tarlinian--disqus
Tarlinian
tarlinian--disqus

No, under the rules of capitalism the original CoC would likely have said that you can be IDB for no compensation at all because all the airlines have enough market power that they can do that without a significant loss of business.

They didn't realize at the time they needed the spots for crew? As I've implied, United handled this situation terribly, but the guy was being a dick for insisting that he wasn't going to get out of his seat.

My point is that the abuse is the ridiculous manner in which he was kicked off, not the fact that he was kicked off. The passenger insisting that he had to stay on the plane was not reasonable at all.

I've got to say that while the use of force to get the guy off the plane was excessive, the passenger was clearly in the wrong. It's been a standard part of flying for decades that flights can get overbooked and you can be involuntarily denied boarding and are entitled to specific legally entitled compensation (4x the

I just finished watching S2 on Hulu…unfortunately, for whatever giant media conglomerate FXX belongs to, I'm probably not going to be so patient with S3. S2 was just too good. (Perhaps I'll let it run in the background on my computer when it comes out a year later to give them them a few cents of ad revenue.)

If you really think this article is disturbing just based on its contents (it obviously won't speak to any negative effects that actually stem from the policy changes he's describing) makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously. Just because it sounds like something a Republican might say doesn't mean its

While I think I understand where you're coming from and agree in this instance that the settlement was probably not warranted, I disagree with the implication that all situations in which you or I disagree with a prosecutorial decision must be due to corruption. Holder gave his explanation, which I can understand.

Are you really saying that contradictory regulatory systems is a good thing? If you genuinely find the tone of that article disturbing, I'm not sure if I really can have a serious discussion about this with you. Regulations do have costs…that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. The regulated should have some input into

The main reason that the SEC settles is that it's underfunded. It costs a crap ton of money to litigate your way to a guilty settlement against an extremely well funded opponent.
I'm also not sure how you can consider bank fines to be small (a small fraction of profits). B of A got fined 16 billion in the one case I

Do you have any links about this? I work in an industry that utilizes lots of chemicals (some of which are definitely dangerous) and my understanding from EHS folks is that most of the regulatory requirements are from the EPA.

Depleted uranium's toxicity is similar to lead…don't go ingesting it, but the use of the material is not significantly more dangerous than other heavy metals used for weaponry.

As I've said elsewhere in the thread, there is no way the number of deaths from sanctions is even close to the number of deaths from the invasion of Iraq.

Iraqi casualties from the 2003 invasion are far greater than the casualties that resulted from the no fly zones and sanctions. Also, American blood does count more in the decision making calculus of any American president. Wanting regime change and forcing regime change via a war are two entirely different matters.

Could you provide a specific example? While the subprime mortage crisis required an awful lot of thoughtless actions on the parts of many actors, I'm not sure very many of them (if any at all) amounted to fraud, which has often been punished by monetary fines in any case.

What white collar crime used to be punished and is no longer being punished (or is punished in a less sever way) under Obama?

The same thing Clinton did? Establish no fly zones over the specific areas, destroy munitions factories and ramp up sanctions as they see fit? I'm not claiming that there weren't casualties from Clinton's actions in the '90s (or that it was even a good decision), but the results aren't even close to comparable to the

Launching cruise missiles at weapons factories is not the same thing as a ground invasion and regime change. By those standards the US has constantly been at war more often than not since WWII. While I'm sure you probably believe that, you really ought to take into account practical differences that result in

The lack of additional regulation (beyond what was happening prior to Obama's term) is not deregulation. I don't see how an administration under which Dodd-Frank was passed can be considered to be passing deregulation. (And Dodd Frank has definitely made a difference, it's at least helped reduce the financialization

What deregulation occurred under Obama?

Do you know what depleted uranium munitions are? They are not nuclear weapons…they're bullets made of the densest widely available material (Uranium).