Democrats want terrorists to work for TSA

[RoofGardener]

I think I MUST be missing something here ? 

The majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives recently voted to reject amendments to the Rights for Transportation Officers Act. The amendments where that convicted terrorists (along with people convicted of sex acts or violence) could not work for the TSA. 

https://freebeacon.com/politics/174-house-dems-vote-against-anti-sexual-predator-amendment/

Pardon ? 

I mean.. why on earth would you NOT want to ban such people for working for the TSA ? What are the Democrats THINKING ? 

[Space Commander Travis]

I thought it was the dream job for those who enjoy groping others. 

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The amendments where that convicted terrorists (along with people convicted of sex acts or violence) could not work for the TSA. 

 

[RoofGardener]

2 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

I thought it was the dream job for those who enjoy groping others. 

 

EUUUUUWWWWWWW.... I'm never going to an American airport EVER again !!!! 

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

EUUUUUWWWWWWW.... I'm never going to an American airport EVER again !!!! 

Oh grow up.  They fondle you, you cry a little and it's all over 

[aztek]

[Piney]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 What are the Democrats THINKING ? 

They are???? 

[quiXilver]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

EUUUUUWWWWWWW.... I'm never going to an American airport EVER again !!!! 

mission accomplished...  (jk)

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Tuco's Gas said:

"...convicted of sex acts."

Uh...wouldn't that include a LOT of people? Like maybe 90% of American adults?

NO!!! IT WOULD NOT!!!!!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

3 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

"...convicted of sex acts."

Uh...wouldn't that include a LOT of people? Like maybe 90% of American adults?

90% of Americans are Convicted Sexual Predators? 

[aztek]

i think tsa needs to be disbanded,  numerous times it was tested by reporters, and they found it failed  over 90% of the time,  at this point nothing could get it worse, terrorists or pedofiles.  

Edited March 10, 2020 by aztek

[+OverSword]

10 minutes ago, aztek said:

i think tsa needs to be disbanded,  numerous times it was tested by reporters, and they found it failed  over 90% of the time,  at this point nothing could get it worse, terrorists or pedofiles.  

Maybe that can be my retirement job.  

Edited March 10, 2020 by OverSword

[Gromdor]

9 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I think I MUST be missing something here ? 

The majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives recently voted to reject amendments to the Rights for Transportation Officers Act. The amendments where that convicted terrorists (along with people convicted of sex acts or violence) could not work for the TSA. 

https://freebeacon.com/politics/174-house-dems-vote-against-anti-sexual-predator-amendment/

Pardon ? 

I mean.. why on earth would you NOT want to ban such people for working for the TSA ? What are the Democrats THINKING ? 

Democrats and Donald Trump.  If you read the article you linked, it said that Trump was going to veto it regardless.

But to be fair to Trump, you fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book.  The bill isn't about terrorists and rapists joining the TSA at all.  That amendment was just being added to present a "gotcha" moment.  It's like a tax bill with an amendment making it illegal to eat babies.  If someone votes against it then their political opponents can say, "So and so supports eating babies!". 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Tuco's Gas said:

Please read the OP quote closer. 

Sex acts.

Period.

 

It says convicted of sex acts.

[Tatetopa]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Maybe that can be my retirement job.  

Less hassle as a Walmart greeter, plus you get a cool blue vest.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

8 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

You need to read better. 

OP doesn't say "convicted sexual predators."

Says "convicted of a sex act."

No dearie, you need to, then you’d notice the word CONVICTED. 
you don’t get convicted for the odd consentual 69er. It’s not illegal to do it consentually missionary style. No man yet has been arrested for a consensual *******.

[godnodog]

15 hours ago, OverSword said:

NO!!! IT WOULD NOT!!!!!

91%?!

[Robotic Jew]

3 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No dearie, you need to, then you’d notice the word CONVICTED. 
you don’t get convicted for the odd consentual 69er. It’s not illegal to do it consentually missionary style. No man yet has been arrested for a consensual *******.

it can be...under certain circumstances...

[RoofGardener]

On 3/10/2020 at 10:39 PM, Gromdor said:

Democrats and Donald Trump.  If you read the article you linked, it said that Trump was going to veto it regardless.

But to be fair to Trump, you fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book.  The bill isn't about terrorists and rapists joining the TSA at all.  That amendment was just being added to present a "gotcha" moment.  It's like a tax bill with an amendment making it illegal to eat babies.  If someone votes against it then their political opponents can say, "So and so supports eating babies!". 

Nevertheless, a huge number of democrats voted against the ammendment. Why ? There was no "baby eating" clause in the ammendment, so far as I can see ? 

[Gromdor]

10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Nevertheless, a huge number of democrats voted against the ammendment. Why ? There was no "baby eating" clause in the ammendment, so far as I can see ? 

I'll get back to the bolded, but first another point:

Reductio Ad Absurdum

The amendment requires people to believe two absurd things:

1) There is no current laws, rules or regulations that prevent the TSA from hiring rapists and Terrorists.

2) We've been hiring rapists and terrorists since 2001 and that is a problem worth amending.

 

So, the Democrats were given the choice to vote for something blatantly absurd or vote for well, "eating the baby" so to speak.  Since a law should be clear, concise, and free of garbage (in theory, never happens) then the logical thing would be to vote against it.