Nuke plant leaking tritium into water supply.

[Tritonic]

Anything involving millions of people or significant for millions of people, from automobile transportation to construction workers, involves a non-zero statistical number of accidents over the decades.

For instance: 104000 occupational injury deaths amongst civilian workers 1980-1997, around six thousand fatalities a year for all American industries and occupations combined.

Though we try to minimize the number, expecting otherwise would be simply utterly naive for the real world.

The difference between the nuclear industry and other industries is that an accident which causes 0 deaths, like this minor incident, can get more news coverage than actual lethal accidents in other activities (such as a few people dying each year while coal mining even in America, although the modern industry has made fatalities relatively low, unlike the People's Republic of China, such that an American coal miner has a roughly comparable chance of just dying from a car accident).

Ranting against the companies which provide your electricity aside, their safety record is excellent, and this 0-fatality accident does nothing to change the overall picture. Part of that is due to regulations, but the regulations work.

What'd be deserving of scorn is the utter dishonesty in the original article, which can be seen to have very carefully included no useful figures like those within my prior post, trying to make everyone think this event was going to cause public radiation exposure other than a tiny fraction of a mrem/person at most, trivial next to natural radiation exposure, trying to make it seem like justification for the groups aiming to get the plant's license canceled (leading to dirtier, more expensive power sources instead).

[Alphawolf55]

That's incredibly stupid of an idea and against the constitution. It would make far more sense to mererly put a cap on what individuals and organizations can donate to a political cause.

Oh noes, I went there. I did indeed commit blasphemy against the Oh Holy Writ of Toilet Paper that is the US Constitution.

I assume you mean the First Amendment's Right to Petition.

First off Omegawolf, I was strictly referring to corporate lobbying, since that is the primary form of lobbying that takes place, and is the kind that most people refer to when they refer to lobbying and lobbying reform. Now maybe you believe corporations should have a voice in government affairs.

Well, how’s that worked out? That's right, badly! Corporate special interests with more money than the government (since its all imaginary anyway) can buy whatever legislation they want, while sinking the economy and destroying the environment; and then get a bailout because they're to important to the economy to be allowed to hurt, let alone fail. Meanwhile, John and Mary Q. Public have to suffer for it.

Corporations have consistently proven themselves to be driven by l"reed, and incapable of not abusing the power that comes from their wealth. Thus, they should have as little of an influence as possible in government affairs.

And as for the Oh Holy Writ of Toilet Paper, it’s simply a historical document. Its not one of the fucking sacred scrolls, not that it would matter if it was. Get the fuck over it!

Too bad you didn't say that corporate lobbying should be illegal.. All you said was "Lobbying should be illegal". That would include the simple act of going to your representative and informing him of your opinion. Also I love how you act like I'm somehow all for giant corporate donations when I specifically said it makes far more sense to cap donation, so that the playing field is heavily leveled.

And yes the Constitution does fucking matter. You want to know the difference between the Constitution and so called scared scrolls? Sacred scrolls only have power when you give it, the Constitution inherently does, it's the supreme law of the land. You can't just make things illegal if it's Constitutionally protected, now you could amend the 1st amendment to disallow lobbying (no matter how impossible that is due to how many actions fall under it) but that would be a dangerous precedent.


"Hey douchebag, point out where and how it's against the constitution. I wasn't aware that that giving bribes suitcases full of cash to the government was some form of protected right. "

Cute, I know it's beyond your limited thinking but lobbying isn't just giving out suitcases full of money, it's informing your representatives of your interest or the interest of your group, THAT is constitutionally protected. Also I said myself that we should limited contribution spending by corporations.

The

[Temujin]

Too bad you didn't say that corporate lobbying should be illegal.. All you said was "Lobbying should be illegal". That would include the simple act of going to your representative and informing him of your opinion. Also I love how you act like I'm somehow all for giant corporate donations when I specifically said it makes far more sense to cap donation, so that the playing field is heavily leveled.

Just like you jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about lobbying in general in a thread about corporate irresponsibility.

And yes the Constitution does fucking matter. You want to know the difference between the Constitution and so called scared scrolls? Sacred scrolls only have power when you give it, the Constitution inherently does, it's the supreme law of the land. You can't just make things illegal if it's Constitutionally protected, now you could amend the 1st amendment to disallow lobbying (no matter how impossible that is due to how many actions fall under it) but that would be a dangerous precedent.

Tell that to our last abomination of an ex-president and all of his corporate fuck buddies.

The

End!

[Alphawolf55]

No see in my statement, I outright said that I think we should cap spending, you didn't have anything in your statement that give confirmation on way or the other. No one here is a mind reader here. Even then your ideas of curtailing corporate lobbying were ridiculous too. What possible justification is there, to not let corporations merely meet with Washington and give their point of view? What inherent harm is done in that? They have interest just as much as anyone else and even then corporate lobbying isn't even the most destruction kind in this country. Rather then try to pick and choose which group gets to do it, it's just far easier to limit the amount they can do.

Also who cares if the Ex-President breaks the Constitution, doesn't make it right or legal.

[Ryan Thunder]

What inherent harm is done in that?

Corporations are not people. Nobody should have to give a flying shit about what they think. Their their interests are often entirely at odds with those of the citizenry.

[Alphawolf55]

What inherent harm is done in that?

Corporations are not people. Nobody should have to give a flying shit about what they think. Their their interests are often entirely at odds with those of the citizenry.

Good job, in no way did you address the harm in it.

Who cares if corporations are soul-less entities trying to get as much money as possible, they still employ people and they still know things about their businesses others may not know as much about. As long as corporations employ people in this country and pay taxes their opinions should at least be considered, since there are actual people who will feel the consequences of these things.

[Temujin]

No see in my statement, I outright said that I think we should cap spending, you didn't have anything in your statement that give confirmation on way or the other. No one here is a mind reader here.

I'm sorry that you are so incapable of grasping the blindingly obvious; would a guide dog help. It certainly would go along way at improving your spelling and grammar.

Even then your ideas of curtailing corporate lobbying were ridiculous too. What possible justification is there, to not let corporations merely meet with Washington and give their point of view? What inherent harm is done in that?

The harm is in the overwhelming amount of resources that corporations can afford to bring to bear. Capping spending will not significantly diminish that to any degree, not so much that any other group will be able to complete against them.

They have interest just as much as anyone else and even then corporate lobbying isn't even the most destruction kind in this country. Rather then try to pick and choose which group gets to do it, it's just far easier to limit the amount they can do.

"Isn't even the most destruction kind". Pray tell what is. We currently have a major disaster occurring in the gulf. I just posted a news article in the relevant thread that outlines BP's undo influence in Washington tied to its lobbying. And I just saw an interview today with Senator Bernie Sanders where he outlined how under Reagan the banks spent over $5 Billion to push for deregulation, the same deregulation that nearly destroyed our economy. If that's not destructive I don't know what the fuck is.

Also who cares if the Ex-President breaks the Constitution, doesn't make it right or legal.

Who cares if corporations are soul-less entities trying to get as much money as possible, they still employ people and they still know things about their businesses others may not know as much about. As long as corporations employ people in this country and pay taxes their opinions should at least be considered, since there are actual people who will feel the consequences of these things.

Who cares? I fucking care, as do a lot of other people. Corporations are not fucking people; and if the harm they do outweighs the good, which it generally does by a large margin, then they need to be brought under control and made responsible for their actions. That goes double for the madness that was George the Stupider and his maladministration.

Despite your talk about capping spending, its quite clear your nothing but a bog standard conservative / libertarian apologist. Perhaps you'd like to go join a tea party, that is if you aren't already a member.

[Anguirus]

Hey douchebag, point out where and how it's against the constitution. I wasn't aware that that giving bribes suitcases full of cash to the government was some form of protected right.

I asked a conservative law student Facebook friend of mine why he was in favor of political bribery. I couldn't get a straight answer out of him, but he wouldn't explicitly deny the right to bribe either. So yes, you will get educated people in this country who have no personal stake in the matter to defend corporate bribery on principle.

[Alphawolf55]

"I'm sorry that you are so incapable of grasping the blindingly obvious; would a guide dog help. It certainly would go along way at improving your spelling and grammar. "

No just fucking admit you should be specific and it's not the job of others to read your fucking mind.

"The harm is in the overwhelming amount of resources that corporations can afford to bring to bear. Capping spending will not significantly diminish that to any degree, not so much that any other group will be able to complete against them.'

Bullshit, the resources they have are specifically the money they are able to donate. Limit that and you deal a serious blow. What are these "other resources" that make them so dangerous?

"Isn't even the most destruction kind". Pray tell what is. We currently have a major disaster occurring in the gulf. I just posted a news article in the relevant thread that outlines BP's undo influence in Washington tied to its lobbying. And I just saw an interview today with Senator Bernie Sanders where he outlined how under Reagan the banks spent over $5 Billion to push for deregulation, the same deregulation that nearly destroyed our economy. If that's not destructive I don't know what the fuck is."

I was talking about single organizations, not giant industries combined like the banking industry. For example the AARP along with the American Bar Organization pretty much give more money then any single lobbyist group in the country. They don't represent the interest of the Nation as a whole but rather specifically the baby boomers whose selfishness is going to bankrupt this nation and while you can speak against the banking and healthcare industry, dare speak against baby boomers and you will get slaughtered in an election.


"Who cares? I fucking care, as do a lot of other people. Corporations are not fucking people; and if the harm they do outweighs the good, which it generally does by a large margin, then they need to be brought under control and made responsible for their actions. That goes double for the madness that was George the Stupider and his maladministration.

Despite your talk about capping spending, its quite clear your nothing but a bog standard conservative / libertarian apologist. Perhaps you'd like to go join a tea party, that is if you aren't already a member."

You're a fucking retard. Pray tell how it's clear I'm a conservative/libertarian apologist? Because I think that corporations have the right to go to Washington and merely state their position? Not give tons of money or pay for political ads or any of that stuff but merely be allowed to go to Washington and explain how they feel the current bill will effect them.OH NO HOW HORRIBLE OF ME. Seriously, go fuck yourself, you're just invoking your own version of Godwin's law.

[Alphawolf55]

Also in this magical, lets get rid of all lobbying, what would you do about unions? What about military lobbyist?

[Norade]

Alpha, I'm not even going to be able to read your counter points until you grow enough of a brain to figure out quote tags...

[Alphawolf55]

It's my computer it fucks up everything every time I even try.

[Norade]

Then add them manually.

Code: Select all

[quote][/quote]

[Temujin]

No just fucking admit you should be specific and it's not the job of others to read your fucking mind.

Bullshit, the resources they have are specifically the money they are able to donate. Limit that and you deal a serious blow. What are these "other resources" that make them so dangerous?

Lobbying is a lot more complex than just direct donations dumb ass. Lobbying is an industry, and corporations consistently have the money to devote far more time and resources to it than a non-profit group. Individually (BP), and worse in groups (the oil industry), they have far more influence.

I was talking about single organizations, not giant industries combined like the banking industry.

And I was clearly not. Quite moving the goalposts wanker.

For example the AARP along with the American Bar Organization pretty much give more money then any single lobbyist group in the country.

Proof please.

They don't represent the interest of the Nation as a whole but rather specifically the baby boomers whose selfishness is going to bankrupt this nation and while you can speak against the banking and healthcare industry, dare speak against baby boomers and you will get slaughtered in an election.

And the corporations do; no, more like their only interest is their profit margin. The baby boomers may be selfish assholes, but do will kill social security and medicare/medicaid; since that's the only "drain" on resources that I could see you mean by "bankrupt this nation".

You're a fucking retard. Pray tell how it's clear I'm a conservative/libertarian apologist? Because I think that corporations have the right to go to Washington and merely state their position? Not give tons of money or pay for political ads or any of that stuff but merely be allowed to go to Washington and explain how they feel the current bill will effect them.OH NO HOW HORRIBLE OF ME. Seriously, go fuck yourself, you're just invoking your own version of Godwin's law.

Because your using their talking points and supporting a similar position.

[Temujin]

Also in this magical, lets get rid of all lobbying, what would you do about unions? What about military lobbyist?

Again, I clarified up front that I was referring to corporate lobbying. Quite harping on what has already been clarified and quit trying to move the goalposts.

[Alphawolf55]

Also in this magical, lets get rid of all lobbying, what would you do about unions? What about military lobbyist?

Again, I clarified up front that I was referring to corporate lobbying. Quite harping on what has already been clarified and quit trying to move the goalposts.

Except it matters. If you're going to limit Corporate Lobbying, why not Unions and Military? Both are selfish organizations that don't always represent the common good. I mean, how do you justify limiting one groups ability to lobby and not another?

.And the corporations do; no, more like their only interest is their profit margin. The baby boomers may be selfish assholes, but do will kill social security and medicare/medicaid; since that's the only "drain" on resources that I could see you mean by "bankrupt this nation".

I don't think you realize how big of an issue those things are going to be in the coming future. Remember, over a third of our Federal Budget is dedicated to these people and that's only going to grow.

.Lobbying is a lot more complex than just direct donations dumb ass. Lobbying is an industry, and corporations consistently have the money to devote far more time and resources to it than a non-profit group. Individually (BP), and worse in groups (the oil industry), they have far more influence.".

Again, this isn't something that requires drastic elimination of all lobbying but rather strict limits on lobbying.

.Because your using their talking points and supporting a similar position.

Liar. I have not. All I've said is that corporations have a right to speak to elected officials and that's a fact, the right to petition is extended to everyone in this country. N I believe in massive restrictions on lobbying but a conservative or libertarian would say you can't limit spending or lobbying at all because it's against the 1st amendment. By saying that merely believing that letting corporations talk to elected officials makes you a libertarian or conservative, you're putting the center so far left that Feingold himself would be considered conservative.

Again, I agree that we should stop contributions, gifts, meals, letting members of Congress be lobbyist, since those things are generally bribes. But for example, lets say I'm the CEO of Wal-Mart and Congress is going to pass a law that directly effects my business and all my workers, why should I not have the right to merely state a case? If I can't, who will?