Liberal Forum

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 5:57 pm » wrote:tin foil hat, blah, blah

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 5:53 pm » wrote: You cited a conversation between a front for Russian Intelligence and a has-been porn star.
That makes you just another one of Putin's Pets, pushing his propaganda.

After being informed by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey that asbestos was responsible for the deaths of nearly 63,000 Americans from 1999 to 2014, Pruitt responded: “Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that requires a risk evaluation… Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate.”
[........]
Although the scientific link between asbestos and fatal diseases was confirmed by the late 1970s, those with chemical or manufacturing ties still question its hazardous properties.

Over the years, the asbestos industry has channeled millions of dollars into independent research that contradicts established scientific claims.
[........]
The American Chemistry Council recently issued a statement congratulating Pruitt on his confirmation.

At a conference on Thursday, the organization’s CEO, Cal Dooley, reiterated his support for “Administrator Pruitt’s commitment to the best available science under the [Lautenberg Act].”

Last August, the ACC asked for leniency under the new EPA regulations, arguing that “because [their] use of asbestos … is confined in the production process, worker exposure risk is essentially eliminated.”
[........]
So what does it mean when the new EPA administrator is unwilling to admit to the dangers of a public health hazard?

Thanks to the Lautenberg Act, it is unlikely that the U.S. will again become reliant on asbestos-contaminated construction materials.

However, without a ban in place, toxic imports continue.

In 2007, an independent ADAO (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization) investigation discovered asbestos in five consumer products, including a children’s toy.

In the year 2015 alone, the U.S. legally imported an estimated 716,000 pounds of asbestos for consumption.
[.......]
“Asbestos is big industry,” says the ADAO’s (Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization) Midwestern Regional Director and mesothelioma survivor Heather Von St. James. “[Under the new EPA administration,] we’re seeing everything that we’ve worked so hard for unravel before our very eyes.”

https://www.citylab.com/politics/2017/0 ... or/517494/

Termin8tor » 09 Apr 2017 6:01 pm » wrote:You are utterly deranged.
In fact, Putin wanted to cause American voters to distrust our elections.
Which makes you Putin's pet for babbling endlessly about conspiracies for which there is zero evidence.
Nice job, Natasha!

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 6:42 pm » wrote:The new head of the EPA refuses to acknowledge that asbestos is dangerous.

Termin8tor » 09 Apr 2017 5:59 pm » wrote:Oh gosh, I might have made a mistake, once.

Termin8tor » 09 Apr 2017 6:48 pm » wrote:Strange, I didn't see one single word in your source that backs that up.
So I suspect you're lying, as you do so very often.
What he likely believes is that trial lawyers and Fake Science greatly over state the risks from it.

In the written questions for the record following Pruitt’s nomination, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., the top Democrat on the Senate Environment Committee, asked Pruitt a series of questions regarding asbestos.

Pruitt failed to give a definitive answer to his stance on asbestos or if he will pursue a ban. Instead, he repeatedly referenced the newly reformed Lautenberg Act and the risk evaluation process it requires for substances like asbestos.

“Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate,” Pruitt wrote.

https://www.asbestos.com/news/2017/02/0 ... tt-pruitt/

Last week, in response to written questions from senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt refused to affirm that he would push through a full ban of asbestos.

http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/01 ... bestos-ban

Scott Pruitt’s Answers on Asbestos Leave Families Worrying about Toxic Chemicals

Pruitt: Asbestos has been identified by the EPA as a high-priority chemical that requires a risk evaluation following the process established by the Lautenberg Act to determine whether conditions of use of the chemical substance pose an unreasonable risk.

Prejudging the outcome of that risk evaluation process would not be appropriate.

If Mr. Pruitt is in charge of the EPA, it’s hard not to think that big business will have a hand in the evaluation process.

https://www.sokolovelaw.com/blog/scott- ... chemicals/

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 7:27 pm » wrote:Pruitt never seems to stand up on the side of science.
During his confirmation hearing Pruitt refused to disclose his many ties with businesses and special interest groups, which probably have a lot to do with his positions.

Follow the money.

Asbestos Litigation: Evidence Of Massive Corruption?
An upcoming law-review article suggests that most of the thousands of asbestos-related injury claims being filed each year are bogus.

STUART TAYLOR JR. DEC 1, 2003 POLITICS

"Asbestos litigation has become a malignant enterprise which mostly consists of a massive client-recruitment effort that accounts for as much as 90 percent of all claims currently being generated, supported by baseless medical evidence which is not generated by good-faith medical practice, but rather is primarily a function of the compensation paid, and by claimant testimony scripted by lawyers to identify exposure to certain defendants' products."


So says law professor Lester Brickman, the leading scholarly critic of the 50,000 to 100,000 asbestos-related injury claims being filed each year by people who, 90 percent of the time, Brickman says, "have no discernable illness or impairment." Rather, they and their lawyers "have cashed in on this national tragedy" by filing claims based on "specious medical evidence."

These disturbing contentions come in a 137-page article to be published this month in The Pepperdine Law Review. They suggest at least the possibility of ongoing corruption of the civil justice system on a staggering scale by powerful plaintiffs lawyers, with the help of complaisant judges—many of whom are politically indebted to the lawyers—while the U.S. Supreme Court primly averts its eyes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/378180/

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 7:27 pm » wrote:Pruitt never seems to stand up on the side of science.
During his confirmation hearing Pruitt refused to disclose his many ties with businesses and special interest groups, which probably have a lot to do with his positions.

Follow the money.

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 6:46 pm » wrote: I'm not the one repeating Russian propaganda Boris.

Misty » 07 Apr 2017 4:51 pm » wrote: You can believe the guy who makes up FAKE News if you want to.
I prefer not to.

Trump's Airstrike was a Huge Loss for Putin
By Ralph Peters April 9, 2017 | 8:58pm | Updated
The biggest loser from last week’s cruise-missile strikes on a Syrian air base wasn’t “President” Bashar al-Assad. It was Vladimir Putin. The Syrian leader was punished, but Russia’s new czar was humiliated.


Even with an hour’s warning of the attacks, Putin’s military in Syria did nothing to defend its ally. For all of the Russian bluster in recent years, Putin couldn’t stop our strikes. His military lacked the means to do so. And any attempt to interfere with our operation would only have revealed the inferior quality of Russian armaments — including their much-ballyhooed air defense systems.


This is vitally important, because Putin used his military leap into Syria to show that Russia was a reliable ally at a time when US policy was timid, incompetent and flighty under President Barack Obama. Russia looked strong. We didn’t.


But the wave of cruise missiles unleashed on Syria early Friday called Putin’s bluff. And Russia didn’t dare to lift a finger.
http://nypost.com/2017/04/09/trumps-syr ... for-putin/

Trump on pace to spend more in first year on travel than Obama did in 8 years.

President Trump is reportedly on pace to spend more on travel during his first year in office than former President Barack Obama spent on travel during all eight years he served.

The president's trips to his private club in Florida during his first 80 days in office have cost more than an estimated $20 million, according to CNN.

A four-day trip the former president took to Florida in 2013 cost the Secret Service and Coast Guard $3.6 million, according to a 2016 Government Accountability Office report.

That trip was similar to those Trump has taken to Florida.

As of Monday, Trump has been at his Mar-a-Lago resort for a total of 21 days, which could cost an estimated $21.6 million.

During his eight years as president, Obama spent nearly $97 million on travel, CNN reported, according to documents reviewed by Judicial Review.

The travel costs included both personal and work trips.

According to CNN, Trump's frequent trips to Florida will likely come to an end after May because of the weather.

But some think Trump will instead make trips to Trump Tower in New York City, where his wife and youngest son, Baron live.

People also expect the president to go to Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster Township, New Jersey.

Before being elected president, Trump often hit on Obama for his vacations and for the time he spent golfing.

In 2011, Trump tweeted: "The habitual vacationer, @BarackObama, is now in Hawaii.

This vacation is costing taxpayers $4 milion +++ while there is 20% unemployment."

In another tweet later, he said: "President @BarackObama's vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars——Unbelievable!"

Misty » 10 Apr 2017 8:39 pm » wrote:Republicans have now forfeited the right to ever complain about how much any president is spending on travel.

Misty » 09 Apr 2017 5:53 pm » wrote: That makes you just another one of Putin's Pets, pushing his propaganda.

The Russian Stooge
by RICH LOWRY April 11, 2017 12:00 AM @RICHLOWRY Obama’s record on Russia The circumstantial evidence is mounting that the Kremlin succeeded in infiltrating the U.S. government at the highest levels.


How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression? Agreeing to a farcically one-sided nuclear deal? Mercilessly mocking the idea that Russia represents our foremost geopolitical foe? Accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally? Welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East? Refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia? Diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?


All of these items, of course, refer to things said or done by President Barack Obama.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ian-stooge
7

Misty » 11 Apr 2017 11:30 am » wrote:Foreign policy by Tweet.
How presidential.



Replies:

Misty » 11 Apr 2017 11:30 am » wrote:Foreign policy by Tweet.
How presidential.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer came under fire Tuesday after saying that Adolf Hitler "didn't even sink to using chemical weapons" against his own people like Syrian strong man Bashar Al-Assad.

At the briefing, Spicer pointed out that Assad dropped chemical weapons in the "middle of towns."

U.S. officials said the Assad regime used Sarin in strikes on the Syrian people in a deadly attack last week that prompted U.S. military strikes in retaliation.

Nazis murdered Jews in gas chambers during the Holocaust by the millions with the use of chemical gas agents like Zyklon B.

Spicer acknowledged that Hitler did bring gas "into the Holocaust centers...I understand that."

VIDEO

Misty » 11 Apr 2017 3:56 pm » wrote:Sean Spicer Implies Hitler Didn't Gas His Own People

The Holocaust centers?