jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 The Senate report is not telling us anything we don't know. We have to check our luggage only to have it stolen in Toronto by theft rings every few months. These people are responsible for our security? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070321/...senate_security Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said airports are much more vigilant these days."I'm quite comfortable with what we've done," he said. No one is properly checked as far as employees go and luggage still goes on planes unattended. Not exactly inspiring in terms of safety. Quote
Topaz Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 The Senate report is not telling us anything we don't know.We have to check our luggage only to have it stolen in Toronto by theft rings every few months. These people are responsible for our security? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070321/...senate_security Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon said airports are much more vigilant these days."I'm quite comfortable with what we've done," he said. No one is properly checked as far as employees go and luggage still goes on planes unattended. Not exactly inspiring in terms of safety. I heard the Liberal senator that brought this to the press attention. He did say when the Conservative came to power he told Cannon about this and told him he could fix it and always blame it on the former government but Cannon said it didn't NEED fixing!! So what does he want, a attack on Canada so then they have a reason to put more rules and bring more laws against Canadians??? Quote
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Posted March 22, 2007 I heard the Liberal senator that brought this to the press attention. He did say when the Conservative came to power he told Cannon about this and told him he could fix it and always blame it on the former government but Cannon said it didn't NEED fixing!! So what does he want, a attack on Canada so then they have a reason to put more rules and bring more laws against Canadians??? Every time someone flies into Toronto, they risk getting things stolen out of their suitcases. Things they were required to store in their bags. If organized crime can operate so freely, it isn't a great step to think that terrorists could simply load up bombs on several flights. Cannon, however, isn't doing anything about that. Quote
Charles Anthony Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Every time someone flies into Toronto, they risk getting things stolen out of their suitcases. Things they were required to store in their bags.People can take a private plane or they can get insurance. Therefore, I have a question: Are people able to afford the safety they demand? If organized crime can operate so freely, it isn't a great step to think that terrorists could simply load up bombs on several flights.I will stretch the question out further and ask: Should airlines be free to fly over other people without any guarantee that their airplanes are safe? How would your argument differ if you found out that the airplanes were a century old and falling apart? Cannon, however, isn't doing anything about that.Should air travel be subsidized? Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
PolyNewbie Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Its still safer to fly then to drive.. Quote Support the troops. Bring them home. Let the bankers fight their own wars. www.infowars.com Watch 911 Mysteries at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871 "By the time the people wake up to see the bars around them, the door will have already slammed shut." Texx Mars
blueblood Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 The Liberals have a point here, I'll give them that. Something should be done about this. Good plan all in all. Quote "Stop the Madness!!!" - Kevin O'Leary "Money is the ultimate scorecard of life!". - Kevin O'Leary Economic Left/Right: 4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.77
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Posted March 22, 2007 People can take a private plane or they can get insurance. Therefore, I have a question: Are people able to afford the safety they demand? I will stretch the question out further and ask: Should airlines be free to fly over other people without any guarantee that their airplanes are safe? How would your argument differ if you found out that the airplanes were a century old and falling apart? Should air travel be subsidized? You think security is a subsidy? I guess police and the military are a subsidy too. Do you think safety should be unregulated? Just exactly what are you asking here? Are you saying it is too expensive to ensure safety and security so we it should just be unregulated and let the market decide? Quote
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Posted March 22, 2007 Its still safer to fly then to drive.. Safer for accidents. Is it safer as a target for terrorism and theft? Quote
Michael Bluth Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Safer for accidents. Is it safer as a target for terrorism and theft? Theft? Absolutely. Terrorism. Hmmm, probabilites when neither event has occured within the last decade or so. Quote No one has ever defeated the Liberals with a divided conservative family. - Hon. Jim Prentice
Charles Anthony Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 You think security is a subsidy? I guess police and the military are a subsidy too.I am asking if people think it should be. Do you? Clearly things are not safe the way they are now. You and others are asking the government to do something about it. Do you think safety should be unregulated?No. I think it should be regulated by a free market. It certainly is not working now! Just exactly what are you asking here?I am asking people to answer the questions I wrote in post #4 above and which you repeated in their entirety. Are you saying it is too expensive to ensure safety and security so we it should just be unregulated and let the market decide?No. My questions are clear. I do not think people have the courage to admit what they truly want extracted from the public purse. Everybody wants something but refuses to admit that they are looking to get the tax-payer to pay their fare. Quote We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Author Report Posted March 22, 2007 I am asking if people think it should be. Do you? Clearly things are not safe the way they are now. You and others are asking the government to do something about it. No. I think it should be regulated by a free market. It certainly is not working now! I do not think people have the courage to admit what they truly want extracted from the public purse. Everybody wants something but refuses to admit that they are looking to get the tax-payer to pay their fare. The answer is yes. As far as the free market, I think we have seen that doesn't work either because airlines used to be in charge of security. It was an awful mess of hijacking and bombs. You'd have to show me examples of the free market preventing terrorism for an entire industry on their own hitch. I think the air fare purchasers pay the tally. As far as the organization that monitors security, it should be removed from the Transportation department and placed in its own stand alone agency. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.