"if I wanted America To fail"

[Sooner5030]

Paul Harvey rip off but these folks/groups are getting better every year at production quality. Likely, parts of it may be inaccurate but at least it balances out the other side's inaccuracies. I have never heard of freemarketamerica.org. Probably something like crossroads......without all the funding. I give it a B+ for stoking emotions and some cleverness.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CZ-4gnNz0vc

[Midtowner]

Is this a parody of 'pub doublespeak?

[Chuck Bao]

That has to be one of the most stupid videos that I've ever seen. Okay, it isn't as bad as Jackass videos, but nearly.

I could add a few more points to the video to help balance it out. If I wanted America to fail...

I'd continue to allow unregulated hedge funds to use hardworking Americans' savings to bet against America and the American dollar.

I'd not take a stand on re-separating banks and investment banks (or re-installing the Glass-Steagall Act).

I'd not punish a major military contractor from moving its HQ to the Middle East.

I'd continue to coddle China even though it owns most of our national debt, manipulates world community prices and has a tremendous chip on its shoulder militarily and threatens our allies in the Asia Pacific area.

I'd look the other way as the free market is not really a free market as long as it is manipulated and perpetuated by our tremendously right-wing leaning media who after all have to be compliant to their corporate ad sponsors.

I'd try my best to distract people from the economic issues and keep the mantra that baby children are being murdered and the homosexuals are having sex.

[Sooner5030]

Chuck,

I think they are targeting the EPA and environmental folks. At least that's what I gather from watching some of the other videos.

And I don't find it any more stupid than the average political commercial......in fact I think it is better than most.

[Chuck Bao]

Boa

I think they are targeting the EPA and environmental folks. At least that's what I gather from watching some of the other videos.

And I don't find it any more stupid than the average political commercial......in fact I think it is better than most.

Dude...maybe the oil companies sponsoring the vid were over-reaching with the "if I wanted America to fail..." bit. It's complicated and there are just too many other problems. I wish we could go back 30 years.

[olevetonahill]

Dude...maybe the oil companies sponsoring the vid were over-reaching with the "if I wanted America to fail..." bit. It's complicated and there are just too many other problems. I wish we could go back 30 years.
Hell Bro, I wish we could go back over 200 years and when they write the constitution up be pretty dayum explicit on it

[LiveLaughLove]

...I'd be a liberal.

Good video, true. I notice just more deflection (as is usual on this board).

Don't tell me what to do with my body (as if anyone actually does), but let's tell those evil private corporations where they can and can't reside!

That's the ticket.

[Chuck Bao]

Hell Bro, I wish we could go back over 200 years and when they write the constitution up be pretty dayum explicit on it

Explicit on what exactly? I don't follow ya there.

[olevetonahill]

Explicit on what exactly? I don't follow ya there.
Separation of Church and state fer example.

[Chuck Bao]

...I'd be a liberal.

Good video, true. I notice just more deflection (as is usual on this board).

Don't tell me what to do with my body (as if anyone actually does), but let's tell those evil private corporations where they can and can't reside!

That's the ticket.

Ahem...there can be no deflection on a vid entitled "If I wanted America to fail..." It was way out of line and reason.

[Chuck Bao]

Separation of Church and state fer example.

Good point. We seem to be getting awfully confused about it now.

[diverdog]

...I'd be a liberal.

Good video, true. I notice just more deflection (as is usual on this board).

Don't tell me what to do with my body (as if anyone actually does), but let's tell those evil private corporations where they can and can't reside!

That's the ticket.

So I take it you were not around when rivers caught on fire in Ohio?

[LiveLaughLove]

So I take it you were not around when rivers caught on fire in Ohio?

Yeah actually I do. What's your point? That it takes government control to take care of that?

You don't think an outraged citizenry that quits buying their products would have had no effect on cleaning that up?

I guess only the government for some. Not for me.

BTW, that had absolutely zero to do with telling a corporation where they can and cannot reside.

If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff.

[Midtowner]

Yeah actually I do. What's your point? That it takes government control to take care of that?

You don't think an outraged citizenry that quits buying their products would have had no effect on cleaning that up?

When it's an obscure chemical company which does something like make lubricant for widgets, how the hell is the public going to be able to make that choice in the marketplace? And why would a consumer in Florida care what some plant was doing to the Cuyahoga River so long as said consumer was satisfied with the price and quality of their purchase?

The vast majority of manufacturers do not create the product which shows up on the shelves at Wal Mart. There are many suppliers which go into those products. Do you really expect consumers to be that informed? Who made the batteries in your TV remote and what are those batteries' impact on the environment near the place they were manufactured? Clueless? There ya go.

Only the government can really step in from a regulatory standpoint and get bad actors to behave.


If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff.

Riiiight... I'll just decide not to buy products which were produced or partially produced by Halliburton. I can't tell whether the gasoline coming out of the pump was produced by a well which Halliburton had a hand in getting going. Do you have any clue how silly your free market concept is? Maybe in the 19th century that'd work, but sure as hell not today.

[diverdog]

Yeah actually I do. What's your point? That it takes government control to take care of that?

You don't think an outraged citizenry that quits buying their products would have had no effect on cleaning that up?

I guess only the government for some. Not for me.

BTW, that had absolutely zero to do with telling a corporation where they can and cannot reside.

If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff.

Yes it does. You don't put a garbage incenerator next to a school.

[LiveLaughLove]

A few Ralph Nader types would be able to let the country know who is doing what and by how many degrees. Not very hard, especially today. You simply boycott any products used with their stuff and voila, no more problem.

As for the garbage incinerator that's what local municipal governments are for. I was under the illusion we were talking federal government here. Nice sleight of hand but it doesn't work.

I don't mind local municipalities having regulations. Hence, another reason why the federal government is always ALWAYS overreaching and mostly unnecessary.

Keep trying to justify though.

[Midtowner]

A few Ralph Nader types would be able to let the country know who is doing what and by how many degrees. Not very hard, especially today. You simply boycott any products used with their stuff and voila, no more problem.

Back to my hypothetical. How do I avoid purchasing Halliburton-produced gasoline?


As for the garbage incinerator that's what local municipal governments are for. I was under the illusion we were talking federal government here. Nice sleight of hand but it doesn't work.

I don't mind local municipalities having regulations. Hence, another reason why the federal government is always ALWAYS overreaching and mostly unnecessary.

Keep trying to justify though.

Municipalities don't have the resources or expertise to properly supervise polluters. Also, many polluters locate themselves outside of municipalities as to be outside their jurisdiction (but still rain down pollutants upon said communities).

You're speaking from a position of extreme ignorance here. Just stop.

[East Coast Bias]

It has been reported that China is a good model for what a lack of government regulation looks like in the modern industrial world. The safety and environmental record is a tragedy.....

[Turd_Ferguson]

It has been reported that China is a good model for what a lack of government regulation looks like in the modern industrial world. The safety and environmental record is a tragedy.....Ya know, I'm not look'n for an ST novel, but could you at least expound on just exactly what the **** you're trying to say?

[cleller]

We're probably the most advanced because we have the balance between the super-charged capatilists that back this video, and the whiny greenies Obama worries about.

So far it has worked out. Go to far greenie, and we'll be the UK. To far the other way, I'm not sure.

[yermom]

Ya know, I'm not look'n for an ST novel, but could you at least expound on just exactly what the **** you're trying to say?

you've missed the amazing quality of Chinese products over the last few years?

[Sooner5030]

We're probably the most advanced because we have the balance between the super-charged capatilists that back this video, and the whiny greenies Obama worries about.

So far it has worked out. Go to far greenie, and we'll be the UK. To far the other way, I'm not sure.

^^ this. Most of us want balance....if we could only provide a metric for "balance". Nobody wants poison in our waterways but we also don't want families to lose their homes because they built on some later protected watershed or because some f-stick claims a beetle is in trouble. IMO the EPA is too powerful and needs to have some restrictions so that it cannot be rulemaker, enforcer, judge, and jury by itself.

[diverdog]

A few Ralph Nader types would be able to let the country know who is doing what and by how many degrees. Not very hard, especially today. You simply boycott any products used with their stuff and voila, no more problem.

As for the garbage incinerator that's what local municipal governments are for. I was under the illusion we were talking federal government here. Nice sleight of hand but it doesn't work.

I don't mind local municipalities having regulations. Hence, another reason why the federal government is always ALWAYS overreaching and mostly unnecessary.

Keep trying to justify though.

If you think polluters can be stopped without government enforcement then you are niave.

[diverdog]

We're probably the most advanced because we have the balance between the super-charged capatilists that back this video, and the whiny greenies Obama worries about.

So far it has worked out. Go to far greenie, and we'll be the UK. To far the other way, I'm not sure.

The UK has destroyed much of its environment. What you see today is a lot of highly manapulated landscapes. They are not a role model.

[Midtowner]

^^ this. Most of us want balance....if we could only provide a metric for "balance". Nobody wants poison in our waterways but we also don't want families to lose their homes because they built on some later protected watershed or because some f-stick claims a beetle is in trouble. IMO the EPA is too powerful and needs to have some restrictions so that it cannot be rulemaker, enforcer, judge, and jury by itself.

The Endangered Species Act is a very important piece of legislation. Sure, it sometimes keeps folks from doing what they do, but that's what it's supposed to do. Keeping an entire species from going extinct is more important than someone living wherever they want to.

As far as the EPA being an administrative agency, it does precisely what Congress wanted it to do--and remember, it was created by an extremely conservative Richard Nixon. The EPA is more scientifically focused than Congress, it's more in touch with industries than Congress (in a way which recognizes bull**** claims made by lobbyists as being bull****). The rulemaking process does seek and consider outside input. Minimizing politics and lobbyist input and maximizing rules preserving the EPA's role is best for this country.

[pphilfran]

The Endangered Species Act is a very important piece of legislation. Sure, it sometimes keeps folks from doing what they do, but that's what it's supposed to do. Keeping an entire species from going extinct is more important than someone living wherever they want to.

As far as the EPA being an administrative agency, it does precisely what Congress wanted it to do--and remember, it was created by an extremely conservative Richard Nixon. The EPA is more scientifically focused than Congress, it's more in touch with industries than Congress (in a way which recognizes bull**** claims made by lobbyists as being bull****). The rulemaking process does seek and consider outside input. Minimizing politics and lobbyist input and maximizing rules preserving the EPA's role is best for this country.

I agree...

[yermom]

companies look at the bottom line too often. it's like "the formula" in Fight Club

"well, some people might die, or some endangered grass might be damaged, but we can just pay some lawsuits since it will cost us less money"

[East Coast Bias]

Ya know, I'm not look'n for an ST novel, but could you at least expound on just exactly what the **** you're trying to say?
The implication is that China represents what happens when the government steps aside and lets the corporations make their own rules. The Apple factories are part of this but if you want the whole story from mining and child labor to the effect on the global environment you can get the short version by googling "China Industrial tragedy". I am sure ST could make a half-page out of it.

[Sooner5030]

I don't need to stick up for large companies.....they have the resources to fight the EPA. I feel for families that get ran over by the EPA and its threat of $37,500 fine per day. No reasonable prudent person should think that is proper for a couple building a house. Luckily this family took it to SCOTUS and won this last march. The fact that EPA has no restraint to operate in a reasonable manner scares the shiat out of me.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pe8TBXgwpnw

http://news.yahoo.com/top-court-backs-landowners-epa-clean-water-case-152308565.html


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners may bring a civil lawsuit challenging a federal government order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and sharply curtails a key Environmental Protection Agency power.

The justices unanimously rejected the U.S. government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.

The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.

The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.

Their appeal drew support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Association of Home Builders and General Electric Co, a company that had made a similar challenge to the EPA compliance orders.

The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when the EPA has faced fierce criticism from many Republicans in Congress who say it has issued the most ambitious clean air regulations in decades and has become heavy-handed in enforcement actions.Scalia concluded the Sacketts may bring a civil lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act to challenge the EPA's order.

He said that since the EPA's decision was final and the couple faced potential large fines, they had no other adequate remedy but to bring a civil lawsuit.

Reading his decision from the bench, Scalia said that the Clean Water Act does not prevent judicial review of such orders.

Under the law, violations of the Clean Water Act can result in fines of up to $37,500 per day, plus as much as an additional $37,500 per day for violating the EPA compliance order.

The EPA issues nearly 3,000 compliance orders a year that require accused violators of environmental laws to stop alleged harmful actions and repair any damage that was caused.

The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that a compliance order was not subject to judicial review until later when the EPA has brought an enforcement action and seeks to have a judge rule in its favor.DAY IN COURT'

The court did not reach the broader question of whether the EPA's order violated the constitutional right of due process. It only held that the federal Administrative Procedures Act, which provides certain rules for federal regulatory agencies, applied.

Scalia said that the Sacketts would not get an adequate remedy if they had to apply to the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit and then file suit if that permit is denied.

Government attorneys had defended the compliance orders as a quick way to stop environmental damage and argued that allowing accused polluters to get a court hearing would tie the EPA up in lengthy litigation.

An attorney for the Sacketts argued that they should not have to wait for years for judicial review until the EPA decides to go to court and said the compliance order was coercive, requiring action to avoid potentially huge fines.

Damien Schiff, the attorney for the couple, hailed the ruling. "EPA is not above the law," he said.

"That's the bottom line with today's ruling. This is a great day for Mike and Chantell Sackett, because it confirms that EPA can't deny them access to justice. EPA can't repeal the Sacketts' fundamental right to their day in court," he said.

[SCOUT]

The implication is that China represents what happens when the government steps aside and lets the corporations make their own rules. The Apple factories are part of this but if you want the whole story from mining and child labor to the effect on the global environment you can get the short version by googling "China Industrial tragedy". I am sure ST could make a half-page out of it.
I have very little information on the subject of China's involvement with corporations so I will try to check out "China Industrial Tragedy." But, are you saying that China has a poor environment because the Chinese government isn't involved enough? That seems counter-intuitive.

[yermom]

this thread is the #1 result i got when googling that :D

[soonercruiser]

Is this a parody of 'pub doublespeak?

Just the response I'd expect from the "Left".

"Choice", and the environment are the left's "double speak" and religion.
Actually, the video is the "Church of What's Happenin' Now" with the Obama Kingdom!

[soonercruiser]

you've missed the amazing quality of Chinese products over the last few years?

Three sets of Chinese replacement springs for our high-end Kitchen Aid oven - we've given up and let it sag like Bob Beckles's belly!