Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
WOW Ive ben gone for a few days and this thread turned into what I predictably knew it would, BOTL losing there minds and heads and postings that are the most absurd and Insane that I have ever seen.
Maybe putting OMAMA's head up on Mt. Rushmore would do it.......... Then all of the Lakota Tribes would band together and finish what they started when The White man ran them over and took their land and defaced the Sacred Black Hills with this Carving. ALthough I have been there many many times and it is AWES InSPiring and If your a True AMERICAN it will bring Tears to your EYES...... OBAMA's MUg up there will NEVER HAPPEN.
What a Beautiful Place
Maybe OBAMA could be Placed HERE
Devils Tower
Obama's head would not fit on either place, it's just way too big.
Laker, please explain how it makes any sense to allow the corrupt politicians who are bribeable to regulate corporations who you say do the bribing??? Isn't that like letting a chicken theif guard the coop? And how do you regulate government, you can't. You can shrink the size and thus the power of it, and as a conseqence the need to pass bribes through it becomes moot. More government is not the answer, it's the problem.
HOW SO?who said I wanted my head on there ! LOL Politics makes normal men that are cool IDIOTS!
We have been trying to get involved, they keep calling us names like Tea-baggers. They are not listening to what we are saying but they will soon enough. Also, believing all corporate entities are inherently evil is very naive.
Please, if you are going to respond, do so in a sincere manner. BOTH sides need to quit calling what they see as "the other side" names. Because you know what? While that is going on, the real sh it is hitting the fan and people are all busy thinking up new names to call the other side, instead of trying to find solutions. Some people would rather see the other side fail miserably then to have them actually do something just so they can have something to point a finger at and say see we told you so. What gives? Is this all really just a stupid game and we really don't care about what get's done, just as long as "our side" is in power while doing it? Too FU CKING sad, that is People are so easily distracted. Give them a shiny new toy and they think everything is just A-OK
well... this thread kinda went to ***. not sure i care to follow it anymore. nice pics of some national monuments though.
LMAO. Now that right there is some of the funniest sh it we will ever read on these forums. WOW. Sorry Kuzi. I FUC KIN HATE OBAMA TOO. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR GOOD REASON TO BUT I WANT TO BE PART OF THE CLUB !!! OK carry on fellas.
well... this thread kinda went to ***. not sure i care to follow it anymore. nice pics of some national monuments though.
LMAO. Now that right there is some of the funniest sh it we will ever read on these forums. WOW. Sorry Kuzi. I FUC KIN HATE OBAMA TOO. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR GOOD REASON TO BUT I WANT TO BE PART OF THE CLUB !!! OK carry on fellas.
LOL---Me too...and Laker even voted for the guy twice!!! I dont call teabaggers as a name to mock or poke fun, I simply see a great percent of their people as little more than what I am calling the name---a joke. As far as smaller govt., this is a lie the right wing has given us for the last 100 years, when EVERY administrtation...republican and democrat increases the size of govt. Business nor govt. can be left alone to govern themselves because of the tendancy toward greed before all. And the talking point for the right wing is to leave business alone f they arent infringing on the rights of others. This BP thing is an example of how not having any regulation, or wanting less oversight infringes on the rights of everyone to clean water, clean beaches (eventually), etc. However, the almighty dollar always prevails and the cost is always back on the people.
WOW Ive ben gone for a few days and this thread turned into what I predictably knew it would, BOTL losing there minds and heads and postings that are the most absurd and Insane that I have ever seen.
Maybe putting OMAMA's head up on Mt. Rushmore would do it.......... Then all of the Lakota Tribes would band together and finish what they started when The White man ran them over and took their land and defaced the Sacred Black Hills with this Carving. ALthough I have been there many many times and it is AWES InSPiring and If your a True AMERICAN it will bring Tears to your EYES...... OBAMA's MUg up there will NEVER HAPPEN.
What a Beautiful Place
Maybe OBAMA could be Placed HERE
Devils Tower
Great pics, Oz. My wife has the exact same dress as your wife is wearing in the first pic! Small world!
Guns don't kill people, Daddies with pretty daughters do…..
Hey Laker...when it is all said and done I think you have simmered it down to what it is really about. Once all the name calling and pontificating is over...are we any better off. And the saddest part of all is just as you stated, sitting back watiting for someting to point a finger at and disagree with...it just isn't working for us anymore. Finding solutions....wishful thinking.
WOW Ive ben gone for a few days and this thread turned into what I predictably knew it would, BOTL losing there minds and heads and postings that are the most absurd and Insane that I have ever seen.
Maybe putting OMAMA's head up on Mt. Rushmore would do it.......... Then all of the Lakota Tribes would band together and finish what they started when The White man ran them over and took their land and defaced the Sacred Black Hills with this Carving. ALthough I have been there many many times and it is AWES InSPiring and If your a True AMERICAN it will bring Tears to your EYES...... OBAMA's MUg up there will NEVER HAPPEN.
What a Beautiful Place
Maybe OBAMA could be Placed HERE
Devils Tower
Great pics, Oz. My wife has the exact same dress as your wife is wearing in the first pic! Small world!
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Puro, we DO agree that this is partially the responsibility of government for not enacting, or requiring BP to uphold certain regulations or safety standards. I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment. One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter. Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault? If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Puro, we DO agree that this is partially the responsibility of government for not enacting, or requiring BP to uphold certain regulations or safety standards. I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment. One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter. Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault? If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
I've said it before, but I'll explain this one more time... This wasn't caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by the government doing special favors for people and superseding regulations that were in place to prevent this kind of action. As far as BP not being held responsible for the cost of the clean up, that is directly due to a bad government regulation. There is nothing here that was the result of deregulation. This was cause directly by political corruption and bad government regulation. You can twist the words around and spin it any way you want, but the facts remain that the government is just as much to blame for this whole deal as BP is.
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Puro, we DO agree that this is partially the responsibility of government for not enacting, or requiring BP to uphold certain regulations or safety standards. I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment. One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter. Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault? If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
I've said it before, but I'll explain this one more time... This wasn't caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by the government doing special favors for people and superseding regulations that were in place to prevent this kind of action. As far as BP not being held responsible for the cost of the clean up, that is directly due to a bad government regulation. There is nothing here that was the result of deregulation. This was cause directly by political corruption and bad government regulation. You can twist the words around and spin it any way you want, but the facts remain that the government is just as much to blame for this whole deal as BP is.
You forgot to add "In my opinion", or do you know something we don't?
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Puro, we DO agree that this is partially the responsibility of government for not enacting, or requiring BP to uphold certain regulations or safety standards. I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment. One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter. Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault? If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
I've said it before, but I'll explain this one more time... This wasn't caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by the government doing special favors for people and superseding regulations that were in place to prevent this kind of action. As far as BP not being held responsible for the cost of the clean up, that is directly due to a bad government regulation. There is nothing here that was the result of deregulation. This was cause directly by political corruption and bad government regulation. You can twist the words around and spin it any way you want, but the facts remain that the government is just as much to blame for this whole deal as BP is.
You forgot to add "In my opinion", or do you know something we don't?
Cabby, you are double posting for some reason. Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me. Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy. I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected. I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed. Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more. The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing? Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two. I am now stepping down from my soap-box
To start with, I'd like to say hey Ozzy... DAMN! Yea, she is hot! I noticed that as soon as I saw the pics you posted! Lucky son of a...%$#%&
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
Puro, we DO agree that this is partially the responsibility of government for not enacting, or requiring BP to uphold certain regulations or safety standards. I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment. One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter. Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault? If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
I've said it before, but I'll explain this one more time... This wasn't caused by lack of regulation. It was caused by the government doing special favors for people and superseding regulations that were in place to prevent this kind of action. As far as BP not being held responsible for the cost of the clean up, that is directly due to a bad government regulation. There is nothing here that was the result of deregulation. This was cause directly by political corruption and bad government regulation. You can twist the words around and spin it any way you want, but the facts remain that the government is just as much to blame for this whole deal as BP is.
You forgot to add "In my opinion", or do you know something we don't?
No, just something you refuse to admit.
You have shown NO PROOF of ANYTHING you have said. So this has ALL been your opinion Puro, and because I don't agree with it does NOT make me wrong Puro. That "You just refuse to admit it " statement is likely the most arrogant thing you've managed to say here. Wow, pretty impressive discussion skills you got there Puro.(shaking head)
I have a question for you Puro. Have you ever arrested a Bank robber BEFORE he robbed the Bank? No? Because that is what your position is regarding the politicians and in this case the BP businessmen. You would have us believe that it was the politicians who went to BP and proposed that they cut corners and take such a careless approach to bringing this well in. The politicians did / do play their part, but the corporations like BP are NOT to be excused and have their blame piled onto the politicians (Democrat) plates. It is they who ask for special "work arounds".
I know it takes years for these types of project to get the go ahead . I wonder if it was the Obama administration ALONE who had a hand in this? Or are they guilty of not checking past agreements made under the last administration? Anyone know for sure. Not looking for an opinion on this question.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
he wasnt brought up on drug charges?
haha dont be silly. not in this country.
he was probably offered a chance to go to rehab as opposed to any prosecution, which he probably would have taken and then not bothered turning up for it.
Yeah man. I was born and raised in Greenock Scotland. Only moved over here 5 years ago. Not only will the addict get off, but he will get disability payments as well as the unemploment. Its sucks hairy baws.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
he wasnt brought up on drug charges?
haha dont be silly. not in this country.
he was probably offered a chance to go to rehab as opposed to any prosecution, which he probably would have taken and then not bothered turning up for it.
Yeah man. I was born and raised in Greenock Scotland. Only moved over here 5 years ago. Not only will the addict get off, but he will get disability payments as well as the unemploment. Its sucks hairy baws.
i might be joining you over there soon;)
im getting into practical pistol shooting, ipsc. and fancy doing it properly so will need to be close to a proper range.
that little *** was on unemployment anyway, as are all of his family, they are a family of spongers living off the state.(they used to live next door but one to me)
the government will support this lot , and there lifestyle, while letting pensioners die in their houses who cant afford heating in the winter.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
he wasnt brought up on drug charges?
haha dont be silly. not in this country.
he was probably offered a chance to go to rehab as opposed to any prosecution, which he probably would have taken and then not bothered turning up for it.
What are your thoughts about your new PM?
he only got in as he was deemed the lesser of two evils and managed to strike a deal with a party that shares none of its values but who had no chance of getting any power without selling out and forming the coalition.
if people stopped thinking that voting for the 'smaller' parties was a wasted vote lib/lab/con would be a thing of the past and we would see a completely differnt gov. a party like ukip stands no chance of getting in at the moment with the current voting system, however if you have a look at ukip on youtube everything they stand for is for the good of the country, and is common sense.
you guys should be grateful you don't live in the uk.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
he wasnt brought up on drug charges?
haha dont be silly. not in this country.
he was probably offered a chance to go to rehab as opposed to any prosecution, which he probably would have taken and then not bothered turning up for it.
What are your thoughts about your new PM?
he only got in as he was deemed the lesser of two evils and managed to strike a deal with a party that shares none of its values but who had no chance of getting any power without selling out and forming the coalition.
if people stopped thinking that voting for the 'smaller' parties was a wasted vote lib/lab/con would be a thing of the past and we would see a completely differnt gov. a party like ukip stands no chance of getting in at the moment with the current voting system, however if you have a look at ukip on youtube everything they stand for is for the good of the country, and is common sense.
That sounds extremely frustrating. I suppose most governments have an aversion to common sense.
Comments
Can you show me where I said more government was the answer? Please don't put an arguement into my mouth and then argue against it. Or I will just sit back and see how you do argueing against yourself, not me.
Several of you guys have said on these forums that the burden of regulations placed on companies only adds to costs to the consumer, and increases the need for more buracracy.
I was trying to point out the difference between a regulated system and a largely unregulated system(despite what Kuzi and other would have you believe about the amount of regulation in the US) and what the posible outcomes of the two systems might be expected.
I will state as clearly as I can here that MORE regulations on both government AND BIG BUSINESS is a good thing IMO. Both of these entities need to have their powers curbed.
Only going after one side as advocated (the government) here is only tilting the playing feild that much more.
The govenrment needs to be regulated, restricted, call it what you want, so that they do not continue to grow needlessly while spending our money in areas where they should not be venturing.China has a very unregulated free market system, as far as manufacturing of goods goes. That is a perfect example of what happens in a system left unregulated and driven by profit. THAT IS WHAT IS TANTMONT TO LEAVING THE WOLF ZTO GAURD THE HEN HOUSE. Is that what you guy's think is a good thing?
Shrinking the size of government is only effective to a point. Making governments accountable to the people once again is what we should be concerning ourselves with. If they are accountable to the people as they should be, then things like the size of government would be taken care of automatically, as needed. People NEED to get involved in all levels of government, and THEN you will have a chance to see what effective government looks like. There is no balance in the system today, and that causes people to lose faith that they can effect change and also enboldens corporations to push politicians further and further all the time. Or failing that, they can always buy one or two.
I am now stepping down from my soap-box
HOW SO?who said I wanted my head on there ! LOL Politics makes normal men that are cool IDIOTS!
People are so easily distracted. Give them a shiny new toy and they think everything is just A-OK
this thread kinda went to ***. not sure i care to follow it anymore. nice pics of some national monuments though.
Thanks not to mention my Hot ass WIfe ! LOL
damn
Sorry Kuzi. I FUC KIN HATE OBAMA TOO. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OR GOOD REASON TO BUT I WANT TO BE PART OF THE CLUB !!!
OK carry on fellas.
"Long ashes my friends."
She is Definatley my National Monument!
Cool! and yes it is a small world!
Now, I'm going to try to get back on the topic at hand even with the big distraction we have going here! lol Laker, the funny thing to me is that you and I see the same problem, but have two totally different solutions to it. I understand what your saying when you talk about regulating the companies like BP, but in the case of your article you posted, it wasn't about deregulation at all. What cause BP to be absolved of any responsibility wasn't due to deregulation, it was actually due to a very poorly planned out regulation. The government wrote and created a law which gave them an insurance policy basically so they wouldn't have to be held accountable. I've never ever ever ever said there should be no regulation. That would be absurd. I believe the government does over regulate business however and it hurts the economy in many ways. The biggest problem I see if the federal government. After all it was the federal government (aka the Obama Administration) who allowed BP to be exempt from putting a check valve in place that could have prevented this disaster. The safety regulations stated that this valve was supposed to be in place, but they received a free pass. I'm not saying it was due to a bride, but it's a bit suspicious when the large majority of BP's political contributions went to the Obama Campaign during the 08 elections.
I just feel that if we limit the governments power to do these special "favors" for people and make them stick to their job of protecting everyone's rights, then there will be no way for these corporations to run the government. You said yourself that politicians are greedy and will sell their souls for a dollar, well if they don't have to power to grant favors, there is no way to feed their greed. It's not that I want my side to win and anyone's side to lose, I just see this a better more practical solution. It addresses the root of the problem, which is greed among politicians. Too many times I feel the anger some people project at corporations is misplaced and solely based on emotion. This just seems like a more practical solution to me.
I can't agree with you that because the government is TOO big or TOO powerful that this is what is the cause. BP as a company made a decision to try and extract oil from their deep sea well as cheaply and quickly as possible. It was they who approached the government for work arounds and it HAS TO BE BP's responsibility to attempt to do this job in a safe and effective manner to protect life and the environment.
One could argue that if the government was powerful enough, that they would stand up to a company like BP to ensure the right thing is always done. This is where the human factor comes into this. There is pl;enty of greed to go around in this world and because of it sometimes things don't get done the proper way. How do you fix that? Simple... regulations. If say the government were to draft a set of regulations which were (in this case) for the purpose of explaining how a company would be expected to bring in an oil well to satisfy all health and safety concerns. It doesn't matter how many regs. there are as long as the proceedure is spelled out in a manner which is clear and EVERY company which was asking for permits to drill would be expected to follow these proceedures to the letter.
Now if thse regulations were drawn out by experts in the field for the government, and then these were applied across the board for all companies to rely on in the future, you have a situation where regulations are actually something which is good. It levels the playing field for all involved and it gives the population greater safety margins and ensures that things are done properly in the first place which will hopefully lead to fewer or none of these types of absolutely avoidable accidents happening again. I believe that proper regulations, not just restrictive regulations should be in place for all resource extraction activities. I wonder if BP still thinks it was worth the risk of trying to save some more $$$ for shareholders? Surely this clean-up will cost them more then placing the proper equipment and using proper proceedures in the first place would have. How does THAT become Obama or any other politicians fault?
If you can please explain to me how regulations caused this and how dumping these regulations would have avoided this situation, I will read it hungrily.
I have a question for you Puro. Have you ever arrested a Bank robber BEFORE he robbed the Bank? No?
Because that is what your position is regarding the politicians and in this case the BP businessmen. You would have us believe that it was the politicians who went to BP and proposed that they cut corners and take such a careless approach to bringing this well in. The politicians did / do play their part, but the corporations like BP are NOT to be excused and have their blame piled onto the politicians (Democrat) plates. It is they who ask for special "work arounds".
I know it takes years for these types of project to get the go ahead . I wonder if it was the Obama administration ALONE who had a hand in this? Or are they guilty of not checking past agreements made under the last administration? Anyone know for sure. Not looking for an opinion on this question.
a country that recently threatened a 95 year old women with prosecution for putting a plastic lid in the rubbish (or trash as your guys call it:p) as opposed to recycling it.
but wont lock up someone who's committed a proper crime, like recently down the road from me a guy i went to school with attached an old lady and tried to steal here bag, he was let off as he said he was a heroin addict and had no choice.
don't get me started on the bunch of lying, thieving pieces of *** we call a government.
haha dont be silly. not in this country.
he was probably offered a chance to go to rehab as opposed to any prosecution, which he probably would have taken and then not bothered turning up for it.
Its sucks hairy baws.
im getting into practical pistol shooting, ipsc. and fancy doing it properly so will need to be close to a proper range.
that little *** was on unemployment anyway, as are all of his family, they are a family of spongers living off the state.(they used to live next door but one to me)
the government will support this lot , and there lifestyle, while letting pensioners die in their houses who cant afford heating in the winter.
if people stopped thinking that voting for the 'smaller' parties was a wasted vote lib/lab/con would be a thing of the past and we would see a completely differnt gov. a party like ukip stands no chance of getting in at the moment with the current voting system, however if you have a look at ukip on youtube everything they stand for is for the good of the country, and is common sense.