|
Sen McCain on the Obama Stimulis
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 3 2009, 12:29 PM (565 Views)
|
|
Old_School
|
Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Post #61
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
- Posts:
- 2,313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
|
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
Post #62
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves. The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
frankwhite6
|
Feb 4 2009, 03:18 PM
Post #63
|
Junior
- Posts:
- 313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #182
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens True, but don't you think a company would invest in security? I'm pretty sure the people would use their money to vote on which company was doing the best job of keeping them safe by buying a ticket on their plane. If I know Company B has a history of fuck ups. I'm probably going elsewhere. If Company B then installs or upgrades security to make passengers safer, don't you think Company A would then install or upgrade their security standards/personnel to stay on par or better B?
|
|
|
| |
|
troubleatiu
|
Feb 4 2009, 03:48 PM
Post #64
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 3,218
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #21
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens it doesnt have a constitutional mandate to require its services by deceit. see the above thread. the government was quick to point out flaws in the "current situation" and federalize the entire operation. ( a convenient scapegoat?) how many times have we seen an investigative reporter breach airline security before federalization? not many. since? many times, at threat of arrest. i dont want my "safety" in the hands of those who bring the initial problem to my doorstep.
|
 "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger "What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler "Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
|
| |
|
Old_School
|
Feb 4 2009, 04:18 PM
Post #65
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
- Posts:
- 2,313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- frankwhite6
- Feb 4 2009, 03:18 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
True, but don't you think a company would invest in security? I'm pretty sure the people would use their money to vote on which company was doing the best job of keeping them safe by buying a ticket on their plane. If I know Company B has a history of fuck ups. I'm probably going elsewhere. If Company B then installs or upgrades security to make passengers safer, don't you think Company A would then install or upgrade their security standards/personnel to stay on par or better B? Frank!! Another spot on assessment!
:yourock:
|
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
|
| |
|
Old_School
|
Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
Post #66
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
- Posts:
- 2,313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
|
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Feb 4 2009, 04:49 PM
Post #67
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- IUCOLTFAN
- Feb 4 2009, 09:36 AM
- Hoosier_Faithful_07
- Feb 3 2009, 09:12 PM
- IUCOLTFAN
- Feb 3 2009, 04:14 PM
As usual, no one was paying attention. Its the old "its not my job" union attitude. when something bad happens, claim you were in the restroom and blame it on the guy next to you. They dont screen employees well enough and hire people who will do the job for next to nothing. Would you take any personal risk for 8 or 9 bucks an hour? Fuck no you wouldnt.......they just look the other way (in most cases) and hope nothing happens......its the American (union) way.
Md can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's very many minimum wage employees watching radar screens.... "In 2007, air traffic controllers saw mean annual earnings of $107,780, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Those working for the Federal Executive Branch (including the FAA) saw slightly higher earnings, at $112,670. Air traffic controllers earned the most yearly salary in Illinois over all other states, at $126,740."
Im talking about airport security.........reread my post.......people getting shit through security etc..... You said that in response to Aaron saying how can a plane go missing and nobody notice.
Go back and see what you quoted.
|
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
Post #68
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail. this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Old_School
|
Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
Post #69
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
- Posts:
- 2,313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink:
|
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Feb 5 2009, 03:48 PM
Post #70
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,921
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink: In libertarian fantasy land, wars and terrorist attacks don't happen.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
Post #71
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink: care to elaborate OldSchool?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Old_School
|
Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Post #72
|
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
- Posts:
- 2,313
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- February 10, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink:
care to elaborate OldSchool? Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.
You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security.
|
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Feb 11 2009, 05:40 PM
Post #73
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink:
care to elaborate OldSchool?
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up. You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security. OldSchool. I like your thinking, and you hit me in a soft spot because you know that I don't really think the government can do anything right. That being said, however, national security (military, intelligence...etc) is a constitutionally prescribed function which I personally believe is better in the hands of the government. I'm not actually sure how the government currently innertwines with the airlines in terms of security, so I am not speaking from a real educated standpoint, but I do think that certain terrorist threats are the responsibility of our militia (per our constitution), and if those threats involve the airlines, they must be involved.
Obviously that is very general, because like is said, I don't know much about the industry and how it's security is handled private vs. government currently.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
HoosierLars
|
Feb 11 2009, 06:46 PM
Post #74
|
3 in a row
- Posts:
- 22,921
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 5 2009, 04:03 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 5 2009, 02:53 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 08:56 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 04:24 PM
- aaronk2727
- Feb 4 2009, 02:55 PM
- Old_School
- Feb 4 2009, 02:32 PM
Here's a novel approach to airport/airline security: get the Feds out of the way and leave it up to the companies themselves.
The federal government has a constitutional obligation to provide for the safety of it's citizens
A constitutional obligation to meddle in the security process of private companies? I think not...Following your statement to its logical conclusion, must the federal government not also provide security detail for malls or little Tommy Joe's birthday party? The police department doesn't count, as certainly an airline/airport would call the cops after it apprehended a suspect using its own private security detail.
this is a tough one for me, because I am a private market solution guy, but unless the CIA, FBI...etc are going to give the private airlines rights to view and research highly sensitive and classified security information, they will not be equipped to protect us. If shopping malls became a consistent point of attack from terrorists, which airlines have obviously been, then I would also expect the government to protect it's citizens right to live freely and from harm in those environments. :blink:
care to elaborate OldSchool?
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up. You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security. Blah, blah, blah.
Do you think corporations want to poison the environment so they can make a bigger profit? Fuck yeah, some have already done it, and we're all paying for it now. The government is needed for some regulatory functions. Believing other wise is naive.
|
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Feb 11 2009, 08:35 PM
Post #75
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- Old_School
- Feb 11 2009, 03:01 PM
Aaron, you should know better than anyone that the government is incapable of providing adequate security detail, they can't do more than one thing efficiently: fuck up.
You think an airline wants terrorists aboard its planes? Fuck no. Why don't you think they'd go through every legitimate precaution to safeguard their property and those they've entered into a contractual obligation with? I'm pretty sure the captains of privately secured airlines would be allowed to carry a gun to fight off any terrorist that wanted to hi-jack the plane. I can't possibly claim to know how exactly the airlines/airports would go about securing their property, nobody can say for certain what brilliant innovations the market would come up with, but I can say with certainty that the airlines/airports would be safer and a hell of a lot less frustrating were companies left the task of providing their own security. I don't disagree with your philosophy, but in practicality, it's just not true. The reason being that NOBODY believes it will happen to them.
If I was told that I had a choice between airline A where I could arrive at the airport and be on my flight in 5 minutes, OR I could go to airline B where it's 'safer' but I have to be there two hours early, which one do you think I'm going to choose?
The most similar example of this is the automobile industry. Let's hear everyone rattle off the exact rating their car received in frontal and side collisions? Anybody? Nobody cares. They glance at it, but the cost is the final line, and unless there's an extremely high problem it will rarely factor into someone's decision because nobody plans on having a wreck.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|