Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

American Life Goes On

[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,3605,553598,00.html"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,3605,553598,00.html[/url]

Some things don't change...

Comments

  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    Sheesh.
    "Since the airline's planes were used as weapons, they should be held responsible"
  • (groan)
    Boy, any lawyer who takes that view and tries to sue has gotta have more balls than brains. (Then again, what else is new? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img] )
  • F***ing typical!
    Some cash obsessed capitalist ba$tards will use any situation to make a bit of cash!
    This pisses me right off!

    Cherio.

    ------------------
    Catapvltam habeo. Nisi pecvniam omnem mihi dabis, ad capvt tvvm saxvm immane mittam.
    Mater tva criceta fvit, et pater tvo redolvit bacarvm sambvcvs.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I think that suing the airlines over this is just plain SICK. That's right, ruin a few airline companies who are already having enough trouble over this, just so they can get some money.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • The idea of suing the airlines doesn't pi$$ me off so much; they're a big part of the reason for the pathetic security at U.S. airports. If they go under (with or without the lawsuits), they f***ing well deserve it (and some probably will). What really ticks me off is that these bastard ambulance-chasers are using a tragic event as a means to get rich. (What else is new?) Grrr...
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Do tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people deserve to lose their jobs and their means of survival because the regulations were not strong enough? I don't think any airline companies deserve to go under for any reason related to this. It is the fault of the regulations, not requiring that airlines higher competent staff and enforce stronger security.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    The Balance provides. The Balance protects.

    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • RickRick Sector 14 Studios
    No one is without blame. We became complaicant...

    ...and now we know we must be vigilant.
  • Biggles: Believe me, I [i]don't[/i] want to see those thousands of people lose their jobs over this, particularly since [i]they[/i] are the ones who, in most cases, have complained the loudest about lax security. Their employers, on the other hand, have opposed many attempts to make U.S. airports more secure.

    As you implied, the government is partly to blame for the regulations; however, the airline industry shares an equal amount of responsibility for this problem, as do a great many others. As Rick said, we have become complacent; we are now paying (and will continue to pay) the price for that complacency.
Sign In or Register to comment.