You know... the more I read your answers the less I understand their logic.
It seems to me that when you start talking about relief wells having or not having rights (where in He ll did that come from?) you have strecthed your logic to or just slightly past the breaking point. So rather then keep repeating points, which instead of answering, you just turn around on me I will not bother to continue what has turned very silly IMO. I am comfortable with the points I have made, and will leave it there.
My point about the seatbelts and such was made to show that people accept regulations all the time, in every facet of their life. They accept these because they accept that there was a good reason for them in the first place. I doubt governments pass regulations just to screw with business. It is for control, and to avoid irresponsible companies from doing damges such as we are seeing now.
Forcing a company to pay for clean-up and whatever other punishments or restitution which is in order, rather then trying to prevent the situation in the first place is backwards thinking IMO and grants a higher level of rights to a company then to individuals, as their right to cause these types of situations as long as they pay for clean=up trumps the individuals rights to not have these type of incidences from happening in the first place thru regulation in your opinion. You may be comfortable with that, I will never be, nor do I suspect either of us will convince the other that we are right.
Ok Kuzi---Ill retort publically to your attack on me as well, why not. Im tired of your pretentious viewpoints and your feelings of superiority. You criticize and demean others as much as anyone, and you constantly throw you opinion into things just to try and flaunt yourself. i.e. you credit card post about you great credit, your Gurhka post about the great cigars you have but done want to trade (even though the guy was asking for traders, etc). Call me racist if you want, frankly I dont give a f*ck. Dont compare a group of likemined people to an entire race, and dont bring race into it like you tell me----and espcially not Jews because you are Jewish and are trying to label me as a person of hate and make my statement personally toward you. You infuriate me more than anyone on this board and it amazes me how often you try to pump your own knowledge and interject your self-righteous opinions on things and are never called out on it. You're every bit as hard headed and unbending as I am on about every issue, but just make posts that are 7 pages long with attempts to be eloquent and verbose as a way to disguise your condescending attitude and belief you and only you are correct on anything. Spare me the lecture or the critique and save it for someone give gives a flying ****.
And please do not think i am throwing Squirrel under the bus here, but he did say teabagger as well in a post just yesterday. So please stop attacking me individually as though I am the great demon. If you look at this any many may posts I am rather logical and though out, but I do sometimes resort to sarcasm and humor because when I am faced with the absurd I sometimes respond absurdly.
It seems to me that when you start talking about relief wells having or not having rights (where in He ll did that come from?) you have strecthed your logic to or just slightly past the breaking point.
the wells are inanimate objects. they do not have rights. nor do they impact right if they exist or not. my point is objects do not violate rights. People do. BP violated rights, not the lack of relief wells.
laker1963:
My point about the seatbelts and such was made to show that people accept regulations all the time, in every facet of their life. They accept these because they accept that there was a good reason for them in the first place. I doubt governments pass regulations just to screw with business. It is for control, and to avoid irresponsible companies from doing damges such as we are seeing now.
seat belts are a good idea. i agree with that. mandating that you have them on it another issue.
laker1963:
Forcing a company to pay for clean-up and whatever other punishments or restitution which is in order, rather then trying to prevent the situation in the first place is backwards thinking IMO and grants a higher level of rights to a company then to individuals, as their right to cause these types of situations as long as they pay for clean=up trumps the individuals rights to not have these type of incidences from happening in the first place thru regulation in your opinion.
no, first its the same rights as individuals. If i personally go out and cause a major oil spill (not sure how i would but to make a point) i should be punished the same way BP should be.
the punishment should be harsh enough that drilling relief wells/having good practices in general would be a no brainer.
laker1963:
You may be comfortable with that, I will never be, nor do I suspect either of us will convince the other that we are right.
i am comfortable with upholding the rights of the individual.
Ok Kuzi---Ill retort publically to your attack on me as well, why not. Im tired of your pretentious viewpoints and your feelings of superiority. You criticize and demean others as much as anyone, and you constantly throw you opinion into things just to try and flaunt yourself. i.e. you credit card post about you great credit, your Gurhka post about the great cigars you have but done want to trade (even though the guy was asking for traders, etc). Call me racist if you want, frankly I dont give a f*ck. Dont compare a group of likemined people to an entire race, and dont bring race into it like you tell me----and espcially not Jews because you are Jewish and are trying to label me as a person of hate and make my statement personally toward you.
i used that particular racial slur as an example because you can chose to be Jewish, much like you can chose to be in the tea party movement. its is a group of people bound together by a way of life and a line of thinking, not a skin color.
Vulchor:
You infuriate me more than anyone on this board and it amazes me how often you try to pump your own knowledge and interject your self-righteous opinions on things and are never called out on it. You're every bit as hard headed and unbending as I am on about every issue, but just make posts that are 7 pages long with attempts to be eloquent and verbose as a way to disguise your condescending attitude and belief you and only you are correct on anything. Spare me the lecture or the critique and save it for someone give gives a flying ****.
if you dont care, why bother to retort?
Vulchor:
And please do not think i am throwing Squirrel under the bus here, but he did say teabagger as well in a post just yesterday. So please stop attacking me individually as though I am the great demon. If you look at this any many may posts I am rather logical and though out, but I do sometimes resort to sarcasm and humor because when I am faced with the absurd I sometimes respond absurdly.
i missed that post by the squirrel. i do not read every post on the forum.
on the posts where you do respond with logic i respond with logic as well. when you do it you are in a debate, but when i do it you tell me that i am interjecting my opinion where it is unwanted.
you are attempting to villanize my opinion because i feel that it better than yours. you know what? you feel your opinion is better than mine. and thats ok. thats what a debate is all about. the difference here is you seem unable to handle that because it angers you so much to see someone that has courage in their conviction and is willing to speak up about it in a well thought out way using large words and written in an "eloquent" way (as you put it)
i will never feel bad for voicing my opinion. i will never back down from supporting the rights of the individual.
Once again you think that govt is at the heart of lack of ethics and greed.... Shows your mindset.
there is a lack of ethics and greed in the government. there is in corporations too. you thinking government can fix everything shows your mindset.
phobicsquirrel:
Paying off congress is just the way they do it and that is where all their excess profit comes into play.
an ethical and not greedy congress would not except bribes.
Yes I agree, both have massive greed. But looking at how things are currently set up why wouldn't they take money? Look at it this way, it costs upwards to 250,000 dollars to run for congress, maybe even more before you get either committee to put money on you. Not to mention the amount of money that corporations (even more now, since the supreme court ruling) can throw at you, either for or against. However some senators/congresspeople do it right like peter defiasio & bernie sanders (those are the only ones who I can think of right now). But you also have corporations throwing more money at both parties if they think they will win. Like the 08 race, maccain got more money but obama did too as they were betting on both. That way they could come back later and say, well we helped you. Now if they do that and say obama really hits them hard over this spill, come early 2010 they can spend unlimited money on blasting him over tv/radio/and any other media outlet. More than likely he'd lose. That is why campaign finance reform needs fixed and why the supreme court f-d up the situation more. Sure it's great for little business's but hell, you have these huge companies, most aren't even US companies gets multi million dollars to throw at their big wigs not to mention the record PROFITS they get- mind you while taking most jobs from the US. It's all connected bud.
You say that bp should be punished, and that now the govt should step in, but if regulations would have been followed, if the mms had done their job and congress actually had stricter practices than it would have never happened. Canada has a rule that relief wells have to be used and Brazil has a law that relief valves have to be used. Other countries have the same if not stricter rules. Bottom line is regulations were broken and because of it this country is facing hell. Just like every other aspect from Wall Street, drug companies. There are 57 or so democrats in the senate, 2 independents which one is basically not on the D's side and you have several dozen dems who are basically republicans. The republicans won't do anything but hold up votes or block anything. Even things they were for. They f'd up the stimulus bill because they wanted so many tax cuts, which wasn't part of the first draft because the vote was needed. They've blocked over 200 bills!!! They stand in the way at every corner. I know your not a republican but you have to wonder wtf?
Sure it looks like there's a majority for dems but really there isn't. One of the first things Rep's said was they wanted Obama to fail. That says it right there. They brought this country on its knees and now when things need to be done to keep it afloat they sit on their hands. Sure I don't agree with everything Obama wants to do, F-Uck I think it's nuts to make nuclear reactors and clean coal. But why not surpass China on solar and wind production? Why not invest in hydro plants all around the US. You could power the entire country combining all of these. Sure it would cost a lot but get out of the 2 wars which bush started, which passed 1 trilion dollars already, stop this shi-t-ty war on drugs, and fix the damn country's infrastructure, and get us out of this oil death trap. Besides we don't even get the oil from our own WELLS!
It's interesting, apparently a majority of teabaggers or at least who say they are true teabaggers are:
* 88% of Tea Party supporters approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona.
* Only 18% of those surveyed say gay and *** couples should have the legal right to marry.
* 73% of Tea Party backers disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries. [University of Washington poll include]
Now lets see, let's hunt people instead of the people hiring them, that's making sense! Though they seem to think that people should get married if they want, which is good. But oh no, let's not engage Muslim countries in our effort to combat radicals of that region... so dumb.
Also apparently Bush had this to say while speaking to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich,
if he had it to do over, he would still waterboard the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks; then he went on to say "was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him." - Interesting since going there cost thousands of lives and was an unwarranted attack into a country with no evidence. I think the world would have been better if Bush wasn't in this world.
now I know that got so much information but here's the thing, he just admitted to breaking us law and international law!!! So where is the handcuffs? Where is the justice? Wow. I would put this to question, why not put all those people are so for torture to have it done to themselves first? Now if they want to do it then I wouldn't question it. Though I do think it's wrong. Plus torture isn't exactly the most compelling form of interrogation. Because someone always knows more than what they just said.... I wonder why no one asks Bush, why didn't you act on all those briefs and alerts from the FBI, CIA, UK branches of security about attacks on our country and the use of planes? Hmmm.... oh no we can't question a republican president. Especially when they admit they tortured!!!
My point about the seatbelts and such was made to show that people accept regulations all the time, in every facet of their life. They accept these because they accept that there was a good reason for them in the first place. I doubt governments pass regulations just to screw with business. It is for control, and to avoid irresponsible companies from doing damges such as we are seeing now.
seat belts are a good idea. i agree with that. mandating that you have them on it another issue.
laker1963:
Forcing a company to pay for clean-up and whatever other punishments or restitution which is in order, rather then trying to prevent the situation in the first place is backwards thinking IMO and grants a higher level of rights to a company then to individuals, as their right to cause these types of situations as long as they pay for clean=up trumps the individuals rights to not have these type of incidences from happening in the first place thru regulation in your opinion.
no, first its the same rights as individuals. If i personally go out and cause a major oil spill (not sure how i would but to make a point) i should be punished the same way BP should be.
the punishment should be harsh enough that drilling relief wells/having good practices in general would be a no brainer.
laker1963:
You may be comfortable with that, I will never be, nor do I suspect either of us will convince the other that we are right.
i am comfortable with upholding the rights of the individual.
I agree kuzi, I think seatbelts being mandatory is wrong but then again it all has to do with cost of insurance (though I believe that if someone isn't wearing their seatbelt they forgo any insurance claim and medical cost) and medical services. Though you say you are for individual rights but if there weren't laws enacted to protect individuals where would they get that protection? True, they are getting shorter and shorter but if there were none where would they get it? Protecting people would have been a good thing before BP broke their limit on drilling depths and causing this spill which killed 11 people and probably will kill hundreds more due to the chemicals being used not to mention the damage to our waters. Oh and what about all the regulations that were not enforced that caused the financial meltdown that put milions of people out of work and destroyed our economy (even way before the 08 crash- pushing our jobs over seas!!).
Oh btw TEABAGGER is not a racial slur. It's a term used for a sex act but also for someone who wears tea bags on their heads. Maybe they should have thought about that before they used it....
"With [environmentalists'] nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.
Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it."
So this is who some people thought would make a good president or vice president? Well at least Cheney wasn't so open...
Ok Kuzi---Ill retort publically to your attack on me as well, why not. Im tired of your pretentious viewpoints and your feelings of superiority. You criticize and demean others as much as anyone, and you constantly throw you opinion into things just to try and flaunt yourself. i.e. you credit card post about you great credit, your Gurhka post about the great cigars you have but done want to trade (even though the guy was asking for traders, etc). Call me racist if you want, frankly I dont give a f*ck. Dont compare a group of likemined people to an entire race, and dont bring race into it like you tell me----and espcially not Jews because you are Jewish and are trying to label me as a person of hate and make my statement personally toward you.
i used that particular racial slur as an example because you can chose to be Jewish, much like you can chose to be in the tea party movement. its is a group of people bound together by a way of life and a line of thinking, not a skin color.
Vulchor:
You infuriate me more than anyone on this board and it amazes me how often you try to pump your own knowledge and interject your self-righteous opinions on things and are never called out on it. You're every bit as hard headed and unbending as I am on about every issue, but just make posts that are 7 pages long with attempts to be eloquent and verbose as a way to disguise your condescending attitude and belief you and only you are correct on anything. Spare me the lecture or the critique and save it for someone give gives a flying ****.
if you dont care, why bother to retort?
Vulchor:
And please do not think i am throwing Squirrel under the bus here, but he did say teabagger as well in a post just yesterday. So please stop attacking me individually as though I am the great demon. If you look at this any many may posts I am rather logical and though out, but I do sometimes resort to sarcasm and humor because when I am faced with the absurd I sometimes respond absurdly.
i missed that post by the squirrel. i do not read every post on the forum.
on the posts where you do respond with logic i respond with logic as well. when you do it you are in a debate, but when i do it you tell me that i am interjecting my opinion where it is unwanted.
you are attempting to villanize my opinion because i feel that it better than yours. you know what? you feel your opinion is better than mine. and thats ok. thats what a debate is all about. the difference here is you seem unable to handle that because it angers you so much to see someone that has courage in their conviction and is willing to speak up about it in a well thought out way using large words and written in an "eloquent" way (as you put it)
i will never feel bad for voicing my opinion. i will never back down from supporting the rights of the individual.
The individual company you mean, cause your hate of regulation, and your belief that companies should have the right to carry out business without regulation DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but jepordize the rights of "the individual" regardless of what you declare regarding your feeling surrounding people's individual rights. That statment conflicts completely with your stated view on regulating companies. You can't have it both ways Kuzi.
Oh btw TEABAGGER is not a racial slur. It's a term used for a sex act but also for someone who wears tea bags on their heads. Maybe they should have thought about that before they used it....
but it is offensive, and your statement here shows that you recognize that. it is an offensive nickname for a group of people that have are joined by a belief that you dont personally subscribe to. it is used to degrade that group. they used a teabag in a way that was no way associated with the sex act. this was a derogatory play on words created by those who dont agree with them. according to dictionary.com a racial slur is " a derogatory or disrespectful nickname for a racial group, used without restraint " the only difference is that this is a group not defined by their skin color, but by what they believe. as mentioned before, things like "***," "towel head," "Gin jockey," "Goyum," or "Pikey" are all slurs that are used to degrade people that believe in (or dont believe in) things the way the user of the slur does. this is why i lump the word "teabagger" in with that. if you feel that you are ok with discriminating against and degrading people because you have a different opinion than them, by all means. i cant stop you nor would i try. just please understand how offensive you are being and how much respect you may lose by using those words.
phobicsquirrel:
and what about all the regulations that were not enforced that caused the financial meltdown that put milions of people out of work and destroyed our economy
you already know my opinion on why the meld down happened and that i believe that regulation helped play a roll in the meltdown. of course, this is not what you are asking about. you are asking about the relationship between the banking sector and the government when laws that were on the books were broken.... as far as i can tell, the government is having a difficult time pinning it on people. they are trying. it seems to be a tough thing for government to grasp at this moment.
generally speaking, if banks actually violated rights, regardless of if regulation promoted them to do it or not, the banks should be punished accordingly. if they didnt violate rights, they should not be punished. if there are regulations that violate rights, they shouldnt be on the books. if there are regulations that force banks to violate rights, they shouldnt be on the books.
The individual company you mean, cause your hate of regulation, and your belief that companies should have the right to carry out business without regulation DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but jepordize the rights of "the individual" regardless of what you declare regarding your feeling surrounding people's individual rights. That statment conflicts completely with your stated view on regulating companies. You can't have it both ways Kuzi.
i am not against regulation of any kind. i am against regulation that violates the rights of individuals. Companies are owned by individuals, or groups of individuals. they have a right to run their company as they see fit, providing that they do not violate the rights of others. the proper amount of regulation the government should hand down should be in upholding the rights of the individual. my statemens do not conflict. every individual has equal rights, including those who run corporations. as soon as one of those individuals violates the rights of others (weather they are associated with a corporation or not) that person should be subject to the courts so justice can be served.
"With [environmentalists'] nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.
Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it."
So this is who some people thought would make a good president or vice president? Well at least Cheney wasn't so open...
phobic, im not clear on what your exact beef here is... could you explain you position a bit on this statement?
These chemicals are very bad, and BP doesn't care and the fed's aren't making them stop. This is what is so infuriating.
im not a chemist... so im not sure how bad those chemicals are.... however, i am inclined to agree that they are bad.
i am in the restaurant industry. one thing that i use on a daily basis (and im not sure would work here) is an enzyme product that is 100% eco-friendly that is designed break down oils and grease in a safe way. im not sure why they wouldnt be using that. again, we have established that BP is stupid, and may have extended (with the use of these chemicals) the violation of rights of the people this will effect. again this should be punished.
this, i feel, is a slightly different case than the "relief wells" regulation argument. the chemicals are proven deadly. there is no way that when used correctly they will not violate rights. that is a problem.
Quotefrom Kuzi
"i am in the restaurant industry. one thing that i use on a daily basis (and im not sure would work here) is an enzyme product that is 100% eco-friendly that is designed break down oils and grease in a safe way. im not sure why they wouldnt be using that." end quote
Eco-Safe, a company in Florida that uses just such a concoction to clean up different kinds of oils on land wants to help with the spill but the EPA has not approved it's use ( A classic example of fed regulation that is now hindering a reasonable solution that could save the marshes). It emulsifies oil and breaks it down into a harmless solution.
Kuzi, again lecturing someone on how much respect they may lose-----how great it must be to always have the moral high ground. Speaking of always having the moral high ground in their own minds, lets go check out the Isreali thread too.
Kuzi, again lecturing someone on how much respect they may lose-----how great it must be to always have the moral high ground.
do you see the hypocrisy of your post? i tell someone that i have lost a bit of respect because they have been disrespectful, then you you give a sarcastic remark that shows your disrespect for me for doing so.
do you see how funny that is?
but on a slightly more serious note... i do try my best (yet still fail because i am only human) to live as moral a life as i can. i do try my best to be consistent with my beliefs. so if you are accusing me of "taking the moral high ground" --even if thats a sarcastic comment -- even if you believe it is only in my head --even if you disagree with my position, it is something that i am not ashamed of. i would rather try my damnedest to be as moral as i am able then to say "*** it" and cast morals to the side. i cannot, and will not force others to have this as a goal in life. to do so would be an unreasonable expectation so long as others do not infringe on the rights of others, they can chose to live their lives as they see fit -- being offensive included.
Or infringe on the rights of big business----cause they are individuals too.
the people that own and run businesses are individuals as well. they too have rights. as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, i am ok with them.
Or infringe on the rights of big business----cause they are individuals too.
the people that own and run businesses are individuals as well. they too have rights. as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, i am ok with them.
Your position seems to be that these individuals have the right to violate (in this case) everyone along the gulf coast, possibly Florida, Cuba, States up the Eastern Seaboard and possibly parts of the east coast of Canada. As long as they clean up the mess, like was done in Alaska. Of course Exxon bailed years before the cleanup was done, and the oil is still on the beaches, just below the rocks. It seems clean from the surface so good enough for the individuals from Exxon. Swept under the rug so to speak.
In the gulf spill, the vast majority of the oil is under water and may continue to wash up in all the areas mentioned for years. I am just as sure as Kuzi that the good 'ol individuals from BP will be there for the long haul and all those affected by this spill will be just as happy with the clean up as those in Alaska.
And if you believe that... I have some beautiful (at one time) wetlands property for sale in Louisiana, cheap, cheap, cheap. Any takers. LMAo
Or infringe on the rights of big business----cause they are individuals too.
the people that own and run businesses are individuals as well. they too have rights. as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, i am ok with them.
Your position seems to be that these individuals have the right to violate (in this case) everyone along the gulf coast, possibly Florida, Cuba, States up the Eastern Seaboard and possibly parts of the east coast of Canada. As long as they clean up the mess, like was done in Alaska.
no. how many times do i have to say that no individual, group, or entity has the right to violate the rights of anybody else? i dont understand what you are missing here. nobody can violate the rights of others. they did violate rights. they should be punished.
where the heck are you getting that i think they have a right to violate rights? i have never said that. i have said numerous times in numerous threads that every individual has a right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others BP violated rights. they should not be aloud to get away with it.
EDIT: the problem with crime is that before it happens, no rights have been violated. after it happens rights have been violated. its like murder. murder is illegal. does this stop murder? according to you io am saying that people have the right to murder as long as they go to jail afterwords. there is no right to violate the rights of others. since murderers have violated rights they should be punished. before they were murderers, they have not violated rights. how can we punish people that have not violated rights?
Or infringe on the rights of big business----cause they are individuals too.
the people that own and run businesses are individuals as well. they too have rights. as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, i am ok with them.
Your position seems to be that these individuals have the right to violate (in this case) everyone along the gulf coast, possibly Florida, Cuba, States up the Eastern Seaboard and possibly parts of the east coast of Canada. As long as they clean up the mess, like was done in Alaska.
no. how many times do i have to say that no individual, group, or entity has the right to violate the rights of anybody else? i dont understand what you are missing here. nobody can violate the rights of others. they did violate rights. they should be punished.
where the heck are you getting that i think they have a right to violate rights? i have never said that. i have said numerous times in numerous threads that every individual has a right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others BP violated rights. they should not be aloud to get away with it.
Kuzi, it stands to reason that if you don't think that BP should be required to uphold regulations which would have forced them to put in relief wells which could have stopped all this over a month ago... then you must feel they have the right to violate other individual rights as long as they clean up their mess. You have stated this postion over and over, you just don't like the way it sounds when it is put into accurate terms. You keep saying nobody has the right to violate others rights but you ALSo say that BP should not be regulated. If you can't see how this equates to allowing BP to carry on business in a haphazard, negligant way then we can just go on repeating ourselves over and over. I will be here to state my case for as long as you want to keep repeating yourself.
You are hiding behind your words and I am only pointing out what the reperrcussions of your position is. The oil in the gulf supports my arguement, what have you got, by way of proof, not just your opinion of this perfect non-regulated world?
sorry about the bad edit. I didnt see you were still on. if i had i woulda made a new post.
Yup, picking apart anothers post and only reproducing certain points is not in good taste, IMO. One might think you were avoiding certain remarks while responding to the ones you are comfortable answering. If a person is being quoted, the WHOLE quote should be included not snippets of it. Not a fair way to discuss any issue, IMO. In this case, I really would like to see a response to my whole quote, please?
Kuzi, it stands to reason that if you don't think that BP should be required to uphold regulations which would have forced them to put in relief wells which could have stopped all this over a month ago... then you must feel they have the right to violate other individual rights as long as they clean up their mess. You have stated this postion over and over, you just don't like the way it sounds when it is put into accurate terms.
again sorry about the bad edit above... that edit covers this a bit.
laker1963:
You keep saying nobody has the right to violate others rights but you ALSo say that BP should not be regulated.
correct. regulating BP to drill relief wells violates BPs right to run their company as they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the spill is the issue here. the wells are a side point.
in my above edit about murder, lets just say that the murder weapon is a knife. knives should not be regulated out of existence, the knife is not what caused the murder. the people did. BP caused the spill, not the lack of relief wells. if the rig didnt sink the relief wells would not even be an issue, therefore they did not violate rights (much like the knife did not violate rights)
laker1963:
If you can't see how this equates to allowing BP to carry on business in a haphazard, negligant way then we can just go on repeating ourselves over and over.
it does not. if proper punishment is implemented, BP may not exist save for cleanup purposes. this is an example for other companies to do everything in their power to prevent disaster like this in the future or face punishment so severe that the company may as well not exist.
laker1963:
I will be here to state my case for as long as you want to keep repeating yourself.
thats fine. i will always debate. i think its fun.
laker1963:
You are hiding behind your words and I am only pointing out what the reperrcussions of your position is. The oil in the gulf supports my arguement, what have you got, by way of proof, not just your opinion of this perfect non-regulated world?
again, i am not promoting a "non-regulated world" i just want regulations in place that do not violate the rights of the individual. oil spills violate rights. oil spills should be illegal... no matter what the circumstances of the spill are. again, murder is illegal and should be no matter what the circumstances are. making guns, knives, big rocks, ropes, clubs, or whatever else you may use to murder someone illegal will not change if murder is illegal. owning or not owning those objects is not a violation of rights. regulating relief wells to be drilled will not make oil spills not violate rights.
sorry about the bad edit. I didnt see you were still on. if i had i woulda made a new post.
Yup, picking apart anothers post and only reproducing certain points is not in good taste, IMO. One might think you were avoiding certain remarks while responding to the ones you are comfortable answering. If a person is being quoted, the WHOLE quote should be included not snippets of it. Not a fair way to discuss any issue, IMO. In this case, I really would like to see a response to my whole quote, please?
about exxon? ok ....
the government didnt do a good job of punishing them. with any luck that wont be the case here.
I can see this going no where. If bp had been forced to drill relief wells and required to use devices that other countries enforce then this disaster could have been diverted. Companies operating in a country or county have to adhere to the rules, if not then they don't do business and go somewhere else. The fact that we have rules in place but didn't enforce them then bp took advantage of it to save MONEY (over lives) then both parties are at fault. The only thing is, BP did it. They chose to save a buck and now millions of sea life will be affected and the water ways in the entire world could be effected as everything is interconnected. And yes, BP should be tried for murder as they ignored safety procedures and perhaps falsified documents. Just like the minors who died because of the owner not implementing those safety procedures.
And actually the people in them rallies called themselves tea baggers, not my problem they are so dumb they didn't know what it was. I call them that for two reasons, they gave themselves that name and anyone who is retarded enough to attach tea bags on their head need some fire put on their feet. Besides most of them are just angry, angry that they're being taken advantage of and are very misguided on who is doing it to them. I could find a video if you need that...
sorry about the bad edit. I didnt see you were still on. if i had i woulda made a new post.
Yup, picking apart anothers post and only reproducing certain points is not in good taste, IMO. One might think you were avoiding certain remarks while responding to the ones you are comfortable answering. If a person is being quoted, the WHOLE quote should be included not snippets of it. Not a fair way to discuss any issue, IMO. In this case, I really would like to see a response to my whole quote, please?
about exxon? ok ....
the government didnt do a good job of punishing them. with any luck that wont be the case here.
EXACTLY!! the govt is so in bed with big oil that this new incident won't be fully made right. BP has been allowed to enact no fly zones, prohibit photography, silence people, and infringe on peoples rights by forcing them to sign waivers after they were rescued and in need of medical attention. Obama isn't doing enough, and while bp uses inhumane efforts by making people show up and clean up oil with no protection and won't really fix this problem because if they did they would be out of oil coming from the well. Obama should take control of this company and do what needs to be done, this charade is pathetic, and our countries most beautiful beaches and sea life are being destroyed. Worst of all the govt doesn't seem to want to get their hands wet on it. The Fing admiral is having dinner with the fracking ceo of BP on a nightly basis!!!! Again your idea of business being able to work without any laws forced upon them by a governing body (which is suppose to protect the people) is just ludicrous.
Kuzi, it stands to reason that if you don't think that BP should be required to uphold regulations which would have forced them to put in relief wells which could have stopped all this over a month ago... then you must feel they have the right to violate other individual rights as long as they clean up their mess. You have stated this postion over and over, you just don't like the way it sounds when it is put into accurate terms.
again sorry about the bad edit above... that edit covers this a bit.
Every politician knows there are always serveral ways to state the truth without stating the obvious. They hide behind words all the time. Same case here, I believe
laker1963:
You keep saying nobody has the right to violate others rights but you ALSo say that BP should not be regulated.
correct. regulating BP to drill relief wells violates BPs right to run their company as they see fit providing they dont violate the rights of others. the spill is the issue here. the wells are a side point.
in my above edit about murder, lets just say that the murder weapon is a knife. knives should not be regulated out of existence, the knife is not what caused the murder. the people did. BP caused the spill, not the lack of relief wells. if the rig didnt sink the relief wells would not even be an issue, therefore they did not violate rights (much like the knife did not violate rights)
I agree about the knife, but... the knife is a weapon, not an oil well. The lack of those relief wells is the cause of the oil continuing to spill some 6 weeks after the initial blowout. If the wells were there, the flow of oil would have stopped long ago. Why do you talk in hypotheticals? The rig DID, sink, oil is still spilling because of the LACK of those wells, which is why I say you think BP has the right to violate other individual rights. I have NEVER stated that relief wells have rights, don't know where that came from. It is the LACK of relief wells that is the violation of rights, as science and technology when used properly can prevent things like this. If they are ignored to save a company money and they destroys thousands of miles of coastline... that's a violation.
laker1963:
If you can't see how this equates to allowing BP to carry on business in a haphazard, negligant way then we can just go on repeating ourselves over and over.
it does not. if proper punishment is implemented, BP may not exist save for cleanup purposes. this is an example for other companies to do everything in their power to prevent disaster like this in the future or face punishment so severe that the company may as well not exist.
laker1963:
I will be here to state my case for as long as you want to keep repeating yourself.
thats fine. i will always debate. i think its fun. Can't say I find it fun, frustrating most of the time, but important enough to continue.
laker1963:
You are hiding behind your words and I am only pointing out what the reperrcussions of your position is. The oil in the gulf supports my arguement, what have you got, by way of proof, not just your opinion of this perfect non-regulated world?
again, i am not promoting a "non-regulated world" i just want regulations in place that do not violate the rights of the individual. oil spills violate rights. oil spills should be illegal... no matter what the circumstances of the spill are. again, murder is illegal and should be no matter what the circumstances are. making guns, knives, big rocks, ropes, clubs, or whatever else you may use to murder someone illegal will not change if murder is illegal. owning or not owning those objects is not a violation of rights. regulating relief wells to be drilled will not make oil spills not violate rights.
Kuzi, by your definaition EVERY raegulation could be said to violate a company's rights. Can you give an example of a non violating regulation? The regulation to drill relief wells would be to protect the rights of the many (the people) over the right of the company to run their business in a reckless manner. If you agree that some regulations are acceptable then why would this regulation be any more or less violating then any other. There is one more point that I made way back in all this. Any regulations should be applied across the baord, no exceptions. That ensures that all companies run by the same regulations and removes any advantages to any company who is willing to risk other people's live, property, and livelihoods. That is an effective regulation, not a violation of BP rights. Regulations need to be ebforced for a good reason. NOT having a million gallons (and counting) of oil spill into the environment is an example of a good and useful regulation. Not a violation.
Comments
It seems to me that when you start talking about relief wells having or not having rights (where in He ll did that come from?) you have strecthed your logic to or just slightly past the breaking point. So rather then keep repeating points, which instead of answering, you just turn around on me I will not bother to continue what has turned very silly IMO. I am comfortable with the points I have made, and will leave it there.
My point about the seatbelts and such was made to show that people accept regulations all the time, in every facet of their life. They accept these because they accept that there was a good reason for them in the first place. I doubt governments pass regulations just to screw with business. It is for control, and to avoid irresponsible companies from doing damges such as we are seeing now.
Forcing a company to pay for clean-up and whatever other punishments or restitution which is in order, rather then trying to prevent the situation in the first place is backwards thinking IMO and grants a higher level of rights to a company then to individuals, as their right to cause these types of situations as long as they pay for clean=up trumps the individuals rights to not have these type of incidences from happening in the first place thru regulation in your opinion. You may be comfortable with that, I will never be, nor do I suspect either of us will convince the other that we are right.
no, first its the same rights as individuals. If i personally go out and cause a major oil spill (not sure how i would but to make a point) i should be punished the same way BP should be.
the punishment should be harsh enough that drilling relief wells/having good practices in general would be a no brainer. i am comfortable with upholding the rights of the individual.
if you dont care, why bother to retort? i missed that post by the squirrel. i do not read every post on the forum.
on the posts where you do respond with logic i respond with logic as well. when you do it you are in a debate, but when i do it you tell me that i am interjecting my opinion where it is unwanted.
you are attempting to villanize my opinion because i feel that it better than yours.
you know what? you feel your opinion is better than mine. and thats ok. thats what a debate is all about. the difference here is you seem unable to handle that because it angers you so much to see someone that has courage in their conviction and is willing to speak up about it in a well thought out way using large words and written in an "eloquent" way (as you put it)
i will never feel bad for voicing my opinion. i will never back down from supporting the rights of the individual.
You say that bp should be punished, and that now the govt should step in, but if regulations would have been followed, if the mms had done their job and congress actually had stricter practices than it would have never happened. Canada has a rule that relief wells have to be used and Brazil has a law that relief valves have to be used. Other countries have the same if not stricter rules. Bottom line is regulations were broken and because of it this country is facing hell. Just like every other aspect from Wall Street, drug companies. There are 57 or so democrats in the senate, 2 independents which one is basically not on the D's side and you have several dozen dems who are basically republicans. The republicans won't do anything but hold up votes or block anything. Even things they were for. They f'd up the stimulus bill because they wanted so many tax cuts, which wasn't part of the first draft because the vote was needed. They've blocked over 200 bills!!! They stand in the way at every corner. I know your not a republican but you have to wonder wtf?
Sure it looks like there's a majority for dems but really there isn't. One of the first things Rep's said was they wanted Obama to fail. That says it right there. They brought this country on its knees and now when things need to be done to keep it afloat they sit on their hands. Sure I don't agree with everything Obama wants to do, F-Uck I think it's nuts to make nuclear reactors and clean coal. But why not surpass China on solar and wind production? Why not invest in hydro plants all around the US. You could power the entire country combining all of these. Sure it would cost a lot but get out of the 2 wars which bush started, which passed 1 trilion dollars already, stop this shi-t-ty war on drugs, and fix the damn country's infrastructure, and get us out of this oil death trap. Besides we don't even get the oil from our own WELLS!
* 88% of Tea Party supporters approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona.
* Only 18% of those surveyed say gay and *** couples should have the legal right to marry.
* 73% of Tea Party backers disapprove of President Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries. [University of Washington poll include]
Now lets see, let's hunt people instead of the people hiring them, that's making sense! Though they seem to think that people should get married if they want, which is good. But oh no, let's not engage Muslim countries in our effort to combat radicals of that region... so dumb.
Also apparently Bush had this to say while speaking to the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Mich,
if he had it to do over, he would still waterboard the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks; then he went on to say "was the right thing to do and the world is a better place without him." - Interesting since going there cost thousands of lives and was an unwarranted attack into a country with no evidence. I think the world would have been better if Bush wasn't in this world.
now I know that got so much information but here's the thing, he just admitted to breaking us law and international law!!! So where is the handcuffs? Where is the justice?
Wow. I would put this to question, why not put all those people are so for torture to have it done to themselves first? Now if they want to do it then I wouldn't question it. Though I do think it's wrong. Plus torture isn't exactly the most compelling form of interrogation. Because someone always knows more than what they just said.... I wonder why no one asks Bush, why didn't you act on all those briefs and alerts from the FBI, CIA, UK branches of security about attacks on our country and the use of planes? Hmmm.... oh no we can't question a republican president. Especially when they admit they tortured!!!
Though you say you are for individual rights but if there weren't laws enacted to protect individuals where would they get that protection? True, they are getting shorter and shorter but if there were none where would they get it? Protecting people would have been a good thing before BP broke their limit on drilling depths and causing this spill which killed 11 people and probably will kill hundreds more due to the chemicals being used not to mention the damage to our waters. Oh and what about all the regulations that were not enforced that caused the financial meltdown that put milions of people out of work and destroyed our economy (even way before the 08 crash- pushing our jobs over seas!!).
Oh btw TEABAGGER is not a racial slur. It's a term used for a sex act but also for someone who wears tea bags on their heads. Maybe they should have thought about that before they used it....
http://www.propublica.org/ion/blog/item/In-Gulf-Spill-BP-Using-Dispersants-Banned-in-UK - Another link - http://beforeitsnews.com/news/49/184/WAKE_UP_BP_Will_Continue_to_Use_Deadly_Dispersants_to_Cover_Up_Their_Crime_Scene_If_We_Do_Not_Act_Now.html
These chemicals are very bad, and BP doesn't care and the fed's aren't making them stop. This is what is so infuriating.
"With [environmentalists'] nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you're doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You're not preventing environmental hazards; you're outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.
Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country's energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It's catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it."
So this is who some people thought would make a good president or vice president? Well at least Cheney wasn't so open...
according to dictionary.com a racial slur is " a derogatory or disrespectful nickname for a racial group, used without restraint " the only difference is that this is a group not defined by their skin color, but by what they believe. as mentioned before, things like "***," "towel head," "Gin jockey," "Goyum," or "Pikey" are all slurs that are used to degrade people that believe in (or dont believe in) things the way the user of the slur does. this is why i lump the word "teabagger" in with that.
if you feel that you are ok with discriminating against and degrading people because you have a different opinion than them, by all means. i cant stop you nor would i try. just please understand how offensive you are being and how much respect you may lose by using those words. you already know my opinion on why the meld down happened and that i believe that regulation helped play a roll in the meltdown. of course, this is not what you are asking about. you are asking about the relationship between the banking sector and the government when laws that were on the books were broken....
as far as i can tell, the government is having a difficult time pinning it on people. they are trying. it seems to be a tough thing for government to grasp at this moment.
generally speaking, if banks actually violated rights, regardless of if regulation promoted them to do it or not, the banks should be punished accordingly. if they didnt violate rights, they should not be punished. if there are regulations that violate rights, they shouldnt be on the books. if there are regulations that force banks to violate rights, they shouldnt be on the books.
as soon as one of those individuals violates the rights of others (weather they are associated with a corporation or not) that person should be subject to the courts so justice can be served.
could you explain you position a bit on this statement?
i am in the restaurant industry. one thing that i use on a daily basis (and im not sure would work here) is an enzyme product that is 100% eco-friendly that is designed break down oils and grease in a safe way. im not sure why they wouldnt be using that. again, we have established that BP is stupid, and may have extended (with the use of these chemicals) the violation of rights of the people this will effect. again this should be punished.
this, i feel, is a slightly different case than the "relief wells" regulation argument. the chemicals are proven deadly. there is no way that when used correctly they will not violate rights. that is a problem.
"i am in the restaurant industry. one thing that i use on a daily basis (and im not sure would work here) is an enzyme product that is 100% eco-friendly that is designed break down oils and grease in a safe way. im not sure why they wouldnt be using that." end quote
Eco-Safe, a company in Florida that uses just such a concoction to clean up different kinds of oils on land wants to help with the spill but the EPA has not approved it's use ( A classic example of fed regulation that is now hindering a reasonable solution that could save the marshes). It emulsifies oil and breaks it down into a harmless solution.
i tell someone that i have lost a bit of respect because they have been disrespectful, then you you give a sarcastic remark that shows your disrespect for me for doing so.
do you see how funny that is?
but on a slightly more serious note...
i do try my best (yet still fail because i am only human) to live as moral a life as i can. i do try my best to be consistent with my beliefs. so if you are accusing me of "taking the moral high ground" --even if thats a sarcastic comment -- even if you believe it is only in my head --even if you disagree with my position, it is something that i am not ashamed of. i would rather try my damnedest to be as moral as i am able then to say "*** it" and cast morals to the side.
i cannot, and will not force others to have this as a goal in life. to do so would be an unreasonable expectation
so long as others do not infringe on the rights of others, they can chose to live their lives as they see fit -- being offensive included.
In the gulf spill, the vast majority of the oil is under water and may continue to wash up in all the areas mentioned for years. I am just as sure as Kuzi that the good 'ol individuals from BP will be there for the long haul and all those affected by this spill will be just as happy with the clean up as those in Alaska.
And if you believe that... I have some beautiful (at one time) wetlands property for sale in Louisiana, cheap, cheap, cheap. Any takers. LMAo
i dont understand what you are missing here.
nobody can violate the rights of others. they did violate rights. they should be punished.
where the heck are you getting that i think they have a right to violate rights? i have never said that. i have said numerous times in numerous threads that every individual has a right to do as they please so long as they do not violate the rights of others BP violated rights. they should not be aloud to get away with it.
EDIT: the problem with crime is that before it happens, no rights have been violated. after it happens rights have been violated.
its like murder. murder is illegal. does this stop murder? according to you io am saying that people have the right to murder as long as they go to jail afterwords.
there is no right to violate the rights of others. since murderers have violated rights they should be punished. before they were murderers, they have not violated rights. how can we punish people that have not violated rights?
You are hiding behind your words and I am only pointing out what the reperrcussions of your position is. The oil in the gulf supports my arguement, what have you got, by way of proof, not just your opinion of this perfect non-regulated world?
in my above edit about murder, lets just say that the murder weapon is a knife. knives should not be regulated out of existence, the knife is not what caused the murder. the people did.
BP caused the spill, not the lack of relief wells. if the rig didnt sink the relief wells would not even be an issue, therefore they did not violate rights (much like the knife did not violate rights) it does not. if proper punishment is implemented, BP may not exist save for cleanup purposes. this is an example for other companies to do everything in their power to prevent disaster like this in the future or face punishment so severe that the company may as well not exist. thats fine. i will always debate. i think its fun.
again, i am not promoting a "non-regulated world"
i just want regulations in place that do not violate the rights of the individual.
oil spills violate rights. oil spills should be illegal... no matter what the circumstances of the spill are.
again, murder is illegal and should be no matter what the circumstances are.
making guns, knives, big rocks, ropes, clubs, or whatever else you may use to murder someone illegal will not change if murder is illegal. owning or not owning those objects is not a violation of rights.
regulating relief wells to be drilled will not make oil spills not violate rights.
the government didnt do a good job of punishing them. with any luck that wont be the case here.
And actually the people in them rallies called themselves tea baggers, not my problem they are so dumb they didn't know what it was. I call them that for two reasons, they gave themselves that name and anyone who is retarded enough to attach tea bags on their head need some fire put on their feet. Besides most of them are just angry, angry that they're being taken advantage of and are very misguided on who is doing it to them. I could find a video if you need that...
Kuzi, by your definaition EVERY raegulation could be said to violate a company's rights. Can you give an example of a non violating regulation? The regulation to drill relief wells would be to protect the rights of the many (the people) over the right of the company to run their business in a reckless manner. If you agree that some regulations are acceptable then why would this regulation be any more or less violating then any other. There is one more point that I made way back in all this. Any regulations should be applied across the baord, no exceptions. That ensures that all companies run by the same regulations and removes any advantages to any company who is willing to risk other people's live, property, and livelihoods. That is an effective regulation, not a violation of BP rights. Regulations need to be ebforced for a good reason. NOT having a million gallons (and counting) of oil spill into the environment is an example of a good and useful regulation. Not a violation.