PDA

View Full Version : Environment BP responsible for 97% of safety violations


Cave Johnson
06-04-2010, 08:42 AM
OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/doj-vs-bp.html

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 12:09 PM
Well that's good information. So why didn't OSHA do it's job too? Asleep at the wheel? Or
the libertarians are right that govt doesn't work?

dirk digler
06-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Liar /honestchieffan

talastan
06-04-2010, 12:17 PM
Well that's good information. So why didn't OSHA do it's job too? Asleep at the wheel? Or
the libertarians are right that govt doesn't work?

Government is like a fire in the wilderness, necessary for mankind to survive, but dangerous and easily grows out of control if not kept in check.

Cave Johnson
06-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Well that's good information. So why didn't OSHA do it's job too? Asleep at the wheel? Or
the libertarians are right that govt doesn't work?

Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

blaise
06-04-2010, 01:05 PM
Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

Then maybe they should have looked at larger fines or other means to punish BP. If you're BP and you get to just chip off money for the fine, you're probably just going to keep doing what you've been doing.

Cave Johnson
06-04-2010, 01:15 PM
Then maybe they should have looked at larger fines or other means to punish BP. If you're BP and you get to just chip off money for the fine, you're probably just going to keep doing what you've been doing.

Hindsight's always 20/20. And did you really expect Cheneyburton to impose crippling fines on their colleagues/business partners.

Personally, I'd be ok with banning them from operating in the U.S. entirely, as is being discussed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/01/gulf-oil-spill-bp-future

Dallas Chief
06-04-2010, 01:16 PM
Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

Exactly. Paying the fines is less impactful to the balance sheet than fixing the problems. Sounds like soemone needs to work on their Corporate Social Responsibility program.

blaise
06-04-2010, 01:26 PM
Hindsight's always 20/20. And did you really expect Cheneyburton to impose crippling fines on their colleagues/business partners.

Personally, I'd be ok with banning them from operating in the U.S. entirely, as is being discussed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/01/gulf-oil-spill-bp-future

It doesn't seem to me you'd need 20/20 hindsight. If the amount of violations was as out of the ordinary as these articles claim then it should have been fairly obvious there was a problem.

dirk digler
06-04-2010, 01:30 PM
It doesn't seem to me you'd need 20/20 hindsight. If the amount of violations was as out of the ordinary as these articles claim then it should have been fairly obvious there was a problem.

BP's paid millions of dollars worth of fines and it hasn't stopped.

The Texas incident that killed a bunch of their employees they paid over $100 million dollars when it was all said done in fines and over $2 billion dollars in lawsuits.

The still don't care and I doubt they ever will.

mlyonsd
06-04-2010, 01:38 PM
Wow. Government regulations that don't work. Imagine that.

blaise
06-04-2010, 01:41 PM
BP's paid millions of dollars worth of fines and it hasn't stopped.

The Texas incident that killed a bunch of their employees they paid over $100 million dollars when it was all said done in fines and over $2 billion dollars in lawsuits.

The still don't care and I doubt they ever will.

I guess that's what I'm saying. If the fines weren't working, then there should have been something else done. If a car driver gets 50 speeding tickets and just keeps paying the fine, you should probably recognize that the fine itself isn't working before someone gets killed.
I don't know though when these violations occurred. I think it said since 2006, but I don't know if maybe they received almost all the violations at once or if it was a pattern repeated over and over. If they occurred almost all at once and the impression was they had corrected them, I can understand the lack of other enforcement. If the violations were regularly occurring again and again, over a period of time, and in a number substantially more than other corporations, I would say that claiming, "Well, we fined them" isn't good enough.

Amnorix
06-04-2010, 01:49 PM
Wow. Government regulations that don't work. Imagine that.

What's your alternative? No regulations?

Cave Johnson
06-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Wow. Government regulations that don't work. Imagine that.

Apparently this was a new inspection program, started in June 2007.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/17

Between the 2005 Texas City explosion, the 2007 Alaska spill, and this incident, I'm inclined to support the death penalty (metaphorically-speaking) for BP.

dirk digler
06-04-2010, 02:07 PM
I guess that's what I'm saying. If the fines weren't working, then there should have been something else done. If a car driver gets 50 speeding tickets and just keeps paying the fine, you should probably recognize that the fine itself isn't working before someone gets killed.
I don't know though when these violations occurred. I think it said since 2006, but I don't know if maybe they received almost all the violations at once or if it was a pattern repeated over and over. If they occurred almost all at once and the impression was they had corrected them, I can understand the lack of other enforcement. If the violations were regularly occurring again and again, over a period of time, and in a number substantially more than other corporations, I would say that claiming, "Well, we fined them" isn't good enough.

I guess the question becomes what is the law above and beyond just fining them?

I just don't think to many people would like the idea of government telling a business you are too bad and we are going to take you out of business.

blaise
06-04-2010, 02:12 PM
I guess the question becomes what is the law above and beyond just fining them?

I just don't think to many people would like the idea of government telling a business you are too bad and we are going to take you out of business.

I don't know. I would hope that with something that has the possibility for disaster like oil drilling or oil refining, there's something in between fines and just shutting them down permanently.

mlyonsd
06-04-2010, 02:22 PM
What's your alternative? No regulations?

No, again, like I said on another thread fine them until they either get out of drilling in our waters or fix their problems.

My point is the dem mantra that regulations solve all our problems is just silly rhetoric.

Amnorix
06-04-2010, 02:23 PM
No, again, like I said on another thread fine them until they either get out of drilling in our waters or fix their problems.

My point is the dem mantra that regulations solve all our problems is just silly rhetoric.

No sane person says regulations fix all our problems. It's not like speeding laws actually force everyone to drive under the limit.

But it's not like getting rid of them is smart either.

ClevelandBronco
06-04-2010, 02:57 PM
Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

Then presumably their profits would have been more than 2.5% higher. That's more than a drop in the bucket.

ClevelandBronco
06-04-2010, 03:00 PM
Exactly. Paying the fines is less impactful to the balance sheet than fixing the problems. Sounds like soemone needs to work on their Corporate Social Responsibility program.

Well, actually that's a good point. If it would have cost them more than $373M to get the operation up to standards they made a good bargain.

kaplin42
06-04-2010, 03:56 PM
Wow. Government regulations that don't work. Imagine that.

No regulations on Wall Street work so much better. You are a genius. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 04:56 PM
Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042

I don't see it as a false dichotomy since that WAS a factor in the financial crisis.

BTW what do you mean with that abbreviation MM's?

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 05:01 PM
I guess that's what I'm saying. If the fines weren't working, then there should have been something else done. If a car driver gets 50 speeding tickets and just keeps paying the fine, you should probably recognize that the fine itself isn't working before someone gets killed.
I don't know though when these violations occurred. I think it said since 2006, but I don't know if maybe they received almost all the violations at once or if it was a pattern repeated over and over. If they occurred almost all at once and the impression was they had corrected them, I can understand the lack of other enforcement. If the violations were regularly occurring again and again, over a period of time, and in a number substantially more than other corporations, I would say that claiming, "Well, we fined them" isn't good enough.

I know. Like we lose our liscenses to drive.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 05:03 PM
No regulations on Wall Street work so much better. You are a genius. :rolleyes:

Those regulators were not doing their jobs. Period. That's been reported.
That's also typical of govt workers including passing the buck or referralitis.

KC native
06-04-2010, 05:05 PM
I don't see it as a false dichotomy since that WAS a factor in the financial crisis.

BTW what do you mean with that abbreviation MM's?

JFC Shut the fuck up about anything financial. You are a moron who doesn't know shit about the financial crisis nor its causes.

KC native
06-04-2010, 05:06 PM
Those regulators were not doing their jobs. Period. That's been reported.
That's also typical of govt workers including passing the buck or referralitis.

Yea, the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a radical deregulatory regime had nothing to do with it.

When are you going to have the courage to show up in patty's thread? Until then you are an intellectual coward.

HC_Chief
06-04-2010, 05:10 PM
JFC Shut the **** up about anything financial. You are a moron who doesn't know shit about the financial crisis nor its causes.

Yeah, BEP, shut it! KCN knows it all because he just got promoted to loan officer. Four years at the drive-thru teller learned 'em way more than you, you stupid bitch! :D

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 05:12 PM
That's called a mercantilist set-up not a free-market one. Just as I suspected. The Miseans taught me to look for such connections.

I got what MM's is now Pittsie.


The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) is peopled by those who hold the strings on America's natural treasures and is courted by those who, like the Deepwater Horizon drillers, want to exploit those resources.

Yet in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon accident, it is becoming apparent that the firewall that should exist between these two groups – the regulators and the regulated – is closer to a revolving door.

The Gulf oil spill has given fresh urgency to calls to reform the MMS, which has long been accused of having too cozy a relationship with Big Oil. But as the process of reform starts, new reports are revealing just how intertwined the MMS and Big Oil are – and how difficult it will be to separate one from the other.

Her exasperation is a response to findings like those of acting Interior Department Inspector General Mary Kendall, who released a report this week that said relationships between MMS and industry officials often date back to kindergarten. The relationships could create a situation where personal connections undermine the MMS's ability to impartially oversee the oil-drilling industry, she told the House Natural Resources Committee during a hearing Wednesday.

"While there's no single right answer to resolving concerns about the MMS, it's clear to me that you can't just focus on restructuring but … reforming the character and culture," she said.

Experts caution against making MMS too much of a scapegoat for the Gulf oil spill. It has not been directly implicated in the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and none of the people in the IG report had been involved with the Deepwater Horizon rig. Moreover, Secretary Salazar noted that the MMS had approved and inspected more than 30,000 wells since its creation in 1982 without a major incident.

Broader factors play into the wild west attitudes around oil exploration, ranging from the Bush administration's pro-oil policy to new Obama administration incentives for oil companies to hurry up their exploration of leased lots – the so-called "use it or lose it" policy.

Yet the MMS is uniquely situated for vilification and reform. It receives billions of dollars a year in royalties from the industry it is supposed to regulate. Employees of the MMS and Big Oil routinely switch sides. And the MMS relies on industry expertise for environmental impact and assessment data that go into approving drilling permits, according to officials.

More in the link...

I am not saying there's just one entity to blame on this. I think it's more than one.



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0526/Gulf-oil-spill-Is-MMS-so-corrupt-it-must-be-abolished

KC native
06-04-2010, 05:12 PM
Yeah, BEP, shut it! KCN knows it all because he just got promoted to loan officer. Four years at the drive-thru teller learned 'em way more than you, you stupid bitch! :D

Making shit up is apparently par for the course for you. I've never worked for a bank but don't let that get in your way.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 05:22 PM
Yeah, BEP, shut it! KCN knows it all because he just got promoted to loan officer. Four years at the drive-thru teller learned 'em way more than you, you stupid bitch! :D

Well, I am not doling out financial advice. I can comment about fraud and govt though. I mean there's a banker on another board I'm on, who also has his own blog, on the financial crisis and even he's been yelling fraud,asleep at the wheel SEC, and wants conviction for the financial crisis....which we'll never see.

Levitt headed the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 to 2001—a period that covers the early stage of the debacle—and knew Madoff personally. He says he did not suspect wrongdoing.

In this case, as in an earlier fraud case I’ve studied, regulators in effect facilitated the deception. People made mistakes in part because of the assurance provided by government oversight. It is remarkable that a massive government failure of eight or nine years’ duration has turned into an argument for market failure and more government.

Not only that but Madoff was so well respected that regulators would ask his opinion about the trading system.

Read the whole link on the corruption and obviously missed opportunities to nail Maddof.
Government Oversight Provides a False Sense of Security (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/departments/it-just-aint-so/regulation-will-stop-future-madoffs-it-just-aint-so/)

KC native
06-04-2010, 05:26 PM
Well, I am not doling out financial advice. I can comment about fraud and govt though. I mean there's a banker on another board I'm on, who also has his own blog, on the financial crisis and even he's been yelling fraud and wants conviction for the financial crisis....which we'll never see.




Not only that but Madoff was so well respected that regulators would ask his opinion about the trading system.

Read the whole link on the corruption and obviously missed opportunities to nail Maddof.
Government Oversight Provides a False Sense of Security (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/departments/it-just-aint-so/regulation-will-stop-future-madoffs-it-just-aint-so/)

OMG now you're trying to change direction? Madoff is peanuts in the big scheme of things.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Shut up and get on the couch for therapy.

mlyonsd
06-04-2010, 06:20 PM
No regulations on Wall Street work so much better. You are a genius. :rolleyes:

Yes, the only problem with our big economical melt down was, government wasnt' watching close enough. You've got it all figured out genious.

banyon
06-04-2010, 07:03 PM
That's called a mercantilist set-up not a free-market one. Just as I suspected. The Miseans taught me to look for such connections find such connections regardless of the factual circumstances.

FYP.

HonestChieffan
06-04-2010, 09:54 PM
How many violations do you get before the regulators regulate? Wonder what these violations were anyway?

Chiefs Rool
06-04-2010, 10:22 PM
profits are always ahead of safety, in every company.

Mr. Kotter
06-04-2010, 10:39 PM
profits are always ahead of safety, in every company.

Of course. Money trumps all. In everything; or even if it is just "most" stuff. It's all that really matters.

Seriously. Right?

BucEyedPea
06-04-2010, 10:57 PM
I would think a placed could be sued out of existence if they didn't take some reasonable precautions.

The thing about this spill is all the emphasis is on the environmental damage with little about the loss of human life that occurred.

HonestChieffan
06-04-2010, 11:06 PM
I would think a placed could be sued out of existence if they didn't take some reasonable precautions.

The thing about this spill is all the emphasis is on the environmental damage with little about the loss of human life that occurred.


And its likely being blown far far out of proportion because it gets headlines. No one would argue its a terrible thing but watch how every wacko makes it sound like the end of life on the planet forever.

Lawyers will make out, politicians will get reelected, and the ocean, like it always has will recover

banyon
06-04-2010, 11:16 PM
How many violations do you get before the regulators regulate? Wonder what these violations were anyway?

Guess you missed reading this post.

Don't quote me, but I think offshore drilling is more of MMS' responsibility. Oh, and you're setting up a false dichotomy.

OSHA did their job, apparently, in catching a ton of violations. Apparently the $373 million in fines wasn't sufficient to impact BP's conduct. They did make $14B in 2009, so that's pretty much a drop in the bucket.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-...ry?id=10763042

The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

Mr. Kotter
06-04-2010, 11:38 PM
And its likely being blown far far out of proportion because it gets headlines. No one would argue its a terrible thing but watch how every wacko makes it sound like the end of life on the planet forever.

Lawyers will make out, politicians will get reelected, and the ocean, like it always has will recover

"Yeah. That's right, man!" [/Rush]

Mr. Kotter
06-04-2010, 11:40 PM
Guess you missed reading this post.



The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

"Hell, no. That's leftwing moonbat chit there, man!" [/Rush]

go bowe
06-05-2010, 12:09 AM
wow, you're having fun tonight, aren't you? :D :D :D

HonestChieffan
06-05-2010, 06:25 AM
Guess you missed reading this post.



The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

I don't know who authored regs but its amazing that they had such a record of repeated violations with no real consequences. Pretty amazing if this stuff is true. I can hardly believe at the same time the numbers quoted for Conoco or whoever being that low. Numbers that are extreme on either end make me wonder about the numbers. But your observation that the regs are toothless has merit.

dirk digler
06-05-2010, 06:44 AM
I would think a placed could be sued out of existence if they didn't take some reasonable precautions.

The thing about this spill is all the emphasis is on the environmental damage with little about the loss of human life that occurred.

Oh they are going to get sued. A read an interesting article yesterday where the government through the Clean Water Act is going to go after the maximum fine of $4300 a barrel (this is a civil fine btw). This is exactly why BP is lying about how much oil is coming out because they know this is going to happen. It all goes back to money as others as suggested above. Then they are going to sue them civilly.

But like I said above I am sure you and others like hcf don't want the government to bankrupt this company or put them out of business.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2010, 07:01 AM
Oh they are going to get sued. A read an interesting article yesterday where the government through the Clean Water Act is going to go after the maximum fine of $4300 a barrel (this is a civil fine btw). This is exactly why BP is lying about how much oil is coming out because they know this is going to happen. It all goes back to money as others as suggested above. Then they are going to sue them civilly.

But like I said above I am sure you and others like hcf don't want the government to bankrupt this company or put them out of business.

Hopefully their is some sanity in the system. If in fact that is the outcome, so be it. But I don't know that any good comes from a lynch mob mentality that says the government should bankrupt a company, lead to huge job losses, and all that would go with it. In fairness to the government they need to do the job right, investigate well and let the chips fall.

Radar Chief
06-05-2010, 07:30 AM
The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

If the regulations are so "toothless" why is BP the only one that seems to be having a problem? Seems more to me that the regulations aren't as "toothless" as BP is just inept.

mlyonsd
06-05-2010, 08:21 AM
The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

Raising the penalty limit is a no-brainer.

Mr. Kotter
06-05-2010, 08:57 AM
Raising the penalty limit is a no-brainer.

Except that most Republican members of Congress will drag their feet, evade, and resist any attempt to make such penalties really meaningful...won't they? :shrug:

:hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-05-2010, 09:01 AM
wow, you're having fun tonight, aren't you? :D :D :D

With HCF these days...it's always tempting. Heh.

KC Jones
06-05-2010, 09:30 AM
Funny how when you want to sabotage government regulation and elect people that do exactly that you get to turn around and say, "See, government regulation doesn't work."

BucEyedPea
06-05-2010, 12:25 PM
Funny how when you want to sabotage government regulation and elect people that do exactly that you get to turn around and say, "See, government regulation doesn't work."

It's just not all it's cracked up today particularly when corruption is just as much a factor in govt as some claim it is in the private sector. Corruption in govt has more opportunity due to it's intrinsic nature, the type of people that are attracted to it ( power seekers) and an ability to harm broadly.

All I was trying to point out is that it's just not something we can all lean back and believe will lead to no problems.

BucEyedPea
06-05-2010, 12:29 PM
Oh they are going to get sued. A read an interesting article yesterday where the government through the Clean Water Act is going to go after the maximum fine of $4300 a barrel (this is a civil fine btw). This is exactly why BP is lying about how much oil is coming out because they know this is going to happen. It all goes back to money as others as suggested above. Then they are going to sue them civilly.

But like I said above I am sure you and others like hcf don't want the government to bankrupt this company or put them out of business.

Not I.
If they go out of business they go out of business. It think it's fitting justice.
That you thought otherwise, shows you've never really understood my positions. I have supported the idea of using lawsuits even if it bankrupts.
There was a whole environmental debate in this very forum a few years ago about the use of such suits instead of massive regulations. That's how it was
done in the 19th century originally, until govt stepped in for regulatory environment instead. Regulation can be and often has been used to punish competition of those connected to govt power too. Why would anyone think the same interests connected to govt power wouldn't place their minions into such agencies either.

banyon
06-05-2010, 01:03 PM
Not I.
If they go out of business they go out of business. It think it's fitting justice.
That you thought otherwise, shows you've never really understood my positions. I have supported the idea of using lawsuits even if it bankrupts.
There was a whole environmental debate in this very forum a few years ago about the use of such suits instead of massive regulations. That's how it was
done in the 19th century originally, until govt stepped in for regulatory environment instead. Regulation can be and often has been used to punish competition of those connected to govt power too. Why would anyone think the same interests connected to govt power wouldn't place their minions into such agencies either.

Really? What were the great environmental lawsuits of the 19th century?

mlyonsd
06-05-2010, 01:12 PM
Except that most Republican members of Congress will drag their feet, evade, and resist any attempt to make such penalties really meaningful...won't they? :shrug:

:hmmm:

Probably not but we'll find out.

go bowe
06-05-2010, 01:33 PM
Raising the penalty limit is a no-brainer.i wonder how much will be changed once this thing is over?

given the midterms coming up, and the political pressure of people pissed off at bp we might see some real changes in how we pursue oil...

maybe new legislation will be passed making meaningful investments in alternative energy sources...

after all, anything is possible...

mlyonsd
06-05-2010, 01:58 PM
i wonder how much will be changed once this thing is over?

given the midterms coming up, and the political pressure of people pissed off at bp we might see some real changes in how we pursue oil...

maybe new legislation will be passed making meaningful investments in alternative energy sources...

after all, anything is possible...

That's my thought, the political pressure after such a large disaster will be enough to re-think the penalty aspect.

vailpass
06-05-2010, 02:19 PM
I knew BP wasn't entirely to blame for this.

HonestChieffan
06-05-2010, 06:38 PM
Except that most Republican members of Congress will drag their feet, evade, and resist any attempt to make such penalties really meaningful...won't they? :shrug:

:hmmm:

Maybe a silly question, but does Congress vote on the regulations? Or are the regulations established by the EPA? I don't recall that congress votes on every rule and reg or penalty set by the EPA or OSHA or other regulatory agencies.

ClevelandBronco
06-05-2010, 09:28 PM
Really? What were the great environmental lawsuits of the 19th century?

She has the information, but she's not going to give you an answer on your schedule or anyone else's. So there.

cannon1988
06-05-2010, 11:02 PM
Obama needs to nationalize the oil industry.

No more free-market approaches that result in monumental failures such as these.

ClevelandBronco
06-06-2010, 12:37 AM
Obama needs to nationalize the oil industry.

No more free-market approaches that result in monumental failures such as these.

Fresh fish.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2010, 06:45 AM
Maybe a silly question, but does Congress vote on the regulations? Or are the regulations established by the EPA? I don't recall that congress votes on every rule and reg or penalty set by the EPA or OSHA or other regulatory agencies.

I think regulatory agencies make their own rules generally. I think that's one of the complaints of having too many agencies under the executive branch. Because they're unelected bureaucrats. I know Hillary went in an rewrote the Medicaid rules, liberalizing it even more after her HC bill failed to pass. There's been an expansion in this type of thing.

dirk digler
06-06-2010, 08:40 AM
Hopefully their is some sanity in the system. If in fact that is the outcome, so be it. But I don't know that any good comes from a lynch mob mentality that says the government should bankrupt a company, lead to huge job losses, and all that would go with it. In fairness to the government they need to do the job right, investigate well and let the chips fall.

Did you have the same feeling about bailing out the banks and auto industry because some of us felt the same way. Nothing good would come of it and it would lead to huge job losses etc.

cannon1988
06-06-2010, 11:28 AM
I think regulatory agencies make their own rules generally. I think that's one of the complaints of having too many agencies under the executive branch. Because they're unelected bureaucrats. I know Hillary went in an rewrote the Medicaid rules, liberalizing it even more after her HC bill failed to pass. There's been an expansion in this type of thing.

Thank you for supporting my argument. This is all the more reason for us to adopt a utopian society. Government is the true medicine to this nation's ailment. The private sector only gets in the way of golden government programs like the US Postal Service, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a perfect example of what our government is capable of when it needs to step up and claim responsibility over our energy crises.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2010, 11:35 AM
Thank you for supporting my argument. This is all the more reason for us to adopt a utopian society. Government is the true medicine to this nation's ailment. The private sector only gets in the way of golden government programs like the US Postal Service, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a perfect example of what our government is capable of when it needs to step up and claim responsibility over our energy crises.
You're dreaming if you think I've done anything remotely supporting your argument. Only dreamers think a utopian society is possible because they ignore man's basic nature regarding the corrupting aspects of too much power. Sounds good on paper but doesn't work in real life. All that power at the top leads to abuse: The Soviet Union, former Iron Curtain countries, Mao's China, Mussolini's fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Napoleon and America today on and on and on.

US Postal Service raises prices when demand drops for their technologically lagging services.
Medicaid and SS are broke ( our govt is broke already in its quasi attempt to make society utopian)
TVA- America's biggest monopoly is a bureaucratic kingdom with neither public or private controls that flooded more land than it protected; facilitated barges of coal for coal-fired power plants; TVA-subsidized electricity lags behind other suppliers and its impact on the Great Depression was negligible.

cannon1988
06-06-2010, 12:14 PM
You're dreaming if you think I've done anything remotely supporting your argument. Only dreamers think a utopian society is possible because they ignore man's basic nature regarding the corrupting aspects of too much power. Sounds good on paper but doesn't work in real life. All that power at the top leads to abuse: The Soviet Union, former Iron Curtain countries, Mao's China, Mussolini's fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Napoleon and America today on and on and on.

US Postal Service raises prices when demand drops for their technologically lagging services.
Medicaid and SS are broke ( our govt is broke already in its quasi attempt to make society utopian)
TVA- America's biggest monopoly is a bureaucratic kingdom with neither public or private controls that flooded more land than it protected; facilitated barges of coal for coal-fired power plants; TVA-subsidized electricity lags behind other suppliers and its impact on the Great Depression was negligible.

You are correct, sir. There is a monopolization that exists within the TVA; and yet, this can be traced directly to the influence of the free market which contorts and demands that government enterprises with the utmost potential conform to the ideals of capitalism. This is where the problems you cite lie, and unfortunately, you are supporting my argument completely by referencing their impacts in the first place.

Thanks for a strong debate! :) Maybe you'll get me on the next one!

BucEyedPea
06-06-2010, 01:23 PM
You are correct, sir. There is a monopolization that exists within the TVA; and yet, this can be traced directly to the influence of the free market which contorts and demands that government enterprises with the utmost potential conform to the ideals of capitalism.

No it's the other way around. Govt is always less efficient because they can 'f up and just keep taxing for a govt enterprise when a private enterprise that 'fs up too badly would go out of business—the way it should be.

Govt distorts supply and demand mechanism which leads to a distortion of prices. Everything that has improved our living standards including yours you owe to free market capitalism.

This is where the problems you cite lie, and unfortunately, you are supporting my argument completely by referencing their impacts in the first place.

Thanks for a strong debate! :) Maybe you'll get me on the next one!

I am well aware of how commies distort the meanings of words and twist them around into lies. They're the biggest liars on the planet. I mean even Orwell wrote a treatise on abuse of language to change and control people. He was a committed socialist too.

So thanks for demonstrating the classic doublethink and newspeak he wrote about.

banyon
06-06-2010, 01:49 PM
You are correct, sir. There is a monopolization that exists within the TVA; and yet, this can be traced directly to the influence of the free market which contorts and demands that government enterprises with the utmost potential conform to the ideals of capitalism. This is where the problems you cite lie, and unfortunately, you are supporting my argument completely by referencing their impacts in the first place.

Thanks for a strong debate! :) Maybe you'll get me on the next one!

Is it not obvious that this guy is a mult?

cannon1988
06-06-2010, 07:42 PM
No it's the other way around. Govt is always less efficient because they can 'f up and just keep taxing for a govt enterprise when a private enterprise that 'fs up too badly would go out of business—the way it should be.

Govt distorts supply and demand mechanism which leads to a distortion of prices. Everything that has improved our living standards including yours you owe to free market capitalism.



I am well aware of how commies distort the meanings of words and twist them around into lies. They're the biggest liars on the planet. I mean even Orwell wrote a treatise on abuse of language to change and control people. He was a committed socialist too.

So thanks for demonstrating the classic doublethink and newspeak he wrote about.

This is not an issue of skewed intentions. I have every right to turn every one of your claims into an argument for myself. If you can refute them only by citing Orwellian condemnation of language manipulation, you have a lot of ground to cover.

As for my supposed value of life being attributed to capitalism, this is null and void at the point in which we recognize that capitalism sets a societal precedence for its own destruction. Our living standards can never be attested to in the face of capitalism because the truest forms of that economic system have never been seen in the United States. We have been, and will remain a socialist nation of sorts. When the government is used as one of the key mechanisms to a free market society, private enterprise has no inherent meaning anymore.

vailpass
06-06-2010, 08:24 PM
Thank you for supporting my argument. This is all the more reason for us to adopt a utopian society. Government is the true medicine to this nation's ailment. The private sector only gets in the way of golden government programs like the US Postal Service, Medicaid, and Social Security. The Tennessee Valley Authority is a perfect example of what our government is capable of when it needs to step up and claim responsibility over our energy crises.

:D N00b is pulling some chains and doing it well.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2010, 09:34 PM
This is not an issue of skewed intentions. I have every right to turn every one of your claims into an argument for myself. If you can refute them only by citing Orwellian condemnation of language manipulation, you have a lot of ground to cover.

As for my supposed value of life being attributed to capitalism, this is null and void at the point in which we recognize that capitalism sets a societal precedence for its own destruction. Our living standards can never be attested to in the face of capitalism because the truest forms of that economic system have never been seen in the United States. We have been, and will remain a socialist nation of sorts. When the government is used as one of the key mechanisms to a free market society, private enterprise has no inherent meaning anymore.

Uh hmmm.

cannon1988
06-07-2010, 01:07 PM
Uh hmmm.

You're welcome.

cannon1988
06-07-2010, 01:20 PM
The present situation is in any case one where the major forms of environmental destruction arise from the logic of capital accumulation. On the one hand, the motown cluster is very far from being a thing of the past. Quite to the contrary, the giant fossil fuel corporations – the companies that dominate the world's oil, gas, coal, car, road construction, and rubber industries – represent an enormously powerful constellation of economic interests. Having bitterly opposed the feeble targets for reducing greenhouse emissions agreed in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the American fossil fuel corporations successfully backed a presidential candidate, George W. Bush, one of whose first major acts after entering the White House was to denounce the protocol. Congressional investigations into the Enron scandal exposed how the company had manipulated the deregulated Californian energy industry by, for example, shutting down plants, and exporting power, thereby creating artificial shortages that boosted prices and profits. Enron and other energy traders also engaged in scams like `roundtripping' – phoney sales that increased turnover and pushed up prices.

Brock
06-07-2010, 01:24 PM
The present situation is in any case one where the major forms of environmental destruction arise from the logic of capital accumulation. On the one hand, the motown cluster is very far from being a thing of the past. Quite to the contrary, the giant fossil fuel corporations – the companies that dominate the world's oil, gas, coal, car, road construction, and rubber industries – represent an enormously powerful constellation of economic interests. Having bitterly opposed the feeble targets for reducing greenhouse emissions agreed in the 1997 Kyoto protocol, the American fossil fuel corporations successfully backed a presidential candidate, George W. Bush, one of whose first major acts after entering the White House was to denounce the protocol. Congressional investigations into the Enron scandal exposed how the company had manipulated the deregulated Californian energy industry by, for example, shutting down plants, and exporting power, thereby creating artificial shortages that boosted prices and profits. Enron and other energy traders also engaged in scams like `roundtripping' – phoney sales that increased turnover and pushed up prices.

Did you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or were you just going to plagiarize the whole book?

http://books.google.com/books?id=O15QaBZW6-IC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=%22Having+bitterly+opposed+the+feeble+targets%22&source=bl&ots=9sFUYBhGdE&sig=C6Y-V44AaOZ6957YAjBft0JL2wA&hl=en&ei=IEcNTNutO8XflgeiyfH_Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Having%20bitterly%20opposed%20the%20feeble%20targets%22&f=false

Brock
06-07-2010, 01:25 PM
Looks like Kotter suddenly has a lot of free time on his hands.

HC_Chief
06-07-2010, 01:28 PM
Did you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or were you just going to plagiarize the whole book?

http://books.google.com/books?id=O15QaBZW6-IC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=%22Having+bitterly+opposed+the+feeble+targets%22&source=bl&ots=9sFUYBhGdE&sig=C6Y-V44AaOZ6957YAjBft0JL2wA&hl=en&ei=IEcNTNutO8XflgeiyfH_Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Having%20bitterly%20opposed%20the%20feeble%20targets%22&f=false

D'OH! Busted :D

Hydrae
06-07-2010, 03:21 PM
Guess you missed reading this post.



The regulators did regulate. The problem was that the regulations are toothless. They still are, they limit BP to a $75 million damage cap (when we are already above that by an order of magnitude). Why are the regulations toothless? Probably because they were authored by oil lobbyists.

I may be completely wrong here (and won't be surprised either) but I am pretty sure I had heard it was a $75M cap per occurrance, not for the total payout. Depending on how you define the occurrances, the sky is the limit in overall damage payments.

banyon
06-07-2010, 08:25 PM
Looks like Kotter suddenly has a lot of free time on his hands.

I'm guessing SHTSPRAYER. It's not like he has a life. He can't just go away.

banyon
06-07-2010, 08:31 PM
I may be completely wrong here (and won't be surprised either) but I am pretty sure I had heard it was a $75M cap per occurrance, not for the total payout. Depending on how you define the occurrances, the sky is the limit in overall damage payments.

The language is "incident" and it is defined as follows:

(14) ``incident'' means any occurrence or series of occurrences
having the same origin, involving one or more vessels, facilities,
or any combination thereof, resulting in the discharge or
substantial threat of discharge of oil;

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc33.wais&start=4634499&SIZE=27424&TYPE=TEXT

I think that's going to cover it all.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2010, 08:32 PM
Did you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or were you just going to plagiarize the whole book?

http://books.google.com/books?id=O15QaBZW6-IC&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=%22Having+bitterly+opposed+the+feeble+targets%22&source=bl&ots=9sFUYBhGdE&sig=C6Y-V44AaOZ6957YAjBft0JL2wA&hl=en&ei=IEcNTNutO8XflgeiyfH_Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Having%20bitterly%20opposed%20the%20feeble%20targets%22&f=false

Oh, looks like we have a Watermelon here. A commie hiding in the green movement.

ClevelandBronco
06-07-2010, 09:35 PM
I'm guessing SHTSPRAYER...

Yeah. I'm beginning to think there's no way this guy is an actual leftist.

cannon1988
06-07-2010, 11:48 PM
Did you have any thoughts of your own on the subject, or were you just going to plagiarize the whole book?



What are you talking about?

Brock
06-08-2010, 08:18 AM
What are you talking about?

Shut up, troll.

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 11:02 AM
Shut up, troll.

You cannot make me do anything, Brick.

BucEyedPea
06-08-2010, 12:05 PM
Even one of the BIGGEST Greenies is backtracking on demonizing BP. Always helps to have information of comparable magnitude to put things in perspective I'd say. Instead of the "Who's ass should I kick?" demagoguery.
This is to James Cameron's credit though once he got more information.




Morning Joe has the same content as the rest of the cable MSM: Oil, oil, oil, Helen Thomas, oil, oil, oil. Yesterday James Cameron, movie genius and environmentalist, was on. The last time, he denounced everyone at BP as “stupid.” But this time, he said he had made an investigation, and he thought they were doing “OK.” Indeed, he noted, there was a similar spill off Australia that took four months to cap, and one in the Gulf of Mexico, off the Mexican coast, that took nine months. I thought: nine months, and we’re all still alive, the fish still swim, the sun still shines? You don’t suppose the media are demagoguing the current oil leak, do you? O.M.G., an oiled bird! (Is that the same fowl we keep seeing?) Forget the wars, the economy, the police state.

Also on, the creepy Sen. Schumer, who called for ending the $75 million liability cap on oil spill damages, and said that if that bankrupted BP, so be it. Companies that cannot pay their obligations must go out of business. Well, yes, though no one sought to ask who put on the cap—the oily Bush I and Congress—and why this laudable principle did not apply to Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Citibank, and the rest of Schumer’s beloved bosses, for whom he arranged vast taxpayer bailouts, in effect a cap on their liability, to prevent them from going bankrupt. Note: BP has already paid out almost $1.25 billion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/59264.html


What a hypocrite Schumer is.

Brock
06-08-2010, 12:48 PM
You cannot make me do anything, Brick.

Obviously I can make you dance. Why don't you get a job, loser?

dirk digler
06-08-2010, 12:55 PM
Obviously I can make you dance. Why don't you get a job, loser?

Even though he called you brick I don't think it is him. This guy has more than 3 word posts and sounds half way intelligent. Definitely a mult though.

Brock
06-08-2010, 01:00 PM
Even though he called you brick I don't think it is him. This guy has more than 3 word posts and sounds half way intelligent. Definitely a mult though.

He sounds "half way intelligent" because he's plagiarizing books and claiming their words as his own.

dirk digler
06-08-2010, 01:08 PM
He sounds "half way intelligent" because he's plagiarizing books and claiming their words as his own.

That is sure is a hell alot of work just to post on a message board pretending to be someone else. He seriously must not have a life.

blaise
06-08-2010, 01:49 PM
That is sure is a hell alot of work just to post on a message board pretending to be someone else. He seriously must not have a life.

I'm sure others would say that posting on a message board itself indicates a lack of a life.

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 01:54 PM
Obviously I can make you dance. Why don't you get a job, loser?

I have a job, Brick.

It's quite astonishing to me that you would assume that I was unemployed. I have every right to make the same assumption about you.

Why don't you get a job, loser?

Brock
06-08-2010, 01:56 PM
Honestly, nobody cares what assumptions you make. You are a dupe account piece of shit.

Bootlegged
06-08-2010, 01:57 PM
http://images9.cafepress.com/product/407663959v4_480x480_Front_Color-Red.jpg

BucEyedPea
06-08-2010, 01:57 PM
I have a job, Brick.

It's quite astonishing to me that you would assume that I was unemployed. I have every right to make the same assumption about you.

Why don't you get a job, loser?

Do you work for Castro?

dirk digler
06-08-2010, 01:59 PM
I'm sure others would say that posting on a message board itself indicates a lack of a life.

I have a life thank you very much....:harumph:

cannon1988
06-08-2010, 08:27 PM
Honestly, nobody cares what assumptions you make. You are a dupe account piece of shit.

As long as you get riled up, my assumptions are doing a fine job.

Cave Johnson
06-10-2010, 10:09 AM
An AP investigation finds that the company's contingency plans for both the Gulf and the Deepwater Horizon rig are "riddled with omissions and glaring errors":

Professor Peter Lutz is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005. Under the heading "sensitive biological resources," the plan lists marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals. None lives anywhere near the Gulf. The names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are no longer in service.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/06/a-convicted-serial-environmental-criminal-ctd-1.html