Right Wing-Nut Hypocracy at it's Finest.......

J

JohnnyBz00LS

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
1,978
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Indiana
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/09/16/tea-party-protesters-protest-dc-metro-service/

September 16, 2009, 6:52 PM ET.
Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service

Brody Mullins reports on money and politics.

Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services.

Seriously.

The Texas Republican on Wednesday released a letter he sent to Washington’s Metro system complaining that the taxpayer-funded subway system was unable to properly transport protesters to the rally to protest government spending and expansion.

“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”

A spokesman for Brady says that “there weren’t enough cars and there weren’t enough trains.” Brady tweeted as much from the Saturday march. “METRO did not prepare for Tea Party March! More stories. People couldn’t get on, missed start of march. I will demand answers from Metro,” he wrote on Twitter.

Brady says in his letter to Metro that overcrowding forced an 80-year-old woman and elderly veterans in wheelchairs to pay for cabs. He concludes that it “appears that Metro added no additional capacity to its regular weekend schedule.”
Click to expand...

:bowrofl: They're bitching about the government-run subway not spending extra money to provide extra service so they can get to a rally to bitch about the government spending too much. There is NO pleasing these clowns! :bowrofl:
 
It never fails, pathetic leftists are trying to use a ridiculous "hypocrite charge" rather than building a decent argument.

You don't even realize what this event demonstrates. The complete inefficiency and failure of customer service associated with a government run "service."

The metro isn't a free system, it's just heavily subsidized.
A private company would have taken steps in advance to accommodate the increased traffic that day in order to maintain a level of service and quality. Gov't doesn't have that instinct or need.

Maybe you want the same guys running the metro on a Saturday to run your health care... I don't.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Oh really? What makes you so sure?
Click to expand...
Is that your response? :rolleyes:
"Oh yeah.....!!??"
And I'm supposed to say, "yeah."

A poorly run or managed company wouldn't- much like the government and union run metro system. A properly run company, motivated by profit, would realize that the more trains they had running, the more fares they would collect. That a pleasant experience wouldn't discourage people from using the metro, and maybe it would lead to greater use at a future date. And it would also have meant that the people working wouldn't have been overwhelmed and there service would have been better.

I bet you that there were extra taxi cabs in service that weekend.
And if you really want to push the analogy, I bet you that there were even more hookers walking around D.C. too. All responding to free market influences, something that government and the unions are shielded from.

But again, I know I don't want a health care system run by the same people who don't know enough, or care enough, to accommodate the tens or hundreds of thousands of people coming into the city on the weekend.
 
Calabrio said:
Is that your response? :rolleyes:
"Oh yeah.....!!??"
And I'm supposed to say, "yeah."

A poorly run or managed company wouldn't- much like the government and union run metro system. A properly run company, motivated by profit, would realize that the more trains they had running, the more fares they would collect. That a pleasant experience wouldn't discourage people from using the metro, and maybe it would lead to greater use at a future date. And it would also have meant that the people working wouldn't have been overwhelmed and there service would have been better.

I bet you that there were extra taxi cabs in service that weekend.
And if you really want to push the analogy, I bet you that there were even more hookers walking around D.C. too. All responding to free market influences, something that government and the unions are shielded from.

But again, I know I don't want a health care system run by the same people who don't know enough, or care enough, to accommodate the tens or hundreds of thousands of people coming into the city on the weekend.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is false. If the same people running the private insurance companies were running the Metro, they would've lobbied to make it a law that cabs and buses wouldn't be able to run on the weekends, then they'd hike the fare rates on weekends 4x what they normally are on the weekdays. Then, if a potential passenger had special needs like wheelchair access, they'd refuse them a place on the train because they know they could fit 3 "normal" passengers in the same space. :rolleyes:
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Your analogy is false.
Click to expand...
Actually, the thread was initially about your pathetic attempt to use the tired, liberal "hypocrite" attack against people who were rightly pissed off at the inefficiency associated with those running the metro system.

Or the failures associated with government and unionized services.

You've decided to avoid all points related to service and the management of the system, so I'm going to presume that means you've acknowledged that I was right and are going to try to change the subject.

If the same people running the private insurance companies were running the Metro, they would've lobbied to make it a law that cabs and buses wouldn't be able to run on the weekends, then they'd hike the fare rates on weekends 4x what they normally are on the weekdays. Then, if a potential passenger had special needs like wheelchair access, they'd refuse them a place on the train because they know they could fit 3 "normal" passengers in the same space. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was absurd...
and it reads like it was written by a simpleton who hates capitalism.

At what point will you realize that the industries that you are so critical of are the ones MOST HEAVILY REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. And, noting your absurd analogy, if the government wasn't so heavily involved, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE LOBBYISTS. Lobbyists are the toxic byproduct of TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
They're bitching about the government-run subway not spending extra money to provide extra service so they can get to a rally to bitch about the government spending too much. There is NO pleasing these clowns!
Click to expand...
Lord, those people are stupid.
 
Calabrio said:
A private company would have taken steps in advance to accommodate the increased traffic that day in order to maintain a level of service and quality.
Click to expand...
The private sector failed miserably at providing public transportation. However, Socialism got the job done.
 
Calabrio said:
Maybe you want the same guys running the metro on a Saturday to run your health care... I don't.
Click to expand...
How do you like guys like me, who own stock in health insurance companies, who get richer every day by denying you access to health care when you really need it?
 
Calabrio said:
I know I don't want a health care system run by the same people who don't know enough, or care enough, to accommodate the tens or hundreds of thousands of people coming into the city on the weekend.
Click to expand...
You go, girl. Your access to health care should be controlled by people who make me lots of money by skimming 30% of ever dollar that goes from you to you doctor and by screwing you out of access to a doctor when you really need one because you made a typo on your application form.
 
Calabrio said:
That website is a lie!
it's called Funny or Die, and not a single person died for making that unfunny video...
Which is a shame, because some of the Will Ferrell humor directed at G.W. Bush funny.

Maybe they're trying to get some Obama NEA money.
Click to expand...
What sort of health insurance play do you have, dude?
 
Mick Jagger said:
What sort of health insurance play do you have, dude?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, that video still wasn't funny.

And it's not a debate over whether we need to improve upon the way we pay for health care in this country or not. It's an issue of whether we destroy the system, abandon economic reason, and nationalize it or engage in better, practical, free market reforms.
 
Calabrio said:
It doesn't matter
Click to expand...
I don't have health insurance myself. I'm so rich, I just pay for all of my medical care with cash. I always get a 10% to 40% discount from the provider. I have millions set aside in case of a serious medical problem.

In all probability you're paying a company I own stock in to be a middle man between you and your doctor. It does nothing but take your money, skim 30 to 40 percent, and give it to your doctor. It produces nothing. It just moves money.

better, practical, free market reforms.
Click to expand...
What better, practical, free market reforms?
 
Mick Jagger said:
I don't have health insurance myself. I'm so rich, I just pay for all of my medical care with cash. I always get a 10% to 40% discount from the provider. I have millions set aside in case of a serious medical problem.
Click to expand...
Good for you! Maybe you know VikingDiesel, PeteSweet, and Cbecker?

In all probability you're paying a company I own stock in to be a middle man between you and your doctor. It does nothing but take your money, skim 30 to 40 percent, and give it to your doctor. It produces nothing. It just moves money.
Click to expand...
Are you asking me to defend the current insurance and medical payment system?
I won't.
Employer based insurance is ridiculous- though it was the market response to bad government policy.

But I don't think that we should scrap the health system and nationalize it.
In fact, I don't agree with any system that makes someone else responsible for paying your medical bills.

The simply laws of supply and demand cease to work when that happens. Demand is high, prices rise, but demand remains high because no one sees the costs. If you fix prices, demand will rise, prices will be fixed, so supply will fall, and we'll see shortages.

You're beloved "socialist" principles ONLY work in times of surplus.
Those days are over. You squandered it all.
Now we're going to have to pay.

What better, practical, free market reforms?
Click to expand...
.Honestly, I've been through this before.
Many of the ideas are published and can easily be found online.
Simple things like selling health insurance like a term life insurance policy (10 years, 20 years, set rates). Deregulating the policies so you aren't forced to carry needless coverage. 50 state competition. Medical Savings Accounts. Shift the system so that insurance is for catastrophic illness and not check-ups and head aches.... free market stuff.

You people on the left think government can fix everything. And the smarter ones recognize that the markets WILL correct problems, just not fast enough for you. Unfortunately, you fail to note the inevitable unintended consequences that often result in a problem worse than the original.
 
Calabrio said:
Selling health insurance like a term life insurance policy (10 years, 20 years, set rates).

Deregulating the policies so you aren't forced to carry needless coverage.

50 state competition.

Medical Savings Accounts.

Shift the system so that insurance is for catastrophic illness and not check-ups and head aches....

free market stuff.
Click to expand...
What presently prohibits insurance companies from selling health insurance like term life insurance?

Can you point out some of the government policies that force people to carry needless coverage?

What exactly is 50 state competition? How do we get there from here, and what would be accomplished by going there?

I thought we already have medical savings accounts.

How do you propose that we go about shifting the system so that insurance is for catastrophic illness and not check-ups and head aches? Is the government going to do the shifting? I thought catastrophic illness insurance was already available.

Free market stuff is a rather vague concept.

Calabrio said:
You're beloved "socialist" principles ONLY work in times of surplus.
Click to expand...
Huh? What principles and what surplus are you referring to, dude?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I resent when trolls come around here, fail to contribute, and then expect me to do home work for them.

Are you asking me to reform the entire health care system in one post?
That wasn't what I set out to do. I responded to your question.
Google is a powerful tool, you can find the answers to your questions there.

And, dude, the socialist nonsense and redistributive policies that you are embracing only work when the economy is abundant and can continue to support it. This has to do with both the macroeconomy of the country as well as the government treasury. Ultimately, it's unsustainable.

Even if you don't oppose such things on the principle of it, it's economically unsustainable. Economically speaking, it will eventually cause the country to run out of money and credit.

Do you think we can spend our way out of this economic situation?
It's getting very difficult for the country to borrow money and we've begun to monetize our debt? Are you aware of that?
 
Calabrio said:
And, dude, the socialist nonsense and redistributive policies that you are embracing
Click to expand...
Dude, the people of this great nation value and cherish the socialist nonsense and redistributive policies that I embrace. That's why they made them American institutions.

only work when the economy is abundant and can continue to support it. This has to do with both the macroeconomy of the country as well as the government treasury. Ultimately, it's unsustainable.
Click to expand...
Right now, even at a low point of an economic cycle, this is still a land of tremendous abundance and we are still quite capable of supporting the present level of redistributive policies that contribute so much to the greatness of our noble republic.
 
Calabrio said:
the socialist nonsense and redistributive policies that you are embracing...Ultimately, it's unsustainable...it's economically unsustainable...it will eventually cause the country to run out of money and credit...It's getting very difficult for the country to borrow money and we've begun to monetize our debt...
Click to expand...
We just need to make a few adjustments, dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 415 (members: 1, guests: 414)
Back
Top