Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,464,288 times
Reputation: 27720

Advertisements

Neither federal nor state regulators/inspectors have been in that plant since 1991.
Government regulators are paper pushers.
They are reactionary, not preventative in nature.

After the chemical plant blast in W. Va in 1998 outraged Congress critters called for tougher regulations.

Maybe the question you should be asking is "When was the plant last inspected ?" and "Who signed off on that inspection ?"
We could have perfectly fine regulations on the books but if they aren't being followed it really doesn't pay to write more regulations that no one will follow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:44 PM
 
22,661 posts, read 24,589,306 times
Reputation: 20339
Every hear a Skankocrat admit that there is going to be risks living in a modern society???????


Skankocrats love the meme positing that Republidummies want no government, no regulations......such a load of BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 06:45 PM
 
46,949 posts, read 25,979,166 times
Reputation: 29441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
A regulation only prevents the DELIBERATE contamination of the water.
That is a stupid ting to say and you should feel bad for saying it. Some practices are more risky than other and industry won't necessarily follow the lower-risk practice, particularly if it's more costly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 08:00 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
No, he's saying that stronger regulation (not just at the national level) could have prevented this spill and/or mitigated the damage after the spill.
That would only be true if its currently legal, which of course its not..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 08:01 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
That is a stupid ting to say and you should feel bad for saying it. Some practices are more risky than other and industry won't necessarily follow the lower-risk practice, particularly if it's more costly.
Then government would be to blame for not enforcing their own rules.

Why should someone feel bad for posting the truth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2014, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,211 posts, read 19,516,181 times
Reputation: 21679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
Baloney. This was not done on purpose. That is why they are called "accidents". A regulation only prevents the DELIBERATE contamination of the water.
Oh my gosh, did you actually write that?

Conservative logic at its finest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,159,948 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by saxondale351 View Post
Ever heard a neocon say that regulation could have stopped this chemical spill or that contamination?
I don't know. Have the neocons on Obama's White House Staff made any comments?

Amused...

Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2014, 09:50 AM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,941,561 times
Reputation: 2385
I actually heard one nut say that EPA regulations caused the spill...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 10:16 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
No, he's saying that stronger regulation (not just at the national level) could have prevented this spill and/or mitigated the damage after the spill.
I'm pretty sure what took place is already illegal. To suggest making it even more illegal would stop it is stupid..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2014, 10:21 AM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,418,884 times
Reputation: 540
The problem isn't regulation itself the problem is the way the far right has consistently attacked regulation since the 1980s. They take all of the money from funding enforcement so you have a few OSHA inspectors covering hundreds of facilities.

The right's entire motto should be and effectively has been "government doesn't work and is incompetent, put us in power and we will prove it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:15 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top