|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 18 2014 23:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident.
I do find amusement in the fact that you pretty much called that a few pages back. Not that I'm surprised, I share views sympathetic to yours. I'm just glad that it was in writing several pages back.
|
On January 18 2014 15:59 zlefin wrote:
Is it just me, or did roswell just cite an article which repudiates his claim?
Seems like it, not like the article was really worth using in the first place though. It was a commentary without any links to solid claims or scientific research.
|
On January 18 2014 23:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident.
Given what happened, they'd likely be filing bankruptcy regardless.
|
United States44448 Posts
On January 19 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 23:59 KwarK wrote:On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident. Given what happened, they'd likely be filing bankruptcy regardless.
Why? If we accept that this kind of thing was always a risk then they simply need to factor that risk into their cost of business through insurance and so forth and then adjust their rates accordingly. If their rates were uncompetitive having done that then they needed to not be in that business.
If the cost of getting insurance against a foreseeable industrial accident is so prohibitively high that requiring every provider to do so would make the commodity too expensive to be used then it turns out that the commodity is just too expensive to extract and is currently getting a huge subsidy where they can profit while the good luck lasts and then offload their expenses to the state when their luck turns.
|
On January 19 2014 02:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 18 2014 23:59 KwarK wrote:On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident. Given what happened, they'd likely be filing bankruptcy regardless. Why? If we accept that this kind of thing was always a risk then they simply need to factor that risk into their cost of business through insurance and so forth and then adjust their rates accordingly. If their rates were uncompetitive having done that then they needed to not be in that business. If the cost of getting insurance against a foreseeable industrial accident is so prohibitively high that requiring every provider to do so would make the commodity too expensive to be used then it turns out that the commodity is just too expensive to extract and is currently getting a huge subsidy where they can profit while the good luck lasts and then offload their expenses to the state when their luck turns.
Insurance policies don't carry infinity signs. How much insurance did they have and how much should they have had?
We don't know who's responsible for the spill yet. We don't know the extent of who's been harmed and how much... and you're already calling for more blood.
Edit: and we don't know if everyone will be made whole or not yet.
|
United States44448 Posts
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it.
|
On January 19 2014 03:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it.
Bankruptcy doesn't mean that they're out of cash. Bankruptcy will protect them from creditors and keep them operating until the issue can be resolved. It does mean that someone isn't likely to get paid (first on that list - investors). But we don't know who isn't going to get paid and to what extent yet. And lawyers are already suing Freedom industries, related businesses, the water utility and the chemical manufacturer. If there's money to be had, they're going to try damn hard to get it.
We don't know how much insurance they *should* have carried. We don't even know if there are any real health issues related to the spill yet. There's a huge black hole of facts here that needs to be filled before any public policy changes can be reasonably proposed here.
|
On January 19 2014 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 03:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it. Bankruptcy doesn't mean that they're out of cash. Bankruptcy will protect them from creditors and keep them operating until the issue can be resolved. It does mean that someone isn't likely to get paid (first on that list - investors). But we don't know who isn't going to get paid and to what extent yet. And lawyers are already suing Freedom industries, related businesses, the water utility and the chemical manufacturer. If there's money to be had, they're going to try damn hard to get it. We don't know how much insurance they *should* have carried. We don't even know if there are any real health issues related to the spill yet. There's a huge black hole of facts here that needs to be filled before any public policy changes can be reasonably proposed here.
Not being able to drink your water is a health issue.
Edit:
I don't have any sources for this but I just think I remember something about water being important in my high school biology class.
|
On January 19 2014 04:16 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 19 2014 03:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it. Bankruptcy doesn't mean that they're out of cash. Bankruptcy will protect them from creditors and keep them operating until the issue can be resolved. It does mean that someone isn't likely to get paid (first on that list - investors). But we don't know who isn't going to get paid and to what extent yet. And lawyers are already suing Freedom industries, related businesses, the water utility and the chemical manufacturer. If there's money to be had, they're going to try damn hard to get it. We don't know how much insurance they *should* have carried. We don't even know if there are any real health issues related to the spill yet. There's a huge black hole of facts here that needs to be filled before any public policy changes can be reasonably proposed here. Not being able to drink your water is a health issue. Edit: I don't have any sources for this but I just think I remember something about water being important in my high school biology class.
They were told not to drink the water because they didn't have any health information available on the substance. No idea if drinking the water would cause any serious health issues or complications for those with health conditions already.
Also, I can think of a few policy suggestions already that would have averted this issue, but it goes along with tighter regulations and heavier inspections of chemical facilities. Too bad that would "kill jobs"...
|
United States41117 Posts
New Jersey Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D) issued a statement Saturday responding to Hoboken, N.J. mayor Dawn Zimmer's claims the administration of Gov. Chris Christie (R) withheld Hurricane Sandy relief money from her city because she did not fast-track a real estate project linked to one of his allies. Wisniewski, who is the chairman of the New Jersey General Assembly committee investigating last September's lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, said Zimmer's claims are "serious" and had the committee's attention.
"The allegations discussed today by Mayor Zimmer are serious and yet again raise concern about abuse of government power, This certainly has attracted our attention. We need to obtain all relevant facts, confer with our special counsel and determine the committee's best course of action," said Wisniewski.
Source
|
On January 19 2014 04:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +New Jersey Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D) issued a statement Saturday responding to Hoboken, N.J. mayor Dawn Zimmer's claims the administration of Gov. Chris Christie (R) withheld Hurricane Sandy relief money from her city because she did not fast-track a real estate project linked to one of his allies. Wisniewski, who is the chairman of the New Jersey General Assembly committee investigating last September's lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, said Zimmer's claims are "serious" and had the committee's attention.
"The allegations discussed today by Mayor Zimmer are serious and yet again raise concern about abuse of government power, This certainly has attracted our attention. We need to obtain all relevant facts, confer with our special counsel and determine the committee's best course of action," said Wisniewski. Source
I'm having a hard time discerning if this is just New Jersey politics in action or if Christie's aides were actually behaving in a uniquely bullying fashion.
|
On January 19 2014 04:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 04:16 Jormundr wrote:On January 19 2014 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 19 2014 03:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it. Bankruptcy doesn't mean that they're out of cash. Bankruptcy will protect them from creditors and keep them operating until the issue can be resolved. It does mean that someone isn't likely to get paid (first on that list - investors). But we don't know who isn't going to get paid and to what extent yet. And lawyers are already suing Freedom industries, related businesses, the water utility and the chemical manufacturer. If there's money to be had, they're going to try damn hard to get it. We don't know how much insurance they *should* have carried. We don't even know if there are any real health issues related to the spill yet. There's a huge black hole of facts here that needs to be filled before any public policy changes can be reasonably proposed here. Not being able to drink your water is a health issue. Edit: I don't have any sources for this but I just think I remember something about water being important in my high school biology class. They were told not to drink the water because they didn't have any health information available on the substance. No idea if drinking the water would cause any serious health issues or complications for those with health conditions already. Also, I can think of a few policy suggestions already that would have averted this issue, but it goes along with tighter regulations and heavier inspections of chemical facilities. Too bad that would "kill jobs"...
Would you drink the water? It's like in Gasland when the gas company reps come by with the local agency to tell people the water is safe to drink despite wells catching on fire. The people pour them a glass of water to drink but of course they refuse to drink it.
|
On January 19 2014 04:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 04:22 aksfjh wrote:On January 19 2014 04:16 Jormundr wrote:On January 19 2014 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 19 2014 03:31 KwarK wrote:
I'm not calling for any blood. The amount of insurance they need should be decided by the state. Regarding responsibility for the spill, the only group for whom it makes sense to have insurance for a spill is the people storing the chemicals who should have insurance against any spill regardless of fault.
And no, we don't know if they'll be able to fully pay for fixing all the damage but bankrupcy sure as hell isn't a good sign.
Look at it this way, if there is a 1% per year chance of a catastrophe causing 1 billion dollars of damage then every year you need to set aside 10 million dollars against that risk. If you do this, and you use that money to buy insurance, there is absolutely no reason why it actually happening should cause you to go bankrupt. It is a cost of business that you have already accounted for, paid for, built into your pricing structure and passed on to your customers. What bankruptcy means is that they cannot continue to do business after this which in turn means that they weren't adequately prepared for it. Bankruptcy doesn't mean that they're out of cash. Bankruptcy will protect them from creditors and keep them operating until the issue can be resolved. It does mean that someone isn't likely to get paid (first on that list - investors). But we don't know who isn't going to get paid and to what extent yet. And lawyers are already suing Freedom industries, related businesses, the water utility and the chemical manufacturer. If there's money to be had, they're going to try damn hard to get it. We don't know how much insurance they *should* have carried. We don't even know if there are any real health issues related to the spill yet. There's a huge black hole of facts here that needs to be filled before any public policy changes can be reasonably proposed here. Not being able to drink your water is a health issue. Edit: I don't have any sources for this but I just think I remember something about water being important in my high school biology class. They were told not to drink the water because they didn't have any health information available on the substance. No idea if drinking the water would cause any serious health issues or complications for those with health conditions already. Also, I can think of a few policy suggestions already that would have averted this issue, but it goes along with tighter regulations and heavier inspections of chemical facilities. Too bad that would "kill jobs"... Would you drink the water? It's like in Gasland when the gas company reps come by with the local agency to tell people the water is safe to drink despite wells catching on fire. The people pour them a glass of water to drink but of course they refuse to drink it.
I wouldn't drink it, although the gasland thing was shown to be a hoax (or at least not caused by fracking). I wouldn't drink it for the same reason they said it wasn't safe to drink, not much is known about the chemical. It is a potential health hazard, but not a definite one.
|
Well there's that and there's also just those helpful little guidelines that one adopts going through life, such as "don't drink strangely colored water that does not come in an enticingly labeled container."
|
On January 19 2014 05:06 farvacola wrote:
Well there's that and there's also just those helpful little guidelines that one adopts going through life, such as "don't drink strangely colored water that does not come in an enticingly labeled container."
Such a high risk aversion.... Don't be like that really. We don't really know anything about that water, it might be a key for our next evolution.
This Mitt documentary seemed really really interesting at first, since following a candidate for six years throughout america might be really interesting, but, in this trailer, it seems like they decided to go for a sentimental view of the guy, sadly.
|
On January 18 2014 20:54 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well. Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them. Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment. Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else. I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants. The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly. The 15th. Are you kidding me? This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written. You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other? It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case. Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how
hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments.
I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
|
On January 19 2014 06:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 20:54 Talin wrote:On January 18 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well. Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them. Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment. Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else. I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants. The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly. The 15th. Are you kidding me? This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written. You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other? It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case. Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that? I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here. Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is. Show nested quote +It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights. For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare.
Is that correct?
Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
|
On January 19 2014 06:55 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2014 20:54 Talin wrote:On January 18 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well. Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them. Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment. Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else. I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants. The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly. The 15th. Are you kidding me? This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written. You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other? It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case. Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that? I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here. Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is. It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights. For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left. So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi ( more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
|
On January 19 2014 02:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 02:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 18 2014 23:59 KwarK wrote:On January 18 2014 13:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The company behind the massive chemical spill that made tap water unsafe for more than 300,000 West Virginians has filed for bankruptcy, according to documents obtained by The Huffington Post.
According to bankruptcy filings, Freedom Industries, wholly owned by Chemstream Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Friday. Freedom Industries owns the storage facility responsible for leaking up to 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (a coal-cleaning chemical also known as crude MCHM) into West Virginia's Elk River.
Hundreds of thousands of people in nine counties were given orders not to use water for bathing or drinking for days as the company scrambled to clean up, exposing disturbing vulnerabilities in the water supply and a lack of data about hazardous chemicals and where they're stored. A second site owned by the company was also cited for safety violations shortly after the spill.
A representative for Freedom Industries told HuffPost that the company would not be commenting on the bankruptcy. Source Let me guess, they didn't have insurance covering this kind of accident. Given what happened, they'd likely be filing bankruptcy regardless. Why? If we accept that this kind of thing was always a risk then they simply need to factor that risk into their cost of business through insurance and so forth and then adjust their rates accordingly. If their rates were uncompetitive having done that then they needed to not be in that business. If the cost of getting insurance against a foreseeable industrial accident is so prohibitively high that requiring every provider to do so would make the commodity too expensive to be used then it turns out that the commodity is just too expensive to extract and is currently getting a huge subsidy where they can profit while the good luck lasts and then offload their expenses to the state when their luck turns.
Pollution coverage is a specific type of insurance, something a company this large would have been fully aware they needed and quite probably required by law to have. Their limits were likely not adequate enough, which is not surprising, despite what you think. Companies like this will often have limits in the tens of millions. An accident like this will almost never occur, even by the relative infrequency that insurance is supposed to prepare you for.
Rates are not typically an issue because the insurers will insure different layers through reinsurance, one company will not pick up the entire cost because a single accident such as this is enough to cause a large impact on the entire insurer's financial integrity.
|
On January 19 2014 07:12 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2014 06:55 Jormundr wrote:On January 19 2014 06:37 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2014 20:54 Talin wrote:On January 18 2014 10:21 Introvert wrote:On January 17 2014 22:16 Nesto wrote:On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:
I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well. Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them. Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment. Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else. I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants. The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly. The 15th. Are you kidding me? This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written. You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other? It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case. Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that? I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here. Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is. It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights. For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left. So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi ( more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA? I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
79486
578
205
300
176
EPT
