For Dems only.

[Balta1701]

I'll bet you they can shoot those things in any weather if need be.

 

Hmm, I seem to remember liberals screaming "It's completely IMPOSSIBLE to shoot a missle with a missle !" years ago. so now it's "THEY'LL NEVER GET ONE OFF IN THE RAIN!!!"

I never actually thought it was impossible. I just think that it was idiotic to move the system to deployment more than a decade before it was ready.

 

Remember, there are 3 criteria for whether or not a missile defense system is worth the money it takes to deploy it.

 

1. It must be highly effective under all scenarios - if an enemy thinks they can beat the system by launching when the system is inoperative, then it's useless.

 

2. It must be cost effective compared with the cost of an ICBM. If it costs $1 billion an interceptor and $20 million an ICBM, then all your enemy has to do is build more ICBM's and your defense system is rendered useless because you will run out of money before them.

 

3. It must be able to overcome countermeasures. A common technique, for example, would be to wrap the actual warhead in a mylar bubble, and place several other decoy bubbles in the same warhead, so that the interceptor loses the ability to distinguish between the real bomb and an empty bubble using visual detection.

 

At the time of deployment, and it seems still...the current system, which we've spent tens of billions of dollars deploying, seems like it can't do any of those.

 

A missile defense shield is a fine idea in principle. The current system is not up to the task it's been given. It should still be in the research phase.

[mr_genius]

I never actually thought it was impossible. I just think that it was idiotic to move the system to deployment more than a decade before it was ready.

 

Remember, there are 3 criteria for whether or not a missile defense system is worth the money it takes to deploy it.

 

1. It must be highly effective under all scenarios - if an enemy thinks they can beat the system by launching when the system is inoperative, then it's useless.

 

2. It must be cost effective compared with the cost of an ICBM. If it costs $1 billion an interceptor and $20 million an ICBM, then all your enemy has to do is build more ICBM's and your defense system is rendered useless because you will run out of money before them.

 

3. It must be able to overcome countermeasures. A common technique, for example, would be to wrap the actual warhead in a mylar bubble, and place several other decoy bubbles in the same warhead, so that the interceptor loses the ability to distinguish between the real bomb and an empty bubble using visual detection.

 

At the time of deployment, and it seems still...the current system, which we've spent tens of billions of dollars deploying, seems like it can't do any of those.

 

A missile defense shield is a fine idea in principle. The current system is not up to the task it's been given. It should still be in the research phase.

 

I'm sure it's still being worked on, and will be for some time. Also, I think the program is further along than I would know about. A missile defense system isn't really the type of thing that you would give out the blueprints too and give exact details as to how far along it is. Technological details on how to overcome counter measures is another thing I wouldn't expect the gov to just give out to the general public.

[BigSqwert]

VoteVets.org has a Web video hitting McCain on Iraq and tries to tie it to the economy. It features an Iraq veteran, who had a child after she came back and says, "John McCain said that it would be okay with him if the US spent the next 1,000 years in Iraq. A thousand years? That's some commitment to the Iraqi people, Senator McCain."

 

"This is my little boy," she says, holding her child. "He was born after I came back from Iraq. What commitment are you making to him? How about 1,000 years of affordable health care? Or a thousand years of keeping America safe? Can we afford that for my child, Senator McCain? Or have you already promised to spend trillions of our dollars... in Baghdad?"

 

Read the rest

[YASNY]

Read the rest

 

Didn't need to read the rest. There was enough leftist crap in the two paragraphs you posted to make me gag.

[BigSqwert]

Didn't need to read the rest. There was enough leftist crap in the two paragraphs you posted to make me gag.

Hence I posted it in the "For Dems Only" thread.

[YASNY]

Hence I posted it in the "For Dems Only" thread.

 

ok

[YASNY]

Sorry about yesterday folks. I had listened to 3 hours of Rush on my drive back from Texas and was feeling unusually snarky.

[southsider2k5]

Sorry about yesterday folks. I had listened to 3 hours of Rush on my drive back from Texas and was feeling unusually snarky.

 

3 hours of Geddy Lee would make me angry as well

[YASNY]

3 hours of Geddy Lee would make me angry as well

 

I knew somebody was going to do that. I almost made a comment about it not being musical. And I agree, I never could stand Rush because Geddy Lee sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.

[Mplssoxfan]

Sorry about yesterday folks. I had listened to 3 hours of Rush on my drive back from Texas and was feeling unusually snarky.

No worries. If we had to apologize for every time we were snarky, we'd have to open a separate thread. It'd be 200 pages long, too. Hell, kap would be doing nothing but apologizing most of the time.

[kapkomet]

No worries. If we had to apologize for every time we were snarky, we'd have to open a separate thread. It'd be 200 pages long, too. Hell, kap would be doing nothing but apologizing most of the time.

Kaperbole ™. Works every time. (to be annoying, that is).

 

[southsider2k5]

I knew somebody was going to do that. I almost made a comment about it not being musical. And I agree, I never could stand Rush because Geddy Lee sounded like nails on a chalkboard to me.

 

Eh, I couldn't resist

[Balta1701]

So, despite laws to the contrary, the TSA seemingly hasn't bothered doing background checks on seemingly well over 10000 foreigners currently enrolled in U.S. flight schools. But thankfully, the government can read my email. I feel safer.

[Balta1701]

God I love these guys. Even the intelligent ones don't realize the things that come out of their mouths sometimes.

Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

 

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

 

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."

 

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

I love these guys. Exxon destroys a chunk of the country, and the only thing on the chief Justice's mind is how to protect Exxon, not how to prevent another large swath of the country from being destroyed again.

[kapkomet]

God I love these guys. Even the intelligent ones don't realize the things that come out of their mouths sometimes.

I love these guys. Exxon destroys a chunk of the country, and the only thing on the chief Justice's mind is how to protect Exxon, not how to prevent another large swath of the country from being destroyed again.

It's not up to Justice Roberts to "prevent another large swatch of the country from being destroyed again".

 

You people ever wonder why EVERYTHING costs so damn much? $2.5 BILLION awarded in a lawsuit? Yes, they can afford it, but holy s***, at some point, you have to ask yourself what punitive damages get awarded... and yes, this the consumer will pay for, just like in healthcare.

 

[Balta1701]

It's not up to Justice Roberts to "prevent another large swatch of the country from being destroyed again".

 

You people ever wonder why EVERYTHING costs so damn much? $2.5 BILLION awarded in a lawsuit? Yes, they can afford it, but holy s***, at some point, you have to ask yourself what punitive damages get awarded... and yes, this the consumer will pay for, just like in healthcare.

There are 32,000 plaintiffs. People who lost years of their livelihoods because things like the fishing industry in those areas were destroyed.

 

$2.5 billion over 32,000 plaintiffs is $78125 a person. In other words, no one is getting rich off of this. It's barely covering the money that the people lost due to the years of devastation, and probably isn't doing so for most people given that it's now been 20 years. How much would you make if you'd simply invested $25,000 at 5% interest over those years? (Hint, it comes to $67,857). In other words, if you consider the fact that this has been caught up in the court system for nearly 20 years now, basically Exxon is paying $25,000 a plaintiff at that level.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's not up to Justice Roberts to "prevent another large swatch of the country from being destroyed again".

 

You people ever wonder why EVERYTHING costs so damn much? $2.5 BILLION awarded in a lawsuit? Yes, they can afford it, but holy s***, at some point, you have to ask yourself what punitive damages get awarded... and yes, this the consumer will pay for, just like in healthcare.

Its also not up to Justice Roberts to protect Exxon Mobil from litigation (as long as its not frivilous). The case was obviously not frivilous, this was a major incident caused by the corporation.

 

I don't know the extent of the damage in this case, but, environmental damage is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. a few billion dollars may not be out of the realm of reality at all, if the damage was big enough.

 

[kapkomet]

Its also not up to Justice Roberts to protect Exxon Mobil from litigation (as long as its not frivilous). The case was obviously not frivilous, this was a major incident caused by the corporation.

 

I don't know the extent of the damage in this case, but, environmental damage is a very difficult thing to put a price tag on. a few billion dollars may not be out of the realm of reality at all, if the damage was big enough.

They *should* be penalized... but in a tort case, the judgement should not be that high. That's my point.

 

Should they pay and pay through the nose? YES! But not through this mechanism. It's what drives up costs on everything. Tort reform is needed BADLY in this country, because everyone's sue happy. NSS, you offend me, I was just hurt and mentally wounded by what you just said. I'm going to sue your ass off because...

 

You see what I mean?

 

Now again, Exxon needs to pay, and pay LARGE. But not through this type of mechanism...

[NorthSideSox72]

There are 32,000 plaintiffs. People who lost years of their livelihoods because things like the fishing industry in those areas were destroyed.

 

$2.5 billion over 32,000 plaintiffs is $78125 a person. In other words, no one is getting rich off of this. It's barely covering the money that the people lost due to the years of devastation, and probably isn't doing so for most people given that it's now been 20 years. How much would you make if you'd simply invested $25,000 at 5% interest over those years? (Hint, it comes to $67,857). In other words, if you consider the fact that this has been caught up in the court system for nearly 20 years now, basically Exxon is paying $25,000 a plaintiff at that level.

If those are the numbers, then I think the award may be too low, not too high. If a company is going to cause that kind of devastation, they have only themselves to blame for the result.

 

Kap, what happened to the conservatives' mantra of taking responsibility for one's actions, instead of looking for special protection? I mean, if you ruin the livelihoods of 32,000 people, do you not think you should be held responsible?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

They *should* be penalized... but in a tort case, the judgement should not be that high. That's my point.

 

Should they pay and pay through the nose? YES! But not through this mechanism. It's what drives up costs on everything. Tort reform is needed BADLY in this country, because everyone's sue happy. NSS, you offend me, I was just hurt and mentally wounded by what you just said. I'm going to sue your ass off because...

 

You see what I mean?

 

Now again, Exxon needs to pay, and pay LARGE. But not through this type of mechanism...

OK, then I am confused. What is the right mechanism, in your view?

 

[kapkomet]

OK, then I am confused. What is the right mechanism, in your view?

Well Balta provided something that changes my view - 32,000 plantiffs. But, I think that punitive damages is what mechanism I'm talking about. It's more simple then that to me, I guess. Don't make it "punitive" - make it damages that people actually lost, and are STILL losing...

 

(and see, I can be civil in these exchanges once in a while... ... I'm on good behaviour today. )

[NorthSideSox72]

Well Balta provided something that changes my view - 32,000 plantiffs. But, I think that punitive damages is what mechanism I'm talking about. It's more simple then that to me, I guess. Don't make it "punitive" - make it damages that people actually lost, and are STILL losing...

 

(and see, I can be civil in these exchanges once in a while... ... I'm on good behaviour today. )

OK, so if these were compensatory damages derived from that math as opposed to punitive, that would be a more accurate judgement financially. I can accept that.

 

[kapkomet]

OK, so if these were compensatory damages derived from that math as opposed to punitive, that would be a more accurate judgement financially. I can accept that.

Right. See, though, I think a major issue of "punitive" (read: the tort area of the law) carries over and drives up costs on things greatly, and the biggest area on this is health care. Medical mistakes happen, and the financial reprocussions and damages should be accurate, but some lady getting $50 million from McDonalds because she spilled coffee on her lap is ridiculous (of course that's THE outrageous example, but it's the point and it's there).

 

Should people be reimbursed REASONABLY? Yes. And in this case, the Exxon judgement should be reasonable for actual damages, not punitive, which is what Justice Roberts was questioning. And then, he also doesn't have the means to "prevent it from happening again" like Balta was leaning toward, IMO.

 

[iamshack]

Well Balta provided something that changes my view - 32,000 plantiffs. But, I think that punitive damages is what mechanism I'm talking about. It's more simple then that to me, I guess. Don't make it "punitive" - make it damages that people actually lost, and are STILL losing...

 

(and see, I can be civil in these exchanges once in a while... ... I'm on good behaviour today. )

 

Are you british today too? Oh! Perhaps I should have put that in the colour green.

 

More seriously, why not punitive damages? Punitive damages are exactly what's needed to punish giant corporations who act either irresponsibly, or downright horrifically (because they'd deem the cost of paying actual damages to people they harm is lesser than the cost of doing things safely and responsibly). If there EVER were a company that was fit to get whacked with some huge punitive damages, it would be Exxon Mobil. A company like that that is making excessive profits at a time when many Americans cannot afford to pay their exorbitant prices (and I'm serious, go into any Mobile and everything costs more there) should at the very least have to pay for their gross negligence. And they have to be hit hard, otherwise, it's nothing to them- they won't change their practices.

 

And will it be passed on to the consumer? I doubt it- they have to compete in a free market with others. And if they do try to pass it on? Guess what? Go to Shell or BP instead.

[kapkomet]

Are you british today too? Oh! Perhaps I should have put that in the colour green.

 

More seriously, why not punitive damages? Punitive damages are exactly what's needed to punish giant corporations who act either irresponsibly, or downright horrifically (because they'd deem the cost of paying actual damages to people they harm is lesser than the cost of doing things safely and responsibly). If there EVER were a company that was fit to get whacked with some huge punitive damages, it would be Exxon Mobil. A company like that that is making excessive profits at a time when many Americans cannot afford to pay their exorbitant prices (and I'm serious, go into any Mobile and everything costs more there) should at the very least have to pay for their gross negligence. And they have to be hit hard, otherwise, it's nothing to them- they won't change their practices.

 

And will it be passed on to the consumer? I doubt it- they have to compete in a free market with others. And if they do try to pass it on? Guess what? Go to Shell or BP instead.

They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on.