Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Just because they say they're not "against the environment" doesn't mean they're exactly pro-conservation. actually "we" (the racist bigoted clinger gun nut hunter brigade of the conservative party) are very pro conservation. we are just also against the idea the gubberment is the solution to the problem... or any other problem for that matter....
[+]
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » I still find it funny that most of those with the political belief that destroying the environment is okay Speaking on a nationwide, party-line level. I could say that all liberals are anti-success and wishes to keep everyone down to their level. Nobody who's a conservative is anti-environment, we just believe that there is a better way of achieving that without forcing it down everyone's throats. You're not saying you're "anti-environment", but at least on a national level, Republican politicians are endorsing policies and corporations that essentially are. Just because they say they're not "against the environment" doesn't mean they're exactly pro-conservation. I know this because the area I used to live when I was a child has multiple plants that, in the early 50s, produced a lot of smoke and ash and other harmful contaminants in the air. As technology improved, so did their environmental controls (all of them). They all did this voluntarily, and not by force. My father works at one of these plants, a steel mill in South Texas. EPA has issued 7 lawsuits against this mill and several others all over the nation (consolidated lawsuits) for abiding their own rules in the last 6 years. They were abiding their own rules before they became regulations in the first place and that doesn't stop EPA from issuing said lawsuits. I don't have an issue with environmental regulations, I have a problem with EPA's overreach and vendetta against manufacturing and service businesses in the USA. Shiva.Nikolce said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Just because they say they're not "against the environment" doesn't mean they're exactly pro-conservation. actually "we" (the racist bigoted clinger gun nut hunter brigade of the conservative party) are very pro conservation. we are just also against the idea the gubberment is the solution to the problem... or any other problem for that matter.... Mmmmhmmm. My trust of privated businesses protecting anything other than their own monetary assetts is absolutely nil. Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Also, if "climate change" is COMPLETE CRAP. Why do you feel the need to burden everyone with less jobs and more expensive power? Why, exactly, can't green they find work in green technologies? I still can't wrap my head around why apparently a bio-reactor or nuclear power plant requires less workers than a coal plant, for example. Modernized ANYTHING takes less people to run. Let's live in the stone age where it took 12 people to kill a mammoth, that's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Less people means less errors, and would you want a lot of people working in a business where an error can lead to a civilization being wiped off the earth? I'd want as many QUALIFIED people as necessary. But why are "jobs" always given as an excuse for refusing to move into the 21st century with infrastructure, then? But who's giving excuses for jobs to refuse to upgrade infrastructure? Can you provide an example please? Your perceived vendetta*
Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Shiva.Nikolce said: » Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Just because they say they're not "against the environment" doesn't mean they're exactly pro-conservation. actually "we" (the racist bigoted clinger gun nut hunter brigade of the conservative party) are very pro conservation. we are just also against the idea the gubberment is the solution to the problem... or any other problem for that matter.... Mmmmhmmm. My trust of privated businesses protecting anything other than their own monetary assetts is absolutely nil. Now, I won't say that all businesses do this, but most do. I really hate the EPA, but corporations and businesses can only ever be counted on for one thing: Make the most money with the least amount of effort.
Regulations exist (in theory) to make it more expensive to be an asswipe. And while the EPA is an obtuse wreck, the idea that the U.S. could maintain it's natural resources and heritage without some degree of environmental regulations is absurd. Not that you were saying otherwise... Just that the EPA is a bag of ten-thousand ***. Look how long it took to start taking Lead out of consumer products. It's weird that such an obvious environmental and health calamity could persist for thirty or so years, fighting to the bitter end, while in other places in the U.S. species protection acts for "Regionally threatened" animals (Region in this case being less than 1acre) can impede development with the most ardent prejudice.
[+]
Odin.Zicdeh said: » I really hate the EPA, but corporations and businesses can only ever be counted on for one thing: Make the most money with the least amount of effort. Regulations exist (in theory) to make it more expensive to be an asswipe. And while the EPA is an obtuse wreck, the idea that the U.S. could maintain it's natural resources and heritage without some degree of environmental regulations is absurd. Not that you were saying otherwise... Just that the EPA is a bag of ten-thousand ***. Look how long it took to start taking Lead out of consumer products. It's weird that such an obvious environmental and health calamity could persist for thirty or so years, fighting to the bitter end, while in other places in the U.S. species protection acts for "Regionally threatened" animals (Region in this case being less than 1acre) can impede development with the most ardent prejudice. Yeah. Don't take my feelings as an endorsement of the EPA. They're terrible at their jobs. I just don't trust corporations further than their bottom line entices them.
[+]
Like KN said, some entities are capable of seeing long-term sustainability as the proper course both in human and financial terms. But that kind of model isn't something aggressive venture-capitalists like who thrive on a more volatile market.
The EPA is necessary evil.
Otherwise we get manufacturing companies making a bunch of money by switching to dumping runoff into our water supplies then stonewalling the legal system for decades until everyone affected dies.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The EPA is necessary evil. Otherwise we get manufacturing companies making a bunch of money by switching to dumping runoff into our water supplies then stonewalling the legal system for decades until everyone affected dies. I disagree, and the ones you do hear about come from California, where their business practices are questionable at best. It's merely one example. Without regulations (and regulatory bodies) companies trend towards whatever makes the most profit with the least amount of effort. That generally means shortcuts and abusing the profits to prop up their bad habits.
Companies that do attempt to abide by some moral standards (or at least sustainability) are then put at a disadvantage - at least in the short run. Often the most 'green' or 'sustainable' products are either a subcategory of a larger entity or a niche business that can afford to fly under the radar. Same thing goes for other regulatory bodies like the FDA. It's all necessary evil. They're inefficient, bloated and slow as *** (bureaucracy at its finest) but ultimately a wall between us being skullfucked by corporations.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » but ultimately a wall between us being skullfucked by corporations. Unless you appoint chief lobbyists in chairman positions of those government bodies. 
[+]
Odin.Zicdeh said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » but ultimately a wall between us being skullfucked by corporations. Unless you appoint chief lobbyists in chairman positions of those government bodies. FDA's kinda guilty here too. They've passed (or passed and then reversed under pressure) some pretty severely stupid rules regarding beer and cheese productive, respectively, that really seem to benefit no one but big corporations looking to keep down competition from smaller groups. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The EPA is necessary evil. Otherwise we get manufacturing companies making a bunch of money by switching to dumping runoff into our water supplies then stonewalling the legal system for decades until everyone affected dies. I disagree, and the ones you do hear about come from California, where their business practices are questionable at best. Before it was illegal, it was standard operating procedure.
[+]
A symptom of the US public no longer having a government. Neo-Feudalism, here we come.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » A symptom of the US public no longer having a government. Neo-Feudalism, here we come. House of Cards turns into Game of Thrones. Cute.
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Also, if "climate change" is COMPLETE CRAP. Why do you feel the need to burden everyone with less jobs and more expensive power? Why, exactly, can't green they find work in green technologies? I still can't wrap my head around why apparently a bio-reactor or nuclear power plant requires less workers than a coal plant, for example. Modernized ANYTHING takes less people to run. Let's live in the stone age where it took 12 people to kill a mammoth, that's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Less people means less errors, and would you want a lot of people working in a business where an error can lead to a civilization being wiped off the earth? I'd want as many QUALIFIED people as necessary. But why are "jobs" always given as an excuse for refusing to move into the 21st century with infrastructure, then? But who's giving excuses for jobs to refuse to upgrade infrastructure? Can you provide an example please? What other reason is there to be against increasing regulation on outdated technologies. The purpose of making coal unprofitable is to give companies a reason to move into the present. The excuse is that it will cause people to lose their jobs. Jobs > progress apparently. Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Also, if "climate change" is COMPLETE CRAP. Why do you feel the need to burden everyone with less jobs and more expensive power? Why, exactly, can't green they find work in green technologies? I still can't wrap my head around why apparently a bio-reactor or nuclear power plant requires less workers than a coal plant, for example. Modernized ANYTHING takes less people to run. Let's live in the stone age where it took 12 people to kill a mammoth, that's HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Less people means less errors, and would you want a lot of people working in a business where an error can lead to a civilization being wiped off the earth? I'd want as many QUALIFIED people as necessary. But why are "jobs" always given as an excuse for refusing to move into the 21st century with infrastructure, then? But who's giving excuses for jobs to refuse to upgrade infrastructure? Can you provide an example please? What other reason is there to be against increasing regulation on outdated technologies. The purpose of making coal unprofitable is to give companies a reason to move into the present. The excuse is that it will cause people to lose their jobs. Jobs > progress apparently. This happens in Pennsylvania constantly. Coal companies pay for campaigns for politicians who back them by painting cleaner energy sources as "taking vital jobs from the community". Forget that your child will grow up in some of the worst air quality around. We compete with California for a category...yay? The problem is you are stuck on the idea that somehow politicians can write the perfect law that will fix the everything. despite 238 consecutive years of evidence to the contrary. just look at the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, it was supposed to help children trapped in illegal sex trade...
oops.
[+]
Shiva.Nikolce said: » The problem is you are stuck on the idea that somehow politicians can write the perfect law that will fix the everything. despite 238 consecutive years of evidence to the contrary. just look at the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, it was supposed to help children trapped in illegal sex trade... oops. So...we should just let everyone do whatever they want, however they want, regardless of consequence? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » It's merely one example. Without regulations (and regulatory bodies) companies trend towards whatever makes the most profit with the least amount of effort. That generally means shortcuts and abusing the profits to prop up their bad habits. Again, you are assuming that most companies take said shortcuts and/or abuse anything or even have bad habits. Have you actually studied the structure or even a business model at all? Quote: Companies that do attempt to abide by some moral standards (or at least sustainability) are then put at a disadvantage - at least in the short run. Often the most 'green' or 'sustainable' products are either a subcategory of a larger entity or a niche business that can afford to fly under the radar. You are referring to the majority of businesses. How again are they disadvantaged if 99+% of other businesses follow the same guidelines? Quote: Same thing goes for other regulatory bodies like the FDA. It's all necessary evil. They're inefficient, bloated and slow as *** (bureaucracy at its finest) but ultimately a wall between us being skullfucked by corporations. You honestly think that businesses are out to get you. This is not a question but a statement, because of your irrational fear of being, as you so put it, skullfucked by said businesses. Yes, there has been bad businesses in the past. Yes, there are still some bad businesses in existence now. To take those handful of businesses and apply it to everyone because you fear them just shows how illogical you are. But let me ask you this: You work, right? If your irrational fears are true, then you are part of the problem because you work for a business. Even if you are working for yourself, you are still part of the problem because your work is a business. Are you part of the problem, or do you concede that you are exaggerating your own fears? Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The EPA is necessary evil. Otherwise we get manufacturing companies making a bunch of money by switching to dumping runoff into our water supplies then stonewalling the legal system for decades until everyone affected dies. I disagree, and the ones you do hear about come from California, where their business practices are questionable at best. Before it was illegal, it was standard operating procedure. Odin.Jassik said: » What other reason is there to be against increasing regulation on outdated technologies. The purpose of making coal unprofitable is to give companies a reason to move into the present. The excuse is that it will cause people to lose their jobs. Jobs > progress apparently. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » The EPA is necessary evil. Otherwise we get manufacturing companies making a bunch of money by switching to dumping runoff into our water supplies then stonewalling the legal system for decades until everyone affected dies. I disagree, and the ones you do hear about come from California, where their business practices are questionable at best. Before it was illegal, it was standard operating procedure. Actually, people engaging in dumping pollutants into potable water can be charged criminally. Willfully disregarding EPA regulations is a violation of the Environmental Protection Act, which can also carry criminal charges. You're wrong. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » What other reason is there to be against increasing regulation on outdated technologies. The purpose of making coal unprofitable is to give companies a reason to move into the present. The excuse is that it will cause people to lose their jobs. Jobs > progress apparently. It's the substance of the narrative, how exactly can you ask for proof of someone's ramblings? Quote: You honestly think that businesses are out to get you. And you honestly think they aren't. I really think you're giving too much credit to some of these giant corporations. They exist to make money. Some of them have even had whistleblowers and government inquiries expose policies meant to mislead the public about product dangers for the sake of money. And much like cockroaches, you've got to expect that for each one caught, there are multiple more out there flying under the radar. Large businesses care about profits and because they're so large they have the clout to do what they want with little regard for potential punishment. Companies won't do anything purely for the evulz but if there are methods to lower costs or increase their stake in the market they'll take it - often with little regard for the long-run consequences.
See: Banking. BoA admits to billions in fraud this week and what do they get? A fine they can have customers pay for. Ironic you talk about irrational fear of companies when you constantly trumpet the fear of the US gov't infringing on your rights. Tyranny is tyranny. Be it unscrupulous business practices or a fascist state. Better to have the two fight eachother. Given your rights or profit, business will choose profit every time. That's how capitalism works. You exploit others and shore up your defenses with money.
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Actually, people engaging in dumping pollutants into potable water can be charged criminally. Willfully disregarding EPA regulations is a violation of the Environmental Protection Act, which can also carry criminal charges. You're wrong. Odin.Jassik said: » It's the substance of the narrative, how exactly can you ask for proof of someone's ramblings? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Actually, people engaging in dumping pollutants into potable water can be charged criminally. Willfully disregarding EPA regulations is a violation of the Environmental Protection Act, which can also carry criminal charges. You're wrong. Odin.Jassik said: » It's the substance of the narrative, how exactly can you ask for proof of someone's ramblings? "Law", "policy", and "regulation" intertwine a bit. Congress writes laws that allow the EPA to enact and enforce regulations and policies. EPA doesn't create laws, they are authorized by laws to create regulations that are enforceable under the laws granting them their regulatory powers. From their own website: "Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations." Bismarck.Ramyrez said: » Quote: You honestly think that businesses are out to get you. And you honestly think they aren't. I really think you're giving too much credit to some of these giant corporations. They exist to make money. Some of them have even had whistleblowers and government inquiries expose policies meant to mislead the public about product dangers for the sake of money. And much like cockroaches, you've got to expect that for each one caught, there are multiple more out there flying under the radar.
[+]
|
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
