Could it be because Vice President Chaney owns a company ( which deals with asbestos) that is currently in legitation ?





Could it be because Vice President Chaney owns a company ( which deals with asbestos) that is currently in legitation ?
My new love...is me !
Even the greatest authority does not, ultimately, know you as you know yourself.
Jhuka
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Maya Angelou
Asbestos litigation is fairly controversial. There's no doubt that it's been a major drain, a financial black hole, for a number of companies who produced asbestos products. Asbestos-related injuries (mesothelioma, lung cancer, fibrotic diseases) can occur years after the exposure to asbestos products, making the future liabilities highly uncertain.
Asbestos was simply considered good fireproofing until about the 1960s. At that point, corporations, the government, and the unions started to become aware of inherent health risks and tapered off production. In the 1980s, there was a huge effort at asbestos mitigation, stripping out asbestos from all building materials, and that effort continues to today.
So today, you have potential claims of billions of dollars, people who may still get sick, companies that cannot get financing or who are facing liabilities far in excess of their worth (ie, bankruptcy), all for an unknown amount of liability, and often coming from production of a product that at the time was considered safe.
Frankly, some practical approach needs to be decided on. The only ones coming out good on this one are lawyers, asbestos mitigation companies, and pulmonologists, with the lawyers particularly highlighted - under the present status, litigation will continue long after the last fibers have been replaced and the last afflicted patient has died.



In a front-page article from the "Los Angeles Times" a few days ago, a story re: tort reform suggested George W. Bush and the GOP are attempting to keep the Trial Lawyers Association from receiving more money from judgments...which the TLA can then donate to Democratic candidates. Hence, at least according to this article, this is part of a long-term strategy by the GOP to financially weaken the Democratic party in the future. Interesting for me to watch, as I don't belong to any polital party. But I'm just wondering what kind of response the Democrats will prepare in opposition to this GOP stategy, if this analysis, is indeed, correct.Originally Posted by Farrah_Holiday
PhaedrusZ





Thanks for the insight guys ; ) I'm going to check the LA Times website for the article you're talking about PhaedrusZ.
My new love...is me !
Even the greatest authority does not, ultimately, know you as you know yourself.
Jhuka
When someone shows you who they are, believe them.
Maya Angelou
What company are you talking about?Originally Posted by Farrah_Holiday
First DC has ) HAlliburton stock and has had none since the ethics committee let him sell it about 3 weeks after the JAn 2001 unnauguration.
Second HAlliburton settled the claims against it last July, and the deal closed 12/31/04.
If you do not believe me you might believe the network that loves the current administration--CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in664479.shtml
See attached: some of these bastards NEED to be bankrupted and put in jail.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ce_indictments
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Bookmarks