But they're aren't 60 Republicans, which means the Dems can fillibuster and stop any measure that doesn't at least have the support of some of them. That means that everything that gets through the Congress is a compromise.

TSA--as it exists now, was Daschle's baby, and I hold him partly responsible for that. But, no politician--either party--wanted to go on record as "voting against security" in the climate after 9/11, so the most draconian proposals won (hence the patriot act too).

I (as a Republican) am disgusted by the anti-freedom stance of many in the party I prefer to associate with. Aschcroft and Loy probably mean well but have gone off the deep end on some issues. We're supposed to be the party of lean, efficient govt. and individual rights. Given how badly the Reps. are doing on those issues, I wish the Dems were doing a lot better on them. But they're not. Another terrorist act is probably inevitable, and neither party wants to be the one that was "soft on terrorists" after the next attack.

Given a Dem. candidate for House/Senate/Pres. that was pro-freedom (and didn't want to socialize every aspect of my life, take 50% of my income because I'm "rich" (I'm not), and take away my job/education opportunities because I'm white), I would vote for them in a heartbeet. But I don't think it will happen, because I imagine both sides' focus groups are saying "pro-freedom" doesn't seem to be selling with the American people right now.

http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif

I don't watch Fox News. I don't watch any news in particular.

Most of my information is gathered from reading MANY Newspapers, including the Boston Edition of the NY Times (Boston Globe).

As I and studentff have both explained, the TSA is Dashcle's baby. PERIOD. If it were not for the actions of this ONE man (and I use that term loosely), the TSA would NOT exist.

Obviously you haven't had enough time for the Fox News Kool-Aid to take effect.

Things you accuse those nasty democrats of:
"didn't want to socialize every aspect of my life"
Read the Republican Passed Patriot Acts I & II. Big Brother is watching, and he isn't a democrat. The new security screening information system for purchasing tickets is being aimed at catching domestic 'criminals', not terrorists.

"take 50% of my income because I'm "rich" (I'm not),"
Well, somebody has to pay for all those tax cuts to the Ultra-Rich. You think Ken Lay is going to pay for all this? It wasn't the democrat budget that turned our 'surplus' in the sea of red ink it is now.

"and take away my job/education opportunities because I'm white"
I'll ignore the racist part of your statement. But do you really think Bush/Cheney/Carlye Group/Haliburton/Bectel Corp/Etc. really care about your measly job?

The republicans believe everyone has a right to a good education at Yale, as long as your Daddy can afford to pay for it.

You think looting the public treasury for the benefit of the Military/Industrial Complex Industry with no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals, or allowing crooks to set Energy Policies in secret, or looking the other way while Industries lay waste to the environment, is GOOD FOR YOU?

You already said you weren't rich. I take it you don't summer in the South of France and hang out with Saudi Sheiks. Why would you think the people you do would have ANY of your interests at heart?

Why shouldn't the TSA exist? You don't think there is a need of a security force to oversee travel? Shouldn't it be a federal agency, since travel is across state lines, and we wouldn't want 50 different agencies? Also, this would give security officers the force of the federal government to insure safety.

Can't rely on private industry for such an important matter. When security was turned over to the TSA, a lot of the private employees were illegal aliens! Somebody was saving a buck there.

Is it the Democrats fault the Republican in office, appointed a Republican Idiot to run the thing?

BIG SALE AT WAL-MART ON DUCT TAPE AND PLASTIC SHEETING! The other big contribution Republican Security Brain Trust has come up with.

There definitely should be a federal agency to oversee travel, but as it is right now, the transportation safety administration does NOTHING to improve the safety of transportation. It does, however, improve the image (or the illusion) of safety, which has been proven on multiple occasions. In its current form, the TSA (and DHS) is indeed useless.

I agree. Real security in this country is a joke. However, I don't think we can hold Tom Daschle, or any other democrat responsible.

It seems to me, that this agency is part of the executive branch, which is currently run and controlled by the Republicans, and funded thru the budget which is controlled by a Republican majority in both houses.

Harry Truman, who was a democrat, made the phrase "THE BUCK STOPS HERE" famous in regards to the Presidency.

The current resident of the White House should use the phrase "WHO CAN WE FIND TO BLAIM ABOUT THE LACK OF BUCKS?" for his next campaign.

And, as I said in my first post, I'm not a fan of these things. Those are not what I stand for. But the laws were passed as "compromises" supported by both parties.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
Well, somebody has to pay for all those tax cuts to the Ultra-Rich. You think Ken Lay is going to pay for all this? It wasn't the democrat budget that turned our 'surplus' in the sea of red ink it is now.

---

Hmm. I think the Wash. Post Kool-aid affect may be impacting you here. The surplus went away because of a downturn in the economic cycle (which was inevetible and not the fault of either party, just like the eventual upturn will be inevitible and to nobody's credit). And I hardly call cutting the fed tax rate for the "ultra rich" from 38% to 35% a huge tax cut, esp. when you consider the huge amounts of taxes these people pay. Did you know almost the entire bottom 50% of the USA workforce pays no income taxes whatsoever? It's impossible to cut their taxes, so instead the dems want to give them "credits" (i.e, direct welfare handouts), and yell at the republicans for cutting taxes for those that actually pay.

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
"and take away my job/education opportunities because I'm white"
I'll ignore the racist part of your statement. But do you really think Bush/Cheney/Carlye Group/Haliburton/Bectel Corp/Etc. really care about your measly job?

---

It isn't racist, but that's a typical liberal reaction to any real discussion of race/gender preferences. Try getting a job at NASA without being an "underrepresented minority." Try getting into a competitive school with near-perfect grades/credentials and being rejected because less qualified applicants add "diversity" to the academic enviornment. That's exactly what was happening in the Michigan Law School case; the average admitted minority applicant accepted to the law school had substantially lower qualifications than the average white applicant accepted--and these minority applicants weren't "disadvantaged" people straight out of a bad high school in a poor neighborhood; the had the same "plush" undergraduate educations as everybody else and had already overcome the "adversity" that affirmitave action is supposed to counterbalance. Yet they still get special favors.

And no, I don't think Bush/Cheney, or anyone else cares about my job. Don't want them too. Caring about my job is my business. It's called personal accountability, and I'm a big fan. I just want the govt. to leave me alone and not make the road more difficult (statement applies to travel and a whole lost of other things).

Quote:

---

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
You think looting the public treasury for the benefit of the Military/Industrial Complex Industry with no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals, or allowing crooks to set Energy Policies in secret, or looking the other way while Industries lay waste to the environment, is GOOD FOR YOU?

---

New York Times kool-aid effect! Both sides can be accused of the former, and I hardly call thinning tinderbox forests that would burn anyway or exploring the possiblity of taking over a few dozen acres in a millions-of-acres-barren-alaskan-tundra "laying waste" to anything.

I don't want them to have my interests at heart; I want them to leave me alone!

I'm not rich--I'm a student. When I graduate, I won't be rich, I'll be engineering Ph.D. whose lifetime salary range will probably be between $50K-$110K after 9 years of higher ed. I'm not complaining; that's the career I chose and I love that I get to do exciting work and travel/meet people all over the world, even as a student.

But the govt seems to think I have a villa in France and dinner at the Sheik's palace when I travel, because the fed. govt. will want 31+% of my income, and the combined fed-state-local burden will be close to 45-50%. The left wants that money to give as wealth transfers to their voting constituancy. Unfortunately, the Republicans aren't much better any more--the infamous Medicare Perscription Drug plan is just another wealth transfer to a voting constituancy (senior citizens), and both sides support it. I have to pay for my drugs, and now they want me to pay for someone elses too.

Thomas Jefferson said government is best that which governs least. I belive the primary role of the fed. govt. is to defend the country while upholding the constitution. I don't think the patriot acts, many TSA policies, or a lot of things that come out of Ashcroft's mouth these days are paying near enough attention to those ideals. But the laws in question were agreed to by both parties in congress as overreaction to legit. post-9/11 concerns.

As for my political affiliations, as said in my first post, I'm disappointed that "my" party isn't standing up for these things and that the "other" party isn't providing an effective counterweight either on these issues; it's too bad the libertarian party isn't a viable force in the country, because they might.

Oh, and GetReal, welcome to FT. I enjoy the debate. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...orum/smile.gif I'm just thankful that we live in a country that allows it, and hope that it continues to stay that way (This new, "2nd no-fly list" is scary, but another topic.).


[This message has been edited by studentff (edited 08-05-2003).]

Just a few random comments, I guess you will learn the hard way about voting for people who don't have YOUR interests at heart.

"Did you know almost the entire bottom 50% of the USA workforce pays no income taxes whatsoever?"
Man, you got into something much stronger than kool-aid is believe this!

"And I hardly call cutting the fed tax rate for the "ultra rich" from 38% to 35% a huge tax cut, esp. when you consider the huge amounts of taxes these people pay."
Yeah, my heart bleeds for the Ultra-Rich. Life is so hard on them. Is there anything else we could do to make their tough lot in life easier? LOL. The trick here is that small 3% cut you are talking about, is on declared income. The Rich know how to have $0 in income that meets the definition of income. Remember, the talk about not taxing dividends? You get paid $0 in salary, and just have your company pay you in dividends. You invest your millions in tax-abated real estate. You throw cash into trust funds, managed keogh plans, etc., etc. You don't own a car, your company supplies one to you. That way everything is written off as business expenses. In the words of lovable Lenora Helmsly, "The rich don't pay taxes, the poor do".

"Try getting a job at NASA without being an "underrepresented minority." "
Yeah, I noticed those TV shots of the control room at the last rocket launch. The damm place looked like a bus station in Istanbul. LOL. Kool-aid must be making you blind. Count white and black faces at U of Michigan Law School. Then get back on me about affirmative action causing the place to be over run with minorities.

"I hardly call thinning tinderbox forests that would burn anyway or exploring the possiblity of taking over a few dozen acres..."
Try visting "chemical alley" in Texas, and ask people what Gov. Bush did for them. Don't let the Kool-aid cloud your mind on side issues, look at the actual deeds and facts.

"Caring about my job is my business. It's called personal accountability, and I'm a big fan."
Me too. Too bad it isn't in the republican script. Everything that has gone wrong or they have messed up? Clinton's fault. The only thing they haven't blamed on Clinton is this TSA boondoogle - That is Daschle's fault.
"because the fed. govt. will want 31+% of my income, and the combined fed-state-local burden will be close to 45-50%." -- PS add social security and medicare, it will be close to 59% - then add a couple % sales tax on everything you buy!
LOL. Join the club. We're all in it. I've been doing it for over 20 years. Wouldn't it be nice if this money was "invested" rather than spent? Free Pre-school for the poor? Free school lunches for underprivleged school children? Well, maybe if they were fed they might learn something and I won't have to pay for more prisions in the next 10 years. Higher Education loans at low interest? Well, maybe with a college degree somebody else can help pay for this crap.
Seems to be better use of the money than let's give it to the Billionaires and hope that they let a few crumbs fall off the table for the rest of us.
"the infamous Medicare Perscription Drug plan is just another wealth transfer to a voting constituancy (senior citizens)"
Kool-aid has got to you again. This is another huge wealth transfer all right. But it is to the DRUG INDUSTRY. Who do you think was the biggest Industry making political contributions to the Republicans? MERCK and the rest of the pharmacies made Ken Lay look like a piker. The fat cat majority shareholders of DRUG, INC. thank you for your tax dollar donations.

I've got a solution that will satisfy all... How about we eliminate both Bush and Daschle?

I, for one, do not plan to vote for ANY incumbant next year, no matter how good s/he was in office. It's time we threw ALL the bums out!

Getting back on topic . . .

''Putting a false bomb threat in your luggage is not something we take lightly,'' Procopio said. ''In the current climate, it's just unacceptable because of the fear and panic it causes.''

Ruth E. Ryan, a neighbor of the Socha family, said by phone yesterday that the Sochas are a ''nice family.''

''I'm surprised,'' Ryan said. ''I thought he was a good kid.''

How is this a false bomb threat? The kid said he did not have a bomb in his bag, "just clothes." C'mon people, if you go searching through people's bags, and see things you weren't ever supposed to see, I don't see how you can cry wolf over a stupid letter.

And I love the quote from the neighbor. I'm not sure this means he's a bad kid now. A little stupid, perhaps, but not a felon.

True, he shouldn't be considered a felon. But since way before 9/11 there were rules against joking about bombs. Don't say there weren't. Yes, the kid was a little stupid and should be punished, like let em miss a flight or something. In a situation like that, it's out of our hands actually. It's up to the airlines and local police. Even though TSA may press charges, which I don't understand, I figured it would be up to police or airlines to do that. Anyways, just my 2 cents.

Don't feed the obvious trolls.

And the kid was a dumbass - but it's not like I haven't thought about leaving a note for a screener who's interested in theft than security.

Making a threat in an airport is one thing. Having some private correspondence in a bag (which doesn't even threaten a bomb to begin with) doesn't seem to be the same thing. It's like having a sales pitch in my checked luggage, and being charged with soliciting at the airport. http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...m/rolleyes.gif

With that said, I doubt the case will go forward, and I supposed the kid has learned his lesson. So there ya go.

I agree totally. But mainly from what I understand the airports are trying to get across the point that just mentioning the "Bomb" word in the building is not a joking matter. my 2 cents