Chicom global enslavement

[byco42]

Seems that my signature has never been more necessary or relevant.

 

[tigermud]

I read a short theory that tied almost every "UFO panic" over the last 60 years to a ramp up in tensions with some actual foreign country on Earth, starting with the then-USSR in the 50's

I suppose a UFO panic is the first step to getting, uh... the "special" part of our population all riled up and on-board with insane increases in "defense" spending at the cost of things we all need and use instead.

UFO witness travel channel

 

[Michchamp]

UFO witness travel channel

:hmm:

 

[Spartanmack]

Norfolk Southern should be on the hook for reparations for everyone who had to evacuate from East Palestine, OH, and assuming an independent auditor finds they've permanently or long-term damaged the land by polluting it with carcinogenic chemicals, the cost of their homes as well, or the degraded land value.

What about the governors and other bureaucrats that enthusiastically signed off on the "controlled burn" of these dangerous, carcinogenic chemicals? Apparently Tom Dewine and Josh Shapiro both endorsed the controlled burn idea. and let's not forget the Feds. According to Buttigieg, while he was at a conference talking about racist brigdes, Biden officials, the DOT and EPA were on the scene yet they didn't stop it either. They didn't say a word about it until there was outrage on social media. Maybe if East Palestine wasn't a poor white working class town that went for Trump in the election...

Anyway, now that they're finding out it was a horrible idea, both now say it was a horrible idea and Dewine now says Norfolk Southern was unwilling to consider alternative courses of action. He has the nerve to say there was a very obvious, safer alternative to the burn - but he doesn't say what that alternative is or why he not only didn't challenge Norfolk Southern for this obvious safer alternative, but he endorsed their plan to burn the chemicals. LOL Tom Dewine and Shapiro, you clowns are the ones that let them do it, you're the freakin government for crap's sake - the buck stops with you.

Do they really expect people to believe they couldn't stop a company from lighting massive, dangerous fires in their towns and states? Of course they do - people like you will believe them. Or at least you'll believe Shapiro because he's a Democrat.

It's the corporations and the corporations alone...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kswx1WqsTk4

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not even sure where to begin.

What would you propose is the alternative to a controlled burn that doesn't result flammable toxic fluids under pressure in tank cars erupting in a catastrophic explosion?

Not a political issue... this is just physics and chemistry. Let's hear your solution

Where was railroad management on this one? Do they teach how to safely transport hazardous chemicals in business school?

The same management that successfully lobbied to have this shit not designated a hazardous material.

The problem here is government... that it acquiesced to corporate management & lobbying on every issue that lead up to this.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm not even sure where to begin.

What would you propose is the alternative to a controlled burn that doesn't result flammable toxic fluids under pressure in tank cars erupting in a catastrophic explosion?

Not a political issue... this is just physics and chemistry. Let's hear your solution

Ask Mike Dewine - he's the one claiming there was an obvious, safer alternative after green lighting the controlled release and burn. One question comes to mind though - if they can do a controlled release, why can't they do a controlled release and capture? Pump the stuff into tanker trucks and haul it away?

Where was railroad management on this one? Do they teach how to safely transport hazardous chemicals in business school?

The same management that successfully lobbied to have this shit not designated a hazardous material.

The problem here is government... that it acquiesced to corporate management & lobbying on every issue that lead up to this.

What I've read doesn't indicate that these materials weren't designated hazardous material or that railroad management lobbied anyone to "have this shit not designated a hazardous material." The issue seems to be that the train was not identified as having "high hazardous" material on it. If it were though, it wouldn't change much other than they would have to notify the states they passed through that the train contained hazardous material. I doubt that would have prevented the train from derailing.

 

[Michchamp]

Ask Mike Dewine - he's the one claiming there was an obvious, safer alternative after green lighting the controlled release and burn. One question comes to mind though - if they can do a controlled release, why can't they do a controlled release and capture? Pump the stuff into tanker trucks and haul it away?

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it's hard to pump liquid that's on fire, or about to explode.

I also think in such a situation the first order of business is to save lives, and since nobody died, unlike, say here where the railcars did explode (granted that was oil, not vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, but same issue involving pressurized fluid heated to combustion)

Norfolk Southern actually just had another train derail in Michigan, but since it was not on fire, there was no controlled release/burn off.

What I've read doesn't indicate that these materials weren't designated hazardous material or that railroad management lobbied anyone to "have this shit not designated a hazardous material." The issue seems to be that the train was not identified as having "high hazardous" material on it. If it were though, it wouldn't change much other than they would have to notify the states they passed through that the train contained hazardous material. I doubt that would have prevented the train from derailing.

Because what you read is essentially corporate PR masquerading as "news" maybe?

The cars were indeed designated non-hazardous.

Not only would this require notifying local authorities, like you say, it would also require the train to travel at slower speeds. I heard this in a podcast, reported on the Lever, which is a subscription news site.

Hence though, why they lobbied against rules that would have required them to notify authorities and comply with rules that would slightly reduce their profits... instead anybody who lives along one of these routes bears the risk of a derailment and explosion. that's how we do capitalism... privatized profits for the majority shareholders and executives, socialized losses.

If Norfolk Southern makes ther residents whole after this, and remediates the town how it was before they fucked it up, that would be a surprise.

 

[Spartanmack]

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think it's hard to pump liquid that's on fire, or about to explode.

I also think in such a situation the first order of business is to save lives, and since nobody died, unlike, say here where the railcars did explode (granted that was oil, not vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, but same issue involving pressurized fluid heated to combustion)

Norfolk Southern actually just had another train derail in Michigan, but since it was not on fire, there was no controlled release/burn off.

It's hardly an unreasonable question given Dewine has stated there was an obvious and safer alternative. And I suspect you're speculation as to why they couldn't do it is wrong because it just sounds dumb - how would you perform a controlled release of flammable chemicals that have already ignited? This article seems to indicate you are in fact incorrect.

from the piece...

On Feb. 6, the authorities performed a controlled release of the toxic materials from five tankers and the contents were diverted to a trench and burned off.

Granted the NYT definitely is PR masquerading as news, but it's PR for your team so I feel pretty confident you're wrong. Now it may be the case that the controlled burn was still the better option, but that's definitely not obvious and certainly worth investigating.

Because what you read is essentially corporate PR masquerading as "news" maybe?

The cars were indeed designated non-hazardous.

Not only would this require notifying local authorities, like you say, it would also require the train to travel at slower speeds. I heard this in a podcast, reported on the Lever, which is a subscription news site.

Hence though, why they lobbied against rules that would have required them to notify authorities and comply with rules that would slightly reduce their profits... instead anybody who lives along one of these routes bears the risk of a derailment and explosion. that's how we do capitalism... privatized profits for the majority shareholders and executives, socialized losses.

If Norfolk Southern makes ther residents whole after this, and remediates the town how it was before they fucked it up, that would be a surprise.

The sources I read are definitely not corporate PR. Funny though, how the stuff you read never say what you claim they do. In this case, the cars were designated nonhazardous, from what I can tell the chemicals themselves are not designated nonhazardous. from the NYT piece...

The E.P.A. said that about 20 rail cars were reported to have been carrying hazardous materials. Vinyl chloride, butyl acrylate, ethylhexyl acrylate and ethylene glycol monobutyl ethers were released to the air, surface soil and surface waters, it said.

What seems to have happened here is hazardous materials were transported in rail cars improperly marked as nonhazardous. The corporate boogeyman didn't lobby the government regulators to get hazardous chemicals labeled nonhazardous as you claimed in your prior post. I'll requote it right here in case you forgot...

...Where was railroad management on this one? Do they teach how to safely transport hazardous chemicals in business school?

The same management that successfully lobbied to have this shit not designated a hazardous material.

The problem here is government... that it acquiesced to corporate management & lobbying on every issue that lead up to this.

 

[Spartanmack]

At last, the same government agency that has been telling the residents of East Palastine, OH that the air and water are safe to breath and drink, is finally taking over the cleanup of the toxic disaster.

 

[tigermud]

China and Russia are now teamed up against Nato and US Biden is still the worst president in history.

 

[tigermud]

things could have turned out different if not for all the trump Russia BS and now it's too late.

 

[Michchamp]

China and Russia are now teamed up against Nato and US Biden is still the worst president in history.

It depends on your perspective... American oil and gas companies are banking record profits, and the Big Five defense contractors (Lockheed, Raytheon, etc.) are doing great. Biden might be one of the greatest, if not THE greatest in their opinion.

I don't think corporate America, the 0.1% or maybe even the whole top 1% can complain either, although they're not happy with Lina Khan in the FTC's blanket ban on non-competes.

 

[tigermud]

Blinken to China to try and repair relationships. Only problem is Blinken is a total joke, the Chicoms laugh at us.

 

[byco42]

Don't know where this goes: Might as well go here.

US Gubment Agencies Hit With Cyberattack

 

[Johnny68]

things could have turned out different if not for all the trump Russia BS and now it's too late.

You mean the Trump/Russia BS where it was proven his campaign was meeting with Russians in Trump tower and Russia was working to get him elected?

That the bullshit you're talking about?

 

[tigermud]

You mean the Trump/Russia BS where it was proven his campaign was meeting with Russians in Trump tower and Russia was working to get him elected?

That the bullshit you're talking about?

wow did you bother to read the Durham report, you nothing but a total partisan hack.

 

[Johnny68]

wow did you bother to read the Durham report, you nothing but a total partisan hack.

Yeah, I did. It said nothing to refute the Mueller reports findings or the comments I posted.

Also, Durham even says the FBI was justified in opening an investigation. He only disagreed at the level of investigation undertaken.

Lastly, stop ignoring the fact that the IG investigated and determined that the Russia investigation was properly opened and conducted without political bias.

But hey, stick your head all the way up your ass except for the occasional time you pull it out to spew some nonsense.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, I did. It said nothing to refute the Mueller reports findings or the comments I posted.

Also, Durham even says the FBI was justified in opening an investigation. He only disagreed at the level of investigation undertaken.

Lastly, stop ignoring the fact that the IG investigated and determined that the Russia investigation was properly opened and conducted without political bias.

But hey, stick your head all the way up your ass except for the occasional time you pull it out to spew some nonsense.

Admit it, you read the left wing think tank ACS' recap of the Mueller report.

 

[Johnny68]

Admit it, you read the left wing think tank ACS' recap of the Mueller report.

Admit it, you still think Strzok and Page were behind the whole thing.

Just so you know, regardless of the article being posted, what matters is whether or not they are citing the original source of the information. But you know that, you just can't counter it so you try to dismiss it.

 

[Spartanmack]

Admit it, you still think Strzok and Page were behind the whole thing.

Just so you know, regardless of the article being posted, what matters is whether or not they are citing the original source of the information. But you know that, you just can't counter it so you try to dismiss it.

Strzok and McCabe - Page was the guy they illegally obtained a warrant against to illegally surveil. Not sure what you mean by "behind the whole thing" but they were clearly a big part of it. You sure you read the report? I suppose in your mind, the fact that CNN hired both of them probably means they're legit.

And just so you know, it doesn't matter what they're citing if they get it wrong. I've countered it with the facts that show it was a giant waste of money, illegal, showed zero evidence of election interference or collusion by Trump or his campaign and what came of it could have been accomplished by other people just doing their jobs. you simply refuse to see that - that's on you.