Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:03 PM PST by Cacophonous
Nah, unless things go very wrong in the coming months (which is a possibility), they'll ride Bushwacker's coattails back into their sorry seats.
A 'bipartisan' solution lets the Democrats avoid responsibility once the shiite hits the turbofan.
One thing about airport security -- it's hard to bury the real screw-ups.
The government will continue to do the wrong thing until even more vast numbers die.
Really? Huh, since you proclaim yourself a swami, maybe you can give me a stock tip so that I can make a million dollars tommorrow.
Excellent points. I am outraged at this and intend to let my Congressmen and Senators know. Right now I'm so upset I'm even contemplating emailing the WhiteHouse.
Someone tell me to be calm-----that this will all work out with federal employees---NOT!
Isn't this the issue that causes the most concern? That with Civil Service protection we'd end up with nothing but deadwood working as screeners.
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
Republicans don't give a sh*t about reducing the size and scope of government...
They are only interested in increasing the power of the government over the individual...
The only people interested in reducing the government to Constituition size is Libertarians...
All other congresspeople are socialists...
I'm not sure. I think he's Dick Gephardt's "life partner".
I don't see this compromise as deserving of all the castration garbage.
Exactly, but get used to it, there is a vocal community on FR who will take any headline that Newsmax states as better than the word of God and then complain and flagellate themselves, saying how they have been "betrayed" again.
I don't like Federalism as much as the next Freeper, but replacing the single-parent mothers from the projects who work at airport security checkpoints with a genuine Federal agent seems to me to be a fine idea.
So, to those of you who don't like this idea, answer me this: Why is it a good thing to have a Federal agent acting as a 'Sky Marshal' on the plane, but not as a first line security agent at the gate?
Now, if they're just going to lay a sword on the shoulder of the current crop of hobos that we see at airport checkpoints and proclaim them Federal agents, then yes, I see a problem.
Am I missing something here in this discussion?
Uh I am not the one who makes pronogstications.
I know I am in the minority on this board on this one, but federalizing these workers is the only way, private industry under federal control is what we have had and look what its gotten? People fresh off the boat making $6 an hour can't speak english doing security! Profit motive for private industry in this matter will never allow adequate security, ever... because the private companies won't pay or train enough because the airports and airlines won't pay or train enough.
It was a fools errand for the Republicans to take this stand, they could not win the fight, and they knew it... this whole stand was token on this from the get go, putting on show for their hard core constituents who just will not accept federal control of anything, or government run anything even if it is the only practical way to achieve what is neccessary.
I ain't crazy about another federal union, but I sure as hell feel better about it being this way than some pakistani fresh off the boat working for some proxy company being responsible for airliner security.
How well did that work? No, the only thing that saves us this time around is redisctricting which will shift some power to the Texas delgation, but the Senate will be lucky to maintain the current breakdown.
And don't get me started on the Governor's races.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.