VW--Oooopsie

[Big Dave2]

Just now, delcecchi said:

 

Seems like someone should be prosecuted to some extent, at least it seems so to me.   Sort of like John Corazine should have done time.   

 

Because you think the original law that was broken is a good and necessary law that needs to be upheld?

 

Are you talking about Jon Corzine? If so, I don't know anything about him but I'm assuming you think he should do time because he is a Democrat?

[delcecchi]

8 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

Because you think the original law that was broken is a good and necessary law that needs to be upheld?

 

Are you talking about Jon Corzine? If so, I don't know anything about him but I'm assuming you think he should do time because he is a Democrat?

No, I think he should do time for his actions while head of a financial firm.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/business/dealbook/jon-corzine-mf-global-settlement.html

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Nearly five years after Jon S. Corzine presided over the collapse of the brokerage firm MF Global and became a target of federal investigations, his legal ordeal might be drawing to a close.

In recent weeks, Mr. Corzine and the federal regulatory agency that sued him have struck a tentative agreement to settle the case, according to people briefed on the matter. The agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which sued Mr. Corzine in 2013 over MF Global’s collapse and misuse of $1 billion in customer money, could announce a deal by the end of this year if the agency’s three commissioners approve it. (continued at link)

 

The collapse occurred in 2011.  

Edited January 9, 2017 by delcecchi

[Big Dave2]

36 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

No, I think he should do time for his actions while head of a financial firm.

 

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that he was a Democratic Politician. Yeah, right.

 

From your own article:

 

Quote

Although federal prosecutors concluded that there was insufficient evidence of criminal wrongdoing,

 

Why would you want to prosecute someone for a crime when there is insufficient evidence? This isn't your stance when a police officer or vigilante are accused in the court of public opinion, right? What happened to not jumping to conclusions and letting the investigation play out?

 

 

52 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

Because you think the original law that was broken is a good and necessary law that needs to be upheld?

 

 

BTW, you never answered this question regarding the actual subject matter of this post.

[delcecchi]

Looks like a vw guy will have to at least go to court.   Got arrested, and more allegedly coming. 

 

"insufficient evidence"?   please, spare me.   He was the head of a company that smooshed customer's funds in with their funds in a vain attempt to save the company.   What's next?  Defending Clinton because "i did not have sexual relations with that woman, monica lewinsky"?   Or the Minnesota players lining up on a drunk girl?  

 

 

[Big Dave2]

20 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Looks like a vw guy will have to at least go to court.   Got arrested, and more allegedly coming. 

 

So you think the EPA laws are great, got it.

 

20 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

 

"insufficient evidence"?   please, spare me.   He was the head of a company that smooshed customer's funds in with their funds in a vain attempt to save the company.   What's next?  Defending Clinton because "i did not have sexual relations with that woman, monica lewinsky"?   Or the Minnesota players lining up on a drunk girl?  

 

 

 

And you also think that the government should prosecute people without evidence just because it will somehow make you feel better?

[delcecchi]

5 hours ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

So you think the EPA laws are great, got it.

 

 

And you also think that the government should prosecute people without evidence just because it will somehow make you feel better?

No I don't.   What makes you think that?  If you are talking about Corazine, not taking care of the clients money they had in accounts at the company he ran and mingling it with the company's money to try to stay afloat is acceptable to you? 

 

As for VW, I thought even you Libertarians opposed fraud and misrepresentation.  

 

So, in which case are you claiming there is no evidence?  Or is that just something you made up?  You keep saying it. 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2017 by delcecchi

[swamptiger]

On 11/13/2015 at 1:31 PM, delcecchi said:

Nobody said common sense, they just have to comply with the law like everyone else. 

 

 

The new gas cans are great too, aren't they?

 

You should probably dispose of your old ones that actually worked.

Edited January 10, 2017 by swamptiger

[delcecchi]

2 hours ago, swamptiger said:

 

 

The new gas cans are great too, aren't they?

 

You should probably dispose of your old ones that actually worked.

They are still legal, like old cars that pollute.   I wonder about seat belt laws?   Can you get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in your 55 chevy?

 

And the gas can thing was done of the manufacturers free will as a result of being sued into bankruptcy.  I am pretty sure it isn't actually a law.   BTW you can buy "replacement spouts" that work.  

[RebelSS]

I have four 3 gal round old style metal cans. $100 each.  With filtered spouts.  

[swamptiger]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

And the gas can thing was done of the manufacturers free will as a result of being sued into bankruptcy.  I am pretty sure it isn't actually a law.   BTW you can buy "replacement spouts" that work.  

 

The new style have the EPA stamp of approval.

 

You know, the ones that spill gas all over when you try to pour with them.

[swamptiger]

49 minutes ago, RebelSS said:

I have four 3 gal round old style metal cans. $100 each.  With filtered spouts.  

 

Quote

Re: Where does one buy non EPA approved gas can?

Mexico... or post a WANTED ad on xxxxxlist.

I haven't seen a pre-EPA approved gas can for sale in a store in a long while.

 

 

http://www.mytractorforum.com/160-tool-shed/127375-where-does-one-buy-non-epa-approved-gas-can.html

[RebelSS]

That reminds me...I have two 5 gals old style jerry cans, and a 6 gal one...I'm gonna be rich!   

[delcecchi]

27 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

 

 

http://www.mytractorforum.com/160-tool-shed/127375-where-does-one-buy-non-epa-approved-gas-can.html

Buy a normal one at the store.  Then...

https://www.amazon.com/Moeller-Scepter-Diesel-Water-Replacement/dp/B000MTCQO2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-3&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hi-Flo-Gas-Can-Spout-Kit/dp/B00DGVRXD2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-2&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

https://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Spout-Water-Update-Your/dp/B00CYNDNM8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-1&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

I bought mine at fleet farm. 

[Big Dave2]

12 hours ago, delcecchi said:

No I don't.   What makes you think that? 

 

I don't know what you are talking about anymore. We have two different discussions going and you don't bother to separate them in your replies.

 

12 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

If you are talking about Corazine, not taking care of the clients money they had in accounts at the company he ran and mingling it with the company's money to try to stay afloat is acceptable to you? 

 

Doesn't matter what's acceptable to me. I was merely pointing out that YOUR OWN article stated there was not enough evidence to prosecute. I'm not discussing what this guy did or didn't do because I have no idea. I am only discussing the fact that YOUR OWN article stated there was not enough evidence to prosecute someone yet YOU seem to think that person should be prosecuted.

 

12 hours ago, delcecchi said:

 

As for VW, I thought even you Libertarians opposed fraud and misrepresentation.  

 

We also oppose terrible laws that should be over-turned.

 

12 hours ago, delcecchi said:

So, in which case are you claiming there is no evidence?  Or is that just something you made up?  You keep saying it. 

 

For cripes sake Del, it was in YOUR OWN article and I even quoted it for you above. 

[Big Dave2]

28 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Buy a normal one at the store.  Then...

https://www.amazon.com/Moeller-Scepter-Diesel-Water-Replacement/dp/B000MTCQO2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-3&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

https://www.amazon.com/Hi-Flo-Gas-Can-Spout-Kit/dp/B00DGVRXD2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-2&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

https://www.amazon.com/Replacement-Spout-Water-Update-Your/dp/B00CYNDNM8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484071164&sr=8-1&keywords=replacement+spout+gas+can

 

I bought mine at fleet farm. 

 

And then drill yourself a vent hole because they don't come with that either. Oh by the way, don't bother hacking your gas cans if you use them in a business with employees because that is not OSHA approved.

[RebelSS]

Isn't this the VW/classic car thread?!   Oh S**t.  

[swamptiger]

17 minutes ago, Big Dave2 said:

 

And then drill yourself a vent hole because they don't come with that either. Oh by the way, don't bother hacking your gas cans if you use them in a business with employees because that is not OSHA approved.

 

 

You wouldn't want to do that since you might be subject to criminal prosecution for messing with EPA mandates.

[swamptiger]

1 hour ago, RebelSS said:

That reminds me...I have two 5 gals old style jerry cans, and a 6 gal one...I'm gonna be rich!   

 

 

If you like your old gas cans, you can keep them.

 

Signed, 

Yours truly.

[delcecchi]

OK, is the gas can thing an epa mandate or the result of a bunch of mass produced lawsuits against gas can manufacturers on behalf of every fool in the country?   I believed it was the lawsuits, yet you guys keep talking about the epa.   Can someone provide some evidence that in fact the epa has anything to do with it?  

 

We need tort reform or me and bigdave on all the juries.  

 

[RebelSS]

Boy, you guys will yap about anything, wontcha?!  Gas can sale!! This week only!  RGCT certified!!! 

[delcecchi]

Yep.   we will.   So throw your oar in the water and give us your opinion.   Should lying to the government be a criminal offense?  Or only for some things?   How about wall street guys misusing the people's money?   Crime or not?   EPA regs?  Law or not?  

 

 

[swamptiger]

1 hour ago, delcecchi said:

OK, is the gas can thing an epa mandate or the result of a bunch of mass produced lawsuits against gas can manufacturers on behalf of every fool in the country?   I believed it was the lawsuits, yet you guys keep talking about the epa.   Can someone provide some evidence that in fact the epa has anything to do with it?  

 

We need tort reform or me and bigdave on all the juries.  

 

 

The EPA regulations don't have anything to do with lawsuits or tort reform.

 

The gas can regulations (designated "PFCs" by the California EPA) began in 2000 with the California EPA, and the federal EPA didn't jump on the bandwagon until later.

 

The supposed concern was with hydrocarbon emissions evaporating into the atmosphere from vented gas cans.

 

From CA EPA site:

 

Background:

 

The Portable Fuel Container (PFC) regulations are an important concept in our efforts to improve California's air quality. PFCs, also known as gas cans, are used to fill a variety of equipment including lawnmowers, vechicles and personal watercraft. The goal of this program is to ensure that spillage and evaporative emissions are minimized or eliminated. Because of their large numbers, PFCs have the potential to create substantial hydrocarbon emissions resulting in ozone-forming smog and health related problems. As of July 1, 2007, all PFCs sold in California must be certified by the Air Resources Board as meeting low-emission standards and regulatory requirements.

[delcecchi]

Just now, swamptiger said:

 

The EPA regulations don't have anything to do with lawsuits or tort reform.

 

The gas can regulations (designated "PFCs" by the California EPA) began in 2000 with the California EPA, and the federal EPA didn't jump on the bandwagon until later.

 

The supposed concern was with hydrocarbon emissions evaporating into the atmosphere from vented gas cans.

 

From CA EPA site:

 

Background:

 

The Portable Fuel Container (PFC) regulations are an important concept in our efforts to improve California's air quality. PFCs, also known as gas cans, are used to fill a variety of equipment including lawnmowers, vechicles and personal watercraft. The goal of this program is to ensure that spillage and evaporative emissions are minimized or eliminated. Because of their large numbers, PFCs have the potential to create substantial hydrocarbon emissions resulting in ozone-forming smog and health related problems. As of July 1, 2007, all PFCs sold in California must be certified by the Air Resources Board as meeting low-emission standards and regulatory requirements.

OK, two different things.   The gas cans with the valves in the spouts that make it nearly impossible to actually pour gas are due to the evil lawyers.    Other stuff like vents are due to epa.   Hard to keep track.  

[swamptiger]

 

What's laughable about this whole thing is the redesigned cans are famous for spilling fuel.

 

 

5 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

OK, two different things.   The gas cans with the valves in the spouts that make it nearly impossible to actually pour gas are due to the evil lawyers.    Other stuff like vents are due to epa.   Hard to keep track.  

 

 

Lawyers did make the gas can manufacturer go broke, but had nothing to do with the California regs on PFCs.

 

According to the CA EPA, at least.

Edited January 11, 2017 by swamptiger

[RebelSS]

9 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

Yep.   we will.   So throw your oar in the water and give us your opinion.   Should lying to the government be a criminal offense?  Or only for some things?   How about wall street guys misusing the people's money?   Crime or not?   EPA regs?  Law or not?  

 

 

 

Why? The government lies to us. Wouldn't be a Wall Street if there wasn't misused money. Put someone in the EPA that isn't bought and paid for, and knows something, and I'll think about it.

Gee, this is easy. Next set of questions?