Get ready to spend nine hours on the tarmac without food or water. Senate Republicans yesterday shoved the Passenger’s Bill of Rights into the chamber’s overhead bin, killing off hope that the bill will pass before the elections. Even worse, the shot-down bill had transformed into a gleaming marvel of consumer protection.
Here’s what happened: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) filed a motion for cloture—Senate-speak for shut-up and stay on topic—which requires a supermajority of 60 votes for approval. Without cloture, Senators can yack forever like a bunch of riled-up monkeys. The vote on cloture failed 49-42, empowering Republicans to filibuster our beautiful piece of legislation into the ground.
What protections have Senate Republicans stolen from you? Let’s look at Senator Rockefeller’s (D-WV) substitute amendment sporting the new, improved Passenger’s Bill of Rights:
TITLE IV–AIRLINE SERVICE AND SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
SEC. 401. AIRLINE CONTINGENCY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.–Chapter 417 is amended by adding at the end the following:
SUBCHAPTER IV–AIRLINE CUSTOMER SERVICE “§.41781. AIRLINE CONTINGENCY SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.–Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2008, each air carrier shall submit a contingency service plan to the Secretary of Transportation for review and approval. The plan shall require the air carrier to implement, at a minimum, the following practices:
(1) PROVISION OF FOOD AND WATER.–If the departure of a flight of an air carrier is substantially delayed, or disembarkation of passengers on an arriving flight that has landed is substantially delayed, the air carrier shall provide–
(A) adequate food and potable water to passengers on such flight during such delay; and
(B) adequate restroom facilities to passengers on such flight during such delay.
(2) RIGHT TO DEPLANE.–
(A) IN GENERAL.–An air carrier shall develop a plan, that incorporates medical considerations, to ensure that passengers are provided a clear timeframe under which they will be permitted to deplane a delayed aircraft. The air carrier shall provide a copy of the plan to the Secretary of Transportation, who shall make the plan available to the public. In the absence of such a plan, except as provided in subparagraph (B), if more than 3 hours after passengers have boarded a flight, the aircraft doors are closed and the aircraft has not departed, the air carrier shall provide passengers with the option to deplane safely before the departure of such aircraft. Such option shall be provided to passengers not less often than once during each 3-hour period that the plane remains on the ground.
(B) EXCEPTIONS.–Subparagraph (A) shall not apply–
(i) if the pilot of such flight reasonably determines that such flight will depart not later than 30 minutes after the 3 hour delay; or
(ii) if the pilot of such flight reasonably determines that permitting a passenger to deplane would jeopardize passenger safety or security.
(C) APPLICATION TO DIVERTED FLIGHTS.–This section applies to aircraft without regard to whether they have been diverted to an airport other than the original destination.
(b) POSTING CONSUMER RIGHTS ON WEBSITE.–An air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation shall publish conspicuously and update monthly on the Internet website of the air carrier a statement of the air carrier’s customer service policy and of air carrier customers’ consumer rights under Federal and State law.
(c) REVIEW AND APPROVAL; MINIMUM STANDARDS.–The Secretary of Transportation shall review the contingency service plan submitted by an air carrier under subsection (a) and may approve it or disapprove it and return it to the carrier for modification and resubmittal. The Secretary may establish minimum standards for such plans and require air carriers to meet those standards.
(d) AIR CARRIER.–In this section the term `air carrier’ means an air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation.”.
(b) REGULATIONS.–Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate such regulations as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).
So what’s different from the old versions?
- Compliance: Airlines now have 60 days, not 90 days, to get their act together and slap together a contingency plan;
- Advertising: Congress wants this Bill of Rights placed “conspicuously” on each arline’s website. No burying the Bill of Rights in a site index;
- Not Just For Departures: The substitute amendment now covers delayed arrivals.
We’re not wild about the absence of civil penalties, or empowering pilots to stall if they “reasonably determine” that take-off is less than 30 minutes away. As compensation for these losses, Senator Rockefeller tossed in this gem of a sweetener:
SEC. 402. PUBLICATION OF CUSTOMER SERVICE DATA AND FLIGHT DELAY HISTORY.
Section 41722 is amended by adding at the end the following:
(f) CHRONICALLY DELAYED FLIGHTS.–
(1) PUBLICATION OF LIST OF FLIGHTS.–An air carrier holding a certificate issued under section 41102 that conducts scheduled passenger air transportation shall publish and update monthly on the Internet website of the air carrier, or provide on request, a list of chronically delayed flights operated by the air carrier.
(2) DISCLOSURE TO CUSTOMERS WHEN PURCHASING TICKETS.–An air carrier shall disclose the following information prominently to an individual before that individual books transportation on the air carrier’s Internet website for any flight for which data is reported to the Department of Transportation under part 234 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, and for which the air carrier has primary responsibility for inventory control:
(A) The on-time performance for the flight if it is a chronically delayed flight.
(B) The cancellation rate for the flight if it is a chronically canceled flight.
(3) CHRONICALLY DELAYED; CHRONICALLY CANCELED.–The Secretary of Transportation shall define the terms `chronically delayed flight’ and `chronically canceled flight’ for purposes of this subsection.”.
If an flight is chronically late, not only must the airline broadcast their shame on their website, but they must also warn travelers before selling tickets that their flight will likely be delayed.
The Passenger’s Bill of Rights was tacked onto a much larger bill reauthorizing the FAA. Members of Congress could rip out the Bill of Rights and and pass it separately, but the Congressional calendar crowds up before elections, and our important little bill has little hope of standing out.
Like a Price Is Right Danger Price loser, we don’t get the contingency plans; we don’t get the food or water; and we don’t get the chronically delayed flight notifications. We get nothing. Thanks, Senate Republicans!
Air safety, passenger rights bill hits dead end in Senate [AP]
On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Rockefeller Amdt. No. 4627 (Subst.) to H.R. 2881 ) [U.S. Senate]
(Photo: Getty)
More From Consumerist
-
Disney Cruise Line Places Alleged iPhone Thief On Administrative Leave
-
Senate Panel Gives Thumbs-Up To Confirming CFPB Director Cordray
-
When Flying, Maybe Leave Your Grenade-Shaped Lighter At Home
-
Here’s Why Everyone Is Talking About The U.S. Government Minting A Trillion-Dollar Coin
-
Insurance Company Tells Daughter She Should Pay To Fix The Car That Killed Her Mom
I spent a summer working in the Senate and one thing I can learn — looking at one vote doesn’t tell you much. There are too many things going on in the bill itself and around it to really make much sense.
Arrgh…one thing I learned!
@Bladefist: “we were all joking man. Relax.”
Aaaaaaaand how d’ya know that I’m not joking, cowboy?
Never apply for a job with the Psychic Friends Network; you’re clearly not qualified.
@chrisjames:
“You are never forced to fly for business. You are never forced to fly, ever.”
Uh, no.
Haven’t I been down this road with you before?
can’t have it both ways, but I think the gov should be as uninvolved as possible:
the gov should enforce safety guidelines, like in other industries, but should let them operate the way they want.
that also mean NO, as in NONE AT ALL, subsidies or bailouts. can’t operate? close down.
then people will vote with their money. if no airlines is able to offer a service that will survive by itself, then maybe the USA is not able to have private airlines and it should become a gov service. If they thrive without help, then that’s their business.
at the same time, they should not make use of the law to conduct business: if I’m waiting too long and I’m fed up, I want to leave on the spot and I want my money back. but that would go against their private rules…
the only option: let them crash, till they’re all gone and the situation will eventually become better. British Airways for example provides better server than any of our airlines, maybe we should let ours crash and let them come over. airlines are not an essential service (like electricity and water), and that’s free market after all
@chrisjames: “They are dealing with their money, their property, and they are the only ones who eat the costs, not these regulatory agencies and legislative bodies.”
This is 100% false. None of the major airlines would be solvent if it wasn’t for the fact that the government provided them with massive financial bailouts. I don’t know why we don’t just let the majors go down and let JetBlue and Southwest battle for dominance.
@thegirls: First, I don’t associate myself with Republicans, so your neat little black and white pigeonholing doesn’t mean much as to the validity of my statements.
Name a circumstance where someone is forced into a job that requires them to fly. By circumstance, I mean through absolutely no choice of their own; not a single voluntary act is taken along the road to necessity. By forced, I mean there are literally no other options available to them. I don’t mean undesirable options, all options period. People must take accountability for their own lives and the lives of those they are charged to protect (i.e. children, pets, invalids) and no one else. Is it your obligation to feed your neighbor? Is it a private airline’s responsibility to account for those people that end up in jobs where the must fly against their will to stay employed?
And if someone chooses a job they hate because of other reasons, however honorable they may be, that is still a choice. A choice. One more time, because I haven’t yet reached my limit of repeating this: it is your choice and you pay the consequences.
@chrisjames:
how about a commercial airline pilot?
@chrisjames: You’re an idiot.
Happy Day!
@Empire: Then by all means, appropriate the airlines. You are the public, so act accordingly. Consider the bailouts just compensation and seize their property to turn the industry into a public service.
No seriously, you can’t throw money at them while they dance around and say, “look at all my property that you’ve helped me to buy and to keep.” If I gave you $1000 today, no questions asked, because I’d like to keep you from going bankrupt (assuming you were), should I then turn around and tell you what you should buy, who you could date, how many children you could have, what you should eat and how often, etc?
Like @ThomasD3 said, you can’t have it both ways. Stop the damned bailouts and subsidies or take over. Pick one or the other, because any compromise is no better than moral theft.
What I said is 100% true because the airlines keep the money and the planes at the end of the day. If you’d like them to be accountable now that you’ve given them money, then exercise your constitutional right, as a member of the public, to seize their property for the benefit of the public.
Wow you guys get dupped easily. This is how the “fear mongering” happens. It was the “larger” bill that got shelved cause of issues.
Whenever you see one bill attached to another bill, that’s usually done to get the weaker bill passed by holding the better bill hostage.
In reality, the “better” bill is usually pumped up with a bunch of stuff they tossed in knowing full well it would not pass cause of the problems with the weaker bill.
Then yahoo’s lament the death of the “cures world hunger forever” bill that died due to Blankety Blank.
Politics are not for the feint of heart … and definitely not for sheep.
@david.c: I can barely comprehend your babblings, so much so that I read it through twice to get it.
1. The AP is the source for this article. Unless you’re about to call the Associated Press ‘biased liberal media’, you’ll have a hard time contradicting this bit:
“That vote could doom action on the legislation this year. It came despite wide bipartisan support for the main goals of the bill, which are to modernize the nation’s antiquated air traffic control system, make the Federal Aviation Administration more accountable for the safety of planes and airports, and protect passengers from the miseries associated with lengthy delays.”
So there was wide bipartisan support of the bill YOU claim was the sticky one, and no Republican support for the tacked-on consumer rights bill, which you attempt to claim Republicans were in favor of?
You got it backward pal. And I’m guessing it’s because you get your news from Rush Limbaugh or some equally-myopic hack.
@chrisjames: By forced, I mean there are literally no other options available to them.
Test pilot?
In my job as a technical sort of person dealing with things that get shot into space, you’d think that I could ‘choose’ to teleconference when I have meetings with people across the country. Except I can’t. Sometimes the people I’m meeting with are very senior in the organization and don’t adhere to the exact schedule. Still, I’m expected to be in town when the meeting happens because we’ve found that face-to-face interaction results in far more effective communication and fewer misunderstandings.
In the space business, where everything is expensive and you don’t get do-overs, we generally like to make sure everyone is on the same page. Face to face meetings are the best way to do that, for things like project reviews, and for those, I occasionally have to fly across the country, because paying me to take a week off and ride a bus to Houston isn’t a good use of _your_ tax dollars.
Your myopic worldview of air travel informs your myopic view of the rules the industry should be governed by. Do try to get out more often.
@chrisjames: should I then turn around and tell you what you should buy, who you could date, how many children you could have, what you should eat and how often, etc?
Absolutely. It’s your choice – you give me the $1000.00 and dictate the conditions upon which it is used, or you don’t give the money, and after I am bankrupt, you parcel out my stuff for sale or buy that stuff at a fair price to use on your own.
Unfortunately, you cite a really poor example (having babies) – the airlines are corporations, not people. If you give money to a person, there is still the question of what is morally acceptable – as in your example, it would not be moral to ask someone not to have a baby as a condition of a loan. Fortunately for us, Corporations are devoid of morals and moral responsibility because they are not natural people, even though they have some of the rights of people.
@CaliforniaCajun: That’s your choice to be in that position. You are free to seek employment elsewhere, or to bargain with your superiors.
You seem to think that it’s ok to be at the mercy of your employers without question, but that a third-party to your situation, the airlines, must serve you. You’ve gotten the purpose of the dollar mixed up. The dollar does not buy slavery. Just because your employer is paying you doesn’t mean they control you, only that you must earn them money on their conditions or leave. Similarly, just because you pay the airlines doesn’t mean they must bow to your desires, only that they offer the services agreed to as part of the transaction.
If you believe you are being cheated by either party, do something about it. Either confront one or the other, or take your business elsewhere. Anything else is compliance with the terms of the transactions.
If you are implying my supposed myopia is missing the fact that air travel is some form of public necessity, then seize their property. If you won’t, then they remain private and get to do as they see fit, and you’re right back where you started: accepting poor flight conditions by choice.
@chrisjames: Dude. I like my job. See, I like working there. I even like flying. And I think you forgot what this whole conversation was about – you challenged me to name a profession that requires flying.
You aren’t making a lot of sense to me anymore. So bye.
@CaliforniaCajun: Corporations are not mindless entities. They are not great steam engines that are chugging along without thought or reason. They are owned and operated by people. People that you are ascribing morals to. When you regulate a corporation, you are regulating the people that own it and run it, as well as the numerous people employed and, indirectly, the people who do business with it. By what morals is it okay to tell people what to do?
If the government has told the airlines that they must spend their bailouts on this and that, then that would be proper use of their funds, but the airlines are still entitled to their money and their property separate from this money. They would have to be concrete terms, because suggestions and implications don’t cut it in industry; you should know that if I understand what your job is. If they aren’t following the rules on the money received, then that’s a serious crime, and they should be held accountable.
God what a bickering mess. Our brains are so infected with partisan labels that we can’t think straight. Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican. No one in congress looks out for the average person. The only way to get elected to that not-so-august body is to be so power-hungry and full of hubris, you’ll say and do anything to hold onto your power and grab as much more as possible. In pursuit of that power, you spin joint legislative failures as purely the other guys fault. In every law, you try to insert as many loopholes or irrelevant amendments as possible to serve your contributors and other powerful lobbying groups.
The problem is that the balance of power between the average citizen vs. the wealthiest individuals and most corporations is so completely out of whack. Why do you think Consumerist is here? It’s because corporations will do anything to maximize profits, including abusing the law, their customers, and public resources. And until they are brought to heel by either regulation or supply and demand, they will pose a danger to individuals and their more scrupulous competitors. That’s half the reason most US manufacturing jobs have moved to China.
It isn’t that individuals are inherently more noble than corporations, the irresponsible and even evil decisions made by corporations are made by individuals or worse yet, committees. It’s just that the way corporations are structured gives them so many resources to manipulate every aspect of the system, with much less fear of retribution. All of the complicated, piece-meal regulations and legislation full of loop-holes address specific instances of abuse, but do nothing about the overall imbalance of power. And they never will, because both major parties derive so much of their power from corporate support.
There is always a need for laws and regulations. They just need to be periodically re-examined from a zero basis (“The tree of liberty must sometimes be nourished with the blood of patriots.”). Laws start out simple (Thou shalt not kill) and get more complicated as societies find that justice is fractal, and requires many shadings and convolutions to assign guilt and responsibility (accidental death, self-defense, culpable negligence, Involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, murder one, etc.). This is a natural evolution. People who skirt the edges of current law generate the requirement to fill in the details, either by lobbying to insert loopholes in currently prohibited activities, or by creating lobbies that seek to prohibit their activities due their currently legal but reprehensible behavior. When the laws evolve to such a point that they are too biased and complicated for the average citizen to live with, you get revolutions. (The citizens’ social attitudes are equally important in determining the “tipping point”, but my topic here is why regulations have to be so complicated.)
That is where we stand with the government and the airline industry today. Keeping passengers cooped up indefinitely so that you don’t have to pay a new gate fee or pay compensation to the passengers is a human rights abuse. Should a victim of this abuse just piss in the aisle? If you can’t perform the service as advertised (leaving and arriving fairly close to the scheduled time), the customer should have the right to opt out of the service contract, even if they are aboard the aircraft (though if the craft is in flight, I doubt there would be many takers..).
On the other hand, the level of detail, interference, favoritism and complexity in government regulation is reaching the point where it folds, spindles and mutilates the social contract between the government and its citizens. Should the average person even attempt to rely on the system to protect their rights?
@Bladefist: The reason for delays has more to do with a lack of concrete on the ground(runways) than anything else.
The FAA is now run by former captains of the industry. Airline officials have been permitted to take control and have changed regulations to benefit their industry. Miles in trail, vertical separation, etc. have been relaxed. (Don’t mind that plane outside your window it’s not THAT close)
e.g. Russ Chew: Former COO of FAA was an exec at American Airlines. He left FAA in 2007 to become COO of Jet Blue.
Marion Blakey: She was the Bush appointee of Chairman of the NTSB before becoming the FAA Administrator. After botching and departing FAA her reward for bending over for airlines was being appointed as CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association. These are the folks who lobby for the airline industry.
This is classic Bush procedure. Take industry big whigs, appoint them to executive offices within Gov’t long enough to bend over for the industries they are supposed to be overseeing and then rewarding them with a golden parachute within those very industries.
Today the FAA is understaffed and yet bloated with managers who have no background in the oversight of the National Air Space.
@Applekid: They weren’t there and that does not matter since you need 60 for cloture
@bwcbwc: Brilliantly written. I have posted many times about the airline industry and I feel this will remain status quo so long as incompetent people vote for incompetent representatives
@bwcbwc: AMEN!
@Bladefist
“But Government has no place in private companies.”
Yeah, you’re totally right. Having agencies to make sure our food and drugs are produced safely is a stupid idea.
@Softly-with-a-Big-Stick
“I have only been on an airplane a few times in my life, but I’m telling you there is no way I am going to sit on a tarmac for more than 2 hours—TOPS! Can someone tell me what prevents the passengers from REVOLTING and taking over the plane? There are more of us than crew. Open the damn door and let us walk IF WE CHOOSE. I’d rather walk back to the terminal than be stuck with sh**y toilets, bad air, no food or water, and God knows what virus’ are thriving in that closed environment. Simply announce that I’m leaving and ask who’s coming with me. Hopefully there would be a few non-lemmings afraid of “Big Brother” who would join me. Why are people so stupid they let this happen?”
I understand and agree with your anger, but if you seriously decide to ever try and take over a plane, you might as well just book your flight to some secret CIA prison, because that’s where you’ll be going…if they don’t kill you when they storm the plane that is.
@snclfe
“None of the Presidential candidates voted on this
Cowards!”
Yes, none of the dipshits that will be leading us for the next four years had the balls to vote for even something like this. It’s a reassuring thought, isn’t it?
Anyway, why do we elect the shittiest people to run our government? Seriously.
PS- Nobama 2008
What’s wrong in demanding food and water from the airlines if passengers are stranded?
I think the Republicans are confusing America with some 3rd world nation because consumers should be treated better here.
I say we kick them out to China.
No rights. No lawsuits. Corporations are almost always right. Right-wing media on TV. The Patriot Act has always been in effect but they probably have a different name for it. 1 party rule to encourage efficiency in getting your work done.
Yep. This is what happens when people vote Republican. You get screwed 24/7. Period.
@CaliforniaCajun: “Your myopic worldview of air travel informs your myopic view of the rules the industry should be governed by. Do try to get out more often.”
I wholeheartedly agree with this.
@ninjatales: Again, you’re trying to make lump generalizations that don’t fit. The Passenger’s Bill of Rights had broad support from both sides of the isle. It was a mistake to attach it to something… because other things get attached to that same bill. That’s what happened here.
I’m sorry, but your “no rights, no lawsuits…” goes against what is happening across the country. The 2nd amendment is up before the Supreme Court; conservative groups are supporting the 2nd Amendment, the liberal groups are against it. Or is that right now important?
Or, lets drop back to healthcare. The Republican party wants to keep your right to choose what healthcare you have. Democrats want to take away that right from everyone and make the choices for them. What? You’d rather have a High Deductible plan? Sorry, the Universal Health System doesn’t accomodate that. Just wait.
Right-wing Media on TV? Excuse me? Name something other than Fox News. Heck, Law & Order last night had a nice little “plug” for unions… and they typically lean which way?
Republicans want a 1-party system just as much as the Democrats: 0. Why? They wouldn’t have anyone to point at to scare their party base. Who would Rush/Hannity/99% of talk radio have to rail against? Or Air America? Or MSNBC, Olberman, et al?
@Tux the Penguin: They think all the main stream media is right wing. My jaw dropped when I realized liberals thought that.
I mean they are sitting there, 100% in the tank for Obama. Attacking Romney for being a morman, but they have a right wing agenda? At that point you cut your losses in the debate and realize they conspiracy theorist.
As far as fox news, I still don’t think Fox news is right wing.
You have O’reilly, a registered independent, who often has left wing views. Not on things like healthcare and such, because he is informed.
Hannity AND COLMES, a right/left wing show. I’m not home in the daytime, so maybe I’m missing something. But I see a lot of effort to remain in the middle. They have analyst on, and their opinions do not represent fox news opinions. And I would say more often then not, they are liberal analyst.
@Tux the Penguin:
Typical Republican talking point, although many are now calling themselves Independent or Libertarian now since it’s pretty toxic to be a Republican these days….with good reason!
You OVERSIMPLIFY things and use scare tactics, both classic Republican tools.
Lets go over some of your talking points:
1.) liberals aren’t trying to take your gun rights away, rather they want reasonable laws that keep the community safe….I live in D.C……I like the current laws.
2.) Again, the Dems aren’t talking about taking healthcare choice away. You obviously know nothing about Obama’s plan. Also, healthcare plan choice doesn’t mean crap if you can’t afford it or are dropped because God Forbid – you get sick!!!! If you look at McCains plan, he’ll actually make it more expensive for everyone…that’s smart(:
3.) Okay, let me list just a few –
CNN – Glen Beck, Lou Dobbs
MSNBC/NBC – Joe Scarboro, Tucker Carlson. Hell, you can add stupid Tim Russert and Brian Williams to the pack if you’d like.
ABC – Terry Moran, John Stossell and most of the nuts that run the news programming there!
@thegirls: Not toxic at all. I’m a republican. Proud. Look at my icon.
1) Doesn’t matter. Constitution, heard of it? Doesn’t need updating. Move if you don’t like it.
2) Obama doesn’t even know what his plan is. He is fear mongering you with hope into his plan, which will bankrupt the country. Which is a good point by the way. No matter how good he makes it, we cant afford it. What is it, 15 trillion dollars? 20 times more then the IRAQ war? A YEAR? get real.
3) you’re dreaming
Sorry i know your post was to Tux, but I couldn’t resist.
@Bladefist:
Okay Bladefirst, you got me! Darn.
Keep lurking.
@Bladefist: Sorry but I believe the Republicans were attacking Romney, namely the fanbase of our dear friend McCain. The “liberals” were busy trying to figure out their own nominees as they still are.
O’Reilly registered as an independent? I know people who constantly cross partylines when voting. Doesn’t matter if he’s an independent because when was the last time he actually voted for a Democrat?
Hannitty Colmes show is a joke. Tried watching it for 3 months and I gave up. Hannity always interjects and throws tantrums like a kid when Colmes is speaking to which point the cameras go back to Hannity’s smart-ass-like “I am always correct” attitude.
It’s time for people to watch real news … BBC, MSNBC, Bloomberg.
And if you don’t think Fox News is right-wing, there’s really not much hope for discussions.
@thegirls: That’s who I am, that’s what I do.
@ninjatales: PMSNBC? Isn’t that the channel w/ Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids.
You may be right about Romney, but I would say both parties were after him about the Morman issue.
And there is no such thing as ‘real’ news. It’s impossible for people to keep their dumb shit opinions out of the news.
@Applekid: lol.. only a Republican minority can be the majority and get the blame for it
@Bladefist: “PMSNBC? Isn’t that the channel w/ Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids.”
Clearly you don’t read the ratings book.
@BigElectricCat:
FOXNEWS O’REILLY 2,979,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,280,000
FNC GRETA 1,896,000
CNN KING 1,640,000
FNC HUME 1,530,000
CNN COOPER 1,417,000
FNC SHEP 1,392,000
CNN DOBBS 1,057,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,001,000
CNNHN GRACE 605,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 507,000
[www.talkleft.com]
[www.multichannel.com]
[www.mediabistro.com]
[www.broadcastingcable.com]
There you go Mr. Informed.
@Bladefist: You’re ratings aren’t specific for each night and mostly just lump things together…O’Reilly gets higher ratings when he has Hillary on….and you still didn’t prove that Olbermann’s ratings are bad.
But we know that you’re gonna have another misleading comeback because you just can’t resist. Can you?
@thegirls: Read the links. There are several angles on the ratings. Just do your HW before you try to argue with people that actually follow politics.
@thegirls: And Hillary was just recently on. Those ratings surely dont incorporate that! And Olberman is welcome to invite anyone on his show to increase his ratings. But why bother? Nobody watches it. His ‘worst person in the world’ is so lame. It’s like bill o’reilly every other night.
@Bladefist:
There you go. I knew you had it in you and you didn’t disappoint!
@thegirls: Please provide your own ratings that show I am wrong.
Why should we start improving travellers experience now… and liberty in general for that matter… @snclfe: sad… would have been nice to see at least one candidate give a damn.
@Bladefist: O’REILLY = scum of the earth = everything that wrong with the republicans
@thegirls: I’ve NEVER been a registered Republican. I voted for Reagan twice, then Clinton twice, then Bush, then Kerry. I don’t fit in one of your neat little boxes because I actually think for myself and read what each candidate is going to do. Now, for my responses.
1. Its a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms.” Keeping part the DC ban does technically allow, but it specifically outlaws you bearing the arms. Sorry, that breaches the 2nd Amendment. Now, I’m not saying that I should be allowed to carry around an RPG launcher, but a pistol should be permissible for a law-abiding citizen. But lets move beyond guns and point instead to “other” rights that aren’t that popular for the left. How about the “equal protection” clause? Last I checked, minority-owned contract requirements, like those in Dallas, would favor my firm over just as qualified firms simply because its owned by a Hispanic.
3. Obama’s plan is startling simple: the government will get into the insurance business, subsidized by the taxpayer. Sure, you don’t have to pay in… well, nevermind, you do. Because you’ll tax me to subsidize it. You are therefore limited my choice of how to spend my own money. I’ll make this offer to anyone who reads it – post your net income (after taxes) and a listing of what you spend your money on each month, broken down into Eating Out, Entertainment, Necessary Groceries, Luxury Groceries, Cable, Car Payment, etc, etc. Then list how much your health insurance would cost. I will bet you that I could find the money to pay for insurance. Granted, you might not be driving a brand new car, living in a luxury apartment or eating out three times a week, but are those things more important than your healthcare? As for those who are sick, I agree, we need to have a program for them. But restrict it to ONLY those who can prove they’ve been rejected twice. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
3. You have to be kidding. You’re trying to list specific people with an hour show as proof that the network is right-wing? GB and LD account for 2-hours of live television. What about the other 12 hours (8 am to 10 pm) of live television on CNN?
MSNBC… you have to be kidding. I won’t even dignify that with a rebuttal.
ABC: John Stossell files his special report, what, once a month? And you know he’s a registered libertarian, right? If you watch any of his shows, you quickly realize he bashes everyone as they are due. He mostly just points out common sense. If that’s “right-leaning” then I really don’t want to know what “left-leaning” is then.
Case in point, he brought up health insurance and compared it to auto insurance. The way we treat health insurance, if translated into auto insurance, would also cover “preventative” coverage like oil changes, brake service, engine service, car washes and details. That’s why insurance is cheaper. It only covers CATASTROPHIC events. A high-deductible health insurance plan, like the one I’m on, is as close as it gets this day. I pay $50 a month for it, but I have to pay the first $2000 of all medical treatment before it reverts to a traditional plan (in some regards). However, I can deduct money from my paycheck to put into an HSA to offset that expense I’m obligated for. So assuming I burn through that $2000, that’s the equivalent of $216 a month health insurance for a 25% deductible. But, if I only spend $500 on medical expenses, its only $91 a month. Oh, and those expenses are taken from my paycheck BEFORE taxes, so I don’t pay taxes on that money. Oh, and it doesn’t “disappear” at the end of the year, so if I put a full $2000 into it and only spend $500, I have $1500 for next year. Last statement I got, I had over $10k in my HSA. It would have been more, but I had to have surgery recently.
You honestly think the government will offer plans like that?
@thegirls:
“But we know that you’re gonna have another misleading comeback because you just can’t resist. Can you?”
Ya, I’m going to shut up to prove you wrong? You’re absurd.
@pshah: O’Reilly isn’t a republican. Thanks for showing you’re intelligence.
@Tux the Penguin: This is a minor point, but often health insurance rates are based on current health. Me, athletic, young, thin, healthy, beautiful, sexy (lol) pay much less then Michael Moore. Why should my premiums go up to foot the bill for others? Liberals argue that the bigger the pool of people, the less risk, the cheaper. But i think we all know America has a diet problem. And I just don’t buy it. Leave me alone and let me get the coverage I need, for my level of health risk, at a price I am comfortable with. I’m an adult. I can make my own decisions.
@Bladefist: Note to self, don’t make grammar errors when calling someone stupid.
@Bladefist: I think you clicked the wrong respond to… that’s the point I’m trying to make.
@Tux the Penguin: I agree with you. Just adding on, not overriding.