No shit....and Jarods a rocket scientist in his spare time.....
and evince is political science PHD.....
and you? You're a joke....
EPA is supposed to have a contigency plan for the oil spill
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
No shit....and Jarods a rocket scientist in his spare time.....
and evince is political science PHD.....
and you? You're a joke....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh, they're all the time claiming they are this and that... rocket scientists, oil experts, nuclear physicists... I bet our contingent of pinheads couldn't pass a basic GED test if they collectively pooled their intelligence! People with those levels of educational background, don't spend countless hours pontificating stupidity on message boards! They just don't!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Thank you for the praise Cypress but full and honest disclosure requires me to state that I am not an environmental scientist. I am professionally registered and certified hazardous materials manager (CHMM) and I do have a graduate education in Environmental, Health and Safety Management and an undergraduate degree in human biology, though my area of specialization is in hazardous waste management, which, coincidently, does include managing the waste from oil spills. Thus my familiarity with oil spill regs.First, that link is not a "law". They're promulgated regulations which are different than a law.
Second, its hilarious that the wingnut contingent who spent a lifetime yelling "get government out of the way!", and lecturing us tree huggers that offshore drilling was a totally safe and excellent adventure, are now the ones who are whining for the government to solve the spill.
Third, I would trust Mott's knowledge of environmental law over yours in a heartbeat. You repair lawnmowers, and randomly post stuff you read on rightwing blogs. Mott is an environmental scientist.
Fourth, you posted a monstrosity of a PDF, hundreds of pages long. I'm sure you didn't read it, and you have no idea what is actually says.
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on these regulations, but I'm fairly astute at navigating and understanding environmental policy. The regulations clearly state that the responsible party is responsible for stopping the discharge. That means Mott was right, which is no surprise.
The regulations give the government the authority of oversight and coordination of clean up efforts by the responsible party and local, state, and national entities. It looks like the regulations could theoretically give the government the authority to actually take over efforts to stop the discharge if the responsible party can't do it, but the government doesn't have the equipment or expertise to plug a blown out well a mile down on the sea floor. So I see no feasible alternative but to require the responsible party, BP, to plug the well. That's the way I read it, but your PDF is like 500 pages, so that's just a cursory review of it. I'm still going to go with Mott the environmental scientist's opinion, over the musings of a lawnmower repairman
Finally, as always man, thanks for the outstanding comedy!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I would suggest that you do so. First, this isn't the law. It's the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If you wish to review the laws on this topic I'd suggest you go reference the appropriate U.S. Code.
Second, I have read this (dear lord save me) and I have written EPCRA contingency plans for hazardous waste facilities where I've managed complicance and thirdly, thank you for validating my point to Tinhead, via your reference to this CFR, that such national contingency plans are all ready in existence.
zoombwaz
Radical Moderate Populist
There is a 6 month supply of oil under ANWR, which will take 10 years to develop. Grasp those straws...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's a 10-year-old talking point, isn't it? As I recall, you won that debate...we didn't open up drilling in ANWR, which is precisely why we have an oil well 50 miles out in the Gulf, dumping millions of gallons of oil onto our pristine beaches and destroying billions of dollars worth of property and wildlife. But hey... the Alaskan caribou are safe and sound!
I love how Republicans grab hold of a bullshit assertion and repeat it over and over and over and over and over again even after it is pointed out that it is a lie.
I mean, first you claimed that non-existent environmental regulations on shallow water drilling off the coast of Louisiana and Alabama required BP to drill 50 miles out and now it's no drilling in ANWR. Just stop lying. BP elected to drill where it drilled because it could make money drilling there. If ANWR were open BP would drill in ANWR and 50 miles off the coast.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Like I said when I posted my original response to Dixie. BP is drilling there because that's where the oil is.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
code of federal regulations are not law....LMAO
good lord, i haven't seen such ignorance for quite some time....i suggest you go out and get yourself some knowledge so you don't look so foolish...wait...i'll do it for you because this gotcha moment is freakin hilarious
LOL...two second google search
The regulations are treated by the courts as being as legally binding as statutory law, provided the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statutes. This "reasonable interpretation" test or Chevron doctrine was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision (6 voting, 3 recused) involving a challenge to new Clean Air Act regulations promulgated by the Reagan administration in 1981. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[1]
Code of Federal Regulations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png
its wiki, however, their citation is accurate and i'm not going to spend more time doing your homework and i'm laughing too hard
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And I have already pointed out the DWRRA, which pays them substantially more to drill in deep water, which is why they would go to the extra expense to do so. It's only the koolaid-drinking Obamanites who don't grasp this. You're so funny... "non-existent environmental regulations" ...how many of you pinheads honestly believe you can sell that? I mean, really, how fucking ignorant do you think the American people are?
Let's pay no attention to the details, let's stay focused on the greedy money-hungry oil companies! The problem is, the greedy oil company is trying to do the most profitable thing for them, that's what makes them a greedy oil company... it's much cheaper (and more profitable) to drill for oil in the frozen tundra of Alaska than 50 miles out into the ocean. It's even cheaper (and more profitable) to set up a shallow water rig... so why weren't the greedy oil companies doing that? Well, because we wouldn't allow them to drill in ANWR and we offered huge financial incentives for them to move to deeper waters. You say it has nothing to do with that, they just want to drill for oil anywhere because there is money to be made, but greedy oil companies look to make the MOST money they can, as most greedy capitalists do, so that is exactly what they did. If they could have obtained the same amount of product at half the cost, any greedy money-hungry oil company would have jumped at the chance!
LOL
Didn't you start a whole post about how BP & other companies were FORCED into drilling in the deep water, and how liberals were "to blame"?
Lovin' the constant shifting goalposts....
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Read your own quote dufus! They are treated like law and they are legally binding but They are not the actual laws them self.
"When Congress passes a law, that law is recorded in a set of books known as:
The United States Code (or USC)
New USC laws cannot be enforced until new regulations are issued. Those regulations implement
the USC laws, and are recorded in the set of books known as:
The Code of Federal Regulations (or CFR)"
http://www.supremelaw.org/wwwboard/messages/93.html
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
In effect, they were forced! Greedy capitalists always do what is the most profitable thing, and with DWRRA, it was much more profitable to drill 50 miles out in the ocean, which is what they did. Had it been just as profitable to drill in shallow water, they would have done that instead, because more profit could have been realized, and they are greedy capitalists... remember?
Liberals, in particular, environmentalists, ARE responsible, in my opinion. Had we opened ANWR and not incentivized deep water exploration, the greedy capitalist oil companies would be taking that more profitable route, because that is what greedy capitalist oil companies do, always!
Your spin is always priceless.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
administrative LAW....good lord, you're an idiot
geeee...they are treated as equal, treated like laws are as binding as the CODE, but according to you they are not law....they are in FACT law, they are citable just like the codes are and just like cases are...they are in fact binding authority...their technical term is 'regulations'...but moron, they are treated just like laws, hence, they are law in the general sense and that is why they are often called adminstrative LAW
thanks again for the laughs moron
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's not spin, it's an optical illusion caused by you running around me in circles, trying to find a flaw in my argument. But it's good to know you can amuse yourself, that takes a tremendous load off the babysitter!
Really?
You mean you didn't also write this?
"Why do we have oil rigs 50 miles out into the ocean? Well, because, when people go visit the lovely beaches of Mississippi and Louisiana, they certainly don't want to see those eyesore rigs on the horizon! Environmentalists insisted that if we drill in the Gulf, it has to be far enough out that no one can visually see them from the coast. It is because we allowed this regulated restriction, that we have an impossible problem on our hands now. "
Wow.
I thought you were a lawyer, or something. Must have you confused with Jarod.
Regulations are not law.
Regulations are rules that are promulgated by executive agency buearacrats, with public input, to implement laws.
Laws are, by definition, statutes passed by the vote of legislators and signed by an executive.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That was my understanding.
Wow. Check out the brain on Mott. You knew that and you're not even a lawyer.
Congress persons and state legislators can't possibly presume to be experts on the technical aspects of food safety, or air traffic control. The statutes they pass, are implemented with regulations developed by executive agency experts and experts from the general public, to implement broad statutory authorities granted to them.
Cheers on being a brain, Mott.