Really? The Right Wing Whackjobs Are Going to Shutdown the FAA

[Si modo]

If the debt limit isn't raised, our airports will close down and lots more.
Gov. McDonnell of Virginia changed his mind when he found out how his state would suffer.

GOP Gov. McDonnell Flip-Flops On Debt Ceiling After Learning His State’s Credit Rating Is At Risk | ThinkProgress

Um, no. They won't. It's called essential personnel.

 

[saveliberty]

I'm hearing a lot of, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!"

Look to the left, that is overwhelming interest payments.

On the right, inflation. Which one do you want to tank the economy next?

 

[Si modo]

The government was "shut down" for about 90 days in 1994. The essential personnel still showed up to work, if they wanted to keep their jobs, that is.

This is fearmongering by those who haven't a clue about how the government works. And, the idiotic sites who KNOW that their readership haven't a clue, but also know that their readership will be noisy.

Few actually think any longer.

 

[Stephanie]

This debate over the dept ceiling has been a real eye opener.

It been showing there isn't ONE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM that a Lefties believes THEY CAN LIVE WITHOUT.
And they don't CARE how much dept we go in.

kinda sad.

 

[saveliberty]

Independentlogic must be on milk and cookie break from Mom's basement.

 

[IndependntLogic]

LOL, Huffington post say the GOP is going to shut down the FAA.

And the little dweeb runs over here all in A PANIC,

Okay well, you can sling your petty insults and not address the point of the post all you like! Not my deal. Occasionally I find intelligent conversation here.

Here ya go, from FOX News:

Shutdown of FAA Possible as House, Senate Clash - FoxNews.com

You may now continue doing what reflects your character and personality so well...

It is a funding shut down, which makes your case worthless. Republicans don't control both houses. Fail number two. Up your game before you reach hack status.

I'm beginning to understand. You seem to think I want to reach any kind of status at all. Or have the mentality that anyone finding fault with your party must automatically be categorized into the "other side" for bickering purposes. We're simply here for different purposes. Ran into the same thing with a Lib on unions.

I was hoping for a reasoned or intelligent reply. Something that could address the issue, which I saw on tv late last night and then posted the first link that came up on google (should have gone down a few more to the FOX link?).

Obvioulsy, a few fingers of Glenlivit single malt, gave me a poor choice of words for the thread title. Oops. My apologies if the term offended anyone here.

So first all the RWers write: It can't be true because I don't like the source.
Then they go to: You're a _______ !
Finally, one RW poster actually makes a point (between petty insults but hey! It's a start!) and his point is made SOLELY from the info provided by FOX.
How predictible.

The impression I got from our Local FOX station (which is much more Liberal than the national version) was that a certain element of house Republicans would not extend the funding for the FAA and this would have the immediate effect of:
* 4,000+ people would be put out of work until they made nice. Cuz you know, it's not like we have an unemployment problem or anything.
* would cost the government about $200M a week - that'll help the deficit!
* Would make it more difficult for FAA workers to unionize (which I don't care about) They added a provision to accomplish this a few months ago.

The GOP justification seems to beL
* it would keep the government handouts going to the airports in rural areas so that people who live way out in nowhere don't have to drive so far to get to an airport. That's kinda reasonable I guess.
* Although they would cost the government $800M a month, the government would SAVE $8.5M a month. Seems like bad math to me.

Funny thing: FOX mentions the $8.5M in savings but seems to have forgotten to mention the $200M cost that Huff, CNN, AP, Rueters etc... all seemed to pick up on.

That's why I read / watch several sources.

So those are the points as I understand them. If your personality is such, that you can't correct or offer differing views without slinging the petty little insults, that's fine. We are all who we are.
If anyone has info on this that I'm not aware of, or wants to offer well-reasoned counter-points, well that would be refreshing!

 

[Nic_Driver]

The OP claims Independence and Logic. And links to a piece in the HuffPuff.

I find that really, really funny.

So what part of the story do you think they are misrepresenting or distorting?

The root of the dispute is a labor provision in a long-term FAA funding bill passed by the House in April. The Republican-sponsored provision would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize by overturning a National Mediation Board rule approved last year. It allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.

This part about the latest GOP attack on labor and the middle class maybe?

 

[IndependntLogic]

The OP claims Independence and Logic. And links to a piece in the HuffPuff.

I find that really, really funny.

So what part of the story do you think they are misrepresenting or distorting?

The root of the dispute is a labor provision in a long-term FAA funding bill passed by the House in April. The Republican-sponsored provision would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize by overturning a National Mediation Board rule approved last year. It allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.

This part about the latest GOP attack on labor and the middle class maybe?

Well. I'm actually anti-union but I am MORE anti-complete stupidity. They can do something to block unions later. The jobs, the cost and oh yeah, the danger, seem to be a greater priority.

But the Extreme Libs do the same thing. If a story breaks on FOX first, they refuse to even acknowledge it might be a real story and just attack the fact that the story came from FOX. And of course, they insult the poster etc... without ever actually making any points.

So now that I've brought up the verifiable facts and points, I wonder if they'll all disappear?

 

[Si modo]

The OP claims Independence and Logic. And links to a piece in the HuffPuff.

I find that really, really funny.

So what part of the story do you think they are misrepresenting or distorting?

The root of the dispute is a labor provision in a long-term FAA funding bill passed by the House in April. The Republican-sponsored provision would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize by overturning a National Mediation Board rule approved last year. It allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.

This part about the latest GOP attack on labor and the middle class maybe?

Well. I'm actually anti-union but I am MORE anti-complete stupidity. They can do something to block unions later. The jobs, the cost and oh yeah, the danger, seem to be a greater priority.

But the Extreme Libs do the same thing. If a story breaks on FOX first, they refuse to even acknowledge it might be a real story and just attack the fact that the story came from FOX. And of course, they insult the poster etc... without ever actually making any points.

So now that I've brought up the verifiable facts and points, I wonder if they'll all disappear?

Still wondering how the right is going to "shutdown the FAA", though. Your title, BTW.


When you figure it out, you'll let us know. Right?

 

[Nic_Driver]

The OP claims Independence and Logic. And links to a piece in the HuffPuff.

I find that really, really funny.

So what part of the story do you think they are misrepresenting or distorting?

The root of the dispute is a labor provision in a long-term FAA funding bill passed by the House in April. The Republican-sponsored provision would make it more difficult for airline and railroad workers to unionize by overturning a National Mediation Board rule approved last year. It allows employees in those industries to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.

This part about the latest GOP attack on labor and the middle class maybe?

Well. I'm actually anti-union but I am MORE anti-complete stupidity. They can do something to block unions later. The jobs, the cost and oh yeah, the danger, seem to be a greater priority.

But the Extreme Libs do the same thing. If a story breaks on FOX first, they refuse to even acknowledge it might be a real story and just attack the fact that the story came from FOX. And of course, they insult the poster etc... without ever actually making any points.

So now that I've brought up the verifiable facts and points, I wonder if they'll all disappear?

Wait, you can't compare Fox with a news outlet. Fox has a history of lies and deceit, a clear agenda of distorting the truth and with this history, they simply cannot be considered a source anymore than say "The View" is a credible source or that "Hogan's Hero's" is historically accurate..

Also, unions are simply designed to protect labor and labor has been under attack for more than 30 years now.

 

[IndependntLogic]

So what part of the story do you think they are misrepresenting or distorting?



This part about the latest GOP attack on labor and the middle class maybe?

Well. I'm actually anti-union but I am MORE anti-complete stupidity. They can do something to block unions later. The jobs, the cost and oh yeah, the danger, seem to be a greater priority.

But the Extreme Libs do the same thing. If a story breaks on FOX first, they refuse to even acknowledge it might be a real story and just attack the fact that the story came from FOX. And of course, they insult the poster etc... without ever actually making any points.

So now that I've brought up the verifiable facts and points, I wonder if they'll all disappear?

Still wondering how the right is going to "shutdown the FAA", though. Your title, BTW.


When you figure it out, you'll let us know. Right?

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

See how that works? BTW, didn't hurt me at all! I've done it often since I've been here!

All they're going to is cost 4,000+ jobs, cost the country an additional $200M a week and potentially endanger the citizenry. Why? So that a portion of the FAA might have a more difficult time unionizing. That seems a LOT like Party-Before-Country politics to me.

Now. Care to address the points? I'd bet you won't but who knows?

 

[Si modo]

Well. I'm actually anti-union but I am MORE anti-complete stupidity. They can do something to block unions later. The jobs, the cost and oh yeah, the danger, seem to be a greater priority.

But the Extreme Libs do the same thing. If a story breaks on FOX first, they refuse to even acknowledge it might be a real story and just attack the fact that the story came from FOX. And of course, they insult the poster etc... without ever actually making any points.

So now that I've brought up the verifiable facts and points, I wonder if they'll all disappear?

Still wondering how the right is going to "shutdown the FAA", though. Your title, BTW.


When you figure it out, you'll let us know. Right?

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

....

OK.

Good for you for admitting it. It happens.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Still wondering how the right is going to "shutdown the FAA", though. Your title, BTW.


When you figure it out, you'll let us know. Right?

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

....

OK.

Good for you for admitting it. It happens.

Okay so let's see if you are as predicitble as:
Now. Care to address the points? I'd bet you won't...

As a matter of fact, now that the facts and points have clarified, the Conservatives and Republicans have all Cut & Run. That' was predictible.
What was it they were doing when I originally cited Huff? Oh yeah:

 

[saveliberty]

'm beginning to understand. You seem to think I want to reach any kind of status at all. Or have the mentality that anyone finding fault with your party must automatically be categorized into the "other side" for bickering purposes. We're simply here for different purposes. Ran into the same thing with a Lib on unions.

I was hoping for a reasoned or intelligent reply. Something that could address the issue, which I saw on tv late last night and then posted the first link that came up on google (should have gone down a few more to the FOX link?).

Obvioulsy, a few fingers of Glenlivit single malt, gave me a poor choice of words for the thread title. Oops. My apologies if the term offended anyone here.

So first all the RWers write: It can't be true because I don't like the source.
Then they go to: You're a _______ !
Finally, one RW poster actually makes a point (between petty insults but hey! It's a start!) and his point is made SOLELY from the info provided by FOX.
How predictible.

The impression I got from our Local FOX station (which is much more Liberal than the national version) was that a certain element of house Republicans would not extend the funding for the FAA and this would have the immediate effect of:
* 4,000+ people would be put out of work until they made nice. Cuz you know, it's not like we have an unemployment problem or anything.
* would cost the government about $200M a week - that'll help the deficit!
* Would make it more difficult for FAA workers to unionize (which I don't care about) They added a provision to accomplish this a few months ago.

The GOP justification seems to beL
* it would keep the government handouts going to the airports in rural areas so that people who live way out in nowhere don't have to drive so far to get to an airport. That's kinda reasonable I guess.
* Although they would cost the government $800M a month, the government would SAVE $8.5M a month. Seems like bad math to me.

Funny thing: FOX mentions the $8.5M in savings but seems to have forgotten to mention the $200M cost that Huff, CNN, AP, Rueters etc... all seemed to pick up on.

That's why I read / watch several sources.

So those are the points as I understand them. If your personality is such, that you can't correct or offer differing views without slinging the petty little insults, that's fine. We are all who we are.
If anyone has info on this that I'm not aware of, or wants to offer well-reasoned counter-points, well that would be refreshing!

Whackjob is not used by someone attempting to portray themselves as independent and logical. Since you started with a liberal point of view you got the response you deserved. Further, you were wrong in your assumptions as you have admitted. Too bad to took pages of posts for you to state what several of us already knew. You start with pettiness, don't expect others to cut you a break. Then you go off on a Fox rant. The only one here that might think your independent is you.

Your original point was a group of federal employees were going to be denied the right to a union. More specifically, not voting for a union would be a no vote. I asked what was the purpose behind a union to begin with. A legitimate question as essential employees cannot strike.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Wait, you can't compare Fox with a news outlet. Fox has a history of lies and deceit, a clear agenda of distorting the truth and with this history, they simply cannot be considered a source anymore than say "The View" is a credible source or that "Hogan's Hero's" is historically accurate..

Also, unions are simply designed to protect labor and labor has been under attack for more than 30 years now.

LOL - The Other side of the coin. Yes I consider FOX a valid news outlet. The only difference between you LibDems (I'll assume you won't take offense to the firm, they was the ConservaRepubs do) and your counterparts, is that you haven't instantly labeled me a Conservative for watching FOX - which I do.

And unions passed the "protect labor" function decades ago. They have cost us as many jobs or at least almost as many jobs, as eliminating the penalties for shipping white collar jobs overseas (Thanks W). Their function was once to guarantee a safe work environment, prevent wrongful terminations and help maintain a "fair wage". That hasn't been what they are about for decades.
They became a place that garnered the mantra "Go ahead, try an fire me. I got seniority!" from crappy workers. So we have to pay more for inferior work and can't fire bad employees.
They've become extortionists who targeted companies for higher and higher wages and benefits - until the execs finally said screw it and shipped the jobs overseas.
I'm referring primarily to the biggies like the UAW, IBEW, Teamsters and Longshoremen.
I grew up in Detroit watching that bs.

 

[Si modo]

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

....

OK.

Good for you for admitting it. It happens.

Okay so let's see if you are as predicitble as:
Now. Care to address the points? I'd bet you won't...

As a matter of fact, now that the facts and points have clarified, the Conservatives and Republicans have all Cut & Run. That' was predictible.
What was it they were doing when I originally cited Huff? Oh yeah:

As predictable as what?

You know what? You seem to want to make this about me. It's not.

And, the FAA is not going to shut down, like YOU said.

Now that you are so very and utterly wrong, you want to make this about me and change the goalposts to something else?

Cut the crap and post like you actually have a brain (and unlike too many here, you may have one).

Now, what is the topic of the thread? Try to keep it crap free. I suspect you can.

 

[saveliberty]

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

See how that works? BTW, didn't hurt me at all! I've done it often since I've been here!

All they're going to is cost 4,000+ jobs, cost the country an additional $200M a week and potentially endanger the citizenry. Why? So that a portion of the FAA might have a more difficult time unionizing. That seems a LOT like Party-Before-Country politics to me.

Now. Care to address the points? I'd bet you won't but who knows?

Sort of flies in the face of your, I use multiple sources for my information. Again, these people are essential personnel, so they stay on the job. You also continually refuse to acknowledge they have had many contract extentions. This being the most recent attempt to do just that. Partially honesty is still dishonesty.

 

[IndependntLogic]

'm beginning to understand. You seem to think I want to reach any kind of status at all. Or have the mentality that anyone finding fault with your party must automatically be categorized into the "other side" for bickering purposes. We're simply here for different purposes. Ran into the same thing with a Lib on unions.

I was hoping for a reasoned or intelligent reply. Something that could address the issue, which I saw on tv late last night and then posted the first link that came up on google (should have gone down a few more to the FOX link?).

Obvioulsy, a few fingers of Glenlivit single malt, gave me a poor choice of words for the thread title. Oops. My apologies if the term offended anyone here.

So first all the RWers write: It can't be true because I don't like the source.
Then they go to: You're a _______ !
Finally, one RW poster actually makes a point (between petty insults but hey! It's a start!) and his point is made SOLELY from the info provided by FOX.
How predictible.

The impression I got from our Local FOX station (which is much more Liberal than the national version) was that a certain element of house Republicans would not extend the funding for the FAA and this would have the immediate effect of:
* 4,000+ people would be put out of work until they made nice. Cuz you know, it's not like we have an unemployment problem or anything.
* would cost the government about $200M a week - that'll help the deficit!
* Would make it more difficult for FAA workers to unionize (which I don't care about) They added a provision to accomplish this a few months ago.

The GOP justification seems to beL
* it would keep the government handouts going to the airports in rural areas so that people who live way out in nowhere don't have to drive so far to get to an airport. That's kinda reasonable I guess.
* Although they would cost the government $800M a month, the government would SAVE $8.5M a month. Seems like bad math to me.

Funny thing: FOX mentions the $8.5M in savings but seems to have forgotten to mention the $200M cost that Huff, CNN, AP, Rueters etc... all seemed to pick up on.

That's why I read / watch several sources.

So those are the points as I understand them. If your personality is such, that you can't correct or offer differing views without slinging the petty little insults, that's fine. We are all who we are.
If anyone has info on this that I'm not aware of, or wants to offer well-reasoned counter-points, well that would be refreshing!

Whackjob is not used by someone attempting to portray themselves as independent and logical. Since you started with a liberal point of view you got the response you deserved. Further, you were wrong in your assumptions as you have admitted. Too bad to took pages of posts for you to state what several of us already knew. You start with pettiness, don't expect others to cut you a break. Then you go off on a Fox rant. The only one here that might think your independent is you.

Your original point was a group of federal employees were going to be denied the right to a union. More specifically, not voting for a union would be a no vote. I asked what was the purpose behind a union to begin with. A legitimate question as essential employees cannot strike.

Yes and the actual POINT of that was:
How does the GOP justify $200M / week added to the deficit; 4,000 people out of work and potential endangerment of US citizens, for the oh so important goal of trying to deter unionizing.

If you think I'm pro-union, you're wrong. But I am definitely against Party-Before-Country politics.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Here. Let me do something you seem incapable of:

I was wrong. They're not going to "Shut Down" the FAA. That was the lead-in line on the news when I saw it on tv but it was wrong. And I was wrong.

See how that works? BTW, didn't hurt me at all! I've done it often since I've been here!

All they're going to is cost 4,000+ jobs, cost the country an additional $200M a week and potentially endanger the citizenry. Why? So that a portion of the FAA might have a more difficult time unionizing. That seems a LOT like Party-Before-Country politics to me.

Now. Care to address the points? I'd bet you won't but who knows?

Sort of flies in the face of your, I use multiple sources for my information. Again, these people are essential personnel, so they stay on the job. You also continually refuse to acknowledge they have had many contract extentions. This being the most recent attempt to do just that. Partially honesty is still dishonesty.

And the $200M / week in cost?
The 4,000 jobs?

Oh wait, those were my points, weren't they. Well, we wouldn't want to address those!

 

[Nic_Driver]

They have cost us as many jobs or at least almost as many jobs, as eliminating the penalties for shipping white collar jobs overseas (Thanks W).

How? I hear this over and over again, doesn't the management that signs the contract with the union bear any responsibility for the financials surrounding the deal?