Why SHOULDN'T....WULF be President? by Wulfenstar

That's fair then. Just be careful not to give people the wrong idea about what you want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:03 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
We begin to actually produce again, and in a free society, our products are innovative and new. (Like the car, like the Ipod)

You do know that neither of those is from here, right?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:53 PM

Wulf

I'm a constituent, and concerned voter. It's hilly unlikely that my island will be attacked by anyone that can actually get to it, armed and undetected, I feel safe from physical violence.

However, my island is in the water, it's surrounded by the stuff, it's got several rivers of it's own actually. But my island is under attack, and I'm very worried.

Oil and gas exploration companies have been drilling and pouring toxic chemicals into the water. They claim this is to help them get to the gas, conspiracists tell me they're trying to destroy the supply of clean water. I don't care which it is, I'm willing to vote the Taliban into power if it will stop them.*

At any rate, it's a top suspect in my sisters brain cancer, so this is a real and not hypothetical story.

* this is not a flippant remark, I am deadly serious. I would actually vote the Taliban into office if it would stop them.

So, I'm under attack. How does your govt. Defend me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 14, 2011 3:10 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

DT: First off, sorry for your sister.

Now. Several things need to happen.

1. Proof must be obtained that these companies are dumping chemicals into the water supply.

2. The toxicity of these chemicals must be verified.

3. An injuction must be obtained to prevent them from continuing to dump into the water.

4. Charges must be filed.

Now the best way to go about this is to hire a lawyer. Get the EPA involved. (Which is one of the agencies I would have kept around)

If it is proven that these companies did knowingly do this, then they would face automatic disolution. The profits made from this would be given to the victims.

If it can be proven that the heads of the company knew what was going on, then their entire estate would be forfit to the victims as well.

Further, the heads of the company would face criminal homicide charges.

AND, heres the kicker... they would not be allowed to use high-priced lawyer teams. As their entire estates had been forfeit.

Thats how I would try to have things done.

However, as the President does not really have all the powers described, I would make sure that EPA was provided with the tools it needed to be able to go after companies like this.

The rest is up to the people, the state and the laws they allow themselves to be governed by.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2011 11:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Bump

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 17, 2011 12:54 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Also.

A donkey? An elephant?

Mine would be.. of course.. a wolf.

Cus what else is as free?

And.. just for fun. Someone, who shall remain nameless, posted this in the music thread. I thought it was pretty awesome. So, here you go.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:18 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

bump

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:34 PM

Wulf

Sorry. Been busy. I like the idea of charges being filed. Of course the chemicals are toxic, that's not in dispute, and they are pouring them in the drinking water, because it is completely legal for them to do so, and thousands of people are dying.

I don't get why this is allowed to happen when we're pouring so much effort into stopping Al Qaeda a name we give to muslim militias, which we have yet to prove have a connection to 9.11, yet we have these companies, many of them also foreign, here in the US, poisoning the water, openly admitting to doing so, and due to Bush's passing of EPA exemptions for oil and gas companies, are allowed to, and are estimated to have killed 10 times as many as the 9.11 attacks, since 2005.

Something has to give. And yes, this idea that "we can sue" is dumb, not only do the companies have infinitely more lawyers than us, and infinitely more money, they are making so much money that the cost of losing the lawsuit will still make killing americans profitable.

I think if you take action that knowingly kills Americans, then you should be criminally liable.

here's where I draw the line:

If you make a car, and someone dies in it because of something they do, then you are not responsible. A perfectly safe car can still kill someone, just as a baseball bat or kitchen knife can.

If you make a car, and it kills someone because of a flaw in the car, you are liable in at least negligence. You lose your job, and possibly other penalties, it has to be a career ending incident, to give people incentives to make sure that the car is safe.

However, if you do, as in the infamous case of the Corvair, intentionally release a car to market that you know for a fact will kill people because of a flaw that you discovered testing the car, and you decided that the cost of the lawsuits would be less than the cost of fixing the problem, so you sent it to market anyway, then I think you have to go to jail, or whatever the appropriate punishment, it goes up there with murder or manslaughter.

In this case, the hydraulic fracturing companies do not hide what they are doing, and they are very aware that they are killing americans. There are currently no legal repercussions for doing so, any more than there are for the ATF firing on Waco or police shooting unarmed suspects and random children.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:40 AM

A minor quibble, but the Corvair is a bad example, because it got a bad rap. There WERE issues with the very early models, but by the time Nader and his bunch got hold of the issue, the issues had been successfully addressed and fixed. Second-generation Corvairs were actually very good handling cars.

The example you should have used was the Ford Pinto, because Ford KNEW of the problem, KNEW to the penny how much the solution would cost, and made the conscious decision to NOT fix the problem, because (and this is what hung them) their beancounters did the math and decided that it would be cheaper to pay off the families of any potential victims than it would be to reengineer the car's fuel tank to keep it from rupturing and exploding in the event of a rear-end collision.

The smoking gun was internal memos and paperwork which reached this conclusion, and the decision to just lay back and prepare to settle any future lawsuits. And THAT is why a jury decided on a huge punitive damage amount - to send a clear message that IT SHOULDN'T BE CHEAPER TO KILL PEOPLE THAN IT IS TO SAVE THEM.

That's also one of the greatest arguments AGAINST tort reform and liability caps. When it becomes much cheaper to let people die, corporations will ALWAYS choose to let people die. In fact, they will have a fiscal responsibility to do just that, and could be held liable by their shareholders if they don't do so.

Oh, and Wulfie? You're welcome for the Luna vid. ;)

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 2:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
DT: First off, sorry for your sister.

Now. Several things need to happen.

1. Proof must be obtained that these companies are dumping chemicals into the water supply.

2. The toxicity of these chemicals must be verified.

3. An injuction must be obtained to prevent them from continuing to dump into the water.

4. Charges must be filed.

Now the best way to go about this is to hire a lawyer. Get the EPA involved. (Which is one of the agencies I would have kept around)

If it is proven that these companies did knowingly do this, then they would face automatic disolution. The profits made from this would be given to the victims.

If it can be proven that the heads of the company knew what was going on, then their entire estate would be forfit to the victims as well.

Further, the heads of the company would face criminal homicide charges.

AND, heres the kicker... they would not be allowed to use high-priced lawyer teams. As their entire estates had been forfeit.

One big problem with this approach: You forfeit their estates BEFORE any trial? Isn't that finding them guilty and then going ahead with the trial afterwards? I had supposed we were alleged to have a system of laws and a presumption of innocence in this country (quaint notions, surely outdated, I'll admit)...

Quote:
Thats how I would try to have things done.

However, as the President does not really have all the powers described, I would make sure that EPA was provided with the tools it needed to be able to go after companies like this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously like you're in favor of EXPANDING the power of the federal government. I thought you were against that, in all instances. Am I mistaken?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:41 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"One big problem with this approach: You forfeit their estates BEFORE any trial? Isn't that finding them guilty and then going ahead with the trial afterwards? I had supposed we were alleged to have a system of laws and a presumption of innocence in this country (quaint notions, surely outdated, I'll admit)..."

I meant AFTER the company was found guilty and in the civil trial against the CEO, COO etc. Does that make sense?

You have to take on the company first, then go after the individual heads.

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously like you're in favor of EXPANDING the power of the federal government. I thought you were against that, in all instances. Am I mistaken?"

Ok, yes, you are wrong. The EPA actually already has these powers. They are just rarely used.

But the whole point is, its not something that the President can make happen. The structures are in place for people to use to take care of this.

Too many people think that the President can wave a majic wand and do whatever he (or they) want. Not so. This is a good thing btw...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:31 AM

Mike

I actually initially used the Pinto, but then I changed my mind because I wasn't certain that Ford knew about the flaw.

Thanks for the tip.

On Tort Reform, I have to say that during the serial tragedy of the past couple of months, on the way to the emergency room, my mom's car was sideswiped by some ditz. She was completely uninjured, and out and about, but later, clearly from going home, let's be realistic here: talking to her husband, because this is the sort of trick men come up with, in my experience, and then her lawyer, and they love this, decided that she had some undetectable critical injury from the crash.

This was, of course, not possible, since when she swerved around the ambulance she hadn't seen, and swiped fender, her car was neither shaken nor slowed down. But under litigious society, she could sue for millions, if she wanted.

As a result of the tort reform of 2005, the insurance company had to tell her that insurance fraud now falls under larceny, which means that if she's making it up, she can get five years in prison. So, she withdrew her claim, because, of course, she was making it up.

So, it's not all bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"One big problem with this approach: You forfeit their estates BEFORE any trial? Isn't that finding them guilty and then going ahead with the trial afterwards? I had supposed we were alleged to have a system of laws and a presumption of innocence in this country (quaint notions, surely outdated, I'll admit)..."

I meant AFTER the company was found guilty and in the civil trial against the CEO, COO etc. Does that make sense?

You have to take on the company first, then go after the individual heads.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for actually responding in a thoughtful manner!

Here's one issue I see with this approach (mind you, I'm not discounting the idea, just pointing out thorns and brambles): You would need to basically freeze the accounts of all of the officers of the corporation - their PERSONAL accounts - for any possible nefarious deeds they MAY HAVE (not convicted yet, remember, at least not on a personal level) committed on behalf of the company.

I don't know for sure, but if I had to hazard a guess, I'd suppose that you are NOT in favor of having the big bad gubmint be able to elbow its way into your personal life and seize all of your personal belongings and wealth on the mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

Quote:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds suspiciously like you're in favor of EXPANDING the power of the federal government. I thought you were against that, in all instances. Am I mistaken?"

Ok, yes, you are wrong. The EPA actually already has these powers. They are just rarely used.

Keep going. Carry on that line of thinking. *WHY* are such powers rarely used? (Think "choking off funding").

You're right, of course - those powers ARE allegedly under the purview of the EPA, but are rarely if ever used. Often, what happens is (1) other priorities get moved forward - mine safety rather than offshore oil well safety, for instance (depending on the most recent disaster in the headlines, of course), or (2) one administration or another decides to make such issues a priority, or decides to make them very much NOT a priority. See, if the EPA has the titular *power* and *authority* to regulate such things, and to enforce those regulations, but the administration or the Congress has seen fit to strangle their regulatory enforcement budget, then they have the power, but not the *ABILITY*. It's kind of like having a speeding law on the books, but no cops to enforce it or write tickets; it becomes a speeding free-for-all, with drivers deciding for themselves what "safe" means, and some possibly making the wrong decision.

Do you follow? See what I mean?

Quote:

But the whole point is, its not something that the President can make happen. The structures are in place for people to use to take care of this.

Too many people think that the President can wave a majic wand and do whatever he (or they) want. Not so. This is a good thing btw...

On this we are very much in agreement. However, the President CAN "make it happen" inasmuch as he has the "bully pulpit". He can bring attention to the issue, he can sermonize on it from the Oval Office or the lectern in the Press Office, and you can best bet he'll be listened to. Also, he can make it a priority of his administration (and therefore of his party in Congress) to do such a thing. So in a way, he CAN "wave his hand" and have a very real effect. He can't pass a law all by the waving of his hand, but he can PROPOSE legislation, and lobby for it, and sign it once it's presented to him, which is his job.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 9:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"You would need to basically freeze the accounts of all of the officers of the corporation - their PERSONAL accounts - for any possible nefarious deeds they MAY HAVE (not convicted yet, remember, at least not on a personal level) committed on behalf of the company."

I was thinking of Enron. They, and their families, walked off with the profits. The workers were left to twist. That is not right.

See I believe that if America is to "work", the PEOPLE have to be involved. You can't just sit around waiting, or hoping, that some government buerocrat will "fix" things.

If you see something wrong, YOU have to do something about it.

The price for living in a free society is that each of us has an obligation to correct the wrongs we see.

Freedom requires WORK. Not just money, but actual work by the people.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"You would need to basically freeze the accounts of all of the officers of the corporation - their PERSONAL accounts - for any possible nefarious deeds they MAY HAVE (not convicted yet, remember, at least not on a personal level) committed on behalf of the company."

I was thinking of Enron. They, and their families, walked off with the profits. The workers were left to twist. That is not right.

See I believe that if America is to "work", the PEOPLE have to be involved. You can't just sit around waiting, or hoping, that some government buerocrat will "fix" things.

If you see something wrong, YOU have to do something about it.

The price for living in a free society is that each of us has an obligation to correct the wrongs we see.

Freedom requires WORK. Not just money, but actual work by the people.

Again, I'm with ya, but the devil is in the details.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 19, 2011 6:28 PM

These are the moments I savor on this forum. We have actually reached a reasonable semblance of common ground.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah the devil is in the details. But if you set it up right, things fall into place.

So, we've covered that I would keep the EPA around. And they would have the resources that they needed to stop the kind of things that DT talked about. Plus, they would help wildlife management.

The common defense would be provided for.

The Amendments of the Constitution would be honored. As well as the entire Constitution. I really like the idea of stating for any bill where you get the authority to enact it.

*Btw, the Patriot Act would be gone. Domestic surveilance would be done. (Did you know the Pat. Act was set to expire this month?) No red light or speeding cameras. No "shot locators".

If need be, I would cite unreasonable search and seizure. And one of my main goals would be to add an amendment guranteeing a right to privacy. From both government and private institutions. So hey, no more spam. Im working on that one and how it could be implimented.

People would be armed, and able to defend themselves without fear of criminal or civil penalties.

Income taxes would be set at 10%, 5 to local 5 to federal.

Small business would be all but exempt from taxes, in order to encourage growth and innovation.

If I could get all that done in the first 4 years without being shot, Id be doing good.

Now, lets say I do. AND even get reelected.

What are some more issues you would like to see Prez Wulf handle?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:04 AM

Hmm. Well, you've covered the potential for taxes being used for infrastructure, for enforcement of property rights over pollution concerns (and criminal charges for polluters that resulted in illness or death), and for the maintenance of a much smaller military (militia?) provided for only the common defense and invasive threats. Also an idea to return asset borrowing and credit back to sane levels.

What about... Contractors? We must assume at some point a job will need doing that requires people with specialized training and skills.

Lets go back to DT's example of polluted groundwater. You've got the polluters to stop, but there's still a hell of a mess that could endanger people. EPA does have technical skill cleaning up stuff, but the actual clean up work tends to come from tax payer money.

Do you 1) use money that the polluters were originally fined for to pay for clean-up, assuming they don't offer up a pittance or the pittance isn't enough (like BP did for the Gulf)? 2) Continue paying with tax dollars? 3) Interest new businesses in cleaning up and developing the land to turnover an investment, with oversight to check that cleanup AND the development don't cut corners, get the contamination, and will be safe?

Those are the three ways I can think of currently that environmental clean up happens. 1) is rare because it's usually hard to make a responsible business pay out all the damages, but maybe under your system it might happen. 3) also happens and can be useful for small, minorly impacted sites, but you have to bring in some really big business to tackle badly impacted sites. The third option could be useful to supplement the first option. 2) is kinda lame in general because it's like punishing people for the polluters mistakes.

Also, Research and Quality Control? I imagine lots of people would like to see research go back to the exclusive domain of private business, but one problem with that is bias. For example, Cigarette companies and their studies showing that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, or pharmaceutical companies playing loose with their risk assessment, or basically anyone who intentionally pushes an unsafe product out to market, with the idea that fixing the problem or scrapping the product would more expensive than settling for damages in court.

Also, what is your opinion on education reform?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:17 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well I would be in favor of using 1 and 3. I don't like the idea of having the people have to pay for a mess that the company created.

However, it would have to be well monitored so that the costs of the cleanup are not overblown, but not a pittance either.

Reasearch and Quality Control. We have to seperate the pharmacuetical companies from the doctors. Independent QC/QA would need to happen, and severe penalties for "cooking" the books in favor of a new drug.

Docs get a percentage of the drug money, and that has to stop.

Ed Reform, starts at home. In the states. Michelle Rhee would be my Sec of Education, no doubt. I would also suggesst that each state takes Christies example, and break the backs of the unions.

Yes, unions are important and serve a purpose, but in this case they just serve to keep bad teachers around.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 20, 2011 2:00 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Sometimes I think what is wrong with us is that we lack passion. This is our home. This is our future.

Its time we took back control.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:05 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Byte, Ive seen you around...

Speak up.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:23 PM

It sounds fair. Michelle Rhee would be a good choice, as her initiatives to recruit new teachers would counterbalance the inevitable losses losing teachers unions would cause.

I heard Detroit had an interesting program going at one time in that they were having trouble hiring classically trained teachers, and instead brought in local vocational workers. Apparently it worked pretty well. Maybe that's another way to boost up teachers while at the same time sending a message to kids that hey, what these guys are teaching you IS actually stuff they use in their jobs. It'll make it seem more real to some kids maybe, that it has applications and is and less straight academic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 12:51 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So, have I asnsered your questions?

Do I have your vote? lol

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 21, 2011 1:43 PM