bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Never said it was illegal..just immoral. If a coal operator can turn a profit and keep workers, but instead lays the workers off because they want to turn more of a profit, it says a lot about just how much the company CARES for their workers. So, lay the blame where it belongs. Regulations have done nothing more than ensure that companies go about things in a way that is amicable to and in the best interests of the majority of the country. They don't cripple the company...but, when those who are used to getting their way suddenly don't get their way, they blame everyone but themselves, and then take their ball and go home like a spoiled brat. As far as coal goes, the Clear Skies Act is what gave natural gas the edge over coal....an act sponsored in both hoses of congress by the GOP, and pushed for Dick Cheney and signed into law by George W. Bush. It was designed to amend the Clean Air Act and use a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. Among its provisions (notice the years the provisions were scheduled to go into effect) (from wikipedia): 1- Cut SO2 emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018. 2- Cut NOx emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018. 3- Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018. 4- Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West. So, really, lay the blame where it goes. I agree that greed and political decisions to lay people off for the betterment of the company is very immoral. However, this is a factor of capitalism. Without morality capitalism and freedom cannot function properly. However, it is not the duty or responsibility of the government to pick winners and losers, if corporate greed is abused the market can and will punish those who demonstrate this immorality by driving workers, customers etc. to a corporate entity that acts in a way that demonstrates morality. I firmly believe that the govt. must provide some intervention/regulation in order to prevent this corruption. I just don't think that we need to "abandon capitalism," in order to save capitalism. I personally do not care if the GOP instituted these measures or not, wrong is wrong. I don't kiss the ass of the Republican party, big govt. is big govt.. However, it is important to note that the system that the GOP helped establish is being used/manipulated/added to by the current administration to "bankrupt coal fired power plants." Wrong is wrong. I also know that the GOP was in favor of Cap and Trade before they were against it. That doesn't make me like it anymore, but it does tell me that both political parties have abandoned the free market principles that are best for this nation. The economy operates under the laws of nature and manipulating the economic system is akin to playing god. I personally do not think that government knows best and I would rather have corporate greed over government greed/corruption any day of the week. I do believe that individual morality is a major contributor to corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Corporations and government would not be as corrupt as they are today if the people of this country held them to higher standards, unfortunately the people of this nation no longer hold themselves to higher standards. We are a nation of people without principles and until we embrace this truth, we will have to contend with corporate and government corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I agree that greed and political decisions to lay people off for the betterment of the company is very immoral. However, this is a factor of capitalism. Without morality capitalism and freedom cannot function properly. However, it is not the duty or responsibility of the government to pick winners and losers, if corporate greed is abused the market can and will punish those who demonstrate this immorality by driving workers, customers etc. to a corporate entity that acts in a way that demonstrates morality. I firmly believe that the govt. must provide some intervention/regulation in order to prevent this corruption. I just don't think that we need to "abandon capitalism," in order to save capitalism. I personally do not care if the GOP instituted these measures or not, wrong is wrong. I don't kiss the ass of the Republican party, big govt. is big govt.. However, it is important to note that the system that the GOP helped establish is being used/manipulated/added to by the current administration to "bankrupt coal fired power plants." Wrong is wrong. I also know that the GOP was in favor of Cap and Trade before they were against it. That doesn't make me like it anymore, but it does tell me that both political parties have abandoned the free market principles that are best for this nation. The economy operates under the laws of nature and manipulating the economic system is akin to playing god. I personally do not think that government knows best and I would rather have corporate greed over government greed/corruption any day of the week. I do believe that individual morality is a major contributor to corporate and governmental greed and corruption. Corporations and government would not be as corrupt as they are today if the people of this country held them to higher standards, unfortunately the people of this nation no longer hold themselves to higher standards. We are a nation of people without principles and until we embrace this truth, we will have to contend with corporate and government corruption. IMO you are right on many points in this post. I don't feel that unfettered capitalism can thrive without taking advantage of the many to placate the few. I do feel that regulation is needed...or you run the risk of dire consequences. We all may not like it, but the EPA is needed. Throughout our history, we have celebrated greed (Rockerfeller, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Trump, etc.) while at the same time we have lamented the consequences of it (Johnstown flood, harsh or even unsafe working conditions with low pay, etc). IMO, regulation is the only tool that is successful in ensuring that corporations and compainies don't ruin our country and our environment in the name of MONEY....and I would rather see the government over regulate than under regulate because once some things are gone you can't get them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 That's a citation red herring there, partner. Sorry, UVAO but I am missing the meaning of this post. Long day I suppose, explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Sorry, UVAO but I am missing the meaning of this post. Long day I suppose, explain. Sup rbeast used a quote from wikipedia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Sup rbeast used a quote from wikipedia. No, no, no. It's the fact that he rebutted the claim of "100% controlled by corporate greed" with a post that (1) flippantly dismissed it and (2) spent the next 200+ words railing on Obama's policies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Sup rbeast used a quote from wikipedia. That's not what a "red herring" is. It's that he didn't argue to the point of these particular mine closures. It's that he went into a philosophical tangent and started the old argument against Obama + EPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Single A west 113 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Sup rbeast wrote- IMO, regulation is the only tool that is successful in ensuring that corporations and compainies don't ruin our country and our environment in the name of MONEY. The only problem is the EPA has taken this beyond extremes. They have become to powerful and you throw their leader-Lisa Jackson, no common sense. We installed a new scrubber system at one of our coal fired power plants 4 years ago. We were at correct emission levels. They are changing those levels-their intensions were for us never to bring the plant into compliance-they want us to shut it down. CO2 and mercury emmisions-check out the eruption of Mt. Saint Helens. Also check into Obama's energy committee- I'll have to look his name up. Left the committee after 14 months, retired from Shell oil. He layed out a plan on use of oil, methane and compressed gas. How to use at below $ 1.80 a gallon. Barrack passed. His words "Barrack has no intension of using hydro-carbon fuels ." So I believe he will try to eliminate America's use of coal( I'm going by his video of when Barrack spoke to the Sieera Club on youtube). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 What it tells me is that the layoffs weren't necessary to begin with. All they were was a ploy to help the GOP to scare up votes...and a little corporate greed to boot. So this was a GOP ploy?? And President Obama was scared to come and campaign in SWVA over a GOP ploy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't consider the words scared and useless to be interchangeable, but to the first part of your question....my answer is yes (based on the candidate who benefited most from where the industry's campaign dollars predominately landed ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 I don't consider the words scared and useless to be interchangeable, but to the first part of your question....my answer is yes (based on the candidate who benefited most from where the industry's campaign dollars predominately landed ). 75% of my county did not vote for Obama...most of his support came from the large cities...In my opinion he is a slick politician...he used much of the same campaign lingo he did in 08... And speaking of ploy ...blaming Benghazi and 4 American deaths on a you tube video is what I call PLOY... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS03 99 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 75% of my county did not vote for Obama...most of his support came from the large cities...In my opinion he is a slick politician...he used much of the same campaign lingo he did in 08... And speaking of ploy ...blaming Benghazi and 4 American deaths on a you tube video is what I call PLOY... Wave, The liberals on this board have refused to face the facts on Benghazi since it happened. They know that Obama and his administration lied to them but they don't want to accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 What I can't understand is why it is such a surprise to people that the government feels it is not obligated to paint a clear picture of a CIA operation when doing so could (and probably would) endanger agents and informats still in the area or region. Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that unless you have a security clearance for various levels of classified info, you will never know the info until the government declassifies it. Sure, the info given to the public in the aftermath of Benghazi wasn't accurate....but the public isn't exactly privy to the activities of intelligence agencies. It's obvious that is the situation here...and if you refuse to see or believe that, you are just blind to the truth of the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHS03 99 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 What I can't understand is why it is such a surprise to people that the government feels it is not obligated to paint a clear picture of a CIA operation when doing so could (and probably would) endanger agents and informats still in the area or region. Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that unless you have a security clearance for various levels of classified info, you will never know the info until the government declassifies it. Sure, the info given to the public in the aftermath of Benghazi wasn't accurate....but the public isn't exactly privy to the activities of intelligence agencies. It's obvious that is the situation here...and if you refuse to see or believe that, you are just blind to the truth of the situation. Exactly! The Obama administration lied about something that was OBVIOUS and had nothing to do with national security. They came out saying that it was because of a YouTube video and any person with common sense knew better. They tried to pull one over the American people and they failed, except in your case where you keep making excuses for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Doesn't matter what they said it was about, because they didn't have to say squat. Where was all this patriotic fervor when the same Senators, who are throwing a hissy fit over Susan Rice reporting the info the CIA gave her, were leading us into an unnecessary war that would cost over 4,000 American lives based on bad intelligence reports that were given to them? Seems to me they would all just pout and whine and get it over with instead of slinging mud.....cuz the election won't be undone regardless of how badly they, you, or FauxNews want it to be. It's become a whine party...maybe Paul Ryan can bring some of that Wisconsin cheese. Bottom line is this: Obama has the GOP over a barrel, so hopefully Boehner and McConnell brought some Vasoline..because by the second week of January, the tax breaks for the wealthy will be gone whether they expire or the GOP plays ball. Furthermore, there will be a Democratic sponsored bill brought to the Senate floor to keep tax rates on all who make less than $250,000 at the levels they are now, and the onus will be on the GOP to vote for it and give Obama what he wants...or vote against it and get ready to catch the train back home after the next election. If they do procrastinate or vote no, if you thought this past election was bad for the GOP, the next will be a massacre and give the Democrats control of both the House and Senate. Ya see, it's politics my friend....and right now Obama holds all the cards. And, all the crying over Benghazi or procrastination in Congress is going to change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 What I can't understand is why it is such a surprise to people that the government feels it is not obligated to paint a clear picture of a CIA operation when doing so could (and probably would) endanger agents and informats still in the area or region. It isn't a surprise that they didn't want to tell the American people, it is a surprise that they essentially ALLOWED four Americans to be killed, this is where the outrage is! The youtube video nonsense was not an attempt to keep "top secret" information safe. It was a SPIN TACTIC to distract the citizenry from the ineptness and complicit behavior of this administration with the very group that killed these Americans. In most countries around the world this would be considered treason! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wave316 64 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 It isn't a surprise that they didn't want to tell the American people, it is a surprise that they essentially ALLOWED four Americans to be killed, this is where the outrage is! The youtube video nonsense was not an attempt to keep "top secret" information safe. It was a SPIN TACTIC to distract the citizenry from the ineptness and complicit behavior of this administration with the very group that killed these Americans. In most countries around the world this would be considered treason! I second what Bucfan64 says! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) That's not what a "red herring" is. It's that he didn't argue to the point of these particular mine closures. It's that he went into a philosophical tangent and started the old argument against Obama + EPA. No, no, no. It's the fact that he rebutted the claim of "100% controlled by corporate greed" with a post that (1) flippantly dismissed it and (2) spent the next 200+ words railing on Obama's policies. My bad. Not familiar with the term, I took it as not trust worthy/suspicious. Im on board now lol Edited November 30, 2012 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 In most countries it wouldn't be considered treason, it would be considered "none of your business". Lay off the FauxNews guys....it's clouding your thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 307 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 (edited) In most countries it wouldn't be considered treason, it would be considered "none of your business". Lay off the FauxNews guys....it's clouding your thinking. The Fox News Weatherman called for rain the other day, are we supposed to dimiss the FACT THAT IT RAINED because of the source? Furthermore, I NEVER watch Fox News, EVER! I know what I'll do, I'll start watching MSNBC, who knows maybe I'll experience that tingle down my leg just like Chris Matthews. You are doing nothing but using typical liberal talking points and labeling to dismiss the cold hard truth. Don't bother to address the facts about Benghazi, just dispell everything as "faux news," or a "right wing conspiracy." I will stick to the truth, you can continue to live in your little progressive utopia as for me I'll stay over here in reality! Edited November 30, 2012 by bucfan64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 In most countries it wouldn't be considered treason, it would be considered "none of your business". Lay off the FauxNews guys....it's clouding your thinking. Just curious...Do you share the same feeling about MSNBC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 In most countries it wouldn't be considered treason, it would be considered "none of your business". Which countries are you referring to? Russia? China? Cuba? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 The role of the good citizen is to make informed decisions best on looking at all sides of the issues. This means we have to consider the source, its bias, and the writers agenda (if there is one.) The truth is that much of the information on the web and other medias is agenda driven, and most folks just read or watch things that reinforce their views. So we end up arguing on completely different sets of "facts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup_rbeast 296 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 Just curious...Do you share the same feeling about MSNBC? I form my thoughts from mostly what I read...and use a little common sense. I rarely watch the news, but I do read CNN often...I watch MSNBC sparingly and Fox News from time to time for comedy. It blows my mind that people become enamored with that channel, cuz it's so easy to see that's not news. Call it entertainment, call it bullshit, call it propaganda, but don't call it news...cuz it's the furthest thing from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted November 30, 2012 I form my thoughts from mostly what I read...and use a little common sense. I rarely watch the news, but I do read CNN often...I watch MSNBC sparingly and Fox News from time to time for comedy. It blows my mind that people become enamored with that channel, cuz it's so easy to see that's not news. Call it entertainment, call it bullshit, call it propaganda, but don't call it news...cuz it's the furthest thing from it. Just wanted to be clear. I watch Rachel Madcow for comedy. She and Chris Matthews are funnier than anyone on TV. No one on any news channel even comes close to being as blatantly biased as MSNBC. That's not even up for debate. If you can't see that, you're as blind and partisan as the people you accuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adsi97 35 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 The Fox News Weatherman called for rain the other day, are we supposed to dimiss the FACT THAT IT RAINED because of the source? Furthermore, I NEVER watch Fox News, EVER! I know what I'll do, I'll start watching MSNBC, who knows maybe I'll experience that tingle down my leg just like Chris Matthews. You are doing nothing but using typical liberal talking points and labeling to dismiss the cold hard truth. Don't bother to address the facts about Benghazi, just dispell everything as "faux news," or a "right wing conspiracy." I will stick to the truth, you can continue to live in your little progressive utopia as for me I'll stay over here in reality! very well said sir!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.