Republicans Should Confirm Errol Southers & Airport Screeners Should Be Unionized
Abel
security system was so bad, that for the airport screeners, they
considered a job at McDonalds to be a step up, because the turnover
rate there was even lower.
Other countries treat airport screening as a national security issue,
they utilize government workers such as the military or the Police to
do that important job. In America, unfortunately, airport screeners
are just one more example of where workers can be exploited and
mistreated and fired at the whims of abusive management. I happen to
be in the business, so I know what I'm talking about. I had commented
back in 2000, since it seemed that no airplane had been hijacked for a
long time, almost the entire duration of the Clinton Presidency, and I
commented that the only reason why no one hijacked a plane back then
was because nobody wanted to, they knew that to hijack an American
plane would hurt their cause. Our airport security was so bad that
those of us in the business knew damn well that anyone could hijack
them if they wanted to.
It was certainly a neglected security system, and then came Al-Qaeda
in 2001, and they didn't care what anyone thinks of them, they
blatantly hijacked a plane, they were just out to destroy whatever
they could. They just took full advantage of our security
shortfalls. And the rest is history.
The good news is that since then, airport screeners have been
federalized, it's now a good government job. That's a good thing for
our nation's security. Things have improved a lot, but it's not
enough that airport screeners are government employees, they also need
to be unionized, like all other government employees, this way,
working conditions will be improved even more, and then we would get
better workers, more experience workers and the turnover rate would be
lower still. This is the way it should be.
Fast forward to now and today, airport security has definitely
improved, notwithstanding last Christmas' attempted attack aboard a
Detroit-bound plane. But it is still unconscienable, nevertheless,
that Republicans haven't changed, they are more interested in sticking
it to the working man and in busting unions than they are in
protecting America's security. And another thing the Republicans have
shown themselves to be very adept in, dividing the country and playing
partisan politics with the issue of national security. This is
exactly what they are guilty of by holding up the nomination of the
extremely well qualified nominee Erroll Southers, he was nominated by
our President to be in charge of the Transportation Security
Administration. Errol Southers' credentials are impressive, he is:
. A former FBI special agent,
.The Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for
homeland security and intelligence,
. The associate director of the University of Southern California's
Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events,
.Served as a deputy director of homeland security for California
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The Democrats are in charge right now, we won the election. The
American people want a change. In a democracy, this is how it should
be. Republicans should get out of the way and let us run the country,
our way. They should stop with their ignorant, obstructionist, petty
and vindictive politics. Errol Southers should be confirmed as leader
of the Transportation Security Administration, immediately. No
delay. As someone once said, "lead, follow, or get out of the way".
Republicans should get out of the way, and let us run the country, the
way that the American people want us to run the country. Not the way
that the wingnuts want to run the country. Enough said.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
John Q Public
See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make em git
mandatory breaks and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
and pay than you but
, you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign donations
to dems.
Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
suds mcduff
>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
>
> See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make em git
> mandatory breaks
---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
> and pay than you
----Why?...You're not qualified for the job?
but
> , you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign donations
> to dems.
----Like the corporations donate millions to Repubs?
> Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
---I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional screening my
flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers...
John Q Public
>
>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
>>
>> See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make em git
>> mandatory breaks
>
>
>
> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
>
> and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
>> and pay than you
>
> ----Why?...You're not qualified for the job?
Nope but, I don't want their little asses dictating to us what their
job will be
>
> but
>> , you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign donations
>> to dems.
>
> ----Like the corporations donate millions to Repubs?
Gee wasn't it your boy O'bama got more money from wall street than any
other candidate in history?
Where's your horror over that
hahahahahahaha
>
>> Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
>
> ---I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional screening my
> flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers...
Yep, feel better served at McDonalds or DMV/Sec. of State..?
McDonalds wins hands down
So your point would be? Professionals my ass, entitlement babies fer sure!
John Q Public
> In article <200912301437568930-my2cents@mecom>, my2c...@me.com says...
>> On 2009-12-30 11:01:12 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>
>>>
>>> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
>>> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
>>
>> No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
>>>
> They were private. It was a total screwup. TSA is a response to a private
> system that did not work.
>
> Believe it or not there are many things government can do far better and far
> cheaper than private enterprise can.
Your joking, you actually believe that?
Better and cheaper? Delusional you are!
Govt. employees average 40% more pay than civilian counterparts and have
better benefits (Oooooooh the cost savings)
Virtually every govt. agency gets back to you right away with no
waiting in lines
(Had to throw that one in, its just too funny)
Govt. spends your money fairly and wisely (76% of so called stimulus
money went to
democratically controlled districts, guess outta work republicans aint
shit!) for their
own little slush funds
Your sooooo funny
suds mcduff
> On 2009-12-30 11:01:12 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>
>>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
>>>
>>> See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make em
>>> git
>>> mandatory breaks
>>
>>
>>
>> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
>> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
>
> No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
---Never worked a union job, have ya?
>>
>> and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
>>> and pay than you
>>
>> ----Why?...You're not qualified for the job?
>
> Nope
----That's what I thought...the envy of the unqualified...
but, I don't want their little asses dictating to us what their job
> will be
>>
>> but
>>> , you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign
>>> donations to dems.
>>
>> ----Like the corporations donate millions to Repubs?
>
> Gee wasn't it your boy O'bama got more money from wall street than any
> other candidate in history?
> Where's your horror over that
> hahahahahahaha
----I doubt that, rightard....most of Obamas contibutions were under
$100....more than any candidate in history...
>>
>>> Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
>>
>> ---I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional screening my
>> flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers...
>
> Yep, feel better served at McDonalds or DMV/Sec. of State..?
> McDonalds wins hands down
----You really *are* a dope, aintcha?
> So your point would be?
---Can't read? "I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional
screening my flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers..."
Professionals my ass, entitlement babies fer sure!
----Says the unqualified rightard....
suds mcduff
> On 2009-12-30 16:57:31 -0500, Gogarty <Gog...@Clongowes.edu.ie> said:
>
>> In article <200912301437568930-my2cents@mecom>, my2c...@me.com says...
>>> On 2009-12-30 11:01:12 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
>>>> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
>>>
>>> No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
>>>>
>> They were private. It was a total screwup. TSA is a response to a private
>> system that did not work.
>>
>> Believe it or not there are many things government can do far better
>> and far
>> cheaper than private enterprise can.
>
> Your joking, you actually believe that?
----It's a proven fact.....
> Better and cheaper? Delusional you are!
----WTF are you, Yoda?
> Govt. employees average 40% more pay than civilian counterparts and have
> better benefits (Oooooooh the cost savings)
----They are more highly screened that private employees....
> Virtually every govt. agency gets back to you right away with no waiting
> in lines
> (Had to throw that one in, its just too funny)
----Really? I had to wait a loooong time at a private tag agency, and it
was $40 more for an "agency fee" to boot....no thanks...
> Govt. spends your money fairly and wisely (76% of so called stimulus
> money went to
> democratically controlled districts, guess outta work republicans aint
> shit!) for their
> own little slush funds
----The highest amonts went to red states, 'tard...
> Your sooooo funny
----"Your"....jeez these rightards are ignorant, eh?
John Q Public
> John Q Public wrote:
>> On 2009-12-30 11:01:12 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
>>>>
>>>> See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make em git
>>>> mandatory breaks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
>>> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
>>
>> No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
>
> ---Never worked a union job, have ya?
UAW local 600 Detroit fool, laziest bunch o bastards ceptin a few I
ever worked with.
Cried all day and wouldn't hesitate to rip off Ford for time, tools or
whatever else they
could get their hands on.
>
>>>
>>> and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
>>>> and pay than you
>>>
>>> ----Why?...You're not qualified for the job?
>>
>> Nope
>
> ----That's what I thought...the envy of the unqualified...
Nope, the pissed off from gettin ripped off by the entitled babies! and
their vote buyin
congressman and senators
>
> but, I don't want their little asses dictating to us what their job
>> will be
>>>
>>> but
>>>> , you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign donations
>>>> to dems.
>>>
>>> ----Like the corporations donate millions to Repubs?
>>
>> Gee wasn't it your boy O'bama got more money from wall street than any
>> other candidate in history?
>> Where's your horror over that
>> hahahahahahaha
>
> ----I doubt that, rightard....most of Obamas contibutions were under
> $100....more than any candidate in history...
Sorry my claim is part of record, you can of course give us a cite
showing different!
BTW heres a link showing O'bama's donations as % from individuals were
nearly same
as GWB 25% to 26%, its LA times, leftwing enough for ya hmmmmm?
So your claim here is a lie also! hahahahahahaah
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-money.html
>>>
>>>> Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
>>>
>>> ---I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional screening my
>>> flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers...
Sorry, seeing the system worked so well with those "govt. employees" in
Amsterdam
you don't have a proverbial pot to piss in on that one
>>
>> Yep, feel better served at McDonalds or DMV/Sec. of State..?
>> McDonalds wins hands down
>
> ----You really *are* a dope, aintcha?
Can't counter that point can ya asslicker so your evidence/cite would be?
Nothing !
hahahahahahahahahaha
>
>> So your point would be?
>
> ---Can't read? "I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional
> screening my flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers..."
Course your diversity hiring quotas ensure? Best qualified or most
politically correct.
So don't give me that superior training crap!
>
> Professionals my ass, entitlement babies fer sure!
>
> ----Says the unqualified rightard....
Ha, you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground and your claiming I'm
unqualified, hahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha
Arizona Willie
news:2009123119422843658-my2cents@mecom:
==============
The security people in Amsterdam are NOT Americans, nor are they employed
by an American company.
The security failure was on the part of the security people in Nigeria
and Ghana and the Netherlands. AMERICAN SECURITY HAD NO PART IN ALLOWING
HIM ON THE PLANE.
Should we have put him on the no fly list? Hindsight, of course, says yes
.. but the experts didn't think they had reason to do that. You, of
course, know better because you have Limbaugh sight which allows you to
see into the past and predict what has already happened.
I do take issue with our security people because they say it is
impossible to put an armed agent on every plane.
Funny, but the airlines manage to put several stewardii (?) on every
plane.
What they mean is no that it is IMPOSSIBLE but that it would COST MONEY.
So, instead of having a trained armed person on flights to deal with
people like this would be bomber ... passengers get the fun of jumping on
him and subdueing him in order to save the government money.
Fortunately this goofball didn't smuggle a gun onboard or the ending
might have been different. And, he was a screwup who couldn't even set
the bomb off right.
But the right wingers are WRONG to blame American security because they
weren't the people who let him on the plane.
John Q Public
If you'd followed the thread you would realize I said exactly that, the
point was that having
govt. vs private employess offers no benefits to passengers!
suds mcduff
> On 2009-12-31 11:42:49 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> John Q Public wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-30 11:01:12 -0500, suds mcduff <sudsmcd...@gmail.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tsa29-2009dec29,0,3060401.story
>>>>>
>>>>> See, he wants your taxes to go up, yep unionize them fellers, make
>>>>> em git
>>>>> mandatory breaks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---You'd like the flight screeners to work straight shifts without
>>>> breaks? That'd make you feel safer? You *must* be a dope....
>>>
>>> No I want em private and firable when they fuckup!
>>
>> ---Never worked a union job, have ya?
>
> UAW local 600 Detroit fool, laziest bunch o bastards ceptin a few I ever
> worked with.
> Cried all day and wouldn't hesitate to rip off Ford for time, tools or
> whatever else they
> could get their hands on.
----Suuuuure, you were the onliest honest man in the union....why do I
think that you're lying?
>>
>>>>
>>>> and no cavity searches after 5PM but, better benefits
>>>>> and pay than you
>>>>
>>>> ----Why?...You're not qualified for the job?
>>>
>>> Nope
>>
>> ----That's what I thought...the envy of the unqualified...
>
> Nope, the pissed off from gettin ripped off by the entitled babies! and
> their vote buyin
> congressman and senators
----And, you're green with envy that you can't qualify for a job with
decent benefits...
>>
>> but, I don't want their little asses dictating to us what their job
>>> will be
>>>>
>>>> but
>>>>> , you have to pay for em so they can put millions in campaign
>>>>> donations to dems.
>>>>
>>>> ----Like the corporations donate millions to Repubs?
>>>
>>> Gee wasn't it your boy O'bama got more money from wall street than
>>> any other candidate in history?
>>> Where's your horror over that
>>> hahahahahahaha
>>
>> ----I doubt that, rightard....most of Obamas contibutions were under
>> $100....more than any candidate in history...
> Sorry my claim is part of record, you can of course give us a cite
> showing different!
----<yawn> Here ya go, douche....note the non partisan site...
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338
> BTW heres a link showing O'bama's donations as % from individuals were
> nearly same
> as GWB 25% to 26%,
---And, the dollar amounts, 'tard? From your cite:
"Perhaps a more honest analysis would have reported two more of the
CFI's findings:
1) That the result for small donors was a percentage finding, and that
the number of total donors (and thus small donors) was much higher for
Obama than Bush;
and 2) that Obama had a significantly larger percentage (and number) of
donors who fell in the $200-$999 range than did Bush (27 pct. to 13 pct.)"
its LA times, leftwing
----The writer (Andrew Malcolm) is a former Laura Bush hack and
conservative blogger, you dope...
enough for ya hmmmmm?
---So, your original premise was wrong, that Obama got all his money
from wall street..thought so....
> So your claim here is a lie also! hahahahahahaah
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?cand_id=P80003338
----Read it and weep, rightard....Obama's contributions were
overwhelmingly from individuals.....under $200....
bu bye, rightard....
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-money.html
>>>>
>>>>> Yep, I'll feel safer fer sure!
>>>>
>>>> ---I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional screening my
>>>> flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers...
>
> Sorry, seeing the system worked so well with those "govt. employees" in
> Amsterdam
----And, hopefully, we'll never see how well a system works with
employees making minimum wage with no benefits....
> you don't have a proverbial pot to piss in on that one
----With your minimum wage employees, the Atlantic would be littered
with downed planes by now....
>>>
>>> Yep, feel better served at McDonalds or DMV/Sec. of State..?
>>> McDonalds wins hands down
>>
>> ----You really *are* a dope, aintcha?
>
> Can't counter that point can ya asslicker so your evidence/cite would be?
> Nothing !
> hahahahahahahahahaha
----You didn't make any point, rightard...other than you "think" a
minimum wage unscreened, untrained employee would be a better screener
than a well paid one with benefits, and can't imagine why this can't be
so....like I said, a real dope....
>>
>>> So your point would be?
>>
>> ---Can't read? "I'd feel safer if there was a well paid professional
>> screening my flight, instead of the equivalent of fast food workers..."
>
> Course your diversity hiring quotas ensure?
---What? Do you read and write English?
No wonder you can't qualify for a decent job...
Best qualified or most
> politically correct.
----Usually , it's both....
> So don't give me that superior training crap!
----Something you will never be....
>>
>> Professionals my ass, entitlement babies fer sure!
>>
>> ----Says the unqualified rightard....
>
> Ha, you can't tell your ass from a hole in the ground and your
-----"Your"....sure sign of the ignorant....
claiming I'm
> unqualified, hahahahahahaahhahahahahahahaha
----Well, you've shown yourself to be an ignorant idiot, I can only
assume you'd be unqualified to get any decent job with good bennies....
suds mcduff
----No, you didn't....you said that minimally paid, non screened and
untrained employees would be better than screened and trained govt
workers...
>>
>> The security failure was on the part of the security people in Nigeria
>> and Ghana and the Netherlands. AMERICAN SECURITY HAD NO PART IN ALLOWING
>> HIM ON THE PLANE.
>>
>> Should we have put him on the no fly list? Hindsight, of course, says yes
>> .. but the experts didn't think they had reason to do that. You, of
>> course, know better because you have Limbaugh sight which allows you to
>> see into the past and predict what has already happened.
>>
>> I do take issue with our security people because they say it is
>> impossible to put an armed agent on every plane.
>>
>> Funny, but the airlines manage to put several stewardii (?) on every
>> plane.
>>
>> What they mean is no that it is IMPOSSIBLE but that it would COST MONEY.
>>
>> So, instead of having a trained armed person on flights to deal with
>> people like this would be bomber ... passengers get the fun of jumping on
>> him and subdueing him in order to save the government money.
>>
>> Fortunately this goofball didn't smuggle a gun onboard or the ending
>> might have been different. And, he was a screwup who couldn't even set
>> the bomb off right.
>>
>> But the right wingers are WRONG
---Right wingers are *always* wrong....