Posted on 05/22/2002 9:11:50 AM PDT by B. A. Conservative
How amusing. -- The 'thick skull' master of FR is back at trying to completely confuse the issue with his BOLD non-issue.
-- The real issue is:
The Bush administration, in typical numb-skull fashion, has made another idiotic, unconstitutional 'gun rights' decision.
NO ONE is arguing that the airline industry can't be 'regulated' for passenger safety. -- But the arming of pilots is NOT a proper subject for government regulation, as it directly infringes on both the individual pilot/captains, and/or corporate rights to bear arms in their duty to customer safety.
In effect, the feds are telling them they can NOT defend a cockpit in a manner they so choose. Boggles a rational mind, but not our 'Regen Boys'.
The government is well qualified to hunt down and kill both evils.
The internal procedures and business activites, of a private enterprise, is no business of mine. I think this boils down to what the customer is most willing to accept. Prudent regulations and limited restrictions are something most folks can live with.
"You forgot to add: Even if it means endangering the lives of American citizens"
If Bush doesn't stay in office, then he won't get a damn thing accomplished. When he wins a second term, then we will see a completely different version of George W. Bush!
Congress can impeach the President for any reason whatsoever, despite your denial. Read the Constitution. And for what it's worth, failure to uphold the Constitution would be sufficient grounds for impeachment. There are no caveats to the Second Amendment.
---max
Are you a twit or what?. Airlines are corporations, corporations are creations of the state, they are not soveriegn. What part of inalienable can't your feeble mind understand?.
---max
I'm not certain what universe you exist in, but in this country, the federal government would screw up a wet dream. The only thing that our federal government is capable of is incompetence and waste.
---max
I haven't denied the constitutional right of Congress to impeach a sitting president. I said, the unwillingness of the feds, to allow the arming of pilots, is no basis for Congress to consider impeachment proceedings. Let me be precise. There is absolutely no evidence of any treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors, on the part of the current POTUS. None.
The only thing I hear are accusatory innuendo from the article poster and empty headed remarks from you, FreeRepublics very own, hit and run expert, "max61".
Watch them personal insults max. You've been warned.
Private enterprise has every right to regulate their own business endeavors. After all, corporations are owned by stockholders and stockholders are, we the people. I suggest you closely read what is written, before you go off half-cocked. The freedom of owning a private business and making the decisions for that business, is no business of the federal governments.
The Feds can't keep a couple of dozen men with known "death to America" historys from entering this country, hijacking no fewer than 4 commercial airliners, smashing them into office buildings causing billions in damage and the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
The Feds can't keep thousands of illegal immigrants from streaming across our borders every day.
The depth and breadth of the ignorance of your statement is almost awe inspiring and it would be quite amusing if it weren't for the fact that thinking like yours will lead to the deaths of thousands more innocent people.
L
LMAO! Yeah? No court in this country could EVER find them guilty on this count. Did you tap into Maggot's brain waves or what?
Action to defend yourself is bad.
Responsibility is bad.
The State is good.
Who cares if they keep it out of prisons. I know they do a damn good job of keeping the druggies IN prison. That's what matters :)
So let me get this straight; you want to let the same people who can't keep dope out of a prison system which they control completely to be in charge of keeping dope out of a nation of 265 million people and something over 5,000 miles of undefended borders?
One might actually think that someone who espouses your view could be under the influence of some kind of mind altering substance...
That, or your simply stupid.
Just between you and me, my money is on the latter.
L
"What's he going to do in the second term that he can't do in the first term? They are both 4 years, right?"
"He's domestically spending like a drunken LBJ, he'd better get out of the White House before the bill shows up."
Does the term "Lame Duck President" ring any bells? That is a term for a President that is in his last term in office. That means he can do what he wants as far as new policies, and doesn't have to fear any consequences, because he is in his last term and can't run for re-election.When George W. becomes a "lame duck," then we'll see his true colors. Especially in his last 2 years.
The comparison of Bush to LBJ is not a good comparison. Many of the problems that we face to day are a result of the LBJ "Great Society" giveaways. Bush inherited a Nation where half the population have their hand out waiting for the government to put something in it. You Bush bashers expect him to wave a magic wand and fix everything overnight. I will remind you that these problems were 60 years in the making, and won't be solved quickly.
Some might conclude this is more looser Lurker logic. I agree, perfection is not achievable. However, if we make the penalties for use, possession, or trafficing drugs harsh enough, we'll send a very scary message. That message will reach the marginal users and result in a reduction of these crimes.
SAD, but true...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.