfectly good use of taxpayers money
Now, all hyperbole aside, DHS planning based on an already debunked theory of global warming is HARDLY the best way to spend taxpayer dollars. In fact, it's a perfect example of yet another reason our Government is in the current economic shambles it finds itself in. By all means, plan for constingincies for already established disasters, but starting yet another layer of bureacracy based on Global warming is...not quite the height of arrogance and irresponsible spending of our tax dollars, but pretty damn close
-
The effects of global warming are going to arrive in the form of natural disasters. Obviously.
bsb
-
The effects of nature are going to arrive in the form of natural disasters. Obviously.
We need a Tax payer security commission now to combat Mother Nature?? I hear her Earth Elementals can be monstrous
-
That's security contingincies as it relates to natural disasters
No shit sherlock. That is what they are supposed to do. Who gives a damn what the reason is for the planning, the important thing is the plan.
-
I think each state should worry about their own disasters. Why should I pay for New Orleans?
-
That's security contingincies as it relates to natural disasters
No shit sherlock. That is what they are supposed to do. Who gives a damn what the reason is for the planning, the important thing is the plan.
Getting a little testy, I see. The REASON is paramount to the allocation of resources. It stands to reason, we already have contingincies to put into effect regarding natural disasters. Why are you now in favor of another added level of Government bureacrary?.....at the Federal level?....in a dept that has nothing to do with natural disasters??...basing their REASON on umproven, when not debunked, non-concensus science??
-
That's security contingincies as it relates to natural disasters
No shit sherlock. That is what they are supposed to do. Who gives a damn what the reason is for the planning, the important thing is the plan.
Getting a little testy, I see. The REASON is paramount to the allocation of resources. It stands to reason, we already have contingincies to put into effect regarding natural disasters. Why are you now in favor of another added level of Government bureacrary?.....at the Federal level?....in a dept that has nothing to do with natural disasters??...basing their REASON on umproven, when not debunked, non-concensus science??
If you and Bt were married you'd fight over the toothpaste cap.
-
That's security contingincies as it relates to natural disasters
No shit sherlock. That is what they are supposed to do. Who gives a damn what the reason is for the planning, the important thing is the plan.
Getting a little testy, I see. The REASON is paramount to the allocation of resources. It stands to reason, we already have contingincies to put into effect regarding natural disasters. Why are you now in favor of another added level of Government bureacrary?.....at the Federal level?....in a dept that has nothing to do with natural disasters??...basing their REASON on umproven, when not debunked, non-concensus science??
It stands to reason, we already have contingincies to put into effect regarding natural disasters.
Are the contingencies cooordinated since the formation of HSD?
Why are you now in favor of another added level of Government bureacrary?
Where did I say that.
at the Federal level?
Yes HSD is a Cabinet level department. and I have been against it since its inception.
in a dept that has nothing to do with natural disasters??.
HSD contains both FEMA and the Coast Guard under its umbrella. Both deal with natural disasters.
If the seas rise and eat the coastal cities do we really not want to have a plan in place because of some CNS article or some Sirs post in an internet forum?
-
It stands to reason, we already have contingincies to put into effect regarding natural disasters.
Are the contingencies cooordinated since the formation of HSD?
Why wouldn't they be? and if they weren't, why would they be announced based on non-settled science??
Why are you now in favor of another added level of Government bureacrary?
Where did I say that.
Oh, I'm sory...I didn't realize defending an added level of Government buracracy was not in favor of it. My bad ::)
at the Federal level?
Yes HSD is a Cabinet level department. and I have been against it since its inception.
Yet defending an additional layer of it.....gotcha
in a dept that has nothing to do with natural disasters??.
HSD contains both FEMA and the Coast Guard under its umbrella. Both deal with natural disasters.
So is the FBI & CIA. Both FEMA & the CG are dealing with precisely that...natural disasters, not Global Warming. HSD is to deal with threats to this country, both foreign & domestic, while theoretically improving communication between depts.
If the seas rise and eat the coastal cities do we really not want to have a plan in place because of some CNS article or some Sirs post in an internet forum?
Why would the seas rise?? Well, let's then make sure we also have a plan in place, in the event of a supernova. Oh yea, there's the events that occured in the movie Independence Day. We definately need a plan in place for that. An excellent use of tax payer dollars and increased Federal bureaucracy
-
Oh, I'm sory...I didn't realize defending an added level of Government buracracy was not in favor of it. My bad
Where is the additional layer of bureaucracy and where did i defend it?
-
Oh, I'm sory...I didn't realize defending an added level of Government buracracy was not in favor of it. My bad
Where is the additional layer of bureaucracy
The new joint task force. Or should we just claim it as simply additional bureaucracy? Either way, it didn't exist before, and is now being put in place, specifially to deal with the unproven science of Global warming, using our tax dollars
and where did i defend it?
Been doing so since you started to argue with me on this
-
Either way, it didn't exist before, and is now being put in place, specifially to deal with the unproven science of Global warming, using our tax dollars
So this task force is costing us additional dollars? How much? How many new employees were hired to staff this additional layer of bureaucracy?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run. And Obamacare is fully funded, and won't cost us a cent or any increase in our debt or deficit
Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream
Until I see it though, I'm going to base my deductions on current reality and Federal Governmental trends
-
Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to give me the figures i requested, because you are certain that this is an additional layer of bureaucracy and all.
-
Apparently, you're not paying attention. I'd reference you to the post above, but since you're responding to it, and obviously ignoring it, then I guess we've hit our end here
-
Apparently, you're not paying attention. I'd reference you to the post above, but since you're responding to it, and obviously ignoring it, then I guess we've hit our end here
Yeah once again you get caught making stuff up out of thin air and end up sputtering and stammering on your way out the door.
BTW neither the CIA nor the FBI reports to the HSD director.
-
Again, with the not paying attention. Ever since the Mosque debacle. Sad, really. What part of Until I see it though, I'm going to base my deductions on current reality and Federal Governmental trends, could you not understand??
Because, your "counter-arguement" is no different, and is based on nothing but your current.....dare I say, stammering
-
I think I understand whats happening,DHS is a unregulated dept. and by it`s nature will not be able do it`s core function well. this is just proof DHS doesn`t know what thier job is anymore. in a decade from now it`ll probly be like the IRS, highly feared but get the most minimul budget
-
Again, with the not paying attention.
Sure I am:
You said: Yes, because of course, a NEW Government program, takes no money to run. And Obamacare is fully funded, and won't cost us a cent or any increase in our debt or deficit.
Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream
This isn't a new government program, it is a task force. I seriously doubt anyone was hired nor permanently transferred to this new non-existent layer of bureaucracy.
What it is is lipservice to the base, ecoreligionists in particular. And I say so what. If they come up with a better, more cohesive plan for the what ifs involved with global warming, man made or not, then we as a nation are better off than we were with sub par non cohesive planning. So pardon me if i don't share your outrage.
In the meantime try not to confuse my approval for government thinking ahead, otherwise known as planning, as some deep seeded belief that the best government is one that spends, spends, and spends.
I think we need to follow up on this poorly written story and see what the end result of this nefarious task force is.
-
Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream
This isn't a new government program, it is a task force.
Right.....and a fee isn't a tax
I seriously doubt anyone was hired nor permanently transferred to this new non-existent layer of bureaucracy.
And I seriously doubt your present deductive doubt
What it is is lipservice to the base, ecoreligionists in particular. And I say so what.
Well, considering the source of the lip service, and the consistent pattern of spending connected to the adminstrative lip service, I guess I have a tad more concern about our tax dollars than you do
If they come up with a better, more cohesive plan for the what ifs involved with global warming, man made or not, then we as a nation are better off than we were with sub par non cohesive planning. So pardon me if i don't share your outrage.
And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing. But words have meaning. and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility. But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed. Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.
-
Sirs says:
Right.....and a fee isn't a tax
For those who know the difference, a fee is not a tax.
Sirs says:
And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing. But words have meaning. and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility. But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed. Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.
Words do have meanings. Results have more meaning. That was my point. If your point was that the government should not be spending taxpayer dollars based on unsettled science, wouldn't that same argument hold true in the Arizona Christmas thread?
-
Sirs says:
Right.....and a fee isn't a tax
For those who know the difference, a fee is not a tax.
The State of California has concluded otherwise
And that's just it...if they HAD promoted this as some form of new task force, to work on contingincies, that needed shoring up for lack of being modernized, that'd be one thing. But words have meaning. and words that demonstrate a plan to use tax dollars in a dept who's priorities now are completely upside down, following non-established science is the height of arrogance and fiscal irresponsibility. But hey, if you have so much faith in the governent running things, no wonder you don't have a problem with them running healthcare, be it state or Fed. Just VAT it, and whalaa, our healthcare is all fixed.
Words do have meanings. Results have more meaning.
When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning
If your point was that the government should not be spending taxpayer dollars based on unsettled science, wouldn't that same argument hold true in the Arizona Christmas thread?
I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science" In fact, it's not science at all
-
Sirs says:
The State of California has concluded otherwise
Source
Sirs sez:
When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning
I would certainly hope that whatever contingencies arise consider the economically disadvantaged. Perhaps evacuation planning that includes the use of mass transit...
Sirs sez:
I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science" In fact, it's not science at all
But you have argued that the location of an offensive (to some) symbol does matter.
-
The State of California has concluded otherwise
Source
Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_(2010))
When the results are taking tax dollars and applying it towards unsettled science, and hiding behind "economic justice", THOSE results have more meaning
I would certainly hope that whatever contingencies arise consider the economically disadvantaged. Perhaps evacuation planning that includes the use of mass transit...
Your "hope" aside, again has nothing to do with the reason for the existance of the DHS. But we can debate the supposed priorities of the dept for another thread. Suffice to say, in this thread, the point remains, that the Federal Government is implimenting yet another bureaucratic body, using our tax dollars, to deal with an issue that hasn't even been scientifically settled, if not debunked
I'm not the one arguing that "Government doesn't do religion", nor is religion "unsettled science" In fact, it's not science at all
But you have argued that the location of an offensive (to some) symbol does matter.
To those some that have brought forth civil litigation and support the Government banning all forms of Christmas decor, that would be THEIR arguement
-
The State of California has concluded otherwise
Source
Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_(2010))
And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax. It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address as a tax. It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead. This passed proposition. put an end to that
-
The State of California has concluded otherwise
Source
Prop 26, passed by the people, of the state of CA (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_26,_Supermajority_Vote_to_Pass_New_Taxes_and_Fees_(2010))
And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax. It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address as a tax. It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead. This passed proposition. put an end to that
Actually it didn't:
As used in this section, ?tax? means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, except the following:
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.
fees are imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged
The California Constitution did not merge the definition of fees with the definition of taxes, which do not confer specific benefit nor are the benefits granted directly.
The million dollar question remains as to what reasonable costs to the state are.
Your claim is false.
-
Actually, it's not, since as I already demonstrated above, it was put on the ballot to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes by referring to them as fees
My claim is absolutely true, as prop 26 was billed, and subsequently passed.
-
The definition of fees was not changed.
The mechanism for enacting fees that exceeded reasonable costs to the state for administering the benefit was.
If fees were synonymous with taxes there would be no need for the proposition.
-
I knew you'd try to get into the technical definitions, thus my pre-response that Prop 26 doesn't define fee = tax. It merely prevents legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 majority to raise taxes, by merely referring to them as fees. Precisely as it was billed, campaigned on, and won on
-
Nothing technical about it. You made a claim that was proven false. What else is new?
-
LOL...right. Because, the entire Prop 26 campaign was obviously built on a lie, and the people bought it.
What else isn't new is the continued debate vacuum you keep trying to drag me in, where it depends on what the definition of is, is. Everyone else can read for themselves and see precisely how inaccurate your conclusion of my claim is, especially those who live in CA. Perhaps Kramer can enlighten you. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, since I've demonstrated, IN CONTEXT, what prop 26 was all about
----------------------
Oh, and on another completely unrelated tangent as this whle fee/tax issue was, just learned that the commission finally put together to start realigning districts to theoretically start addressing the severe gerrymandering that has been so solidified in this state, is supposed to be proportional to its population. Yet from what I heard... though asians make up around 12% of the population in CA, they're going to be about 30% of the commission. Blacks also have a pretty high % on the board compared to the general population. Whites apparently got screwed, as they have only 3 members, to the Asians' 4, on a board of 14 members.
-
LOL...right. Because, the entire Prop 26 campaign was obviously built on a lie, and the people bought it.
No, Prop 26 was designed to require unreasonable fees to have the same approval mechanisms as other taxes.
There was no redefinition of the meaning of the term . In fact under the new law, reasonable fees were excepted from the super majority requirement. It is all there in black and white. At the link you provided.
Perhaps the people knew what they were voting for, but you didn't know what you were talking about.
-
No, it was designed to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes by reclassifying them as fees
THAT's what it ran on. THAT's how it was presented. THAT's why it got passed
-
No, it was designed to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes by reclassifying them as fees
THAT's what it ran on. THAT's how it was presented. THAT's why it got passed
The law prohibits lawmakers from misusing the fees process. It did not redefine the term. It even allowed fees to be raised if they were deemed reasonable without the need for a supermajority.
-
The law was designed to stop legislators from misusing the fees process by doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes, and classifying them as fees
-
The law was designed to stop legislators from misusing the fees process by doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement when wanting to raise taxes, and classifying them as fees
Presumably this is a conservative backed proposition, because you seem to support it.
And all I can say is it appears the conservative backers of this proposition sold it one way, but wrote it another.
Caveat Emptor
-
Yea, that has to be it ::)
-
Yea, that has to be it ::)
Can you think of another reason they would
a: not bother with redefing the term fees
b: specifically except reasonable increases to fees from the super majority requirement?
-
I can think that it was presented precisely as is, and was passed as is, and legislators are no longer able to pull stealth taxation by calling them fees, and thus getting around the 2/3 supermajority required in raising taxes.
-
I can think that it was presented precisely as is, and was passed as is, and legislators are no longer able to pull stealth taxation by calling them fees, and thus getting around the 2/3 supermajority required in raising taxes.
That is an untrue statement. They most certainly can set reasonable fees without the need for a super majority.
-
I must have missed the part where the Proposition doesn't do what it was specifically designed to do
-
So it was designed to allow new fees to be imposed on the public without the need of a super majority vote?
-
Nope, it was designed to disallow new taxes to be imposed on the public, in the appearance of fees, thus superceding the supermajority requirement. Then again, we've already been over this
-
It allows for new unreasonable fees to be passed by a super majorority and new reasonable fees to be passed by a simple majority.
Be that as it may.
No where does it say fees are the same as taxes . It says they will be treated the same as taxes.
Some states treat may want to treat rape the same as murder but that does not mean rapes are the same as murder.
-
No where does it say fees are the same as taxes . It says they will be treated the same as taxes.
And that's exactly what I've been saying. One last time, I made it clear (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/homeland-security-to-fight-global-warming/msg115235/#msg115235) that at no time does the proposition say fees = taxes. It merely treats them the same, thus disallowing legislators the end-around gimmick by calling what would be a tax, as a fee, and bybassing the 2/3 majority required in raising a tax
-
No where does it say fees are the same as taxes . It says they will be treated the same as taxes.
And that's exactly what I've been saying. One last time, I made it clear (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/homeland-security-to-fight-global-warming/msg115235/#msg115235) that at no time does the proposition say fees = taxes. It merely treats them the same, thus disallowing legislators the end-around gimmick by calling what would be a tax, as a fee, and bybassing the 2/3 majority required in raising a tax
So all in all you have debunked your earlier assertions that fees are taxes because in California they are treated as taxes, but that doesn't get you off the hook for the other 49 states.
-
Actually, I made it clear, and then clearer still, that Prop 26 was put on the ballot to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes, by merely referring to them as fees.
It was a loophole in this state. Can't vouch for the other 49
-
Actually, I made it clear, and then clearer still, that Prop 26 was put on the ballot to stop legislators from doing an end around the 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes, by merely referring to them as fees.
What you made clear in your earliest assertions was that fees=taxes, that was before your furiously started backpedaling.
The definition of fees never changed, in California or the 49 other states.
-
No, no, and no. I made it clear that fees were being used like taxes. That's why I made it clearer still when I made specific reference to fees do NOT equal taxes. The "technical" definition never changed, and I never claimed it did. I made it abundantly clear, since the beginning of this tangent, that CA Legislators were using the term "fees" to actually mask taxes that they couldn't get passed with the 2/3, but could with a simple majority with the nifty name change. -------> Prop 26 stopped that
-
Let's put it this way Bt, if you want to hold onto the notion that a new Government division is taking money from another source within their dept or Federal budget, lessening what the other dept was to get, you go right ahead and believe that pipedream
This isn't a new government program, it is a task force.
Right.....and a fee isn't a tax
Sirs says:
Right.....and a fee isn't a tax
For those who know the difference, a fee is not a tax.
The State of California has concluded otherwise.
-
And for those who have no problem reading for context (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/homeland-security-to-fight-global-warming/msg115235/#msg115235), And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax. It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address(ed) as a tax. It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead. This passed proposition. put an end to that
Note also I was specific to CA, so your attempt to pull in the other 49states is.....a strawman. But at least we got that concession. I think this horse is dead. We're just going to have to agree to disagree
-
And for those who have no problem reading for context (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/homeland-security-to-fight-global-warming/msg115235/#msg115235), And before Bt even tries, no it doesn't say fee = tax. It says, quite clearly though, that it is to be address(ed) as a tax. It was put on the ballot precisely because Democrat legislators were getting around the 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, by calling what would be a tax, a "fee" instead. This passed proposition. put an end to that
Note also I was specific to CA, so your attempt to pull in the other 49states is.....a strawman. But at least we got that concession. I think this horse is dead. We're just going to have to agree to disagree
So you admit you backpedaled. Good we are making progress.
Now about that assertion of yours that the FBI reports to Homeland Security.
You sticking with it or are you ready to backpedal?
-
I admit that someone needed some serious clarification. And even after, is still pushing positions not taken......surprise, surprise
-
And before you try taking this off into yet another irrelvent tangent, my best recollection of DHS had all other agencies reporting to them. A quick google search (http://www.answers.com/topic/homeland-security-act), seems to reinforce that, "for the most part"
The Department of Homeland Security officially took form on January 24, 2003, with Tom Ridge serving as the first secretary of the department. However, the department only had a skeletal structure until March 1, 2003, when the majority of agencies that would constitute the bulk of the new department were formally transferred into it. On March 1, 2003, the following federal agencies were transferred to the department:
the Coast Guard;
the Secret Service;
the Customs Service;
the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
the Transportation Security Agency;
the Commerce Department's Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office,
the Defense Department's National Communication System;
the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center,
and the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The act also aims to facilitate homeland security information sharing procedures in an effort to maximize intelligence data analysis and utilization capabilities.
-
FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center,
I could see how an agency formed in 1998 could be confused with the entire Federal Bureau of Investigations.
Glad you fine tuned your broad stroke.
-
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500
So than, the right department is looking into what kind of planing should take place regarding the effects of global warming. Of course, why wouldn't they? How dumb would you have to be not to? How stupid would you have to be to sit on your ass and wait until polar bears are walking around the streets of Portland Oregon before trying to figure out what we might be able to do?
bsb
-
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20472
(202) 646-2500
So than, the right department is looking into what kind of planing should take place regarding the effects of global warming.
Ahh, so you've bought into the crap pseudoscience as well. Good for you
Of course, why wouldn't they?
FEMA? Yea, why wouldn't they? The "dept" in question that brought this issue up was a NEW dept/taskforce
-
Ah huh, global warming is "pseudoscience" like evolution is "pseudoscience".
You're just like the muslim terrorists, scared shitless of change, living in the dark ages, afraid of your own shadow.
bsb
-
Ah huh, global warming is "pseudoscience" like evolution is "pseudoscience".
No, that would be man-made/caused Global Warming is Pseudoscience. How you liking all that "warming" going on across the country there, B?
You're just like the muslim terrorists, scared shitless of change, living in the dark ages, afraid of your own shadow.
LOL......yea, that has to be it. Perhaps your handle should be HLS instead of BSB (Hook, Line, & Sinker) Talk about "scared shirtless
-
The "dept" in question that brought this issue up was a NEW dept/taskforce
no it wasn't.
-
Yes, it was. The taskforce didn't exist before, ergo NEW
-
The terms dept and taskforce are not interchangeable.
-
Sorry for your confusion
-
Sorry for your confusion
So which is it? a New Dept or a New Taskforce?
And while we are at it, would you clarify what you mean by NEW?
-
Sorry for your confusion
So which is it? a New Dept or a New Taskforce?
"Janet Napolitano: DHS Creating New Task Force to Battle Climate Change"
And while we are at it, would you clarify what you mean by NEW?
As in, didn't exist prior
-
"Janet Napolitano: DHS Creating New Task Force to Battle Climate Change"
Then it must be understandable that i was confused by your description of this event that has you outraged as The "dept" in question that brought this issue up was a NEW dept/taskforce
Quote from: BT on Today at 07:11:31 PM
And while we are at it, would you clarify what you mean by NEW?
As in, didn't exist prior
Not to belabor the point, when you say new, does that mean that a taskforce to devise contingencies to battle climate change did not exist prior to Napalitano's announcement?
-
"Janet Napolitano: DHS Creating New Task Force to Battle Climate Change"
Then it must be understandable that i was confused by your description of this event that has you outraged as The "dept" in question that brought this issue up was a NEW dept/taskforce
That's why the "dept" was put in "...". If I meant it to be an actual dept there would have been no quotes. It was a rhetorical new "dept". Again, my apologies for your confusion
Quote from: BT on Today at 07:11:31 PM
And while we are at it, would you clarify what you mean by NEW?
As in, didn't exist prior
Not to belabor the point, when you say new, does that mean that a taskforce to devise contingencies to battle climate change did not exist prior to Napalitano's announcement?
According to Napalitano, that'd be correct, as it relates to DHS
-
Would it surprise you to learn that a federal taskforce dealing with climate change contingencies has been in existence since 1989?
-
Might surprise Janet. Me?, no, since we're talking about the Federal Government, and their egregious inefficiency when it comes to our tax dollars. Why wouldn't their be a duplication of services?
-
Might surprise Janet. Me?, no, since we're talking about the Federal Government, and their egregious inefficiency when it comes to our tax dollars. Why wouldn't their be a duplication of services?
This isn't a duplication of services.
What janet did was announce that DHS would be in compliance with the recommendations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/Interagency-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Progress-Report.pdf) of the climate change and adaptation task force.
Not like she had a choice. Obama did an executive order in 2009 ordering dept heads to do so.
Don't you hate it when the press doesn't give you the whole story?
-
What janet did was announce that DHS would be in compliance with the recommendations (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/Interagency-Climate-Change-Adaptation-Progress-Report.pdf) of the climate change and adaptation task force. Not like she had a choice. Obama did an executive order in 2009 ordering dept heads to do so. Don't you hate it when the press doesn't give you the whole story?
Each and every time
-
I didn't say anything about man made global warming, sirs. I said global warming period.
You like to make stuff up don't you?
-
The globe warms and cools all the time, B. We managed to make it thru the 1st gazillian years with no Federal Task Force. I think we'll manage without Homeland Security allocating any more of our limited resources, beyond what they already have to FEMA, regarding any further warming and cooling. You that petrified of a Polar Bear breaking your car window?
-
Sirs the climatologist.
-
Naa, that'd be Physical Therapist. But to be a PT, you have to have the capacity to read. I've read plenty on the area of "global warming", from folks are supposed to be knowlegable in this field, and most notably how the globe has been naturally warming and cooling thru-out its existance. Man has prescious little to do with it, and has presicious little he can do. A Federal Task Force is not even a grain of sand to all the beaches on the globe, as it relates to what he can "do" to alter it
So again, the person who's apparently "scared" is the one all bent out of shape at the non-existant threat of a Polar Bear relieving itself on your lawn
-
In what book did you read that environmentalists consider polar bears taking a dump on their lawn is a likely threat?
-
That'd be the esteemed enviromentalist, BSB's book (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/homeland-security-to-fight-global-warming/msg115305/#msg115305). If they're walking the streets of Portland, they've got "to go" somewhere