To: pcantalupo
2 posted on
03/02/2007 7:45:21 AM PST by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
To: pcantalupo
Welcome to Fr. What's your interest in the measure?
3 posted on
03/02/2007 7:46:36 AM PST by
ElkGroveDan
(When toilet paper is a luxury, you have achieved communism.)
To: pcantalupo
Perhaps it was the line inserted that said "However, anyone appearing to be Muslim with a bomb strapped to their waist shall not be searched, as that would be construed as racial profiling". (/sarcasm)
5 posted on
03/02/2007 7:54:50 AM PST by
TommyDale
(What will Rudy do in the War on Terror? Implement gun control on insurgents and Al Qaeda?)
To: pcantalupo
6 posted on
03/02/2007 7:57:42 AM PST by
joe fonebone
(Either grow a pair, or vacate your chair...)
To: pcantalupo
The amendment makes us less secure by making it much more difficult to deny transportation security cards over serious national security concerns... that's the effect of changing the word "decide" to "determine" in this amendment. Look at 2E in this amendment.
Except as provided under subparagraphs (A) through (C), an individual may not be denied a transportation security card under subsection (b) unless the Secretary determines that individual--
May not be denied.. determines.. This standard of proof is not appropriate for our national security. Should we really give terrorists the benefit of the doubt, and cripple the ability of transportation officials to stop terrorism? There is already an appeals process in place, this amendment says let terrorists fly even if there are reasonable and serious concerns but no court level proof. Let them bomb first ask questions later?
To: pcantalupo
You should try calling an office or writing a letter to someone who voted no and asking those who know, instead of posting a vanity on a news exchange site.
But that would mean actually participating in the process and acknowledging a responsibility for your welfare, which I doubt is going to occur.
9 posted on
03/02/2007 8:20:46 AM PST by
brothers4thID
(Hillary: "We are going to take from you.. to provide for the common good")
To: pcantalupo
10 posted on
03/02/2007 8:28:07 AM PST by
No Truce With Kings
(The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
To: pcantalupo
11 posted on
03/02/2007 8:29:28 AM PST by
HawaiianGecko
(Victory goes to the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.)
To: pcantalupo
12 posted on
03/02/2007 8:45:12 AM PST by
italianquaker
(Rudy Americas mayor and soon to be Americas president)
To: pcantalupo
So far, you have two strikes against you.
1. You didn't ask the question about your interest in it.
2. You didn't respond to the explanation of it. Pro or con.
Trying for strike three?
Or are you going to participate?
13 posted on
03/02/2007 8:53:15 AM PST by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
To: pcantalupo
YAAAAAAYYY!!! IB4TZ!!!!!
(Can you tell that I rarely am??)
15 posted on
03/02/2007 9:09:27 AM PST by
DustyMoment
(FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
To: pcantalupo
16 posted on
03/02/2007 9:11:05 AM PST by
TChris
(The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson