Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 527
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 16 of 33    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Johnson and Clinton were impeached. They were not removed from office. The impeachment proceedings returned acquittal.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 528
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/15/2010 1:26:43 PM
basically in both cases the Republicans tried to stir up trouble ,got it through impeachment,then sanity and facts came into play and they were acquitted.Republican Nixon,knew he was wrong and really was guilty so he quit.I hate it when someones only argument to a point was a pointless technicality,supposedly to make Sly look bad.We all know acquittals makes things like it never happened,way to stir it up.

Boy you have to dig really really deep to come up with something,anything,any shred to argue a point being made.Like this BP oil spill,where Obama is at fault,seemingly more so than BP reading the rants on here,so what,Obama milking 20 billion out of them was just chopped liver,sure pick on the one working the hardest.

Fact:

The knee-jerk interest in the Oval Office was especially odd when compared with how the same Beltway press corps went out of its way in 1989 to completely remove President George H. W. Bush’s role as a player in the Exxon Valdez environmental crisis. If you go back and look at the coverage, in the days following the first reports that the Exxon supertanker’s hull had ruptured on Bligh Reef, spilling more than 10 million gallons of oil into the pristine Prince William Sound, a gusher that ended up covering 11,000 square miles of ocean, you’ll see that Bush was mostly a non-player in that unfolding drama, which quickly became the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Bush barely even warranted mention during the blanket news coverage.

Here Obama working daily to fix 12 different major problems at the same time then talk like he's doing nothing at all and no understanding as to why things in all arenas are slow,maybe we could have yet another disaster to stall progress that will not be taken into account,the same ones griped as we helped the Haitians,the whats the hold up crap,nothing new ,and quite normal reasoning from 15 yr.olds,but its not as cute when that same logic comes from adults.Lets not even talk about the fact that republicans vehemently protested each cure proposed every step of the way,all stall tactics were tried for each case,and certainly let not even take that into account as to why each cure was reduced in content or crawled rather than went the race speeds Obama started them at and the speed he tried to maintain.

you have the dems with the car in drive and the republicans with chains on the rear bumper in a tow truck trying to drive the opposite direction.Sure,ultimately the dems are in the drivers seat with the pedal floored but can't get far fast with the republican dragging on the rear bumper every inch of the way.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 530
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/15/2010 5:10:49 PM

basically in both cases the Republicans tried to stir up trouble ,got it through impeachment,then sanity and facts came into play and they were acquitted.

You betray a catastrophic lack of understanding about the Civil War era if this is what you're saying in reference to Johnson's impeachment. Like, disappointing to an nth degree. And before you go siding off on party lines, "Democrat" and "Republican" didn't mean the same thing 150 years ago. Just a pro-tip.


sure pick on the one working the hardest.

Are you talking about Obama? Seriously?

He's the one telling people to work. He's not doing this work himself. He's just telling other people to do it. It's the engineers at BP and Transocean working 18 hour days to on-the-fly engineer a fix for the well-head who are doing the work. Not saying that BP and Transocean shouldn't be doing it (because they should). But it sure as hell isn't Obama.


The knee-jerk interest in the Oval Office was especially odd when compared with how the same Beltway press corps went out of its way in 1989 to completely remove President George H. W. Bush’s role as a player in the Exxon Valdez environmental crisis. If you go back and look at the coverage, in the days following the first reports that the Exxon supertanker’s hull had ruptured on Bligh Reef, spilling more than 10 million gallons of oil into the pristine Prince William Sound, a gusher that ended up covering 11,000 square miles of ocean, you’ll see that Bush was mostly a non-player in that unfolding drama, which quickly became the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. Bush barely even warranted mention during the blanket news coverage.

Because Bush wasn't milking it for political points to divert attention from his other problems.


you have the dems with the car in drive and the republicans with chains on the rear bumper in a tow truck trying to drive the opposite direction.Sure,ultimately the dems are in the drivers seat with the pedal floored but can't get far fast with the republican dragging on the rear bumper every inch of the way.

You're adorable. Really.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 531
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/15/2010 6:20:38 PM

You betray a catastrophic lack of understanding about the Civil War era if this is what you're saying in reference to Johnson's impeachment. Like, disappointing to an nth degree. And before you go siding off on party lines, "Democrat" and "Republican" didn't mean the same thing 150 years ago. Just a pro-tip.


Of course Dems and republicans were different then,everything was.The Impeachment was the consummation of a lengthy political battle, between the moderate Johnson and the "Radical Republican" movement that dominated Congress, for control of Reconstruction policies after the American Civil War.The House's primary charge against Johnson was with violation of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress the previous year. Specifically, he had removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War (whom the Tenure of Office Act was largely designed to protect), from office and replaced him with Adjutant General Lorenzo Thomas.The impeachment and subsequent trial gained a historical reputation as an act of political expedience, rather than necessity, based on Johnson's defiance of an unconstitutional piece of legislation.Though a Southerner himself, Johnson had been a fierce and unrelenting critic of the southern secession that had sparked the Civil War in the first place. Radical Republicans were convinced that as President, Johnson would enact their hardline Reconstruction policies of protection for newly freed slaves and punishment for former slave owners and government and military officials. (Lincoln had favored a much more moderate and lenient plan for Reconstruction, which the Radicals vehemently opposed but lacked the political capital to stop).

Instead, six weeks after taking office, Johnson had offered proclamations of general amnesty for most former confederates, and his initially stricter plans for high-ranking government and military officers quickly dissolved. Johnson also vetoed legislation that extended civil rights and financial support for the former slaves. Congress was able to override only a few of his vetoes, setting the stage for a confrontation between Congress and the president.


sure pick on the one working the hardest.

Are you talking about Obama? Seriously?
He's the one telling people to work. He's not doing this work himself. He's just telling other people to do it. It's the engineers at BP and Transocean working 18 hour days to on-the-fly engineer a fix for the well-head who are doing the work.
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that these people were also dealing with Haiti,job creation,the wars,immigration,wall street reform,medical reform,the GOP,ect.

Geez your right,Obama must look like a slacker then huh !Are you kidding me,the oil people are only working on the oil problem,what I stated stands,people are picking on the hardest working man in the arena.


Because Bush wasn't milking it for political points to divert attention from his other problems.
your 25,I was a working adult when it happened,Bush (whom I voted for because of a disappointment with Reagan)wasn't playing it for anything,and he was doing almost nothing,were you there in 1989,no you weren't. Obama has not used anything in the gulf to further anything politically or distract from anything,infact he has been forced from day one to only defend himself against many many non truths.The whole first week it was BP's problem,they said there was no leak and everything was fine and they were equipped for anything and a week later when all of us realized we were part of a giant lie ,Obama kicked into tenth gear,yet he was on top of the disaster from the first day.I assume you feel free to libel him whether your facts are right or wrong.Your wrong.


you have the dems with the car in drive and the republicans with chains on the rear bumper in a tow truck trying to drive the opposite direction.Sure,ultimately the dems are in the drivers seat with the pedal floored but can't get far fast with the republican dragging on the rear bumper every inch of the way.
I stand by this analogy,the republicans have thus far this last year been the party of just say no,even after a year to prepare,Obama said do you have a better plan for health reform,please present it to us,at which time they came to us with nothing,nada,zilch and boldly stated lets start with a blank piece of paper and start over.Thats the best they could do after a year.Obama though had a complete plan.

Republicans in the last year are the party of "no" and the kings and hands down winner of the stall tactic.And reign supreme at denial,when they stated Obama was being unconstitutional he stated but this originally was your idea,they said well now that we have had years to think about it,we all feel its unconstitutional,guess if their mouths are moving they think half the country will believe it,and they were correct.

Many of the republicans are turn coats,heck McCain from my state has always been dead against the border wall,now the wall is his pulpit .Even key points of the health reform was originally a republican concept.Wall street bail out was republican Bush,Obama just wanted to continue it,except this time with rules,Bush had none,even Obama said after the fact,that wall street was so sneaky that he wished he had even placed more rules,when he realized how quickly they found all the loop holes to go around him.

This is well documented,do you follow congress and the senate,do you watch the news.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 532
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/15/2010 8:54:36 PM
Wow. 22 pages and since April to see results. Sad really.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 533
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 2:20:58 PM
RE Msg: 520 by abelian:

Pardon me. I don't see how it's possible. But I was wrong to say that it is impossible, until I've proved it
Yes, you were wrong and you're also wrong to think you could prove it.
Hang on. First you say that I'm wrong to say that it's not possible and then you say I'm wrong to even consider if it cannot be proved possible or impossible? That would make it like the Continuum Hypothesis, not an economic theory.

You can obviously define a free market (since Adam Smith did precisely that), so it's obviously not impossible to have a free market.
There are lots of things that you can define that are impossible to exist, like the rational fraction that is equal to the square root of 2. Mathematics is full of proofs of things that are impossible.

It's only highlly improbable that such a market will ever be realized.
That still means it could be proved, only that in your experience and opinion, it is unlikely to ever occur.

I'm not sure why you have so much difficulty distinguishing between impossible and highly unlikely.
I have no problem at all distinguishing between the impossible and the improbable. It's even something that mathematicians make of point of distinguishing. However, I do have great difficulty in understanding when you are referring to something that is impossible and when you are referring to something that is improbable. Something about the way you use those terms seems to give me that great difficulty. I don't have that problem with the vast majority of people. Just you.

If you're still confused, I will attempt to make the difference clearer.
It would be far more useful to clarify why I find other people, including physicists, doctors, chemists, and plenty of other well-educated people, much clearer than you.


Until then, I can only say that I've seen all sorts of economic markets, and so far, I have never come across any market, or even any concept of a market, that would offer labour pools the same freedom of movement as business products,
Then try reading Adam Smith who elucidated the concept back in the mid 18th century.
I will try to get round to it. I have a huge reading list.

If you read what he actually wrote, you'll also discover that what he described is NOT what is called a free market in the present day (despite selectively quoting him out of context.
Then why do the proponents of the free market almost never point that out? At least, I've seen loads of proponents of a free market, and you are the very first who has claimed this. Also, why don't you just point this out more often, it would save arguments? Also, if you read Adam Smith's definition of a free market, then why don't you just post what Adam Smith said?


because they are 2 different types of entities, that operate in 2 different ways, that give rise to 2 entirely separate types of freedom of movement.
Uh, no those things are not. Labour competes for customers (i.e., the businesses that hire them) just like products compete for customers. That's the entire point and it's fundanebtal to the concept of a free market.
Potatoes are not the same as farmhands. They have a small similarity, in that they are both goods and services exchanged for money. But that's where it ends.

When I buy a product, I am generally expected to pay for it immediately, or I am not given the product. When I work in a job, I am normally paid at the end of the week or the month. So I have to be more committed to work than to a product.

When I buy a dud product, I have physical proof of its lack of quality. I can easily and quickly get my money back. When I employ a worker, I can only prove for sure that he is a lazy worker, if I have CCTV of all the time he was working for me. So it's much harder for me to find fair grounds for dismissal. It's also much harder for me to get back the money I have already paid him for his work. So I have to be more committed to paying for bad labour than for bad products.

Placing restrictions on any competition (labor or products) undermines the foundation of all the arguments derived from those assumptions. If labor is restricted, then a corporation can aleays exploit workers by paying non-competitive wages to workers in a system from which they cannot escape nor can others enter.
Only if there is a one-sided restriction. For instance, a country that deports illegal immigrants, but doesn't punish employers of illegal immigrants, or only gives them a small fine, is going to find that lots of illegals are exploited, because the illegal employees are pressured, but the other side of the equation, the employers, are not equally pressured. Now, if you were to punish the employers for employing illegals, to the extent that they would suffer to the same extent as their illegal employees do, then illegals would not be treated any worse than anyone else, because the employers stand to lose as much as the employees for their bad treatment. It's the basis of the law of supply and demand, namely, "what goes up, must come down", and thus, when things balanced, neither side goes up nor down.

That used to happen in the UK, because it used to be that companies caught employing illegals, suffered a very heavy fine, which made it not worth their while taking the chance. However, that law was repealed, and the incentive to not employ illegals was removed, but with illegals still being threatened with deportation if caught. Suddenly, lots of illegals started coming in, but were paid much lower wages than everyone else. That had a knock-on effect on the rest of the labour market, because lots of employers started choosing illegals over legal workers, and legal workers were forced to take wages much below the minimum wage, and do lots of unpaid overtime, or find themselves out of a job.


We already have a market fully free of all government restrictions. It's called "the black market".
Eh? A black market is one which operates illegally. I can't think of a market which is more restrictive than one in which even the existence of the market is illegal.
Obviously you haven't seen one in action. In a black market, you can pretty much buy what you want. You can haggle over the price as much as you want. You can arrange to conduct business in the pub, the toilet, in a car park. You can even arrange to get hold of products that no-one legal has. I cannot think of a market that is more free.

It operates freely in the sense that the risks of being arrested or shut down are reflected in the cost of doing business, but it is certainly not unrestrcited.
The LEGAL market factors in risks of fines and penalties into the price. In the black market, the possibility of being arrested is factored into HOW one conducts business, like not conducting the exact details of a business transaction over an unsecured phone communication. But it rarely affects the price.

The reason that black market prices are often higher than the legal market, is that you are choosing to conduct a business transaction with greater risks, and you wouldn't do that if you could buy it with less risks, via the legal market. So the assumption of a black market is that you are dealing with the black market, because you cannot get what you want from the legal market. So there are far less suppliers for what you want, and less supply, means the black market seller can substantially rise the price. Getting caught has nothing to do with it. It's a function of the law of supply and demand.


For some reason, people seem to not like the idea of a black market, no matter how free it is of government restrictions.
It doesn't bother me. I figure that black markets exist when it's more cost effective to circumvent the law and take the risks associated with operating as a black market.
Black markets exist for a number of reasons.

One reason is that your neighbourhood is full of criminals that you know, who all operate in a black market. So by operating in a black market, you immediately gain a large customer base.

Another reason is that you might have worn out your welcome in the legal market for your product. It's just another market, and that allows you to continue trading.

A third reason is that black markets often deal with lower-quality products that the legal market won't consider selling, even when they are perfectly entitled to, like that banks can make small loans under £1000, but rarely do. So it opens up more opportunities, particularly if you want to go into lending, but lack the level of capital of a typical lending company.

There are far more. But effectively, a true marketplace includes the black and legal markets, but where the legal marketplace simply represents the higher end of the market, generally for people in regular employment in a decent-paying job.

If anything, it serves to point out the stupidity of wasting time, money and effort to enact laws which can't be effectively enforced.
That's a good argument to legalise human trafficking, as that is still rife all across Europe, even with all the effort that we put into it. It's also a good argument to legalise all drugs, including crack, for the same reasons.


However, somehow, I doubt that you'd want to move to India and work in a call centre.
Maybe. Maybe not. Many people might, since many things are cheaper in India than in the US. The lower wages do not necessarily translate into a lower standard of living.
I have quite a few friends who went to work in a foreign country, and who've come back and given me feedback on their experiences. Generally, India and Eastern Europe has a much lower cost of living, but the much lower wages, mean a much lower standard of living for the same jobs or even much less-well paid jobs found in the UK. America has a much lower wage than the UK, but the much, much lower cost of living, means that a British person would have a much higher standard of living than in the UK. Unless you have enough of an income that you don't need to work, or you want to give up the rat race, and live very frugally, any American is bound to get a massive shock when he goes to somewhere like India, to actually live there. Most people don't. They go as tourists, and, to encourage tourism, they are carefully managed so they only see the good sides, and not what it's like to live there.


I'm not totally against the principles of a free market. I just think that it's like any theory. It has a range in which we have empirically verified that it seems to work.
If it worked, companies would not make products in countries where the people who make the products can't afford to buy them because such a situation couldn't exist in a free market.
The hypothesis exists. But the problem is, can it ever work? If it can't ever work, then it's just another economic theory that won't ever achieve anything beneficial.

That brings me back to my original point. Can it work, yes, and how, no, and why not, or you don't have a clue if it can work or not?
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 534
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 3:04:59 PM
Though a Southerner himself, Johnson had been a fierce and unrelenting critic of the southern secession that had sparked the Civil War in the first place. Radical Republicans were convinced that as President, Johnson would enact their hardline Reconstruction policies of protection for newly freed slaves and punishment for former slave owners and government and military officials. (Lincoln had favored a much more moderate and lenient plan for Reconstruction, which the Radicals vehemently opposed but lacked the political capital to stop).

You do know that Johnson was pro-slavery, right? The Radical Republicans wanted to punish the south. Johnson was from the south.


Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize that these people were also dealing with Haiti,job creation,the wars,immigration,wall street reform,medical reform,the GOP,ect.

Geez your right,Obama must look like a slacker then huh !Are you kidding me,the oil people are only working on the oil problem,what I stated stands,people are picking on the hardest working man in the arena.

You really think that this is Obama personally doing all this? Do you understand how the office of the presidency works?


Obama has not used anything in the gulf to further anything politically or distract from anything,infact he has been forced from day one to only defend himself against many many non truths.The whole first week it was BP's problem,they said there was no leak and everything was fine and they were equipped for anything and a week later when all of us realized we were part of a giant lie ,Obama kicked into tenth gear,yet he was on top of the disaster from the first day.I assume you feel free to libel him whether your facts are right or wrong.

bahahahahaha. Oh okay. Yeah Obama hasn't used this politically at all.

Jesus. This thing has been spin central from both sides since day one. The republicans have been****eads trying to pin this on Obama, and likewise Obama has been working to spin it the other way with bluff and bluster about how HE is going to fix it, etc.... No, you're right that Obama has been under an unwarranted attack from the right looking to pin anything they could on him. But that doesn't make Obama any less of a politician. I don't really have any criticism of Obama on BP, except that he caved to the populous pressure to "do more" when really his job was to make sure BP was doing theirs. Actually I think the $20 bn fund was a politically expedient thing to do with questionable ethical backing. But again, reaction to politics.


I stand by this analogy,the republicans have thus far this last year been the party of just say no,even after a year to prepare,Obama said do you have a better plan for health reform,please present it to us,at which time they came to us with nothing,nada,zilch and boldly stated lets start with a blank piece of paper and start over.Thats the best they could do after a year.Obama though had a complete plan.

Honestly on health care I wish the Republicans had just done a better job of slowing down this train.

If you have a broken car that nobody can fix, does the guy with the COMPLETE plan to drive it off a cliff win out? I'd hope not. Pointing the finger in the direction it belongs isn't going to be politically correct to either party, so nobody will fix healthcare. They'll just pass their own agendas and the people who actually need doctors will pay the penalty.


Many of the republicans are turn coats,heck McCain from my state has always been dead against the border wall,now the wall is his pulpit .Even key points of the health reform was originally a republican concept.Wall street bail out was republican Bush,Obama just wanted to continue it,except this time with rules,Bush had none,even Obama said after the fact,that wall street was so sneaky that he wished he had even placed more rules,when he realized how quickly they found all the loop holes to go around him.

This is well documented,do you follow congress and the senate,do you watch the news.

More than I should. You don't appear to be able to distinguish between what Bush did and what Obama did, though. There was not a "no rule" bailout under Bush that Obama just continued, but "with rules".

Bank "bailout" was Bush. Stimulus was Obama. Both were bad ideas on paper, and even worse in execution. Bailing out the banks may have been better than doing nothing (maybe; even still I'd say let FDIC temper the storm and let the strong emerge, but even the prevailing economists are more soft-hearted towards businesses than I am), but the Obama stimulus was catastrophically worse. The bank bailout was just a buyup of mortgage securities. Basically they bought a bunch of loans off the banks who were tying up their credit with poorly rated securities. Those may still come back to pay off (they're still in collection), and could even turn a profit for the government in the long run, however unlikely that may be.

The stimulus was just flushing money down the toilet with no hope of ever recovering any of it for the sake of flushing money down the toilet, delaying an economic recovery with a holdover. I'm not sure how you paint the Bush plan as an unrestricted spending spree on Wall Street but the Obama plan as a metered rule-based system when that characterization couldn't be further from the truth. But I suppose that would be because your politics appear to be dictated by party line, whereas mine are not.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 535
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 3:37:22 PM
sad but amusing,very nice slant on the facts and on creative interpretation.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 536
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 4:43:51 PM
Me? I'm the one slanting facts? Dude, you said, and I'll quote you:


Wall street bail out was republican Bush,Obama just wanted to continue it

That isn't slanting facts, it's just factually completely incorrect. It's like you don't know what either President even did.

If I slanted the facts so badly, you should have no problem pointing out where I erred.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 538
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 5:49:48 PM
Your actually arguing that Bush did not originate the wall street bailout and then that Obama did not do a part 2 with it except with rules attached,as I stated they did in clear writing. Your the only one that seems to think its some other way.Most everything you wrote is just your opinion,your slant,your writings are filled with the sky is falling assumption it will fail and hurt us badly, you sound sure of it.

Your saying Obama is driving the car over the cliff,I say he is not even close to the edge,we were originally off the cliff before he stepped in.your claiming failure because you fear that's what it appears to mean ,you sound like Glen Beck talking,the king of partial truth and a expert of cherry picking out of context info.

I don't see it as anything but an improvement.How many presidents have you worked through,I have been employed since Nixon,I know who made it tough,who made things better,which ones screwed things up.Try running a business or buying a home with some of these guys we had in office. How far does your work experience go,the first term of junior Bush?

You have no idea what this country was like when the country had jobs,and this country made stuff,reading about it and running a business through are completely different.I remember when you found out it was made in China,we all knew it was junk,now they make most everything.I remember when almost all industry ran their toxic sewage straight into the river or ocean,when the great Lakes were almost dead from pollution,who and when a president changed that and fought them.How the lobbyist and other party fought it.

The Lobbyists are one of the few things that remain the same,I would not allow them to exist,they would sell their mother if that's what their job told them to do.Most the talk you here,most the trash you read about comes from the lobbyists and their personal pets,key politicians,which is why many politicians do amazing backwards ,damaging crazy things that make no sense,saying stuff like now that we have a giant oil spill that we cannot contain, what we really need to do is give then less restrictions,uhhhhh,ok.

Its a waste of time arguing your opinions and your fear of the what might happen,my talk will change nothing,because as far as you are concerned,you are right,half the country agrees with you.At the moment and at the time of election,half this country agrees with you and half agree with me.Things are easier when an election is a landslide such as when reelected Nixon in 1972 trumped McGovern in 49 out of 50 states. Then most the country agreed with each other.Its not like that now.

Look we don't agree on a single point,lets get this thread exclusively back on the topic of BP ok,and lets just agree you want to challenge everything I just wrote,I get it.Infact if you feel the need to hit back,that will be why I ignore you,that is unless you talk BP,OK.Peace dude
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 540
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 6:54:59 PM
I know exactly what he said,we all know they both did bail outs and they both did stimulus,bank bailout was also obama and Bush ,so was the stimulus,maybe he should learn to read also,you too,because I was quite specific what I said originally before you recanted it incorrectly the first time,then he came in and interpreted it wrong also .

Why did the Wall street/bank industry problem turn around then if it was such a poor failure,you don't think the banks on the verge of failure now doing so well was a magical fairys dropping fairy dust do you,and we are not talking here whether Wall street then decided to spread the wealth with us little guys when they got better, as they did not ,we are talking the failure of the banks that are running quite well,so it worked.Wall street bailout was the bank bail out,stop trying to dissect this,we only had one banking institution problem,not 2.The banking failure basically has two parts,one is bailout which worked great ,they are still here, are they not ?,the other is hard rules to attempt to take the gambler and cheat/crook out of them,the reform part,which Obama was way to soft on ,if citizens pulled the same crap they would go to jail,we as citizens tend to go to jail,but the bank industry gets half this country to defend there actions like they did nothing.Many also say they need less rules as the solution of them not doing the right thing.Uhhhhhhh ok

Lets get back on BP,this is my last rebuttal to you too,unless its BP.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 541
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 7:33:57 PM
Your actually arguing that Bush did not originate the wall street bailout and then that Obama did not do a part 2 with it except with rules attached,as I stated they did in clear writing.

I said very clearly what my point was, and it was not that. If you care to reread it, you can read what I said for yourself.


Your saying Obama is driving the car over the cliff,I say he is not even close to the edge,we were originally off the cliff before he stepped in.your claiming failure because you fear that's what it appears to mean ,you sound like Glen Beck talking,the king of partial truth and a expert of cherry picking out of context info.

No, I'm saying that just because someone has a "complete plan" doesn't make it a winning plan. Or even a good plan. Or even an improvement. I'll note to never use metaphors with you again. I see they're ineffective.


I don't see it as anything but an improvement.

Then you're just not seeing everything, which is fine. There are some provisions that are certainly an improvement, and some that just contribute to a misstated problem. Rarely are things black and white, and this is no exception. However, it seems your source of news and information is headlines rather than content. This may be why it seems I'm slanting "facts": I'm using very specific facts describing exactly what we're talking about, instead of vague allusions like your "Bush started it, Obama just did it better because he's amazing". The rest of that post was merely a personal attack on me, relating in no way to what we're talking about, so it'll slide.

Next post:

I know exactly what he said,we all know they both did bail outs and they both did stimulus,bank bailout was also obama and Bush ,so was the stimulus,maybe he should learn to read also,you too

That's just not true. Bush passed a "tax rebate stimulus" where he just sent people money, which didn't accomplish squat but try and buy votes. It didn't even accomplish that. We won't refer to this again because it has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Bush bought up bad note bundles to relieve the credit crunch. We'll refer to this as the "bailout".

Obama pushed a trillion dollar "stimulus" that just spent money on nonsense all over the country. We'll call this the "stimulus".

Bush did bailout. Obama did stimulus. Bush did bailout. Obama did stimulus. Obama didn't do a continuation of a Bush policy.


Why did the Wall street/bank industry problem turn around then if it was such a poor failure

If I have a headache, and someone gives me a nasal decongestant, and then next day my headache is gone, do you think it was the nasal decongestant that did it? The market will correct itself no matter what happens. Would it have turned around as quickly without the bailout? Probably not. But the market forces that would take people out of business that had poor business practices were taken out of play, and now we have businesses running things that we know will make bad decisions. Long term win? No.


we are talking the failure of the banks that are running quite well,so it worked.

That is such a simplistic view of things, that I actually think you'd believe that if you stopped breathing, the sun would stop coming up. After all, you've been breathing all the time, and the sun keeps coming up. Must be a natural law!


stop trying to dissect this

My bad. We should instead revert to your style. I'll get started. "Republican bad, Democrat good! Bush bad, Obama god! What is this fact nonsense you're doing?! Burn the heretic!". I'll stop analyzing issues intelligently now. Just for you.


the other is hard rules to attempt to take the gambler and cheat/crook out of them,the reform part,which Obama was way to soft on ,if citizens pulled the same crap they would go to jail,we as citizens tend to go to jail,but the bank industry gets half this country to defend there actions like they did nothing.Many also say they need less rules as the solution of them not doing the right thing.Uhhhhhhh ok

It is rare that I run across someone so ready to admit that they are so sheepish about believing just what the government tells them what happened because it's someone they voted for. But every once in a while, I run across someone who says something like this, and I know it's time to stop talking to them, because it's like talking to the wind. It doesn't matter what facts can be presented, because you'll say "stop trying to dissect things". It doesn't matter what arguments I present because you'll just make a straw man and pretend I said something else. It doesn't matter what actually happened, because that's not what your preferred politician told you what happened. So perhaps you're right, and this discussion can cease, because it's like arguing with a tape recorder set on repeat.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 542
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 8:10:07 PM
So far so good on the well cap,I hear its holding at 6900 lbs,although they were looking at 8000 to 9000 lbs as optimum.So anyone have any idea where that miracle ship the whale went.Has anyone heard of any logical way of cleaning the marshes,any thoughts,would it be best to burn them and start over, as would happen if a wild fire raced through naturally.Seems if they were burned down at least you could get the oil.Yes that lets the ocean in and ruins alot,but what are the alternative ,is that better than now,or not.Whats the alternative,scrubbing each blade.Would one wait to do this in about 4-6 months when most the oil has come a shore or do it now ?

Florida and the Gulf need aggressive ad campaigns and a site to go to that has factual daily reports of if that town or beach is untouched ,right now its a guess for a traveler,and I think thats some of the problem.If a traveler knew and could verify if a town had an oil odor,or oil there that would be all I needed,certainly bargains are everywhere,seems it could be a cheap area to vacation,but I would want the truth.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 543
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 8:21:26 PM

So far so good on the well cap,I hear its holding at 6900 lbs,although they were looking at 8000 to 9000 lbs as optimum.

They said they were probably going to start siphoning again.


So anyone have any idea where that miracle ship the whale went.

Coast Guard said it flunked tests. Not deploying.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 544
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/16/2010 8:52:24 PM
Sounds like we are getting closer.croosed fingers for the next day,hope something works out.

Bummer on the whale,the idea sure sounded good,isn't weird that in all these decades no large equipment exists,seems a fortune could be made to a clever inventors patent,Thought Kevin Costners thing held promise,wish we had a few more years to perfect that ,great for the future but wish something was there now.

Its a shame that thousands have sent them free patentable ideas to mull over,it will be millions lost to a few good inventors and quite a disappointment when the inventor sees his or her idea on the water a few years from now only to learn the oil company holds the patent on the product.

My grandpa made a specialty tool to work on one hard to reach model T engine part,a man came into his shop one day,amazed with that tool,studied it closely,praised my grandfather,and then several months later my grandfather was shocked to see his tool in an auto shop,shop told him it was a brand new design that just came out,and worked great.He always wondered if it was that man that stole that idea that day,

who knows !

Well fingers crossed on the well,and boy we all hope a leak doesn't pop up from the bedrock,couldn't imagine how that would or could be plugged.....time will tell,holding my breath !
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 545
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/17/2010 8:50:25 AM
"Republican bad, Democrat good! Bush bad, Obama god!"

Gee that doesn't sound right! Here let me fix that for you:

"Republican bad, Democrat bad! Bush horrible, Obama jury still out, but not great so far!"

Neither party seems to give a sh1t about the people. Their only about getting sent back to DC, so they can live the good life. Personally I think the floor of congress should look like a Nascar race! The various members should wear those office coats, covered with patches of ALL the corporations who's money they take! Some would probably need matching trousers they take so much corporate money!

As to the bank bailout, let's not skew the facts. It was Bush and Paulsen who ran around congress screaming "the sky is falling!" Pass the bill for 700 billion. However, he only doled out 350 billion and left 350 for Obama to spread around.

In the end, it looks as though most of the bailout money will be repaid, there may even be a small profit on that part of it. Though we'll never know the true cost. This of course doesn't count the auto companies, Fannie and Freddie which are black holes for money(the cost of these 2 alone may end up well over 500 billion) and of course we have AIG! No, Wall street doesn't get good marks for risk control, or appropriate actions. Bonuses were paid on the front end of transactions, instead of waiting to see if those transactions were profitable.

But enough about that, I believe we should keep our eye on the ball and theme of the thread "BP"!! If anyone wants to start a thread on politics I'd be happy to chime in, this one is about BP and what they are, who they are and what their doing about the gulf.

It should be noted that nobody has said a word about the fact I mentioned about BP and Libya. Or the other things these pirates(BP) have done or are doing. Thank God, the new cap seems to be working. The true answer despite this cap, will only be known after the relief well is complete. He11 we don't even know if they can get the concrete into the well and make it stick, so it seals the leak. The only good thing is that with the whole world watching, they won't use inferior product like they did on the initial well.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 546
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/17/2010 1:20:37 PM

"Republican bad, Democrat good! Bush bad, Obama god!"

Gee that doesn't sound right! Here let me fix that for you:

"Republican bad, Democrat bad! Bush horrible, Obama jury still out, but not great so far!"

I was portraying "imalwayssmiling", not advocating a personal view. I mostly agree with you there right now.


As to the bank bailout, let's not skew the facts. It was Bush and Paulsen who ran around congress screaming "the sky is falling!" Pass the bill for 700 billion. However, he only doled out 350 billion and left 350 for Obama to spread around.

Yes, that is exactly correct, there was 350 billion allotted for Bush, and 350 for the incoming president. And Obama opted to not use it.


In the end, it looks as though most of the bailout money will be repaid, there may even be a small profit on that part of it.

Uh, yes. The last report I saw said it was about halfway repaid, and forecasts said it might be fully repaid. I don't know about the profit part. Haven't seen that.


This of course doesn't count the auto companies, Fannie and Freddie which are black holes for money(the cost of these 2 alone may end up well over 500 billion) and of course we have AIG!

Yeah I was hoping the auto companies didn't come up, further confusing the conversation. I think a good portion of the Big 3 loan has been paid back, though. They're repaying faster than the banks are. And I believe F&F and AIG are included in the "bank bailout" figures.


It should be noted that nobody has said a word about the fact I mentioned about BP and Libya. Or the other things these pirates(BP) have done or are doing

Thus far it looks like the Brits were negotiating anyway, and BP's involvement was simply "hey, what's taking so long? faster this goes the faster we can make a deal with them". Which... I don't know. I guess some people would take issue with that. I don't really think it's the big deal that it's made out to be. I think if it weren't about oil and BP nobody would care.

Though I think this says something about our (the US and UK) foreign affairs. If Libyan officials were lobbying for this guy (who was an "ex" intelligence officer) to be released, it says something about the knowledge Libya might have had about his role in bombing an airliner. That's a fairly solid reason to take a war to someone's front doorstep. Which makes me wonder what hasn't made it into the news.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 547
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/17/2010 2:14:37 PM
Today was horrible news for the gulf businesses,They have been told that the money they earn using there boats and crews will be deducted form the awards they "might" get.Thats insane,and I would not blame a single person for taking there boats in and mooring them.In the end like all tragedies caused by others,the real losers will be the gulf businesses that will be lucky to get a trace amount back and think since I so distrust,BP and all the other oil corporations that on the other hand,maybe the men should take the money for cleaning up,they might find in the end perhaps it was the most they got out of the deal.Oddly and Sadly enough,those boatmen are actually the lucky ones,none of the cottage industries nor people like deckhands or the little shop on the dock will see a penney.

So glad its not my business ruined nor my home ruined,I feel so sorry for them.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 548
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/18/2010 10:36:40 AM


Gee that doesn't sound right! Here let me fix that for you:

"Republican bad, Democrat bad! Bush horrible, Obama jury still out, but not great so far!"


Why is the jury out on Obama. He's been a terrible president who's been mimicing Bush.



As to the bank bailout, let's not skew the facts. It was Bush and Paulsen who ran around congress screaming "the sky is falling!" Pass the bill for 700 billion. However, he only doled out 350 billion and left 350 for Obama to spread around.


Let's also not forget that this bill was voted for by a majority of Democrats and a minority of Republicans. That's not to excuse the Republicans, but it's good not to skew the facts.



No, Wall street doesn't get good marks for risk control, or appropriate actions.


Wall street gets great marks for risk control. They knew the government would bail them out so they had no risk at all. It's the government who gets bad marks because since the New Deal they've been bailing out companies and individuals whose high risk ventures don't pay off.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 549
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/18/2010 10:42:27 AM


Today was horrible news for the gulf businesses,They have been told that the money they earn using there boats and crews will be deducted form the awards they "might" get.


I don't know why you think this is insane. If someone causes you financial harm and you sue him, the courts will award you money to make you whole, not to put you in a better position than you were before.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 551
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/19/2010 6:01:24 PM

I don't know why you think this is insane. If someone causes you financial harm and you sue him, the courts will award you money to make you whole, not to put you in a better position than you were before.
My point was that BP offered these boat owners jobs where they work all day in their boats in various duties of cleaning up the waters,basically a days work for a days pay,I liked that idea.Now its ruled that if they are awarded monies their paycheck will be deducted from the award.I see these as separate deals,completely unrelated,this means any out of town company coming in to works will actually get paid not be doing it for free.

Don't you really think this is wrong,I'd hate to work for scot free yet have to pay for my own crew and my own gas and having my boat cleaned of oil,seems unfair.

Look we all know a company will suffer a loss of a million or so, but probably be awarded a tenth,isn't that bad enough but you need to strip them of their paycheck too,and make them buy their own gas.I don't know,I thought everyone would be perturbed,guess not ! did I misunderstand you .Of course no person is ever made whole,never works like that....................................................I take that back ,one can spill a hot coffee in their lap at McDonalds them win a million dollar award as that lady did.Courts a weird animal.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 552
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/19/2010 7:44:41 PM


The court case left me rather ambivalent as to the findings. On one hand, they do need to be made whole, and if they are receiving compensation now, that is fair, but what about the long term effects, and at what point is BP off the hook? There are plenty would sell BP, and take all the proceeds and divide it among those affected, but that wouldn't work....................

If they have a plan in place for long term compensation for the long term damages, then I am fine with it.


BP is off the hook when they've paid all the damages. That could be a year or it could be 50 years.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 553
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/19/2010 7:59:29 PM


My point was that BP offered these boat owners jobs where they work all day in their boats in various duties of cleaning up the waters,basically a days work for a days pay,I liked that idea.Now its ruled that if they are awarded monies their paycheck will be deducted from the award.I see these as separate deals,completely unrelated,this means any out of town company coming in to works will actually get paid not be doing it for free.


Maybe I'm not understanding something. What are they being awarded for? Is it for loss of wages? If they're being paid to use their boats in the cleanup then have they lost any wages? It's possible that they may have made more money from fishing, in which case the amount that they can prove that they would have made should have what they really made taken out.



Don't you really think this is wrong,I'd hate to work for scot free yet have to pay for my own crew and my own gas and having my boat cleaned of oil,seems unfair.


They're not working for scot free. BP is paying them for the crew and gas, aren't they? I thought the idea was that BP was hiring out the boat and crew. As for cleaning the oil from the boat BP should definitely pay for that.



Look we all know a company will suffer a loss of a million or so, but probably be awarded a tenth,isn't that bad enough but you need to strip them of their paycheck too,and make them buy their own gas.I don't know,I thought everyone would be perturbed,guess not ! did I misunderstand you .


Well, if the company suffered a loss of a million dollars then BP should pay all of it. Presumably at least some of that damage is from loss of income, but if BP is paying them to use the boat then how can they claim that they lost income?



Of course no person is ever made whole,never works like that....................................................I take that back ,one can spill a hot coffee in their lap at McDonalds them win a million dollar award as that lady did.Courts a weird animal.


I think the award got reduced on appeal, but there was actually a good reason why she was awarded a lot of money (which didn't seem to get any press). There are laws in place about how hot places are allowed to serve coffee. That McDonald's had already been cited several times for infractions. So the huge award was punitive. BP should likewise pay punitive damages because they were extremely negligent and there should be a criminal investigation. Heads should also roll in the government because the regulatory agencies knew that BP was being negligent.
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 554
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/19/2010 8:11:58 PM
Here is an interesting twist on how BP works:

I heard today that they are trying to hire/buy every scientist they can thats works out of the Gulf region for 2 reasons.

One reason is because they, the scientists will not be able to publish their findings for ( I believe I heard ) 3 years. If they're hired they have to abide by BP's contract. This way the public will not know what they found.

The second reason is because if they have the scientists as their employess they will not be able to testify in court against BP.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 555
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 7/19/2010 10:06:12 PM
Actually your logic has flaws,the first fishing boats owner that I saw interviewed,told they would make $75,000 in a single busy weekend,and at that point a month into it I believe they had been paid $35,000.You said one wasn't to be made whole, now you flipped 180 and said they should get 100%,first you argue that I complain what they are not getting is unfair,which you reply is an insane notion and now you flip and say it should be 100% of proven. Your making it hard to explain,like you haven't been listening to people talk of their losses on tv and of what they are receiving,just trace amounts.

Yes of course they are being awarded for lost wages,91 days worth so far,many have received $10,000 to $20,000 ,owners report that a trace amount.Many report they have received nothing,that their valid proof was denied.

No those working now are being paid to clean and $3000 a day as they say doesn't even come close to what they made,they or some say though it enough to pay the boat payment.

As for the lady and the coffee,I'm not sure what case you might be talking about,I'm talking the first landmark case,perhaps 1990 to maybe 1993,I was quite upset with the ruling ,being a great fan of coffee only if its scalding hot as all good restaurants made it.It was her case that made McDonalds change their temperatures of how hot rather warm(now) their coffee was,I never hadt a hot coffee again,most places in fear also changed,thats why I remember it was her case,seems almost 20 years ago now.

It was outrageous to pay someone for spilling a coffee in their crotch,coffee had been that hot since dang near forever,if you think about it, many a food item comes to you sizzling hot ,are you going to award the first person that takes a sizzling fajita in there lap,that's ridiculous,the big babies.When I was younger people just weren't such opportunists as a whole,it was the lawsuits awards in the last 30 years as to why we have such tremendously high prices,why 20 years ago Baby doctors left the industry because their insurance skyrocketed to unaffordable,it was lady's like whom I mentioned,where a fancy attorney would try to break an award record,solely for his or her huge fee.

I f the lady spilled it over her face and blinded herself I'd say she had an accident and sorry you were a clutz,thats what accidents are.McDonalds merely should have comforted her and called perhaps an ambulance if needed,thats it,they don't need to even apologize,why,because she had an accident.If while pumping gas into your car,gas squirts back in your eyes,sooooooooo,you had an accident,sorry,what thats the stations fault,a zillion people pumped their own gas,like forever,finally one person has an accident an they should be awarded,like because the gas burns your eyes to easily, then maybe the gas makers can dilute it or something super stupid like that so its harder to burn you,pla eze.

BP was different,they knew no cleanup equipment had been invented for a big spill,they took shortcuts and lied with the federal inspectors,screw un,make um pay .
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >