Slashdot Mirror
GM Gets To Dump Its Polluted Sites
ParticleGirl writes with this excerpt from the Detroit Free Press:
"GM's unusual, government-engineered bankruptcy allowed the Detroit automaker to emerge as a new company — and to shed billions in liabilities, including claims that governments had against GM for polluting. Environmental liabilities estimated at $530 million were left with the old GM, which has only $1.2 billion to wind down. Administrative fees and other claims will soak up that money, and state and local officials told the Free Press they fear the cleanups will be shortchanged. ... The New York Attorney General's Office, seeking to protect environmental claims for cleanup at Massena and other sites, argued that federal and state regulatory requirements should not be eliminated by a bankruptcy sale. ... But [US Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber] ruled otherwise."
I'm sure they will once they in control 100% of healthcare rather than just 50% of it.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Go ahead, mutilate the English language. But anyone who matters will completely disregard your statement if you can't be bothered to the basic rules of grammar. If your writing is unstructured, then your thoughts most likely are as well.
You realize this is slashdot.org, right? "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"?
RTFS, n00b! WTF do you think this story is about?
Please learn the differences among "their" and "there" and "they're" before you decide you're going to tell us a thing or two. It's your native fucking language so quit being so silly.
she wrote something informative but misspelled (while clearly understandable). You however are a waste of bandwidth. Journalists who can clearly trace and describe the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars are more important than reviewers who can spellcheck.
Generally speaking I don't recall seeing many journalistic pieces that are both well-researched and ungrammatical or improperly spelled. In my personal opinion, if someone uses sloppy spelling and ungrammatical speech they are likely to do sloppy research and use slipshod reasoning as well. Students, journalists, bloggers, and the "man in the street". I'm making allowances for Slashdot's terrible editing environment and fact that people will quickly type a response and continue reading, so I'm not bothered by simple spelling mistakes (besides I make them myself all the time). There are limits however. Failing to distinguish between "their", "they're" and "there", and between "loose" and "to lose" is different from making simple spelling mistakes. It indicates a poor command of language. Nothing to worry about if a Frenchman, a Chinese, or an Arab makes such mistakes, but worrisome if a Brit, an American, or an Australian makes them.
So I don't see much justification for the "It's more important what they have to say than whether they can spell" line of argument, but I do tend to see some justification for the "If their writing is sloppy, unclear, and contains lots of errors, they're probably stupid" school of thought. I'm fully aware that's probably an Elitist point of view, but there you go.
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
I guess the truth is a troll.