Welcome to PatsFans.com

Weak-on-defense GOP: "Veto 9/11 Commission Recommendations"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Seymour93, Mar 2, 2007.

  1. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070228/pl_nm/usa_security_congress_dc_1



    So the Republican Party has become so anti-labor that they're now going to jeopardize our national secruity to appease their fatcat millionaire base?
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10

    What does being a member of a union have to do with national security?

    What pupose is served by attaching this sort of legislation to a natioanl security bill?

    Was unionizinf airport workers for the purpose of national security a recommendation of the 9-11 commission?

    Links?
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10

    Good idea. ;)
  5. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    you calling for links is like Paris Hilton telling someone to cut back on partying...
  6. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    So because you hate unions and workers, veto an entire national security bill? Ridiculous. Like Lieberman said, the more motivated the workers the more likely they're going to do a better job.
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    To the contrary, if Democrats are so intent on securing the nation then why insist on inserting this politcal, union labor measure? If it's so inportant to secure the country, why insist on it?
  8. chris_in_sunnyvale

    chris_in_sunnyvale Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Unionized airport screeners = free cavity search for all passengers and no repercussions!

    Regards,
    Chris
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10

    Yes veto the bill and have congress take out irrelevant riders that have nothing to do with national security.

    In my experience I haven't found union workers to be especially motivated or more competent than non union workers. Since most unions contribute to democrat pols I interpret this part of the legislation as a fundraiser for the DNC that has no place in a bill about national security. YMMV
  10. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    Because the Independent wanted it in there. He thinks it's vital.
  11. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,572
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +107 / 7 / -10


    What does it have to do with national security?

    I take it from your answer nothing.

    Who is the independent?
  12. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    The independent senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, who chairs the Homeland Security committee, says, "When you give employees a right to join an employee organization you are likely to improve their morale." We want high morale don't we?

    Even if you hate workers do you really need to make that point by stalling critical secruity installations? Seems highly irresponsible to me. Go into 2008 saying, "Yep my party blocked the 9/11 recommendations." Go right ahead.
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    HA! The independent who? Lieberman? Ah, ok, so basically the dems are trying to earmark a piece of pork for their constituency, organized labor, over security, and you're trying to blame in souly on the republicans. Too funny. Why is it in there at all? Politics is comical.
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,728
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2


    Gimme a break, that's such BS. Not surprised that you would spew it. Pretty objective analysis. We need the TSA to be union so they'll vote for us, and so the other unions, who are on our backs because they've dropped to being 7% of the work force, will think we're doing something for them. Total political BS. This is what I hate about politics. People don't need to be union for "morale". Want good morale, pay good $money$. What a farce.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>