I know I'm taking that chance that he'll hit me with it by pointing that out, but c'est la vie.

Oh, Bladefist? That's *French.* Just another reason for you to dislike me, at no added charge.

BigElectricCat

Bladefist backed down once again because apparently he can't cement his own argument or shoot holes in mine.

A shame indeed.

yamahagrand

(laughing) :D

For the third time, don't try applying to the Psychic Friends Network. Your mindreading abilities are absolutely worthless. Why don't you try something easier, like guessing how tall I am? We'll see how close you are with that before we move on to the harder things.

(laughing) :D

@Bladefist: "Man you're windy."

Awww, do all the big words make your head hurt? Do I need to keep everything to words of two syllables or less? Or should we increase your dose of Adderall to help with that attention-deficit problem of yours?

(laughing) :D

@Bladefist: "I read like the first paragraph and gave up."

That doesn't surprise me. These days, "conservatives" talk a tough game, but when they're confronted, they cover up, turn tail and run.

Besides, considering my post was about the same length as your list, that'd make you windy too, cowboy.

(laughing) :D

@Bladefist: "I'm done with you."

As I said, 'cover up, turn tail and run.' You're pathetic. You're not even man enough to admit you screwed up with your Olbermann comment, "Mr. Informed." Either grow a pair or get your purse and take a friggin' hike.

(laughing) :D

@Bladefist: "I went back and skimmed your post, wow you're a veteran who voted for Reagan?"

A gun-owning disabled veteran who voted for Reagan. So you can shove your list where the sun doesn't shine, boy.

"By the way you talk, with all your "(laughing) :D" I figured you were 13."

I'm sure you missed it, but I'm laughing at you, loser.

BigElectricCat

Bladefist

Bladefist

(laughing) :D

Is that all you've got for a response, boy? A silly e-mail list of BS that's mostly non-sequiturs, partly conservative tropes and shibboleths, about a third blue-sky fantasy and the whole thing nothing but unproven bloviation?

Maaaaan. No one *has* to believe any of those things, your silly list notwithstanding. Clearly, your fear of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy has badly impaired your critical thinking faculties.

(laughing) :D

Getting back to the point at hand, you were just plain wrong in your assertion in re: Mr. Olbermann, and your cowardly claim that you were 'only joking' has been noted and debunked. I've reposted your claim and have invited you to clarify your position, but you have, predictably, failed to do so. I'm sure you have your reasons for that; as for me, I expect you realize that you had your hind end handed to you in that part of the discussion.

No matter. When you're ready to behave with some decorum, I will remain available to teach you how to critically assess and evaluate supporting information, how to marshal your facts, how to cite them, how to present them, and most importantly, how to defend them when someone like me debunks the living daylights out of your 'argument.'

And don't bother with your conservative cheerleading, boy; it doesn't impress me a bit. I'm a gun-owning disabled veteran who cast his first Presidential vote for Ronald Reagan and who joined the Army during the Reagan Administration. But my association with the GOP is at an end, and I don't anticipate voting for another GOP candidate any time in the foreseeable future.

If you want a political argument, then I am most assuredly your man. But have a care, as you may find that I know your side's arguments as well as -- if not better than -- you do.

Now then, boy -- are you going to clarify your position on your Olbermann claim, or are you just going to post some more silly crap from Free Republic or Little Green Footballs?

(laughing) :D

BigElectricCat

At age 20 if you are not a Liberal you are heartless, at age 40 if you are not Conservative, you are brainless.

-Winston Churchill

Proof that the Liberals are incapable of governing

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on
demand.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression, and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but activists, who have never been outside of San Francisco, do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, Right Wing conspiracy.

Bladefist

Noisy kids like that are just internet chew-toys to me.

BigElectricCat

ninjatales

(laughing) :D

It's a joke that you apparently took pretty seriously, "Mr. Informed;" seriously enough to try to bamboozle us all with BS statistics that don't even support your claim. The next time you decide to run over to Google in order to try to use statistics to defend a joke, take a moment, breathe deeply and reconsider.

And then be absolutely certain that you have a strong grounding in statistics before you try to use them in an argument. Stats are a two-edged sword, and if you don't have a firm grip on the hilt, your opponent might just whack you with your own weapon.

@Bladefist: "I thought they were a doll, do they have a show?"

You said Olbermann had worse ratings than they did. So which is it now, pal? Were you joking, or were you just plain wrong? Given your rather ardent defense of your claim over your last few posts, you certainly don't appear to be joking.

Do you defend all your jokes as vehemently? Or is it just that you've been caught out and you're backpedaling now? If you're joking, then man up and admit it. If you're seriously arguing, then bring it on. But it looks to me like you've realized your mistaken argument and are now trying to back down without admitting you got in over your head.

To use your own words, you're just "digging your hole deeper."

(laughing) :D

@Bladefist: "I'm sorry you are so offended over this."

(laughing) :D

As I said upthread, don't try applying to the Psychic Friends Network; you're woefully underqualified.

I'm not offended; I'm simply pointing out that your argument was nothing but a bunch of hot air, and that your statistics didn't support your BS argument, "Mr. Informed."

You might be well-advised to ask questions more often and pontificate less frequently. Asking questions leads to wisdom, whereas pontificating leads to an eventual smackdown.

You might possibly recognize that last part, as it just happened to you.

BigElectricCat

yamahagrand

No, actually I didn't miss it. The minority party always does stuff like this. The Republicans have just taken it to a new level. When the Democrats become the minority again, I'm sure they'll engage in the same tit-for-tat strategy.

stinerman

I'm sorry you are so offended over this.

Bladefist

"Digging your hole deeper."

(laughing) :D

"You cant prove me wrong,"

Child, you can't even prove yourself right. So what's there to disprove? You made a BS claim, fired off a bunch of links that don't even support your claim and you triumphantly declare victory.

Well la-de-effing da, I'm the King of Siam. Prove me wrong.

(laughing) :D

So, would you like to try actually proving your claim this time? Here, I'll repost it for you:

"Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids."

Go ahead. Have at it. I'm loving this.

(laughing) :D

"and your attempts to disprove me, the only person who brought real data to the table,"

Your data don't say what you claim they do. That makes you either clueless or a liar. I pick clueless, since I have no reason to suspect that you're willfully dishonest.

"is futile."

(laughing) :D

Man, I knew you were clueless, but I never imagined that I was dealing with Nitwitticus of Borg here.

"So laugh at me all you want, but you just got dominated."

No, little boy, you got OWNED. One, you don't know what you're talking about. Two, your "data" don't support your claim. Three, if you can't *prove* your claims, then there's not much point in anyone *dis*proving them.

I am the King of Siam. Prove I'm not.

Your tuition bill is in the mail.

BigElectricCat

Cause if they talked about how Dems voted against it too it wouldn't fit in with their Agenda here. Shoulda noticed that about 5,000 stories ago.

Rbastid

Bladefist

If you'll note in my response (which you glazed over) that I have no problem with a plan to cover those who cannot get coverage due to illness. Limited scope plans (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc) often do work because they are LIMITED IN SCOPE. I have no problem creating "Med-Ill-Full" or some other program to cover those who need it.

But lets not destroy everything to help the maybe 10% who can't get healthcare due to illness. Considering the 46 million number is quoted so often, that accounts for roughly 15% of the population. I think that breakdown between illness preventing and cost prevention is generous.

--

Let me repose the question: If I have the Penguin News Network and I have Rush Limbaugh on for an hour each night, does that make me a right-wing news station? What if for the rest of the 24-hour day I have Soros-backed, extreme far left anchors, reporters, and producers. Does that suddenly change the picture? That's the point I was trying to make about the list you mentioned. Its called a "token" and people do it all the time. When I first made partner, it was a really pale group. I knew I was a "token" minority. But that didn't mean suddenly the firm was "minority-run."

----

Auto/Health: So, if you get dropped from your auto insurance, the state coverage is UNGODLY (your words). But, of course, a government-run universal medical system would be "affordable", right?

I know that if you work hard you can accomplish anything. Ultimately, however, it comes down to one cruel, cruel question: how much is your life worth? Its unpopular to talk about it. But ultimately its the question that must be answered. At some point, we all have to decide whether our life is worth the costs to prolong it. At 25, its harder to answer that than it is for me at nearly 65. But is it worth bankrupting myself for another 10 years? 20 years? 5 years? That's the question we all make, whether us personally or our insurance company. At least when our insurance company says "no" we have options (lawsuits, media, etc). Most of those options go away if we have the government making those decisions.

Tux the Penguin

I love it when clueless people try to make themselves look informed. Here's your takedown, pal.

@Bladefist: [www.talkleft.com]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about here, so I'll explain it to you. This is not a ratings book. This is a blog that admits that it is citing Drudge. This is not the ratings book.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that your professors never explained the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources to you. If you want to cite numbers, you need to go to the source. Let me know if you need some help with that.

@Bladefist: [www.multichannel.com]

This is also not a ratings book. This is called a "news story." It's also called an "old" news story, because it is nearly six months old. Something else you should know about it is that Multichannel News is part of Reed Elsevier, Inc., a large international publishing and content corporation. That's all well and good, but Reed Elsevier has been criticized for a number of ethical lapses, not the least of which is their involvement with the international arms trade. Given that sort of conservative-friendly environment, I'm sure you'll understand when I say that I don't consider Multichannel News to be objective on this topic. Or maybe you won't; it doesn't really matter. At the end of the day, this link's no more useful than your first one.

In any event, the story contains only bits and fragments of theratings book figures, generously predigesting them for our (and, I'm sure, your) convenience. Uh huh. No thanks. I prefer to get my information straight from the source so I can draw my own conclusions.

@Bladefist: [www.mediabistro.com]

Man-oh-man. Where to start here? Let's just toss out a critique of a the first page's worth of ratings and see what we find.

Tuesday, May 6: Olbermann wasn't even aired. Neither was O'Reilly.
Monday, May 4: Hey, that's what it says. If these guys can't even keep their DATES straight, what does that say about their stats? Monday was the 5th, kids.

Friday, May 2: O'Reilly 376, Olbermann 313. CNN & Headline each had about half of Olbermann's total that night.

Thursday, May 1: O'Reilly 694, Olbermann 452. CNN & Headline each had roughly a third of Olbermann's total that night.

Tell me, Mr. Media Maven - what were the AQI and Cume figures for the Cabbage Patch Kids on those days? Hah?

Look, if you don't like Olbermann, that's fine and dandy, but do you even read the links you post? This one in particular pretty much puts the lie to the notion that his ratings are in the basement.

@Bladefist: [www.broadcastingcable.com]

Another "news story." Yawn. You're making it too easy to discredit your arguments.

@Bladefist: "There you go Mr. Informed."

(laughing) :D

I knew it. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. :D

@Bladefist: "Read the links. There are several angles on the ratings."

(eyes roll)

Yeah, that's why I observed that you don't actually read the ratings BOOK, 'Mr. Informed.' Running off to Google and scraping up a bunch of media links doesn't make you Teh Meedjya Pundit; it just makes you a pugnacious internet bloviator.

@Bladefist: "Just do your HW before you try to argue with people that actually follow politics."

(laughing) I'm quite sure that you follow politics. However, I'm also quite sure that you don't follow media ratings, which is what the Olbermann vs O'Reilly issue is.

Next time, maybe you ought to do some homework of your own before throwing a passel of Google links out, cowboy.

@Bladefist: "And Olberman is welcome to invite anyone on his show to increase his ratings. But why bother? Nobody watches it."

Your own link above (Mediabistro) proves you wrong. Once again, do you even read these links before you post them?

@Bladefist: "Please provide your own ratings that show I am wrong."

Please provide some evidence that your assertion ("Olberman? A huge bafoon with worse ratings then the cabbage patch kids.") is correct.

I eagerly await your reply.

BigElectricCat

Thx, I realize that I should use my time wiser(-;

thegirls

Cranky Customer

Don't start talking constitutional rights with me....if you wanna go there, lets talk about all of the constitutional rights that the FISA Act is trouncing!

We taxpayers are already subsidising the healthcare and pharmaceutical community with a plan that clearly isn't working.

You already did dignify me with a rebuttal on MSNBC by your statement!

I don't care if they show the Wiggles from 8am-10pm, that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about the all of the people that I noted.

John Stossell may be registered Libertarian but that doesn't mean he doesn't have right leanings (most Libertarians do). And I don't care if he's on one time per week or not, he's been there for MANY years and spews his right leaning views and often bends and quotes incorrect statistics to make his case! Google it if you'd like.

MEDICARE is a successful program....but I'm sure you think it's gonna be bankrupt next year...right. And until the Bush administration made the VA another political operation (like they did everything else),the VA Hospital system has been noted in many studies as a model on how healthcare can work!

If you think your idea is so good, why isn't John McCain or for that matter, why didn't Romney, Ron Paul, Huckabee or Guiliani, Hunter, Brownback, Tancredo, Thompson(s), etc. back it?

You can get dropped from your car insurance for driving mistakes. If so, maybe you can enter the state funded program at their UNGODLY rate or just use public transportation. But if I got dropped from my health insurance for too many illnesses or a pre-existing condition, who's gonna pay my medical bills then? Nobody? The gov't??????

I get the idea that you think if everybody just buckles down, they can pay their insurance bills....that's just not the case if you lose your job due to illness, thus can't pay your insurance premium but are still sick...thus can't get back to work to make any money...thus can't get the proper healthcare to get better, and on and on and on....

thegirls

Bladefist

Tux the Penguin

Bladefist

Bladefist

"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.

Bladefist

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?

Tux the Penguin

pshah

pshah

Bladefist

thegirls

Bladefist

Bladefist

But we know that you're gonna have another misleading comeback because you just can't resist. Can you?

thegirls

[www.talkleft.com]
[www.multichannel.com]
[www.mediabistro.com]
[www.broadcastingcable.com]

There you go Mr. Informed.

Bladefist

Clearly you don't read the ratings book.

BigElectricCat

chuloallen

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.

Bladefist

Bladefist

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.

ninjatales

Keep lurking.

thegirls

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

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

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.

Bladefist

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

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

BigElectricCat

Consumer007

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.

ninjatales

"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

gomakemeasandwich

thegirls

chocxtc

chocxtc

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.

yamahagrand

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?

bwcbwc

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.

chrisjames

You aren't making a lot of sense to me anymore. So bye.

CaliforniaCajun

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

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

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.

CaliforniaCajun

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.

aphex242

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

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.

chrisjames

Happy Day!

thegirls

how about a commercial airline pilot?

ironchef

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

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.

Empire

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

ThomasD3

"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?

BigElectricCat

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.

BigElectricCat

RandomHookup

RandomHookup

snclfe

LUV2CattleCall

Are they so ankle grabbed for big business the blood has rushed to their heads?

Stupid beyond measure.

Jcakes

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I am if I want to keep my job, pal. And I do.

CaliforniaCajun

Your statement - "Finally, if it's still unclear, the "type of job" you work in is still your choice. You are not required to keep that job, or stay in that line of work. You can not place the consequence of your choice on the shoulders of the airlines, or anyone else for that matter."

You know - sometimes people are in positions that they don't CHOOSE but circumstances put them there! Maybe their job requirement changed and they're looking for another job but haven't found one yet. Also, MOST folks are in jobs they don't love but are there because of money or medical benefits, flexibility for childcare, etc.

I didn't have a job that required me to fly, but something came up and I had to at the last minute.......If I refused to on "principle", I would have been fired and standing in the unemployment line.

thegirls

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 if there is a danger---say a terrorist on board, but from what I hear it usually has more to do with scheduling or repairs---I don't want to be on THAT plane anyway!

So, I guess it comes down to spending the night in jail or 12 hours on the tarmac.

Naive---probably, but could someone explain this situation to me? I'm serious, every time I hear about one of these things happening I am totally baffled.

Please enlighten me!

Anybody want to post bail???

@Dakine:

Softly-with-a-Big-Stick

The choices you make have consequences. You can not defer those consequences on someone or something else. Explore your reasoning. If the airlines become true cattle-cars, which by my opinion they already are, then no one will want to fly them. If no employee can suffer the flight, no employer will be able to find employees who will fly. Someone must change their expectations and their valuations in the face of such conditions. The fact is, right now, the people have already changed their expectations. We expect flying to be a pain all around. And we have changed our valuation, because we still choose to fly.

Just like the choices you or your employer make have consequences, so do the choices airlines make. If they choose to torture their passengers, then they will eventually find that fewer and fewer people are willing to pay for that torture, even given the convenience. That applies for the public, for employees, for employers, and, hell, every other business out there. I don't pay to fly as it is, unless someone else pays for my ticket. I don't see a reasonable return on the value of my dollar. I drive, even though it costs me more.

Finally, if it's still unclear, the "type of job" you work in is still your choice. You are not required to keep that job, or stay in that line of work. You can not place the consequence of your choice on the shoulders of the airlines, or anyone else for that matter.

chrisjames

Bladefist

Now, granted this was almost ten years ago, but many places will let you take a bus or train so long as you can get them on time. I had a person who worked for me that did this - they were deathly afraid of flying.

Look, sometimes your politic and economic views will create some fallout for you. But if you're going to talk the talk, be ready to walk the walk.

Tux the Penguin

rmz

DeeJayQueue

I find it ironic that the Democrats were so strongly against it but now complain because the Republicans are giving them a dose of their own medicine.

Tux the Penguin

Looking out for you smokers out there.

sisedi

I.E. companies dumping crap into natural water formations, polluting your air with toxins that could kill you, having any sorts of hazardous material harmful to your health in the products they sell to you... But this? This is over the hill and through the woods beyond what regulations the Gov't should be able to impose on a company IMO. In these situations the consumer has the power to stop giving money to the airline and send a strong signal to them that this sort of treatment is unacceptable.

Yes we want these things, yes we'd be in a much better position but why shouldn't we be able to make this happen ourselves? The Gov't wants us to feel like victimized children flailing their know-nothing limbs around begging for a suckle but we're not that dumb, we're adults and we know better than having mom and dad beat up our bullies for us.

sisedi

lightaugust

In that case, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Daniel-Bham

It's not a "100% not regulate" or a "100% regulate" issue, like you said. And that's exactly what you said in your original comment.

It's a regulate where it makes sense issue. Unfortunately these days it appears to be fashionable to react only when it's too late, e.g. construction site inspections in New York City.

Corporate greed over well being of individuals (voters). That's what it is.

Pixelantes Anonymous

thegirls

Bladefist

chrisjames

Those who don't learn from the past, are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

I urge you to look into the history of this and every other country for various reasons as to why it is not only important but necessary for Government to regulate private companies.

Pixelantes Anonymous

thegirls

scarletvirtue

thegirls

chrisjames

Well the Republicans refused to allow the bill to come to a vote. A cloture motion requires 60 senators to agree to end debate. That's how the motion was 49 votes in favor and 42 against yet still didn't carry.

Republicans are well within their rights to force cloture votes on every piece of legislation if they want, but the filibuster is traditionally used only in extraordinary circumstances, although that is starting to change. IIRC, they broke the record for most filibusters (cloture votes called) only 10 months into the 2-year sitting of the Senate.

I think the Senate filibusters this stuff so that Bush won't have egg on his face when he chooses to veto populist bills like this.

stinerman

chrisjames

But other then that, you're right.

Bladefist