Republicans Have Killed The Passenger's Bill Of Rights. Long Live The Passenger's Bill Of Rights!

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:



(a) IN GENERAL.–Chapter 417 is amended by adding at the end the following:


(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.


(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:


Section 41722 is amended by adding at the end the following:


(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)


Edit Your Comment

  1. wring says:

    I’m starting to believe there is a major conspiracy against flying.

  2. Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ) says:

    Uh, aren’t the Democrats a majority in the Senate right now? Where are the other Dems instead of joining the 49 in favor?!

    I sure hope that golf game was worth it, guys. :|

  3. JollyJumjuck says:

    @wring: Probably because the rich and powerful want to keep the rabble on the ground where they belong. Flight is too good for the scum-of-the-earth middle class! at some point in the not-too-distant future, only the ruling elite will be able to fly with their private jets, and the skies will be much more clear to deploy unmanned surveillance flight drones to keep an eye on the commoners.

  4. Buran says:

    How can they kill it if they need to reauthorize the FAA?

  5. Bladefist says:

    “Passenger bill of rights” What a perfect name. I prefer, “Airline Companies Cant run their private business, lack of rights”

    I’m not saying I’m all for this. But Government has no place in private companies. Just think if they passed “Consumers bill of rights” and consumerist was forced to put something on their website. Their would be riots in the server rooms.

  6. Dakine says:

    To hell with flying. I stopped flying when they started requiring me to remove my flip-flops at security and then took away my wife’s lip gloss.

    And now they’re making women go to a separate room, strip down, and remove your nipple ring if you happen to have one.

    They can all kiss my ass and keep their overpriced Greyhound bus with wings.

  7. wgrune says:

    Look, I think we really need something like this but in reading through it it seems like there are so many loopholes written in that nothing would ever happen. Words and hrases like “adaquate”, “substantially delayed”, and “reasonably determines” seems way to vague for a passenger to demand anything I believe the spirit of this bill stands for. Yay for legalese!

  8. Dakine says:


    While I’m leaning to agree with you, I still find it criminal to hold people on a grounded plane for 12 hours with no food, water, or restrooms. If they don’t want to provide those things then they should let people get off the plane. Isn’t that called “Kidnapping”?

  9. wgrune says:


    Wrong. Government does have a place in private comapanies when the government has given millions (billions?) of dollars to these bloated models of inefficiency keeping them from going belly-up.

  10. Bladefist says:

    @Dakine: Boy-cott fixes that problem without having 100 old men arguing about it on our dime.

    @wgrune: Good point.

  11. Tux the Penguin says:

    Oh come on, blaming this on Republicans is dishonest. This is a perfect example of politics-as-usual in Washington.

    Instead of raising this as a separate bill to be debated, the powers-that-be attached it to something they thought was “safe” to sneak it into law. Unfortunately, it wasn’t safe enough. But was it due to this? Or was it due to some other “rider” that was tacked on.

    We can only draw two conclusions:
    1. Republicans did not like SOMETHING that was included in that bill and had to kill this particular piece with the whole thing, and
    2. The Democrats didn’t favor this enough to make it its own bill.

    So who’s really to blame?

  12. Bladefist says:

    @Dakine: And I’m willing to bet its our lovely government that is holding the plane us. IE, I’m guessing they created the problem, now they are going to fix it. And the airline is trapped in the middle. I mean 12 hours of a plane grounded, how much revenue is lost? They would take off in a heart beat if FAA would allow them to. Maybe I’m wrong. Correct me.

  13. blackmage439 says:

    @Dakine: Here-here. The last flight I tried to take was canceled within an hour of me leaving the house… despite information right on the confirmation telling you to arrive at the airport the standard two hours ahead of time. No reason given. Barely any other delays at the airport (Ohare) or at the destination (Arkansas). Screw flying. After all this crap, I would rather spend an entire day driving.

  14. Bladefist says:

    @Tux the Penguin: NO! Too logical. It was the evil republicans. They hate you, booga bogga!

  15. Shadowman615 says:

    @Bladefist: Perhaps, but that’t not really why the bill was killed. For the most part, republicans wanted a Passenger Bill of Rights just as much as Democrats. This bill’s demise had more to do with unrelated amendments on the bill (by both parties) and plain old senate infighting than anything else.

    That said, it’s probably unfair to blame the Republicans for this entirely. The Democrats were adding (some unrelated) amendments to this bill and preventing Republicans from doing the same. I don’t see how anything ever gets done in the Senate these days — both parties need a punch in the face sometimes.

    The airlines certainly take enough in government subsidies — I don’t hear any complaining from them about government’s place in private companies when they get their checks.

  16. Carey Alexander says:

    @Buran: Congress has extended FAA funding and taxes four times since September. The current extension runs through June. It’s like when Congress fails to adopt a budget. We don’t run out of money, we just extend the old budget until the new one is signed.

  17. Shadowman615 says:

    @Shadowman615: Bah. Ninja’d on both counts.

  18. Jaysyn was banned for: says:


    I’d agree with you if the government would quit bailing the damn airlines out financially every decade or so.

  19. Zzzzzzzzz… more legislation just makes more red tape. I’ll pass on these abortions we call “passenger’s rights” bills.

  20. Bladefist says:

    @Jaysyn: Wish they would stop too, but I see why they do it. It’s not so much I’m against the PBR. I agree with some of the people above. The democrats appeared to attach a bunch of stuff to it, to sneak it by. I don’t think anyting in the PBR is bad enough to get a complete republican black ball.

  21. Dakine says:


    It doesn’t matter if it’s the airline or the gov at fault for it. Holding people hostage for that long is wrong. An hour is a “delay”. 12 hours is “being a prisoner”. I’m surprised nobody claimed to have a bomb just to get the door open.

    But then it also goes to show how unwilling people are to stand up for themselves. There’s enough passengers on a plane to get the door open if they want it open.

  22. Bladefist says:

    Well it does matter. I agree with you, but, IF the government regulations are holding the plane up, wouldn’t you find it unfair that they are almost now making rules to fine the company in a hold up?

    The government kicks them in the nuts, the charges them for it.

  23. ravensfire says:

    @Applekid: Missing 2 Senators who are too busy campaining to be bothered with showing up to vote.

  24. Krogenar says:

    If we could just get everyone on the plane to agree to waive their right to a 100%, absolutely SAFE flight, free of terrorists, and waiving their ‘right’ to sue the airlines for a gazillion dollars (that’s an actual number) … then we could all get on the plane and fly.

    In addition, the government can stop bailing out airlines (perhaps the most heavily leveraged businesses in existence) if Americans will stop asking politicians to interfere with the market every time there’s a problem.

    I say the government should stay out of all this. Disband the FAA, and everyone just bring your own parachute. The government is forcing airlines to meet very high safety guarantees, and now that they are doing so (and some passengers have to wait hours as a result) the government is now being called upon to ‘fix’ the problem they created!

    Considering their track record so far, having Congress do nothing sounds like a dream.

  25. flamincheney says:


    It was short seven votes though.

  26. CaptZ says:

    Of course their is a conspiracy against flying. It’s the terrorist weapon of choice. No planes flying means no buildings will be crashed into. Shelving this bill is all part of the War on Terrorism the Republicans are so hardy to support.

  27. Pro-Pain says:

    Conservativism is a metal disorder.

  28. chargernj says:

    I have to disagree with you on this. Airlines have to accept whatever regulation that the people, through their elected represenatives decide they should.

    The airlines all utilize the commons of society, in this case the airspace above us. They exist in a situation where only they can perform the kind of service that they offer at the scale they do it. Plus they accepted bailouts after 9/11, so therefore they should actually feel indebted to the people who kept them flying. The bill doesn’t require them to do anything that could be considered onerous so what is the problem.

    So if I’m trapped on a plane for 12 hours and I demand to be allowed off are they now guilty of wrongful imprisonment? Or does their right to run their private business trump my right to freedom of movement?

    On another note, since the government seems to have no business in the regulation of private business could I then require that all planes crossing over my home pay a fee for crossing my property line.

    What if I was driving a construction vehicle doing work on your street and I block you in your driveway for untold number of hours. Don’t call the police since government has no business telling people how to run their private business. You and I would have to come to some sort of an agreement. Maybe for an extra fee I’ll allow you first class access to the street at the end of your driveway.

  29. Tux the Penguin says:

    @Pro-Pain: Wow, such a broad statement based on the limited reporting by a blogger who obviously had an emotional attachment to one of many amendments to the FAA bill…

  30. Bladefist says:

    @Pro-Pain: metal disorder? I just had a blood test, no metal was found.

  31. idislikepotvin says:

    If I remember correctly, this all started with the JetBlue incident last year. The whole reason the flight sat on the tarmac for hours instead of returning to the gate had to do with FAA limits on the number of hours a pilot could work. How come nobody is considering the fact that maybe its the government that causes these messes, and maybe getting the government out of the way will help make the messes a little less sloppy.

  32. Bladefist says:

    @chargernj: I understand your line of thinking. I don’t know if you can compare streets and air space. I guess if you wanted to build a sky scraper in your back yard, I would be in your favor to let you and make the planes go around. But anywho, I’m not going to agree with you fully, but I find your opinion logical. Planes are special I guess. But the government seems to think they own the airspace. Actually they own everything. Imminant domain. I just fight to good fight to not let them get any more into my life. But as I said above, the PBR is not that bad. It’s probably the other parts to it that are.

  33. Pro-Pain says:

    @Bladefist, meant to type mental, and it was just a joke…

  34. bohemian says:

    I really hope enough changes after the next election to cut down on the games and bickering in Congress. With such a thin majority it is impossible for force anything through. Most of the republicans left there have dug in their heels and seem only interested in corporate handouts and pork. I just wish people could behave like adults and pass a few things that we actually need.

  35. chrisjames says:

    @chargernj: I think what Bladefist means is that although the airlines should be providing for their passengers, this “Bill of Rights” is stepping on their rights to do business as they see fit.

    Try and see it from the airlines perspective: someone is coming to them and saying, “This is how you will operate.” If the airlines were a public service, that would be perfect, but the airlines are a private business. 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.

    Of course, it’s absurd that airlines don’t offer these things. So what you should do is refuse to use the airlines. Refuse to do business with any airline that will not provide for you in extreme cases. They will be forced to compensate to stay in business if that’s the will of the consumer. It will definitely lead to a price increase, but that’s how the world works. You don’t pay the price that you want to pay; you pay the price that both parties can afford, as a trade for what both parties agree upon. Every time you purchase a ticket on one of these cattle-car planes, you are agreeing to the conditions they submit you to. Not a legal agreement, but a moral, value-based agreement. Vote with your dollar.

    The only other recourse is to lobby for the creation of a public air travel service.

  36. Buran says:

    @Bladefist: Get that checked! You need to have iron in your blood, as hemoglobin is based on it!

  37. Bladefist says:

    @bohemian: Read the news. Who is still adding a ton of pork? Obama and Clinton. Who asked for 0 pork? McCain. Come on now. You’re better then that.

  38. Bladefist says:

    @Buran: lol nice.

    @chrisjames: Agreed. Also, what people vastly don’t understand is, any costs associated with more regulation will be passed directly to the consumer. FAA fines AA 5 million for being late, who is paying that 5 million? Is the CEO going to sell his yatch? Or is Joe Blow’s fare going to go up $3. Then day later, on consumerist: “AA raises your fare, and there is nothign you can do” then in the comment section, “like omg, why is this happening”

  39. richcreamerybutter says:

    @ravensfire: Missing 3 senators on the campaign trail, to be fair. It’s unfortunate 2 of the 3 happen to be Dems, but oh well.

    They needed a 3/5 majority, and the vote for the most part indeed seems to be split among party lines.

    Republicans: predictably keeping it classy.

  40. catskyfire says:

    @bohemian: I’ve some bad news for you. Congress has been this way since it started. If anything, it’s gotten better. In the early days, senators would go to bed clutching their papers so they wouldn’t get peeked at, and there hasn’t been a vicious caning in congress for a long time.

  41. Tzepish says:

    @Pro-Pain: I don’t think that has anything to do with Conservatism.

  42. richcreamerybutter says:

    Also, I suspect all 3 candidates knew beforehand how everyone would vote on this one (if their presence would have made a difference), and had to choose whether their campaign trail responsibilities took precedence.

  43. redx says:

    @Bladefist: The airline pays for it. Whether they choose to pass that expense onto customers in the form of higher ticket prices or fewer amenities is their strategy, whether it be successful or not. Obviously if the industry practice is to pass along costs, then you’re right but if competitors don’t follow the same practice, then the airline in question will lose sales, whether its a good thing or not.

  44. @Bladefist: In other words, nothing government does is right, and everything private companies do is right.

    Deregulation caused many of the problems we’re seeing today – there is a distinct lack of “market driven forces” when people must fly and certain routes are controlled by an ever-shrinking number of airlines with severe and endemic problems related to remaining regulation. So we either continue with a patched-together system, relax existing rules, or add new rules to address new problems. You seem to be in favor of simply letting new problems (more crowded skies and less attention to customers by airlines) go unaddressed.

    @chrisjames: So, in essence your argument is: if an airline treats you badly, don’t fly that airline. What happens when you’re forced to fly for business – or forced to fly a certain airline into a certain airport? What happens when there are only two or three airlines that serve major cities on domestic routes, and you have no choice between flying bad, worse, or slightly worse airlines?

    Regulation works well to address new developments in markets. When reckless energy trading caused the downfall of Enron, we added regulation to make gaming the system tougher and to enforce more corporate responsibility. That’s all airline consumers are asking for – and like true Republicans wedded to big business, they shot it down.

  45. BigElectricCat says:

    @Bladefist: “But Government has no place in private companies.”

    Glad to hear it. So can we taxpayers have our $5 billion post-9/11 bailout package back now, please?

    If you want government out of business, then let’s go big or go home.

  46. Bladefist says:

    @redx: Airlines have limited competitors. Whose to say if AA prices go up, does delta nudge theirs up too? It works both ways. Tickets are sold by volume. They are sold off the market. Like a stock. If they can get more, they will.

  47. Bladefist says:

    are NOT sold by volume. sorry.

  48. BigElectricCat says:

    @Bladefist: “I just had a blood test, no metal was found.”

    Then you’d be dead, since Iron is a major constituent of your hemoglobin.

  49. Bladefist says:

    @BigElectricCat: we were all joking man. Relax.

  50. rellog says:

    @Bladefist: This is COMPLETELY moronic… How about- airlines have no right to kidnap citizens and cheat people out of their money, so to prevent this we make laws. By your reasoning, we should allow any company to do anything because they are a private company…

    Dump toxic waste into potable water… sure
    Add lead to children’s toyes… go for it
    Employ 9 year oldss in sweat shops…why not?

    There’s a name for this type of thinking… Facism.

  51. Bladefist says:

    @rellog: facism? never heard of it.

    I didn’t say we dont need government regulation. I said we don’t need this one. Why is it all or nothing with you people?

    And im joking about the spelling error. I make a ton.

  52. chrisjames says:

    @CaliforniaCajun: You are never forced to fly for business. You are never forced to fly, ever. There are always other transportation options. Simply because flying is the only option that gets you there on time or at reasonable cost doesn’t make it forced, only that you are making the trade for your time and convenience. If the only way to get from the east coast to the west coast in under a day is to fly, and you must make the trip in a day, then weigh your need against the quality of the flight and make a decision.

    Everyone is doing this already, consciously or unconsciously. Since most people make the decision to fly anyway, they are making the decision that they will suffer aboard the plane for the convenience of getting there much faster, and the value of not having to pay more for the gas to drive.

  53. GreatCaesarsGhost says:

    There are 49 dems and 2 independent Pseudo-Dems. They can’t get cloture alone.

  54. ironchef says:

    you can always count on Bladefist to tow the GOP apology line. Keep tap dancing man! Those last seven years are EMBARASSING!

  55. rellog says:

    Fascism… and it seems to be prevelant in DC these days…

    BTW, it’s Eminent domain…

  56. rellog says:

    @rellog: By god it doesn’t take long to get your mistakes corrected… :)

  57. WraithSama says:

    I pretty much hate both major political parties, these days. Neither of them always gets it right, and they’re so busy trying to spite each other that nothing ever gets done. This is a pretty good example of that.

  58. chrisjames says:

    @rellog: Eminent domain covers expropriation, not regulation. The government is free to seize the airlines property with just compensation and use it in the public’s interest.

  59. Tux the Penguin says:

    @ironchef: You mean the first six when the Republicans faced the exact same situation that Senate Democrats faced (they didn’t have the 60 needed to do everything they wanted) or the last year and a half when the Democrats were in control?

    Blame one party all you want, but its BOTH parties that are screwing up this country. Two extremes and no compromise.

  60. rusgreim says:

    Hey “Carey” (OP):

    Shut the fuck up and keep your pollitical bias to yourself. Not all demcrats voted for cloture, and Reid called for cluture while active debate was still taking place, trying to cram it down people’s throats. So if its so damn important to democrats, why don’t they give it time on the scedule, or better yet, start it in the house where they have a larger majority.

    You’ve revealed yourself to be a liberal shill.

    I love Consumerist, but you’ve tarnished it with your partisanship.

  61. cef21 says:

    Senators OBAMA, CLINTON, BAYH, & LANDRIEU didn’t even bother to vote. Whose side are they on, anyway?

  62. sisedi says:

    @Bladefist: You’re not alone bud.

    The last thing we need is MORE GOVERNMENT! We can’t ever solve anything on our own ever forever never! We need air heads like Harry Reid to tell us what’s good for us because you know, he’s run a ton of airlines already and knows everything about them so we should just shut up for him.

    And Dems hold a majority, they could vote anything in if they wanted even if Repubs ‘bustered it but apparently this bill was too dumb for even some of them to agree to it.

  63. VikingP77 says:

    The airlines are ridiculous. Have you ever been trapped on an airplane? Have you ever dealt with their rude customer service agents? Have you ever had a flight canceled on you at the last minute? Have you ever had to pay outrageous fees to change a ticket?
    Guess who is going to bail them out again if gas hits $6.00 a gallon this summer? What are they going to do? Ask OUR government for MORE money to keep flying…thats what they are going to do. Where does that money come from?! MY INCOME TAXES and YOURS TOO! I say make flying public again…deregulation only worked for a few ie Southwest…which is the only airline I would fly anyways. US is TERRIBLE and people still have to fly them because they are the only carrier in some markets….so what competition is there? Now DL and NW are together?! Help us all!!!!

  64. GreatCaesarsGhost says:

    I’m confused – why did Reid invoke cloture and vote against it? Any congressional scholars want to help us out?

  65. Bladefist says:

    @sisedi: Thanks for stepping up. You’ll get attacked like I do. You made a point I haven’t made yet. People with no experience making decisions in fields they know nothing about.

    Dems can do a lot in congress right now, and they’re not. And I hope its because they are smarter then their followers.

    I love how the 2 dem nominees right now, are also senators, and continue to fail in everything they do in the senate. From their lack of votes on some issues, their socialist votes on other issues, and their huge pork barrel spending they add in for their states. Then you hear people on here complaining about over spending, and democrats not showing up to vote.

    And yet they still support these people for president! And have the audacity to insult republicans on the very same thing their party is doing. They turn a blind eye on their own party.

    I am a republican, but I know damn well they often screw stuff up.

    @rusgreim: I assume you will get banned. Minus the language, I agree, I wish consumerist would not be outwardly left. However it’s their blog, the best you can do is come in here, debate your opinions. And take part in democracy. Minus the fact we are a republic.

  66. Angryrider says:

    Lazy #$@#$ Dems and evil Reps, do you have any decency? If only they could feel what it’s like to be stranded on the tarmac for hours w/o any sustenance.

  67. Angryrider says:

    @cef21: Exactly! At least Nader explicitly states he’s fighting for consumer rights.

  68. chrisjames says:

    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Is it because he’s Senate Majority Leader so he files the motion?

  69. stinerman says:
  70. ironchef says:

    I should have known the Cons aren’t into anything labeled “Bill of Rights”

  71. stinerman says:


    It’s a tactical maneuver. Only someone who voted against the measure can bring it up again later.

    Traditionally the majority leader brings up bills for debate, so he will often switch his vote once the cloture motion is sure to fail so that he can bring the motion to the floor again.

  72. camille_javal says:

    @chrisjames: You are never forced to fly for business. You are never forced to fly, ever. There are always other transportation options. Simply because flying is the only option that gets you there on time or at reasonable cost doesn’t make it forced, only that you are making the trade for your time and convenience.

    That’s just not true. For one thing, bus and train are not reasonable options outside of the East Coast. More important, you may be forced by your company to fly – as in, they can’t afford to have it take four days, including two trains and a bus ride, for > $400, for you to get from Washington DC to Las Vegas (one I happen to know off the top of my head). And, most companies aren’t going to give a damn if you say you’d really rather not fly.

    This isn’t just about who is paying for it; most people aren’t going to care that, at least it isn’t their money, if they’re stuck on a plane without food and water for nine hours.

    If you want to keep your job, in many businesses, yes, you may be as close to *forced* as one may be without physical coercion.

  73. Bladefist says:

    @ironchef: Very true, except that conservatives are constitution constructionist, which basically makes the constitution Gotham City, and conservatives batman. And liberals are like the european version of joker.

    But other then that, you’re right.

  74. chrisjames says:

    @rusgreim: Only one Democrat voted nay. Four Dems didn’t vote, but five Reps didn’t either. Even with all the Dems saying yay to cloture, along with the three Reps who said yay as well, it still wouldn’t be enough votes to pass the motion. Yes, the Republicans killed the motion and, subsequently, the bill. It’s not as threatening as Consumerist makes it out to be, it’s just politics as usual, but it’s the truth.

  75. stinerman says:

    @Tux the Penguin:

    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.

  76. chrisjames says:

    @camille_javal: Nope, that’s still making a decision after weighing the factors. There is no forcing going on. If you’d rather not be subject to those conditions, make a case to your employer, seek compensation, or take your business elsewhere. Similarly, you can make a case to the airlines, though they’ll be less inclined to listen given their volume of business. Just because you want to keep your job, even if it’s only enough to pay the bills and stay afloat, doesn’t mean you are forced into anything.

  77. thegirls says:

    @chrisjames: re: your statement “you are never forced to fly for business” statement:
    I was forced to fly for business becuase of unanticipated scheduling issues..If I decided to take a bus across country, I would have missed to much work and probably been fired!

  78. @Bladefist: Checked his info, and he did get the ban hammer.

  79. thegirls says:

    @rusgreim: I can guess what side of the isle you’re on.

  80. @Bladefist: “But Government has no place in private companies”

    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.

  81. chrisjames says:

    @thegirls: That’s between you and your employer, not the airline.

  82. Bladefist says:

    @Pixelantes Anonymous: I could do that, but I think I could find just as much reason not to let the government get involved.

  83. thegirls says:

    @chrisjames: Okay….right, whatever you wanna believe.

  84. @Bladefist: *sigh*

    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.

  85. Daniel-Bham says:

    I’m a bit suspicious here. Generally something like “Passenger Bill of Rights” sounds nice as far as the title goes, and those excerpts sound just fine: But I’ve seen more than one piece of Orwellian named legislation which does a lot more. There was probably $300 million worth of pork tagged along with it as a ‘must pass’ portion of the popular legislation.

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

  86. lightaugust says:

    How is it that the very people who claim to love America the most hate its government? The game’s gotta have a ref, man.

  87. sisedi says:

    @Pixelantes Anonymous: You are right as well. Government’s main job is to protect its citizens. When someone knocks you out and takes your possessions or robs your house, the police help you. If a company puts you in the same jeopardy or worse, the Government is there to protect you from those situations,

    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.

  88. sisedi says:

    @sisedi: CORRECTION: having any sorts of “unmentioned” hazardous material in the products they sell you.

    Looking out for you smokers out there.

  89. Tux the Penguin says:

    @stinerman: Maybe you missed the first six years of the Bush presidency, the Democrats pulled the same crap that the Republicans are pulling now. That’s why there was so much talk of the “nuclear” option, removing the need the supermajority vote to close debate.

    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.

  90. DeeJayQueue says:

    @chrisjames: Ok, so if you’re working in the type of job that would require you to fly for meetings or somesuch, and you say “nah, I dunwanna.” That’s true, you’ve made a decision. Then your employer makes a decision that you’re not the kind of worker who can get the job done without incurring exorbitant travel costs or taking too long to get there, so you get canned. Then you get to go to your next job interview (assuming you haven’t been blacklisted in your field) and you get to tell them exactly why you got fired from your last job. Who would want to hire a whiny bastard who won’t fly over the 5 other people in line for the job who will?

  91. rmz says:

    @Bladefist: The USA PATRIOT Act?

  92. Tux the Penguin says:

    @DeeJayQueue: Lets get serious about this: when you take a job, they have typically warned you about travel. If they’re going to have you flying all over the place and you don’t want to fly, don’t take the job. That simple.

    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.

  93. Bladefist says:

    @rmz: omg. Seriously? How many times do I have to say it. I believe in conservatism. Does the patriot act have anything to do with conservatism? Do I look like George Bush to you? Do I look like the democrat led congress that allowed it to pass?

  94. chrisjames says:

    @DeeJayQueue: I sure as hell wouldn’t hire such a person, because I’m running a business and… Hey, wait a minute. So are the airlines.

    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.

  95. Softly-with-a-Big-Stick says:

    OK, I haven’t read comments past this one, I was hoping someone would bring this up.

    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???


  96. thegirls says:

    @chrisjames: Republicans love to fit everything in neat little black and white scenarios – but that’s not real life. If it’s not something that they experience, they can’t fathom it being an issue for another person and if it is, just suck it up!

    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.

  97. @chrisjames: You are never forced to fly for business.

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

  98. Jcakes says:

    Fucking retardlickans.

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

    Stupid beyond measure.

  99. LUV2CattleCall says:

    Supply & M-fing Demand… with your feet….etc

  100. snclfe says:

    None of the Presidential candidates voted on this :(

  101. RandomHookup says:

    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.

  102. RandomHookup says:

    Arrgh…one thing I learned!

  103. BigElectricCat says:

    @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.

  104. BigElectricCat says:


    “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?

  105. ThomasD3 says:

    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

  106. Empire says:

    @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.

  107. chrisjames says:

    @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.

  108. ironchef says:


    how about a commercial airline pilot?

  109. thegirls says:

    @chrisjames: You’re an idiot.

    Happy Day!

  110. chrisjames says:

    @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.

  111. davidc says:

    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.

  112. Aphex242 says:

    @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.

  113. @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.

  114. @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.

  115. chrisjames says:

    @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.

  116. @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.

  117. chrisjames says:

    @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.

  118. bwcbwc says:

    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?

  119. yamahagrand says:

    @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.

  120. chocxtc says:

    @Applekid: They weren’t there and that does not matter since you need 60 for cloture

  121. chocxtc says:

    @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

  122. thegirls says:

    @bwcbwc: AMEN!

  123. gomakemeasandwich says:


    “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.


    “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.


    “None of the Presidential candidates voted on this :(

    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

  124. ninjatales says:

    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.

  125. Consumer007 says:

    Yep. This is what happens when people vote Republican. You get screwed 24/7. Period.

  126. BigElectricCat says:

    @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.

  127. Tux the Penguin says:

    @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?

  128. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  129. thegirls says:

    @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!

  130. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  131. thegirls says:

    Okay Bladefirst, you got me! Darn.

    Keep lurking.

  132. ninjatales says:

    @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.

  133. Bladefist says:

    @thegirls: That’s who I am, that’s what I do.

  134. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  135. chuloallen says:

    @Applekid: lol.. only a Republican minority can be the majority and get the blame for it

  136. BigElectricCat says:

    @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.

  137. Bladefist says:

    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


    There you go Mr. Informed.

  138. thegirls says:

    @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?

  139. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  140. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  141. thegirls says:

    There you go. I knew you had it in you and you didn’t disappoint!

  142. Bladefist says:

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

  143. pshah says:

    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.

  144. pshah says:

    @Bladefist: O’REILLY = scum of the earth = everything that wrong with the republicans

  145. Tux the Penguin says:

    @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?

  146. Bladefist says:


    “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.

  147. Bladefist says:

    @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.

  148. Bladefist says:

    @Bladefist: Note to self, don’t make grammar errors when calling someone stupid.

  149. Tux the Penguin says:

    @Bladefist: I think you clicked the wrong respond to… that’s the point I’m trying to make.

  150. Bladefist says:

    @Tux the Penguin: I agree with you. Just adding on, not overriding.

  151. thegirls says:

    @Tux the Penguin:
    Did I say you were a Republican? No I didn’t. I said it was a typical Republican talking point.

    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….

  152. .
    Dearest Well-Intentioned Less-Government Clan: Market forces won’t bring about airline services during extreme delays simply because no airline will spend the money as it would place them at a competitive disadvantage in a very competitive business. Unfortunately, we’re left with only the government to level the playing field and set minimum standards for basic human needs.

  153. thegirls says:

    @Cranky Customer:
    Good point that brings me back on track to what this post was originally about.

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

  154. BigElectricCat says:


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

    @Bladefist: []

    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: []

    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: []

    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: []

    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.

  155. Tux the Penguin says:

    @thegirls: FISA is not trouncing any constitutional rights. To be able to “tap” the “domestic” calls, the person in the US must be calling someone OUTSIDE this country and that person must be on a specific list. All that FISA contains is basically the same rules that we played by in WW1 and WW2 when trying to catch spies in operating in the US. But lets not get sidetracked by FISA since its been blown WAY out of proportion.

    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.

  156. Bladefist says:

    @BigElectricCat: Digging your hole deeper. You cant prove me wrong, and your attempts to disprove me, the only person who brought real data to the table, is futile. So laugh at me all you want, but you just got dominated.

  157. Rbastid says:


    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.

  158. BigElectricCat says:


    “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.

  159. Bladefist says:

    @BigElectricCat: cabbage patch kids was a joke. I thought they were a doll, do they have a show?

    I’m sorry you are so offended over this.

  160. stinerman says:

    @Tux the Penguin:

    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.

  161. yamahagrand says:

    I noticed that Bladefist ignored my post about FAA. Maybe he thinks it’s non-related but I think more likely that he’s unsure how to defend his position on it. When the fox watches the henhouse you can expect trouble. It’s true and on point with the thread. He ignores it to argue about TV ratings. Hmmm…

  162. BigElectricCat says:

    @Bladefist: “cabbage patch kids was a joke.”

    (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.

  163. ninjatales says:

    @BigElectricCat: No point arguing with Bladefist dude. Read my post and understand. He’s either a bot or a GOP spy which essentially is the same thing. Lifeless. Soul-less. Heartless.

  164. BigElectricCat says:

    @ninjatales: Oh, I don’t think of it as arguing. He’d have to have an actual point for it to be arguing. Maybe when he gets a point (other than the one on the top of his head) we would be able to argue at that time.

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

  165. Bladefist says:

    @ninjatales: Well if being a capitalist means you’re heartless, then ya.

    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

    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.

  166. BigElectricCat says:

    Oh, look. More “proof” that doesn’t actually prove anything.

    (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

  167. Bladefist says:

    @BigElectricCat: Refer to #18 on the list. Man you’re windy. I read like the first paragraph and gave up. I’m done with you.

  168. Bladefist says:

    @BigElectricCat: I went back and skimmed your post, wow you’re a veteran who voted for Reagan? By the way you talk, with all your “(laughing) :D” I figured you were 13.

  169. BigElectricCat says:

    @Bladefist: “Refer to #18 on the list.”

    (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.

  170. yamahagrand says:

    And once again, Bladefist fails to respond to my post about the FAA. It’s on point and tells a great deal about why we’ve arrived at the point we’re at with regard to the FAA and it’s role of oversight.

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

    A shame indeed.

  171. BigElectricCat says:

    Clearly, he has recovered his purse and taken a friggin’ hike, as I suggested.

    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.