quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Have you not learned? It is not what you say, it is who is saying it and whether you are liked.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
I find the spectacle of a politician who's bragged about cutting restrictions that might have stopped the plant exploding whining about a cartoon pointing out that he's culpable for this almost as pathetic as your desperate attempts to spin this so that said politician can be seen as being in the right by anybody who doesn't have brain damage.

quote:

What de-regulations allowed the violations that led to the explosion?

This is the sort of deliberate dishonesty your post are filled with. No one but you has sugested that perry de-regulated anything.What has been said over and over is that he failed to regulate and bragged about it by way of advertising the lack of regulation of business in texas.
Since you are incapable of defending that position your post tries to assert a requirement that proof be given for someting that was never posited by anyone other than yourself.

quote:

Was the initial fire set deliberately,

more dishonesty...why does this have bearing on whether regulations were in place to prevent this sort of thing.?

quote:

or was it something that could have been prevented completely. Obviously, the explosion could have been prevented by not storing the pressurized ammonium nitrate in a location further away from where the fire broke out. As far as that goes, West Texas Fertilizer is definitely negligent, probably criminally so.

Is there some state regulation that would make them criminally negligent or jut a federal one or any at all?

quote:

the company is also negligent (not sure if it would be criminal neglect or not) for not filing with DHS that they had over 1 Ton of ammonium nitrate in the facility. If the fire was deliberately set, that takes some (but only some) responsibility off West Texas Fertilizer, placing it on the arsonist.

But, what regulations were nixed by Perry, that would have prevented this?

More of the disingenuous bullshit that fill your posts...no one but you has suggested that perry de-regulated anything. Perry stands accused of not causing any regulation that would have prevented this tragedy.

quote:

I'm up to speed. Have no fear. You just won't admit that Perry's assertion was correct in this specific instance. And, you are basing his being wrong because he his previous actions weren't in line with his assertion in this specific instance.

His assertion is that the cartoon was in poor taste because it ties him to responsibility for he exploson.
I assert that the cartoon was in good taste because it ties him to respnsibility for the expolosion.



< Message edited by thompsonx -- 5/2/2013 9:12:37 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:Did Rick Perry de-regulate the Federal Oversight of the plant?

Stupid ass question with no meaning except to take up bandwith.Why would any adult with a three digit iq and a pulse ask such a asanine question? Rick perry while sucking korporate cock refused to institute the regulations necessary to have prevented this disaster. It has nothing to do with dhs why would you think it did? Don't you know that govornors do not tell the federal bureaucracy what to do?Where do you find that authority for govornors in the constitution?

quote:

So, no answer to the question, then. Got it.

My post is quite clear that govornors do not have the ability to deregulate federal oversight.Funny that you did not notice that,perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not seem so childish. My post also pointed out that it would be fatuous,asanine,and ignorant for any adult u.s. citizen to think such a thing and it questioned the validity of your post for even asking such a stupid question.
Have I now disabused you of your ignorance?

quote:

Actually, your post did nothing but spew hate and demonstrate your need of anger management skills.

quote:

Instead of answering the question, you went off about how governor's don't have any Constitutional authority to tell the Federal government what to do.

quote:

Now, you're criticizing me for not reading your posts, which isn't an accurate allegation anyway.

quote:

You seem to enjoy being aggressive in your posts. Might want to actually try answering the questions next time.

So, I'll answer it for you. No. Rick Perry did not strip the Federal government of oversight of this plant. Was there Federal oversight of this plant? I'm not exactly sure, honestly. There was no oversight by the DHS, but that is more about the plant not following the rules that were in place (so, that regulation was still there, just not followed). The EPA (Federal) had gone in in 2006 with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The US Dept of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Commission was there in 2011. There was still Federal oversight, and state oversight. Apparently, there were regulations in place.

quote:

How did the fire start? Couldn't that have some impact on the responsibility of West Texas Fertilizer? That's not to say they weren't negligent, but they might not be the only one that bears responsibility. And, that Federal regulatory agencies still aren't talking to each other certainly doesn't seem to be of concern for most, either. I don't believe any Federal Agency bears any responsibility for the incident, but they do need to work the whole lack of communication thing out. If there was no signs of arson, IMO, West Texas Fertilizer would be the only entity that would bear responsibility for this.

quote:

Having said all that, can you cite de-regulation that allowed West Texas Fertilizer to fly under the radar for 28 years?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants. He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors .

quote:

Any citations for all the assertions in there?

Which of my assertions would you like a cite for?

ALL (ôl):

adj.

1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4. Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.
6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band.
7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all.

n.

The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has: The brave defenders gave their all.

pron.

1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality: All of us are sick. All that I have is yours.
2. Everyone; everything: justice for all.

adv.

1. Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong.
2. Each; apiece: a score of five all.
3. So much: I am all the better for that experience.

quote:

....................................................
He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas.
...................................................
This is a matter of public record so why would you need validation for that?

Good. Then it will be easy for you to provide.

quote:

......................................................
for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors .
......................................................
Can you think of an alternate reason?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
I find the spectacle of a politician who's bragged about cutting restrictions that might have stopped the plant exploding whining about a cartoon pointing out that he's culpable for this almost as pathetic as your desperate attempts to spin this so that said politician can be seen as being in the right by anybody who doesn't have brain damage.

What de-regulations allowed the violations that led to the explosion?

This is the sort of deliberate dishonesty your post are filled with. No one but you has sugested that perry de-regulated anything.What has been said over and over is that he failed to regulate and bragged about it by way of advertising the lack of regulation of business in texas.
Since you are incapable of defending that position your post tries to assert a requirement that proof be given for someting that was never posited by anyone other than yourself.

quote:

quote:

Was the initial fire set deliberately,

more dishonesty...why does this have bearing on whether regulations were in place to prevent this sort of thing.?

quote:

quote:

or was it something that could have been prevented completely. Obviously, the explosion could have been prevented by not storing the pressurized ammonium nitrate in a location further away from where the fire broke out. As far as that goes, West Texas Fertilizer is definitely negligent, probably criminally so.

Is there some state regulation that would make them criminally negligent or jut a federal one or any at all?

quote:

quote:

the company is also negligent (not sure if it would be criminal neglect or not) for not filing with DHS that they had over 1 Ton of ammonium nitrate in the facility. If the fire was deliberately set, that takes some (but only some) responsibility off West Texas Fertilizer, placing it on the arsonist.
But, what regulations were nixed by Perry, that would have prevented this?

More of the disingenuous bullshit that fill your posts...no one but you has suggested that perry de-regulated anything. Perry stands accused of not causing any regulation that would have prevented this tragedy.

quote:

The only agency that appears to have required West Fertilizer to write a detailed plan on how it would deal with potentially dangerous situations was the federal Environmental Protection Agency. West Fertilizer filed risk management plans every five years, the last in 2011, and sent copies to the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The EPA requires emergency management plans only for chemicals covered by the Clean Air Act. Ammonium nitrate is not one of them, says Sean Moulton of the watchdog group Center for Effective Government in Washington, D.C.

Chemical safety experts aren't very concerned with ammonium nitrate, says Neal Langerman, a consultant with Advanced Chemical Safety in San Diego. In general, ammonium nitrate "being stored in a fertilizer distribution facility is not a high-risk activity" because when properly stored, it is unlikely to explode.

quote:

Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Subtitle J, Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate ("Section 563"), Public Law 110–161 (PDF, 614 pages – 1.7 MB), amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The amendment requires the Department to "regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an ammonium nitrate facility ... to prevent the misappropriation or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism."

quote:

quote:

I'm up to speed. Have no fear. You just won't admit that Perry's assertion was correct in this specific instance. And, you are basing his being wrong because he his previous actions weren't in line with his assertion in this specific instance.

His assertion is that the cartoon was in poor taste because it ties him to responsibility for he exploson.
I assert that the cartoon was in good taste because it ties him to respnsibility for the expolosion.

quote:

The hearing was intended to clarify roles of various state agencies in handling hazardous materials and emergency response, rather than assign blame, said state Representative Joe Pickett ... who leads the Texas House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee.
“I feel confident that the agencies with oversight are doing their jobs,” he told reporters after the hearing. “I take offense at other states that are taking potshots at Texas.”

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
[quot]ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:Did Rick Perry de-regulate the Federal Oversight of the plant?

Stupid ass question with no meaning except to take up bandwith.Why would any adult with a three digit iq and a pulse ask such a asanine question? Rick perry while sucking korporate cock refused to institute the regulations necessary to have prevented this disaster. It has nothing to do with dhs why would you think it did? Don't you know that govornors do not tell the federal bureaucracy what to do?Where do you find that authority for govornors in the constitution?

quote:

So, no answer to the question, then. Got it.

My post is quite clear that govornors do not have the ability to deregulate federal oversight.Funny that you did not notice that,perhaps if you were to actually read my post before you respond your post would not seem so childish. My post also pointed out that it would be fatuous,asanine,and ignorant for any adult u.s. citizen to think such a thing and it questioned the validity of your post for even asking such a stupid question.
Have I now disabused you of your ignorance?

quote:

Actually, your post did nothing but spew hate and demonstrate your need of anger management skills.

Anger management...I point out the failings of a punkassmotherfucker and you feel I need anger management. Your ability to read minds is less than impressive.

quote:

quote:

Instead of answering the question, you went off about how governor's don't have any Constitutional authority to tell the Federal government what to do.

You had asked if the govornor had that authority and I explained that he did not..please try to keep up.

quote:

quote:

Now, you're criticizing me for not reading your posts, which isn't an accurate allegation anyway.

Your resposes do ot sem to validate that position.

quote:

You seem to enjoy being aggressive in your posts. Might want to actually try answering the questions next time.
So, I'll answer it for you. No. Rick Perry did not strip the Federal government of oversight of this plant. Was there Federal oversight of this plant? I'm not exactly sure, honestly. There was no oversight by the DHS, but that is more about the plant not following the rules that were in place (so, that regulation was still there, just not followed). The EPA (Federal) had gone in in 2006 with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The US Dept of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Commission was there in 2011. There was still Federal oversight, and state oversight. Apparently, there were regulations in place.

Apparantly you are not sure or you would have linked me to them.

quote:

quote:

How did the fire start? Couldn't that have some impact on the responsibility of West Texas Fertilizer? That's not to say they weren't negligent, but they might not be the only one that bears responsibility. And, that Federal regulatory agencies still aren't talking to each other certainly doesn't seem to be of concern for most, either. I don't believe any Federal Agency bears any responsibility for the incident, but they do need to work the whole lack of communication thing out. If there was no signs of arson, IMO, West Texas Fertilizer would be the only entity that would bear responsibility for this.

So the govornor failing to cause any regulation is irrelevant in your view even though you agree that the govornors job is to protect his constituants from force and fraud?

quote:

quote:

Having said all that, can you cite de-regulation that allowed West Texas Fertilizer to fly under the radar for 28 years?

Why do you bring up deregulation? where have I or anyone but you mentioned deregulation? I have mentioned that the govornor failed to cause regulation but I have not said anything about deregulation. This is just another one of the dishonest devices your post are filled with. Why do you think it is my responsibility to validate your premis?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Rick perry as govornor of texas has a responsibility to his constituants. He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors .

quote:

Any citations for all the assertions in there?

Which of my assertions would you like a cite for?

ALL (ôl):

adj.

1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity: All the windows are open. Deal all the cards. See Synonyms at whole.
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole: all Christendom.
3. Being the utmost possible of: argued the case in all seriousness.
4. Every: got into all manner of trouble.
5. Any whatsoever: beyond all doubt.
6. Pennsylvania Finished; used up: The apples are all. See Regional Note at gum band.
7. Informal Being more than one: Who all came to the party? See Regional Note at you-all.

n.

The whole of one's fortune, resources, or energy; everything one has: The brave defenders gave their all.

pron.

1. The entire or total number, amount, or quantity; totality: All of us are sick. All that I have is yours.
2. Everyone; everything: justice for all.

adv.

1. Wholly; completely: a room painted all white; directions that were all wrong.
2. Each; apiece: a score of five all.
3. So much: I am all the better for that experience.

quote:

....................................................
He bragged publically that that he had not implimented any meaningful safety regulations concerning business in texas.
...................................................
This is a matter of public record so why would you need validation for that?

Good. Then it will be easy for you to provide.

The premis of this thread is that he bragged about the lack of regulation in texas...now you want a cite for that...beyond stupid.

quote:

quote:

......................................................
for the purpose of enticing unethical business to texas who would then have an economic advantage on their more ethical competetors .
......................................................
Can you think of an alternate reason?

No citation for this assertion, then? You do understand that when you make the assertion and are asked for a citation, that it is your responsibility to come up with that citation, right?
Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations? Does it not follow that those unethical businesses who choose to endanger their employees by building their plant in a state like texas which advertises that they do not have those regulations would have an economic advantae over their more ethical competitors?
The position your post espouses has me roflmao.

quote:

Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

And, I'd like to point something else out that you just posted.
quote:

Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?

How is possible that he was reducing regulations while not de-regulating? Which is it? Did he reduce regulations (aka de-regulate), or did he simply not create new regulations?

quote:

The premis of this thread is that he bragged about the lack of regulation in texas...now you want a cite for that...beyond stupid.

quote:

Hang on there. You asserted that he hadn't implemented any meaningful safety regulations. Where is your proof of that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

And, I'd like to point something else out that you just posted.
quote:

Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?

How is possible that he was reducing regulations while not de-regulating? Which is it? Did he reduce regulations (aka de-regulate), or did he simply not create new regulations?

Once again your post is decietful. I ask you the question:"Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?"
no where contaied in that question is rick perry mentioned yet your post claims that it does and you demand to know which regs he deregulated.

quote:

Noted. What regulations do other States have in place that Texas doesn't that would have prevented this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Since the OP and most of the comments are about Perry, it did appear as if your comment was also about Perry. Instead of deceitful, it looks like miscommunication.

quote:


So the govornor failing to cause any regulation is irrelevant in your view even though you agree that the govornors job is to protect his constituants from force and fraud?

quote:

"Force and fraud?!?!?!?" FFS, where is that shit coming from?!? LMAO!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

And, I'd like to point something else out that you just posted.
quote:Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?
How is possible that he was reducing regulations while not de-regulating? Which is it? Did he reduce regulations (aka de-regulate), or did he simply not create new regulations?

Once again your post is decietful. I ask you the question:"Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations?"
no where contaied in that question is rick perry mentioned yet your post claims that it does and you demand to know which regs he deregulated.

Once again I ask you, is the purpose of reducing regulation the reduction of the costs to business associated with those regulations? Does it not follow that those unethical businesses who choose to endanger their employees by building their plant in a state like texas which advertises that they do not have those regulations would have an economic advantae over their more ethical competitors?
The position your post espouses has me roflmao.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

The premis of this thread is that he bragged about the lack of regulation in texas...now you want a cite for that...beyond stupid.

quote:

Hang on there. You asserted that he hadn't implemented any meaningful safety regulations. Where is your proof of that?

Well there is that smokin' hole and the dead bodies.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Noted. What regulations do other States have in place that Texas doesn't that would have prevented this?

If you have an interest in that perhaps you should stuff your fingers into google's deep orifice of data and find out...then come tell us whether it is even possible to have prevented this...as for demanding I do your homework.....not gonna happen sweetie.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I sure missed them.  Cuz there is no proof of that.  Seriously?  If the regulations were in place and the oversight in place, then this very likely wouldn't have happened.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)