 | | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) passengers (...) No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before Sep 11. (...) But that's what's being proposed! (...) I disagree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Which property of the airlines are you talking? Their god given right to fly above people? (...) The essential difference between these two is this: There IS a right to freedom of speech, but there is NO right to freedom of flight. (...) If (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: not sure what to call this
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I agree. (...) I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you prove it's impossible? (...) I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world have to pay for our freedom? If so, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yes, it is. Not by itself, but because it won't help track down a single terrorist. We have had a number of similar disputes here in Germany, where some politicians and executives said they need this or that legislation to track down the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yeah, the simple logic of a simple cowboy president. Do you always believe what your president says? (...) I don't know how exactly you define privacy. According to my definition, privacy is something individuals should be able to enjoy. So, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and Palestine
|
|
(...) It seems the majority of Israeli voted an administration in place that is more part of the problem than part of the solution. So, how can you back this statement? :wq Horst (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
