Not the best way to handle overbooking

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
To be fair, corporations are supposed to be greedy. That's their purpose, to make money. In some countries, like Germany (I don't know about Canada), corporations are permitted to do certain things for social good, but not hyar in Murka! If a corporate officer or board does something good that costs the corporation money, they can be personally liable to the shareholders for the $$ loss.

That's my point. ****ing customers is a feature not a bug.


Actually, the definition of "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" (by which I mean the actual definition, not the shrieking armwaver definition) includes "selectable semiautomatic and automatic fire." Which means it has been illegal to manufacture or import them in the U.S., except for the military or law enforcement, since 1986, and private ownership is highly regulated (and damned expensive). Since 1986, one homicide has been committed with a legally-owned Class III weapon, i.e., an assault rifle.

Unless you buy it at the annual North by SouthEast Kansas John Wayne Convention and Corn Dog Eating Contest. The government doesn't need to worry about any terrists or darkskinned people attending.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
That's my point. ****ing customers is a feature not a bug.




Unless you buy it at the annual North by SouthEast Kansas John Wayne Convention and Corn Dog Eating Contest. The government doesn't need to worry about any terrists or darkskinned people attending.
You're wrong on this (aside from the snark, which is actually pretty dead-on), but I don't expect things like facts to change your mind.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
Corporations don't just treat customers like that, they also treat their employees like that.

Heck you could go to work one day, get called up to the supervisors office, get laid off and have security escort you off the property.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Yep. Then we could send the Navy SEALs to free him, which we've promised we'd do if any American was ever brought before the ICC.

Tomahawks on The Hague! Captain, you are hereby authorized to go full-on stupid! Make America Great Again!

I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.

You're wrong on this (aside from the snark, which is actually pretty dead-on), but I don't expect things like facts to change your mind.

I'm wrong on what?

Corporations don't just treat customers like that, they also treat their employees like that.

Heck you could go to work one day, get called up to the supervisors office, get laid off and have security escort you off the property.

Proponents of trickle down economics say that more corporate profits means more jobs, but corporations don't want jobs, they want profits. So reality is the other way around. They will only create jobs if that means more profit. What happens when less jobs and lower wages mean more profit?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.

 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
I'd secretly like to see Trump lose his mind over that. The US does have a large selection of potential war criminals the ICC can bring in.
Be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Aside from the carnage, I mean.

But just you believe me, missy, the U.S. Navy SEALs can kill WAAAAY more people than some "self-radicalized" wannabe crashing an SUV into pedestrians!

Or even a drunk, washed-up former teenage movie star crashing an SUV into pedestrians.



I'm wrong on what?
I'm losing track, to be honest. We're fighting about refugees and guns, and pretty much agreeing on corporations and the notion that, legal though it may be, dragging a paying customer off a plane semi-conscious and bleeding and calling it "re-accommodation" probably isn't the best idea ever.

I'll try to keep my threads straight.



Proponents of trickle down economics say that more corporate profits means more jobs, but corporations don't want jobs, they want profits. So reality is the other way around. They will only create jobs if that means more profit. What happens when less jobs and lower wages mean more profit?
I take it that question is rhetorical. Further, the stats have shown over and over that the middle class circulating its money produces far more jobs and far more wealth than the rich and corporations "investing."
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Be pretty funny, wouldn't it? Aside from the carnage, I mean.

But just you believe me, missy, the U.S. Navy SEALs can kill WAAAAY more people than some "self-radicalized" wannabe crashing an SUV into pedestrians!

Or even a drunk, washed-up former teenage movie star crashing an SUV into pedestrians.

Or even unregulated industry trying to make an extra nickel!

I'm losing track, to be honest. We're fighting about refugees and guns, and pretty much agreeing on corporations and the notion that, legal though it may be, dragging a paying customer off a plane semi-conscious and bleeding and calling it "re-accommodation" probably isn't the best idea ever.

I'll try to keep my threads straight.

We aren't really disagreeing about guns. You posted something about gun specifications, which is all just gibberish to me, so I said something about assault rifles to annoy you. Whenever there's a gun debate people get overly specific about the definitions of gun types and I think it's silly. All you gotta say is "assault rifle" and you trigger a gun nut.

I take it that question is rhetorical. Further, the stats have shown over and over that the middle class circulating its money produces far more jobs and far more wealth than the rich and corporations "investing."

Yup, and income redistribution is better for the economy than corporate tax cuts. Best to give welfare recipients more money with less strings and then make CEOs piss in a cup for the salaries.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
We aren't really disagreeing about guns. You posted something about gun specifications, which is all just gibberish to me, so I said something about assault rifles to annoy you. Whenever there's a gun debate people get overly specific about the definitions of gun types and I think it's silly. All you gotta say is "assault rifle" and you trigger a gun nut.
Or an anti-gun nut.

The solution to the U.S.'s gun problem is simple. Go after the handguns. Screw the "assault weapons;" long guns are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides and less than 10% of all gun deaths. Further, you can get around the Second Amendment because a handgun is not a military, therefore "militia," weapon. As a practical matter, it's a little tough to tuck a hunting rifle, or even an "assault weapon" in your waistband under your jacket.

Downside is that cops would have to come up with another reason for killing unarmed kids.



Yup, and income redistribution is better for the economy than corporate tax cuts. Best to give welfare recipients more money with less strings and then make CEOs piss in a cup for the salaries.
Nah, make 'em drink the cup. Not that they wouldn't, mind.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Or an anti-gun nut.

The solution to the U.S.'s gun problem is simple. Go after the handguns. Screw the "assault weapons;" long guns are used in less than 5% of all gun homicides and less than 10% of all gun deaths. Further, you can get around the Second Amendment because a handgun is not a military, therefore "militia," weapon. As a practical matter, it's a little tough to tuck a hunting rifle, or even an "assault weapon" in your waistband under your jacket.

Downside is that cops would have to come up with another reason for killing unarmed kids.

So back on topic, the man dragged off the plane should have been able to use a second amendment solution to defend his seat. This is the sort of tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned you about. Isn't it about time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots?

Nah, make 'em drink the cup. Not that they wouldn't, mind.

Sell it to them. Corporate pigs and American presidents will pay good money to drink a cup of their own piss.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
So back on topic, the man dragged off the plane should have been able to use a second amendment solution to defend his seat. This is the sort of tyranny Thomas Jefferson warned you about. Isn't it about time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots?
Works for me. Please note that, like all good politicians (and slavers) Jefferson did not, at any time, put himself in a position where any of the blood watering the ol' liberty oak might be his.



Sell it to them. Corporate pigs and American presidents will pay good money to drink a cup of their own piss.
Also works for me. But don't forget that the Constitution specifically protects the rights of corporations in Article VII, section 2. (It doesn't, but I'm sure one of the usual suspects will quote me on it soon.)
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Yes over booking should be illegal plain and simple
Once a person has paid for a flight regardless of how
much they paid the airline has for a fee entered into a
contract to transport them to a destination safely I
might add. In the last few years I have flown a lot and
I see this from time to time. Once airline offered the
passengers 1500 dollars to take a different flight and in
the end they arrived in Winnipeg an hour later than their
original flight time.. What happened in the United case is
nothing short of a disgrace and should be regarded as a
criminal matter
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Works for me. Please note that, like all good politicians (and slavers) Jefferson did not, at any time, put himself in a position where any of the blood watering the ol' liberty oak might be his.

Oh yeah, I'm well-acquainted with Hamilton.

Hamilton

And another thing, Mr. Age of Enlightenment
Don’t lecture me about the war, you didn’t fight in it
You think I’m frightened of you, man?
We almost died in a trench
While you were off getting high with the French



Yes over booking should be illegal plain and simple

Can't do that unless you want to hauled before the WTO, the only effective International Criminal Court.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
Oh yeah, I'm well-acquainted with Hamilton.

Hamilton

And another thing, Mr. Age of Enlightenment
Don’t lecture me about the war, you didn’t fight in it
You think I’m frightened of you, man?
We almost died in a trench
While you were off getting high with the French
I, on the other hand, was not acquainted with Hamilton.

But I like the lines.

I was thinking more of Monroe. He and Washington were the only two American Presidents who actually fought in the Revolution.

No, I take that back. Trump did too. Just ask him.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,117
9,418
113
Washington DC
T-Bones, why don't you do what Lawyers do best and ambulance chase this poor doctor..
Hey Boom, why don't you do the only thing you can do with any degree of competence and jerk off to soft-core porn pictures of girls who wouldn't give you the time of day?

The CEO admitted United was wrong, there has to be a Great Lawsuit there for you.. :lol:
Do you Really Think that Capitalizing words Randomly makes you seem Literate?