The lesson they won't learn from the oil crisis...

The Obama Administration has made it clear, they plan to allow the Gulf of Mexico turn into the Le brea Tar Pits, while they lawyer up to destroy BP, and push for even more audacious political plans to ban offshore drilling and tax carbon! Completely oblivious to the very real economic and environmental catastrophe continuing to unfold before them, the Democrats proceed with their brow beating of BP and War on Big Oil, and if they are absolutely cornered into a response regarding Governmental response, it will be to undoubtedly establish yet another layer of federal bureaucracy to oversee the federally-funded Mineral Management Service, who's job it is to oversee the oil companies! Blame? Oh, that all goes to Republicans and the Tea Party who have been saying "Drill, baby, drill!" BP and Teabaggers! That's the only parties to BLAME in this, and the worse the damage and destruction to our coast, the more it drives that political point home... THAT is why there is no real ACTION being taken by this Administration or the Democrat Liberals who are now in full control of our government!

Here are the LESSONS we should learn from this disaster....

1.) Federal Government is ineffective when 'regulating' private oil companies. Force these companies to purchase and maintain FULL LIABILITY insurance, and you will see the insurance companies WILL do the job of ensuring regulations are followed. It is ludicrous our Government established a $75 million liability cap for BP, or ANY oil company drilling ANYWHERE on US soil! Only Our Government could do such a stupid and boneheaded thing... and before you smart-asses post some link to show it the fault of 'Pubs, this isn't an Anti-Dem thing, it's Anti-GOVERNMENT! The Oil Companies should be FULLY liable, for not only the clean-up, but the damages as well, and they need to be insured for the appropriate amounts they could be expected to have to pay for damages. IF this were the approach, it would save the Federal Government tons of money, we could eliminate all those staffers who were spending their time surfing porn on the Internet!

2.) Federal Government is wholly inadequate at handling an immediate crisis and disaster. This has always traditionally been the primary function of the STATE government, but we have recently traveled down the pinhead road of Statism, the ideology that we are a collective STATE ruled by centralized authority in Washington D.C., and not independent states who form the United States. It is the STATE who has the best handle on the situation, the best resources readily available and in logistical position to act swiftly, it is the State who controls the National Guard, and has the ability to use them to respond quickly in a time of crisis. The Federal Government is a feckless mess of bureaucrats who do more to get in the way and HAMPER the efforts, than anything else.

3.) Politicians who are driven by ideology and have no real-world experience leading, make terrible managers of a crisis. Has anyone thought about how this disaster might have been handled differently by Bush, Cheney, even Bill Clinton, as much as I hate to admit it... Pretty much anyone other than maybe Jimmy Carter, would have handled this better than Obama. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, even Hillary... would have done better than Obama!
 
=Dixie;668357]The Obama Administration has made it clear, they plan to allow the Gulf of Mexico turn into the Le brea Tar Pits,

really dixie....really :rolleyes:


while they lawyer up to destroy BP, and push for even more audacious political plans to ban offshore drilling and tax carbon! Completely oblivious to the very real economic and environmental catastrophe continuing to unfold before them, the Democrats proceed with their brow beating of BP and War on Big Oil, and if they are absolutely cornered into a response regarding Governmental response, it will be to undoubtedly establish yet another layer of federal bureaucracy to oversee the federally-funded Mineral Management Service, who's job it is to oversee the oil companies! Blame? Oh, that all goes to Republicans and the Tea Party who have been saying "Drill, baby, drill!" BP and Teabaggers! That's the only parties to BLAME in this, and the worse the damage and destruction to our coast, the more it drives that political point home... THAT is why there is no real ACTION being taken by this Administration or the Democrat Liberals who are now in full control of our government!

this is correct....
Here are the LESSONS we should learn from this disaster....

1.) Federal Government is ineffective when 'regulating' private oil companies. Force these companies to purchase and maintain FULL LIABILITY insurance, and you will see the insurance companies WILL do the job of ensuring regulations are followed. It is ludicrous our Government established a $75 million liability cap for BP, or ANY oil company drilling ANYWHERE on US soil! Only Our Government could do such a stupid and boneheaded thing... and before you smart-asses post some link to show it the fault of 'Pubs, this isn't an Anti-Dem thing, it's Anti-GOVERNMENT! The Oil Companies should be FULLY liable, for not only the clean-up, but the damages as well, and they need to be insured for the appropriate amounts they could be expected to have to pay for damages. IF this were the approach, it would save the Federal Government tons of money, we could eliminate all those staffers who were spending their time surfing porn on the Internet!

not a bad idea....though i think the thought process so far has been....getting america its energy source....and both parties in office have been at fault. i do like the idea though....problem is....no insurance company would offer that policy or if it did, the cost would be so high, no drilling would be done. that is the reality. unfortunate, but the reality when we continue to use OIL


2.) Federal Government is wholly inadequate at handling an immediate crisis and disaster. This has always traditionally been the primary function of the STATE government, but we have recently traveled down the pinhead road of Statism, the ideology that we are a collective STATE ruled by centralized authority in Washington D.C., and not independent states who form the United States. It is the STATE who has the best handle on the situation, the best resources readily available and in logistical position to act swiftly, it is the State who controls the National Guard, and has the ability to use them to respond quickly in a time of crisis. The Federal Government is a feckless mess of bureaucrats who do more to get in the way and HAMPER the efforts, than anything else.

i disagree...the federal government can handle national disasters. i agree with the state having a much larger responsibility than what the liberals would have you believe after katrina. hence why they are all silent with this oil leak.


3.) Politicians who are driven by ideology and have no real-world experience leading, make terrible managers of a crisis. Has anyone thought about how this disaster might have been handled differently by Bush, Cheney, even Bill Clinton, as much as I hate to admit it... Pretty much anyone other than maybe Jimmy Carter, would have handled this better than Obama. Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, even Hillary... would have done better than Obama!

i have no idea how bush would have handled this....he handled katrina ok...but not great, not as bad as uber libs make out....but not perfect. this is an unprecedented environmental disaster in this country. to claim someone else would have done it different is nothing but pure, useless speculation.
 
How great is that? When pressed, Yurtsie will concede that Bush's handling of Katrina wasn't "perfect."

Outstanding!
 
...not a bad idea....though i think the thought process so far has been....getting america its energy source....and both parties in office have been at fault. i do like the idea though....problem is....no insurance company would offer that policy or if it did, the cost would be so high, no drilling would be done. that is the reality. unfortunate, but the reality when we continue to use OIL

No, it's not the reality. Insurance companies will insure ANYTHING, it's what they do! In this case, they would ENSURE the oil company was following the safety guidelines and procedures established to prevent such disasters, or greatly reducing the liable damage. It would not be left to government lazy-asses or political hacks being bought off with gifts and bribes, it would be the responsibility of the entity who was on the hook for the monetary liability, the Insurance Company!

i disagree...the federal government can handle national disasters. i agree with the state having a much larger responsibility than what the liberals would have you believe after katrina. hence why they are all silent with this oil leak.

The Federal Government has repeatedly FAILED to respond swiftly in the face of any disaster! They are NOT supposed to be the "First Responders" in such crisis, that role should be handled at a state and local level, and the Feds should do whatever they can to enable the states with the tools they need to do this. In the AFTERMATH of a disaster, is when the Federal government's role kicks in, I have no problem with that, but they should not be expected to "respond immediately" to ANY disaster of ANY kind.

i have no idea how bush would have handled this....he handled katrina ok...but not great, not as bad as uber libs make out....but not perfect. this is an unprecedented environmental disaster in this country. to claim someone else would have done it different is nothing but pure, useless speculation.

Well I do have an idea how Bush/Cheney (oil men) would have handled this, and I think it would have been a much more effective response than what we got! I still don't see where BUSH made any error or mistake in the handling of Katrina, he did exactly what any president should have or would have done! The problem wasn't what Bush didn't do, it was the same inherent problem that we have with the current crisis... GOVERNMENT!
 
TE=Dixie;668388]No, it's not the reality. Insurance companies will insure ANYTHING, it's what they do!

is it your position that insurance companies always insure you? no matter what, because they insure "anything".....

In this case, they would ENSURE the oil company was following the safety guidelines and procedures established to prevent such disasters, or greatly reducing the liable damage. It would not be left to government lazy-asses or political hacks being bought off with gifts and bribes, it would be the responsibility of the entity who was on the hook for the monetary liability, the Insurance Company!

again....this is not the way it works....if the risk is to high, no insurance company will insure you....



The Federal Government has repeatedly FAILED to respond swiftly in the face of any disaster! They are NOT supposed to be the "First Responders" in such crisis, that role should be handled at a state and local level, and the Feds should do whatever they can to enable the states with the tools they need to do this. In the AFTERMATH of a disaster, is when the Federal government's role kicks in, I have no problem with that, but they should not be expected to "respond immediately" to ANY disaster of ANY kind.

the feds can and are first responders in many circumstances.....why you would deny this is boggling....in this case, the leak happened in federal waters....the states have a stake....but maritime laws and response is FEDERAL.

Well I do have an idea how Bush/Cheney (oil men) would have handled this, and I think it would have been a much more effective response than what we got! I still don't see where BUSH made any error or mistake in the handling of Katrina, he did exactly what any president should have or would have done! The problem wasn't what Bush didn't do, it was the same inherent problem that we have with the current crisis... GOVERNMENT!

again, pure speculation as to what bush or cheney would have done
 
Dixie, weren't you and your merry band of Bush voters up until two months ago blabbing about what a safe and awesome adventure offshore drilling was, and how drilling was the solution to the "problem" of natural seepage?

Amazingly, I find your advice and opinions on this matter to be not worth more than a bucket of spit. You don't have a leg to stand on, bro.
 
My general rule of thumb for crap like this is listen to the people who were right. And ignore the people who were wrong. Dixie and his natural seepage cabal of dummies not only didn't see this coming, but they blabbed to the people of california and florida that offshore drilling would be a completely safe and excellent adventure.


I think we need to keep offshore drilling, to a feasible extent.

But, sometimes the dirty hippies are right. This offshore shit is problematic. And we need to revisit this and come up with a better system of safeguards.
 
My general rule of thumb for crap like this is listen to the people who were right. And ignore the people who were wrong. Dixie and his natural seepage cabal of dummies not only didn't see this coming, but they blabbed to the people of california and florida that offshore drilling would be a completely safe and excellent adventure.


I think we need to keep offshore drilling, to a feasible extent.

But, sometimes the dirty hippies are right. This offshore shit is problematic. And we need to revisit this and come up with a better system of safeguards.

do you have a link for the natural seepage "crap"....i've never seen it

i agree with the safeguards...it appears now that if there was a relief well, this could have been stopped almost immediately....wtf...wasn't that in place? now...they have to drill for MONTHS to get this in place....
 
is it your position that insurance companies always insure you? no matter what, because they insure "anything".....

Pretty much anything can, and has been, insured. If private insurance companies can be reasonably sure that something is safe when the guidelines and regulations for safety are followed, and allowing them the ability to monitor these guidelines and regulations are being followed, there is no reason they wouldn't insure the oil companies, just as they insure any number of other things.

again....this is not the way it works....if the risk is to high, no insurance company will insure you....

The risk would not be too high, the insurer would make sure the risk was minimal. See... here's the deal, right now, the Government makes sure the risk is minimal, but it seems more important to a government official to accept bribes and gifts, than to ensure risk is minimal, and that is what happened. Now we are dealing with the result of that. If the insurance company were on the hook for total liability, that suddenly becomes more important to the people in charge of monitoring the risk and ensuring they are minimal, than gifts or bribes to look the other way.

the feds can and are first responders in many circumstances.....why you would deny this is boggling....in this case, the leak happened in federal waters....the states have a stake....but maritime laws and response is FEDERAL.

I understand, but what "response" did we get in this case? Let me tell you what we got... The EPA not allowing dispersant of chemicals which would have contained the oil... we got the Coast Guard not allowing skimmers to filter the oil because they would have to emit water that wasn't absolutely up to standards for purity, and we got a president who partied and played golf with the celebrities while the governors of the state begged for some sort of help to protect their coasts. And the oil billowed, and continues to fill the Gulf of Mexico while the Administration figures out who's ass to kick and who to sue! THAT IS OUR FEDERAL RESPONSE!

again, pure speculation as to what bush or cheney would have done

But it is speculation rooted in common sense, and basic general knowledge and wisdom. Too bad you don't seem to have any here! That's not MY problem, is it?
 
On the plus side the only way we're going to get alternative energy is when the price of oil goes through the roof.

How's it a plus side if you bleed poor people to get it. And IT is decades away from being remotely viable. Want proof, check out what happened to Spanish and German solar demand with the subsidy money dried up.:eek:
 
How's it a plus side if you bleed poor people to get it. And IT is decades away from being remotely viable. Want proof, check out what happened to Spanish and German solar demand with the subsidy money dried up.:eek:

We all have to cut our carbon use, regardless.

Money won't go into research and development when the current situation is economical. Alternative energy is decades away from being viable at the rate R&D is presently going.
 
We all have to cut our carbon use, regardless.

Money won't go into research and development when the current situation is economical. Alternative energy is decades away from being viable at the rate R&D is presently going.

your right as in the 70's billions is not enough, trillions are needed have fun funding it.
I don't have to cut my carbon at all!!!
 
My general rule of thumb for crap like this is listen to the people who were right. And ignore the people who were wrong. Dixie and his natural seepage cabal of dummies not only didn't see this coming, but they blabbed to the people of california and florida that offshore drilling would be a completely safe and excellent adventure.


I think we need to keep offshore drilling, to a feasible extent.

But, sometimes the dirty hippies are right. This offshore shit is problematic. And we need to revisit this and come up with a better system of safeguards.

Tell you what Cypress... since you are so obviously full of shit.... Please post one quote... just ONE.... that stated offshore drilling would be a completely safe and excellent adventure.

You are one of the biggest fucking morons this world has ever seen. Now... do the world (especially the women you like to stalk) a favor and go play in traffic.
 
On the plus side the only way we're going to get alternative energy is when the price of oil goes through the roof.

That is NOT a good thing for our economy. The reason interest goes up in alt energy when oil prices jump is that alt energy becomes more economically viable relative to oil. But it ALSO means that we all end up paying more for our energy use. Having the price of oil go up because we cut off supply (or potential supply) is ignorant.

If the government wants oil prices to jump, it should do it by ending the subsidies to oil companies.

If the government was truly interested in reducing oil consumption, it would make the shift to nat gas a national priority. Nat gas is cleaner and the tech is available NOW. We just need to build the infrastructure to handle the demand.
 
How great is that? When pressed, Yurtsie will concede that Bush's handling of Katrina wasn't "perfect."

Outstanding!

Everyone knows that Bush didn't do enough. I suspect if we were to compare the efforts Bush took to the efforts Obama has taken, we'd no doubt see how much greater Obama and his crack team of problem solvers are at crisis management.

Do you have a quick list of the things Obama has done?
We could easily list the stuff Bush did.
Nothing, right? Well, I mean he did nothing right, right?

So far I haven't seen Obama making much difference in this mess. He's like a motivational speaker and that's about it. It's our fault for turning the job into that, BTW, but usually, the media lends us a hand at shaking our sticks at the president. This time around, they are noticably absent from their regular post.
 
Remember the old song the dude upon getting caught "It wasn't me". Somebody needs to do a parody here with Obama blaming Bush for the darkness at night.
 
Back
Top