World Politics

[Anonymous]

I think you miss the point. Govt. regulation is supposed to reduce the number and magnitude of problems that profit-seeking businesses, and people in general, create. And often govt does, eventually, which is why heavy metals from the auto industry are no longer discharged into your Great Lakes, for example.

BP saying, "oops, sorry", after they've done something stupid, is a bit late don't ya think? Business (and the public) tends to be reactionary, so some organisation needs to think and plan ahead. It'd be nice if democratically elected govts filled that role more often...

I don't think I'm missing anything. I already said nationalization will fix all the problems. Won't it be grand? A life without risk...

 

[ChrisE]

No, I think we should nationalize BP. So what if the company is British... I mean their food sucks so they ought to lose out on that point alone.

Once the company is run by the govt things like this would'nt happen.

You're just being a smarta$$ now, because nobody is suggesting that and the thought is ludicrous.

I live on the coast, and fish and boat in these waters, lay on these beaches with my family and friends, while working in this industry. Nobody ever means for things like this to happen and nobody in the industry has malice, but even knowing that I understand that companies must be forced to do things for the benefit of the society. I wish it wasn't like that but it is. I have no utopian government regulatory delusions; my position is based upon fact and knowledge, which is something you lack on this subject.

I know this because I am in the middle of it, from both the oil industry side and the environmental side, and I see how things must be for the common good. You sit in California and spout your laissez-faire model for an industry you don't have the slightest clue about both technically and politically, with your pasted links and smug attitude.

 

[Anonymous]

You're just being a smarta$$ now, because nobody is suggesting that and the thought is ludicrous.

I live on the coast, and fish and boat in these waters, lay on these beaches with my family and friends, while working in this industry. Nobody ever means for things like this to happen and nobody in the industry has malice, but even knowing that I understand that companies must be forced to do things for the benefit of the society. I wish it wasn't like that but it is. I have no utopian government regulatory delusions; my position is based upon fact and knowledge, which is something you lack on this subject.

I know this because I am in the middle of it, from both the oil industry side and the environmental side, and I see how things must be for the common good. You sit in California and spout your laissez-faire model for an industry you don't have the slightest clue about both technically and politically, with your pasted links and smug attitude. I'm glad we have 1000 miles between us.

You mean the same kind of smartass that assigns positions to me which I do not hold?

If it makes you feel better to have a boogeyman, then I'm your huckleberry.

 

[ChrisE]

You mean the same kind of smartass that assigns positions to me which I do not hold?

If it makes you feel better to have a boogeyman, then I'm your huckleberry.

TBH, I don't know WTF you think. I think you have schizophrenia.

Ever since I've been reading this thread on a multitude of topics, you spout unregulated market jargon with your links to wingnut thinktanks, make smarta$$ remarks about any type of regulation when things go awry, in any industry, then claim you are "assigned positions" which you do not hold when you are called on this unrealistic BS. You do a quick 180 and play the misunderstood victim.

You're like the CN forum's Who's on First do-loop character.

 

[Anonymous]

TBH, I don't know WTF you think. I think you have schizophrenia.

Ever since I've been reading this thread on a multitude of topics, you spout unregulated market jargon with your links to wingnut thinktanks, make smarta$$ remarks about any type of regulation when things go awry, in any industry, then claim you are "assigned positions" which you do not hold when you are called on this unrealistic BS. You do a quick 180 and play the misunderstood victim.

You're like the CN forum's Who's on First do-loop character.

We finally agree on something.

 

[ChrisE]

We finally agree on something.

Yes, common ground. We both agree you don't know WTF you think.

I was serious about my schizo comment and your reply proves it....you appear to have a moderate to possibly severe case. Better get that checked out. My thoughts will be on your well-being and recovery. Take care.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, common ground. We both agree you don't know WTF you think.

I was serious about my schizo comment and your reply proves it....you appear to have a moderate to possibly severe case. Better get that checked out. My thoughts will be on your well-being and recovery. Take care.

So you are a doctor too? Cool man.

 

[fatandfast]

Very true.

51.3% of US dem energy comes from coal/coal fired plants . Just another stat

 

[patricknd]

TFF, you are out of your league here with OAR, no offense, on this issue.

Like I wrote upthread, BP/Transocean knew this was happening. Anybody that knows the industry could see that something was fueling the fire on the rig because the fireboats were having no impact with spraying water.....that was the oil/gas coming up the riser because the BOP to prevent such a thing from happening in the first place on the seabed was fukd up.

It doesn't take an ROV and days to figure that out. I would bet they had ROVs at the BOP while the rig was still afloat.

People in the industry knew this. The ignorant idiot coast guard lady should have kept her mouth shut, and the lapdog media shoved it to the back stove on her ignorant word. If the govt. is gonna be in the business of allowing this type of drilling they need experts watching it, instead of clueless a$$clown coast guard flunky's spewing BS. OAR and I knew it was BS when she was saying it.

And, after the initial fire the main news websites were mostly silent because I looked at them every hour since the day it caught on fire for somebody to finally admit things were fixing to turn very bad here and for some sign the govt was gonna get their a$$ in gear. It was at least the middle of this past week before it started making the headlines on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Yeah, there were links down below, but the main stories last week were Wall Street, Arizona, and Sandra Bullock's adoption/divorce. Much more important stuff; coddled business that will ultimately get off scot free, racism, and voyeurism.

Now, it's freak out time just like the media always does, sensationalizing this to the hilt without even having a clue WTF is fixing to happen, or looking at themselves critically for taking the word of a govt official without digging. Wash, rinse, repeat. They are nothing but ***** stenographers. I hear the WH correspondants dinner is this weekend. I wonder it I can hear the slurping fellatio all the way to Houston?

This thing is gonna spew for months before it is stopped. We are 10 days into it and look at the impending impact to the environment and coastal livelihoods. You haven't seen shyt yet. If that dome doesn't work, I wouldn't be surprised if oil is scattered from the Tampa to Padre Island by July 4, and just think what will happen if a hurricane gets in the gulf.

a friend of mine is capt of one of the first boats to get there and he said you knew from a ways back it was bad!!!

Then when they do something you can hold onto your ears because these folks will cry till no end. They will say this will cost the consumer X amount of dollars and we just can not afford it etc. Bull****,,,, these things need to be done and should have happened a long time ago. The rapid response system for oil spills and leaks is old and outdated. NO ONE has the proper equipment on site or staged.


When they are able to get this Blow Out Preventer off the seabed and determine why the actuators were never able to perform we will know more. Just guess the **** storm that is about to hit this company that manufactured the BOP! If I was employed there I would be actively looking for a new job! By the time the worlds largest drilling contractor (Transocean) and BP get through they will probably just fold up shop.

I am surprised that they do not have more news regarding the dome experiment. It should work for the main leak. Then they will have to work on the other drill stem / casing issues

i've seen a couple of reports in financial news naming cameron as the bop manufacturer, but i don't know if that's true. i hope not, they're a good customer.

 

[Oncearunner8]

a friend of mine is capt of one of the first boats to get there and he said you knew from a ways back it was bad!!!



i've seen a couple of reports in financial news naming cameron as the bop manufacturer, but i don't know if that's true. i hope not, they're a good customer.

Cameron is the manufacturer. Bad will be a mild statement for their future.

 

[Oncearunner8]

Hello, Hello?

Yes, If it were up to the people on uh.... your side, there would be very little if any, regulation, and the regulatory agencies that would uhh, administer the uh regulations. There would be no EPA and there would be no Dept. of Energy.

How come the uh, private sector, uh.... isn't handling their own mess?

Why do we need a Federal Response?

Uhh, government is the problem.

We'll cut uhhh taxes. That will cap the blowout.

Environment, enschmirement.



Biden paraphrase; this Drill, Drill, Drill, crap is pretty idiotic.

Palin (while shaking head): Uh Joe, the chant is "Drill baby, drill.




Thanks, B!tch, now it's back to our regularly scheduled programming.

You still think I am on what side?

 

[scribe]

At 600 posts to this thread, accounting for 1 post to every six total.... Is there anyone that doesn't know exactly what scott's rush limbaugh positions are??

 

[Oncearunner8]

Yeah, and BP is spending $6 million/day trying to contain it, and I read the relief well would be $100 million.

My whacky idea we discussed earlier about having intermediate BOPs along the riser to the rig, if that is feasible how much would that cost compared to the millions BP is spending, and the billions lost along the coast as well as environmental damage? And, the industry would fight it all the way and have a good chance of winning.

Where in the fark is Sarah Palin? Somebody should stick a microphone in that dolt's face. Demagoguing serious dangerous industry for political gain is typical in this country.

Don't you guys do HAZOPs? Is it time to hit the bar when the part about failing BOP in 5000' of water is brought up?

Yeah the redun. BOP system will be a start. The Deadman also failed which is odd but we can discuss that via the phone/emails. Folks on here do not gava.

Sarah Palin is a dumb.......**** who will regret the Drill baby Drill statement. Her political life I hope is over.

Yeah we do HAZOPs but don't you think it was better for us to hit the bar that day and talk about the BOP ****tting the bed.

 

[ChrisE]

At 600 posts to this thread, accounting for 1 post to every six total.... Is there anyone that doesn't know exactly what scott's rush limbaugh positions are??

I dunno, every time we think we have him pegged he whips out the "I'm misunderstood" card.

 

[buckwheat]

Sorry, I was just asking a question. I know when you get questioned you take it as an insult since you know everything.

You asked if he was drinking. Are you concerned about his health? No, it was a sarcastic remark because you think his reasoning is equivalent to that of a drunk. Please be honest.

Nope, TBH I don't know very much, but I also don't go distorting and spinning facts to support my prior opinions. Janus and another poster pointed out how you clearly see 7's when 3's are shown. What can I say, it's not just me.

BTW, I could care less about the insults. I was just pointing out your uh, inconsistencies.

Oncearunner; I believed you were on the side of smaller govt., and were right leaning. Am I wrong? Reagan was the guy who said that Govt. is the problem and it's become a mantra for the right. Now righties like Jindal want Federal help? How can they help? They've been de-funded. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Anonymous]

I dunno, every time we think we have him pegged he whips out the "I'm misunderstood" card.

It's really not that hard to figure out, except for Scribe.

I'm probably more libertarian than conservative fiscally. I'm definately more libertarian on social issues.

I'm for sensible regulations that are effective. I don't think govt regulations cn solve all problems. I do not believe that demonstrating an ability to win an election means one is necessarily more qualified to run/regulate than those that work and have life experience in any given industry (that means I don't have tons of faith in politicians).

So I find it more than silly that every time there is a situation/problem/meltdown the extremely lazy left screams "regulation" at the top of their lungs never bothering to take a look at 1. What happened, 2. Could it have been prevented, 3. Why didn't existing regulations prevent or mitigate...etc., etc. I'm also amused that those that wrote legislation regulating industry are often the same one's that write the new regulations when the old ones failed to do what they were intended to do (Chriss Dodd, Barney Frank come to mind).

No, it's the left's position that 1. It's the fault of evil big business and the greedy mf'ers that run/own the company and 2. The ONLY solution is more govt., and 3. Even when the company makes every attempt to do the right thing (BP seems to be stepping up to the plate) you guys stay firmly in position on your high-horse wagging your finger as if you've got all the answers (which is typical of the anti-business left).

So, while I admit that regulations are necessary and have written as such many times, I do not believe that govt has all the answers which is why you, Scribe and others on this forum seem so confused. Then, of course the Alinsky tactics come rushing forward because that's how you guys argue.

The world is full of risk. I'm sorry to break it to you and Scribe. Sometimes, even the all powerful all knowing elected politicians that run our govt can't keep things like this from happening no matter what regulations are in place.

That's a rough outline of my position on regulations. I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[D Avoid]

Why is Yobama in the Polly chicks sexun, he should be HollyWood Bouve lard?

 

[buckwheat]

It's really not that hard to figure out, except for Scribe..

Yes, it is. You've gone back and forth many times. You're not the only one on the right who is perpetually playing this "I'm misunderstood" stufff.

I'm probably more libertarian than conservative fiscally. I'm definately more libertarian on social issues..

Pretty meaningless.

I'm for sensible regulations that are effective...

You say that, but you guys are always arguing with people who have much more expertise than you have. Gingrich is another know it all.

Obviously the Regs here weren't effective and the resident experts point out that it's widely known in the industry. They also point out that the accident could have been contained had more stringent regs been in place.

I don't think govt regulations cn solve all problems..

All? There you go again, setting up strawmen.

I do not believe that demonstrating an ability to win an election means one is necessarily more qualified to run/regulate than those that work and have life experience in any given industry (that means I don't have tons of faith in politicians)..

Right, so the populace chooses a Reagan(with no military experience) over a Carter (Naval Academy grad and submarine officer) because Reagan is stronger on defense? Same with Bush over Kerry.

So I find it more than silly that every time there is a situation/problem/meltdown the extremely lazy left screams "regulation" at the top of their lungs never bothering to take a look at 1. What happened, 2. Could it have been prevented, 3. Why didn't existing regulations prevent or mitigate...etc., etc..

Almost impossible to have any sort of debate with you because your positions (generalities) conveniently shift constantly. With this oil well explosion we know the answer to all three of your questions.

I'm also amused that those that wrote legislation regulating industry are often the same one's that write the new regulations when the old ones failed to do what they were intended to do (Chriss Dodd, Barney Frank come to mind)..

The regulations that we do have are watered down by politics. If it was up to the Right we'd have very few if any Regs.

No, it's the left's position that 1. It's the fault of evil big business and the greedy mf'ers that run/own the company and 2. The ONLY solution is more govt., and 3. Even when the company makes every attempt to do the right thing (BP seems to be stepping up to the plate) you guys stay firmly in position on your high-horse wagging your finger as if you've got all the answers (which is typical of the anti-business left)...

You're hopeless! The time to do something was obviously before this catastrophe occurred. We know what the right does. They have secret energy meetings which the wingnut SCOTUS allows.

So, while I admit that regulations are necessary and have written as such many times, I do not believe that govt has all the answers which is why you, Scribe and others on this forum seem so confused. Then, of course the Alinsky tactics come rushing forward because that's how you guys argue.

The world is full of risk. I'm sorry to break it to you and Scribe. Sometimes, even the all powerful all knowing elected politicians that run our govt can't keep things like this from happening no matter what regulations are in place.

That's a rough outline of my position on regulations. I hope that clears it up for you.

You love this "all" strawman nonsense, don't you?

The point is that this catastrophe was an accident waiting to happen and it could have been prevented or at least minimized with more stringent regs. You just keep campaigning though.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is. You've gone back and forth many times. You're not the only one on the right who is perpetually playing this "I'm misunderstood" stufff.



Pretty meaningless.



You say that, but you guys are always arguing with people who have much more expertise than you have. Gingrich is another know it all.

Obviously the Regs here weren't effective and the resident experts point out that it's widely known in the industry. They also point out that the accident could have been contained had more stringent regs been in place.




All? There you go again, setting up strawmen.





Right, so the populace chooses a Reagan(with no military experience) over a Carter (Naval Academy grad and submarine officer) because Reagan is stronger on defense? Same with Bush over Kerry.



Almost impossible to have any sort of debate with you because your positions (generalities) conveniently shift constantly. With this oil well explosion we know the answer to all three of your questions.



The regulations that we do have are watered down by politics. If it was up to the Right we'd have very few if any Regs.




You're hopeless! The time to do something was obviously before this catastrophe occurred. We know what the right does. They have secret energy meetings which the wingnut SCOTUS allows.





You love this "all" strawman nonsense, don't you?

The point is that this catastrophe was an accident waiting to happen and it could have been prevented or at least minimized with more stringent regs. You just keep campaigning though.

You seem to have the Monday morning quaterbacking down to a science. Please enlighten us as to the next catastrophe so the politicians can hurry up with regs that will keep it from happening, or lessen the impact?

It's interesting to me how you just write stuff as if it's true. My position has not changed regarding regs. But I don't really care if you think that they have. The way you view stuff isn't the same as the way I view stuff and there really is no point in debating with you as we have already established no common ground.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm probably more libertarian than conservative fiscally. I'm definately more libertarian on social issues.

You and I probably agree on 99% of social issues. I consider myself the same way. I can't extrapolate my libertarian social values into business because the stakes are too high. What one does in his/her personal life rarely effects large portions of society, while businesses running amok do.

So I find it more than silly that every time there is a situation/problem/meltdown the extremely lazy left screams "regulation" at the top of their lungs never bothering to take a look at 1. What happened, 2. Could it have been prevented, 3. Why didn't existing regulations prevent or mitigate...etc., etc. I'm also amused that those that wrote legislation regulating industry are often the same one's that write the new regulations when the old ones failed to do what they were intended to do (Chriss Dodd, Barney Frank come to mind).

That is the only "regulation" I am talking about. Maybe I should say "impose/review safety regulations" on the industry. This has nothing to do with regulating any commercial aspects of any business, other than the right wing crying "these safety rules costs jobs, etc" which is BS. And, things evolve. Sometimes people don't think of all possibilities and mitigate them beforehand. And, sometimes mechanical devices just fail. This is a human business and these things will happen; it is how we deal with them moving forward and the steps we take to prevent such a thing from happening again is what the focus should be on, not pointing fingers.

No, it's the left's position that 1. It's the fault of evil big business and the greedy mf'ers that run/own the company and 2. The ONLY solution is more govt., and 3. Even when the company makes every attempt to do the right thing (BP seems to be stepping up to the plate) you guys stay firmly in position on your high-horse wagging your finger as if you've got all the answers (which is typical of the anti-business left).

I noted my surprise in no redundant BOP system on the riser, ie the only thing preventing this from happening is one valve 5000' underwater. If you define the govt imposing failsafe systems designed into the drilling concept to prevent something like this from happening again as just boilerplate "more govt", then we are at an impass here in our discussion. I am far from "left" in my approach to business (ask rhubarb ), and trust me you don't have the market cornered in here between the two of us as the lone defender of capitalism. But I know reality and human nature, and how some industries are not effected by competition, especially in terms of safety. If that makes me a leftist in your mind then sobeit. IMO all the stuff you are saying above doesn't apply to me. Save it for rhubarb and buckwheat.

So, while I admit that regulations are necessary and have written as such many times, I do not believe that govt has all the answers which is why you, Scribe and others on this forum seem so confused. Then, of course the Alinsky tactics come rushing forward because that's how you guys argue.

I know I have never said, or believe, that govt has all the answers. The role of govt is to protect the society it governs thru the use of laws, else you have chaos. The fact we are arguing about this issue, while the the gulf coast is getting oil soaked right now, is frankly mind-boggling. For the first time in my life I will use the word "obtuse" to describe an opinion on a particular subject. No offense, but I just have to use that since Doc called me that the other day and it seems applicable here.

The world is full of risk. I'm sorry to break it to you and Scribe. Sometimes, even the all powerful all knowing elected politicians that run our govt can't keep things like this from happening no matter what regulations are in place.

That's a rough outline of my position on regulations. I hope that clears it up for you.

The world is full of risk? No shyt? Thanks, that clears it all up for me.

I believe this "one shoe fits all" aversion to govt regulations you espouse has alot of gray areas in it.

So, answer this; do you think the govt should impose new safety regulations, if they are possible, to help prevent something like this from happening in the future? Do you think it should even be discussed, or just let the market sort these pesky safety/environment/society things out so as not to harm commerce of THAT particular business?

 

[ChrisE]

You asked if he was drinking. Are you concerned about his health? No, it was a sarcastic remark because you think his reasoning is equivalent to that of a drunk. Please be honest.

Nope, TBH I don't know very much, but I also don't go distorting and spinning facts to support my prior opinions. Janus and another poster pointed out how you clearly see 7's when 3's are shown. What can I say, it's not just me.

BTW, I could care less about the insults. I was just pointing out your uh, inconsistencies.

Oncearunner; I believed you were on the side of smaller govt., and were right leaning. Am I wrong? Reagan was the guy who said that Govt. is the problem and it's become a mantra for the right. Now righties like Jindal want Federal help? How can they help? They've been de-funded. You can't have it both ways.

Here is what you wrote:

"I don't have anything good to say regarding your commentary, so I will not comment myself.

Just an observation. The first sentence contains an insult or what is also know as a personal attack.
You were previously criticising personal attacks directed at you.

Carry on."

The first sentence was me asking him what a "brank of rogues" was. I'm pretty much trained to read things closely and literally, else things get fukd up. Sorry that doesn't work well with your scattershot writing style.

Maybe you have some "academic" job like rhubarb and can wax poetically about the benefits of a utopian socialistic world, thus don't look too hard at details that would throw that world view out of whack. Next time, please refer to the correct portion of my post you attack me with; it will make our discussions much more efficient. Thanks.

As to your recent complaining about my posting, my feelings about your fellow communist rhubarb are well documented within this thread. I don't blame it on drinking....I probably drink more than he does and see things 180 degrees opposite.

I really screwed you up on that Lemond thread, I see.

 

[ChrisE]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fix-20100501,0,323202,full.story

Here is one of the better articles I have read.

 

[buckwheat]

Here is what you wrote:

"I don't have anything good to say regarding your commentary, so I will not comment myself.

Just an observation. The first sentence contains an insult or what is also know as a personal attack.
You were previously criticising personal attacks directed at you.

Carry on."

The first sentence was me asking him what a "brank of rogues" was. I'm pretty much trained to read things closely and literally, else things get fukd up. Sorry that doesn't work well with your scattershot writing style.

Maybe you have some "academic" job like rhubarb and can wax poetically about the benefits of a utopian socialistic world, thus don't look too hard at details that would throw that world view out of whack. Next time, please refer to the correct portion of my post you attack me with; it will make our discussions much more efficient. Thanks.

As to your recent complaining about my posting, my feelings about your fellow communist rhubarb are well documented within this thread. I don't blame it on drinking....I probably drink more than he does and see things 180 degrees opposite.

I really screwed you up on that Lemond thread, I see.

I won't address your distortions and exaggerations.

My political views are very similiar to those of Einstein, (he was fairly detail oriented, no?) and those held by European social democrats.

Have your fun, get your shots in. It's all good.

What's the point of arguing about the LeMond thread? If one just pays attention to any details whatsoever, there is zero evidence that LeMond doped and zero innuendo about it either except from recrimination boy, Lance Armstrong.

If you care to argue with those details have at it.

I'm in agreement with your assessment of ScottSocal except for your diagnosis of schizophrenia. You have a tendency to overreach with your psychiatric evaluations and it winds up detracting from your arguments, in the case of the BP fiasco, a slam dunk.

BTW, Rhubroma is one of the few reasons to read these threads.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Originally Posted by ChrisE Bla Bla Bla.

Originally Posted by Buckwheat Oh yeah. Bla Bla.

Originally Posted by ChrisE Yeah. Bla Bla Bla.

I liked this thread better last night when it was two guys with some real insight into the situation giving us some inside poop on an enormous natural disaster.
Chris, can't you get along with anybody? All this discord could have been avoided if Buckwheat would have said "Your second sentance.....", huh?
I did find it very funny when the flame master began whinning about personal attacks.
A successful government needs to provide strong social programs backed by businesses providing work opportunities for just about every one of its citizens. When you leave private enterprise unattended you will not get a strong workforce. You will get what we have now, business leaders living in mansions on the hill with a fleet of Mercedes and Ferraris 'downsizing their workforces in the name of greater profits.
We need input from all sorts of points of view, from Rhubroma to Scott and then we need to pick a program down the middle. I am afraid our system as it currently exists is very broken, the big corporations run the government and all the rest of us are just pawns, we have no real say, we are told what to think by the propaganda machine of the corporate power that runs the whole world. As an example Scott was whinning last month about his health insurance agent (a completely impartial source) telling him how much it will cost him if the health reform bill passed. If he was already providing health care for all his full time employees like I do then guess what? We get a tax break. Damn you, BIG GOVERNMENT leave my taxes alone.

 

[r.avens]

Why is Yobama in the Polly chicks sexun, he should be HollyWood Bouve lard?

At least we now have a decent explanation for why he doesn't have time to play more golf.

I think the thread's gonna come back to a rolling b'erl.

Yawn. How cliche of you Barack!