 | | Re: Debunk this?
|
|
(...) I live in the greatest country in the world. If I moved to a not so good one (say England). Scotland would still be my home. (...) I don't really see myself in those terms. Read the news and you will see that Israel are pretty good at (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Um, it's not OK there either. Not at private airports, not in an ideal system. We're in a mixed system so some compromises happen. Doesn't mean I like them or accept them or agree with them or think they are good. So no, it is NOT OK and I (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I deny none of the above except the unstated implication that this is the only possible outcome. Remember, these actions are by heavily regulated firms that, as it turns out, managed to (quite easily) wriggle off the hook for liability. To (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debunk this?
|
|
(...) I'm an idealist too. Oh, that wasn't what you were asking... I agree with all of that except for the part about the nukes. I know it's accepted wisdom that Israel has some. If they do I think they ought to keep them. At least until we invent a (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debunk this?
|
|
(...) I agree that legally Israel does exist and that it is here to stay. I wish they would respect human rights a little more, stop murdering people, respect UN resolutions, hand back what is does not belong top them, get rid of their nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Debunk this?
|
|
(...) Oh yes I did. (in a pantomime tone) (...) Indeed, and I have said before it would be a great issue for the LP to work on: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) So why is it OK for "the feds" to invade your privacy at the airport but nowhere else? Scott A (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) "Good morning Mr Mohamed Atta, you can certainly board the flight with your large licensed gun. We have reserved your seat right up front next to the cockpit. By the way, why is your passport made out of asbestos?" Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I agree. I don't want airline security to be set by consumer focus groups. I think the public will always trust a government regulated system more. The private sector can't be trusted: (URL) by the air industry in the USA to oppose (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | bailout (was Re: The big lie)
|
|
(...) I really do worry about the support the airlines are getting. I know the last few weeks have been tough for them, but the fact is that that the 4 flights which were lost on the 11th were flying from good slots but yet they were no where near (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What we can do... (my 2 cents)
|
|
(...) Actually, this made me think of one other thing: Spanish colonial policy. It's been pretty well proven (by Patricia Seed, if memory serves) that the Spanish tried very hard to emulate the government of the Caliphates in their dealings with the (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What we can do... (my 2 cents)
|
|
Ack, I can't believe I didn't set groups right. I didn't want this hiding in .pt alone. :D (...) (23 years ago, 29-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What we can do... (my 2 cents)
|
|
(...) There it is: influence, not copy. I'd say inspiration... :-) (...) Yes, the storm *was* the main gun... but the fire-ships were also very effective, at least in the morale issue. The only real bugger in this whole story is that portuguese (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.loc.pt, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) That's a pity. I was hoping I could talk you into a day trip to Austin for the Texlug meeting. Speaking of Hobby, about 8 years ago one of my closest friends, B, was dropping off one of his friends at Hobby who was catching a plane to St. (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Not unless flechette guns have already been cleared for use at Hobby. :-) that was a hypothetical example, I just chose a city with two airports that I could remember the names of so that the reroute made sense. (...) A flechette gun (not sure (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Err...at the risk of being completely obtuse...I'm just curious: are you coming back to town this weekend? james, who doesn't know what either flechettes or tranqs are, but otherwise gets the point that firearm regulations under different (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Yes. And a fully private system with airlines and airports each making individual decisions on this may well be significantly more complex to administer and track. At least at first. (hmm... I'm flying to Hobby today... that means pack my (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) I'm still resolving that part of the issue for myself, but it puts me in mind of the other side of the coin: Since the airlines are primarily private corporations, and the aircraft are their property, they are well within their rights (correct (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(I accidentally e-mailed my reply, and I see Larry has already replied, but I'll add my thoughts anyway...) (...) issue, (...) By ensuring that private enterprise can be held accountable by free market means. This includes giving consumers free and (...) (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The big lie
|
|
(...) Not I *M* O, though. See Friedman. "Heavy regulations" are not required, just full consequence facing. Current corporate law shields officers from culpability. We've had this discussion before. Nothing has changed my view. (23 years ago, 28-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
