GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
I bet he can see it, he just chooses to ignore it, because too much of his worldview depends on ignoring it.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Do you think your business has a right to put poison in paint and not be liable for it because a kid 20 years later can't prove it was your specific paint?

Try nearly 40 years ago when it was banned.
There's no reason to attack companies and overturn "innocent til proven guilty" over such old history.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Try nearly 40 years ago when it was banned.
There's no reason to attack companies and overturn "innocent til proven guilty" over such old history.
There is no reason to deny victims the ability to prove it either. Except $750K.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
senseamp, if you feel the ruling made in the Citizens United case is morally wrong, you have every opportunity to advocate and support a constitutional amendment stating what you believe should be the law. Stop bitching and start doing. If enough people in this country agree with you, then you get your way.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
senseamp, if you feel the ruling made in the Citizens United case is morally wrong, you have every opportunity to advocate and support a constitutional amendment stating what you believe should be the law. Stop bitching and start doing. If enough people in this country agree with you, then you get your way.
There is no need for a Constitutional amendment, just a change on SCOTUS, which will come if Hillary wins.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
As for the rest of the thread's subject matter - it's a tough call. Lead had been used in many products for many, many, many centuries. Lead was even once commonly used as a food additive. At what point in time does it get declared open season to sue companies? And who exactly gets sued? The lead manufacturer which sold lead to the paint manufacturer? Or the paint manufacturer who willfully purchased the lead? The property owner who willfully purchased the lead-based paint? The government who approved of these products? Certainly don't want to lump responsibility solely on one party and not the others.

Don't know the right answer.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Give it up, very few folks on this forum will back you up on environmental issues even if its lead poisoning with such a horrid history in this country. It's all about a being a good little conservative/republican, and never ever allowing themselves to come out supporting anything positive that has to do with the environment. Even if its to their children and their own determent.
 
Last edited:

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Give it up, very few folks on this forum will back you up on environmental issues even its lead poisoning has such a horrid history in this country. It's all about a being a good little conservative/republican, and never ever allowing themselves to come out supporting anything positive that has to do with the environment. Even if its to their children and their own determent.

Because killing the principle of innocent until proven guilty would be far, far, far more to the detriment of us and our children. And yes, I realize that sometimes people who were honestly damaged are sometimes denied compensation because of this, just like the families of people who are murdered are denied justice when the killer of their loved one walks free. We long ago decided the principle of "it's better that 99 guilty men walk free rather than 1 be wrongfully convicted" centuries ago. That folks like you would be willing to throw that principle away on such a trivial matter is truly scary.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Just a reminder that it's the same people defending trump, the alt-right, ailes, lead paint, etc.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
Because killing the principle of innocent until proven guilty would be far, far, far more to the detriment of us and our children. And yes, I realize that sometimes people who were honestly damaged are sometimes denied compensation because of this, just like the families of people who are murdered are denied justice when the killer of their loved one walks free. We long ago decided the principle of "it's better that 99 guilty men walk free rather than 1 be wrongfully convicted" centuries ago. That folks like you would be willing to throw that principle away on such a trivial matter is truly scary.

Let's not kid ourselves, even if you weren't terribly ignorant about lead paint you'd still be defending them with some other rationalization, just like roflmouth.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
v /n ' nn//
Let's not kid ourselves, even if you weren't terribly ignorant about lead paint you'd still be defending them with some other rationalization, just like roflmouth.

Allow me to translate: agent00f realizes he is wrong but doesn't want to admit that directly so he just resorts to an ad hominem instead.

Hey man prove me wrong and just be bold and admit the truth, that you would gladly abandon presumption of innocence if it meant you could hurt some big business and get "free" money for poor people. At least then I could respect you for taking a stand rather than holding it but not owning it publicly.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Give it up, very few folks on this forum will back you up on environmental issues even if its lead poisoning with such a horrid history in this country. It's all about a being a good little conservative/republican, and never ever allowing themselves to come out supporting anything positive that has to do with the environment. Even if its to their children and their own determent.

Lead paint has been illegal since 1978.
I stand for the prosecution of anyone violating that law today.
I oppose witch hunts against those who used it prior to the ban, or whose litigation was already settled decades ago.

I stand for due process as afforded by the Bill of Rights and especially the 5th amendment.
I stand for protecting the environment.

The two values are not dynamically opposed as you would have us believe. You will be opposed when you try to !@#$ on due process.

At no point is this subject about supporting lead paint.
Anyone to suggest otherwise is flat out lying.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Lead paint has been illegal since 1978.
I stand for the prosecution of anyone violating that law today.
I oppose witch hunts against those who used it prior to the ban, or whose litigation was already settled decades ago.

I stand for due process as afforded by the Bill of Rights and especially the 5th amendment.
I stand for protecting the environment.

The two values are not dynamically opposed as you would have us believe. You will be opposed when you try to !@#$ on due process.

At no point is this subject about supporting lead paint.
Anyone to suggest otherwise is flat out lying.

We ought to make things more fun. Why limit this principle to lead paint manufacturers? If you ever owned a house where lead-based paint was used at any point then the current owners can sue and you'll lose unless you can prove that you didn't use lead paint instead of some other owner. Hell, let's just search the property record and fire up a class action lawsuit against every homeowner past and present and we can make them all pay, more money for those poor suffering kids. If we're lucky we can just get a summary judgement and start garnishing their wages. After all, removing the presumption of innocence will always be restricted to use against "big corporations" and never against 'the little guy,' amirite?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Now remember this is GOV Walker whose hand picked and appointed State Supreme Court Judges killed a "john doe" investigation into his election (out of state money donations) activities.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
v /n ' nn//


Allow me to translate: agent00f realizes he is wrong but doesn't want to admit that directly so he just resorts to an ad hominem instead.

Hey man prove me wrong and just be bold and admit the truth, that you would gladly abandon presumption of innocence if it meant you could hurt some big business and get "free" money for poor people. At least then I could respect you for taking a stand rather than holding it but not owning it publicly.

Appears you've been learning how to mouth off from roflmouth, too. That's a rather poor move given you generally aren't perceived here as the lowest common denominator, but I suppose in your defense it's difficult for conservatives these days to avoid bad influences.

If you care to ponder how the law works, consider that anyone suing anyone else has to actually win the suit before getting their "free money", and that if their position is found without merit as you suggest no such free money will be provided. While you're in that state of pondering things, also consider just how stupid someone has to be to argue this as violation of "presumption of innocence" when that someone is also arguing the defendants can't possibly be guilty.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
Where's the stature of limitations for this thing?

AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., et al.,

Apparently the house was painted prior to the 1978 ban, and half the companies being sued stopped using lead between 1924-1947. Am I to believe the house wasn't painted in over 30 years? The remaining 3 companies stopped in the 70s and I'm having a hard time thinking anyone should be sued, today, over what legally occurred many decades ago.

Was there no prior litigation regarding lead paint companies? You have to wonder what they've already been through on this very issue, and what they've already paid back to society. How can it not already be settled 40 years later?
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
The point of this thread/OP is that with enough money you can buy laws to suit you. Seems conservatives here rather agree with that process, whatever their rationalization.

But it's always a little odd that they feel obligated to carry water for the upper crust when not many of them have the kind of money to matter much in that kind of world order.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Where's the stature of limitations for this thing?

AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., et al.,

Apparently the house was painted prior to the 1978 ban, and half the companies being sued stopped using lead between 1924-1947. Am I to believe the house wasn't painted in over 30 years? The remaining 3 companies stopped in the 70s and I'm having a hard time thinking anyone should be sued, today, over what legally occurred many decades ago.

Was there no prior litigation regarding lead paint companies? You have to wonder what they've already been through on this very issue, and what they've already paid back to society. How can it not already be settled 40 years later?
But but but... someone with money is associated with "the other side"!

Basically what likely will happen is these companies will grow tired of the lawsuits and move their production to a foreign nation. As much as you want to control people with lots of money, lot's of money means you don't control them.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
But but but... someone with money is associated with "the other side"!

Basically what likely will happen is these companies will grow tired of the lawsuits and move their production to a foreign nation. As much as you want to control people with lots of money, lot's of money means you don't control them.

You can't escape such suits by moving production, not that facts matter here.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
You can't escape such suits by moving production, not that facts matter here.

I especially like the hypocrisy they exhibit when there is a perception of pay for play by Hillary but when it's their team, well then its justified.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Keep telling yourself that good laws come as a result of secret donations by the industries they benefit.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Appears you've been learning how to mouth off from roflmouth, too. That's a rather poor move given you generally aren't perceived here as the lowest common denominator, but I suppose in your defense it's difficult for conservatives these days to avoid bad influences.

If you care to ponder how the law works, consider that anyone suing anyone else has to actually win the suit before getting their "free money", and that if their position is found without merit as you suggest no such free money will be provided. While you're in that state of pondering things, also consider just how stupid someone has to be to argue this as violation of "presumption of innocence" when that someone is also arguing the defendants can't possibly be guilty.

How about you answer my earlier question. Why should we not apply this same standard of proof to the past owners of the house? Or the painting contractors who actually applied the paint? Or the store that sold it? Or the chemical companies that manufactured the ingredients? By the time you get done using the "prove a negative" legal standard on them that should be at least a few hundred thousand more dollars you can give to the paint chip eating kid.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,309
1,209
126
Try nearly 40 years ago when it was banned.
There's no reason to attack companies and overturn "innocent til proven guilty" over such old history.

Stole my thunder. Is liability forever?

I sometimes wonder if something is going to happen to me. I have soldered with lead on a monthly basis for decades now. I am around it ALL the time.
 

agent00f

Lifer
Jun 9, 2016
12,203
1,242
86
How about you answer my earlier question. Why should we not apply this same standard of proof to the past owners of the house? Or the painting contractors who actually applied the paint? Or the store that sold it? Or the chemical companies that manufactured the ingredients? By the time you get done using the "prove a negative" legal standard on them that should be at least a few hundred thousand more dollars you can give to the paint chip eating kid.

These are finding of fact for the court to determine, the rather evident point is that you & the other shills have already rendered a verdict without much in the way of said facts & never care much for them in general.