Once again, you’re moving the goal-posts Jay. You’ve been hard-charging about how awful it would be to “bail out” the DC metro because it must be horribly mis-managed. I suggest that the beltways surrounding any major city are possibly even worse and by your “logic,” we should stop funding them as well since they’re broken, expensive, and wasteful to boot.

Your response? “Well, it’s the sub-contractor’s fault. Get another one.”

So if there _is_ a horribly managed public transit system out there (I can assure you, the DC Metro ain’t one of them), now you’re arguing it _should_ be fixed, but only by a really really good private subcontractor (Halliburton, I can only assume).

Dude, now you’re doing the logical equivalent of a small furry kitten (probably dropped on its head a few too many times) chasing its own tail.

But please, I await your rebuttal toute suite.

Jay: “Normally, I don’t this in comment sections, but ROFLMAO!!! Oh man. That is good. In the world of Stroke, the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion has to have “sentimental appeal.” Good grief.”

You are an illiterate fucker, you know that? I didn’t say it had to, I gave an example. I’ve given more than one example so far, but you have still refused to show how ‘vital’ is somehow emotionally loaded language. So shut the fuck up, asshole.

“It is not emotional to say, ‘A balanced diet is vital to your health.’”

“If somebody told me that I had to eat Wheatina and I asked why, and they said, ‘Because it is vital to your health!’ it wouldn’t be a valid reason for me to eat it.”

No, but it wouldn’t be an appeal to emotion either. It simply wouldn’t be giving enough information.

If they said, “You should eat a balanced diet, because it is vital to your health.” It would be a valid argument.

“A bailout is a bailout asshole.”

How are you not dead yet? You are so fucking stupid you should have accidentally eliminated yourself from the gene pool.

You must judge each situation individually. You can’t judge them based on a one word description.

Is this really outside of your ability to understand?

Me: “Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.”

Jay: “Dickhead, people are not, NOT using mass transit because it needs to be improved.”

Holy fuck! Do you even understand English? Or do you think cutting off the Metro’s funding will magically make it better?

“I swear. Trying to get you to understand the simplest of things is like trying to reason with a 2 month old baby.”

That’s funny coming from a guy who doesn’t know the meaning of the word, ‘emotion’.

“I guess you have no problem with people selling food stamps either.”

Why would they?

The point of giving out free Metro passes is to get people to use the Metro instead of driving to work. I don’t really care who uses the Metro, as long as it is used and people get to work.

I always know the argument is over once the whiny babies start whipping out the troll attacks.

By your logic, we should stop funding road repairs because the traffic is really bad and the damn things don’t pay for themselves. See how ridiculous you’re coming off? You bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit

Why do you continue to engage in such intellectual dishonesty? My logic is the same as saying the government shouldn’t give the same road construction firm contracts if they’ve performed so poorly in the past. Get off the fucking crack.

In addition, I didn’t “bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit” you inbred twit. I said the public transit should become better managed, more efficient and make better use of the tax dollars they are already getting before having any more money tossed their way.

Just wow.

If the source is a source of misinformation, yes.

Show me ONE thing in the Examiner article that is misinformation.

ONE.

I’m not familiar enough with the Examiner to know what what misinformation you are referring to. However, if that is all that is required, then by your logic it would be valid for me to discard anything the NYT says because I have occasionally found them to be purveyors of biased and misleading information, correct?

Oliver today:

>Yes, because the Washington Examiner and its right-wing funding is just looking out for the little guy.

Oliver in January, 2006 (http://www.oliverwillis.com/index.php/2006/01/30/the-republican-problem-of-race/):

>Predictably, Michelle Malkin is pulling a “look over here” complaining that the scientists that conducted the study donated to Kerry. It’s as if the Bush people have a history of not being pro-science or something. Look, 2 2 equals four – even when a Democrat is adding it up.

I guess 2 2 only equals 4 if a Democrat is adding it up, huh Oliver?

The Fed spends lots of money on roads.

The Fed spends a little money on railroad tracks and light-rail type stuff, but it’s a relative drop in the bucket to the behemoth that is the Federal highway system. (Amtrak? It’s always been a joke, but that’s on purpose. It was set up to fail, although mismanagement over the years didn’t help it either.)

This is, in effect, a subsidy for auto makers and fuel producers. It was _meant_ to work that way. Ford and GM had some pretty smart cookies working for them when Eisenhower put the whole shebang together. It’s no accident that Americans think of their roads and highways as “free” when in fact they’re incredibly expensive to maintain (and happen to be going to hell pretty quickly these days all around the country).

As usual, you keep trying to ignore the larger issue here and bring it down to a semantic one. “ZOMG THAT’S NOT WHAT SUBSIDY MEANS!” Well, first of all, it is. But fine — let’s call it something else for the sake of argument. How about “BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FEDERAL TAX MONEY SPENT SO AMERICANS CAN DRIVE ANYWHERE THEY NEED TO GO IN THEIR AUTOMOBILES WHICH CONSUME LOTS AND LOTS OF GASOLINE.” Hmm. Not too compact, and I probably shouldn’t even bother with a troll like yourself, but at the very least, on a beautiful Pacific Northwest Friday afternoon, I hope I’ve broken this pretty simple issue down into something your lizard-brain can comprehend.

Hope springs eternal.

And another point before I excuse myself — you mention that some public transit systems are poorly run, and I certainly agree. But guess what’s worse than most public transit systems? The traffic problems surrounding any mid- to large-size American city. By your logic, we should stop funding road repairs because the traffic is really bad and the damn things don’t pay for themselves. See how ridiculous you’re coming off? You bitch about tax monies going to fund public transit and yet you’ve said _nothing_ against the much more expensive road and highway system which is arguably more broken than Amtrak ever was.

Because 59 cents per rider per year is exactly the same as a $300000 townhouse.

Can’t we deport people for having the stupid? It makes more sense than deporting them for skin color like the conservatives want to do. But we can’t because the conservative would bitch because they’re such obvious targets.

Look! A subway! Booga booga!

I’m not kidding. I want you to knock yourselves out! Ball up your little fists and punch yourselves in the head ’til you fall down!

Either that or stop yelling “IDIOT” at each other.

Normally, I don’t this in comment sections, but ROFLMAO!!! Oh man. That is good. In the world of Stroke, the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion has to have “sentimental appeal.” Good grief.

It is not emotional to say, “A balanced diet is vital to your health.”

If somebody told me that I had to eat Wheatina and I asked why, and they said, “Because it is vital to your health!” it wouldn’t be a valid reason for me to eat it.

Jay. Shut the fuck up, you ignorant piece of shit.

Blow me.

I can do the schoolyard nonsense too. Yippee.

For instance, you don’t need to build a rail line to fly a plane, so the upfront cost is much less. Secondly, rail lines are exclusive by nature (you can’t share access easily), while this is not true when flying. See? The two are different and must be treated differently.

A bailout is a bailout asshole. Who the hell cares about exclusivity? We’re talking about modes of transportation that are looking to the government for an infusion of cash to remain viable. Here is what Oliver said about the airlines:

One of the major issues I wrote about on this blog back after 9/11 was about the free money congress and the president handed to the airlines. Just let them die. Trust the market, and let them die. I fear that my sentiments about Bear Stearns are going to work out similarly.

Why should MetroRail be any different? Why shouldn’t they be forced into a situation where they become more efficient and better managed?

Why?

Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.

Dickhead, people are not, NOT using mass transit because it needs to be improved.

I swear. Trying to get you to understand the simplest of things is like trying to reason with a 2 month old baby.

That’s not very capitalistic of you. The government is giving them away for free, so they obviously don’t think they have a value. Someone else does. Money is exchanged. Everyone should be happy.

Uh, except for the fact that the government is “giving them away” after being paid for by tax dollars. I guess you have no problem with people selling food stamps either.

Jay: “It most certainly is and you’re wrong on this and you know it.

“The Metro is vital to the region” is not a valid argument in favor of more subsidization. It just isn’t.

You apparently have no idea what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. It’s very simple

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore X is true.”

There is nothing emotional about saying “The Metro is vital to the region.” NOTHING YOU FUCKING DIPSHIT. Saying it had sentimental appeal would be emotional. Saying it is vital is not.

It is not emotional to say, “A balanced diet is vital to your health.”

Go to a fucking university and ask a goddamn philosophy professor if that argument is an appeal to emotion.

Do you even know what the word, ‘vital’ means?

Fucking hell, according to your theory, nearly every single argument is an appeal to emotion.

‘For matters vital to national security, we must bomb Iran.’

1. Favorable emotions are associated with national security.
2. Therefore the argument is an appeal to emotion.

“You didn’t make an argument, you made an accusation couched as an ‘argument.’. Air travel and the Metrorail are two forms of transportation. Yet, Oliver rails against bailouts for one and supports it for another. That’s inconsistent. This has nothing to do with nuance. It has to do with two completely differing viewpoints regarding the same time of federal bailouts.”

Jay. Shut the fuck up, you ignorant piece of shit.

These two things are not the same. Therefore, someone’s reaction to them will be different. For instance, you don’t need to build a rail line to fly a plane, so the upfront cost is much less. Secondly, rail lines are exclusive by nature (you can’t share access easily), while this is not true when flying. See? The two are different and must be treated differently.

If you can’t figure that out, just shut up.

“And considering that only 5% of the population uses mass transit, the impact on oil prices will be negligible. Many people simply do not have convenient access to mass transit.”

Which is why mass transit needs to be improved, shit for brains.

I figure any post now you are just going to type YHBT and laugh your ass off. You certainly can’t be this stupid by accident.

“If the people who get the passes don’t want to use them, they should give them away, not sell them for profit on Ebay.”

That’s not very capitalistic of you. The government is giving them away for free, so they obviously don’t think they have a value. Someone else does. Money is exchanged. Everyone should be happy.

Luckily, most of my commute has a bike lane. I’ve found that more traffic actually makes me safer. When there are more cars on the road it can be actually better for me. Traffic backs up, so I’m cruising along a line of stopped cars on my left. Of course, it may increase the likelihood of meeting a dreaded “right hook” driver. We recently had a DC cyclist going along in her bike lane who was killed by a negligent truck driver taking a right hand turn across the bike lane.

Although I face the daily danger of becoming a “ghost biker”, at least I can sleep well at night knowing I’m not burdening Jay and Co. by not taking my Metro Transit subsidy.

It most certainly is and you’re wrong on this and you know it.

“The Metro is vital to the region” is not a valid argument in favor of more subsidization. It just isn’t.

You apparently have no idea what an appeal to emotion fallacy is. It’s very simple

1. Favorable emotions are associated with X.
2. Therefore X is true.

Care to actually respond to my argument?

You didn’t make an argument, you made an accusation couched as an ‘argument.’. Air travel and the Metrorail are two forms of transportation. Yet, Oliver rails against bailouts for one and supports it for another. That’s inconsistent. This has nothing to do with nuance. It has to do with two completely differing viewpoints regarding the same time of federal bailouts.

Fucking liar. Oliver explained why it was good in his original post.

No, he did not. He spoke about the MetroRail system. Ok. We get it. But he hasn’t yet provided a concrete reason for supporting the $1.5 billion.

Oil at $60 a gallon is EXPENSIVE and improving mass transit is one step the government can take to prevent oil hitting $123.75 a barrel.

Actually, by inflationary standards, $60 was not all that high. The price had been far too low for far too long. Any commodities expert will tell you this. And considering that only 5% of the population uses mass transit, the impact on oil prices will be negligible. Many people simply do not have convenient access to mass transit.

Not in this context. Mass transit is needed to reduce wasting energy. Don’t care who uses it, as long as it is used to reduce automobile traffic.

The problem is, you have people double dipping and there’s nothing right about that. If the people who get the passes don’t want to use them, they should give them away, not sell them for profit on Ebay.

Per your example, Wal-Mart doesn’t _need_ its own lane on the highway — it’s already got six perfectly good ones for its needs. You fail.

It doesn’t matter. It was an example used to show you what a subsidy is.

What does is that somehow Republicans seem to forget that roads are just as expensive to build and maintain as train-tracks — they don’t fall magically out of the sky, Jesus doesn’t point his finger and make them appear, etc. In the 1950’s, when gas was cheap, it made sense to build a Federal highway system and effectively hobble American rail. These days? It’s not looking like such a hot idea.

First of all, the notion that this is somehow a “Republican” issue is bogus. The representative who is pushing for this money is a Republican so can we please dispense with that nonsense? Mass transit issues are a two party problem and its largely due to geography. If you want, read up on Florida trying to get some light rail built between Daytona Beach and Orlando. For over ten years, the state legislature has been bickering with local and county governments along with NIMBY’s who want to see less traffic, but don’t want a train station built anywhere near their home. The result? Nothing. If they had just put their heads together, it could have worked and people would be able to live along the I-4 corridor and taken the train to downtown Orlando with shuttles that would take people to Disney, Universal and other theme parks.

As I said earlier, I am supporter of mass transit. What I am not a supporter of is, throwing more money at areas of mass transit without demanding they clean up their mess first. I don’t see why that is such a big deal.

Actually, increased car traffic would probably make the commute more dangerous for you on bike.

The Fed spends billions and billions of dollars to make sure that people who own cars and burn lots of gasoline can get to and from work, to the store, etc. Owning a car is the “norm” in America, and that doesn’t bother me. What does is that somehow Republicans seem to forget that roads are just as expensive to build and maintain as train-tracks — they don’t fall magically out of the sky, Jesus doesn’t point his finger and make them appear, etc. In the 1950’s, when gas was cheap, it made sense to build a Federal highway system and effectively hobble American rail. These days? It’s not looking like such a hot idea.

As for my education? Please feel free to e-mail me. I’d be happy to compare degrees with you any day.

For those of you who don’t know, Washington DC has the second worst traffic in the nation (behind LA). There are way too many cars trying to get in and out of DC every day. Personally, I ride a bike almost every day I go to work, unless there’s snow or ice on the roads.

I am the first to admit the WMATA has its problems. Trains and buses frequently run off-schedule. Track, platform and other station maintenance (or other problems) disrupt the system. However, the figures cited upthread indicate that this is well-frequented public transit system that moves federal workers and tourists alike.

It was once the case that federal workers received a stack of paper “Metrochecks” roughly equivalent to $100/month, regardless of the actual distance of their commute. Auditors should not have been shocked to discover that some less-than-scrupulous Feds were trying to resell their Metrochecks on eBay for personal profit. (BTW, this was an incredibly stupid thing to do. Every Metrocheck has a serial number that are linked to the employee when they are distributed. All anyone would need to do is check the database and the employee would be cold busted for violating federal criminal statutes.)

However, a couple of years ago, WMATA moved toward a paperless system by introducing the SmartTrip plastic farecards. OPM (Office of Personnel and Management) cleaned up the transit subsidy distribution process. They required everyone receiving the benefit to provide the actual distances traveled and scaled the benefit accordingly. No one automatically gets the maximum benefit. Secondly they required all Federal employees to receive their transit benefit electronically directly credited to their SmartTrip cards. It is now next to impossible to try to resell unused Metrochecks, since they no longer issue them (at least to me–they may still issue Metrochecks to the VRE/MARC riders to facilitate transit purchases outside of the WMATA system.)

I mentioned earlier that I usually ride a bike to work. I’m only on the Metro if I have a meeting to attend or it’s snowing/icy roads. As a consequence, I have reduced the amount of subsidy I take. Since I had built up a stack of Metrochecks during the heydays before they cracked down and I use the bike so frequently, there was a period of time when I didn’t really need to take my benefit. They actually kicked me out of the system after several quarters of not taking the benefit. I had to reapply even though my employment status and place of residence had not changed. Internally, the system has gotten much better. It’s fairer and less prone to giving just anyone more benefit than they would need. I’m a good case to show that if you’re not using it, you will lose it.

One last word on whether or not Feds should be receiving this benefit in the first place. I mentioned that we have the second worst traffic in the nation behind LA. What do you think would happen if Feds no longer received Metro subsidies? First of all, there would be an immediate increase in gridlock on the roads. Secondly, many people would not be able to find parking (workers or DC tourists) if they even got into DC. Finally, the Metro system would need to dramatically raise rates in order to offset the reduced ridership possibly tilting it into economic inviability. This would cause havoc to our Government. It doesn’t run without employees having the capacity to make it too their offices. Removing the transit benefit wouldn’t impact me too much since I’m still on the bike. However, it would be a real shame to lose a public transit system that works pretty well.

And if Carville started out with shouts of elitism…

The Washington Examiner didn’t give a sourced argument based on facts. They gave their opinion based on their political philosophy.

There’s a huge fucking difference.

Me: “Ummm…. no.”

Jay: “Brilliant retort.”

I’ve already explained why you are wrong, Jay, you responded by repeating your mistake, as if the second time you said it would magically be correct.

It is not an appeal to emotion by any definition you will find in a book on logical reasoning.

“This from the man who shouts HYPOCRITE at every turn. Now it’s ‘nuance.’ Good lord.”

Two points…

1.) I only shout hypocrite when I encounter one.
2.) You completely ignored my point. Care to actually respond to my argument? Or are you going to continue to prove who incredibly stupid you are.

“And yet Oliver still hasn’t defended this bailout other than to say: ‘Metro good.’”

Fucking liar. Oliver explained why it was good in his original post.

Me: “Oil = $123.75 / barrel.”

Jay: “That’s not an answer to the question. This was introduced by Davis in 2006 when oil was half the price it is today.”

Two more points…

1.) You are fucking stupid.
2.) Oil at $60 a gallon is EXPENSIVE and improving mass transit is one step the government can take to prevent oil hitting $123.75 a barrel.

Me: “I don’t give a fuck if someone is selling their passes, as long as someone else is using them.”

Jay: “You’re kidding right? You don’t care if people are committing fraud?”

Not in this context. Mass transit is needed to reduce wasting energy. Don’t care who uses it, as long as it is used to reduce automobile traffic.

Way back up yonder, I was using “subsidy” in this same sense. JWG wrote that public transit users should pay the cost of mass transit and as a non-user, he doesn’t want to be burndened with the cost.

Seems fair to me, but only if transit users are off the hook for chipping in for automobile-related public costs.

Now if y’all want to go on yelling “IDIOT” at one another, knock yourselves out.

What improvements did we get from throwing $100s of million dollars at the Iraq massacre? Is their more accountability in the Pentagon as a result?

What improvements did the oil companies make in efficiency in exchange for their billions in tax breaks?

No, it is NOT a subsidy you MORON!!!

An example of an infrastructure subsidy would be if the US government created a single lane within the federal highway system that only Walmart trucks could use. Walmart would then benefit disproportionately from the provision of that infrastructure, at the expense of taxpayers.

Can you comprehend that now? Have I made it simple enough for you to understand what a subsidy is?

Federal expenditures are construction and maintenance of the federal highway system is NOT a subsidy. Good grief, where they hell did you get your education, on the back of a book of matches?

I’m all for more oversight, but killing Metro would be idiotic. No wonder you’re for it.

I’ve never said anywhere that I am for “killing” Metro so you’re either mistaken or purposely lying. As somebody that used to commute to work every day for four years, I understand the value of public transportation. But I also know that public transportation suffers from a great deal of financial mismanagement, waste, and inefficiency. Those issues should be addressed first before throwing more money at it.

It isn’t a subsidy

Yes, it most certainly is a subsidy. The Metro Rail system charges fees for riding on the trains, yet still gets money and as we’ve read, federal workers get free passes. That means the system is being subsidized. And like I said, the Metrorail system should be required to do some improvements on its end before grabbing another $3 billion in federal and state taxes.