Political Crossfire Forums

[poweRob]

GTTofAK wrote: poweRob wrote: Speaking of oil spill, found out this weekend that Exxon/Mobile has YET to pay a dime to the people of Prince William Sound for their Valdez spill which is now 16 years old. Almost all fisherman up there have lost everything which has incurred some suicides. The Herring population hasn't rebounded and if you turn over stones along the waterline, it's still oil saturated.

Exxon/Mobile is STILL appealing upon appealing upon appealing.

Accidentally dump your oil changed used oil from your car in the drain and see if you can get away from paying.

It's sad to see such a double standard where two sets of laws and/or enforcement of laws exist.

Hey thats the exact same thing the environmentalist do here to get their way. They just appeal and appeal until the original alloted budget is no longer suitable because of inflation. The the process starts all over again.

I know you are trying to draw a comparative but please do show me an occurance by environmentalist where you are at that caused enviromental havoc where it disrupted the living of a town so bad to a point where they thought they lost everything and suicides broke out because of appeals to court decided rulings.

It was the worst man-made accidental disaster ever and it is being ignored by the company that caused it. Neglect. To compare environmental movements, whose sole purpose is protecting something, to a company who neglects to clean up the worst man-made accidental disaster ever that they caused is ludicrous.

I know you like to take the opposite position of me regularly, but I don't understand your desire to be a corporate apologist in a position where the corporation couldn't be any more wrong.

Is it the challenge of the debate or do you actually contend that Exxon/Mobile is on the up and up and just doing what environmentalist do?

[mathurin]

no, they are doing what lawyers do, he brings up a solid point, i do agree that exxon should have nearly immediatly bought everyone out

i would bet the problem is that some **** decided to raise their bill, to punish them
problem being that that is not what damages are for, thats what punitive damages are for

how about a link, you got me interested

[poweRob]

mathurin wrote: no, they are doing what lawyers do, he brings up a solid point, i do agree that exxon should have nearly immediatly bought everyone out

i would bet the problem is that some ***hole decided to raise their bill, to punish them
problem being that that is not what damages are for, thats what punitive damages are for

how about a link, you got me interested

Documentary piece I saw on TV. You can watch it or download it and watch it here. Episode 2 (The Day the Water Died).

[mathurin]

rofl, its from the sierra club, no wonder

after alittle reading i see now

they were told to pay 100 million dollars in punitive damages
they have been appealing to get it reduced

its a shame our courts are not faster, but to rush justice is unthinkable, this is actually standard
and if they paid now, before the appeals were final, the courts would cry foul, makes it looks like a bribe or something

[poweRob]

mathurin wrote: rofl, its from the sierra club, no wonder

after alittle reading i see now

they were told to pay 100 million dollars in punitive damages
they have been appealing to get it reduced

its a shame our courts are not faster, but to rush justice is unthinkable, this is actually standard
and if they paid now, before the appeals were final, the courts would cry foul, makes it looks like a bribe or something

It may be Sierra Club but the people in the documentary are who they are. Atleast I'm inclined to believe actors weren't hired. :lol:

Even so, if the courts were faster there'd only be more appeals to delay it it seems. Exxon/Mobile seems to be priding itself on NOT paying for it.

No average citizen in this ocuntry would ever be able to get away with 15 years of appeals on a punitive damage ruling. I guarantee you or I would be in jail by now.

[mathurin]

no we wouldnt, its all about having the money for lawyers, keep appealing, while an appeal is active nobody pays

and you know what i mean about sierra club, i dont go to george bush for unbiased information about iraq, i dont go to environmentals for that info either

[poweRob]

mathurin wrote: no we wouldnt, its all about having the money for lawyers, keep appealing, while an appeal is active nobody pays

and you know what i mean about sierra club, i dont go to george bush for unbiased information about iraq, i dont go to environmentals for that info either

While I understand your concern about source, I don't think the comparison was very fair. When people don't trust environmentalist because of bias, I have to ask, what's their motivation to be bias? I'm sure you can pull some fruitcakes out of the woodwork to make an example but I don't think the Sierra Club is a punditry machine.

[mathurin]

poweRob wrote: mathurin wrote: no we wouldnt, its all about having the money for lawyers, keep appealing, while an appeal is active nobody pays

and you know what i mean about sierra club, i dont go to george bush for unbiased information about iraq, i dont go to environmentals for that info either

While I understand your concern about source, I don't think the comparison was very fair. When people don't trust environmentalist because of bias, I have to ask, what's their motivation to be bias? I'm sure you can pull some fruitcakes out of the woodwork to make an example but I don't think the Sierra Club is a punditry machine.

because they believe wholly in their cause, and feel tat lying, or just being very biased, is justified if it gets what they want

you can see this in the post
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52014
where a greenpeace map represents ancient forests left, forgetting that we havent lost forest since the 1920s
sure sure, talk about old growth forestry but the entire point is that they used misleading data to prove the point they wanted, or, as i state in that post, to make people crap their pants and run to give money to greenpeace



do you believe everything PETA says?
i believe nothing they say
both sierra and others have a political agenda they think is proper, so they are willing to misrepresent facts and lie about it


whenever i see questionable information i submit it to the fear/anger test
if you look at it critically and can tell that it is attempting to make you feel fear or anger then it can be discounted almost always
fear and anger are the emotions that make you forget rational thought, the emotions are irrational themselves, so if someone tries to evoke those emotions they are consciously attempting to make you leave your rational mind behind


so in your case you are trying to get us to hate Exxon, those bastards, while forgetting that prolly 80% of companies drug into court do the exact same thing

[Gdawg007]

mathurin wrote: poweRob wrote: mathurin wrote: no we wouldnt, its all about having the money for lawyers, keep appealing, while an appeal is active nobody pays

and you know what i mean about sierra club, i dont go to george bush for unbiased information about iraq, i dont go to environmentals for that info either

While I understand your concern about source, I don't think the comparison was very fair. When people don't trust environmentalist because of bias, I have to ask, what's their motivation to be bias? I'm sure you can pull some fruitcakes out of the woodwork to make an example but I don't think the Sierra Club is a punditry machine.

because they believe wholly in their cause, and feel tat lying, or just being very biased, is justified if it gets what they want

you can see this in the post
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=52014
where a greenpeace map represents ancient forests left, forgetting that we havent lost forest since the 1920s
sure sure, talk about old growth forestry but the entire point is that they used misleading data to prove the point they wanted, or, as i state in that post, to make people crap their pants and run to give money to greenpeace



do you believe everything PETA says?
i believe nothing they say
both sierra and others have a political agenda they think is proper, so they are willing to misrepresent facts and lie about it


whenever i see questionable information i submit it to the fear/anger test
if you look at it critically and can tell that it is attempting to make you feel fear or anger then it can be discounted almost always
fear and anger are the emotions that make you forget rational thought, the emotions are irrational themselves, so if someone tries to evoke those emotions they are consciously attempting to make you leave your rational mind behind


so in your case you are trying to get us to hate Exxon, those bastards, while forgetting that prolly 80% of companies drug into court do the exact same thing

This is because most Americans think that Greenpeace is what true environmentalists are. That's not true.

A true envrionmentalists is actually a conservationalist. They conserve the envrionment. They are conservative when it comes to the envrionment meaning they do not promote altering it for our gain. Most are willing to conceed that we must use natural resources and so we accept a certain amount of destruction and change to the envrionment for the sake of modern living. However, the conservationalist still makes every effort to protect and preserve. Greenpeace is a group of political activists. Their goal is to get attention and money for their cause. That's not to say they don't want to conserve, but they are a political group and like any other political group, they are hypocritical and outspoken. They do not speak for every envrionmentalist. Neither does any organization you can name speak for all of us anymore than I can say Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians.

[GTTofAK]

poweRob wrote: GTTofAK wrote: poweRob wrote: Speaking of oil spill, found out this weekend that Exxon/Mobile has YET to pay a dime to the people of Prince William Sound for their Valdez spill which is now 16 years old. Almost all fisherman up there have lost everything which has incurred some suicides. The Herring population hasn't rebounded and if you turn over stones along the waterline, it's still oil saturated.

Exxon/Mobile is STILL appealing upon appealing upon appealing.

Accidentally dump your oil changed used oil from your car in the drain and see if you can get away from paying.

It's sad to see such a double standard where two sets of laws and/or enforcement of laws exist.

Hey thats the exact same thing the environmentalist do here to get their way. They just appeal and appeal until the original alloted budget is no longer suitable because of inflation. The the process starts all over again.

I know you are trying to draw a comparative but please do show me an occurance by environmentalist where you are at that caused enviromental havoc where it disrupted the living of a town so bad to a point where they thought they lost everything and suicides broke out because of appeals to court decided rulings.

It was the worst man-made accidental disaster ever and it is being ignored by the company that caused it. Neglect. To compare environmental movements, whose sole purpose is protecting something, to a company who neglects to clean up the worst man-made accidental disaster ever that they caused is ludicrous.

I know you like to take the opposite position of me regularly, but I don't understand your desire to be a corporate apologist in a position where the corporation couldn't be any more wrong.

Is it the challenge of the debate or do you actually contend that Exxon/Mobile is on the up and up and just doing what environmentalist do?

Hmm you think the enviornmentalist share no blame in the prudhoe bay oil spill. Boy are you wrong.

They prevented through constant law suits the winding and deepening of the port of Valdez making the prudhoe bay oil spill inevitable. I remember being 5 years old on my brother's fishing boat with listing to the adults discussing how a tanker was bound to hit the rocks eventually.

Those **** you support have further devistaed my home beyond that.

They prevented through constant law suits the states attempts to exterminate the spruce bark beetle infestation in the Kenai. Now 2 decades later the infestation has ravaged the spruce all the way to Canada turning our once beautiful green spruce forests brown.

They have further prevented through constant law suits any attempt to clean out the dead wood. Leaving much of Alaska's populace areas a tinder box. If I die when Anchorage burns I promise I will haunt your personally out of spite. And you know what they arent even opposed to the clean out for environmental reasons. They just don't want the logging companies to get the money. They view them as their enemy and don't want those profits being used against their lobbyist in Washington.

I have many more, wolf control, dear hunting, etc. But is Friday and almost quitting time. I just have one thing to say. Alaska is not your playground. You **** with your millions of out of State dollars are killing us with your kindness and we would like you to mind your own business because you are frickin morons who don't know the first thing about what is good for the environment. You are religious zelots not environmentalists. You would see the environment destroyed, every tree dead, every animal dead, so long as it was "natural" and man did not intervene.

[milton friedman]

GTTofAK wrote: poweRob wrote: GTTofAK wrote: poweRob wrote: Speaking of oil spill, found out this weekend that Exxon/Mobile has YET to pay a dime to the people of Prince William Sound for their Valdez spill which is now 16 years old. Almost all fisherman up there have lost everything which has incurred some suicides. The Herring population hasn't rebounded and if you turn over stones along the waterline, it's still oil saturated.

Exxon/Mobile is STILL appealing upon appealing upon appealing.

Accidentally dump your oil changed used oil from your car in the drain and see if you can get away from paying.

It's sad to see such a double standard where two sets of laws and/or enforcement of laws exist.

Hey thats the exact same thing the environmentalist do here to get their way. They just appeal and appeal until the original alloted budget is no longer suitable because of inflation. The the process starts all over again.

I know you are trying to draw a comparative but please do show me an occurance by environmentalist where you are at that caused enviromental havoc where it disrupted the living of a town so bad to a point where they thought they lost everything and suicides broke out because of appeals to court decided rulings.

It was the worst man-made accidental disaster ever and it is being ignored by the company that caused it. Neglect. To compare environmental movements, whose sole purpose is protecting something, to a company who neglects to clean up the worst man-made accidental disaster ever that they caused is ludicrous.

I know you like to take the opposite position of me regularly, but I don't understand your desire to be a corporate apologist in a position where the corporation couldn't be any more wrong.

Is it the challenge of the debate or do you actually contend that Exxon/Mobile is on the up and up and just doing what environmentalist do?

Hmm you think the enviornmentalist share no blame in the prudhoe bay oil spill. Boy are you wrong.

They prevented through constant law suits the winding and deepening of the port of Valdez making the prudhoe bay oil spill inevitable. I remember being 5 years old on my brother's fishing boat with listing to the adults discussing how a tanker was bound to hit the rocks eventually.

Those ***holes you support have further devistaed my home beyond that.

They prevented through constant law suits the states attempts to exterminate the spruce bark beetle infestation in the Kenai. Now 2 decades later the infestation has ravaged the spruce all the way to Canada turning our once beautiful green spruce forests brown.

They have further prevented through constant law suits any attempt to clean out the dead wood. Leaving much of Alaska's populace areas a tinder box. If I die when Anchorage burns I promise I will haunt your personally out of spite. And you know what they arent even opposed to the clean out for environmental reasons. They just don't want the logging companies to get the money. They view them as their enemy and don't want those profits being used against their lobbyist in Washington.

I have many more, wolf control, dear hunting, etc. But is Friday and almost quitting time. I just have one thing to say. Alaska is not your playground. You ***holes with your millions of out of State dollars are killing us with your kindness and we would like you to mind your own business because you are frickin morons who don't know the first thing about what is good for the environment. You are religious zelots not environmentalists. You would see the environment destroyed, every tree dead, every animal dead, so long as it was "natural" and man did not intervene.

My sentiments exactly on "enviromentalist". Amazing how they promote all these alternative sources of energy; yet when they want to build it in thier back yard (nantuketsound), thier NIMBYistc instincts come into play..