Tea Partiers riding public transit

[misterman]

I never called you a liar.

Okay, then declare right now that you have no reason to believe my Amtrak story isn't true.

 

[misterman]

The complaint was about the ability of METRO to take care of its customers. I call that incompetence.

The complaint was mistaken. The inability of Metro to take care of its customers is directly linked to it's lack of a dedicated tax revenue stream.

 

[Ockham]

Okay, then declare right now that you have no reason to believe my Amtrak story isn't true.

There's no reason to believe or disbelieve. You're credibility in the previous thread is nil... hence opening this thread to try and salvage what you can. And you've provided no proof you indeed did what you say you did, or saw what you claim you saw, hence no reason to believe due to the previously mentioned lack of credibility.

Calling someone a liar when they write fiction is pretty useless. It's a story. Feel better?

 

[Ockham]

Huh? If you oppose tax money going to some private companies, you should oppose it for all.

In a simpleton's world that may be true, but life is a little more complicated that "all or nothing". And while framing debate around "all or nothing" when it suits your need may be easy for you, it's not reality.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Okay, then declare right now that you have no reason to believe my Amtrak story isn't true.

I don't believe its true. :shrug:

 

[misterman]

There's no reason to believe or disbelieve.

Then drop the subject.

 

[misterman]

I don't believe its true. :shrug:

Then you were a liar when you said you weren't calling me a liar.

Go away, troll. That's the last I'll speak of this on this thread. You and the rest have infected enough threads already. Substance only.

 

[Ockham]

Then drop the subject.

Sorry free country etc. etc.

Droning on and repeating ad nauseum the same thing in a new thread is not debate. Just a little tip from me to you. :wink:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Then you were a liar when you said you weren't calling me a liar.

Go away, troll. That's the last I'll speak of this on this thread. You and the rest have infected enough threads already. Substance only.

Uhm I thanked a post of yours and applauded your change of attitude. It seems it may have been premature.....



Like the other thread, your entire premise is bunk. TEA Party members have never been for no spending. And furthermore, If thier tax dollars are paying for something why would they NOT use it?


It's like saying they shouldn't use roads since you know the state paves them. It's a silly argument, twice now.

 

[misterman]

Droning on and repeating ad nauseum the same thing in a new thread is not debate.

Exactly.

........

 

[misterman]

Uhm I thanked a post of yours and applauded your change of attitude. It seems it may have been premature.....

You said you would have respect for me. To me, that includes not saying I'm lying.

Like the other thread, your entire premise is bunk. TEA Party members have never been for no spending. And furthermore, If thier tax dollars are paying for something why would they NOT use it?


It's like saying they shouldn't use roads since you know the state paves them. It's a silly argument, twice now.

Finally some substance.

If you want to discuss it, just start with respect. Then we can talk. Otherwise I'm ignoring you.

 

[Ockham]

Uhm I thanked a post of yours and applauded your change of attitude. It seems it may have been premature.....



Like the other thread, your entire premise is bunk. TEA Party members have never been for no spending. And furthermore, If thier tax dollars are paying for something why would they NOT use it?


It's like saying they shouldn't use roads since you know the state paves them. It's a silly argument, twice now.

I tend to agree with your point about the premise. The premise is idiotic. This notion that one's views are either all or nothing with no room for exception or compromise else, they are dubbed a "hypocrite" is not reality. I seem to recall the outcry when Bush stated pre Iraq war "Either you're with us or against us" and the outcry of such a simple view being applied to a very complex and long standing issue as 10 years of no-fly over Iraq after the first invasion.

The application in this case to Tea Party members riding Amrak is ludicrous, made up and partisan for no other reason than to BE partisan. The premise in the prior thread was "I saw it, I was there" and therefore, personal credibility was on the line which fizzled, dried up and blew away. Now, the same premise without the "I saw it, I was there" yet the same old BS premise. Are we supposed to be so stupid as to not be able to connect the dots and see:

a). What's going on with these posts and see through the obviousness
b). Forget the prior thread and it's utter collapse and not apply it to this thread
c). Identify that this is clear partisan hackery applying simpleton "either your a hypocrite or not".

In the last thread it basically came down to everyone who didn't agree being called a coward by the OP poster. Now what... more name calling? The call for substance is a good one. I'm still waiting after 7 pages for substance.

 

[misterman]

For any non-trolls on this thread, here's what Rep. Brady wrote and a spokesman said:

“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.”

Having too few cars and trains is a spending issue, not a management issue. Metro simply can't afford to run more trains on weekends. It would lose money, unless it hiked up fares significantly.

So either the Tea Partiers need to pay MORE in taxes for the system, which is safe to say most would oppose, or they need to pay more (alot more) in fares, which everyone would also have to pay.

 

[misterman]

I tend to agree with your point about the premise. The premise is idiotic. This notion that one's views are either all or nothing with no room for exception or compromise else, they are dubbed a "hypocrite" is not reality. I seem to recall the outcry when Bush stated pre Iraq war "Either you're with us or against us" and the outcry of such a simple view being applied to a very complex and long standing issue as 10 years of no-fly over Iraq after the first invasion.

I'm not saying there is no room for exception or compromise.

But somebody needs to explain the exception, because it sure as hell isn't obvious.

Someone pays a cheap fare on a government-subsidized, partly-government-owned railroad (Amtrak or Metro, whatever) to get to a rally where they denounce government spending on private industry as "socialism" and complain about the government being involved in everything? Explain that.

I don't have any problem with them riding Metro, just the idea that they whine about the service. But Amtrak? That's just over the top.

In the last thread it basically came down to everyone who didn't agree being called a coward by the OP poster.

Absolutely false. I called anyone who simply denied that I saw a tea partier at Amtrak a coward. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me about the meaning of it.

 

[Ockham]

For any non-trolls on this thread, here's what Rep. Brady wrote and a spokesman said:



Having too few cars and trains is a spending issue, not a management issue. Metro simply can't afford to run more trains on weekends. It would lose money, unless it hiked up fares significantly.

So either the Tea Partiers need to pay MORE in taxes for the system, which is safe to say most would oppose, or they need to pay more (alot more) in fares, which everyone would also have to pay.

You disqualify your first suggestion since you already identified it's NOT a spending issue, so why then would an option be to pay MORE taxes to the system for management? That doesn't make sense.

The question is, if a special event was held --- say a million man march for example, and public transit was going to be burdened, what management request/requirement would need to be made to add more cars? It's safe to say that more cars would not need to be purchased, just added for that special occasion. If there are special costs needed for labor, time, expenses or fuel --- what are those costs and who would need to pay them and in what method? Fares? A one time fee?

Where's Amtrak on this as I'm sure this is not the first time that an event caused the trains to be full. And second, people will complain about anything, so complaining that there were not enough cars is not hypocritical, as the tax payers do not have a say in how their tax money is spent other than who they vote for in their districts or states as representatives. You don't have a point to make, but I'd wish you'd find one soon.

 

[misterman]

You disqualify your first suggestion since you already identified it's NOT a spending issue, so why then would an option be to pay MORE taxes to the system for management? That doesn't make sense.

I don't understand what you mean. I said the service issue for Metro is a spending issue.

The question is, if a special event was held --- say a million man march for example, and public transit was going to be burdened, what management request/requirement would need to be made to add more cars? It's safe to say that more cars would not need to be purchased, just added for that special occasion. If there are special costs needed for labor, time, expenses or fuel --- what are those costs and who would need to pay them and in what method? Fares? A one time fee?

Right.

Metro does often add more cars for special events. I don't know if it did for this one. I think, but I'm not sure about this, that sometimes the organizers pay Metro for the additional service. But just adding trains can still lose money, since the whole system has to run that day even though people coming to the event aren't using the whole system to full capacity. That's a money-losing proposition for Metro if they only rely on fares to cover it.

Maybe they should just hike up fares for special events, but I can imagine the reaction to that.

Where's Amtrak on this as I'm sure this is not the first time that an event caused the trains to be full.

And they probably lost money on it too.

And second, people will complain about anything, so complaining that there were not enough cars is not hypocritical, as the tax payers do not have a say in how their tax money is spent other than who they vote for in their districts or states as representatives.

You're saying people have no representation except for their representation?

And of course taxpayers have a say about how their money is spent. They can lobby for it - or go to Tea Party rallies.

 

[Ockham]

I'm not saying there is no room for exception or compromise.

I don't have any problem with them riding Metro, just the idea that they whine about the service. But Amtrak? That's just over the top.

Why is it over the top? People whine and complain about everything that they feel isn't up to their standard. Whining is a global human/sociological issue not just relegated to Tea Party members.

Absolutely false. I called anyone who simply denied that I saw a tea partier at Amtrak a coward. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me about the meaning of it.

Lack of credibility and a lack of proof for someone pushing so hard to try to be believable has a negative effect. Name calling is a sign of weakness in all cases.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Absolutely false. I called anyone who simply denied that I saw a tea partier at Amtrak a coward. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me about the meaning of it.

How is it cowardice to call BS on your made up story?

 

[misterman]

Why is it over the top? People whine and complain about everything that they feel isn't up to their standard. Whining is a global human/sociological issue not just relegated to Tea Party members.

But this is a particularly egregious hypocrisy. To start a whole movement with rallies and things, complaining about the government spending tax money on private company bailouts and such, and then using a similar company to get to the rally? Over the top.

Name calling is a sign of weakness in all cases.

Denying what someone says for no good reason other than it is inconvenient to you, thereby implying that they are lying, is a sign of weakness.

 

[Ockham]

I don't understand what you mean. I said the service issue for Metro is a spending issue.

You're correct, I reversed it.

Metro does often add more cars for special events. I don't know if it did for this one. I think, but I'm not sure about this, that sometimes the organizers pay Metro for the additional service. But just adding trains can still lose money, since the whole system has to run that day even though people coming to the event aren't using the whole system to full capacity. That's a money-losing proposition for Metro if they only rely on fares to cover it.

Then a few things could have occurred. Either Metro didn't add cars or they did. If they did, they may not have added enough or the count could have been incorrect by the organizers or a 100 different other scenario's -- yet the result was for whatever reason, there were not enough cars, hence the complaints. If cars were added and not enough were added, complaints should be directed to the organizers. If Metro didn't add cars and more were requested, then the complaints were justified.

Which of these scenario's occurred? Not enough cars? Count was wrong? Maybe both of those scenarios? No cars were added perhaps?

Yet, Metro has a say in what they do - if it's a money losing proposition, they can say "no" to adding. Or, they can require money up front and put a process in place where adding cars will make money. There are choices and decisions which can change the outcome. However, none of these things has any effect on people complaining... which as I said is sociological.

Maybe they should just hike up fares for special events, but I can imagine the reaction to that.

If it's justifiable and presented to the organizers as choice - the organizers can either pay or find alternatives. Either way, complaints will occur.

And they probably lost money on it too.

Probably or did? You're one for fact... speculating they lost money may be accurate but perhaps on all events they lose money, or not.

You're saying people have no representation except for their representation?

I'm saying people have no say in how their tax money is spent other than by voting for a representative or in a voting referendum. Politicians collect tax money and spend it as they see fit which is not always in agreement with the majority of their constituents.

And of course taxpayers have a say about how their money is spent. They can lobby for it - or go to Tea Party rallies.

Free speech and speaking out about how tax money is spent is not the same as affecting how it's actually spent. As we saw with the Health Care bill, it was and still is unpopular - yet town hall meetings, rally's and free speech did not change it's passing. Taxpayers also cannot just wake up one day and start lobbying, but they can attend rallies.

 

[Ockham]

But this is a particularly egregious hypocrisy. To start a whole movement with rallies and things, complaining about the government spending tax money on private company bailouts and such, and then using a similar company to get to the rally? Over the top.

Not over the top at all and not even close to hypocrisy.

Denying what someone says for no good reason other than it is inconvenient to you, thereby implying that they are lying, is a sign of weakness.

No good reason is subjective - no good reason to you because you're at the end of the criticism and lack of credibility. You lose each time you call someone a name. Even the most basic internet poster views this as pwnage.

 

[misterman]

Not over the top at all and not even close to hypocrisy.

Why not? What is the difference?

Non-substance ignored.

 

[Ockham]

Why not? What is the difference?

Non-substance ignored.

See post 62, 65, 67, 70.

 

[Moon]

The complaint was mistaken. The inability of Metro to take care of its customers is directly linked to it's lack of a dedicated tax revenue stream.

No. Metro could add more trains in anticipation of greater usage for special events. MARTA in Atlanta has done that in the past to handle the crowds for sporting events, even on weekends and evenings. Squeezing more money out of taxpayers won't do anything to fix piss-poor planning, which is what this sounds like to me.