Sgian_Dubh posted:
Altra_Shadowstalker posted:
Tipztoe posted:
Altra_Shadowstalker posted:
Why would you want to reburden the already-failing airliners with cumbersome security costs? Assuming the fed would set the security standards, it seems a bit much to put on the airliners.
why should people who don't fly have to pay for it?
Because its not in their interest for planes to fly into buildings?
The odds of me or anyone else being in one of these "buildings" is pretty damn slim.
Well, that's only because one attack was successful.
What are the odds of you or anyone else being sent to some desert wasteland so you can piss on the corpse of a 16 year old before losing your legs in a roadside bomb because someone flew a plane into a building killing a bunch of period you never met? Or what are the odds of you losing your job or being unable to ascend your corporate ladder because the economy is so bad after the attack that it contributes to a global recession and plunges your country into $trillions of debt after invading that desert wasteland.
No thanks, I'd rather the free market weren't in charge of safeguarding a known security hole.
-----signature-----
"Goddammit, Swearengen, I don't trust you as far as I could th'ow you, but I enjoy the way you lie."
I don't typo often, but when I do, I blame Swype.
