Replies

BS! That argument was lost when our government sent them checks.

So because the government subsidizes the building of interstate highways, there should be no speed limits or passing lanes, everybody should be allowed to get drunk as a lord or high as a kite and drive on them, etc? Nonsense.

Yes, I'm willing to take a chance on everyone else’s lighter.

I'm not. And neither, apparently, is American Airlines. So there we are.

Freedom is becoming an illusion.

We've almost 300 million people in this country today. While there are still wide-open spaces, there are simply too many of us to allow the same laissez-faire attitude that we had at the beginning of our "third rate agricultural experiment." Things will continue to change, I'm afraid, and not necessarily for the better.

We are too open a society. It is our strength and weakness.

I too hate it that we are at war and don't have the same sense of freedom that we had pre-9/11. The worst part is that for every bin Ladin that we destroy, more will most certainly pop up. Greed, envy, and hatred cannot be destroyed by military action any more than I can eliminate all the crabgrass from my lawn by pulling one leaf at a time.

I am not willing to give that up in the name of security. I'm surprised by anyone who would.

At least you didn't trot out the same tired old Ben Franklin quote that everybody else uses when somebody doesn't pander to anarchy. For that I thank you.

Me: I am not willing to give that up in the name of security. I'm surprised by anyone who would.

You: At least you didn't trot out the same tired old Ben Franklin quote that everybody else uses when somebody doesn't pander to anarchy. For that I thank you.
-------

I came pretty close though. ;-)

I also don't think the highway system is analogous. That is built by the public, for the public. Airlines are capitalistic enterprises and should adhere to the rules of 'if WE don't like it, THEY go out of business.'

And you say:
While there are still wide-open spaces, there are simply too many of us to allow the same laissez-faire attitude that we had at the beginning of our "third rate agricultural experiment." Things will continue to change, I'm afraid, and not necessarily for the better.

I wonder if you will feel the same way when they try to take our guns. All in the name of security, of course.

BS! That argument was lost when our government sent them checks.

You really need to think before you type.

The argument was that the acceptor of funds loses some right to set his own standards. In this case American loses some right.

The argument about speed limits (which I diasgree with BTW) is that the Federal government CAN tell the States what speed limits to set, and what age to set as the minimum for alcohol consumption. That is, because the the States accept government highway funds the States must give up some of their Constutitional rights to control these things. You say "Nonsense," I assume meaning that the States should give up some rights. Why isn't American in the same position?

ML/NJ