Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Democrats to push to fill US transport security post


WASHINGTON, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Spurred by last week's failed attack on a
U.S.-bound jetliner, Senate Democrats will try to break a deadlock and
confirm President Barack Obama's choice to run the Transportation
Security Administration, a Senate aide said on Tuesday.

Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.

"In light of the outrageous and petty move by Senator DeMint, Senator
Reid intends to file cloture when we get back," Manley said.

Obama in September tapped Southers, a former FBI special agent who is
assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence for the Los
Angeles World Airports Police Department.

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

Breaking the hold one senator can put on a nomination requires 60 votes
of the Senate's 100 members.

Lawmakers have said filling the TSA post has taken on new urgency after
the Christmas Day incident on a commercial flight from Amsterdam to
Detroit in which passengers and crew overwhelmed a man who set alight an
explosive device.

Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, was charged with smuggling explosives on board
and attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight with almost 300
people on board.

Another key counter-terrorism post, the head of the Customs and Border
Protection Agency, has not been filled and the Senate has yet to hold a
hearing on Obama's choice for that job, former U.S. Attorney Alan
Bersin. (Washington World Desk)

- - -

The news the GOP ass kissers here missed...there's no agency head
because a Republican U.S. Senator from South Carolina is holding up the
nomination for political reasons.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:09:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.


Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.

It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.

Looks like someone's spoofing Harry again.

This imposter fails to mention it took the Obama administration more
than eight months to nominate anyone to lead the Transportation
Security Administration and the Customs and Border Protection agency.

Damn spoofers. Harry has to much integrity to fail to mention
something like that.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.


Please show where Southers stated that he would unionize the TSA, and even
if this was true, is not the issue "homeland security" that needs an
administrator or is it union busting/prevention?

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.


Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.

It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.


Think back.... mid-1800... there was this big war... between the North and
the South... The Unio... vs. the Rebs... come on, you're probably old enough
to remember. :)


--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.

Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.
It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.


Think back.... mid-1800... there was this big war... between the North and
the South... The Unio... vs. the Rebs... come on, you're probably old enough
to remember. :)



Lincoln was far too generous to the defeated south. I've always thought
he should have been much, much harsher to those known to have been
involved in planning and executing the insurrection/secession and those
who profited in any way from slavery *and* their families. Any and all
property any of them owned should have been taken away and divided up
amongst the families of the former slaves. All the
insurrectionsts/secessionists should have been executed, excluding the
non-officers in the southern military forces.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.


Please show where Southers stated that he would unionize the TSA, and even
if this was true, is not the issue "homeland security" that needs an
administrator or is it union busting/prevention?

Do your own research.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

"Harry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize
the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.

Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.
It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.


Think back.... mid-1800... there was this big war... between the North
and the South... The Unio... vs. the Rebs... come on, you're probably old
enough to remember. :)



Lincoln was far too generous to the defeated south. I've always thought he
should have been much, much harsher to those known to have been involved
in planning and executing the insurrection/secession and those who
profited in any way from slavery *and* their families. Any and all
property any of them owned should have been taken away and divided up
amongst the families of the former slaves. All the
insurrectionsts/secessionists should have been executed, excluding the
non-officers in the southern military forces.


And that is why you have no life. You are a total idiot.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize
the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.
Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.
It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.

Think back.... mid-1800... there was this big war... between the North
and the South... The Unio... vs. the Rebs... come on, you're probably old
enough to remember. :)


Lincoln was far too generous to the defeated south. I've always thought he
should have been much, much harsher to those known to have been involved
in planning and executing the insurrection/secession and those who
profited in any way from slavery *and* their families. Any and all
property any of them owned should have been taken away and divided up
amongst the families of the former slaves. All the
insurrectionsts/secessionists should have been executed, excluding the
non-officers in the southern military forces.


And that is why you have no life. You are a total idiot.



I never forget you are a southern white racist at heart, bilious.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:09:28 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.

That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.


Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.

It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.

Looks like someone's spoofing Harry again.

This imposter fails to mention it took the Obama administration more
than eight months to nominate anyone to lead the Transportation
Security Administration and the Customs and Border Protection agency.



Well, DeMint has blocked it for four/five months, but it sure is easy to
blame Obama isn't it.


--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.

Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.

God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Harry wrote:
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:58:49 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:

DeMint blocked the nomination, saying that Southers would unionize
the
TSA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
That sounds like a reasonable demand. Federal employees already make
130% of what the rest of the country makes for similar work, along
with a great benefits package.. Do they really need a union?
They could fix this with one line in some bill renaming a post office
somewhere.

Whether any group of employees needs a union is a decision that should
be left to the employees.

There was a fuss here by the mindless righties that Obama had not yet
named a TSA director. The usual morons participated. Well, the fault
lies with the senator from South Carolina.
It is still stuck in committee. If they wanted to they could bring it
to a vote tomorrow.

I am not sure "union" and Federal government really go together. There
used to be a law.


Think back.... mid-1800... there was this big war... between the North
and the South... The Unio... vs. the Rebs... come on, you're probably
old enough to remember. :)



Lincoln was far too generous to the defeated south. I've always thought
he should have been much, much harsher to those known to have been
involved in planning and executing the insurrection/secession and those
who profited in any way from slavery *and* their families. Any and all
property any of them owned should have been taken away and divided up
amongst the families of the former slaves. All the
insurrectionsts/secessionists should have been executed, excluding the
non-officers in the southern military forces.


Hell, I think Lincoln was such a moron, someone should have shot him.

hey nom, does it turn you on to know i am sitting her naked as i read
your posts/

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.

God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.

South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....

Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

jps wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html
He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.
God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.
South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....

Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.

You don't like Jews JPS? I am one, you know.

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:43:23 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:48:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.

God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.

South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....

Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.


This goes beyond simply saving money. The TSA changed their SOP in a
matter of hours last week, If there was a union around they might have
had to renegotiate a contract or they would have a "work slowdown"
(although that is an ambiguous less term when you are talking about a
government employee).
As I said, if that was all this was all about, they can fix it with a
one line entry on some piece of legislation that they are voting on.
Just say there will be no unions in TSA screeners, in the appropriate
federal statute.

Amen.
--
John H

All decisions, even those of liberals, are the result of binary thinking.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:48:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate
returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican
Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official
Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.

God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.

South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....

Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.


This goes beyond simply saving money. The TSA changed their SOP in a
matter of hours last week, If there was a union around they might have
had to renegotiate a contract or they would have a "work slowdown"
(although that is an ambiguous less term when you are talking about a
government employee).
As I said, if that was all this was all about, they can fix it with a
one line entry on some piece of legislation that they are voting on.
Just say there will be no unions in TSA screeners, in the appropriate
federal statute.


Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk. What
heros.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:48:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate
returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican
Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official
Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html
He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.
God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination are
so rare in Washington.
South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....
Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.

This goes beyond simply saving money. The TSA changed their SOP in a
matter of hours last week, If there was a union around they might have
had to renegotiate a contract or they would have a "work slowdown"
(although that is an ambiguous less term when you are talking about a
government employee).
As I said, if that was all this was all about, they can fix it with a
one line entry on some piece of legislation that they are voting on.
Just say there will be no unions in TSA screeners, in the appropriate
federal statute.


Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk. What
heros.

The folks in SC are lucky to have him. And so are we.

What do you think of my new sig?

--

I get so upset by these spoofers, that I think I am going to make more
crossposts between rec.boats and numerous unrelated newsgroups, because
at least that is not detrimental to rec.boats. This group needs some
new blood, and that is always a good way to get some new posters who
enjoy boating as much as i do.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:27:24 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:48:53 -0800, jps wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:35:12 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:19 -0500, Jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:21:35 -0500, Gene
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 16:52:16 -0500, Harry
wrote:


Majority Leader Harry Reid will schedule a vote when the Senate
returns
in January from its holiday recess to break the hold Republican
Senator
Jim DeMint put on the nomination of counter-terrorism official
Erroll
Southers, Reid's spokesman Jim Manley said.
Jim Demint is crazy as a loon... he has an agenda and he will court
that, whatever damage he causes to America. In his own words:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_237731.html

He's right. TSA workers should not be in a labor union.

God bless Demint. Too bad his intelligence courage and determination
are
so rare in Washington.

South Carolina is ready when you are.... maybe you can get a tour of
the Appalachian Trail.... if you are strong enough on family
values.....

Demint is a raving ****ing lunatic. It's no surprise that The Idiot
Jim would be among his fans. He's the asshole who's been blocking
Obama's nomination for TSA, based on his fear of TSA going union.

Demint, ready to **** the country so he can tell people he's as smart
as them Jews when it comes to savin' money.


This goes beyond simply saving money. The TSA changed their SOP in a
matter of hours last week, If there was a union around they might have
had to renegotiate a contract or they would have a "work slowdown"
(although that is an ambiguous less term when you are talking about a
government employee).
As I said, if that was all this was all about, they can fix it with a
one line entry on some piece of legislation that they are voting on.
Just say there will be no unions in TSA screeners, in the appropriate
federal statute.


Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk. What
heros.

a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.


I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions, dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so terrified
of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk. What
heros.

a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.


I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


I was thinking Kerik... oh wait....


--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.



It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.



It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". (less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

You are making lot's of assumptions here. And from what I have seen, 50
grams of this stuff could do more than put a little hole in the side of
the plane... Either way, all of it is sooooo subjective, but I will ask
you how many other planes where small bombs went off landed safely with
30 foot holes in the side? I would imagine of the planes which have
suffered 30 foot holes, this is the exception, not the rule, really...

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:31:46 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


You are making lot's of assumptions here. And from what I have seen, 50
grams of this stuff could do more than put a little hole in the side of
the plane... Either way, all of it is sooooo subjective, but I will ask
you how many other planes where small bombs went off landed safely with
30 foot holes in the side? I would imagine of the planes which have
suffered 30 foot holes, this is the exception, not the rule, really...

Well, if you think of the bombers in WWII. Non-pressurized I'll give
you, but many returned with incredible damage. Still, I would rather not
be a part of the experiment if that bomb had gone off on Christmas.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:26:35 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.



It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". (less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

Not to be agreeable with the plum, but this guy, according to the
news, was right close to an almost empty fuel tank which could well
have gone up also.
--
John H

"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." --Margaret Thatcher

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to
get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't
understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you
telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing
politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.



It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". (less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.


Then you haven't read the reports that have been posted. The Shoe Bomber's
explosive would have destroyed the plane. This guy's quantity of the same
stuff was greater. You also didn't see the demo I guess.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:31:46 -0500, I am Tosk wrote:


You are making lot's of assumptions here. And from what I have seen, 50
grams of this stuff could do more than put a little hole in the side of
the plane... Either way, all of it is sooooo subjective, but I will ask
you how many other planes where small bombs went off landed safely with
30 foot holes in the side? I would imagine of the planes which have
suffered 30 foot holes, this is the exception, not the rule, really...

Well, if you think of the bombers in WWII. Non-pressurized I'll give
you, but many returned with incredible damage. Still, I would rather not
be a part of the experiment if that bomb had gone off on Christmas.

With all due respect, it's (the unpressurized bombers and such) all you
can give me as there are few if any other commercial jets that have done
it. But I think we agree, we don't want to ever find out...

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.


For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.


How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.


Couple years ago, on a flight to Rome. We changed planes in Cinncinati, and
while eating lunch, still inside the secure area, realise we have a 4"
folding knife in the backpack. Felt safer on that flight. SFO, TSA (Trained
to Steal Anything) screwed up.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Dec 31, 1:37*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to
get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't
understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you
telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing
politics?
Occam's Razor.

For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.

How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) *in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.

It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". *(less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

Then you haven't read the reports that have been posted. The Shoe Bomber's
explosive would have destroyed the plane. This guy's quantity of the same
stuff was greater. You also didn't see the demo I guess.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It just doesn't matter, it's all Obama's fault.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

On Dec 31, 12:31*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.

For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.

How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) *in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.

It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". *(less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

You are making lot's of assumptions here. And from what I have seen, 50
grams of this stuff could do more than put a little hole in the side of
the plane... Either way, all of it is sooooo subjective, but I will ask
you how many other planes where small bombs went off landed safely with
30 foot holes in the side? I would imagine of the planes which have
suffered 30 foot holes, this is the exception, not the rule, really...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How in HELL can Obama let this happen? He needs to be impeached NOW.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

In article 20afda1a-69b4-4c84-b69b-9a56b88a8543
@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 31, 1:37*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to
get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't
understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you
telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing
politics?
Occam's Razor.

For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.

How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) *in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.

It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". *(less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

Then you haven't read the reports that have been posted. The Shoe Bomber's
explosive would have destroyed the plane. This guy's quantity of the same
stuff was greater. You also didn't see the demo I guess.

--
Nom=de=Plume- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It just doesn't matter, it's all Obama's fault.

We get your point, we must think that way as our opinions are different
than yours... Yeah, we get it...

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

In article 822da277-cc4f-4daa-b468-5367eb873293
@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 31, 12:31*pm, I am Tosk
wrote:
In article ,
says...







On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:45:46 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:21:42 -0500, Harry
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:17 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Completely untrue and diengenous tripe. You and Demint are so
terrified of
unions that you would rather leave the general population at risk.
What
heros.
a couple days ago Thunder said there was no connection between not
having a TSA director and the attempted bombing. You folks have to get
your story together.

... and how will having a union make us safer?

When you look at the GSA benefits and salary I still don't understand
why we need the extra bureaucracy of a union in there gumming up the
works. These people make 130% of the private industry wage and have
the same benefit package as Harry Reid.

I and Thunder don't coordinate our posts. :)

So, it would be a bit more expensive. At least they would have some
voice.
Is this a reason to hold up the security of the nation? Are you telling
me
that we should not have a person at the top coordinating functions,
dealing
with Congress, etc.? Or, is Demint just interested in playing politics?
Occam's Razor.

For all the good they are doing, we could get Wackenhut back in there
and fire the whole damned department.

How do we know "all the good" they are doing...or not doing.
The problem is, we'll never know. Even if there is a hijacking or
bombing, it doesn't mean the system has failed because there are far
more flights and passengers than there are ways to check them.

Some redneck from SW Florida was cited for leaving a 4" long 3/4"
diameter firework on a plane the other day. He said he had been
carrying that stuff (implying he had more) *in his carry on for
several flights and nobody caught it.
If that had gone off it may have been more dangerous than the silly
thing Farouk was carrying. At least it would have worked.
They keep calling it a firecracker but firecrackers are not 4" long
More likely it was a fountain or a rocket. Something that size could
be a half stock of dynamite.

People still seem to be getting on planes with weapons and prohibited
items every day. My wife had a half liter of water in her purse coming
back from California and didn't see it until we were in the air. Good
thing it wasn't a bomb and we weren't terrorists.

It would not have been more dangerous. The stuff the Nigerian was carrying
would have destroyed the plane.

Not likely. You can blow a huge hole in an airliner and it will still
be OK if you don't break the hydraulic lines and they do have
redundancy on them. As I said, remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that
landed safely with 30 feet of the fuselage skin missing. This guy had
a tiny "bomb". *(less than 3oz) The best he could hope for would be a
small hole in the side wall. It was about the same thing with Richard
Reid but he was potentially more dangerous because he could put his
foot on the floor and blow the hole there, where he might hit
something important if he could get to the aisle.
In his lap, his body would have contained most of the blast but I do
imagine people would not want their snack after that.
As it turned out, a polyester shirt might have been as dangerous as
this bomb. Good thing he was wearing cotton or he might have gone
"Richard Pryor" on them..

You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from a
hole in the side.

You are making lot's of assumptions here. And from what I have seen, 50
grams of this stuff could do more than put a little hole in the side of
the plane... Either way, all of it is sooooo subjective, but I will ask
you how many other planes where small bombs went off landed safely with
30 foot holes in the side? I would imagine of the planes which have
suffered 30 foot holes, this is the exception, not the rule, really...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How in HELL can Obama let this happen? He needs to be impeached NOW.

You see black helicopters in every post I make... I didn't say anything
about blame at all...

Why the TSA has no chief exec...
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:37:48 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


You can't confuse this with Pan Am 103 where 2 pounds of Semtex
exploded in the nose of the plane and blew it off. Air pressure
coming
in the front of the plane ripped it apart. You don't get that from
a
hole in the side.


Then you haven't read the reports that have been posted. The Shoe
Bomber's
explosive would have destroyed the plane. This guy's quantity of the
same
stuff was greater. You also didn't see the demo I guess.


I know hysteria when I see it. This bomb was in this guy's lap. Most
of the explosion would have been absorbed by his body, much like the
guy who jumps on a grenade and saves the platoon.
Certainly bad things can happen any time you have an explosion on a
plane but you still have to understand how much explosive he has and
where it was placed.

Planes are really a lot tougher that you give them credit for.


Perhaps that is why he waited many hours until the wheels were down on
final approach to Detroit? I wondered about that.

Why the TSA has no chief exec...