|
On November 21 2011 11:08 Falling wrote:
@Pillage
I agree that there should be some ability to lobby, but the question is to what extent? In particular, must the lobby system include vasts amount of money going from a few companies into the hands of politicians to run election campaigns? Lobbying, sure, but the amount of power they have currently... to me I don't see how politicians are not in the pockets of certain companies when they vote one way or the other.
I've already said that I wouldn't mind having it limited for funding election campaigns. I think that is where most of the problem lies, as you can essentially buy a candidate who is your marionette. I think this is the point where the line needs to be drawn.
Everyone across the board is guilty of this too, Unions, Corporations, no one's hands are clean here.
I don't have a problem with it going on during day to day things though, its important that someone keeps the government from becoming too eager and infringing on the legitimate profits of a private industry. When it comes to illegitimate profits, that's a whole nother can of worms.
Edit: Rephrased something.
|
On November 21 2011 10:51 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 08:50 radiatoren wrote:On November 21 2011 03:32 Pillage wrote:On November 21 2011 03:14 seppolevne wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. They are people who want lobbying out of government. Which accounts for most of the stupid laws corruption in your country. Not going to happen anytime soon. The reason private sector lobbying exists is so that company A doesn't get completely railed by regulations + red tape. Frankly I'm not that disgusted by it, but if there was a donation cap on campaign funds I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Well I would say that lobbyists are a very diverse group. Some are working for NGOs like WWF, Green Peace, Red Cross, Amnesty International and a million other "less profit focused companies". They generally disregard companies when commenting on laws. Then we have - especially in Europe - The Unions. Sector Unions including unions for sawmills, for building-industry, for coal-fired plants and so on. They represent a segment of business and have to ensure that their line of work will not get screwed over. The last category is the exception to the rule of "lobbysts exist so someone doesn't get screwed". Large private companies can go rogue and undercut their segment. It has happened some times in Denmark with companies holding patents for clean solutions or otherwise market segments that they can use politically, where they side with the NGOs and ensure very strict environmental demands. Listening to only one segment can get absurd laws passed: That a tenth or so of a tomato counts as a vegetable (US, to make cheaper pizza a possible dinner in schools in the US against health advise - was voted down so you still need half of a tomato to count a vegetable which still makes pizzas very easy to make possible within the guidelines - screwing a lot of other food in the cafeteria) and that cucumbers cannot bend more than 20 % (European Union, trade-restriction to decrease the amount of cucumbers on the market and giving an advantage to factory farms in southern europe - in the 1990's). I will admit it has its downsides and can slow down legislative processes. However, when the government becomes very involved in a highly competitive market, this is inevitably what happens. Government has to play the role of making sure the bottom of society (for whatever reasons they're there) doesn't get steamrolled by the powerful (the extent of this is always up for debate). Sometimes they become overeager, and overreach what I believe their power should be regarding private industries. That's why I believe lobbyists are necessary. Look at the whole deepwater horizon fiasco as an example. People were hella mad and not thinking properly regarding what the problem was regarding the spill, or steps required to fix the leak. Essentially I believe that they (US Gov) could have pushed though almost anything they wanted provided their were no oil lobbyists there to make sure they didn't get completely fucked over by popular sentiment. It was pretty much in vain too, as the moratorium has put a damper on their profits and hurt other companies that had nothing to do with the spill.
Agreed. The overreaction was rather severe.
However the permission to drill at such depts in the first place was pushed through by lobbyists and despite very bad safety and environmental records for the industry it was allowed. Most likely due to heavy conservative pressure and no doubt a very heavy lobby. The platform was one of the deepest drills ever and thus had significant technological challenges to overcome in the first place. However it was rushed through and carelessly handled. It had to give a backlash!
I am surprised the companies involved (3 or 4 with direct responsibility as far as I remember) survived as well as they did through the incompetence in handling this opportunity. Yes, the damage was not as bad as expected and yes they did do what was humanly possible to prevent it from developing further.
However going back to outlawing deep water offshore was a technical necessity to ensure the industry would get their act together. Given the oil-industys safety- and environmental-records it was borderline irresponsible to allow the deep water drilling in the first place! Yes they have developed a lot and yes it was only these few companies spitting on the industry as a whole, but there is still a lot to be learned from this situation and standards to be implemented before new attempts would be defendable.
|
United States208 Posts
On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions.
The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law.
|
Going back to outlawing deep water offshore was a technical necessity to ensure the industry would get their act together. Given the oil-industys safety- and environmental-records it was borderline irresponsible to allow the deep water drilling in the first place!
Disagree here. I'd like to say for the record that a $20 billion shakedown, terrible PR, and dismal stock performance would make everyone else in the industry damn sure that they were on top of their regulations + safety procedures. Regardless of the source of the failure you can't ignore how much they suffered for it, and I think that's enough. I firmly believe that the moratorium was a knee-jerk overreaction brought on by the public.
Also another thing you may have forgotten is the fact that environmental groups lobbied (hehe) for laws that prohibited them from drilling in shallower water, so they had no choice if they wanted to drill period.
|
On November 21 2011 08:34 Alabasern wrote:
The documentary Inside Job helped me broaden my interest in the movement.
If anyone can watch that and not be completely enraged by the end of it I would be fucking surprised. The lengths people go to to make fucking money
|
On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 08:24 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 07:29 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 07:08 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from fox news? Because you're totally wrong. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from The New York Times? Because you're totally wrong. (See what I did there?) I am personally involved. My point stands. How am I totally wrong? From my point of view the protestors are shed in a bad light. Is there something that I'm not understanding? I am aware that a lot of them are against lobbying and want that to stop. To clarify, I am 100% against lobbying, but the OWS movement is mixed and mashed with every individuals opinion. And I may be wrong about this as well, but aren't they occupying parks overnight, which is illegal? I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions.
Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis.
|
Future member of the 1% here, just gotta say this shiit is hilarious. Get it together, poor people.
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 21 2011 11:52 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 08:24 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 07:29 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 07:08 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from fox news? Because you're totally wrong. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from The New York Times? Because you're totally wrong. (See what I did there?) I am personally involved. My point stands. How am I totally wrong? From my point of view the protestors are shed in a bad light. Is there something that I'm not understanding? I am aware that a lot of them are against lobbying and want that to stop. To clarify, I am 100% against lobbying, but the OWS movement is mixed and mashed with every individuals opinion. And I may be wrong about this as well, but aren't they occupying parks overnight, which is illegal? I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis.
Another thing to consider is the fact that people probably don't want to hear the uproar of a protest in the middle of the night. I share the opinion of the New York judge, occupying during the day is fine, camping and setting up a shanty town to stay overnight is unacceptable and horrendously inconsiderate to people who live nearby.
|
On November 21 2011 12:02 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:52 semantics wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 08:24 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 07:29 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 07:08 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from fox news? Because you're totally wrong. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from The New York Times? Because you're totally wrong. (See what I did there?) I am personally involved. My point stands. How am I totally wrong? From my point of view the protestors are shed in a bad light. Is there something that I'm not understanding? I am aware that a lot of them are against lobbying and want that to stop. To clarify, I am 100% against lobbying, but the OWS movement is mixed and mashed with every individuals opinion. And I may be wrong about this as well, but aren't they occupying parks overnight, which is illegal? I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis. Another thing to consider is the fact that people probably don't want to hear the uproar of a protest in the middle of the night. I share the opinion of the New York judge, occupying during the day is fine, camping and setting up a shanty town to stay overnight is unacceptable and horrendously inconsiderate to people who live nearby.
Well by that logic you're inconsiderate to those who work nights and have days off. OWS for the one in new york is in what what is around Zuccotti Park which is located near the 9/11 memorable so loud noises non stop from construction probably is louder then protesters esp during the night when most people are asleep.
|
On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law.
I actually disagree with this. Freedom of speech, press, and religion (just to name a few) all have restrictions, with the law being the line that separates the "within your rights" and "illegal/not within your rights". Slander, libel, and Rastafarianism (religion that involves smoking marijuana) are illegal in the US.
On the other side of this argument, I can see how staying in parks overnight doesn't harm anyone. In my opinion, just because no one is harmed doesn't mean that it is ok to break the law.
EDIT: The law that doesn't allow the protestors to camp in the parks isn't unconstitutional, so constitutional rights shouldn't affect this law, I think.
EDIT2:
On November 21 2011 11:52 semantics wrote:
Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis.
I'm not being ignorant, I'm entirely open to what they have to say, but when each person says something different and everyone now and then some lunatic says something really crazy, it gets more and more difficult to take the movement seriously. I am against lobbying though, but I do not know if it should be limited or abolished.
Also, shifts requiring more from the members? Aren't they already living camping in parks to protest? Wouldn't shifts require less commitment?
|
On November 21 2011 11:40 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +Going back to outlawing deep water offshore was a technical necessity to ensure the industry would get their act together. Given the oil-industys safety- and environmental-records it was borderline irresponsible to allow the deep water drilling in the first place! Disagree here. I'd like to say for the record that a $20 billion shakedown, terrible PR, and dismal stock performance would make everyone else in the industry damn sure that they were on top of their regulations + safety procedures. Regardless of the source of the failure you can't ignore how much they suffered for it, and I think that's enough. I firmly believe that the moratorium was a knee-jerk overreaction brought on by the public. Also another thing you may have forgotten is the fact that environmental groups lobbied (hehe) for laws that prohibited them from drilling in shallower water, so they had no choice if they wanted to drill period.
1. Action breads reaction. What was the action and reaction in that case is hard to say. Environmental groups as I said are not concerned with economy. Oil-industry are not concerned with envionment. Ying and yan, both out of touch with reality.
2. The moratorium was lifted a year ago. Deeper drilling is allowed again.
3. BP has been amazingly resilliant to terrible PR in the past. A 2001 and 2005 top 10 in lists of companies that "exposes the evils of the corporate world, the government, and the mainstream media" and later "BP was a nominee for the 2009 Greenwash Awards for deliberately exaggerating its environmental credentials". I don't see how the company-supporters would react that bad to a little more bad PR.
As I said I agree that the 20 billion dollar fines were exagerated. I did not see the stock performance as bad considerering the circumstances since many thought they were going broke. They fell about 50 %, but are btw. up from 29.2 per share to 42.5 at the moment which is about the level in the late nineties and better than the beginning of 2009.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BP Interactive#chart4:symbol=bp;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
|
On November 21 2011 12:12 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 12:02 Pillage wrote:On November 21 2011 11:52 semantics wrote:On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 08:24 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 07:29 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 07:08 H0i wrote:On November 21 2011 02:50 Antares777 wrote:On November 21 2011 02:35 seppolevne wrote:
A bunch of narcissists? I'm pretty sure it's a group of people that have realised that your country is a fucking hellhole and want to change it for the better, to make everyone a little better off. That sounds like the opposite of narcissism, actually.
edit: Are you fucking serious?
"characterized by a lack of empathy, a willingness to exploit others, and an inflated sense of self-importance"
is pretty much exactly why all these people are fucked, and THEY are the narcissists? What the fuck goes on in your brain? A fucking hellhole? What? They do not want to change it for the better more than they want to change it for themselves. That sounds like a bunch of narcissists to me. The OWS movement allows a lot of self-centered people to go complain about what they want to be changed. There are people that want marijuana to be legalized and are protesting that law, there are people who want student loans to be changed in some way that benefits them, and then you got people who are just protesting capitalism. There are people that want to change things for the greater good, but they are the minority. OWS needs to get their shit together, or stop protesting and go home. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from fox news? Because you're totally wrong. Are you actually involved in this in any way or have you actually been on site, or does your information come from The New York Times? Because you're totally wrong. (See what I did there?) I am personally involved. My point stands. How am I totally wrong? From my point of view the protestors are shed in a bad light. Is there something that I'm not understanding? I am aware that a lot of them are against lobbying and want that to stop. To clarify, I am 100% against lobbying, but the OWS movement is mixed and mashed with every individuals opinion. And I may be wrong about this as well, but aren't they occupying parks overnight, which is illegal? I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. Only illegal because people don't like seeing homeless people. At least that's my bet, they are nit picking the protesters in order to diffuse the message. Right to assemble should only be disbarred under violent illegal actions not from city ordinance. See it's nit picking how quick you are to put well you don't have a right to protest here so i'm not going to listen. If OWS had more organization they would work on shifts of teams occupying the area all the time which wouldn't be illegal, but that would require more from the members as not everyone can devote lots of time on a regular basis. Another thing to consider is the fact that people probably don't want to hear the uproar of a protest in the middle of the night. I share the opinion of the New York judge, occupying during the day is fine, camping and setting up a shanty town to stay overnight is unacceptable and horrendously inconsiderate to people who live nearby. Well by that logic you're inconsiderate to those who work nights and have days off. OWS for the one in new york is in what what is around Zuccotti Park which is located near the 9/11 memorable so loud noises non stop from construction probably is louder then protesters esp during the night when most people are asleep.
Well, yes, but lets be realistic here, the majority of people work days, even in NYC. There needs to be a line drawn regarding how obstructive these protestors can be, same with construction, same with everyone else operating in the midst of the night. I'd be shocked if there weren't ordinances on the book regarding acceptable noise levels, even in a place as chaotic as NY.
|
2. The moratorium was lifted a year ago. Deeper drilling is allowed again.
Well this kind of brings us full circle. What I'm trying to say is that this should have never happened, but did anyways. It happened because of extreme public outcry regarding something they really didn't know that much about. This is where the lobbyists come back in. In a situation like this they were essential in making sure that a legitimate company didn't get "ripped from a jail cell and lynched" by popular opinion . So they served their purpose, and helped solve the problem. That's why I deem them necessary.
|
On November 21 2011 11:59 andyrausux wrote:
Future member of the 1% here, just gotta say this shiit is hilarious. Get it together, poor people.
hahahaa that's a really funny post 
Seriously though, these people need to learn from the Tea Party. They did everything lawfully, they organized dates instead of camping out in a park, they supported and created candidates...
Look at what these people are doing. Blocking traffic and trying to make themselves look like pathetic martyrs by antagonizing the police. They are doing more harm for their ideas than good. The pity train will only take you so far.
I suspect most of them are just college kids looking for an exciting time and a story rather than to actually affect change in the nation. And I say these things agreeing with many of their complaints.
|
On November 21 2011 05:43 Kraidio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 05:34 Voltaire wrote:On November 21 2011 05:17 Ungrateful wrote:On November 21 2011 05:14 DigiGnar wrote:"When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKvf7nP1OnRlnopsb9mXt9MOb7KQ?docId=4fc70a7b680c40a0bac68efe25c00159You risk hurting bodies when you pick them up, but when someone curls up in a ball because they don't want to be sprayed in the fucking face for SITTING ON THE FUCKING GROUND, it warrants BATON STRIKES. How ludicrous is that? It's illegal to block roads and sidewalks. If the protesters did not did not move after a verbal command non-lethal force can be used. There was no reason for use of violence in that situation, though. The protesters weren't resisting arrest. The police could have gone in and handcuffed each one (like they usually do) without resorting to any violence whatsoever. Except the Police aren't really in the mood. My guess is after dealing with this for awhile, some of the officers are just starting to snap.
Police can't use that as an excuse.
|
....The Tea Party is nice and all, but name me a candidate I can support without metaphorically blowing my own knee-caps off.
|
On November 21 2011 12:39 Pillage wrote: Well this kind of brings us full circle. What I'm trying to say is that this should have never happened, but did anyways. It happened because of extreme public outcry regarding something they really didn't know that much about. This is where the lobbyists come back in. In a situation like this they were essential in making sure that a legitimate company didn't get "ripped from a jail cell and lynched" by popular opinion . So they served their purpose, and helped solve the problem. That's why I deem them necessary.
I disagree. Public outcry has more to do with the medias spin and the perception of the public. It was not like the bill had a label of irresponsible attached to it
The moratorium was only designed to last for 6 months. The moratorium was a shotdown of new drilling-permits while an incident was being investigated. You don't let planes keep on flying when a certain type has been proven to have fatal defects. It is the same principle. If it was a general design-flaw in the rigs you had to assure that it would not happen again. It is not only bad for economy to have bad safety on oilrigs. It has huge environmental impacts for years. It is even more important than in the aviation industry to be cautious when dealing with crude oil, tar and natural gas.
|
On November 21 2011 12:54 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 12:39 Pillage wrote: 2. The moratorium was lifted a year ago. Deeper drilling is allowed again. Well this kind of brings us full circle. What I'm trying to say is that this should have never happened, but did anyways. It happened because of extreme public outcry regarding something they really didn't know that much about. This is where the lobbyists come back in. In a situation like this they were essential in making sure that a legitimate company didn't get "ripped from a jail cell and lynched" by popular opinion . So they served their purpose, and helped solve the problem. That's why I deem them necessary. I disagree. Public outcry has more to do with the medias spin and the perception of the public. It was not like the bill had a label of irresponsible attached to it The moratorium was only designed to last for 6 months. The moratorium was a shotdown of new drilling-permits while an incident was being investigated. You don't let planes keep on flying when a certain type has been proven to have fatal defects. It is the same principle. If it was a general design-flaw in the rigs you had to assure that it would not happen again. It is not only bad for economy to have bad safety on oilrigs. It has huge environmental impacts for years. It is even more important than in the aviation industry to be cautious when dealing with crude oil, tar and natural gas.
You're right about the media spinning and such, but then the politicians do what they do best, pander. Pandering often leads to poor decisions but instant gratification for the uninformed masses.
I'll admit my example was somewhat flawed, but I think my general points regarding the relationship of government, the public, and businesses still stand.
|
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thirty_years_of_unleashed_greed_20111026/
It is class warfare. But it was begun not by the tear-gassed, rain-soaked protesters asserting their constitutionally guaranteed right of peaceful assembly but rather the financial overlords who control all of the major levers of power in what passes for our democracy. It is they who subverted the American ideal of a nation of stakeholders in control of their economic and political destiny.
Between 1979 and 2007, as the Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the average real income of the top 1 percent grew by an astounding 275 percent. And that is after payment of the taxes that the superrich and their Republican apologists find so onerous.
Those three decades of rampant upper-crust greed unleashed by the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s will be well marked by future historians recording the death of the American dream. In that decisive historical period the middle class began to evaporate and the nation’s income gap increased to alarming proportions. “As a result of that uneven growth,” the CBO explained, “the distribution of after-tax household income in the United States was substantially more unequal in 2007 than in 1979: The share of income accruing to higher-income households increased, whereas the share accruing to other households declined. ... The share of after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income more than doubled. ...”
That was before the 2008 meltdown that ushered in the massive increase in unemployment and housing foreclosures that further eroded the standard of living of the vast majority of Americans while the superrich rewarded themselves with immense bonuses. To stress the role of the financial industry in this march to greater income inequality as the Occupy Wall Street movement has done is not a matter of ideology or rhetoric, but, as the CBO report details, a matter of discernible fact.
The CBO noted that in comparing top earners, “The [income] share of financial professionals almost doubled from 1979 to 2005” and that “employees in the financial and legal professions made up a larger share of the highest earners than people in those other groups.”
the 2nd half on the site
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr/lr111007jobs_taxes_and_wall_
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr/lr111118occupied_by_occupy
haven't gotten time to listen to these yet so ionno what i'm posting.
Just felt like reposting the main arguments as all this nit picking about right to protest, which is not being part of the argument it's being part of just dismissing it which is a way of avoiding the issues.
|
On November 21 2011 11:32 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2011 11:27 Antares777 wrote:I believe that the right to assemble does not cover illegal actions. The point being made is that a constitutional right is supposed to override statutory law.
Thats the real misconception that I see in this thread. The constitution isn't the rule of law in the land. Statutory law is. You can challenge and sue the city and accuse that the law conflicts with a constitutional right and win. You can't claim a constitutional right in a court when your charged with a crime and win.
Quite simply you can't have a society based on even the best principles. You must have specific law and not vague points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
