A Great Way for GOP Candidates To Stand Up For What They Believe In - Page 4 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » A Great Way for GOP Candidates To Stand Up For What They Believe In


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
LIONHEART - We Have Your Land
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-03-2011, 06:58 PM   #76 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyla Warden View Post
Oh, that. Uhhhhhhhhh.......

Sincerely,
Big Oil
__________________
"I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer


U.S. Only
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Laughed:
Old 11-03-2011, 07:19 PM   #77 (permalink)
DILLIGAFF
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
Society's Lost Bird
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,883
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyla Warden View Post
No, but I can do something else that is similiar with an "empty" can of model airplane fuel, matches and a couple of other things.
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 11-04-2011, 06:55 AM   #78 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Bracque Roux-Ga-Roux
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,643
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Pelous View Post
Huh? All they're doing is pumping millions of gallons of mystery goop that's made of water and proprietary ingredients. Then they pump mystery "sand" down there ... barium, magnesium, ceramic compounds, some of it radioactive so they can figure out where the cracks are.

The oil industry assures everyone it is probably safe and most likely doesn't usually cause earthquakes, well contamination, or weird smells. And they put up warning signs if there is a "Poisonous Gas Situation."

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
No no no, fracking is regulated. The courageous defenders of mankind at the EPA & MMS are here to save you.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 07:09 AM   #79 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
No no no, fracking is regulated. The courageous defenders of mankind at the EPA & MMS are here to save you.
hahahahahahaaaaaa......

Or, for our Spanish speaking friends, jajajajaajajaaaaaaaaa!

Here's a quote from a fracker I met: "I sure as shit hope the gummint doesn't find out what we're doing 'cause they'd shut us down in a New York minute."

Good news for him - Bush gutted the EPA and Obama ..... well, let's face it, he's hardly a Little Lebowski Urban Achiever.
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 07:54 AM   #80 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 9,091
My Mood:

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Some things hurt the bottom line, others don't. For those that don't, all loss is collateral. I'm sure Pacific Gas & Electric was saving a ton of money by falsifying inspection records so they didn't have to work so hard at maintaining their infrastructure.

It's great because they pass that savings on to the customer.

The existing regulations have enough loopholes for them to let things slip by. Might as well use these loopholes to maximize profitability.

... Right?



I remember seeing some of that fire from my back yard. I live over 30 miles away.

Google maps zoom levels 1 through 4 show the houses which were there before the fire. 5 has been updated.

http://goo.gl/GUaZv

Last edited by Imnotgoing Sideways; 11-04-2011 at 08:02 AM.
Imnotgoing Sideways is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 02:22 PM   #81 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Polo's Avatar
What the cuss?!??
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,415
SL Join Date: May 3, 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imnotgoing Sideways View Post
The existing regulations have enough loopholes for them to let things slip by. Might as well use these loopholes to maximize profitability.

... Right?
Yes, merely having regulations on the books means little. And of course it's not just that regulations must be enforced but that they must be enforced with fairness and transparency; "regulatory capture" is so common as to make a mockery of the concept of the common welfare.

But combating the cynical (and false) 'Regulation Kills Jobs' claims by the right is a good first step to making the low-information voters aware of all these issues.
Polo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 02:50 PM   #82 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Bracque Roux-Ga-Roux
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,643
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polo View Post
But combating the cynical (and false) 'Regulation Kills Jobs' claims by the right is a good first step to making the low-information voters aware of all these issues.
On the last compliance project I worked on, 3 adults (with homes, families, etc) were layed off for about 9 months in order for the tiny company to stay afloat. They didn't have a building full of science and engineering people that corporate welfare whores like G.E. or Raytheon do, so they had to hire in and absorb the development cost.

I agree that there's probably a wash of right leaning people that aren't intimately aware of what they are talking about, but it's no more ignorant than leftist cheerleading for regulation without actually having a clue about (or caring) how it gets implemented.

Try being a tiny start-up (with no lobbyist or elected friends) and produce something that competes with the .01% corporate royalty in this county. You'll get an appreciation for what's really going on.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 11-04-2011, 05:28 PM   #83 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Leslie Plutonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,571
SL Join Date: 1 Sept. 2008
Send a message via AIM to Leslie Plutonian Send a message via Yahoo to Leslie Plutonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
No no no, fracking is regulated. The courageous defenders of mankind at the EPA & MMS are here to save you.
Sorry, but no.

Ol' G.W. gave fracking complete immunity from the E.P.A., they can do whatever the heck they want. So long as the energy keeps flowing.

Fracking itself is still exempt from regulation, however, polluting drinking water is not. Which is how the E.P.A. is going after it and very slowly since their hands are still effectively tied.


By the way, in a similar note, G.W. also relaxed safety regs on mining (hello coal mine collapses) and deep water oil drilling.
If a pub gets elected again, they plan to relax regs and pull almost all funding for the E.P.A., the Department of Energy (nuclear waste anyone?) and Department of education. Bachman even wants to remove all regs for the meat packing industry, which has such a fantastic history.
__________________
“Like I always say, there's no "I" in team. There's a "me" though, if you jumble it up.” - Dr. Gregory House
Leslie Plutonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2011, 07:12 PM   #84 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Polo's Avatar
What the cuss?!??
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,415
SL Join Date: May 3, 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
Try being a tiny start-up (with no lobbyist or elected friends) and produce something that competes with the .01% corporate royalty in this county. You'll get an appreciation for what's really going on.
Part of that might be the big companies cynically making use of the regulatory system to cut potential competitors off at the knees, before they can get up and running.

All it would take would be Mr. Deep-pockets Lobbyist breathing a gentle hint into the ear of his pet legislators, about making sure that the little guys get hit with the same paperwork as the big ones (sort of applying the principle of regressive taxation to regulation).

Any intelligent regulatory system would take company size into account (though obviously not giving smaller companies more leeway when safety is at stake).
Polo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 07:58 AM   #85 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Bracque Roux-Ga-Roux
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,643
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie Plutonian View Post
Sorry, but no.

Ol' G.W. gave fracking complete immunity from the E.P.A., they can do whatever the heck they want.
Not really. The actual hydraulic fracturing process isn't specifically addressed at the federal, but few processes are. The federal epa is working on frac specifics, but the bulk of it is already addressed by state epas. Operators can and do get fined, must be licensed, and are subject to inspections. You can't just go fracking willy-nilly in your back yard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polo View Post
Any intelligent regulatory system would take company size into account (though obviously not giving smaller companies more leeway when safety is at stake).
Yeah, I don't know really. The reality is that I think the company that I mention above (specifically the machine that they make) should be regulated. I didn't think the emission standard that they were asked to meet was ridiculous and frankly, they didn't either. I was just pointing out that regulation does have a cost and does cost jobs.

I'm not against regulation. If a regulation is good, then the proper response to the "jobs" argument is to say "fuck those jobs". If we don't have the conviction to say that, them maybe we rethink the reg.

What I have an issue with is when giants like G.E. see regulatory bodies as marketing tools for infrastructure products that they hold patents on. Letting the A.P.I. write M.M.S. regs is also insane. I hate that shit. Government shouldn't be playing favorites at all, but if they're going to anyway, it's abominable that they're in bed with the richest 0.01% of corporations on earth.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 10:00 AM   #86 (permalink)
Crazy Cat Herder
 
Tardigrade's Avatar
Eight Legged Geek
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seyla Warden View Post
Someone ought to invent a car that runs on contaminated, inflammable tap water. Energy crisis solved.
Tardigrade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 12:48 PM   #87 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Polo's Avatar
What the cuss?!??
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,415
SL Join Date: May 3, 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
I was just pointing out that regulation does have a cost and does cost jobs.
I think it over-simplifies the situation to state it this way; for one thing, the cost of NOT regulating may turn out to be much higher (in terms of clean-up costs, medical costs, etc.) than the cost of regulating. (And when a state, for instance, has to pay more to treat the uninsured because of the actions of a company that is unregulated/avoids compliance, then that state can't hire people it might otherwise have hired [to repair bridges or whatever].)

Any general claim "regulation costs jobs"* is not well-supported for most economies overall, I believe, despite the existence of examples in which some people did lose jobs.

Taken as a whole, an economy in which companies are not allowed to transfer their costs of production to the commonweal (which is what pouring wastes into a river or into the air actually amounts to, to give one example) is an economy with the best chance of expanding, innovating, and improving life for all participants.



*I realize you're not trying to make that blanket claim here; but some people do and that's what I'm arguing against.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
What I have an issue with is when giants like G.E. see regulatory bodies as marketing tools for infrastructure products that they hold patents on. Letting the A.P.I. write M.M.S. regs is also insane. I hate that shit. Government shouldn't be playing favorites at all, but if they're going to anyway, it's abominable that they're in bed with the richest 0.01% of corporations on earth.
I agree.
Polo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 03:12 PM   #88 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
From time to time the regulatory process does do some dumb stuff.

I just learned about some pending regulations for trucking. Some safety groups want to shorten drivers' days to cut down on fatigued driving and have made enough of a stink that it looks like the Feds will change the rules. I mean, who wants to vote "aye" on fatigued driving, right?

Now if you were a truck driver getting paid by the mile and they shortened your work day, what would you do? Huh? Did you say "drive faster"? But .... but .... speeding causes way more accidents than fatigued driving!
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 03:41 PM   #89 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Leslie Plutonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,571
SL Join Date: 1 Sept. 2008
Send a message via AIM to Leslie Plutonian Send a message via Yahoo to Leslie Plutonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jura Shepherd View Post
Not really. The actual hydraulic fracturing process isn't specifically addressed at the federal, but few processes are. The federal epa is working on frac specifics, but the bulk of it is already addressed by state epas. Operators can and do get fined, must be licensed, and are subject to inspections. You can't just go fracking willy-nilly in your back yard.
Fracking by injecting diesel fuel underground is legal under a 2005 Bush-era law — known as the “Haliburtion loophole” — that subverted the Safe Drinking Water Act. Now, Democrats in Congress are petitioning the EPA to close t

Just the first link to it I found, but there is more out there on it, I'm sure.
Leslie Plutonian is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 11-05-2011, 03:57 PM   #90 (permalink)
DILLIGAFF
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
Society's Lost Bird
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,883
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Pelous View Post
From time to time the regulatory process does do some dumb stuff.

I just learned about some pending regulations for trucking. Some safety groups want to shorten drivers' days to cut down on fatigued driving and have made enough of a stink that it looks like the Feds will change the rules. I mean, who wants to vote "aye" on fatigued driving, right?

Now if you were a truck driver getting paid by the mile and they shortened your work day, what would you do? Huh? Did you say "drive faster"? But .... but .... speeding causes way more accidents than fatigued driving!
Truckers are already heavily regulated as to the number of hours they can drive, how long they have to take a break from the road...

The 11/14 hour Truck Driving Rule | AskTheTrucker
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 04:25 PM   #91 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfEyes View Post
Truckers are already heavily regulated as to the number of hours they can drive, how long they have to take a break from the road...

The 11/14 hour Truck Driving Rule | AskTheTrucker
Yes. New rules will probably be 10/14. And some change in the 34 hour rule" that I failed to fully grasp.
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 04:33 PM   #92 (permalink)
DILLIGAFF
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
Society's Lost Bird
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,883
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Pelous View Post
Yes. New rules will probably be 10/14. And some change in the 34 hour rule" that I failed to fully grasp.
Do you happen to have a link? My ex was/is a trucker and I'm curious.
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 05:19 PM   #93 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Jura Shepherd's Avatar
Bracque Roux-Ga-Roux
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,643
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 04/20/2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie Plutonian View Post
Just the first link to it I found, but there is more out there on it, I'm sure.
Right on. I know about the SDWA exclusion (I've worked with Haliburton btw), but hydraulic fracturing fluids (diesel or otherwise) are regulated under the EPA's UIC program. Anyway, I'm not trying to say fracking or GWB are awesome. The thread is about regulation after all. But to say "G.W. gave fracking complete immunity from the E.P.A." just isn't accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polo View Post
*I realize you're not trying to make that blanket claim here; but some people do and that's what I'm arguing against.
Thanks Polo, and yeah, I'm not. The whole thing is really too nuanced for the usual binary churn orgy.
Jura Shepherd is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 11-05-2011, 05:21 PM   #94 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfEyes View Post
Do you happen to have a link? My ex was/is a trucker and I'm curious.
Brother's an ex-trucker, ex-State Patrol, current cop ... he's my source. I found this, though: News Release - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 11-05-2011, 05:31 PM   #95 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Ciaran Laval's Avatar
Confused
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: England
Posts: 4,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gigs View Post
The more expensive labor is, the more that people will automate, the more that people will just simply not do a thing they might have done, or will find some non-labor substitute.
The industrial revolution happened a long long time ago, automation to replace workers is going to happen minimum wage or not.
Ciaran Laval is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 11-05-2011, 05:50 PM   #96 (permalink)
DILLIGAFF
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
Society's Lost Bird
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,883
SL Join Date: April 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Pelous View Post
Brother's an ex-trucker, ex-State Patrol, current cop ... he's my source. I found this, though: News Release - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Doesn't look like the changes will be that bad. If your brother has an old log book laying around you might want to ask him to use it to help explain the 34 hour restart. That is, of course, if you really want to know.
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 01:04 AM   #97 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfEyes View Post
Doesn't look like the changes will be that bad. If your brother has an old log book laying around you might want to ask him to use it to help explain the 34 hour restart. That is, of course, if you really want to know.
God knows he tried. MEGO. My Eyes Glazed Over.
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Laughed:
1 User Hugged You:
Old 11-06-2011, 12:41 PM   #98 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Polo's Avatar
What the cuss?!??
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,415
SL Join Date: May 3, 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey Pelous View Post
From time to time the regulatory process does do some dumb stuff.

I just learned about some pending regulations for trucking. Some safety groups want to shorten drivers' days to cut down on fatigued driving and have made enough of a stink that it looks like the Feds will change the rules. I mean, who wants to vote "aye" on fatigued driving, right?

Now if you were a truck driver getting paid by the mile and they shortened your work day, what would you do? Huh? Did you say "drive faster"? But .... but .... speeding causes way more accidents than fatigued driving!
That's true, but it's also true that 'driving faster' is a more VISIBLE threat to safety than is 'driving while sleepy.'

A highway cop on the side of the road can't really tell which truck drivers are driving while fatigued. But he or she CAN tell who's driving at an unsafe speed.

Even though both speeding and driving sleepy can result in accidents, speeding is more likely than driving sleepy to result in the penalty of a ticket (and whatever extra penalties the trucking company might impose on a driver who gets a ticket.) We humans are motivated to avoid activities that are MORE likely to result in penalties. Thus truck drivers have less incentive to try to violate rules by speeding than they have to violate rules by driving sleepy--because the speeding is more likely to result in a penalty.
Polo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2011, 01:02 PM   #99 (permalink)
Senior Discount
 
Casey Pelous's Avatar
Jesus is coming. Look busy!
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USA, Upper Left
Posts: 9,682
My Mood:
SL Join Date: August 21, 2007
Client: Anything But 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polo View Post
That's true, but it's also true that 'driving faster' is a more VISIBLE threat to safety than is 'driving while sleepy.'

A highway cop on the side of the road can't really tell which truck drivers are driving while fatigued. But he or she CAN tell who's driving at an unsafe speed.

Even though both speeding and driving sleepy can result in accidents, speeding is more likely than driving sleepy to result in the penalty of a ticket (and whatever extra penalties the trucking company might impose on a driver who gets a ticket.) We humans are motivated to avoid activities that are MORE likely to result in penalties. Thus truck drivers have less incentive to try to violate rules by speeding than they have to violate rules by driving sleepy--because the speeding is more likely to result in a penalty.
Polo, that makes a lot of sense, except you don't know how much effort truck drivers put into detecting and avoiding cops. It is like a cat and mouse game. Radar detectors, CB radios ("He's just past the bridge at mile marker 179"), shared local knowledge (via CB) and constant alertness make them hard to catch. Brother has often remarked on "what an idiot" some busted trucker was. "Dummy didn't even have his CB on, everybody was calling me in!" (He monitors the CB too...) On the other hand, sleepy truckers weave ....

So, expect more trucks coming roaring up yer tailpipe! erm ... so to speak.
Casey Pelous is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 11-06-2011, 01:06 PM   #100 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Polo's Avatar
What the cuss?!??
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,415
SL Join Date: May 3, 2008
I don't suppose it's possible to have a system that incentivizes truck drivers to drive at safe speeds while fully rested.....?


....nah. No way.

^_^
Polo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
candidates , fallacious , gop , hypocrisy , regulation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




SEO by vBSEO