Buford T. Justice Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Everbody who's taking this guys word on what happened is an idiot. Everybody who doesn't think the people in authority did anything wrong is an idiot. There is probably a lot more to this story then this guy has told and the answer is somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Everbody who's taking this guys word on what happened is an idiot. Everybody who doesn't think the people in authority did anything wrong is an idiot. There is probably a lot more to this story then this guy has told and the answer is somewhere in the middle. 872036[/snapback] Fair enough. Too bad the whole thing wasn't on video tape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 Fair enough. Too bad the whole thing wasn't on video tape. 872073[/snapback] Yeah like that helped us all draw the same conclusion on the UCLA taser thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 20, 2006 Share Posted December 20, 2006 Pul,led this from an article on MSNBC, Pilots giving tips for flying: Q: SO what are some insider tricks for surviving airport security? A: It's common sense. Show up early and leave your suicidal tendencies at home. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Pul,led this from an article on MSNBC, Pilots giving tips for flying: Q: SO what are some insider tricks for surviving airport security? A: It's common sense. Show up early and leave your suicidal tendencies at home. Indeed. 873171[/snapback] absolutely. and getting there early leaves you more time to get loaded at the bar while you're waiting to catch your flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted December 21, 2006 Author Share Posted December 21, 2006 absolutely. and getting there early leaves you more time to get loaded at the bar while you're waiting to catch your flight. 873705[/snapback] And then you get arrested for "being under the influence of something" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 And then you get arrested for "being under the influence of something" 873747[/snapback] Not if it is banned within that area, you shouldn't be under the influence... And if you show up under the influence, then you should be rightfully arrested... See how easy it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 obviously i am joking a little, but i do think it is a legit. question: if you're not allowed to be "under the influence" when you board the plane, why are there bars in every major airport? if the policy only refers to illegal substances, how can anyone REALLY get away with shining a light in someone's eyes in an airport and saying "i suspect you're high; you're going to jail." that version of events sounds like b.s. as far as this case is concerned, i think it was correctly assessed earlier. this was an collision of 2 jerk-offs who both had to be "right." while the anti-authoritarian in me would tend to be sympathetic with the passenger, i also agree with whoever said the guy sounded like a "code-red douche. (can i borrow that line? )" my suspicion is that the whole thing was made up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 obviously i am joking a little, but i do think it is a legit. question: if you're not allowed to be "under the influence" when you board the plane, why are there bars in every major airport? if the policy only refers to illegal substances, how can anyone REALLY get away with shining a light in someone's eyes in an airport and saying "i suspect you're high; you're going to jail." that version of events sounds like b.s. as far as this case is concerned, i think it was correctly assessed earlier. this was an collision of 2 jerk-offs who both had to be "right." while the anti-authoritarian in me would tend to be sympathetic with the passenger, i also agree with whoever said the guy sounded like a "code-red douche. (can i borrow that line? )" my suspicion is that the whole thing was made up. 873857[/snapback] Bingo! That is what I have been saying... Unless you ban the sales of it on place like the trains or concourses... You will always have an inequity... Lead by example. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the bans... But, you can see why they do it???... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 But, you can see why they do it???... 873887[/snapback] Because you liberals keep mandating more safety gear - keeping the stupid around longer to ruin everyone else's good times. Take off your friggin' seatbelts, motorcycle and bike helmets, and off yourselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Because you liberals keep mandating more safety gear - keeping the stupid around longer to ruin everyone else's good times. Take off your friggin' seatbelts, motorcycle and bike helmets, and off yourselves! 873983[/snapback] Sorry...I wont ride without a bike helmet. All I need is for some **** to drift into my lane and take me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Sorry...I wont ride without a bike helmet. All I need is for some **** to drift into my lane and take me out. 874226[/snapback] I'm not telling people not to wear them. I'm telling the government to stop mandating them. Let's let Darwin do his thing, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 I'm not telling people not to wear them. I'm telling the government to stop mandating them. Let's let Darwin do his thing, please. 874301[/snapback] Yeah, and Medicaid/Medicare/Healthy New York etc. will pick up the tab for patching these "don't tread on me"-types back together again. The guiding principal behind smoking bans, helmet & seatbelt laws isn't to protect the individual...it's to try and keep medical spending down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Yeah, and Medicaid/Medicare/Healthy New York etc. will pick up the tab for patching these "don't tread on me"-types back together again. The guiding principal behind smoking bans, helmet & seatbelt laws isn't to protect the individual...it's to try and keep medical spending down. 874321[/snapback] You keep telling yourself that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 You keep telling yourself that. 874327[/snapback] So what's your theory, Jim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 So what's your theory, Jim? 874332[/snapback] Well Lurker, my theory is that politicians don't give a rats ass about you and me. It's all about control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Well Lurker, my theory is that politicians don't give a rats ass about you and me. It's all about control. 874335[/snapback] Nah, it's just all the kickbacks they can get from the Insurance Industry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Nah, it's just all the kickbacks they can get from the Insurance Industry... 874339[/snapback] It's a multitude of things, and once again, none of which have anything to do with caring about us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 Yeah, and Medicaid/Medicare/Healthy New York etc. will pick up the tab for patching these "don't tread on me"-types back together again. The guiding principal behind smoking bans, helmet & seatbelt laws isn't to protect the individual...it's to try and keep medical spending down. 874321[/snapback] It's obvious that some people will believe anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted December 21, 2006 Share Posted December 21, 2006 It's obvious that some people will believe anything. 874378[/snapback] You don't think that anything Corporate America can do to hold down spending (read lower insurance settlements, health care premiums, etc.) doesn't cause them to "influence" legislation that restricts individual "rights" ??? If so, I've got some great swampland I'll let you have for a song. Smoking Seat Belts Helmets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts