Corpse man.. Anyways, it seems like Sara's refudiate was seen as a plus by those in the know.
“From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have concluded that neither ‘refute’ nor ‘repudiate’ seems consistently precise, and that ‘refudiate’ more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ‘reject.’”
Lol.. You think that military bases being positioned around the world is expansionist? I mean at one point in time, we actually used those bases for the defense of the countries and areas they were in. Just because we had leases that outlived the need doesn't mean we are expanding into those countries.
Ah no.. Most people gave up on telling those metagovernment idiots off a long time ago. Now it seems like ignoring them as not to feed the trolls. It's a failed project that lives on dreams and wishes that could never materialize in real life.
They might as well just said a magical unicorn would lead us all into utopia as it has about the same chances of that becoming anything useful or effective outside a very small local government scale. I know people who still think we are in Vietnam fighting to this day or worse. Do you really want these idiots having that much input in government?
That's what would happen. Add the defecting democrats to the republicans who would vote for Palin and all the sudden Palin would have so much inertia behind her that all the independents and so called undecided swing votes will throw in with her just not to be different. Come election day, it wouldn't matter if the democrat candidate is so much better then Palin, the dems can't win it without the swing votes. And no, most of the swing votes do not pay that close of attention to the debates and so on (which Palin actually does well in), They pay attention to who they are told did well.
So if they did this, it would have the legitimate effect of Palin ousting Obama or whoever runs in his place.
Try mergers and takeovers only.. It got defined and brought into bankruptcy because the bankruptcy law transfers ownership of the corporation which is a similar effect. The original intent of the golden parachutes was specifically to protect execs and make mergers and take overs appear unprofitable.
Okay! Good. We're done here, nothing more to add after that.
No, because it still doesn't mean anything you think it does. All preexisting obligations are subject to revisionism by the courts. Even when they are not in practice, it doesn't mean they will get it because other preexisting debt obligations can take precedence over the severance packages if they are even allowed. If after any mortgages, administration of the bankruptcy is taken care of an any money remains, then only compensation for employment. And compensation for employment can be limited by 502 regulations to if such claim is for services of an insider or attorney of the debtor, such claim exceeds the reasonable value of such services.
In other words, the court specifically is charged under US bankruptcy law to determine if the compensation for services if reasonable with the value of the service provided. In this situation, the court can specifically alter golden parachute severance packages and remand them to something closer to normal pay. I think it was Chaney V unconsolidated creditors that said a severance compensation is only valid if it supplants a require minimum notice for leave and is in line with normal expenditures that wold be inured if the leave was contractually followed. In that position, they were speaking of the bankruptcy trustee firing employees without giving the contractual 2 days notice in which 2 days severance pay was determined to be appropriate. I believe it also discussed the severance of executives and management and limited their claims to similar levels leaving their severance contracts to be argued under the 502 process which could cut the packages if needed.
Right, more precisely, a government agency, the FCC is attempted to wiggle into it's structure, power that congress didn't instill upon them after a court pointed that out.
It's not the net Neutrality that is of concern, it's a government agency bypassing congress and giving itself more power then a competent court of law said it had. In other words, this is like the FBI or NSA all the sudden determining it has the power to arrest and detain people without due process because of information gathered from once illegal wiretaps that were somehow justified through NSA laws.
It's fucking frightening to see that parts of the government can magically give itself more power without congress doing so. And whether you like Rush or not, this one thing should at least grab your attention and we should all have something in common with it. Congress sets the rules and laws, not some entity of government who already was told by a court that they didn't have the powers to regulate it.
Wow.. You are still not reading what was in front of you?
Look, the term Golden Parachute refers to protections from bankruptcy. You are in a crashing plane, but you have a parachute, and it is worth a lot of money. The Golden parachute is a pre-existing obligation the company must discharge before unsecured debts. When a company goes into bankruptcy, its assets are be used to pay off as much of its debt as possible, and one of the first things to get paid off is the golden parachute of executives.
The term golden parachute was coined to mean a very excessive severance package. It has nothing to do with bankruptcy except that it's defined and forbidden until a review justifies it. Golden parachutes were originally intended to protect CEOs and management in case of non-bankruptcy take overs and the resulting loss of their jobs.
And yes, it is a preexisting obligation that must be discharged before unsecured debt, but it also has to be justified by the judge or arbitrator assigned to the bankruptcy filings first. When a company goes into bankruptcy, it's only allowed to expend the funding absolutely necessary to maintain operations unless it is approved by a court or it's representatives with competent authority. There is no guarantee it would be honored as the bankruptcy legally violates all existing contracts and gives partial or whole compensation according to the law and the court which divides the assets around.
Your link points to the FDIC, and only concerns banks operating under FDIC rules. It prohibits them from entering into 'golden parachute' type agreements, if they want FDIC protections.
Don't play stupid. The link goes to the FDIC because your quoted definition did too. Sure you posted a reference from another site, but I posted the entire regulation from the source. In other words, Your entire "I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions." was concerning that same regulation that only pertains to banks.
Now ask yourself why the FDIC would need to prohibit their use if they did not, in fact do what I claim.
You mean why is what you say is legal actually illegal? I don't follow. You see, if it's happening, then it's against the law. If it's not happening, then it's because it's illegal to happen. If the law was created because it happened in the past, then you are still wrong and I am still right because it's not happening now and is illegal to happen now.
Your statement would make a lot more sense if you wrote "Now ask yourself why the FDIC would need to prohibit their use if they did not, in fact do what I claim in the past". Now this would imply that it might have happened in the past but isn't legal now which completely agrees with me.
It specifically talks about modifications pertaining to the various defined routine maintenance verses life extension repairs. It even cites Wisconsin Electric Power Company v. Reilly (WEPCO) in reference to it. It then goes on to show that in the years after WEPCO, the EPA applied the courts four factor test to several industries and determined that the repair and maintenance performed before now qualified as Major modifications require a new site performance review.
And the cases you mentioned about the increased emissions, it's not only increased emissions, it's increased potential for emissions. In other words, if you expand or extend the life of a grandfathered facility, then it needs to undergo the current regulation reviews and meet the current standards. In the case of expanding, only the new portions would need to be under the new regulation unless it's interconnected to the old grandfathered portion in which it all goes.
This is all listed quite clearly and plainly in your article.
Are you stupid? I mean seriously, can you not read a little about bankruptcy law and understand how it works first before jumping to the wrong god damned conclusions and making an ignorant ass out of yourself?
In your first link, it shows the filing in debt. That's only part of the process I stated "When a company or you files for bankruptcy, retirement, employee compensation, benefits, expenditures and all that has to be reviewed by a judge or arbitrator who was appointed by the bankruptcy court then justified as an ongoing payment before it's reviewed."
In your second link (and I'm discounting the wikipedia link), it shows tax liabilities when a bankruptcy court allows a golden parachute payment that is in line with the corporation's fiduciary responsibility. Nothing new or different from what I said here.
In your third link, it only expands on the first which is still in line with what I said completely.
In your forth link, it's not even relevant because the bank, Washington Mutual didn't file bankruptcy, they were seized by the feds and dissolved or in the process of it because it was so underfunded. And if you note, they have to sue to try and get their severance packages because it was denied when the feds shut it down so if anything, it bolsters what I said.
In your fifth link, it's irrelevant too. It talks about bank bailouts not bankruptcy. You see, there is a fucking difference between the government bailing you out and you not having to file bankruptcy and you actually filing bankruptcy. If you cannot understand that, then you probably should just shut up right now.
I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions.
Relevent to whom? You? I mean common, you only posted the definition of what a golden parachute is in your last link but you failed to even remotely consider why it's defined. Well, here is why! Do you see that where in 12 CFR 359.2 it makes golden parachutes illegal?
359.2 Golden parachute payments prohibited.
No insured depository institution or depository institution holding company shall make or agree to make any golden parachute payment, except as provided in this part. Keep on reading because in 359.3 it makes taking insurance out on you getting the golden parachute in case the company goes bankrupt illegal too. There are some exceptions but the way you are attempting to portray it is in no way part of them.
Go ahead and follow the regulations, even follow the link in the end where it says nothing in this regulation binds any payment to any receiver or shouldn't be construed to violate 12 U.S.C. 1828(k)(3).
WOW! So, "Golden Parachutes" are actually (among other things) meant to protect executives in the case of bankruptcy.
Why don't you just shut up and read the law. You started and I'm not sure if you were too incompetent to continue reading or if you purposely stopped when it started disagreeing with you.
I just have to ask, why do you bother? I mean, every. single. time. you try to argue with me, you lose. Doesn't it get tiring?
Ok, Now I'm sure you stop paying attention to the reality of life when it disagrees with you. Every single time we do this, I end up pointing out what you overlooked and completely misconstrued. How you can claim that is somehow a fault of mine is ridiculous but still a symptom of your idiocy.
And yes, it does get tiring when I point out how irresponsibly wrong you are. At least in this situation, it was pretty simple, all I had to do was read past where you stopped.
How do they work then? Because what I am describing is reality. So show me how they do work.
And Yes, I am speaking from personal experience when I said a power plant in Ohio had to get a special permit to introduce the fly-ash containment and couldn't touch the reagents because the EPA would have requires a complete redesign of the stack and facility in order to comply with newer emissions regulations that would be forced on them. I was a member of the hazmat response team and we were in on most of these things as it pertained to our jobs at the plants.
The bailed out banks didn't file bankruptcy. The bail out prevented that remember?
And you obviously didn't follow enron very closely. Almost everyone who got a severance package that was in a position that could have stopped the cooked books had that package confiscated from them. The CEOs even had assets frozen and confiscated that couldn't be justified by payments outside their connections to Enron.
No a person does not gets the parachute no matter what. The point of bankruptcy relief is because you or the company owes more then your assets and what it can hope to repay in a normal lifetime through no deliberate act of it's own. When a company or you files for bankruptcy, retirement, employee compensation, benefits, expenditures and all that has to be reviewed by a judge or arbitrator who was appointed by the bankruptcy court then justified as an ongoing payment before it's reviewed. Look into it a bit more before replying and go further then wikipedia.
Not only have CEO's lost all compensation for the year the company went into bankruptcy, but employees have lost back pay, retirement and so on in the process. I'm aware of one company in Ohio that even lost the ability to provide medical insurance to it's employees during the filings.
It seems that you do not know what a bankruptcy is. It's a legal means to break contracts and forget debt- including employment contracts.
A few Enron, World Com, and Tyco executives may have gone to prison, but they did so WITH their golden parachutes.
No they didn't go with golden parachutes. Those were all taken from them, plus any extra. In fact, it was the golden parachutes that launched the probes into their fiduciary problems that caused them to go to prison in the first place.
I know you have been brainwashed that corporations==bad==evil. I'm not going to argue that, but I will argue against your misconceptions to the point they become fallacies.
Actually, it is a bit of an engineering problem too.
You see, it's not that the pipes couldn't be upgraded, it's that if the pipes were in place before regulations changed, then upgrading or doing anything besides bringing them back to whatever the grandfathered spec is, could trigger a crap load of other requirements to be met without touching the pipes too.
This is particularly problematic for electrical generations facilities. An attempt to put misters in the exhaust plumes of one coal burning facility to catch more fly-ash and introduce some reagent in the process supposedly to make the exhaust cleaner ended up being sidelined because they would have been forced to re-engineer the entire plant to meet 2003 regulations when the plant was built in 1955. Since then, there has been approval to use plain water to catch fly-ash but they couldn't use any chemicals without losing their grandfather status on the regulation.
So fixing things back to the way they were instead of fixing things to be better seems to be the way to avoid unnecessary costs in this regulation swapping world.
And yes, that would be an unnecessary cost. If the pollution wasn't a problem when the plant was built and put into operation, then even though it's seen as a problem today, shouldn't effect that operation.
Show me a company that did is you think it happens.
I mean the law is pretty clear on this. It's intent isn't hidden nor is it somehow ineffective in the law. Look at Enron, World Com, Tyco and all those who went bankrupt after trying ploys like this and their CEOs went up on charges and got prison sentences with the exceptions of the ones who dies during trial in which case the charges weren't pursued any longer against them.
But hey, I'm sure you have some real world examples. So why don't you name some and post a link or two for verification. You know, show this existing "in the real world".
I'm not supporting his premise, although I have seen it happen with agriculture operations where the neighboring farm sold land for commercial development that later turned into housing and the new owners made the smell producing farm operations shut down.
Anyways, one of the conspiracy theories about the environmental groups that keep their membership secret is that it's an effort to close off a certain portion of available lands in order to drive the costs of the other lands up when a city expands. It's supposedly benefits the members who own the non-effected lands when regulation makes it almost impossible to expand in a certain direction.
Nope, a company cannot declare bankruptcy after giving golden parachutes to it's executives.
You cannot declare bankruptcy for your own actions in going bankrupt. Learn a little about the system before concocting these fables. IF a company was to erroneously spend itself into bankruptcy without justification (an no, severance packages wouldn't be justification) not only would it be barred from bankruptcy to escape it's responsibilities, it's executive that accepted the golden parachutes and those that orchestrated it would be up on charges.
You can't purposely become bankrupt and use the bankruptcy laws to bail out. It's only there for legitimate encounters where something outside of your control caused the bankruptcy. You then have to make a best effort to control or limit that outside force and throwing money to executives wouldn't hold up against a fiduciary responsibility.
"it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are." You have to have something that makes you think you are better then someone else. Especially when you centered that presumption around "Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists"
You figure it out, tell me, and we will both know. But if you have to ask me, then you're probably worse off then my generic portrayal of why it shouldn't have been in the article.
Well, there is a guy who claims that the weather trends we are experiencing is due to some convoluted connection to the effect of the sun's magnetic force interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. And he does have something to say about it's connection with AGW.
Sad is right. The article shouldn't have even mentioned religious cults or those that wish to deny them because of some cult belief of their own. It's only looking to attention to flame which you fell for.
Not that cold? It's 12 degrees below freezing which is why he has the problem in the first place.
I'm not sure you are understanding the situation or perhaps you got your F and C mixed up. And yes, I'm used to 20 degree C too. In the smaller compact cars, this can be an issue where it's not as much as one in the larger cars where the windshield is further from the people sitting in it.
If so, then it sounds to me that the **aas wouldn't have much problem going after them directly. I'm sort of thinking there is something more legitimate about megaupload that scares **AAs into taking back room negotiations over law and order.
Is this cause or reality? I mean most people with the deepest pockets take more time to protect themselves, meaning they are less apt to get sued.
On the converse, less people without deep pockets spend the money to protect themselves and they usually have a smaller grasp of the laws. I don't know how many "artists" I know who think simply mailing an envelope with their songs in it has the same effect as a registered copyright on file at the copyright office if someone takes their songs. And even after mailing a couple blank unsealed enveloped to myself to show them the problems with the theory after I put their month newer stuff in it and then sealed the envelopes, they still swore by it.
So obviously what you are seeing could easily be a combination of both but I wouldn't exactly attribute it all to the ones with the most win the most.
Slashdot Mirror
Corpse man.. Anyways, it seems like Sara's refudiate was seen as a plus by those in the know.
“From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have concluded that neither ‘refute’ nor ‘repudiate’ seems consistently precise, and that ‘refudiate’ more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ‘reject.’”
How's acting dishonest to save their jobs and keep them in power while being dishonest working out for you?
If you want change, you have to lead by example. Otherwise you are only looking for an excuse to bitch and moan about what you want changed.
Lol.. You think that military bases being positioned around the world is expansionist? I mean at one point in time, we actually used those bases for the defense of the countries and areas they were in. Just because we had leases that outlived the need doesn't mean we are expanding into those countries.
Ah no.. Most people gave up on telling those metagovernment idiots off a long time ago. Now it seems like ignoring them as not to feed the trolls. It's a failed project that lives on dreams and wishes that could never materialize in real life.
They might as well just said a magical unicorn would lead us all into utopia as it has about the same chances of that becoming anything useful or effective outside a very small local government scale. I know people who still think we are in Vietnam fighting to this day or worse. Do you really want these idiots having that much input in government?
That's what would happen. Add the defecting democrats to the republicans who would vote for Palin and all the sudden Palin would have so much inertia behind her that all the independents and so called undecided swing votes will throw in with her just not to be different. Come election day, it wouldn't matter if the democrat candidate is so much better then Palin, the dems can't win it without the swing votes. And no, most of the swing votes do not pay that close of attention to the debates and so on (which Palin actually does well in), They pay attention to who they are told did well.
So if they did this, it would have the legitimate effect of Palin ousting Obama or whoever runs in his place.
Try mergers and takeovers only.. It got defined and brought into bankruptcy because the bankruptcy law transfers ownership of the corporation which is a similar effect. The original intent of the golden parachutes was specifically to protect execs and make mergers and take overs appear unprofitable.
No, because it still doesn't mean anything you think it does. All preexisting obligations are subject to revisionism by the courts. Even when they are not in practice, it doesn't mean they will get it because other preexisting debt obligations can take precedence over the severance packages if they are even allowed. If after any mortgages, administration of the bankruptcy is taken care of an any money remains, then only compensation for employment. And compensation for employment can be limited by 502 regulations to if such claim is for services of an insider or attorney of the debtor, such claim exceeds the reasonable value of such services.
In other words, the court specifically is charged under US bankruptcy law to determine if the compensation for services if reasonable with the value of the service provided. In this situation, the court can specifically alter golden parachute severance packages and remand them to something closer to normal pay. I think it was Chaney V unconsolidated creditors that said a severance compensation is only valid if it supplants a require minimum notice for leave and is in line with normal expenditures that wold be inured if the leave was contractually followed. In that position, they were speaking of the bankruptcy trustee firing employees without giving the contractual 2 days notice in which 2 days severance pay was determined to be appropriate. I believe it also discussed the severance of executives and management and limited their claims to similar levels leaving their severance contracts to be argued under the 502 process which could cut the packages if needed.
Right, more precisely, a government agency, the FCC is attempted to wiggle into it's structure, power that congress didn't instill upon them after a court pointed that out.
It's not the net Neutrality that is of concern, it's a government agency bypassing congress and giving itself more power then a competent court of law said it had. In other words, this is like the FBI or NSA all the sudden determining it has the power to arrest and detain people without due process because of information gathered from once illegal wiretaps that were somehow justified through NSA laws.
It's fucking frightening to see that parts of the government can magically give itself more power without congress doing so. And whether you like Rush or not, this one thing should at least grab your attention and we should all have something in common with it. Congress sets the rules and laws, not some entity of government who already was told by a court that they didn't have the powers to regulate it.
Wow.. That's what I originally said..
Wow.. You are still not reading what was in front of you?
The term golden parachute was coined to mean a very excessive severance package. It has nothing to do with bankruptcy except that it's defined and forbidden until a review justifies it. Golden parachutes were originally intended to protect CEOs and management in case of non-bankruptcy take overs and the resulting loss of their jobs.
And yes, it is a preexisting obligation that must be discharged before unsecured debt, but it also has to be justified by the judge or arbitrator assigned to the bankruptcy filings first. When a company goes into bankruptcy, it's only allowed to expend the funding absolutely necessary to maintain operations unless it is approved by a court or it's representatives with competent authority. There is no guarantee it would be honored as the bankruptcy legally violates all existing contracts and gives partial or whole compensation according to the law and the court which divides the assets around.
Don't play stupid. The link goes to the FDIC because your quoted definition did too. Sure you posted a reference from another site, but I posted the entire regulation from the source. In other words, Your entire "I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions." was concerning that same regulation that only pertains to banks.
You mean why is what you say is legal actually illegal? I don't follow. You see, if it's happening, then it's against the law. If it's not happening, then it's because it's illegal to happen. If the law was created because it happened in the past, then you are still wrong and I am still right because it's not happening now and is illegal to happen now.
Your statement would make a lot more sense if you wrote "Now ask yourself why the FDIC would need to prohibit their use if they did not, in fact do what I claim in the past". Now this would imply that it might have happened in the past but isn't legal now which completely agrees with me.
Yawn.. Did you even read your paper?
It specifically talks about modifications pertaining to the various defined routine maintenance verses life extension repairs. It even cites Wisconsin Electric Power Company v.
Reilly (WEPCO) in reference to it. It then goes on to show that in the years after WEPCO, the EPA applied the courts four factor test to several industries and determined that the repair and maintenance performed before now qualified as Major modifications require a new site performance review.
And the cases you mentioned about the increased emissions, it's not only increased emissions, it's increased potential for emissions. In other words, if you expand or extend the life of a grandfathered facility, then it needs to undergo the current regulation reviews and meet the current standards. In the case of expanding, only the new portions would need to be under the new regulation unless it's interconnected to the old grandfathered portion in which it all goes.
This is all listed quite clearly and plainly in your article.
Are you stupid? I mean seriously, can you not read a little about bankruptcy law and understand how it works first before jumping to the wrong god damned conclusions and making an ignorant ass out of yourself?
In your first link, it shows the filing in debt. That's only part of the process I stated "When a company or you files for bankruptcy, retirement, employee compensation, benefits, expenditures and all that has to be reviewed by a judge or arbitrator who was appointed by the bankruptcy court then justified as an ongoing payment before it's reviewed."
In your second link (and I'm discounting the wikipedia link), it shows tax liabilities when a bankruptcy court allows a golden parachute payment that is in line with the corporation's fiduciary responsibility. Nothing new or different from what I said here.
In your third link, it only expands on the first which is still in line with what I said completely.
In your forth link, it's not even relevant because the bank, Washington Mutual didn't file bankruptcy, they were seized by the feds and dissolved or in the process of it because it was so underfunded. And if you note, they have to sue to try and get their severance packages because it was denied when the feds shut it down so if anything, it bolsters what I said.
In your fifth link, it's irrelevant too. It talks about bank bailouts not bankruptcy. You see, there is a fucking difference between the government bailing you out and you not having to file bankruptcy and you actually filing bankruptcy. If you cannot understand that, then you probably should just shut up right now.
Relevent to whom? You? I mean common, you only posted the definition of what a golden parachute is in your last link but you failed to even remotely consider why it's defined. Well, here is why! Do you see that where in 12 CFR 359.2 it makes golden parachutes illegal?
How do they work then? Because what I am describing is reality. So show me how they do work.
And Yes, I am speaking from personal experience when I said a power plant in Ohio had to get a special permit to introduce the fly-ash containment and couldn't touch the reagents because the EPA would have requires a complete redesign of the stack and facility in order to comply with newer emissions regulations that would be forced on them. I was a member of the hazmat response team and we were in on most of these things as it pertained to our jobs at the plants.
The bailed out banks didn't file bankruptcy. The bail out prevented that remember?
And you obviously didn't follow enron very closely. Almost everyone who got a severance package that was in a position that could have stopped the cooked books had that package confiscated from them. The CEOs even had assets frozen and confiscated that couldn't be justified by payments outside their connections to Enron.
No a person does not gets the parachute no matter what. The point of bankruptcy relief is because you or the company owes more then your assets and what it can hope to repay in a normal lifetime through no deliberate act of it's own. When a company or you files for bankruptcy, retirement, employee compensation, benefits, expenditures and all that has to be reviewed by a judge or arbitrator who was appointed by the bankruptcy court then justified as an ongoing payment before it's reviewed. Look into it a bit more before replying and go further then wikipedia.
Not only have CEO's lost all compensation for the year the company went into bankruptcy, but employees have lost back pay, retirement and so on in the process. I'm aware of one company in Ohio that even lost the ability to provide medical insurance to it's employees during the filings.
It seems that you do not know what a bankruptcy is. It's a legal means to break contracts and forget debt- including employment contracts.
No they didn't go with golden parachutes. Those were all taken from them, plus any extra. In fact, it was the golden parachutes that launched the probes into their fiduciary problems that caused them to go to prison in the first place.
I know you have been brainwashed that corporations==bad==evil. I'm not going to argue that, but I will argue against your misconceptions to the point they become fallacies.
Actually, it is a bit of an engineering problem too.
You see, it's not that the pipes couldn't be upgraded, it's that if the pipes were in place before regulations changed, then upgrading or doing anything besides bringing them back to whatever the grandfathered spec is, could trigger a crap load of other requirements to be met without touching the pipes too.
This is particularly problematic for electrical generations facilities. An attempt to put misters in the exhaust plumes of one coal burning facility to catch more fly-ash and introduce some reagent in the process supposedly to make the exhaust cleaner ended up being sidelined because they would have been forced to re-engineer the entire plant to meet 2003 regulations when the plant was built in 1955. Since then, there has been approval to use plain water to catch fly-ash but they couldn't use any chemicals without losing their grandfather status on the regulation.
So fixing things back to the way they were instead of fixing things to be better seems to be the way to avoid unnecessary costs in this regulation swapping world.
And yes, that would be an unnecessary cost. If the pollution wasn't a problem when the plant was built and put into operation, then even though it's seen as a problem today, shouldn't effect that operation.
Show me a company that did is you think it happens.
I mean the law is pretty clear on this. It's intent isn't hidden nor is it somehow ineffective in the law. Look at Enron, World Com, Tyco and all those who went bankrupt after trying ploys like this and their CEOs went up on charges and got prison sentences with the exceptions of the ones who dies during trial in which case the charges weren't pursued any longer against them.
But hey, I'm sure you have some real world examples. So why don't you name some and post a link or two for verification. You know, show this existing "in the real world".
I'm not supporting his premise, although I have seen it happen with agriculture operations where the neighboring farm sold land for commercial development that later turned into housing and the new owners made the smell producing farm operations shut down.
Anyways, one of the conspiracy theories about the environmental groups that keep their membership secret is that it's an effort to close off a certain portion of available lands in order to drive the costs of the other lands up when a city expands. It's supposedly benefits the members who own the non-effected lands when regulation makes it almost impossible to expand in a certain direction.
Nope, a company cannot declare bankruptcy after giving golden parachutes to it's executives.
You cannot declare bankruptcy for your own actions in going bankrupt. Learn a little about the system before concocting these fables. IF a company was to erroneously spend itself into bankruptcy without justification (an no, severance packages wouldn't be justification) not only would it be barred from bankruptcy to escape it's responsibilities, it's executive that accepted the golden parachutes and those that orchestrated it would be up on charges.
You can't purposely become bankrupt and use the bankruptcy laws to bail out. It's only there for legitimate encounters where something outside of your control caused the bankruptcy. You then have to make a best effort to control or limit that outside force and throwing money to executives wouldn't hold up against a fiduciary responsibility.
I think that's pretty obvious.
"it's horrible dealing with people who don't realize how much better you are." You have to have something that makes you think you are better then someone else. Especially when you centered that presumption around "Christians, especially Baptists, especially young-earth Creationists"
You figure it out, tell me, and we will both know. But if you have to ask me, then you're probably worse off then my generic portrayal of why it shouldn't have been in the article.
Well, there is a guy who claims that the weather trends we are experiencing is due to some convoluted connection to the effect of the sun's magnetic force interacting with the Earth's magnetic field. And he does have something to say about it's connection with AGW.
Lol.. it looks like he found it in the GP's sig.
Sad is right. The article shouldn't have even mentioned religious cults or those that wish to deny them because of some cult belief of their own. It's only looking to attention to flame which you fell for.
Lol.. That should be 20 degree F too. I guess I should have previewed the buttons when clicking to continue editing.
Not that cold? It's 12 degrees below freezing which is why he has the problem in the first place.
I'm not sure you are understanding the situation or perhaps you got your F and C mixed up. And yes, I'm used to 20 degree C too. In the smaller compact cars, this can be an issue where it's not as much as one in the larger cars where the windshield is further from the people sitting in it.
Is it only for piracy?
If so, then it sounds to me that the **aas wouldn't have much problem going after them directly. I'm sort of thinking there is something more legitimate about megaupload that scares **AAs into taking back room negotiations over law and order.
Is this cause or reality? I mean most people with the deepest pockets take more time to protect themselves, meaning they are less apt to get sued.
On the converse, less people without deep pockets spend the money to protect themselves and they usually have a smaller grasp of the laws. I don't know how many "artists" I know who think simply mailing an envelope with their songs in it has the same effect as a registered copyright on file at the copyright office if someone takes their songs. And even after mailing a couple blank unsealed enveloped to myself to show them the problems with the theory after I put their month newer stuff in it and then sealed the envelopes, they still swore by it.
So obviously what you are seeing could easily be a combination of both but I wouldn't exactly attribute it all to the ones with the most win the most.