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.
... Grayson is right: presumably, if the NSA wasn’t tracking lawmakers, it would have flatly denied it. Instead, those officials merely denied lawmakers access to whatever files the agency might have. That suggests one of two realities: 1) the NSA is keeping files on lawmakers 2) the NSA isn’t keeping files on lawmakers, but answered vaguely in order to stoke fear among legislators that it is.
Regardless of which of these realities happens to be the case, the mere existence of legitimate fears of congressional surveillance by an executive-branch agency is a serious legal and separation-of-powers problem.
Asked if the administration’s program will be drafted specifically to prevent it from evolving into a single-payer plan, Sebelius says: ‘I think that’s very much the case, and again, if you want anybody to convince people of that, talk to the single-payer proponents who are furious that the single-payer idea is not part of the discussion.’
single-payer is pretty sweet, you guys are missing out big time.
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Obamacare was absolutely a step towards single payer. It's no big secret that that's the goal. It wasn't so politically workable during Obamacare drafting, considering how many vulnerable Dems were in Congress, but it may be in the future. Ads along the lines of, "We gave insurers the chance to give fair private insurance to all, and they screwed up. Now, let's have government be the payer, and *not* you!"
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.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
On January 19 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Obamacare was absolutely a step towards single payer. It's no big secret that that's the goal. It wasn't so politically workable during Obamacare drafting, considering how many vulnerable Dems were in Congress, but it may be in the future. Ads along the lines of, "We gave insurers the chance to give fair private insurance to all, and they screwed up. Now, let's have government be the payer, and *not* you!"
tactical move to sneak single-payer in through your backdoor when you're all sick and vulnerable or insurance industry bailout?
We’ve had a bailout for bankers and now the principle seems to be extended to the insurance industry. As Randy Wray and I discussed in a recent paper, the health care bill just signed into law entrenches the centrality of private health insurance companies and contain no serious proposals to limit costs.
this is probably old news for you silly yanks, but i thought the articles were interesting. i unlocked the second one for yous. it's gone in two days. yee haw.
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.
It's unclear what you are asserting was a hoax but I don't think what you think was clearly proven a hoax actually was.
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.
It's unclear what you are asserting was a hoax but I don't think what you think was clearly proven a hoax actually was.
The burning water was found to be some guy hooking a garden hose to a gas line.
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.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
not really introvert, conservatives aren't for "common, logical" reading of the constitution; they're for whichever one conforms to their own view more; same as liberals. It's just part of the American character. Commerce clause is overstretched quite a bit I agree.
Also, the militias were at a state and local level back then. The amendment was more about preserving those militias, so the states could fight against the federal government; not about individual right to bear arms. So your assertion of an absurd situation doesn't apply at all, as you misrepresent the situation.
what about the argument that the original intent of the framers, at least in some of the cases, was that they could agree only on the generalities and not the specifics, so the specifics should be figured out by each generation?
On January 19 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Obamacare was absolutely a step towards single payer. It's no big secret that that's the goal. It wasn't so politically workable during Obamacare drafting, considering how many vulnerable Dems were in Congress, but it may be in the future. Ads along the lines of, "We gave insurers the chance to give fair private insurance to all, and they screwed up. Now, let's have government be the payer, and *not* you!"
tactical move to sneak single-payer in through your backdoor when you're all sick and vulnerable or insurance industry bailout?
We’ve had a bailout for bankers and now the principle seems to be extended to the insurance industry. As Randy Wray and I discussed in a recent paper, the health care bill just signed into law entrenches the centrality of private health insurance companies and contain no serious proposals to limit costs.
this is probably old news for you silly yanks, but i thought the articles were interesting. i unlocked the second one for yous. it's gone in two days. yee haw.
The entire process has been so overt in the big picture that "sneak" is hardly the word. Reid wants it and argues that PPACA is a step towards it. Obama in his Senate days said he wanted it. Piece together enough speeches and it's pretty clear he still wants it.
Bailout it isn't. Obviously it gained some support from insurance companies who eye all these new people they can now sign up. Put another way, opposing it during the crafting phase might've led to an even worse regulatory structure that would then be law, so support it and try to lobby for good provisions. Not in the same class as the TARPs used for financial sector and car companies or fannie/freddie.
On January 19 2014 10:59 zlefin wrote: not really introvert, conservatives aren't for "common, logical" reading of the constitution; they're for whichever one conforms to their own view more; same as liberals. It's just part of the American character. Commerce clause is overstretched quite a bit I agree.
Also, the militias were at a state and local level back then. The amendment was more about preserving those militias, so the states could fight against the federal government; not about individual right to bear arms. So your assertion of an absurd situation doesn't apply at all, as you misrepresent the situation.
what about the argument that the original intent of the framers, at least in some of the cases, was that they could agree only on the generalities and not the specifics, so the specifics should be figured out by each generation?
Which side tries to go back and see what the people who WROTE THE DOCUMENT were saying? That's the right. It's the left that argues that the framers own words are not sufficient. now which seems logical? Changing on a whim, or holding a steady point? I contend the latter is far more reasonable. Is it political? yes. But that doesn't mean it's the wrong or right interpretation.
The militia argument does apply. The militias/states did not provide arms for their members, those were citizens who had their own guns and were expected to use them. Back then if you didn't have a gun, you would need to acquire one before being an effective member. most militias were no more than groups of people in an area that agreed to help when needed. Many were volunteers. They all owned their own weapons.
As to your final question, please give me an example of what you mean. I don't want to write a long set of paragraphs when I don't know what you mean.
I have my view, you have yours; we have differing views of how the "right" and "left" are behaving. It feels like far too much confirmation bias is occurring on your side to me. The amount of vehemence you have at the "left" is substantial. So I decline to discuss these points further with you at this time.
On January 19 2014 11:33 zlefin wrote: I have my view, you have yours; we have differing views of how the "right" and "left" are behaving. It feels like far too much confirmation bias is occurring on your side to me. The amount of vehemence you have at the "left" is substantial. So I decline to discuss these points further with you at this time.
I do have my view, and I am quite set in it. And I do get pretty outspoken about it. I see what progressives are doing to the country and, yea, you could say I'm upset. But I haven't just said, "Oh! you are wrong, I am done!" Every time I've said it's clear in terms of history, I have provided the accompanying history to go with it.
I am not required to argue your side, you are to do that. So the "confirmation bias" could easily be refuted, but apparently you don't want to put the work in. Which is fine, but to say that I just have a case of confirmation bias so you will ignore me, after making an assertion that I once again used historical fact to dispute, is absurd.
My responses are sometimes moderated, sometimes a little "passionate." But I have always provided evidence and reasoning for what I say when asked. Hell, I do most of the time when I'm not asked.
Edit: if you don't like the tone, I'll be more careful with you. Now please, provide some examples of what you were saying
Oh Scalia. Putting forth a clear case of two sides and watching the libs squirm. Very reminiscent of when Verilli highlighted the unique nature of the health care market, and ducked and rolled with food, cars, and the principle bases of distinguishing this market from others.
Scalia: I have a very, very stark question: Suppose I agree with the court of appeals that the only -- the only intepretation of -- of the Constitution is that the vacancy must have arisen during the recess, just by hypothesis. I agree with that, okay? What do you do when there is a practice that -- that flatly contradicts a clear text of the Constitution? Which -- which of the two prevails?
Verilli: Now, I think the practice has to prevail, Your Honor, but I do -- and I --
Scalia: So if you ignore the Constitution --
Verilli: But I don't think --
Scalia: -- often enough, its meaning changes?
Verilli: But, Your Hojnor, of course, in this situation, the meaning of the clause with respect to the timing of [...] [...]
Alito: But you are making a very, very agressive argument in favor of executive power now and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the Senate is in session or not. You're just saying when the Senate acts, in your view, irresponsibly and refuses to confirm nominations, then the President must be able to fill those -- fill those positions. That's what you're arguing. I don't see what that has to do with whether the Senate is in session.
The following exchange there was also very good but long
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.
It's unclear what you are asserting was a hoax but I don't think what you think was clearly proven a hoax actually was.
The burning water was found to be some guy hooking a garden hose to a gas line.
That was the second movie I believe, and multiple people had burning water.
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.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
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.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
phone posting fuck up just delete this. TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text. I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.