rayner601
Dedicated LVC Member
Ohh, lemme answer this one....because he's a god damn screwball idiot. Plain and simple
President Toonces should resign over February 13th
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
So.... Let me get this straight....
You guys are blaming the president for the actions of private business. Yet in any other discussion, such as the right to discriminate, you believe business should be able to regulate and control itself without the influence of a large overbearing government?
Which is it, do you want a big government that regulates and controls everything, or do you want a small government that allows business to do.... business?
You guys are blaming the president for the actions of private business. Yet in any other discussion, such as the right to discriminate, you believe business should be able to regulate and control itself without the influence of a large overbearing government?
Which is it, do you want a big government that regulates and controls everything, or do you want a small government that allows business to do.... business?
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
KS
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, seriously. Why is this the White House's fault? BP knew about this stuff LONG LONG before, and they were the ones that were being inconsiderate of what proper safety procedures should have been. They could have long ago taken steps to self regulate better to ensure these types of things didn't happen. You going to let them off the hook because Bloatington DC didn't create an additional government agency of 215632 employees with an annual budget in the billions that could spend 20 years researching these things and sending recommendations to congress?
Also, what would your reaction have been if DC ordered a cessation to offshore drilling prior to this incident? The current moratorium is incredibly unpopular, and they actually have something tangible they can link to their reasoning for it. How would people have reacted if DC suddenly said, "hey, stop drilling, something bad might happen." Everyone would have been up in arms saying environmentalists and overbearing government was ruining small business.
Hell. They should have been able to drill closer to shore anyways, but previous administrations pushed drilling that far out to begin with.
You guys sound as dumb as those idiots that wanted to blame everything on Bush during his presidency.
Also, what would your reaction have been if DC ordered a cessation to offshore drilling prior to this incident? The current moratorium is incredibly unpopular, and they actually have something tangible they can link to their reasoning for it. How would people have reacted if DC suddenly said, "hey, stop drilling, something bad might happen." Everyone would have been up in arms saying environmentalists and overbearing government was ruining small business.
Hell. They should have been able to drill closer to shore anyways, but previous administrations pushed drilling that far out to begin with.
You guys sound as dumb as those idiots that wanted to blame everything on Bush during his presidency.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
I'd love for you to explain this dismissive post, because I really want to know. Do you want a big government that controls everything, or are you going to quit doing the same thing Bush haters did for years and actually blame it on the people who were at fault?
You guys sound just like the idiots who blamed 9-11 on Dubya.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I love these 'false choice' rhetorical questions. So, your position is that EITHER government controls everything, or nothing at all. Very unintelligent straw man, actually.
So, which position do you take, Mr. False Choice? You only get to choose one or the other, per your own logic.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
FIND, how do you account for not only the government's incompetence and neglect in this situation, but also the government's hindrance of real-world efforts to help nullify the effects of the leak? We've had numerous attempts to skim the oil or prevent it from reaching shore effectively stuffed by Federal regulations, despite the fact that this is a worst case scenario and relaxing EPA restrictions and other bureaucratic red tape could hardly make matters worse. Hell, Jindal went out there with boats and was ordered to shore because he didn't have a life jacket. Give me a freaking break.
Here's the latest example of government being part of the problem.
Here's the latest example of government being part of the problem.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
weird.
You guys were just whining a week or two ago that Obama hadn't done ANYTHING about the spill yet, now you are saying that Obama has kept them from doing anything to clean it up?
I am not saying either the government controls everything or nothing at all. But seriously. WHAT DO YOU WANT????? What I want is irrelevant in this matter. Everyone who has complained in this thread have made numerous contributions in other threads complaining that the government has NO place messing with business and those types of domestic affairs, and that government regulation stifle business. Tell me, what would you have said if Obama shut off the well before a disaster happened? You would have been complaining about a controlling alarmist government that is stepping all over private business. Don't even bother saying otherwise, because you know that is true. What else is this I see. Now you are complaining because the government didn't immediately seize and order a TAIWANESE ship into the gulf? The ship doesn't belong to Obama.
You just want to blame stuff on him at this point, you don't care if it has anything to do with him. Typical.
You guys were just whining a week or two ago that Obama hadn't done ANYTHING about the spill yet, now you are saying that Obama has kept them from doing anything to clean it up?
I am not saying either the government controls everything or nothing at all. But seriously. WHAT DO YOU WANT????? What I want is irrelevant in this matter. Everyone who has complained in this thread have made numerous contributions in other threads complaining that the government has NO place messing with business and those types of domestic affairs, and that government regulation stifle business. Tell me, what would you have said if Obama shut off the well before a disaster happened? You would have been complaining about a controlling alarmist government that is stepping all over private business. Don't even bother saying otherwise, because you know that is true. What else is this I see. Now you are complaining because the government didn't immediately seize and order a TAIWANESE ship into the gulf? The ship doesn't belong to Obama.
You just want to blame stuff on him at this point, you don't care if it has anything to do with him. Typical.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Were you just asking angry rhetorical straw man questions (?????????????????????) so you could knock them down yourself, or did you really want to discuss this in good faith? Inquiring minds want to know.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Were you just asking angry rhetorical straw man questions (?????????????????????) so you could knock them down yourself, or did you really want to discuss this in good faith? Inquiring minds want to know.
Is that all you are going to do? Just accuse me of making rhetorical straw man questions? Are you just going to do that to avoid having to make an answer that contradicts nearly half of your earlier statements on these types of matters? Or are you going to step back for a moment, and ask yourself if you are just going a little bit overboard and acting like all those bush-haters that blame Katrina, 9-11, and the recession on Bush?
Seriously, just relax for a little while and think about it.
If you really think that I am asking a straw man question, then tell me. WHAT portions of business do you think the government should control? Why do you think the government has more right to control and regulate business in these examples more than in other examples we have discussed in the past?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude. Park the hostility. I don't have to respond to hostile, angry, outrageously outraged, rhetorical straw man screeches from you. If you want to discuss it, take the samurai sword out of your ass. You're out of control. Go kick the dog or count to ten or beat up a pillow or something, then come back when you're calm. Until then I have no interest in mopping up your frothing drool.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Typical response. Accuse someone of being hostile, angry, or whatever just so you can avoid admitting to contradicting yourself. Your whole position on this matter is a straw man, and you know it.
Food for thought, too much government regulation and control is the reason they are in that deep of water drilling and they are in this predicament in the first place where they have to struggle so much to fix this in such a hostile environment. All that government regulation..... didn't come from Obama.
When you can respond like an adult, I will be back. Until then, feel free to continue your baseless accusations of hostility.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Now you're just projecting. How could my ENTIRE POSITION be a straw man considering I haven't made any statements about your position on any of this? Tell ya what, go look up straw man and get back to me - you clearly don't understand what the term means.
Furthermore, NOOB, how the hell would you know what a typical response is considering you don't know me and you've been in this forum all of 5 minutes? You're just blustering because you got caught losing your cool. Get over it.
Your entire argument consists of "NO U!"
Buh-bye now.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
HAHA the last resort of a Troll who has been called out on his ignorant and baseless accusations and argument. Calling me a noob. Ad Hominem attacks..... Pure genius.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
How can I be a troll, moron? I started this thread. The troll is you. You might want to start looking up words you don't understand before using them publicly - it does help avoid self-humiliation. :bowrofl:
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Sounds to me to be exactly what you have done on this page. I doubt anyone is going to get in and back me up on this one, but, you certainly don't have anything to back up the accusations and hominem attacks you have made.
I doubt even you think you are making any sense or that your posts on this page have any merit. It appears that you are just responding hoping no one will notice how worthless your posts are.
Now. If you are through trying to redirect and insult me just to hide the fact that you are making baseless flaming of the government that contradict either eachother or your past statements, why don't you answer my questions.
1: What areas of private enterprise and how much control over those areas should government have?
2: Why do you believe these areas merit greater government control than other areas?
3: What exactly do you want from the government? First you people complained that the government wasn't doing anything, now you are complaining they are in the way and they should just let private industry clean things up. You complain that private business should be able to self-regulate and operate without government control, then you complain the government should have shut them down when they sensed danger. You complain the government needs to control what is going on more, but bloated government control over these things is what put oil drilling in deep water to begin with. Is there anything the government could do that would make you happy, or are you going to complain about the government no matter what until the party you want is in control?
4: Just for fun, tell me what exactly I said that you are equating to a straw-man argument, and justify your position.
YOU might want to start looking up words you don't understand before using them publicly - it does help avoid self-humiliation. :bowrofl:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Deep breath - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and see if you really want to discuss this. I'll take your questions in order.
#1. Is this an essay question? Because honestly I am not interested in an overly broad discussion of this very vague question. Moreover, I'm not sure you worded it right - you didn't mean how much control over private business should government have? Furthermore, it's a huge logical leap and generalization from the topic we've been discussing to private enterprise and government interference in general. It's almost as if you deliberately designed your question to be so broad as to require a lengthy answer. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - this time - and just assume that you structured the question in a sophomoric manner and didn't do it on purpose or just from pounding angrily on your keyboard.
But the short answer to your question is:
Sorry, I take it on a case by case basis. It is impossible for me to sit here and drum up every possible scenario and then apply my principles to it. Doing so would be a fool's errand anyway because I don't fully know the intent behind the vague, absurd question.
Let's keep it narrowed to the topic at hand, shall we?
#2. See 1.
#3. Again, a vague, open ended question immediately followed by more rhetoric. Are you capable of asking an honest question without trying to answer it yourself?
And again, the use of the term 'you people' appears hostile and meant as a pejorative, and indicates not only that you have a short temper, but also that you aren't really interested in an honest answer, but rather in asking leading questions so that you can punctuate them with straw men.
You can whine and moan and gnash your teeth all you want about me not cooperating with your hostile tactics, but it isn't in my best interest to waste time answering questions that are open-ended, loaded, and generally rhetorical.
#4. Every time you ask an overly broad, open ended, and/or loaded question about my position on a subject, and then answer it yourself by mischaracterizing my position, you are setting up a straw man and demonstrating that you have no interest in an actual answer but only in knocking it down. So, rather than do a bunch of busy work for you, you yourself should go back to your posts and see where you did that. I'm assuming of course that you're introspective and open-minded enough to consider that you might be out of control just a bit. Hint: You did it more than once, but I pointed it out the first time you did it. Another hint: See your own #3. And I'm not going to teach the concept to you. If you're too obtuse to recognize and admit your own flawed logic when it is pointed out to you, then discussing actual concepts regarding government interference with you is most likely a lost cause.
5. Finally, blustering over my reluctance to be drawn in to vague, absurd questions doesn't automatically 'win' you the argument. In short, you claiming that I'm dodging your question because I can't answer it is nothing short of proof by assertion and demonstrates to me and everybody else that you have no interest in an honest discussion. You can stab your finger down on the '?' key and hold it there for eternity and it still won't move me unless and until you start being rational.
It appears, buried deep within all your angry blustering and farting, that you perceive a contradiction in my position. I'll address that. I don't have time to get into doing it right now because it's late. Perhaps I'll get to it tomorrow. If you're honestly wanting a discussion in good faith, then you'll gladly wait and not posture dramatically over the delay. You can, however, rephrase your query to reflect the more narrow and specific topic at hand rather than circumnavigating total space.
I guess we'll find out when you respond, won't we?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Well, first, I will address the fact that you think my use of "you people" is a hostile term. I mean you people, directed to those of you in this thread who have screaming for Obama's head on a platter, for, as far as I can see, doing exactly what you were asking for earlier. It appears that he can do no right in your eyes, no matter what he does, and it is more a question of party affiliation to you than his actions in office.
1: No loaded or vague question intended here, however if you wish for me to narrow it down, I shall. Do you believe that government should have the power to regulate and control all drilling activities, including micromanagement of each well, rig, platform, and all procedures and activities of the companies involved in drilling, such as mandating specific procedures and time-tables for shutting off wells. Though, I will note you were correct in pointing out my typo in the first question. My mistake.
2: If you do believe such, how is it that government control in this area is more justifiable than anti-discrimination. Bear in mind, these companies do have excellent safety records relatively speaking, especially doing such inherently dangerous jobs.
3: I made no attempt to answer the question for you. I made a statement between the question to justify asking the question to you, explained why I was confused by your positions, and to offer to you what the explanation appeared to be to me from reading this and past threads. The only statement I made that you could even twist to something RESEMBLING an answer to my own question was my statement that you would have been furious if the government shut down the well just because they suspected it may have been unsafe. I wont discuss the fact that the loss of this well is primarily due to the procedures the rig crew were practicing as they tried to hurry to switch to the next well, but, I will say that given past statements, I can say with what I believe to be a great degree of accuracy that you would have reacted negatively to the news of a moratorium on drilling prior to the accident, and, if I may note, rightfully so.
4: Once again, I believe you are attempting to misrepresent my statements and justify a personal attack on me on the basis of only your statement. To give you an example of a REAL straw man argument, I will reference one of your prior responses in this thread. Though, I can point out more if you like.
You have GROSSLY misrepresented my statements by stating in the affirmative that I only gave to options at the extremes of the spectrum and have asked a false choice rhetorical question. My statements earlier in this thread were rather open ended, and could have left you with an opportunity to justify a middle-ground position. Once again, I was only stating how your position, and many others in this thread has appeared to be in the past. Last I recall, most people posting in this thread advocate a very small government who does not meddle into the day to day affairs of business, and only exists as a shield against foreign enemies, and a mediator of domestic affairs. Generally when most people in this thread have argued against many of the less popular forms of government control, the terms Nazi, fascist, socialist, or bloated government appear as justification to end these forms of government control.
5: You can accuse me as much as you like, but, I continue to clarify these questions to an even greater degree for you even having asked you fairly specific questions that you could have given very specific answers to, especially considering the context of this thread and the context of my posts. You continue to attack me personally and accuse me of being irrational, angry, hostile, blustering, a moron, or exuding frothing drool. If personal attacks are all you have to offer, then you should say so.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
When Toonces does something I agree with, I'll let you know. So far he hasn't. I was often critical of Bush when he did things I did not agree with - vehemently so - and others here will attest to that. Your assumption that I'm a party line wonk just demonstrates that you don't know me. I've been vehemently critical of the Republican party very often as well. Calabrio will verify that during the campaign I was extremely critical of McCain - much to his chagrin actually. I took a lot of heat from him, Bryan, and others for my support of Ron Paul.
It's short sighted of you to make such a stereotypical assumption based on a handful of conversations or posts when there is a host of threads out there. You certainly jump to conclusions rather easily. Try to be more open-minded and less prejudicial.
Answer: According to the very extreme way you worded the question - No. I've been very clear that the government's main responsibility here is to protect our shores from the oil. Toonces has a) been neglectful in this responsibility AND b) hindered efforts by others to do the job themselves.
n/a
Nice job of sugar coating your tone, but I'll let it pass for now. My position on this is that we shouldn't even have to be drilling 5 miles from shore, but environmental groups have successfully, over the years, influenced government to prevent drilling inland to the extent that we are left with no alternative. It's a tragedy that oil is used as such a political tool, considering that the leak demonstrates that we're literally drowning in it worldwide. There is no reasonable justification for our government PREVENTING its own people from taking advantage of such plentiful natural resources. It's only used as a way to control the people. Yet again another example of the government hindering prosperity and jobs.
We'll agree to disagree on this one. You failed to include your own quote that I was referring to.
So far, the fed has ONLY interfered in the affairs of business - especially in this situation. Toonces has spent plenty of time at the golf course, while barking out "plug the damn hole" in an attempt to sound tough; all the while refusing to tear down unnecessary bureaucratic red tape that would hasten much of the effort to prevent the oil from reaching shore. This includes the absurd life jacket incident and the government's refusal to respond to boom companies who have offered their products. He has ignored open, public pleas from Jindal to help out his state. He's slapped a moratorium on drilling in the gulf in general, despite the fact that a) This is only one well that is leaking, b) Other companies not named BP have wells in operation and c) thousands of jobs hang in the balance.
He's ignored the court order to stop the moratorium (which was fraudulent and based on a LIE - data misrepresenting the views of experts on the situation was deliberately forged and misused in order to justify this, and the judge even pointed this out in his decision) and is proceeding illegally. His every act demonstrates an intent to punish business and hurt the little guy. Heck, he's doing the same thing to Arizona - "We're not going to help you, and if you try to fix it yourself we'll sue you."
Ball's in your court, big fella.
As far as a straw man, here's a good example:
Let's take this step by step, because there is NO WAY you can find any of my posts that said all these things. If by 'you people' you include me, then this is clearly a straw man.
1. I complained that the government wasn't doing anything - correct. This was also in context of the criticism that Bush received over Hurricane Katrina. There is a lot of hypocrisy in here and in the media over this. But the question is - what should the government be doing. You seem to be presenting my view as an "all or nothing" proposition - government protects the shores, controls the oil, tells the CEO of BP how to wipe his ass, etc. or else does ZERO. That's a misrepresentation of my position, thus a straw man.
2. The government still isn't doing anything to HELP - Captain Kickass, while posturing and acting like Billy Badass, is strolling through the golf course while his minions are hindering the efforts of Jindal and others to help the situation including suing the state in court over shutting down ALL oil production in the Gulf.
3. I NEVER said the government should have shut them down when they sensed danger. NEVER. I said the government should have started making preparations to protect the shore 60+ days ago when the leak first happened. Whether or not Toonces could have done anything back in February is unclear. However, what is clear is that he has failed to even TAKE ACTION in helping LA get the oil under control, and in failing that, has also hindered their efforts to do so on their own. Instead, he's focused on his 8-iron and in squeezing as much possible money out of BP so he can have yet another slush fund to use as he sees fit. He's also shut down drilling, a gross ad hoc knee-jerk reaction that doesn't solve anything other than put thousands of people out of work and is akin to grounding all airlines across the nation when there is one crash.
4. I NEVER said government needs to control what is going on more. Again, to quote Toonces, "LET ME BE CLEAR." The government's job is to protect the shoreline from the oil. You do whatever is necessary and weigh the possible consequences of actions (like building artificial sandbars) against the calamity of the oil reaching shore, and you pick the lesser evil. What you DON'T do is stomp around the golf course and talk about sticking it to BP and keeping your 'boot on their throat' while you do NOTHING.
What he's doing is nothing different than what he did in the Senate, both state and US: Vote 'present.'
5. There is one thing the government could do to make me happy - Get the hell out of my way!
Now, answer your own questions - how do you feel Obama is handling this situation? How much control should government have over drilling? Do you believe that we should be permitted by our own government to drill for oil on our own shores?
Without the time to address your broader point, I just wanted to take note at this statement.
These aren't just "private businesses."
They are highly regulated industries that make decisions based directly and indirectly because of government intervention.
Just like the banking industry.
And ultimately, merely having more regulation does NOT lead to greater safety. For example in the case of banking, another highly regulated industry, it both forced companies to make bad loans, and then lead to other unintended consequences that further weakened the system.
In the oil case, the heavy regulation forced rigs to move offshore, passing over easier to access reserves on land and in shallow water, to drill deep offshore. The problem isn't that no one knows how to cap a well, the problem is the depth at which the work is being done and the technological and environmental challenges that causes.
In the case of this story- there does appear to be corruption involved.
Increased access for BP, and a stealth oil industry ban/destruction in the U.S.
And, something to remember, but is often misrepresented- CRONY CAPITALISM is not free market capitalism.
It's not the same thing. That kind of corruption is just another form of statism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cal and Foss - you do need to get over the idea that it was the government that forced BP to this location -
BP wanted to drill in this location because of the massive oil reserves there. They would have drilled there even if they could have drilled 2 miles off Martha's Vineyard - the reserves are that huge.
If you look at the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf - from a relief pipe, it might give you some clue at the immense wealth this, and it's family of wells, would have represented to BP.
My brother is an expert in rig to base telemetry and is reviewing the telemetry from the various points where TransOcean was having problems throughout this drill - starting last year - for a government investigative team.
From what I have heard - is wait until someone comes out with a book - BP has lied, cut corners, played fast and loose, and no amount of regulation or oversight, short of having industry experts on the rigs and in the offices who represented the people's (government) interests, would have prevented what happened.
At some point companies are just 'bad'. BP is notorious in the industry for playing it close to the edge, and they got burned this time.
I would like to see your 'crony capitalism' evidence Cal. Remember, the beginning exploration for this well happened a while ago - it takes a few years to gather the data necessary for a company to invest the 100s of millions of dollars a well like this represents. I would imagine that the 'inception' of this well occurred during the Bush administration.
BP wanted to drill in this location because of the massive oil reserves there. They would have drilled there even if they could have drilled 2 miles off Martha's Vineyard - the reserves are that huge.
If you look at the amount of oil spewing into the Gulf - from a relief pipe, it might give you some clue at the immense wealth this, and it's family of wells, would have represented to BP.
My brother is an expert in rig to base telemetry and is reviewing the telemetry from the various points where TransOcean was having problems throughout this drill - starting last year - for a government investigative team.
From what I have heard - is wait until someone comes out with a book - BP has lied, cut corners, played fast and loose, and no amount of regulation or oversight, short of having industry experts on the rigs and in the offices who represented the people's (government) interests, would have prevented what happened.
At some point companies are just 'bad'. BP is notorious in the industry for playing it close to the edge, and they got burned this time.
I would like to see your 'crony capitalism' evidence Cal. Remember, the beginning exploration for this well happened a while ago - it takes a few years to gather the data necessary for a company to invest the 100s of millions of dollars a well like this represents. I would imagine that the 'inception' of this well occurred during the Bush administration.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
The distinction between "private business" and heavily regulated industry aside, I realize it is the fault of the government they are in that kind of deep water (though it is a REALLY amazing reserve they are sitting on top of and one of the best places to access it). But what does that have to do with Obama? I mean, I'd love if he and the rest of DC would allow offshore drilling close to the coast, and I am sure it would make for a much safer drilling industry, but still, nothing to do with Obama, this is the way things have been for some time. So why the call for MORE regulation? The more our government gets involved beyond the basic levels, the worse it gets. The only involvement the government should have is regulation for the prevention of pollution, regulation for minimum safety standards, taxation, and their standard involvement with any other industry - worker safety standards, general hiring practices and the like. But just like you said, the government is part of the solution and the problem in this case, just like with the banking industry, however, this is a long term problem, nothing to do with the current administration. Government intervention in this industry has lead to greater safety, but it has also created a climate where these types of accidents are just waiting to happen, and when they do, no one can quickly respond. This is not something that magically happened when Obama took office. Drilling started there in 2009 after BP submitted all the correct paperwork and it was determined safe to drill there (500 some-odd pages and several months of surveys and environmental impact studies).
Whether there is any type of corruption involved in this particular case..... well, I haven't seen anything plausible to suggest that this was anything more than BP trying to do things in a rushed and unsafe manner, along with a well that was an accident waiting to happen, that is in a place that no one is really quite sure how to handle it. If one wants to suggest that DC knew that the Deep Horizon rig disaster was going to take place, well, the same could be said at nearly any deep water platform. Workers expressed concerns..... and BP was addressing those concerns. I don't get the mentality that states that the white house should have personally shut off the well prior to this explosion. Even if the government bears responsibility, the responsibility is on an agency of the government, far below our elected leaders in congress and the white house. If there was a failure by government, it was in those agencies. If those agencies cannot make decisions without the input of the white house, then why do the agencies exist to begin with? We could eliminate the agencies and just have the white house make the decisions if that were the way it worked to begin with.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
"From what I have heard" - oh, that's some solid citation there. From what I have heard, crop circles are caused by UFOs. So I guess it's true because I heard it.
Oh - my brother is an IT security chief at a major company in Louisiana. So there you go.
Funny how you demand evidence while not furnishing any of your own.
But it is instructive that you end up proving my point that there is so much oil we are drowning in it, and there's no need to restrict its harvest.
And what the hell difference does it make which administration it happened under? Or are you just trying to distract from Cal's point? Yeah, typical lefty response: "BUSHBUSHBUSHBUSHBUSH!"
