West Virginia Water

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Don’t be a dumbfuck. That should be a law.

It was lack of compliance to existing rules and regs. and enforcement on this one.

What do they call that when you put forth an argument that doesn’t exist then explain it away and claim victory?
[/quote]

The government can punish the company for breaking existing laws. No more are needed. pittbulll and the other guy seemed to be wanting more regulations.

pittbulll said: probably any one of the 3 regulations I mention would have avoided the problem

1 Regular Inspection ( Have an engineer estimate reasonable life expectancy of tank)

2 regulate distance hazardous materials can be stored near water ways

3 Some type of containment that can contain the amount of at least one tank ( meaning a impermeable floor with a curb height to match the desired volume)

This is called regulation and it has it’s place in society

Phoenix44e said: There were no regulations…so the idea that you go from 0 to 100 is a bit disengenous.

You need preventative laws because poisoning the fucking water is not kosher

22

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Phoenix44e wrote:
Lol and Im not liberal but I think the idea is preventative laws. Yeah it’s great we can fine the shit out of this company…hell it’s great we can fine this company bankrupt…but that doesn’t change what happened.

They’re lucky no one died[/quote]

So no one died from this, but we need preventive laws? Lots of people die from the misuse of guns, so do we need preventive gun laws? Lots of people die in car crashes despite the laws we have, so we need to make the laws stricter and/or more numerous, correct?[/quote]
Have you actually seen the human population? In your world are people genetically modified to make them incapable of committing crimes? Take away accountability and you’ll have a world that looks like Camden, NJ.

23

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Have you actually seen the human population? In your world are people genetically modified to make them incapable of committing crimes? Take away accountability and you’ll have a world that looks like Camden, NJ. [/quote]

How about making all crimes punishable by death? The added accountability for many crimes should decrease crime to almost zero.

24

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Don’t be a dumbfuck. That should be a law.

It was lack of compliance to existing rules and regs. and enforcement on this one.

What do they call that when you put forth an argument that doesn’t exist then explain it away and claim victory?
[/quote]

The government can punish the company for breaking existing laws. No more are needed. pittbulll and the other guy seemed to be wanting more regulations.

pittbulll said: probably any one of the 3 regulations I mention would have avoided the problem

1 Regular Inspection ( Have an engineer estimate reasonable life expectancy of tank)

2 regulate distance hazardous materials can be stored near water ways

3 Some type of containment that can contain the amount of at least one tank ( meaning a impermeable floor with a curb height to match the desired volume)

This is called regulation and it has it’s place in society

Phoenix44e said: There were no regulations…so the idea that you go from 0 to 100 is a bit disengenous.

You need preventative laws because poisoning the fucking water is not kosher [/quote]

My issue with this whole thing is that had this been a “terrorist” attack there would have been resources out the ass thrown at this.

25

My particular issue with it is that with some common sense rules in place , it never would have happened But according to so called Libertarians you can not have rules and freedom .

I contend the more people that live in your proximity the more rules you have to have so that everyone enjoys freedom .

And yes I agree things like Gay Marriage , the war on drugs and I am sure the list could go on for a long way , are anti liberty

26

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Have you actually seen the human population? In your world are people genetically modified to make them incapable of committing crimes? Take away accountability and you’ll have a world that looks like Camden, NJ. [/quote]

How about making all crimes punishable by death? The added accountability for many crimes should decrease crime to almost zero. [/quote]
Prison rape keeps a lot of white guys from breaking the law so maybe you are on to something.

27

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140112-river-chemical-spill-in-west-virginia-larger-than-first-believed.ece

I am a little curious how the free market will step in ? This could be the classic definition of (CATASTROPHE) It could have devastating effects for a LONG time [/quote]

There is no free market. The real question is, how did this happen with a government presiding over everything?

This will most likely be resolved by the government being granted even more power and it then telling people they are safe.[/quote]

the company sure isn’t doing anything . The fact is there was no regulation of this site , because it was not petroleum . A 50 year old facility positioned a stone’s throw from the river and no regulation .
[/quote]

This place looks real rural from what I see in the news. And they’re possibly a big local employer, so they might get a pass on anyone looking too closely at what they’re doing.

The company should have been monitoring their tanks on a regular basis and have a plan in place to replace them, as in XX years. Obviously they have no set of guidelines in place or they have chosen to ignore them.

The local agencies have dropped the ball big time. Anything close to your drinking water source needs to be looked at and monitored.

We have lots of houses by me that have in-ground home heating oil tanks. Some are as big as 1000 gallons, mine was 550 gallons (abandoned legally in 2009 when I switched to gas). Every town has a list of who has active in-ground oil tanks. The ones close to water are tested, on what interval, I don’t know.

Rob

28

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My particular issue with it is that with some common sense rules in place , it never would have happened But according to so called Libertarians you can not have rules and freedom .

I contend the more people that live in your proximity the more rules you have to have so that everyone enjoys freedom .

And yes I agree things like Gay Marriage , the war on drugs and I am sure the list could go on for a long way , are anti liberty [/quote]

The thing is, the “Libertarians” you’re arguing with on here are insulated already by a lot of the same rules they seek to remove.

I’ve worked in a few places like this Liberty industries. What Nick and friends don’t know is that people there Will kill, disable and disfigure other people as a regular part of doing business and really not give two shits. These libertarians have no knowledge of historical or contemporary attitudes as it pertains to the types of violations and downright abominations that arise in heavy industry.

29

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My particular issue with it is that with some common sense rules in place , it never would have happened But according to so called Libertarians you can not have rules and freedom .

I contend the more people that live in your proximity the more rules you have to have so that everyone enjoys freedom .

And yes I agree things like Gay Marriage , the war on drugs and I am sure the list could go on for a long way , are anti liberty [/quote]

The thing is, the “Libertarians” you’re arguing with on here are insulated already by a lot of the same rules they seek to remove.

I’ve worked in a few places like this Liberty industries. What Nick and friends don’t know is that people there Will kill, disable and disfigure other people as a regular part of doing business and really not give two shits. These libertarians have no knowledge of historical or contemporary attitudes as it pertains to the types of violations and downright abominations that arise in heavy industry.

[/quote]

I think that political parties are guilty of high jacking words like liberal , conservative , libertarian and the like . The are words and their meaning is different than the political parties would have us believe .

I have and presently work at an industry that thinks they can make me endanger you and me . There are laws that they totally flout . I have come down to in the last 60 days pushing to either quit or be fired because I won’t break the law. The only reason I am working there is because they really well :slight_smile:

30

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My particular issue with it is that with some common sense rules in place , it never would have happened But according to so called Libertarians you can not have rules and freedom .

I contend the more people that live in your proximity the more rules you have to have so that everyone enjoys freedom .

And yes I agree things like Gay Marriage , the war on drugs and I am sure the list could go on for a long way , are anti liberty [/quote]

The thing is, the “Libertarians” you’re arguing with on here are insulated already by a lot of the same rules they seek to remove.

I’ve worked in a few places like this Liberty industries. What Nick and friends don’t know is that people there Will kill, disable and disfigure other people as a regular part of doing business and really not give two shits. These libertarians have no knowledge of historical or contemporary attitudes as it pertains to the types of violations and downright abominations that arise in heavy industry.

[/quote]

I think that political parties are guilty of high jacking words like liberal , conservative , libertarian and the like . The are words and their meaning is different than the political parties would have us believe .

I have and presently work at an industry that thinks they can make me endanger you and me . There are laws that they totally flout . I have come down to in the last 60 days pushing to either quit or be fired because I won’t break the law. The only reason I am working there is because they really well :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Dude your want for sleep, treaded tires, working brakes and obedience to common sense are just unamerican. Don’t let anybody, even yourself-tell you any differently.

Either that or you’re just a handout grabbing communist leach who hates competition.
:wink:

31

lol at the pittttt’s partisan bullshit in this thread.

Nothing like this could EVER happen in a good ol’ blue state run by good ol’ democrats now could it…

Oh wait… People actually died when it came from a “democrat”.

32

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The thing is, the “Libertarians” you’re arguing with on here are insulated already by a lot of the same rules they seek to remove.

I’ve worked in a few places like this Liberty industries. What Nick and friends don’t know is that people there Will kill, disable and disfigure other people as a regular part of doing business and really not give two shits. These libertarians have no knowledge of historical or contemporary attitudes as it pertains to the types of violations and downright abominations that arise in heavy industry.

[/quote]

Why would anybody work for such a boss? Why would anybody do business with such a company? Why would a responsible company which treats its employees well not do better than a company which kills its employees and customers?

Why do those who dislike so many companies want more regulations, which will be harder on the smaller companies trying to compete with and destroy the larger companies? Regulations do nothing but eliminate possible competition. A big company can pay our rulers to look the other way. A small company, which can’t afford to do that, will be stifled by those same regulations.

33

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
The thing is, the “Libertarians” you’re arguing with on here are insulated already by a lot of the same rules they seek to remove.

I’ve worked in a few places like this Liberty industries. What Nick and friends don’t know is that people there Will kill, disable and disfigure other people as a regular part of doing business and really not give two shits. These libertarians have no knowledge of historical or contemporary attitudes as it pertains to the types of violations and downright abominations that arise in heavy industry.

[/quote]

Why would anybody work for such a boss? Why would anybody do business with such a company? Why would a responsible company which treats its employees well not do better than a company which kills its employees and customers?

Why do those who dislike so many companies want more regulations, which will be harder on the smaller companies trying to compete with and destroy the larger companies? Regulations do nothing but eliminate possible competition. A big company can pay our rulers to look the other way. A small company, which can’t afford to do that, will be stifled by those same regulations.[/quote]

To answer your rhetoric with a single word- Money.

The same regulations that cost the small company money cost the big one more. As for the hate and regulations and competition and whatnot- You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re parroting party bullshit with no clue as to what it actually means in the workplace.

34

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
To answer your rhetoric with a single word- Money.

The same regulations that cost the small company money cost the big one more. As for the hate and regulations and competition and whatnot- You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re parroting party bullshit with no clue as to what it actually means in the workplace.

[/quote]

What party would that be?

Complying with Regulation A costs Ma&Pa $100/week. Ma&Pa gross $1,000/week. Regulation A costs Big Company B $1,000/week. Big Company B grosses $50,000/week. Ma&Pa produce higher quality X than Big Company B, and Big Company B is starting to lose business to Ma&Pa. Who is better able to handle Regulation A: Ma&Pa, or Big Company B? In whose best interest is Regulation A?

The answers seem obvious to me, but I could be mistaken.

I forgot to address your “Money” answer. If one is willing to trade his life/health/whatever for money, why should someone else not allow it? Why is that anyone else’s business?

35

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
To answer your rhetoric with a single word- Money.

The same regulations that cost the small company money cost the big one more. As for the hate and regulations and competition and whatnot- You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re parroting party bullshit with no clue as to what it actually means in the workplace.

[/quote]

What party would that be?

Complying with Regulation A costs Ma&Pa $100/week. Ma&Pa gross $1,000/week. Regulation A costs Big Company B $1,000/week. Big Company B grosses $50,000/week. Ma&Pa produce higher quality X than Big Company B, and Big Company B is starting to lose business to Ma&Pa. Who is better able to handle Regulation A: Ma&Pa, or Big Company B? In whose best interest is Regulation A?

The answers seem obvious to me, but I could be mistaken.

I forgot to address your “Money” answer. If one is willing to trade his life/health/whatever for money, why should someone else not allow it? Why is that anyone else’s business? [/quote]

You are confusing quality and quantity with reasons for regulation in your little hypothet. The regulation is moot if a company is loosing business to another company that produces a higher quality product because it is of higher quality.

The regulation is in the best interest of the person or people it was designed to protect.

36

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
My particular issue with it is that with some common sense rules in place , it never would have happened But according to so called Libertarians you can not have rules and freedom .

I contend the more people that live in your proximity the more rules you have to have so that everyone enjoys freedom .

And yes I agree things like Gay Marriage , the war on drugs and I am sure the list could go on for a long way , are anti liberty [/quote]

I like Nick but I wouldn’t describe Nick as a Libertarian. Nick views things in a different manner than I do. I want a smaller government and more personal freedom, Nick wants NO government. Some things Nick says I think are spot on and some things he says I think are not right at all. I know we could say the same thing about everyone though.

Correct me if I’m wrong Nick wouldn’t you describe yourself as an anarcho-capitalist? I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. Gary Johnson never said we should get rid of all government I don’t believe. If he thought that I wouldn’t vote for him.

37

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
To answer your rhetoric with a single word- Money.

The same regulations that cost the small company money cost the big one more. As for the hate and regulations and competition and whatnot- You have no clue what you are talking about. You’re parroting party bullshit with no clue as to what it actually means in the workplace.

[/quote]

What party would that be?

Complying with Regulation A costs Ma&Pa $100/week. Ma&Pa gross $1,000/week. Regulation A costs Big Company B $1,000/week. Big Company B grosses $50,000/week. Ma&Pa produce higher quality X than Big Company B, and Big Company B is starting to lose business to Ma&Pa. Who is better able to handle Regulation A: Ma&Pa, or Big Company B? In whose best interest is Regulation A?

The answers seem obvious to me, but I could be mistaken.

I forgot to address your “Money” answer. If one is willing to trade his life/health/whatever for money, why should someone else not allow it? Why is that anyone else’s business? [/quote]

You are confusing quality and quantity with reasons for regulation in your little hypothet. The regulation is moot if a company is loosing business to another company that produces a higher quality product because it is of higher quality.

The regulation is in the best interest of the person or people it was designed to protect.
[/quote]

To me things can be regulated TOO much (businesses can’t do anything because all they do is try and comply with regulations) and things can be regulated TOO little (businesses have no accountability and no rules and therefore no incentive to think about safety). Striking that balance is by no means easy and I know that it is something that some people will view as different. Too much regulation hurts people and so does too little.

I hate to say common sense regulation though…but what you’re discussing to me is common sense regulation. It’s like food products, they are required to have nutrition labels so we know what is in the product. I have no allergies, but someone else may be killed by peanuts. It makes sense for companies who produce consumables to be required to tell consumers what is in them. That’s a common sense regulation. It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation.

38

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol at the pittttt’s partisan bullshit in this thread.

Nothing like this could EVER happen in a good ol’ blue state run by good ol’ democrats now could it…

Oh wait… People actually died when it came from a “democrat”. [/quote]

There is one difference between that meningitis situation and the water situation the difference was there were regulations in place for the meningitis situation but the pharmacy BROKE THE LAW and in the water situation there were no laws broken

39

[quote]H factor wrote:
I like Nick but I wouldn’t describe Nick as a Libertarian. Nick views things in a different manner than I do. I want a smaller government and more personal freedom, Nick wants NO government. Some things Nick says I think are spot on and some things he says I think are not right at all. I know we could say the same thing about everyone though.

Correct me if I’m wrong Nick wouldn’t you describe yourself as an anarcho-capitalist? I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. Gary Johnson never said we should get rid of all government I don’t believe. If he thought that I wouldn’t vote for him. [/quote]

The recent politicians I most agree with are probably Ron Paul(got to vote for him in last year’s Republican Presidential Primary) and Karen Kwiatkowski(ran in the Republican Primary in this district last year, against a ten-term incumbent). I don’t believe I have ever cast a vote for the Libertarian Party. I will probably never vote again(I’d rather not play along by voting for some maybe-lesser of two evils, but likely the same, candidate), unless another Ron Paul-type comes along(not voting is a type of protest I’d never even thought about until recently). My state’s Libertarian Party nominated Robert Sarvis to run for governor last year, and he is almost as far from libertarian as anybody I can think of in the two main parties. I am not a Libertarian, I’m a libertarian.

I’m fine with being called an Anarcho-Capitalist, but remember that term was coined by…Mr. Libertarian.

I’d love to have smaller government and more personal freedom, but neither is coming back under this government(and both will be incrementally taken under ANY government). I imagine you can look back to 1776 and find that there have been hardly any instances where government has taken freedom, then returned it. Even in the case of gay marriage, for instance, nobody gained freedom. The government just decided to recognize a few more peoples’ contracts. The government didn’t butt out of marriage, it just recognized another form-it granted some people a new privilege.

If government emerges from non-government, so be it-we’re still better off starting over at no government.

40

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.