WARMACH1NE
Hates you all
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Posts
- 1,391
Re: another dropping on its way
One can only hope Dubya eats some unsafe tuna... hahhah!Owera said:
the article said:
What a load of crap that first paragraph is. If anything, the companies quickly settle b/c they know they can buy their way out of it & avoid the negative publicity that might hurt business &/or stock prices. (Ever notice THEY are usually the ones who want "gag orders" on the settlements?) The only way such corps will change their practices is if the laws are given sharp enough teeth -- not just civil lawsuits, but serious criminal charges against the directors & corporate officers that result in real jail time AND a real risk of breaking up the corp. Or maybe just by changing the laws to state that payment of such settlements is equivalent to pleading guilty, just as payment of speeding and other fines for individuals is.
The fact that these corps can get away with their shoddy products, workforce maltreatment, and flaunting of environmental laws is largely due to the fact that we've let them become way too large, and given them legal loopholes by which they can exercise political rights while avoiding responsibility.
What a load of crap that first paragraph is. If anything, the companies quickly settle b/c they know they can buy their way out of it & avoid the negative publicity that might hurt business &/or stock prices. (Ever notice THEY are usually the ones who want "gag orders" on the settlements?) The only way such corps will change their practices is if the laws are given sharp enough teeth -- not just civil lawsuits, but serious criminal charges against the directors & corporate officers that result in real jail time AND a real risk of breaking up the corp. Or maybe just by changing the laws to state that payment of such settlements is equivalent to pleading guilty, just as payment of speeding and other fines for individuals is.
The fact that these corps can get away with their shoddy products, workforce maltreatment, and flaunting of environmental laws is largely due to the fact that we've let them become way too large, and given them legal loopholes by which they can exercise political rights while avoiding responsibility.
Last edited:
DevilishTexan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Posts
- 71,963
Owera said:Oh, poor wittle sugarballs doesn't wike the name. Gee, I guess I should feel sowwy and change it
Deal with it
I swear if I ever run into you I'm gonna tie you down and shave you completely. Which could be dangerous if were in cold climes. You could freeze to death.
G
Guest
Guest
shrub admin takes another step forward in screwing the environment
It's rather obvious the bush administration is doing this in order to assist big business. Wouldn't want to lose any profit just for the sake of having better air to breath
Clean Air Act in Peril, Head of New Group Says
By Judy Sarasohn
The Washington Post
Thursday 03 February 2005
As Congress takes up President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative and the administration works on pollution regulations, a new enviro group has emerged to dog the issue.
Frank O'Donnell has split from Clean Air Trust, where he had been executive director for more than nine years, to form the new Clean Air Watch. Both nonprofits have the mission of educating the public about the value of clean air and of protecting the Clean Air Act from efforts to weaken it.
"Irreconcilable differences" that had nothing to do with policy was the reason for the split, say both O'Donnell and Leon G. Billings, his former boss.
"We're going to be in a pitched battle in saving the Clean Air Act. We can use all the help we can get," Billings said in an interview.
Why is the new group needed? "The Clean Air Act appears to be in unprecedented danger," O'Donnell said in an e-mail interview. "Never before have we seen a situation in which opponents of a strong Clean Air Act are in charge not only at the White House . . . but also chair both key congressional committees."
He added that he believes there is no single other group "that has both the dedicated purpose of defending a strong clean air act and the communication skill to explain to the public why this is an important issue."
Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation aims to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent, but not until after 2018. Critics say the White House plan would do nothing to curb emissions linked to global warming and would undermine existing air-quality standards and enforcement tools. Supporters tout the legislation as a responsible effort to improve air quality without unduly cumbersome and complex regulations.
Always available to explain air-quality issues to reporters,
O'Donnell has a background in broadcast and print news and is a former producer of the "Ten O'Clock News" on Fox Television's Channel 5 in
Washington. He also appeared in "Outfoxed," the critical documentary
about the Fox news organization.
O'Donnell said Clean Air Watch has received start-up support from some philanthropists who want to stay in the background, but he said it has no corporate funding.
It's rather obvious the bush administration is doing this in order to assist big business. Wouldn't want to lose any profit just for the sake of having better air to breath
Clean Air Act in Peril, Head of New Group Says
By Judy Sarasohn
The Washington Post
Thursday 03 February 2005
As Congress takes up President Bush's "Clear Skies" initiative and the administration works on pollution regulations, a new enviro group has emerged to dog the issue.
Frank O'Donnell has split from Clean Air Trust, where he had been executive director for more than nine years, to form the new Clean Air Watch. Both nonprofits have the mission of educating the public about the value of clean air and of protecting the Clean Air Act from efforts to weaken it.
"Irreconcilable differences" that had nothing to do with policy was the reason for the split, say both O'Donnell and Leon G. Billings, his former boss.
"We're going to be in a pitched battle in saving the Clean Air Act. We can use all the help we can get," Billings said in an interview.
Why is the new group needed? "The Clean Air Act appears to be in unprecedented danger," O'Donnell said in an e-mail interview. "Never before have we seen a situation in which opponents of a strong Clean Air Act are in charge not only at the White House . . . but also chair both key congressional committees."
He added that he believes there is no single other group "that has both the dedicated purpose of defending a strong clean air act and the communication skill to explain to the public why this is an important issue."
Bush's "Clear Skies" legislation aims to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury by 70 percent, but not until after 2018. Critics say the White House plan would do nothing to curb emissions linked to global warming and would undermine existing air-quality standards and enforcement tools. Supporters tout the legislation as a responsible effort to improve air quality without unduly cumbersome and complex regulations.
Always available to explain air-quality issues to reporters,
O'Donnell has a background in broadcast and print news and is a former producer of the "Ten O'Clock News" on Fox Television's Channel 5 in
Washington. He also appeared in "Outfoxed," the critical documentary
about the Fox news organization.
O'Donnell said Clean Air Watch has received start-up support from some philanthropists who want to stay in the background, but he said it has no corporate funding.
DevilishTexan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2003
- Posts
- 71,963
You bumped this to irritate me didn't you? I got your number missy.
WARMACH1NE
Hates you all
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Posts
- 1,391
Dubya's mother should have sued the coat hanger company as soon as he was born.
GeorgeWBush
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2003
- Posts
- 18,442
WARMACH1NE said:
WARMACH1NE
Hates you all
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Posts
- 1,391
G
Guest
Guest
since this thread is called "droppings of joy"...
I thought it might be the perfect place for this link: Germans, Dubya and poo
Also, given the following article, it's rather amazing it wasn't a bunch of Americans putting Dubya's image in poo.
In Tampa, Fla., over the weekend, Bush was asked how his plan would ensure that Social Security won't run out of money down the road. Here, straight from the White House Web site, is the president's answer in its entirety:
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost
drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the
idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
"Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
"Okay, better? I'll keep working on it."
link
I thought it might be the perfect place for this link: Germans, Dubya and poo
Also, given the following article, it's rather amazing it wasn't a bunch of Americans putting Dubya's image in poo.
In Tampa, Fla., over the weekend, Bush was asked how his plan would ensure that Social Security won't run out of money down the road. Here, straight from the White House Web site, is the president's answer in its entirety:
"Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost
drivers, affecting those -- changing those with personal accounts, the
idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be -- or closer delivered to what has been promised.
"Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look, there's a series of things that cause the -- like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate -- the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those -- if that growth is affected, it will help on the red."
"Okay, better? I'll keep working on it."
link
G
Guest
Guest
this affects refugees and U.S. citizens, too
House Passes Driver's License Ban for Illegal Immigrants
By Mary Curtius
Times Staff Writer
Thursday 10 February 2005
WASHINGTON -- Signaling a potentially bruising congressional
battle on immigration reform, the House on Thursday passed a bill that would
virtually bar states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, tighten the rules for asylum and close a hole in the border fence between California and Mexico.
The bill passed 261-161. But the prospects for its provisions becoming law remain uncertain. Indeed, the House vote underscored the divide between it and the Senate on immigration policy.
Many House Republicans are determined to crack down on illegal
immigrants and raise the bar for proving a credible case for asylum. But the GOP-controlled Senate is laying the groundwork for taking up President Bush's proposal for creating a "guest worker" program that could legalize the status of millions of illegal workers.
Immigration policy "is the issue that will boil up and spill over and split (Republicans in Congress), if the administration continues to want to drive down this direction," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.
This increasingly vocal group, composed mostly of Republicans,
advocates cracking down on illegal immigrants and limiting legal
immigration. They have arrayed themselves against the White House and those Republicans and Democrats who advocate a guest worker program or more far-reaching reforms that would create a path for citizenship for at least some of the estimated 8 million immigrants believed to be living in this country illegally.
During debate on the bill the House passed Thursday, Republicans insisted it was a law enforcement and border security package aimed at keeping terrorists out of the United States. The drivers license provision, they argued, would hinder the ability of terrorists to
travel freely here if they manage to slip over the borders.
Democrats insisted that the measure, titled the Real ID Act by its
sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., was a harsh piece of anti-immigrant legislation.
The bill would require states to verify that any driver's license applicant is residing legally in the United States before issuing a license that could be used for purposes of federal identification.
That would mean states could issue licenses to illegal immigrants -- as 11states now do -- but those licenses could not be used to board airplanes in the United States, open bank accounts or enter federal buildings.
A handful of Republicans and Democrats on Thursday said the
standards would be the first step toward a national identification system.
"If you vote for (the bill), you will be voting for a national ID card," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. The license provision, he said, was not really voluntary, because "if a state opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver's licenses."
The provisions targeted for the most criticism from Democrats were those that would increase the burden of proof that applicants for asylum must meet and would restrict the right of judges to review decisions by immigration officials at the borders to reject asylum
applications.
"The asylum provisions make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who offered an unsuccessful amendment to strip the provisions. As a result, Nadler warned, legitimate applicants fleeing persecution in their countries "will be sent back to their persecutors."
Republicans insisted that the tougher asylum requirements are
necessary to keep terrorists from gaming the system and some judges
from loosely interpreting the laws to overrule immigration officials.
Sensenbrenner said it would "bring back sanity" to the asylum system.
Sensenbrenner noted that the bill would lift the cap on the number of successful asylum applicants who can apply for legal residency each year. That number is currently 10,000, and immigration advocates have long lobbied for it to be lifted. That is hardly an "anti-immigrant" move, Sensenbrenner said.
But the bill also would make it possible to deport foreign residents if they are found to have contributed to terrorist groups or to have provided other support to such groups in the past. The bill's supporters said that would make such residents deportable for offenses that would have kept them out of the United States if known before they arrived.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the bill, said it would deny foreign residents the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
Even some of the bill's backers acknowledge there is a good chance
it will not be considered by the Senate. As a result, Sensenbrenner extracted a promise from the GOP House leadership to attach it to one of the first pieces of legislation thought certain to be passed by both chambers this year.
That is expected to be the bill the White House plans to send to Congress next week, seeking another $80 billion in funding for U.S. military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Democratic and Republican Senate leaders have said that adding the immigration provisions to the Iraq funding bill would only bog down the Senate's consideration of the measure, which the White House wants passed quickly.
In Thursday's vote, 42 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans in passing Sensenbrenner's bill.
House Passes Driver's License Ban for Illegal Immigrants
By Mary Curtius
Times Staff Writer
Thursday 10 February 2005
WASHINGTON -- Signaling a potentially bruising congressional
battle on immigration reform, the House on Thursday passed a bill that would
virtually bar states from issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, tighten the rules for asylum and close a hole in the border fence between California and Mexico.
The bill passed 261-161. But the prospects for its provisions becoming law remain uncertain. Indeed, the House vote underscored the divide between it and the Senate on immigration policy.
Many House Republicans are determined to crack down on illegal
immigrants and raise the bar for proving a credible case for asylum. But the GOP-controlled Senate is laying the groundwork for taking up President Bush's proposal for creating a "guest worker" program that could legalize the status of millions of illegal workers.
Immigration policy "is the issue that will boil up and spill over and split (Republicans in Congress), if the administration continues to want to drive down this direction," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus.
This increasingly vocal group, composed mostly of Republicans,
advocates cracking down on illegal immigrants and limiting legal
immigration. They have arrayed themselves against the White House and those Republicans and Democrats who advocate a guest worker program or more far-reaching reforms that would create a path for citizenship for at least some of the estimated 8 million immigrants believed to be living in this country illegally.
During debate on the bill the House passed Thursday, Republicans insisted it was a law enforcement and border security package aimed at keeping terrorists out of the United States. The drivers license provision, they argued, would hinder the ability of terrorists to
travel freely here if they manage to slip over the borders.
Democrats insisted that the measure, titled the Real ID Act by its
sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., was a harsh piece of anti-immigrant legislation.
The bill would require states to verify that any driver's license applicant is residing legally in the United States before issuing a license that could be used for purposes of federal identification.
That would mean states could issue licenses to illegal immigrants -- as 11states now do -- but those licenses could not be used to board airplanes in the United States, open bank accounts or enter federal buildings.
A handful of Republicans and Democrats on Thursday said the
standards would be the first step toward a national identification system.
"If you vote for (the bill), you will be voting for a national ID card," said Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. The license provision, he said, was not really voluntary, because "if a state opts out, nobody is going to accept their driver's licenses."
The provisions targeted for the most criticism from Democrats were those that would increase the burden of proof that applicants for asylum must meet and would restrict the right of judges to review decisions by immigration officials at the borders to reject asylum
applications.
"The asylum provisions make it much more difficult for legitimate victims to be granted asylum," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who offered an unsuccessful amendment to strip the provisions. As a result, Nadler warned, legitimate applicants fleeing persecution in their countries "will be sent back to their persecutors."
Republicans insisted that the tougher asylum requirements are
necessary to keep terrorists from gaming the system and some judges
from loosely interpreting the laws to overrule immigration officials.
Sensenbrenner said it would "bring back sanity" to the asylum system.
Sensenbrenner noted that the bill would lift the cap on the number of successful asylum applicants who can apply for legal residency each year. That number is currently 10,000, and immigration advocates have long lobbied for it to be lifted. That is hardly an "anti-immigrant" move, Sensenbrenner said.
But the bill also would make it possible to deport foreign residents if they are found to have contributed to terrorist groups or to have provided other support to such groups in the past. The bill's supporters said that would make such residents deportable for offenses that would have kept them out of the United States if known before they arrived.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the bill, said it would deny foreign residents the protection of the U.S. Constitution.
Even some of the bill's backers acknowledge there is a good chance
it will not be considered by the Senate. As a result, Sensenbrenner extracted a promise from the GOP House leadership to attach it to one of the first pieces of legislation thought certain to be passed by both chambers this year.
That is expected to be the bill the White House plans to send to Congress next week, seeking another $80 billion in funding for U.S. military and rebuilding operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Democratic and Republican Senate leaders have said that adding the immigration provisions to the Iraq funding bill would only bog down the Senate's consideration of the measure, which the White House wants passed quickly.
In Thursday's vote, 42 Democrats joined with 219 Republicans in passing Sensenbrenner's bill.
Similar threads
