The Glade 4.0

Since you apparently did not read it the first time, here is the law again. You lost the argument 3 pages ago, Taskiss.

_________________

First: I'll post where I please.

Second: It's a wholly valid point. Liberalism is generally regarded, in theory, as being in favor of individual liberty, like gays marrying and so forth. Watching liberals defend a removal of freedom is wholly intriguing.



Apparently I missed the national outrage on the current security measures then? I don't recall anyone posting here about how their rights were being violated by flying. Indeed Khross even mentioned many trips he's made recently (prior to these changes) and didn't mention any angst about prior requirements. I also don't recall any outrage about security measures when things got amazingly more stringent right after 9/11. But really my statement wasn't targeted at anyone here so much as the nation and it's hippocritical nature.[/quote]

Yes, yes I guess you did miss it. It may be because you don't read, or maybe just because you don't read the news outlets that actuality support individual freedoms.

Here's a 2004 article: http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/d ... te-control

Here's 2006: http://reason.com/blog/2006/09/05/tsa-p ... -from-dang

Here's 2008: http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/11/tsa-s ... ew-clothes

That's a non-exhaustive list from a single source. People have been displeased with this for a long time. Perhaps you need to broaden your horizons.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

note the parties identified, see "government" there?

Nope

Whatever else you want to drag into this, including all the straw you want to carry, bottom line is, if you buy a ticket you enter into a contract with the carrier. The carrier says if you refuse a security check, you're outathere.

Go ahead, keep trying to make more of it, pile as much straw around it as you like. That's not going to change the facts.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss:

And? The Federal Government is still dictating contract terms to private entities, as the quote law so decisively states.

_________________

That's between the government and the carrier.

The contract the consumer agrees to is with the carrier, the consumer is made aware of it and is free to agree with it or not at the time of purchase. The government is not involved in that decision in the least.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

A binding legal contract still has to follow the law. The govrnment is always involved. I feel that certain schools of political thought favor regulations vs trying to draft an actual law- ie FAA, EPA, RIAA, MPAA, FCC, etc.

simply put, could Continential say, "We are not screening out passengers anymore" and open up their gates? Or would the "regulation" then be changed to you must submit to screening to enter the terminal? Then regulate all flights must fly out of those terminals.

its a common tatic by the government to limit choices through this type coersion.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It’s a common tactic by Khross to twist an argument into something he feels gives credence to his position. If I agreed that the contract was coerced at all, it’ll allow him to claim that people can’t be held to their agreement to allow to be searched.  To that end, he’ll push and pull and wiggle ‘till the cows come home that the carriers are coerced and that voids the contract.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

When the government says "Do this or else" that is coercion Taskiss.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Only when it's an involuntary requirement.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

What part of the law makes it voluntary? Indeed, how do you get around the phrase "mandatory refusal of service"?

_________________

It's in the best interest of the carrier to prevent anything that might interrupt their business. A bomb seems to qualify.

I'm thinking that if you want to claim that the carriers are being coerced, that needs to be cited.

And, there isn't anything requiring carriers to include that provision in their customer contracts. That seems to be someghing they voluntarily included.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

It's been cited twice, Taskiss. Do I really need to cite the Federal Statute that dictates the terms under which carriers can do business again? Beyond that, since no air-carriers in the United States is singularly profitable without massive government subsidies, at which point do they have the option of remaining in business without submitting to questionable Federal regulations? In fact, this situation becomes even more amusing when one considers that Lady Lack of Standing is now a Supreme Court Justice.

_________________

If you'd like, go for it. There's a law, that's never been disputed.

There's also a contract, and you and the carrier have no obligation to agree to anything. You can walk, they can buy busses instead of airplanes. You insisting that there's coercion doesn't make it so.

Carriers have a choice, same as I do. We can play ball or go home. Nobody is forcing anyone to play.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Evidently you have no idea what the word "coercion" means.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Coercion is what individual citizens do to one another. Large organizations can not commit coercion. They're supposed to tell us what to do.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I know that if you can walk away from it, it's not coercion.

Not liking the rules is your right, but you don't have play. You have a choice, you're just *****' 'cause you want to have your cake and eat it too.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Actually, the Airlines can't walk away. If you'd paid any attention to the news over the last decade, you'd know that. Hell, if you'd paid any attention to the news since 1978, you'd know so even more.

_________________

There's probably some point you're trying to make, but it's just as likely that it's your idea of an elaborate trap and all you need is a nibble.

I'm sticking to the facts. It's cozy there.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Taskiss seems to be arguing from the standpoint of the traveler. The traveler can walk away from the transaction if he does not like the search. Khross seems to be arguing from the standpoint of the airline. The airline does not have a choice to put the search clause into their terms and conditions.

Please note that if you try to decline a search after entering the security area, the TSA says they can fine you $10,000.

_________________

Yes, I have from the beginning, and I believe he knows it.


One of Khross’s favorite games is getting someone to over-extend their argument then pointing to a flaw that wasn’t part of the original assertion. Say something broad enough and he’ll slip in a shiv, sure as shootin’. Seems the way to debate with him is to not let him pull you off balance. Just stick with the facts, let him snipe from a distance all he wants, but don’t give an inch or he’ll over-run your position.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This would require you to stick to the facts, which so far completely undermine your position.

_________________

Looks like both sides.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

For someone who's "sticking to the facts", you sure do spend an inordinate amount of time telling us what you think Khross's posting habits are. I'd say you're sticking to the poster(s), not to the facts or the issues.

Also, the idea that anything you can walk away from isn't coercion is patently absurd. If a bunch of thugs barricade a roadway and threaten to shoot anyone who drives through it, drivers can "choose" to comply. By your faux standard, that isn't coercion because they can "play ball or go home".

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

They're called "toll roads". I'm not a fan either, I pick other routes.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Comparing two different types of signals like RF and Gamma rays or RF and X-rays no, but RF to RF yes, for example cellular signals, for 3G AT&T uses 900/1800Mhz, Verizon 850/1900Mhz, T-mobile 1700/2100Mhz & Spring 850/1900Mhz, guess which one has the worst 3G signal penetration? T-Mobile, even though there are towers for all 4 carriers right near my work while Sprint, Verizon and AT&T can get full or almost full 3G inside my work while T-mobile drops to edge (but with full 3G outside) due to it having no low frequency band. High frequency bands can transfer more data with less channels, but it has poor building penetration.

An even better example is Sprint 3G vs 4G, both signals come from the exact same tower, both signals have full bars outside the building, inside the building the 3G (850/1900Mhz) has 5 out of 6 bars, the 4G (2500Mhz) fluctuates between 0 and 1 out of 4 bars and occasionally loses signal dropping down to 3G.