footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to rachelsfx
Re: Yes
said by rachelsfx  :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits? I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. OK, first off, Continental isn't exactly the little guy here. Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'? Fifthly (is that a word?), just exactly what is being kept from the public?
Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant?
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·BroadVoice
1 edit | said by footballdude :Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? On this website, unfortunately yes. 
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to footballdude
said by footballdude :Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? Yes. And, just to make you upset! (kidding of course)
It would seem that there is some amount of subject hopping going on. However, it does seem that more people are hopping on to the "In the name of security" bandwagon since the prez successfully convinced the nation using that same speech. Using people's safety against them, with no proof, has become more commonplace in the last 5 years, and is a despicable tactic.
puritan |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to footballdude
Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'?"
The airport appears to be dragging out the old chestnut that was lionized and popularized by Bush and his administration as a catch-all excuse to justify any action that otherwise would get uncomfortably examined.
I'm guessing the complaint is that a lot of folks are tired of hearing the "national security" excuse for many reasons that don't seem to have any connection with national security at all.
Logan Airport stated early on that unrestricted wifi in the airport posed a national security risk but I don't recall any more elaboration beyond that (which suggested that their claim was dubious).
Yes, fifthly IS a word...*grin* |
|
cwy1980
Premium
join:2004-08-10
Monmouth Junction, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
| The most ironic part of this argument regarding Logan using the "security concerns" excuse is that, from a physical security perspective, cell phones are a FAR greater potential security concern than WiFi...
Poor Boston Logan Airport...all that revenue they lose from Continental's WiFi customers must really make them feel insecure...
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy |
|
