US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1007

On April 21 2014 06:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

I'll reiterate - you can't make a perfectly safe, perfectly defect-free car. You can't say $ < human lives. It's an impossibility. You'd end up with zero cars. At some point you have to make hard decisions between safety, cost, design, performance, etc.

The CBA done by Ford was in response to the NHTSA looking into new regulations. Ford crashed some cars, collected the data, calculated costs and sent it over to the NHTSA. The $200K value of a statistical life number they used was the one used by the NHTSA.

On April 21 2014 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:


Who suggested 0 is possible? The problem with the Pinto case is that they were made aware that there was a design flaw that would guarantee at least kill some people, but they realized they'd save money by letting those people die. There is a HUGE difference between that and the random chance that something is defective.

I think your argument regarding 0 deaths is really silly. No one has ever suggested that should be the case and everyone realizes it isn't possible. But there is a continuum here. It's not a 1 or a 0. There are many inbetweens and lots of room for judgment.

On April 21 2014 06:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

So what's the "correct judgement"? You said Ford is bad because they "let people die". However, if zero isn't an option than there was no choice but to "let people die". You yourself would have chose to "let people die"!

On April 21 2014 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:


In most cases, random deaths are caused by random failures and defects where a company did not anticipate a failure. In the Pinto case, the people in power were told that the Pinto would be a really high risk vehicle. They calculated that it was cheaper to pay families damages than to remake the car. Eventually, 27 people died and Ford was forced to recall. Do you still really not see what was distinct in this case?

On April 21 2014 07:18 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There's a huge difference between an isolated random ass failure of a component and a wide scale flaw in every single model of a car. If you knowingly start selling a car with a known defect that puts peoples lives in jeopardy you are in the wrong in every sense of the word. I see no logical reason that there shouldn't be heavy handed lawsuits and potential criminal negligence charges at least if you authorize the sale knowing they're death traps.

The review by The Times found multiple instances in which the company used service bulletins instead of immediately recalling cars, with the gap between a bulletin and a recall ranging from six months to nine years.

"When told of the findings by The Times about G.M., Ms. Claybrook said, “I’m shocked. I can see it happening occasionally, but not as a routine. Seven is a lot.”

Companies send out thousands of technical service bulletins each year. They allow an automaker to tell dealers, and sometimes car owners, about low-level problems like a faulty interior light or air conditioner. They can also act as alerts about issues the automaker does not fully understand and continues to research. But the service bulletins, which are typically directed at dealerships’ service departments, are not intended to address serious safety issues, which by law must be handled by recalls monitored by the safety agency."

"Although it is G.M.’s responsibility to report safety problems, Ms. Claybrook, the former N.H.T.S.A. official, said the agency was somewhat culpable for not detecting abuses in service bulletins.

“Part of the problem is that N.H.T.S.A. is so grossly underfunded that it doesn’t have time to read them as they come in,” she said.

GM engineers received reports about problems like this — and held meetings about it — in 2005. Engineers decided against a fix because it would take too long and cost too much money.

On April 21 2014 00:54 Millitron wrote:

Those awful ranchers are threatening our turtles! They ARE terrorists.

THINK OF THE TURTLES.

/sarcasm

On April 21 2014 07:18 OuchyDathurts wrote:
There's a huge difference between an isolated random ass failure of a component and a wide scale flaw in every single model of a car. If you knowingly start selling a car with a known defect that puts peoples lives in jeopardy you are in the wrong in every sense of the word. I see no logical reason that there shouldn't be heavy handed lawsuits and potential criminal negligence charges at least if you authorize the sale knowing they're death traps.

On April 21 2014 09:10 Danglars wrote:
Harry Reid seems to always double down in the worst possible situations. Not only was the BLM response fine and dandy, but mannn we have terrorists in our own country! He's just that confident in his permanent incumbency. It's sickening, really.

On April 21 2014 09:22 KwarK wrote:
Seems a simple enough situation. He was allowed to use the land by the federal government for a low fee when they had nothing else going on there but when they told him to leave because they wanted to use the land as a wildlife sanctuary he refused. He then fought it through every legal means he could and each time the courts found against him. He's now trying to stand his ground on someone else's ground because "don't tread on me" and a bunch of random anti government nutjobs are trying to remake Red Dawn with Americans on both sides.

If it was his land he'd have a case, but he appears to be arguing for the right to force others to continue to provide services indefinitely against their will.

On April 21 2014 09:22 KwarK wrote:
Seems a simple enough situation. He was allowed to use the land by the federal government for a low fee when they had nothing else going on there but when they told him to leave because they wanted to use the land as a wildlife sanctuary he refused. He then fought it through every legal means he could and each time the courts found against him. He's now trying to stand his ground on someone else's ground because "don't tread on me" and a bunch of random anti government nutjobs are trying to remake Red Dawn with Americans on both sides.

If it was his land he'd have a case, but he appears to be arguing for the right to force others to continue to provide services indefinitely against their will.

On April 21 2014 13:33 Danglars wrote:
I was following with you up until you said "right to force others to continue to provide services indefinitely against their will." Isn't that stretching it kinda far? It was the BLM & special interest groups that originally de-facto changed public land into protected habitats. If we're continuing in the hyperbole, the same case could be made for the trampling of the rights of its citizens by the federal leviathan.

Is it domestic terrorism committed by domestic terrorists? I direct this at the "random anti government nutjobs" that saw a militarized BLM send its heavily armed agents against a rancher. I doubt he'd have gathered even a dozen if they had put a lien on the house. You know, take the court order and docket it, file the lien.

You know, shucks guys, illegal grazing we'd better send in the men with the assault rifles. When does that make sense? (Putin's excuses in Ukraine excepted).

On April 21 2014 13:33 Danglars wrote:
I was following with you up until you said "right to force others to continue to provide services indefinitely against their will." Isn't that stretching it kinda far? It was the BLM & special interest groups that originally de-facto changed public land into protected habitats. If we're continuing in the hyperbole, the same case could be made for the trampling of the rights of its citizens by the federal leviathan.

Is it domestic terrorism committed by domestic terrorists? I direct this at the "random anti government nutjobs" that saw a militarized BLM send its heavily armed agents against a rancher. I doubt he'd have gathered even a dozen if they had put a lien on the house. You know, take the court order and docket it, file the lien.

You know, shucks guys, illegal grazing we'd better send in the men with the assault rifles. When does that make sense? (Putin's excuses in Ukraine excepted).

On April 21 2014 13:59 GreenHorizons wrote:


This probably isn't your area of legal expertise, but you do realize why a lien wouldn't really be effective in this case right?

I mean the guy doesn't even believe the federal government exists... Or has any authority in the state of Nevada or some combination of the two. The man himself seems to be a bit off to say the least. Does anyone even know what the Bundy Ranch is actually worth?

On April 21 2014 16:42 Danglars wrote:
I'm having some trouble grasping what you're saying. As far as effectiveness, are you advocating the use of assault rifles in the hands of federal agents as a means of forcing payment of grazing fees or BLM regulations? I mean in ordinary cases the seizure of financial assets carries the day.

I have yet to read where he denies that Obama is the President of these United States, the Supreme Court the highest court in the land, and the Congress the writers of laws. So I may not have read what you did about his denial of an existence of the federal government. At issue here, and I'll note this is at the risk of repeating myself, is the BLM's use of force to seize cattle and intimidate ranchers for violations of court orders and department regulations. I've seen in other cases a general opposition to SWAT teams breaking down doors with automatic weapons to arrest for drug possession or distribution. Maybe when it's a rancher on land his family has used for ages then its ok to bring in the assault rifles and barricades.

On April 21 2014 17:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think I agree they could of been smarter about what they were doing. Given if the person violating the law hadn't been surrounded by citizen with comparable arms to the BLM I doubt it would of escalated nearly as far.

As for the lien you realize it doesn't mean anything unless they sell the property? Then there's the fact that part of his claim to not having to pay to use public lands is that his family has already been there for over 100 years. Furthermore they don't even technically have to pay it to sell the ranch later down the road. The only reason they would ever have to pay it is if someone wanted to finance the ranch. Which as far as I know, no one even knows if it would be worth the cost of the fines, though many seem fine viewing it as a simple or obvious solution...

As for the federal government you can watch him say it at about 0:20 into the video. Now you've seen it?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-feds-23234265

I agree the use of force should be measured and with consideration. With your drug example are you implying that you're against the use of force and intimidation in both cases or just this one?

On April 21 2014 17:30 Danglars wrote:
I hope some of his friends and relatives talk some sense into what exactly he's saying about the fed "even existing." He's way off base on that comment. Didn't see that lovely bite so thanks.

As far as the proper steps the fed should take in these matters, the smart idea is not sending men with assault rifles to the ranch. Take some tips from how the IRS collects unpaid taxes. Liens and levies, legal collection actions, etc. The response of the BLM is so beyond the pale as to make the bigger issue what it's authorized to do and not that legal infraction occurring prior to it.

I view the more frequent incidences of SWAT team uses and situations as also part of a worrying trend. Men with assault weapons moving on ranchers in violation of grazing regulations, men with assault weapons acting on alleged financial aid fraud or drug charges. I'll risk losing you in nuance to say some law enforcement actions on admitted trespassers becomes the real shocking aspect apart from their guilt. To bring it home, maybe the IRS might have an argument against some deductions on my personal tax filing, but I should hope not to stand alone if agents come barging through my door armed to the teeth claiming a legitimate use of their authority. Heck, I should hope more than one would hesitate to reflect, "Ok, maybe that wasn't the smart decision here, but cmon he was guilty, right?"