Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For CursingPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/13/6848841-f-bombs-get-new-york-man-booted-off-plane?GT1=430011

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110613/METRO01/106130343/1410/METRO01/Man-tossed-off-flight-after-cursing-in-Detroit-may-sue

If the news article is accurate, this seems a bit extreme. The man states that he dropped just 2 "F"-bombs and was removed from his flight.

Now, I could see if he was acting in a threatening way, but this seems kind of ridiculous. I have to wonder how the other passengers felt about it. The airlines don't seem to mind inconveniencing all of the other people on board by further delaying the flight (which was already 45 minutes late) by returning to the gate, having someone removed from the plane, and then getting back in line for takeoff.

These types of articles tell you so little, it's tough to know what really happened.

But it does seem like the airlines need to publish a very specific policy statement so we all know what to wear and what not to say or do when flying these days.

So if you were on a flight, and someone said "Fvck" whatever...loudly...a couple of times, would you want to go through the hassle of having him removed? (After already leaving the gate?) How about just telling the guy to shut his piehole???
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/13/2011 4:21:57 PM
As you say, it depends on WHY and HOW they were 'letting off f-bombs.' My wager, would be that though he CLAIMED to have used obscene language only, that he was actually using obscene language to THREATEN someone. I would certainly put in the work to have someone tossed off of a plane for that. I don't care whether they thought it was normal to threaten people, and that they 'didn't really mean it.'

OFF.
 Janet_Always
Joined: 12/7/2010
Msg: 3
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/13/2011 7:33:50 PM

So if you were on a flight, and someone said "Fvck" whatever...loudly...a couple of times, would you want to go through the hassle of having him removed? (After already leaving the gate?) How about just telling the guy to shut his piehole???

If I was seated next to a jerk with a long flight ahead, hell-yeah.

I'm sure there was more to this story. He seemed angry and scary to others probably.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/13/2011 9:27:10 PM
As I've said before, I think private corporations--which are legal persons--should be able to refuse service to almost anyone for almost any reason. If airlines were governed by state law, a state would have every right to limit their ability to discriminate. But that's not how it is.

Airlines are governed by federal regulations which implement federal laws. And I don't believe the Commerce Clause or anything in the Constitution was intended to prevent discrimination by private persons. I also think very little federal law would be needed to prevent it anyway.

I'm satisfied that airline executives are not so foolish as to allow employees to turn away paying customers without very good reason. If one airline were dumb enough to do that arbitrarily, it would it quickly trash its hard-earned business goodwill with the flying public. And its competitors would be happy to take whatever customers it refused to serve.

So if the airline doesn't want people shouting "Fvck" in close quarters, it shouldn't have to tolerate it. Just because some slob who was brought up in a barn wants to run his mouth, I don't see why grandmas and little kids should have to have it inflicted on them. Those words have their place--but that ain't it.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/13/2011 10:11:05 PM
I really doubt this guy got booted off the plane just for cursing abit, as you stated OP it's a really big inconvience to have to go back to the terminal and let him off. We have in the lab, which is privately owned, a code of conduct for ourselves and for the patients, anyone acting up or cursing and causing trouble will be told to leave. Then there are people who don't want to listen to vulgar language, maybe there was children on the flight listening, who knows, I know I wouldn't want to listen to this guy for an entire flight.
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 6
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 3:30:32 AM
typical. he was most likely a loud drunk with or without the help of sedatives. and that scenario is too disruptive to have on a flight.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 7
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 10:24:24 AM
I seriously doubt that the founder of the constitution intended for a corporation to employ all the benefits of a live person...including the right to privacy and civil liberties.

In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply organizations of human individuals, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person", the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (like corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes cited for this finding, because the court reporter's comments included a statement the Chief Justice made before oral arguments began, telling the attorneys during pre-trial that "the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Later opinions misinterpreted these pre-argument comments as part of the legal decision. As a result, because of the First Amendment, Congress can't make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper. Because of the Due Process Clause, a state government can't take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation. These protections apply to all legal entities, not just corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Talk about bad court decisions leading down a wrong path....
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 8
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 2:45:49 PM
we all know that flying can be a bit unnerving even to the most courageous. a noticable percentage of the population is afraid of flying, and they drink too much at the airport bar.

a relative of mine is prescribed some serious tranquilizers for air travel. the type that could make many very silly and loose lipped.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 9
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 3:26:13 PM

As I've said before, I think private corporations--which are legal persons--should be able to refuse service to almost anyone for almost any reason.

Private corporations aren't really private. By incorporating, the owners of the corporation receive the benefit of a government regulation that limits their personal liability. When you accept benefits from government regulations, you're stuck with the strings that are attached to it. Eliminate all forms of incorporation and ensure that every owner (including the stock holders) rmain personally liable for any corporate misdeeds and I'll agree with you. Your argument, however, is completely one-sided in favor of an entity that only exists because the government created it, so you're ignoring the fact that the government already intervened to provide for the existence of a corporation as a legal entity seperate from its owners.
 femaleconnection
Joined: 8/12/2010
Msg: 10
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 4:17:48 PM
Ive said the f word on a plane, of that Im sure. But I wasnt yelling on the plane and only the person I was speaking directly with heard me say it. In order to be removed Im fairly certain he wasnt just quietly having a conversation with someone.

People pay good money for airfare, were already inconvenienced by all the 'security' and whatever other hassles they endured to get into the seat. I wouldnt want some idiot yelling and swearing next to me thats for sure. Pay over $300.00 and be forced to put up with that? No thanks...off ya go! OR if they found a seat where the folks were willing to tolerate him, then move him there.

The airlines are a business and they would rather endure the media attention for this than to lose 100 or so passengers who wont ever take a flight with them afterwards because they let any 'looney' stay on to ruin everyone elses flight. In thier shoes knowing my customers would be more ticked at him staying...off ya go!

I do think they should put it to a vote though. Sometimes they remove people for the sake of 'maybe' offending passengers when if they just asked everyone if it bothers them they may find once in awhile there really is not a big deal to anyone other than 1 stewardess or something.

Then they could be told 'the tribe has spoken'....lol
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 11
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 4:56:01 PM
"I was just kind of talking to the guy sitting next to me," the Brooklyn, N.Y., resident said. "I said 'What is taking so long?' I said "What the 'F' is going on? I could see if I directed it at (the flight attendant), but I didn't even speak to him."
http://www.theday.com/article/20110614/NWS13/306149872/1044

I dunno...but, this is what the guy had to say about that...if you can believe him.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/14/2011 10:48:14 PM

Private corporations aren't really private . . . when you accept benefits from government regulations, you're stuck with the strings that are attached to it.


That begs the question of just what those strings are. Obviously state (and to a much lesser extent federal) corporation laws regulate what corporations may do. That's not what I was talking about. The kind of thing you seem to be referring to comes up in deciding whether actions by private persons, because they somehow involve the state, constitute "state action" and therefore may be restricted by the 14th Amendment. That's an interesting question, but it's not relevant to what I was talking about either.

The issue I raised is whether anything in the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted to authorize Congress to make laws against discrimination, on whatever grounds, by private persons--which private corporations are. Only four parts qualify at all: the second sections of the 13th and 15th Amendments; the fifth section of the 14th Amendment; and the Commerce Clause.

Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce is the obvious constitutional basis for whatever federal laws and regulations prevent airlines from discriminating against passengers. I am one of many people who think the Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause far too broadly. For example, it is the basis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act's ban on discrimination in places which accommodate the public.

The Court has also extended the Commerce Clause to any businesses which are open to interstate travelers or which use products shipped in interstate commerce. See Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). In other words, any private business at all. Your home office too, maybe?

A few years ago, the Commerce Clause was the basis for the Court's holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibited a California woman from making medicines from six marijuana plants a neighbor grew for her--even though neither the marijuana from these plants nor anything else associated with them traveled in interstate commerce.

By the way, your president thinks the Commerce Clause authorizes the individual mandate in his scheme for socialized medicine. The government will argue that Congress has power to force private persons, under threat of criminal penalty, to enter into private contracts to buy medical insurance. That is, you will buy this--or else.

The Supreme Court, in its hundreds of Commerce Clause decisions, has never even hinted that it authorizes anything like that. But if it does, why couldn't federal laws also require you to buy only certain foods, clothes, or other items, and prohibit you from buying others?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 13
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/15/2011 6:58:41 AM

That begs the question of just what those strings are.

The strings are whatever the government says they are if upheld by the courts. I'd be in favor of eliminating those strings if the priviliges were eliminated as well. Otherwise, I'm perfectly happy with the strings.

The issue I raised is whether anything in the Constitution can reasonably be interpreted to authorize Congress to make laws against discrimination, on whatever grounds, by private persons--which private corporations are.

Granting corporations (ever increasing) legal status as persons has been the result of Supreme Court rulings and to that extent, corporations are persons only to the extent those particular rulings apply. The Supreme Court could just as easily overturn its own rulings, so whatever legal fiction is involved in making a corporation into a person is just that, a legal fiction. As such, I would assume that any regulation could be imposed on a corporation to whatever extent the courts uphold the regulation. Obviously, you cannot put a coropration in prison, so in effect, corporations are exempt from criminal penalties in any meaningful way. That's an obvious departure from any privilige a person enjoys.

A few years ago, the Commerce Clause was the basis for the Court's holding that the federal Controlled Substances Act prohibited a California woman from making medicines from six marijuana plants a neighbor grew for her--even though neither the marijuana from these plants nor anything else associated with them traveled in interstate commerce.


The government will argue that Congress has power to force private persons, under threat of criminal penalty, to enter into private contracts to buy medical insurance.

The Congress also passed the Child Online Protection act (by a vote of 99-0 in the Senate), despite the fact that the act was so blatantly unconstitutional that it was immediately struck down 9-0. Since the constitutionality of mandated health insurance is currently being addressed by the courts, I assume that eventually, the Supreme Court will rule on it. BTW, the federal government already forces us to pay for health insurance indirectly via tax deductions for corporations which provide health insurance. The main difference is that if you don't have health insurance, your taxes subsidize those who do have health insurance through an employer. If you do have health insurance through an employer, you're still paying for a portion of it through your income taxes. Just because the way the money flows from point A to point B is obscure, doesn't mean it's not what it is. Personally, I'd rather have to pay for my own health insurance directly than pay for someone else's health insurance indirectly.
I personally think the health care bill is a sham, so you're talking to the wrong person. On the other hand, you are forced to enter into a contract to purchase liability insurance if you want to drive (which I also disagree with).

By the way, your president

My president? Personally, I think Obama has done a terrible job and he isn't that much of an improvement over Bush and my main objections to what he's done are not on topic here. Given the choices in the 2008 elections, the only thing Obama/Biden had was that they weren't McCain/Palin, which is not really an endorsement. You'll have to do better than attack me via political slogans and political affiliations. I'd consider myself more of an anarchist than anything else. I'm only in favor of regulations to the extent that the regulations also constrain the priviliges granted by other regulations.

But if it does, why couldn't federal laws also require you to buy only certain foods, clothes, or other items, and prohibit you from buying others?

The federal government already does that via the FDA and FTC - at the very least.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 14
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/15/2011 6:29:01 PM

Granting corporations (ever increasing) legal status as persons has been the result of Supreme Court rulings and to that extent, corporations are persons only to the extent those particular rulings apply.


The doctrine that corporations are legal persons is about as "black-letter" as law gets. The states treat them as persons, and the Court first held they were persons in the 1880's, I think. I don't know what you mean by saying their legal status as persons is "ever increasing."

But the question whether corporations are private persons isn't nearly as important as the obvious fact that either way, they are NOT governments. Most of the Constitution sets out what the U.S. *government* may and may not do. It also specifically prohibits the state *governments* from doing certain listed things.

The Court has also, through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, gradually applied all of the First, Fourth, and Sixth Amendments, and parts of the Fifth, to the states. A couple years ago it finally did the same with the Second, and it's assumed (but never really held) that the Eighth also applies to states.

Only the same few parts of the Constitution which authorize Congress to restrict what private individuals may do, authorize it to restrict what private businesses may do. I listed those parts earlier. I don't believe Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was ever meant to give it carte blanche to regulate acts by private individuals, or private entities of any kind.

The Court has stretched the Commerce Clause so far that it now authorizes federal regulation of most things we do. Justice Thomas jibed in his dissent in the marijuana case that

" If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance . . . that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined,' while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No. 45, at 313.


BTW, the federal government already forces us to pay for health insurance indirectly via tax deductions for corporations which provide health insurance.


That's different. Congress is using its power to tax to do that. But when Mr. Obama was trying to sell this law, he emphasized that the individual mandate is NOT a tax. Now, though, the government's trying to claim it is. A district court recently made pretty clear it doesn't buy that claim. So the government will probably have to rely on the Commerce Clause as authority for the mandate. But the Court has NEVER interpreted that clause to mean a federal law can make Americans buy something, whether they want it or not, or suffer criminal penalties. That's plain tyranny.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 15
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/15/2011 10:50:09 PM

The doctrine that corporations are legal persons is about as "black-letter" as law gets.

Only because the Supreme Court did exactly that to which you are objecting by legislating from the bench.

The states treat them as persons, and the Court first held they were persons in the 1880's, I think.

It was 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad andthe text of that opinion actually never makes that statement. However, that ought to clue you in to the fact that for the almost half of US history corporations were not considered person and had very limited rights, (by design actually).

I don't know what you mean by saying their legal status as persons is "ever increasing."

Here's a short list:
1893 Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Company (corporations receive protection under the Bill of Rights)

1905 Lochner v. New York: States must stop interferring with private contracts between workers and management.

Ross v. Bernhard (1970): Corporations are granted the right to jury trials. Note the date. That was only 40 years ago.

1978 Marshall v. Barlow: Search warrants are required for safety inspections on corporate property

I could cite a dozen other cases, but for a legal argument written by a lawyer for lawyers, here's a reference:

Personalizing the Impersonal: Corporations and the Bill of Rights
Carl J. Mayer
Hastings Law Journal,
Hastings College of Law at University of California,
March, 1990; Volume 41, No. 3

But the question whether corporations are private persons isn't nearly as important as the obvious fact that either way, they are NOT governments. Most of the Constitution sets out what the U.S. *government* may and may not do. It also specifically prohibits the state *governments* from doing certain listed things.

But it is very important. The Constitution does not mention corporations anywhere. At the time the country was founded, corporations were not held in high regard and they were limited through charters which could be readily revoked.

I don't believe Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce was ever meant to give it carte blanche to regulate acts by private individuals, or private entities of any kind.

I don't believe Congress was given the power to do a lot of things, including give corporations full legal rights as persons, when it's obvious that a corporation cannot be held to the same standard of responsibilty as a person. You can't put a corporation in jail for a criminal act, for example. So, to that extent, I don't see any ideological problem with regulating corporations. Take away their rights as persons and then you might have some grounds for debate over what's left.

The Court has stretched the Commerce Clause so far that it now authorizes federal regulation of most things we do. Justice Thomas jibed in his dissent in the marijuana case that

Thomas also argued that there was no difference between a corporation and a group of private citizens who pool their money to support a political campaign, which even a moron can see is not true. A group of private citizens who pool their own personal money is not a corporation in any sense of the word. I really don't think Thomas is exactly a legal genius. I've also read enough Supreme Court opinions to be impressed by how well the opinion and dissenting opinion presents it's legal theory. Also, if the rulings are so heavily dependent upon which judges are sitting on the Court, I can't see how lots of things aren't being stretched to fit the arguments.

But the Court has NEVER interpreted that clause to mean a federal law can make Americans buy something, whether they want it or not, or suffer criminal penalties.

Well, the government has certainly mandated that we do buy a lot of things and at least some DO carry criminal penalties. Try buying a DVD player that doesn't contain the content protection circuitry required by law. Try not paying for DOT requirements on your car, like 5 mph bumpers. (Like, go to Europe and try to import one. It will be taken to the car crusher if you're caught with it.) Let's not forget seat belts. I don't recall having the option to not buy seatbelts. The list goes on and on.

That's plain tyranny.

That tyranny is better than corporate tyranny. The Court did the same thing when giving coporations legal status as persons. Back when that was done, the courts had never ruled on that either.But, look at it this way. There are at least 30 million americans without health insurance. Why are the insurance companies so opposed to gaining 30 million new policy holders? (I think this is pretty easy to answer if you follow the money.) The government is quite heavily involved in regulating the airlines. Without government permission, an airline could not even get a plane off the ground. It's a little late to object to government regulation of the airline industry.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/16/2011 12:51:41 AM

Only because the Supreme Court did exactly that to which you are objecting by legislating from the bench.


The huge body of common law which forms the basis of our statutes was built up through the centuries, in hundreds of thousands of cases, by "legislating from the bench." That doesn't mean at all that it was improper activism by the judges involved.


Thomas also argued that there was no difference between a corporation and a group of private citizens who pool their money to support a political campaign, which even a moron can see is not true. A group of private citizens who pool their own personal money is not a corporation in any sense of the word.


He wasn't the only one. The Court has handed down a number of decisions on the general subject of corporations and campaign financing. Citizens United just happens to be a recent one which some news outlets tried to paint out as an outrageous, radical departure. It's not at all. And I don't know exactly what decision you're claiming Justice Thomas said that in, but I don't see what's wrong with it in principle.


I really don't think Thomas is exactly a legal genius.


I see it differently. I think he may be the most clear-thinking justice of the nine. Anyone who imagines he's a weak link who gets by only because he's black could not be more wrong. I would bet not one in a hundred who sell him short has studied even one of his opinions.

His detractors would do well, as a start, to read his brilliant dissent in the Thornton term limits case. He flat destroyed the majority's opinion, pointing out and proving one error after another. They might also want to study his opinion in McDonald, the recent 2d Amendment case. It is a tour de force.


It's a little late to object to government regulation of the airline industry.


I don't favor that at all. The need for federal regulation is obvious. But it's far from obvious that the Commerce Clause should be twisted into an all-purpose social remedy for every private action which offends someone's exquisitely sensitive moral conscience. No cause is noble enough to justify abusing the Constitution for it.


corporate tyranny


I'm sure that phrase would be catchy on a bumper sticker. Just what is it, I wonder, and why don't I feel more oppressed by it? And how is it that all those volumes of state laws which regulate corporations fail to prevent it?


Well, the government has certainly mandated that we do buy a lot of things . . . the list goes on and on.


It has done no such thing--ever--and no one could make any such list. Your analogy misses the point. Of course Congress can make laws requiring DVD players to meet certain standards or cars to incorporate certain safety features. But if a person doesn't want to buy a DVD player or car at all, Congress cannot require him by law to buy it.

The Court has never even suggested that Congress has power to force private citizens to enter into private contracts. It's basic that the power to force individual persons to buy goods and services would include the power to prevent them from doing that. What right to property would anyone have left, if government could force him to dispose of it just as it dictated?


At the time the country was founded, corporations were not held in high regard and they were limited through charters which could be readily revoked.


So what? You're talking about matters of state law which don't involve constitutional issues. The states have always had authority to make corporations legal persons. And nothing in the Constitution prevents the federal government from doing that, either. The fact the Constitution doesn't mention corporations does not prevent either Congress or the Court from treating them as private persons.
 femaleconnection
Joined: 8/12/2010
Msg: 17
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/16/2011 6:31:09 AM

"I was just kind of talking to the guy sitting next to me," the Brooklyn, N.Y., resident said. "I said 'What is taking so long?' I said "What the 'F' is going on? I could see if I directed it at (the flight attendant), but I didn't even speak to him."
http://www.theday.com/article/20110614/NWS13/306149872/1044

I dunno...but, this is what the guy had to say about that...if you can believe him.


Would be interesting to see what the other passengers heard.

Like I said, the passengers who paid should be able to vote on an issue like this. It is not a safety issue and if the people sitting within earshot dont mind then the pilot who is behind a wall and cannot hear him should mind his own business...of flying the plane.

The only time I would support someone being walked off is if the other paying passengers were made to feel uncomfortable by him staying.
 4rumninja
Joined: 11/30/2009
Msg: 18
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/16/2011 10:16:06 AM

by returning to the gate, having someone removed from the plane, and then getting back in line for takeoff.
Wow! Really? a non Muslim got removed from a plane, call the ACLU...
 gardenias2
Joined: 1/13/2011
Msg: 19
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/16/2011 3:07:46 PM
^^^^yeah its about time for the aclu to primarily only take "white" cases. the new minority.
 mrconcertlover
Joined: 5/8/2011
Msg: 20
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/17/2011 8:52:45 PM
using language of that nature in public and especially on a plane indicates a lack of control. having personal control is very important on a plane and a person of this nature could possibly cause greater trouble later on in the middle of the flight.

people that use the f word in public with no regard for others are ignoramuses.
 icboobs
Joined: 6/11/2010
Msg: 21
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/23/2011 9:25:29 PM
Why don't you try dropping a couple of "F"-bombs in the forums and see what happens? Same concept.


But it does seem like the airlines need to publish a very specific policy statement so we all know what to wear and what not to say or do when flying these days.


I agree. Public libraries do it.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 22
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/24/2011 5:21:42 AM
http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/23/6918363-gross-5-things-not-to-do-on-a-plane

I saw this article yesterday. Check out this guy dressed in boy short panties and stockings. And they let him fly like this!!
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 23
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/24/2011 6:08:40 AM

Check out this guy dressed in boy short panties and stockings. And they let him fly like this!!


Well, of course they let him fly...after all, he is a white guy.
 trinity818
Joined: 9/1/2006
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/25/2011 6:06:09 AM

Well, of course they let him fly...after all, he is a white guy


Well, they didn't let Kyla Ebbert fly, and she was white also.

US Airways acknowledged Wednesday that it recently permitted a man dressed in women's underwear to fly, but in 2007, student and Hooters waitress Kyla Ebbert was asked to leave a Southwest Airlines flight because a crew member declared her in-flight attire too skimpy.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 25
Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing
Posted: 6/25/2011 6:10:09 AM

Well, they didn't let Kyla Ebbert fly, and she was white also.


She was white just not a white guy.

Are you going to now post about the white guy that was arrested for masterbating in flight???
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Man Thrown Off Flight For Cursing