Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Massive inferno billowing toxic smoke could burn for days" video.

  1. The mayor says that the plant owner was "negligent and irresponsible". Which the plant owner was allowed to be because the gov't was negligent and irresponsible by not enforcing existing laws.
    221
  2. And they aren't enforced by anti-regulation Republican'ts. All that matters is profits, some of which are donated to Republican't political campaigns. Call it bribery from criminals of those who empower criminals.
    9
  3. Privatize the profits, socialize the pollution.
    5
  4. Prayers are an excuse to feel good about oneself. They neither address nor resolve anything. They are a delusional excuse for doing nothing.
    5
  5. If "God" (1) existed, and is (2) all powerful and all knowing, then "God" (3) is irresponsible for (4) not preventing harm, so we (5) invent "Satan" to blame for "God"'s irresponsibiliies.
    4
  6.  @hansudowolfrahm4856  So the gov't had him in court for non-payment of taxes and other issues, and suddenly the hazard caught fire. I'd be looking at the owner's insurance on the property. And those who are law- and history-illiterate who knee-jerk hate gov't blamed the gov't, when in reality the gov't was working to fulfill its foremost obligation: protecting public health and safety against sociopathic threats thereto.
    2
  7.  @markwarren5644  Recycling can be done. Those who are opposed to regulation will deny it can be done, so no effort should be made to recycle.
    2
  8. There is also non-enforcement of EXISTING LAWS that are designed -- IF ENFORCED -- to PREVENT these hazards becoming disasters.
    2
  9.  @derekh1593 They didn't have ASSAULT rifles specifically designed for MILITARY use. Guns don't kill people, bullets do. And one fact is common to all guns: Guns shoot bullets.
    2
  10.  @derekh1593  The AR-15 was designed specifically for use in Vietnam. It is a MILITARY weapon so doesn't belong in civilian hands.
    2
  11. Is the city's gov't Republican't or Democratic?
    1
  12.  @annehedonia156  Doubtful.
    1
  13.  @annehedonia156  And the state's governor is a Republican.
    1
  14.  @annehedonia156  I haven't seen EVIDENCE that the mayor is a Democrat. And apparently you're new in these parts: Trumpeters and Republican'ts are constantly smearing Democrats -- even when those being smeared AREN'T Democrats. So simply saying a public official is a Democrat isn't sufficient to PROVE it.
    1
  15.  @Ifyouknowyouknow327  Are you saying that the city somehow took control of the property -- not meaning "owning" -- because of threat to public health and safety? That would suggest the possibility of court action, which can be slow. It may also mean failure or refusal to enforce relevant regulations, regardless level of gov't.
    1
  16.  @hansudowolfrahm4856  The gov't may have taken control of the situation, but that did not let the owner of the hazard off the hook. Law-illiterates will scratch their heads and bash the gov't. The COURT process was doubtless along the lines of filing complaint against the owner of the hazard, in pursuit of ENFORCEMENT action against the owner, and the owner was RESISTING complying with the law.
    1
  17.  @hansudowolfrahm4856  "Confiscated"? I don't think so. The gov't took legal action against the owner, and it is in court because the owner is fighting against doing as required. There should be investigation as to the origin and cause of the fire; look at insurance.
    1
  18.  @DNagy1800  IF there ARE "dirty secrets". Shouldn't you behave RESPONSIBLY as an ADULT and stop suggesting "conspiracies" without a shred of EVIDENCE for any of that?
    1
  19.  @croak41  How do you know ANY of that is FACT? Where is your EVIDENCE?
    1
  20.  @dustinengle2570  That is garbled nonsense. If one defaults on a mortgage -- one's home -- it is with the mortgager, which is not the gov't. If the property was "repossessed," then it was "repossessed" by whatever PRIVATE party owned the property. You don't know what you're talking about so are blaming the gov't for the actions of private non-gov't parties. Wake up: FOX has always lied to stupid people for profit. And they always lie against the GOV'T even when the gov't has nothing to do with whatever the lie they're telling.
    1
  21.  @insertnamehere9154  1. The "Bible" is riddled with contradictions. The First Amendment separates "religion" from gov't.
    1
  22.  @happyh.joyjoy654  The city and state are responsible for enforcement of the laws; I said nothing about the city owning any of it. That it is owned by a private citizen is also irrelevant: private citizens are not "free" to endanger public health and safety. So the fire chief said the owner was "warned" several times. And the owner ignored the warning, so the city and state had the OBLIGATION to ESCALATE from "warning" to ENFORCEMENT.
    1
  23.  @happyh.joyjoy654  Are you saying that the state law doesn't give enforcement authority to cities, where hazards are better known as hazards?
    1
  24.  @alexs1640  I can see Republican'ts denying authority to cities to enforce state regulations, as Republican'ts are all about no regulation, even if that means maintaining the appearance of there being regulation. The first obligation of gov't, regardless level, is protection of public health and safety.
    1
  25.  @happyh.joyjoy654  So you're saying that local communities have no authority to protect themselves from hazards that endanger them? "Local authorities aren't allowed to enforce IDEM regulations and the reverse is true of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, who can't stroll into town and enforce local laws". That makes no sense. Local communities are required to comply with state laws, which means they have the authority to enforce them within their jurisdictions, or require state enforcement.
    1
  26.  @cilleshaner4092  So the city has its own responsibility -- in addition to state -- to protect public health and safety. And it would have that responsibility if it didn't own or partly own the hazard.
    1
  27.  @awilson816aw  More detail is needed about what was and or wasn't being done. The only thing certain as a matter of principle law is that the first obligation of gov't is to protect public health and safety.
    1
  28.  @derekh1593  The NTSB chair said nothing of the kind, else you'd post the EVIDENCE for your assertion. Republican'ts are CONSTANTLY reminding us that they OPPOSE REGULATION. REGULATION is LAW jackass. And where law exists and they can IGNORE it they will IGNORE -- and VIOLATE -- it. Because all that matters to them is MONEY. Rupert Murch himself said it about the DEFAMATION his propaganda sewer caused: "It isn't about red and blue; it's about GREEN."
    1
  29.  @derekh1593  And the train only operated on that city property? You liars are morally degenerate.
    1
  30.  @derekh1593  No: it was specifically designed for use in VIETNAM. It is a MILITARY weapon, and DOES NOT belong in the hands of civilians -- especially those who DEFEND mass murder as a necessary corollary of a "right". The FIRST obligation of gov't is protection of public health and safety against numerical minorities such as anti-rule of law/gov't gun-nuts who have no sense of proportion because sociopaths.
    1
  31.  @user-fy7ru4ii1i  Recycling CAN exist.
    1
  32.  @annehedonia156  "Thoughts and prayers" are slower than bullets, and have yet to have any effect beyond making the persons doing it feel good about themselves as an ego trip, and deluding themselves that they actually did something constructive. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. One fact is common to all guns: They shoot bullets.
    1
  33.  @annehedonia156  None of which is PROVABLE as to EXISTING. One of the features or flaws in human beings as that they are capable of believing things that are false and nonsensical. One is able to believe things that can't be proven to exist, let alone provable as being true; but the believing does not make those into facts. LEARN that fundamental psychological maturity.
    1
  34.  @annehedonia156  Prove you aren't silly. Love can be proven by observed action. The occult shit you posted, and being used by the fake "prophet" to bullshit others end up not panning out as predicted by the "prophet". We learn from that that the Prophet" who is claiming to predict the future gets it WRONG so IS NOT to be believed. Perhaps you should practice your so-called "religion" in a church instead of adding it to the colossal tonnage of junk already on the Internet.
    1