Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html




The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the "word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can set
their own standards.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html




The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in
violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the
"word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can
set
their own standards.

Eisboch


Yes..........I would defend the idiot woman's right to wear a shirt like
that in any public space, but a private company has the right to establish
their own standards......no different that demanding a coat and tie......no
shorts etc.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:03:57 GMT, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html




The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the "word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can set
their own standards.

Eisboch


Amen.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

Eisboch wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
JIMinFL wrote:
Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html




The woman was right; the airline was wrong.

Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in their
judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in violation
of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the "word".
Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can set
their own standards.

Eisboch

Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them. Also, if
the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property,
that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc? I'll bet that while still on
private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!!

wrote in message

Good God, here we go again.


Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.

The government does not subsidize them.

Also, if
the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property,
that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc?

well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is
apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance


I'll bet that while still on
private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!!

what does private property have to do with miranda?

Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.


John Gaquin wrote:
The government does not subsidize them.


Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry?

There was the one-time bailout following the terrorist attacks, which
legislation did include what you could call indirect subsidy in the form of
deferred tax payments, etc. These deferments have, I believe, all passed in
the intervening 4 years. There is also a small program to subsidize
essential air service to small rural communities, comprising some $120M per
annum, a statistical pittance of which, I believe, Southwest does not
partake. Generally speaking, though, the days are long gone when airlines
were broadly subsidized by federal money across the board.

Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry?


John Gaquin wrote:
There was the one-time bailout following the terrorist attacks

Correct.
No subsidy there, huh?

... which
legislation did include what you could call indirect subsidy in the form of
deferred tax payments, etc.

If by "etc" you mean guaranteed bond backing & loans (grants really
since nobody expectes them to be paid back, but calling it a "loan"
helps mask the size of the deficit) then yep, right again.

But that's not really a "subsidy" is it? I mean, what's a few billion
among friends right?

... These deferments have, I believe, all passed in
the intervening 4 years.

Bzzzt
But you're 2 for 3 here, pretty good.

... There is also a small program to subsidize
essential air service to small rural communities, comprising some $120M per
annum, a statistical pittance of which, I believe, Southwest does not
partake.

Don't know about that, if true the program doesn't work. Rural air
service sucks, and that's on the east coast near the DC-Boston axis.

... Generally speaking, though, the days are long gone when airlines
were broadly subsidized by federal money across the board.


Other than all the subsidies and unpaid loans, yeah. But who's gonna get
picky about details when you're having a nice little fascist rant?

Actually I'm glad to see that you have at least a slight connection to
reality, even if you forget at times. Perhaps you could keep an eye on
the other members of your little club.

DSK

Kevin is once again showing the world why he still holds the title of "King
of the NG idiots"

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Good God, here we go again.


Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.

The government does not subsidize them.

Also, if
the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property,
that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc?

well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is
apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance


I'll bet that while still on
private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!!

what does private property have to do with miranda?