My God, you are an idiot. - Page 169

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

not to be a timmy, but you said something biased, so I pointed it out.

I said something "biased"? Perhaps you don't know what the word means. Pray tell, what was it that I said that you thought was "biased"?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 04:53 PM

For club -- Menzie Chinn, Assessing the stimulus and its aftermath.

Re those estimates of the efficiency of the stimulus that bothered you.

Hank Chinaski · 08-10-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I said something "biased"? Perhaps you don't know what the word means. Pray tell, what was it that I said that you thought was "biased"?

seriously? when you've drank far too much so that you can't possibly get hard do you turn on youporn and go through the motions?

Okay here goes- you blamed Congress for letting our ATC become so bad. In particular you said:

"But we have a Congress that does not seem to care about solving these problems, and is instead shutting down the FAA over a minor squabble about subsidies for rural air service and rules about how airlines can be unionized."

Now I read that as implying the current house (see the part about the FAA there?) was to blame. Only a biased* brain, and a feverish one at that could have made that statement as it is absurd on it's face, but make it you did.

*instead of biased would you feel better with "so unable to blame anyone other than a Republican that i am blaming the congress that hasn't sat for a year yet for a problem I had called long lasting. It's like when you blamed Bush since he didn't fix NO's levees prior to Katrina. As an olive branch I will admit the bias is within the level of normal, given your abnormalities.

Adder · 08-10-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Now I read that as implying the current house (see the part about the FAA there?) was to blame.

Why would you read "Congress" to mean "one half of Congress?"

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 08-10-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For club -- Menzie Chinn, Assessing the stimulus and its aftermath.

Re those estimates of the efficiency of the stimulus that bothered you.

That seems to point out one small problems with the estimates (relating to the right's ability to count). There are so many other problems....

Hank Chinaski · 08-10-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

Why would you read "Congress" to mean "one half of Congress?"

so the faa thing isn't "simple tea party craziness?"

Adder · 08-10-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so the faa thing isn't "simple tea party craziness?"

I see how you reached your conclusion, but it's still starts with your error/assumption and not his implication.

Also, given that he predicted that board consensus would be with the tea party on the question of rural airport subsidies, no, I don't think it was "simple tea party craziness."

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

seriously? when you've drank far too much so that you can't possibly get hard do you turn on youporn and go through the motions?

Okay here goes- you blamed Congress for letting our ATC become so bad. In particular you said:

"But we have a Congress that does not seem to care about solving these problems, and is instead shutting down the FAA over a minor squabble about subsidies for rural air service and rules about how airlines can be unionized."

Now I read that as implying the current house (see the part about the FAA there?) was to blame.

I didn't say current and I didn't say the House. (Congress is both the House and the Senate. The FAA shutdown happened because the two couldn't agree on the aforementioned issues.) The problem is with your reading.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 08-10-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

so the faa thing isn't "simple tea party craziness?"

I agree that you're all crazy, and most of you are simple, too, but I still don't think the quoted phrase really works.

Many of the conspiracies reach unimaginable heights and involve institutions and individuals the likes of which you really wouldn't believe.

Hank Chinaski · 08-10-2011, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

I see how you reached your conclusion, but it's still starts with your error/assumption and not his implication.

Also, given that he predicted that board consensus would be with the tea parties on the question of rural airport subsidies, no, I don't think it's was "simple tea party craziness."

I'm sorry, I have no idea what the second sentence means.

Hank Chinaski · 08-10-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I didn't say current and I didn't say the House. (Congress is both the House and the Senate. The FAA shutdown happened because the two couldn't agree on the aforementioned issues.) The problem is with your reading.

So if I have adder go back and research your posts on the faa thing you won't have posted which party was at fault? if you can clear an adder search I'll give you the win! I don't think you'd clear a search though

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder

I see how you reached your conclusion, but it's still starts with your error/assumption and not his implication.

Also, given that he predicted that board consensus would be with the tea parties on the question of rural airport subsidies, no, I don't think it's was "simple tea party craziness."

I don't think the Tea Partiers were driving the FAA bill at all. As far as I can tell, it was a fight between the Republican House and Democratic Senate over whether Delta employees would be allowed to unionize. The House was using the FAA bill to reverse rule-making that unions like and Delta doesn't. The stuff about rural subsidies was cover.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So if I have adder go back and research your posts on the faa thing you won't have posted which party was at fault? if you can clear an adder search I'll give you the win! I don't think you'd clear a search though

I don't recall that I posted on the FAA thing so it shouldn't take you very long.

For a fiscal conservative, there is obvious lunacy in declining to collect $200 million/week in taxes in a fight over specific subsidies in a bill that runs $200 million/year. The fact that Tea Partiers weren't up in arms about this -- as far as I noticed, anyway -- confirms either that they aren't fiscal conservatives, that they are just Republican loyalists, or both.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So if I have adder go back and research your posts on the faa thing you won't have posted which party was at fault? if you can clear an adder search I'll give you the win! I don't think you'd clear a search though

And your constant and tendentious abuse of notional burdens of proof in conversations here are a reminder of the funnest parts of litigation. Carry on.

Adder · 08-10-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm sorry, I have no idea what the second sentence means.

Ty said the FAA is currently unfunded because congress can't agree over subsidies for rural airports and unionization of some federal workers. He then said the board would likely agree on the subsidies. The agreement he implied is that the board consensus would be against the subsidies. The tea party members of the house are also against the subsidies (for the most part) or at least they should be.

Thus Ty anticipated that the consensus here would be with the tea party on the question of subsidies. Thus implying that he is against the subsidies. So it's a little strange for you think he was blaming the current failure to fund the FAA only on "tea party craziness" where he agrees with part of it.