aquaknight
Active Member
This was posted elsewhere;
http://www.theoildrum.com
Best place of info and education on what's happening as we speak.
http://www.theoildrum.com
Best place of info and education on what's happening as we speak.
Another Disgusting Oil Spill!!
- Thread starter ibanez
- Start date
mrdc
Active Member
I missed that link ... I will add it to my oil watch folder.
I just saw this:
In Florida, officials confirmed an oil sheen about nine miles from the famous white sands of Pensacola beach.
My buddy must be freaking out right now. He bought a condo on the beach earlier this year with the intent of renting it out most of this year. That may not happen now unless some cleaning crews will rent it out.
I just saw this:
In Florida, officials confirmed an oil sheen about nine miles from the famous white sands of Pensacola beach.
My buddy must be freaking out right now. He bought a condo on the beach earlier this year with the intent of renting it out most of this year. That may not happen now unless some cleaning crews will rent it out.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3275166
I don't understand the beating. BP has insurance for things like this. Personally I'm tempted to pick some up
Insurance will have a cap. I also doubt they have a policy for the econimic damages end of things but maybe.
http:///forum/post/3275166
I don't understand the beating. BP has insurance for things like this. Personally I'm tempted to pick some up
Insurance will have a cap. I also doubt they have a policy for the econimic damages end of things but maybe.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3275213
Insurance will have a cap. I also doubt they have a policy for the econimic damages end of things but maybe.
sure, but the cap is huge. The deductable will be several million dollars, but they will cover alot of it... I seriously doubt they've reached their cap yet...
http:///forum/post/3275213
Insurance will have a cap. I also doubt they have a policy for the econimic damages end of things but maybe.
sure, but the cap is huge. The deductable will be several million dollars, but they will cover alot of it... I seriously doubt they've reached their cap yet...
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3275215
sure, but the cap is huge. The deductable will be several million dollars, but they will cover alot of it... I seriously doubt they've reached their cap yet...
The economic repreations will be the biggest expense by far and I don't think they've started making those payments yet
http:///forum/post/3275215
sure, but the cap is huge. The deductable will be several million dollars, but they will cover alot of it... I seriously doubt they've reached their cap yet...
The economic repreations will be the biggest expense by far and I don't think they've started making those payments yet
darthtang aw
Active Member
Relax. Obama has made this spill his number one priority now. 45 days later.
mrdc
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3275227
Relax. Obama has made this spill his number one priority now. 45 days later.
Yeah since he fixed all our other problems ...
http:///forum/post/3275227
Relax. Obama has made this spill his number one priority now. 45 days later.
Yeah since he fixed all our other problems ...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3275225
The economic repreations will be the biggest expense by far and I don't think they've started making those payments yet
But those are legally capped, unless they can prove criminal negligence, which i doubt they will.
http:///forum/post/3275225
The economic repreations will be the biggest expense by far and I don't think they've started making those payments yet
But those are legally capped, unless they can prove criminal negligence, which i doubt they will.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3275227
Relax. Obama has made this spill his number one priority now. 45 days later.
Is this like his announcement on jobs, only to cram the healthcare bill down our throats? Maybe we should call this government run healthcare. And he'll pay attention to it...
http:///forum/post/3275227
Relax. Obama has made this spill his number one priority now. 45 days later.
Is this like his announcement on jobs, only to cram the healthcare bill down our throats? Maybe we should call this government run healthcare. And he'll pay attention to it...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3275233
Is this like his announcement on jobs, only to cram the healthcare bill down our throats? Maybe we should call this government run healthcare. And he'll pay attention to it...
Curious as to what you want Obama to do. I thought State Govt. wants minimal involvement when it comes to Federal assistance. Yea, the major spill happened in Federal waters, so the Feds need to clean up what they can before it hits State mandated waterways. It's up to the Coastal States to handle their own cleanups. You didn't see Nashiville or Tennessee go running to Obama to ask for help to clean up their flood mess. Isn't that the Conservative way?
http:///forum/post/3275233
Is this like his announcement on jobs, only to cram the healthcare bill down our throats? Maybe we should call this government run healthcare. And he'll pay attention to it...
Curious as to what you want Obama to do. I thought State Govt. wants minimal involvement when it comes to Federal assistance. Yea, the major spill happened in Federal waters, so the Feds need to clean up what they can before it hits State mandated waterways. It's up to the Coastal States to handle their own cleanups. You didn't see Nashiville or Tennessee go running to Obama to ask for help to clean up their flood mess. Isn't that the Conservative way?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3275249
Saw blade is currently stuck.
I hate it when that happens. Guess the robotic arm wasn't able to keep the end of the pipe they were cutting off away from the blade so it binded up. Happens to me all the time when I try cutting a big metal pipe. If I don't push the piece I'm cutting off away from the entry point of the blade, the pipe would come down on top of the blade and pinch it to where I couldn't move it anymore. I imagine with the strong current flow 1 mile down, it's probably a pretty tough chore to begin with. much less doing it remotely using robotic equipment.
http:///forum/post/3275249
Saw blade is currently stuck.
I hate it when that happens. Guess the robotic arm wasn't able to keep the end of the pipe they were cutting off away from the blade so it binded up. Happens to me all the time when I try cutting a big metal pipe. If I don't push the piece I'm cutting off away from the entry point of the blade, the pipe would come down on top of the blade and pinch it to where I couldn't move it anymore. I imagine with the strong current flow 1 mile down, it's probably a pretty tough chore to begin with. much less doing it remotely using robotic equipment.
darthtang aw
Active Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052702988.html
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. ******** Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own ******** secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing ********'s Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own ******** Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?
Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?
Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all.
The other culprits are pretty obvious. It starts with BP, which seems not only to have had an amazing string of perfect-storm engineering lapses but no contingencies to deal with a catastrophic system failure.
However, the railing against BP for its performance since the accident is harder to understand. I attribute no virtue to BP, just self-interest. What possible interest can it have to do anything but cap the well as quickly as possible? Every day that oil is spilled means millions more in losses, cleanup and restitution.
Federal officials who rage against BP would like to deflect attention from their own role in this disaster. ******** Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department's laxity in environmental permitting and safety oversight renders it among the many bearing responsibility, expresses outrage at BP's inability to stop the leak, and even threatens to "push them out of the way."
"To replace them with what?" asked the estimable, admirably candid Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, the national incident commander. No one has the assets and expertise of BP. The federal government can fight wars, conduct a census and hand out billions in earmarks, but it has not a clue how to cap a one-mile-deep out-of-control oil well.
Obama didn't help much with his finger-pointing Rose Garden speech in which he denounced finger-pointing, then proceeded to blame everyone but himself. Even the grace note of admitting some federal responsibility turned sour when he reflexively added that these problems have been going on "for a decade or more" -- translation: Bush did it -- while, in contrast, his own ******** secretary had worked diligently to solve the problem "from the day he took office."
Really? Why hadn't we heard a thing about this? What about the September 2009 letter from Obama's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration accusing ********'s Minerals Management Service of understating the "risk and impacts" of a major oil spill? When you get a blowout 15 months into your administration, and your own ******** Department had given BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in April 2009, the buck stops.
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.
That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustn't be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
mrdc
Active Member
How big is the spill you ask?
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weath...ize_2010-06-02
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weath...ize_2010-06-02
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3275248
Curious as to what you want Obama to do. I thought State Govt. wants minimal involvement when it comes to Federal assistance. Yea, the major spill happened in Federal waters, so the Feds need to clean up what they can before it hits State mandated waterways. It's up to the Coastal States to handle their own cleanups. You didn't see Nashiville or Tennessee go running to Obama to ask for help to clean up their flood mess. Isn't that the Conservative way?
I've addressed this argument earlier.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3270491
The disasterous impact, which can locally devistate ecology was not left uncovered. There is a deeper point to the within the "founder's intent of government" statement.
The conservative argument is, one of the government's roles, enumerated in the constitution, is in times of distress (like this) to step in and develop, or help develop a solution. In this case in my opinion that would be - to work in tandem with BP, providing the deep sea technology, and manpower to help with the clean up.
Government intervention from a conservative's viewpoint, is not taken lightly. And suggesting government action, would indicate a very serious situation.
It may seem that the conservative argument is for complete anarchy, but it is not. It is for government to create a framework so that we may lead our lives as just honorable people freely without government, or others imposing themselves on us. Thus our support for national defense, support for government intervention in major national emergency (I'm pretty sure this rig is in federal waters but I may be wrong), our support for the police, roads, laws creating the framework for business.
Another aspect of this, is although there is no item in the constitution that says the feds will respond to an oil spill. But a major argument of federalizing vs staying 13 individual states was to create a body that could address issues as a whole vs individual states when it would be more effective. Particularly when the actions of one state in their own self interest might negatively impact another. (although at this point one would have a strong position if he argued that the federal government isn't effective at anything).
In this case there are 5 states that can be potentially be impacted. Potentially if the states aren't working together, you'd have Florida set up everything to protect them, vs what is a more immediate problem. VS one entity (the feds) organizing the response. And acting for what is best for the USA vs say just Louisiana or Mississippi.
In this case and in any case with the potential for their to be a very clear disaster that will effect multiple states. It is completely appropriate for the Feds to step in.
In regards to this post I was just mocking Obama and how he came out and said, jobs are my number one priority right before they crammed that healthcare bill down our throat. So I was jokingly implying that him saying x is a number one priority, he's going to disregard it for another topic more important to him. Other than bombing the whole place, I"m not sure what the feds could really do in stopping the leak... But they do have the resources and expertise to protect various natural habitats ports etc.
http:///forum/post/3275248
Curious as to what you want Obama to do. I thought State Govt. wants minimal involvement when it comes to Federal assistance. Yea, the major spill happened in Federal waters, so the Feds need to clean up what they can before it hits State mandated waterways. It's up to the Coastal States to handle their own cleanups. You didn't see Nashiville or Tennessee go running to Obama to ask for help to clean up their flood mess. Isn't that the Conservative way?
I've addressed this argument earlier.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3270491
The disasterous impact, which can locally devistate ecology was not left uncovered. There is a deeper point to the within the "founder's intent of government" statement.
The conservative argument is, one of the government's roles, enumerated in the constitution, is in times of distress (like this) to step in and develop, or help develop a solution. In this case in my opinion that would be - to work in tandem with BP, providing the deep sea technology, and manpower to help with the clean up.
Government intervention from a conservative's viewpoint, is not taken lightly. And suggesting government action, would indicate a very serious situation.
It may seem that the conservative argument is for complete anarchy, but it is not. It is for government to create a framework so that we may lead our lives as just honorable people freely without government, or others imposing themselves on us. Thus our support for national defense, support for government intervention in major national emergency (I'm pretty sure this rig is in federal waters but I may be wrong), our support for the police, roads, laws creating the framework for business.
Another aspect of this, is although there is no item in the constitution that says the feds will respond to an oil spill. But a major argument of federalizing vs staying 13 individual states was to create a body that could address issues as a whole vs individual states when it would be more effective. Particularly when the actions of one state in their own self interest might negatively impact another. (although at this point one would have a strong position if he argued that the federal government isn't effective at anything).
In this case there are 5 states that can be potentially be impacted. Potentially if the states aren't working together, you'd have Florida set up everything to protect them, vs what is a more immediate problem. VS one entity (the feds) organizing the response. And acting for what is best for the USA vs say just Louisiana or Mississippi.
In this case and in any case with the potential for their to be a very clear disaster that will effect multiple states. It is completely appropriate for the Feds to step in.
In regards to this post I was just mocking Obama and how he came out and said, jobs are my number one priority right before they crammed that healthcare bill down our throat. So I was jokingly implying that him saying x is a number one priority, he's going to disregard it for another topic more important to him. Other than bombing the whole place, I"m not sure what the feds could really do in stopping the leak... But they do have the resources and expertise to protect various natural habitats ports etc.
stdreb27
Active Member
Now I'm not terribly sure what the feds are actually doing, nor do I claim to have better boots on the ground ideas. But I do know, trashing the company actually doing the work, threatening them, opening criminal investigations at this point is counterproductive. And make me think these jokers in Washington have no interest in actually solving this problem.
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3275259
I've addressed this argument earlier.
It may seem that the conservative argument is for complete anarchy, but it is not. It is for government to create a framework so that we may lead our lives as just honorable people freely without government, or others imposing themselves on us. Thus our support for national defense, support for government intervention in major national emergency (I'm pretty sure this rig is in federal waters but I may be wrong), our support for the police, roads, laws creating the framework for business.
Another aspect of this, is although there is no item in the constitution that says the feds will respond to an oil spill. But a major argument of federalizing vs staying 13 individual states was to create a body that could address issues as a whole vs individual states when it would be more effective. Particularly when the actions of one state in their own self interest might negatively impact another. (although at this point one would have a strong position if he argued that the federal government isn't effective at anything).
In this case there are 5 states that can be potentially be impacted. Potentially if the states aren't working together, you'd have Florida set up everything to protect them, vs what is a more immediate problem. VS one entity (the feds) organizing the response. And acting for what is best for the USA vs say just Louisiana or Mississippi.
In this case and in any case with the potential for their to be a very clear disaster that will effect multiple states. It is completely appropriate for the Feds to step in.
In regards to this post I was just mocking Obama and how he came out and said, jobs are my number one priority right before they crammed that healthcare bill down our throat. So I was jokingly implying that him saying x is a number one priority, he's going to disregard it for another topic more important to him. Other than bombing the whole place, I"m not sure what the feds could really do in stopping the leak... But they do have the resources and expertise to protect various natural habitats ports etc.
Nope, your trying to impart your personnal morals upon your chosen conservative politicians here. Bobby Jidal famously mocked spending on volcano research on national TV as a waste of money and is now crying for federal help. I guess he does not consider something like Mt. St. Helens a serious problem and it makes him look like an idiot. Palin was also down in the area just two weeks before the spill and is on RECORD promoting her drill baby drill routine and assuring everyone that it is being done safely.
BP cut corners and killed people so the executive officers could add another zero to their paychecks and look good to the stock holders end of story. The government also is just as much at fault and Obama is the captain of the ship so he ultimately is responsible, but if you think anything different would be done under a conservative president you are dreaming.
With the people at the Department of the ******** doing meth on oil rigs and the SEC people looking at ---- all day it is no wonder we are so screwed. I want regulations for corporations, but who is going to regulate the people doing the regulating? Yet another department being charged with the role of bad cop within the federal government? Who is going to regulate them? Talk about the snake eating it's own tail.
Funny the IRS seems to be one of the few agencies that seems to be able to function if barely at it's given role and I guess considering what they do it is no suprise.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3275259
I've addressed this argument earlier.
It may seem that the conservative argument is for complete anarchy, but it is not. It is for government to create a framework so that we may lead our lives as just honorable people freely without government, or others imposing themselves on us. Thus our support for national defense, support for government intervention in major national emergency (I'm pretty sure this rig is in federal waters but I may be wrong), our support for the police, roads, laws creating the framework for business.
Another aspect of this, is although there is no item in the constitution that says the feds will respond to an oil spill. But a major argument of federalizing vs staying 13 individual states was to create a body that could address issues as a whole vs individual states when it would be more effective. Particularly when the actions of one state in their own self interest might negatively impact another. (although at this point one would have a strong position if he argued that the federal government isn't effective at anything).
In this case there are 5 states that can be potentially be impacted. Potentially if the states aren't working together, you'd have Florida set up everything to protect them, vs what is a more immediate problem. VS one entity (the feds) organizing the response. And acting for what is best for the USA vs say just Louisiana or Mississippi.
In this case and in any case with the potential for their to be a very clear disaster that will effect multiple states. It is completely appropriate for the Feds to step in.
In regards to this post I was just mocking Obama and how he came out and said, jobs are my number one priority right before they crammed that healthcare bill down our throat. So I was jokingly implying that him saying x is a number one priority, he's going to disregard it for another topic more important to him. Other than bombing the whole place, I"m not sure what the feds could really do in stopping the leak... But they do have the resources and expertise to protect various natural habitats ports etc.
Nope, your trying to impart your personnal morals upon your chosen conservative politicians here. Bobby Jidal famously mocked spending on volcano research on national TV as a waste of money and is now crying for federal help. I guess he does not consider something like Mt. St. Helens a serious problem and it makes him look like an idiot. Palin was also down in the area just two weeks before the spill and is on RECORD promoting her drill baby drill routine and assuring everyone that it is being done safely.
BP cut corners and killed people so the executive officers could add another zero to their paychecks and look good to the stock holders end of story. The government also is just as much at fault and Obama is the captain of the ship so he ultimately is responsible, but if you think anything different would be done under a conservative president you are dreaming.
With the people at the Department of the ******** doing meth on oil rigs and the SEC people looking at ---- all day it is no wonder we are so screwed. I want regulations for corporations, but who is going to regulate the people doing the regulating? Yet another department being charged with the role of bad cop within the federal government? Who is going to regulate them? Talk about the snake eating it's own tail.
Funny the IRS seems to be one of the few agencies that seems to be able to function if barely at it's given role and I guess considering what they do it is no suprise.
Fishtaco
reefraff
Active Member
Here is the extent to which Obama and his cronies don't get it. His attorney general announces they are starting a criminal investigation against BP. This isn't an investigation of BP itself but of the employees who worked the well from the time it was spudded in until it is capped. Right. Like these employees are really going to want to work closely with the feds to resolve this fiasco when they know those same feds are gathering evidence to sue them. The rush here should be to cap the well and clean up the oil but Obama would rather play politics which he has done from the first day me publicly spoke about the incident.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3275266
Nope, your trying to impart your personnal morals upon your chosen conservative politicians here. Bobby Jidal famously mocked spending on volcano research on national TV as a waste of money and is now crying for federal help. I guess he does not consider something like Mt. St. Helens a serious problem and it makes him look like an idiot. Palin was also down in the area just two weeks before the spill and is on RECORD promoting her drill baby drill routine and assuring everyone that it is being done safely.
BP cut corners and killed people so the executive officers could add another zero to their paychecks and look good to the stock holders end of story. The government also is just as much at fault and Obama is the captain of the ship so he ultimately is responsible, but if you think anything different would be done under a conservative president you are dreaming.
With the people at the Department of the ******** doing meth on oil rigs and the SEC people looking at ---- all day it is no wonder we are so screwed. I want regulations for corporations, but who is going to regulate the people doing the regulating? Yet another department being charged with the role of bad cop within the federal government? Who is going to regulate them? Talk about the snake eating it's own tail.
Funny the IRS seems to be one of the few agencies that seems to be able to function if barely at it's given role and I guess considering what they do it is no suprise.
Fishtaco
How in the world do you get this from what I said? Did I mention politicians or people stumping for a further role? NO. I'm simply pointing out how federal intervention in this case does not run against conservative ideals...
If only we'd have true conservatives in office...
http:///forum/post/3275266
Nope, your trying to impart your personnal morals upon your chosen conservative politicians here. Bobby Jidal famously mocked spending on volcano research on national TV as a waste of money and is now crying for federal help. I guess he does not consider something like Mt. St. Helens a serious problem and it makes him look like an idiot. Palin was also down in the area just two weeks before the spill and is on RECORD promoting her drill baby drill routine and assuring everyone that it is being done safely.
BP cut corners and killed people so the executive officers could add another zero to their paychecks and look good to the stock holders end of story. The government also is just as much at fault and Obama is the captain of the ship so he ultimately is responsible, but if you think anything different would be done under a conservative president you are dreaming.
With the people at the Department of the ******** doing meth on oil rigs and the SEC people looking at ---- all day it is no wonder we are so screwed. I want regulations for corporations, but who is going to regulate the people doing the regulating? Yet another department being charged with the role of bad cop within the federal government? Who is going to regulate them? Talk about the snake eating it's own tail.
Funny the IRS seems to be one of the few agencies that seems to be able to function if barely at it's given role and I guess considering what they do it is no suprise.
Fishtaco
How in the world do you get this from what I said? Did I mention politicians or people stumping for a further role? NO. I'm simply pointing out how federal intervention in this case does not run against conservative ideals...
If only we'd have true conservatives in office...
fishtaco
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3275271
How in the world do you get this from what I said? Did I mention politicians or people stumping for a further role? NO. I'm simply pointing out how federal intervention in this case does not run against conservative ideals...
If only we'd have true conservatives in office...
Hey I was just pointing out the positions on a couple of widely accepted political figures who are considered conservative figureheads. LOL, I agree that true conservatives are pretty rare, seems like the GOP tried to get on the bandwagon by shaking the conservative tree and a bunch of squirrels fell out. I am having trouble though understanding where conservatism stops and libertarianism starts to be honest. We need good honest government, not neccesarily less in the case of safety, corporate and banking oversight, food inspection, civil rights etc, seems like a lot of far-right people just want to get rid of all of these things completely and are willing to let companies like Goldman-Sachs and BP act in our best interest which might as well be a return to the middle ages and the great houses of Europe.
Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3275271
How in the world do you get this from what I said? Did I mention politicians or people stumping for a further role? NO. I'm simply pointing out how federal intervention in this case does not run against conservative ideals...
If only we'd have true conservatives in office...
Hey I was just pointing out the positions on a couple of widely accepted political figures who are considered conservative figureheads. LOL, I agree that true conservatives are pretty rare, seems like the GOP tried to get on the bandwagon by shaking the conservative tree and a bunch of squirrels fell out. I am having trouble though understanding where conservatism stops and libertarianism starts to be honest. We need good honest government, not neccesarily less in the case of safety, corporate and banking oversight, food inspection, civil rights etc, seems like a lot of far-right people just want to get rid of all of these things completely and are willing to let companies like Goldman-Sachs and BP act in our best interest which might as well be a return to the middle ages and the great houses of Europe.
Fishtaco