LawTalkers - All Hank, all the time.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not muslim, that I know of, although I no eatta the pig, but when I got my tan on, I am swarthy enough to fit a certain profile

I can vouch for him on this

sebastian_dangerfield

08-11-2006 04:13 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If there was effective security against liquid explosives before yesterday, why did so many people have to throw out all those liquids yesterday? Penske, they were throwing out wine! Oh the humanity!

I am going to babyproof my neighbor's place this weekend.

Just in case.

Spanky

08-11-2006 04:13 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can vouch for him on this

2. If he came by on my watch I would make sure that Ogla gave him a full cavity body search based purely on visual profiling.

Penske_Account

08-11-2006 04:13 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can vouch for him on this

Word! Thanks for getting my back.

Penske_Account

08-11-2006 04:20 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall that counterterrorism experts were on TV warning about the threat posed by boxcutters before 9/11. Johnson was talking about liquid explosives two years ago. And Ramzi Yousef was making bombs with them before that.

Bzzzzzzzzztttttttttt!

The airlines dropped their own ball on that on, regardless of your recollections. They identified the risk and then did nothing to prevent it, regardless of the government. Although what should we have expected from an industry that had a policy of capitulating to hijackers rather than seeking a solution to prevent them.

Tyrone Slothrop

08-11-2006 04:33 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bzzzzzzzzztttttttttt!

The airlines dropped their own ball on that on, regardless of your recollections. They identified the risk and then did nothing to prevent it, regardless of the government. Although what should we have expected from an industry that had a policy of capitulating to hijackers rather than seeking a solution to prevent them.

Bzzzzzzzzztttttttttt!

We can't expect airlines to protect us adequately, you dope. The reason we have a government is to protect us against market failures of the sort of you describe.

Penske_Account

08-11-2006 04:38 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bzzzzzzzzztttttttttt!

We can't expect airlines to protect us adequately, you dope. The reason we have a government is to protect us against market failures of the sort of you describe.

Generally, I would prefer to avoid the paternalistic big brother nanny state you so desire. The courts offer adequate redress for the gross negligence of the airlines.

Spanky

08-11-2006 04:40 PM

Say it ain't so, Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Is he really hot? Married?

Married to a friend of mine

Tyrone Slothrop

08-11-2006 04:50 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Generally, I would prefer to avoid the paternalistic big brother nanny state you so desire. The courts offer adequate redress for the gross negligence of the airlines.

As I recall, airline liability is dramatically limited by statute.

Maybe you want to get rid of those liability limits and abolish TSA. It sounds like a clever plan only if you're shorting airline stocks.

Tyrone Slothrop

08-11-2006 04:54 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You know about as much about what is going on at DHS as I know about building space shuttle guidance systems.

For starters:

http://www.omvarldsbilder.se/ImagesE...aSuperdome.jpg

eta: Or you can start reading here.

Penske_Account

08-11-2006 05:04 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, airline liability is dramatically limited by statute.

Maybe you want to get rid of those liability limits and abolish TSA. It sounds like a clever plan only if you're shorting airline stocks.

Based on a very quick google search, I think it changed in 1997

Personally, and I am getting no kickback here, I'd consult this guy , but either whichway, it seems the liability limits are less of a bar than your post would indicate.

YMMV.

Penske_Account

08-11-2006 05:06 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
For starters:

http://www.omvarldsbilder.se/ImagesE...aSuperdome.jpg

Sense, this post makes not.

Tyrone Slothrop

08-11-2006 05:14 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Based on a very quick google search, I think it changed in 1997

Personally, and I am getting no kickback here, I'd consult this guy , but either whichway, it seems the liability limits are less of a bar than your post would indicate.

YMMV.

Intriguing. Do the Israelis leave airport security to the free market?

Sidd Finch

08-11-2006 05:17 PM

Say it ain't so, Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Either you didn't read my posts or are putting words in my mouth. I clearly explained what I thought terrorism was, and this definition is far from it.

I read your posts -- whatever definition you cite, your application of is questionable.

So -- Renamo -- terrorists or not? Unita?

Sidd Finch

08-11-2006 05:19 PM

DHS, protecting you.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As I recall, airline liability is dramatically limited by statute.

And by treaty, if I recall correctly. The Warsaw Convention or something. Just try suing an airline sometime.

Quote:

Maybe you want to get rid of those liability limits and abolish TSA. It sounds like a clever plan only if you're shorting airline stocks.

Fool. If airlines are not doing well, liability must be more severly limited. That's a rule.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 AM.

Page 231 of 334

231

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page