I’m not involved in the industry in any way so I would obviously have no access to their contract, but if the contract stated Maersk was responsible for inspecting and maintaining the ship while it was chartered by them, then I can fully understand holding them at fault. That would be similar to us leading a car, for all intents and purposes, it’s our car and our responsibility to ensure it’s safe to drive, if we remove the brakes and kill a family of 6, that’s entirely in us. But going back to enterprise, I don’t look at the maintenance records and inspect if they fully or correctly installed the brakes before driving off the lot. And this is where I go back to not knowing shit about their contract, maybe it was in there and they neglected to perform an inspection, or maybe it was in there and the documents were altered, we might or might not find out in the future. My whole comment was that this reporter wrote this article as click- bait, Maersk may have been found to be silencing whistle-blowers, but it doesn’t seem to me like that has any bearing on this incident in particular.

A Singaporean company owns the ship, from what I’ve read, Maersk just “rented” the ship for this cargo load, how does this in any way make it Maersk’s fault? This is a genuine question because from what I’ve read, Maersk would have zero to do with the upkeep or maintenence of the ship, the owners would be responsible for that, especially if they had Just chartered this ship for this most recent load. Honestly, I haven’t read this full article, unless it’s the same I read somewhere else, but the gist is that people should be outraged that a company not responsible for maintaining the ship was able to rent the ship and the engine/ electronics failed on their rented ship so its their fault? I’ll gladly retract this if there is new evidence that Maersk was responsible for the repairs and didn’t do them, but I personally don’t get brakes replaced or oil changes done for enterprise when I rent their cars…

Hypothetically speaking, the conservative Supreme Court justices could be included in the official order from Biden… Wouldn’t have to worry about the conservative justices making the wrong decision then…

More like: “by opening this box you have contractually agreed to vote against the formation of any union and to report all union forming activities to your goblin overlords. Furthermore, by being ‘present’ or ‘employed’ by this corporation when this box was opened, it anytime in the future, you also contractually agree to the rules outlined above. Should a legal dispute arise concerning this contract you are bound to mediation to determine that you are wrong and the corporate legal fees will be deducted automatically from your paycheck, no matter where you are employed.”

“Look, all of you are basically here because god wanted to give you me.” - trump, probably…

Start holding a pregnant teen miss Texas pageant, ages 13 (at due date) to age 17, nationally televise it. Have questions concerning what they plan on doing for education, work, where they’ll live, if the father is in the picture, also basic life experience questions and knowledge questions… Make it as uncomfortable for the viewers as possible.

You mean ethanol welfare, a subsidy is just welfare for a business…

The way that he is opting out is by refusing to spend the ~$300k that is the federal government’s requirement to be part of the grant program. I wonder if it would be possible to do an end run around that waste of oxygen, and have a charity raise the ~$300k and accept the $18m the federal government is offering, to be distributed by the charity instead…

I think the best course of action would be to reframe their thinking, instead of allowing things to keep in being called subsidies, force them to try to clarify the difference between a subsidy and welfare. Ie, farming subsidy? You mean farming welfare. Banking subsidy? You mean banking welfare. Did you know that Boeing Corp has received $15 Billion in subsidies not paid back? You mean $15 Billion in welfare, they in fact, received nearly $75 Billion in welfare, most of that welfare being received since 2000, and of that ~$75 Billion in welfare received, they actually paid back ~$60 Billion. So they received $15 Billion dollars in welfare from the US taxpayers. They are by no means the sole corporate beneficiary of welfare from the taxpayers, just the first one I stumbled upon. Point being, force the language to reflect what they hate so their hypocrisy can be exposed and other people’s eyes can be opened. Most people don’t know exactly what a subsidy is, they think there is some sort of justification for it that makes it beyond criticizing, a subsidy is just welfare for corporations or farms to keep them in business, we want them in business, sure, but we also want kids to be able to eat over the summer, and if farms and Boeing and banks are deserving of welfare from the government, and hence from the US taxpayers, why aren’t kids?