FYI TV Ads STFU!!!!..... Oh, thanks Congress!

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
i actually wanted this, it's annoying as fuck when a commercial comes on and your TV is all of a sudden blasting. commercials oddly enough, fall squarely under federal control as it's interstate commerce... and when they're broad casted over the airwaves, they're definitely under fed control.



then again, i haven't watched proper tv and nothing i've dled has had commercials in close to a decade.
 
Last edited:

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
oh go fuck yourself, you do the exact same thing in the opposite direction. you take any form of government action to be socialism so until you understand the level of goddamn hypocrisy you continually spew, shut your goddamn mouth

I'm glad someone else saw it too.

Sent from bloody mobile phone.
 

Mean Mr. Mustard

Always shouts out something obscene
Sep 30, 2004
66,695
34,508
1,323
51
Uranus
Steam
heyfubuddy
While I have no problem with this particular piece of legislation, certainly there are better things that congress could be focusing on.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
OMMM GGG THANK YOU.


ODS-- please take this post and replace it with what I posted above.

So you'd rather Congress be meddling in regulations that will adversely affect you?

Sent from bloody mobile phone.
 

eileenbunny

Druish Princess
May 25, 2005
13,347
2,296
573
45
Columbia, Maryland, United States
April23 said:
What's wrong with wanting less government?

Nothing. Oh well except when we do things like remove regulations from big businesses or wall street executives they proceed directly to screwing everyone they can as quickly as possible and running the economy into the crapper while getting rich beyond any of our wildest dreams. But nothing really.
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
103,170
37,851
1,823
Houston
Nothing. Oh well except when we do things like remove regulations from big businesses or wall street executives they proceed directly to screwing everyone they can as quickly as possible and running the economy into the crapper while getting rich beyond any of our wildest dreams. But nothing really.

The government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have lost sight of this goal. :(
 

eileenbunny

Druish Princess
May 25, 2005
13,347
2,296
573
45
Columbia, Maryland, United States
The government is supposed to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have lost sight of this goal. :(

While I agree with you, everyone has a different definition of what that actually means. The TSA could be protecting life. At least they want us to believe that. So now protecting life and protecting liberty aren't the same thing. In fact, they are at direct odds with each other.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
they should just get rid of the TSA and let people take their chances flying.

Won't make a difference. The TSA doesn't negate any chance of danger in the air.

Nothing those barely trained high school dropouts without security clearances do is stopping any threat in the air. Nothing. If a plot to take down an aircraft has reached the security line, it's too late to do anything and people are going to die. The reason people haven't is because of our intelligence community and local law enforcement cooperation, not the retiree with the Sharper Image flashlight.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,330
1,717
923
they should just get rid of the TSA and let people take their chances flying.

then security would fall on the airlines which would drive the cost of flying through the roof. no one would be able to afford to fly anymore and the airlines would crumble
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
323
kansas city
then security would fall on the airlines which would drive the cost of flying through the roof. no one would be able to afford to fly anymore and the airlines would crumble

i'm saying get rid of airline security period, without airlines being responsible either.

it just isn't needed because of this:

Won't make a difference. The TSA doesn't negate any chance of danger in the air.

Nothing those barely trained high school dropouts without security clearances do is stopping any threat in the air. Nothing. If a plot to take down an aircraft has reached the security line, it's too late to do anything and people are going to die. The reason people haven't is because of our intelligence community and local law enforcement cooperation, not the retiree with the Sharper Image flashlight.

exactly. just let people take their chances. show up 5 minutes before your flight if you have no checked baggage, and walk right onto the plane. a 9/11 scenario won't happen again because if an airplane is hijacked now, the passengers are going to take it down killing everyone on board... and the TSA or some random airport security isn't going to stop this from happening anyways.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
then security would fall on the airlines which would drive the cost of flying through the roof. no one would be able to afford to fly anymore and the airlines would crumble
other way around. the security wouldn't fall primarily on the airlines, it would fall on the airports which are a mix of private and local government entities. the cost of flying would drop once the airlines and airports handle their own security because right now they have to shoulder a lot of the TSA's costs in taxes and fees on top of their own security measures, much of which is passed onto us on top of the additional fees that get tacked onto ticket purchases.

if they handled their own security not only would it be far tighter and more effective than what the TSA can provide but with local airports covering the costs themselves instead of having to pay the overhead to the federal government in order to subsidize the ineffective security in other regions, each local area would be able to better manage its own resources in protecting both the airport and the airlines would be able to focus on protecting their aircraft instead of paying for the TSA and literally not being allowed to secure their own planes.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,330
1,717
923
other way around. the security wouldn't fall primarily on the airlines, it would fall on the airports which are a mix of private and local government entities. the cost of flying would drop once the airlines and airports handle their own security because right now they have to shoulder a lot of the TSA's costs in taxes and fees on top of their own security measures, much of which is passed onto us on top of the additional fees that get tacked onto ticket purchases.

if they handled their own security not only would it be far tighter and more effective than what the TSA can provide but with local airports covering the costs themselves instead of having to pay the overhead to the federal government in order to subsidize the ineffective security in other regions, each local area would be able to better manage its own resources in protecting both the airport and the airlines would be able to focus on protecting their aircraft instead of paying for the TSA and literally not being allowed to secure their own planes.

your typical contrarian post just to enjoy the sound of your own voice as usual :p

the only way to guarantee continuity end to end particularly when dealing with other countries is for the airlines to do it themselves. there is no other way.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
your typical contrarian post just to enjoy the sound of your own voice as usual :p

the only way to guarantee continuity end to end particularly when dealing with other countries is for the airlines to do it themselves. there is no other way.
wtf I posted about it before YOU did :p

but yes, the airlines will protect their own planes, the airports will protect their terminals. both scenarios will remove the massive waste of the TSA and be far more effective but it won't raise the cost of flying. they already charge as much as they're able to and often still lose money. I'm not feeling sorry for them in any way but the costs will not simply skyrocket. the money they'll be putting into securing their own aircraft will come from them not having to pay for the TSA's operations
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/11/sanford-airport-to-opt-out-of.html

The backlash continues over those new TSA screening measures, and now one Central Florida airport has decided to go with a private security screening firm.

Orlando Sanford International Airport has decided to opt out from TSA screening.

"All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service."
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
Quote Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
oh go fuck yourself, you do the exact same thing in the opposite direction. you take any form of government action to be socialism so until you understand the level of goddamn hypocrisy you continually spew, shut your goddamn mouth
I'm glad someone else saw it too.

Sent from bloody mobile phone.

Which one of you two runs the sewing circle? :) :)
 

TuhMollie

Lot's Salty Wife
Nov 16, 2010
50,303
28,184
1,073
Currently Locked up: esposa
:waw: I'd hate to live in your world..

in Aprils world, aka CAT WORLD, these here mofos run shit.

711950_711f_625x1000.jpg