TBayXXXVII

Remember, this is an extension, not a new deal. He already has a contract in place for 2024, 25, & 26, so those numbers don't kick in for 4 more years. Those are for years, 2027, '28, and '29.

Or it would fail because the airlines give you the option to choose a refundable ticket. Every time I've ever bought an airline ticket, they gave me the opportunity to insure my ticket to get a full refund. You do understand that the only thing this law will do is make the airlines more money and the consumer is the one paying it, right? About 1 to 2% of flights get cancelled every day. So, because of those few cancellations a day, the airlines will jack up the prices of their tickets to ensure they recoup any money the government is preventing them to get. Meaning, the government is helping the airlines charge more money, and you're thanking them for it. Brilliant!!

Has anyone tried to sue the airlines in court over this? Looks to me like if this is the case, the judge would rule in favor of the plaintiff.

Yeah, the balance is... where do you draw the line? It's always drawn in pencil. It's best to never draw it in the first place... meaning, the government doesn't get involved in the first place. I understand fully Mr. Stalin. You want the government to slowly creep into everything.

Wrong, again. It's not the governments job to control how businesses go about their day-to-day operations. In this case, how they handle refunds. The airlines CLEARLY tell you what happens if the flight is cancelled, delayed, or whatever before you by the ticket. They even ask you if this is acceptable. When you buy the ticket, you're saying "YES". Now, you want the government to step in and bail you out. Bullsh!t. If you don't like the terms, then don't buy the ticket. Flying isn't the only way to travel. NOW, if the airlines did get together and colluded on how they'd handle these things, then that's a different story. Like I said in my response to Gutterboy. If they did that, then fine, the government can step in and protect the consumer. I don't know that that's the case... do you?

Keep trying loser, that's already been covered. Honcho is scared to answer this question (I asked it twice), will you answer it? Why stop here? Since we're forcing airlines how to go about their refund policy, let's just eliminate the risk altogether. How about we let the government set the price in the first place, collect the payment, and thus guaranteeing your refund?

That's collusion and illegal. Nice try. Try again.

It's not a breech of contract because when you buy the ticket... well, at least every time I did, they specifically tell you that there's a chance your flight doesn't happen and by purchasing the ticket, you understand that, agree to it, and agree to the conditions thereafter.

I'm not saying your wrong... I'm saying the hammer shouldn't be wielded by the government to make it happen.

Yes they were given a choice. They opted for that choice when the agreed to buy the ticket. If you don't want the risk of not getting your money back, don't buy the ticket in the first place. People have plenty of choices. They can choose to drive. They can take a train. Flying isn't the only option. I'm advocating for a system where the government doesn't force a business into how they go about their day-to-day operations. Like I said, if we're letting the government dictate how airlines go about their refund policy, why not let them dictate the price? It's cost protection for the customer. Why should the customer be forced to pay $200 for a flight that just the day before, sold for $185... or better yet, another airline sold it for $150?

Yes, it can, and the protections that the airlines have decided to go with... that American's are willing to accept, was vouchers/credits. Now, if the government wants to step in and say, "You sold a ticket for $100 for this person to fly from Dallas to Detroit, and that was cancelled, then you MUST honor that, without extra costs", then I'm fine with that. That's protecting the customers purchase. Telling the company HOW they must go about it, no, I'm not ok with that. Why not just have the government set the price? How about, we just let people buy the ticket from the government instead of the airlines? That way, the customers purchase is protected from the corporation.

Safety regulations are set by the government all the time, because one of the jobs of government, is safety. Day-to-day operations on the other hand, that's completely different.

Yup, gotta love it when the government forces corporations how to run their business. Can't wait to see what else they do.

Good one.

Under 18, never. Period. Just like every other thing in this country. Over 18, do what you want... it's your body. As long as you don't force me to participate in your delusion. If any policy that is put forward that supports Under 18, then I don't care what else is in the policy, it gets 100% ignored and the answer is "No". Period. There will forever be pushback on this.

The conservative approach is quite libertarian. That's why you don't encounter what you want to hear from libertarians. Prior to 18, cosmetic changes only. Still need to use a gender appropriate bathroom (not your chosen gender), or uni-sex bathroom. Boys can NOT participate in female specific activities. PERIOD! Bullying and ostracizing will ensue if you allow it based on participants acceptance. Meaning, if you have a girls basketball team and there are 6 girls who are ok with a boy, but 3 not... the 6 will bully the 3 until they acquiesce. Once you make an allowance for one, you have to do it globally... no picking and choosing. Post 18, do what you want... who cares, it's your body. You still can't go out into society and get the rights and privilege's to the gender you chose. You don't have the right to force others to accept your choices. In both circumstances, go see any doctor you want. Because we know there are activist doctors, lawyers, and judges, all people need to do is to continue to search until you find the right one for you... confirmation bias, right? Well, you solve that problem by not allowing anyone to take pharmacological options until their adults. Libertarians believe that women should have their rights protected. If a man says he's a woman, he's still not a woman, hence he is NOT afforded the protected rights women have. They also believe that your rights don't trump someone else's rights. That's why you won't hear anything to your liking from Libertarians.

Why didn't you just blanketly come out and say "Listen to radical leftists"?

No, he's saying that he hopes that one day we all refer to people as they want to be referred to, as well as allowed to live as such, regardless if it's true or not. Meaning, he hopes that if a man says he's a woman, the world will acknowledge that he is a woman, and that he'll have all the special rights and privilege's afforded to women... even though he's a man (and vice versa). He hopes that black people will be treated like every other race, even though it's him and his party who are preventing that.

ETA... @EternalShinyAndChrome (post), and @Strike (post), beat me to it.

Just so we're clear... I can change my looks (make-up and such), and clothes and say I'm a woman. The "Woke" crowd would stand behind me and say that everyone should call me a woman and participate in everyday life as woman. But if I change my looks (make-up and such), and clothes and say I'm black, the "Woke" crowd would call me racist.

Darrius Heyward-Bey 2.0??

Would they be wrong if the guy they want turns out to be the next Pat Mahomes/Tom Brady? Meaning, I think it's only a bad idea if we in hindsight look back at what transpired. If they're right about the guy they want, and he's a stud... and they don't pay whatever the cost, they'll be kicking themselves forever. If in that same sense they trade the farm and they're right, willing to bet they don't give two shitz about what they gave up to get him.

Is that anything like LeBron and Co who claim to be against slavery & "fascism", but take money from a company (Nike), who's making said people million/billionaires by selling their "brand", using slave labor in a communist (which is worse than fascism), country?