West Virginia mining accident and reporting - Page 2

innerSpaceman · 01-04-2006, 04:36 PM

Suing the mining company, yes. The news organizations, no.

But keep on being sue-happy, America. It's what puts bread (and an annual passport) on my table!

Snowflake · 01-04-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Suing the mining company, yes. The news organizations, no.

But keep on being sue-happy, America. It's what puts bread (and an annual passport) on my table!

Sue them for what? They don't even know what caused the explosion yet! Sue them because someone heard that 12 had been found and translated that into they had been found alive? Turn the tragedy into a travesty. But people will eat it up on Court TV and (ugh) Nancy Grace.

Aw, you're an ambulance chaser! Are APs that expensive?

Donna

innerSpaceman · 01-04-2006, 06:05 PM

Ahem, I said sue the mining company. No need to wait for the cause of the explosion to file suit. Negligence is almost a certainty and, if it turns out not to be the case (which I doubt), then there's no harm done (except for attorneys being, muwha-ha-ha, a tad bit richer!)

Snowflake · 01-04-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ahem, I said sue the mining company. No need to wait for the cause of the explosion to file suit. Negligence is almost a certainty and, if it turns out not to be the case (which I doubt), then there's no harm done (except for attorneys being, muwha-ha-ha, a tad bit richer!)

Point taken.

Donna

€uroMeinke · 01-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Hmmm ,to sue anyone that gave you false hope - that would be a racket.

Cadaverous Pallor · 01-04-2006, 09:13 PM

Isn't there an automatic payout by a mining company when something like this happens? Aren't they insured for family compensation in case of horrific tragedy?

DisneyFan25863 · 01-04-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Isn't there an automatic payout by a mining company when something like this happens? Aren't they insured for family compensation in case of horrific tragedy?

There must be. They would be crazy not to get insurance for this type of thing. Heck, my dad is covered for this type of thing, and all he does is sell cars!

This truly is a horrific tradgey. I agree with NA, it's amazing that we still have people working in such harsh conditions, and yet live in the age of robotics.

innerSpaceman · 01-05-2006, 12:31 PM

We might not have people still working in such harsh conditions if the Bush Administration had not eviserated enforcement of mining health and safety regulations.

Does that come as a surprise to anyone?

Sago Mine has one of the worst safety records in the business, with hundreds of violations during the last few years. Tough enforcement of the mining regulations for heath and safety have effectively ceased since Bush took office (though admittedly, the fines were always a mere nuisance under all previous administrations ... which is not to say that previous ones did not provide much tougher enforcement under a much more proactive UMSHA.

scaeagles · 01-05-2006, 12:42 PM

Of course! Of course blame lies with Bush. I have heard that Louis Farrakhan has accused the Bush administration of actually planting explosives at the site, but when he learned that it wasn't African Americans working in the mines and their skin was just darkened by coal soot, he decided to rethink his position.

innerSpaceman · 01-05-2006, 12:48 PM

You are such a reactionary apologist, it freaking amazes me. Yes, Bush is the president of the United States. And yes, under HIS administration, cronyism and corporate-capitulation have run rampant. And specifically, UMSHA's budget and personnel have been eviserated, and it has radically changed its course on enforcement.

Why don't you do some simple research on methods and efficacy of UMSHA enforcement before and after Bush came into office ... and then try and claim that the president is not responsible for lax enforcement of the federal minining health and safety regulations.

It's all over the news, so this information should not be hard to find.

01-04-2006, 04:36 PM	#11
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Suing the mining company, yes. The news organizations, no. But keep on being sue-happy, America. It's what puts bread (and an annual passport) on my table!
	Submit to Quotes

01-04-2006, 06:05 PM	#13
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Ahem, I said sue the mining company. No need to wait for the cause of the explosion to file suit. Negligence is almost a certainty and, if it turns out not to be the case (which I doubt), then there's no harm done (except for attorneys being, muwha-ha-ha, a tad bit richer!)
	Submit to Quotes

01-04-2006, 07:47 PM	#15
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	Hmmm ,to sue anyone that gave you false hope - that would be a racket. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

01-04-2006, 09:13 PM	#16
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	Isn't there an automatic payout by a mining company when something like this happens? Aren't they insured for family compensation in case of horrific tragedy? __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 12:31 PM	#18
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	We might not have people still working in such harsh conditions if the Bush Administration had not eviserated enforcement of mining health and safety regulations. Does that come as a surprise to anyone? Sago Mine has one of the worst safety records in the business, with hundreds of violations during the last few years. Tough enforcement of the mining regulations for heath and safety have effectively ceased since Bush took office (though admittedly, the fines were always a mere nuisance under all previous administrations ... which is not to say that previous ones did not provide much tougher enforcement under a much more proactive UMSHA. Last edited by innerSpaceman : 01-05-2006 at 12:41 PM.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 12:42 PM	#19
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Of course! Of course blame lies with Bush. I have heard that Louis Farrakhan has accused the Bush administration of actually planting explosives at the site, but when he learned that it wasn't African Americans working in the mines and their skin was just darkened by coal soot, he decided to rethink his position.
	Submit to Quotes

01-05-2006, 12:48 PM	#20
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	You are such a reactionary apologist, it freaking amazes me. Yes, Bush is the president of the United States. And yes, under HIS administration, cronyism and corporate-capitulation have run rampant. And specifically, UMSHA's budget and personnel have been eviserated, and it has radically changed its course on enforcement. Why don't you do some simple research on methods and efficacy of UMSHA enforcement before and after Bush came into office ... and then try and claim that the president is not responsible for lax enforcement of the federal minining health and safety regulations. It's all over the news, so this information should not be hard to find.
	Submit to Quotes