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
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 715
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...Page 22 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)

That is what every news station in the UK reported, every journalist in the UK reported, and every politician in the UK who spoke about the subject pointed out. If you want to say this is a hate-slinging slant, then by all means, write to every newspaper, TV, station, journalist and politician in the UK, to tell them as such.
Well sounds like its their problem ,doesn't it,because show me anyone slamming BP here.Sounds like we are being fraudulently accused of something no one has done.Sounds like UK ones you mention have a problem or are purposely trying to stir up anger.

As for calling British Petroleum,British Petroleum,that's like us here having to call UPS,"Brown",when all of us older people grew up around UPS and they will always be UPS.Just like KFC,a gang banger,hip hop sound to be modern,when all us older people call it Kentucky Fried Chicken,we are not at all concerned if we don't feel like addresses them by there modern hip hop abbreviation.Prez can call them anything that's their name,they are British Petroleum,and how exactly do people think that is putting down Brits.What about the famous "American Wheel",if they make a bad wheel and we call them that,is that supposed to mean we are bad mouthing America.

Perhaps Obama should just call them crooks,BP that is,because they are criminal,and should be put down,after all they sleep with government officials in some of the finest countries and they did get those Airline bombers freed,we will not forget them,they have a rap sheet so long,and somehow some in the UK are proud of them,I heard on TV Brit politicians there talking about what upstanding business people they were,how good they are for the country.

Tell you what lets have Obama call them British Petroleum Atlantic Richfield Co. Burmah Castrol plc.,because thats who they technically are.

British Petroleum Atlantic Richfield Co. Burmah Castrol plc. or BP sounds like petty whining in what ever country they are whining from,petty,petty,petty.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 716
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/11/2010 2:47:52 PM

show me anyone slamming BP here.
meant to say show me anyone slamming brits here
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 719
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/11/2010 8:01:21 PM
I was kinda OK with the scientist debate thingy here. It was bullsh1t I know, but it wasn't bad. Now however someone is pizzing on my shoes and telling me it's raining!

"Actually, shareholders are the legal owners of the "vehicle" and the "driver" can be asked to stop the bus and leave"

Oh c'mon scorpio! From alot of others on this forum I would expect that level of comment, NOT from you. First off, you make it sound as though, ma and pa english would toddle down and vote their shares, when you know most own them through large institutions who vote as a block to keep current management in place, as long as the bucks or pounds keep rolling in and the dividend is good.

If by your statement we are to imply that sh1t Hayward is representative of the british people, fukit, nuke the country now! They fire his azz, then give him a job in Russia? Pullezze, he got his payoff, for short circuiting safety procedures to "make a buck or pound"!

As for the scientist, again BS! Look up the records, BP has hired Wakenhut to provide security with "armed guards" to keep everyone out of where the oil comes ashore. What fuking oil rig are you talking about? There is no fuking oil rig, it's on the bottom of the gulf!

You brits can get your panties in a bunch because they call it British Petroleum all you want, it ain't your shores or people who are poisoned!

The stink of 500 years of tyranny by the British throughout the world without BP. From America, to India, to the middle east, to Ireland and on and on. Stick your stiff upper lip up your azz! If you guys had any balls, you'd call a spade a spade and say these guys, who run BP, mostly Brits and Europeans are dirty as sh1t and stop defending the indefendable!
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 721
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 7:22:32 AM

Don't forget, BP cares about the small people...

I watched that on the news 2 months ago,and you all know I don't like these abusive mega corporations at all,but when I watched this all I saw was like a Swedish or Nordic sounding man fumbling through the English language doing the best he could with translation.I did not take the use of little people as an insult it sounded like a language barrier,it sounded like when some Russians speak sometimes and they use odd words to us in a way we would not say it.

I took the use of little people to mean regular folk or the common citizens of the Gulf region,the proverbial Joe the Plumbers,the average working men and woman.

Maybe he meant little,then its not so good sounding.I'm wavering,still lean towards language barrier .

Look ,I firmly believe when one is talking to America,an English speaking country then their spokesperson should speak flawless,perfect English.I feel the same way when I cannot understand the foreign guy working the drive up window at the Burger king.People on the counter or phone computer tech on the phone should have total command of our language..........period.I hate repeating myself over and over when calling an HP tech and its actually Bombay
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 723
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 8:49:29 AM
Well ,while we, the Gulf ,are forced into the BP's Kingdom, and never forget,Halliburton was there too............ I do feel little,we got that Davey and Goliath thing going on,lol.Where is our slings !
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 725
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 9:57:38 AM

The main thing about it is about blame. It hasn't been British Petroleum since it merged with Amoco (American Oil Company) in 1998, when it became BP Amoco Plc, and in 2001, it was renamed BP Plc. But Obama keeps on calling it "British Petroleum". Either everyone in the White House are idiots who don't even try to look up the names of the companies they quote, or, Obama's press crew advised him to call it a name that doesn't exist anymore, because he wants to pretend its a British company,

to draw on the strong anti-British feelings that Americans still have since the American War of Independence was fought against British troops in the 1770s, over 200 years ago.


Those are the poster's exact words... He is the one who made those assumptions. In a further post...


oh, puh-leeze Scorpio, this is all in your mind. that was over 230 years ago, about 10 generations ago, most Americans are the descendants of immigrants who came long after that time, or are immigrants themselves -why would they 'hang onto' this as an "issue" ?

besides the Americans WON that war if you would recall..they'd have far more reason to resent the country of VIETNAM (far more recent, in living memory for many, and a lost war ) and as far as I can see, most do not , really.

They'd also have FAR, FAR, more reason to hate/and/or resent Germany, Italy, and Japan, for OBVIOUS reasons (much more recent, people affected still alive or at least in the previous generation or 2 -lost fathers, uncles, grandfathers, great-uncles, etc.) either directly as Americans, or the many immigrants, or children of immigrants from Poland and other places in Europe, UK, Asia, etc.

Remember Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Bulge, Monte Cassino & many other fierce battles?

AS far as I Can see, MOST Americans do not even have resentment against the "BIG 3" of the AXIS powers -they get over things

from the number of Americans who buy German & Japanese autos & other goods, it seems there's very little resentment -plenty of trade between US & all 3 of the former Axis powers . even many Jews drive German-made autos, ironically enough?

Most people in the US see the UK as on eof their staunchest allies, if not perhaps THE "Staunchest" ally -Canada & Australia perhaps close behind. But even Canada did not support the US in the last Iraq invasion, where the UK did in a big way. -as you know.

Many Americans are Anglophiles and obsess over the British Royal family, etc.

this "Brit-hate" stuff is all in your mind -been checked out for paranoid tendencies lately?

I know that many Brits and others tend to look down on Americans as "less intelligent" than they are, for whatever phony reason of supposed 'superiority'/cultural snobbery.

trust me, MOST Americans can distinguish between the country called the UK or "Britain" and a corporate entity called BP.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 726
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 10:01:13 AM

You brits can get your panties in a bunch because they call it British Petroleum all you want, it ain't your shores or people who are poisoned!

The stink of 500 years of tyranny by the British throughout the world without BP. From America, to India, to the middle east, to Ireland and on and on. Stick your stiff upper lip up your azz! If you guys had any balls, you'd call a spade a spade and say these guys, who run BP, mostly Brits and Europeans are dirty as sh1t and stop defending the indefendable!


Q: Why does the sun never set on the British Empire?

A: because God would never trust an Englishman in the dark!
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 727
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 12:41:41 PM
For all my anger at Hayward and BP, it can't compare to how I feel about the American equivelant of Darth Vader, Cheeney! Never forget he is TRULY the one who put us in this position to begin with.

It was HIS energy committee that put these rules in effect when he was VP under Shrub! Of course this doesn't even address all those no bid contracts he threw the way of his former company Haliburton.

Funny story about him last week, his heart was so bad they installed some medical device in his stomach I believe, it generates his blood flow. So now he has no pulse!

Litterally making him a non-human, just a form of android, with skin and blood! Haahaha! The doctor should have let him die!!

While all things considered this company is a very close second to the evil empire of BP! Like a very close 100 yard dash, only 100ths of seconds seperate them.

Yaknow, when I had my belly full of BS, with where they took the financial industry, I quit and moved on, going into another field, and just also trading my own money. I left in 2006, but by then, the damage was well on it's way to being done, no matter what some of us said. I knew others who were at my level and felt the same way, either left just before or after me. While we were not many, it was all we could do. Greed had taken over reason.

I often wonder why people in this industry stay at company's like BP or Haliburton. It's not like wall st, where they threw money at people to stay and only your own values led you to get off the merrygoround. It's not like the middle people make that much to stay here with these oil giants.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 728
view profile
History
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/12/2010 1:01:22 PM
Scorpiomover,Seriously most the country really likes you guys,I hear no one connecting BP to being a British problem.I trust you do hear from some of your people that its about being British,why would it be anything different than here.We have a strong tea party movement,they and conservatives say all sorts of things but we would hate to think you think that's how everyone feels.

At the moment Dan Quayle's kid is running a campaign on everything is Obama fault,all that is wrong now is because of him,whereas most of the country realizing the time frame is wrong,Bush fits the bulk of the problem Quayle mentions ,but doesn't include Bush, Obama owns some of the problem too we realize this. Quayle makes noise,its his platform.

My advice,stop listening to these select few British American hater shock jocks,media types and select British politicians,and trust that some people, in each country, loves to make noise,that's all it is.

We shouldn't only be hearing about BP,after all Halliburton zipped out of this mess like a ghost and remains not talked about,they are like a shadow.So is Halliburton an American company,? who knows? who cares? whats that got to do with it?Is BP this percentage American ,this percentage Burmese,this percentage British? who cares? whats that got to do with it.........................nothing at all !

Sorry about the tasteless European joke at your expense.Whats next Polish jokes.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 729
view profile
History
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/12/2010 1:04:53 PM
Ahhhhhhhh Cheney AKA president Cheney,now you are talking the problem of how we got here.The head man in the white house,Cheney actually was worse than his assistant junior Bush.Is it alright if when I refer to Cheney I just say president Halliburton.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 730
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 1:14:56 PM
RE Msg: 726 by annasthasia:
So now, this poster was only recanting what he heard in the news.
Oh, no. I'm not recanting at all. I just think that Obama is a lawyer, so he knows what impact certain words and expressions have. Presidents have speech-writers, who write their speeches, and check them for him, along with lawyers, to make sure they don't say anything that is illegal, or might give the wrong impression, and these people are very high up in their field. So I seriously doubt that when his staff discussed the speech, that no-one piped up and pointed out how the name of the corporation is BP, and NOT "British Petroleum". So I would be inclined to believe that someone did pipe up, and it was decided to put it in that way, deliberately.

I wouldn't make the same conclusion of an academic on an internet forum. But then, they aren't employing a whole fleet of staff to check their every word.

There are no links or quotes etc... Odd, I did some search and found nothing of the sort. I did not find any politician stating that americans were trying to create anti-British feelings the you believe americans still have!
Really? I've only spent 5 minutes looking for such quotes, and I've already found a good few:

From the Daily Mail, quoting Chris Huhne, part of the British Cabinet:
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne finally hit back yesterday, breaking days of public silence from the Government.

He emphasised that a string of U.S. firms were also heavily involved in the events leading up to the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig and said BP, which Mr Obama has pointedly referred to as British Petroleum, was ‘effectively an Anglo-American company’.

In a coded criticism of the president, he warned: ‘I think we have seen what can happen if people attempt to flam up the rhetoric on this.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1286245/BP-OIL-SPILL-Fury-Obama-compares-Gulf-leak-9-11-attacks.html

Here is a quote from the Daily Mail, about how David Cameron spoke to Barack Obama, about his statement:
Smoothing it over: David Cameron was assured by Barack Obama that his scathing comments about 'British Petroleum' had 'nothing to do with national identity'
Ibid.

Here is a comment from Michael Tomaskey, who writes for The Guardian America, the American edition of the British newspaper "The Guardian":
I take it the problem, which I confess my jaded ears hadn't even registered, is that Obama keeps saying "British Petroleum" instead of BP. The conservative Canadian-American commentator David Frum, surveying the UK's conservative press, espies "an attempt to mobilise American nationalism against Britain in order to evade political blame for the disaster". Well, I suppose that could be. We have established in the past – the slighting of Gordon Brown, the removal of a Churchill bust from the Oval Office – that Obama seems not to be an Anglophile. I want to stipulate that I'm totally guessing here, but I suspect this diffidence (if it's real, which we don't really know) has something to do with the fact that Obama's roots are Kenyan. Which country colonised Kenya? Ah. This is the kind of thing that happens when white Anglo-Saxon hegemony is interrupted and you let people into the club whose forebears saw history from the other side. Deal with it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jun/11/bp-lets-settle-in-south-africa

Here is another article from Michael White of The Guardian:
Well, fine. But the president and some senior officials have been referring to BP as "British Petroleum" – a name it hasn't used for some years – and hammering Tony Hayward, BP's highly-visible CEO (where was the Swedish chairman?), so I think we can assume they'd spotted scope for some foreigner-bashing.

As British commentators have rushed to point out, we did not burn US executives in effigy after Occidental's Piper Alpha rig exploded, killing 167 men, in 1988. And Union Carbide's shamefully evasive performance before, during and since the Bhopal disaster in 1984 was highlighted in an Indian court again only last week. That killed 3,000 people directly, and many more since.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jun/14/obama-britain-bp-michael-white

Here is his bio page on The Guardian's site, if you're interested:
Michael White is assistant editor and has been writing for the Guardian for over 30 years, as a reporter, foreign correspondent and columnist. He was political editor from 1990-2006, having previously been the paper's Washington correspondent (1984-88) and parliamentary sketchwriter (1977-84)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/michaelwhite

Here are some general opinions:

From a poster called Mary on BBC's "Have your say" page, on "What do you think of BP's action?":
Trolling around the internet, I have found at least half a dozen British publications spinning and spitting venom at Barack Obama and Congress because they dared call BP "British Petroleum" (funny how that works when corporate headquarters, are, were, and remain, in London.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/06/obamas_oil_speech_what_action.html

From another poster, Jack_Smith56, on CNET's site:
How is this Britains Fault? Theres Just as many US investors as British ones.
"British Petroleum" it hasn't been called that for years now, as soon as this disaster happens Barack Obama just happens to start calling it that name.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20007852-54.html

From a British poster on an American site:
I am British by birth (now a naturalised American citizen). I am well aware of Britain's position on the war. What you may be unaware of is that Obama is fast becoming the most hated man in the country (that has been the title of several pieces in the press). The BBS, the Guardian and other left to moderate news organizations and publications have been merciless in retaliation for Obama's continued attack on "British Petroleum" as if it represents Britain. BP hasn't been "British Petroleum" for more than a decade.

If you wish to permanently sever the relationship, then continue to demonize Britain.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2010/06/18/obamas_latest_shakedown

RE Msg: 727 by Krebby2001:

I wrote earlier that I don't have access to the article. Considering your views on BP, wouldn't you want me to independently review your findings?
Yeah, you stated that and then commenced to answer AS IF you had read the article. What's up with that?
Sorry. When I cannot find an article, I don't assume that I can't get the information from somewhere else. So I did. Is there anything wrong with not relying on your sources?

Had you been merely disagreeing with my conclusions, because you had other information, that suggested something else, then I would have thought you'd just have posted them. However, you wrote: "That's not what the article is about."

How am I expected to discuss a matter, when you don't seem interested in any source on the matter, other than the one you cited, and yet, I cannot look at it myself, to check if it says what you claimed?

However, I'm willing to be wrong. So if you are willing to explain your words clearer, so that I can see that I misunderstood, then I'd be happy to apologise.

The NRDA is at least partially funded by BP ... there's a little problem with that.
Yes, there is. However, if it really was a reason for concern, then surely either the US government would never have accepted that funding for the NRDA, or they would have ensured that another agency, that isn't funded by BP, was in charge of overseeing the NRDA's actions, to keep them honest, or the US government is happy to have BP influence the decisions of the NRDA. But considering just how hard Obama has been hammering BP's responsibility and accountability in the matter, at the moment, I doubt that Obama would let the NRDA do its job on its own, unless he believed that BP wouldn't influence the NRDA.

Second, the phrase "without considering the exact words they use, then those papers can be used by BP's lawers to kill the case against BP." Whooo Boy. Since when do lawyers get to interpret scientific findings? Ever heard of "expert testimony." Ay Carramba!
I agree that having expert witnesses, like scientists is important in a court case, and they should be free to testify as they see fit.

A learned treatise must be read by an expert witness. But the thing is, who gets to decide which expert witness to use? The side bringing the learned treatise into court. The expert witness is allowed to be paid for his efforts. So, if BP wanted to, they could scour the world, for scientists who are willing to testify to help BP, in return for quite a lot of money. That expert witness, chosen by BP, could then read out the paper, again chosen by BP, and give their understanding of it to the jury.

In case you are interested, I knew someone who was paid as an expert witness about 10 years ago, who was paid £50,000 for each day in court, which is about $77,955 per day, and that was 10 years ago. So the rates have probably gone up since then. They only need one scientist, who doesn't mind being paid probably $100,000+ for each day in court. I'm sure that 99.9% won't. But that won't BP looking for one, until they find one.

Also, BP's lawyers are allowed to cross-examine any expert witness for the Prosecution. So they can pick on any word read out from the scientific paper, and take it to bits.

Whether we like it or not, you cannot just walk into a courtroom and tell the truth, as you see fit, without being cross-examined by lawyers, or selected because of potential bias, not even if you are Stephen Hawking.

C'mon Scorp, you're smarter than that ... so all of the effects of the oil spill are found EXCLUSIVELY on the oil rigs? Have about the coastal waters and the marshes and the beaches, hmmm?
I understand that. But it wouldn't be possible for BP to force people off public land in the State of Louisiana, as they are a private firm, and have no jurisdiction. They would certainly not be able to force people off private land there either, and with the amount of oil, there must be quite a few private estates which have been contaminated. AFAIK, the only people who can force scientists off public land, or private farms where they have permission from the owners, is a government agency, like the local sheriff, or the NRDA. But then, it wouldn't be BP forcing those scientists off the land. It would be the government forcing them off the land.

I can show ya lots of court rulings about offshore oil rigs from 2009 or before --- you have to be more explicit than that.
I just wanted you to validate what I considered an extraordinary claim, by providing ONE court ruling from before 2010, to show that offshore oil rigs are public property, and that ANYONE can board them anytime they want.

Was it it that you want me to show you before doing this "pro bono" activity for you?
Hey, if you think of this as "work", then don't. I'll just consider your claim as an extraordinary claim without any proof to substaniate it.

Whee Dogeee! Policy is not made on the basis of one scientists finding(s), but rather, on the gathering of evidence of many findings, buttressed by replicative findings. It's the most effective way to establish empirical reality, or as far as we come to measuring it.
Really? You mean like cot death syndrome? That was used to establish policy in the social services in hundreds of cases, on the basis on ONE scientist's view, that of Sir Roy Meadows.

The more scientists review evidence, and come to the same conclusions, the more likely it is that those conclusions are correct. But that's not necessarily how government policy or corporate policy is decided, and is often not the case.

Scorp, I know of no scientist that writes with the thought in mind, "Gee, I wonder if the lawyers are going to like this?"
Neither do I.

You sound as if we should all kow tow to the lawyer's guild, seeing as how you're so worried about how "making a case" and all.
I'm pointing out, how it's not unreasonable to consider that someone should consider the consequences of their actions. Scientists are supposed to be the smartest people in the world, and are supposed to be far smarter than any lawyer. So for scientists, it should be a piece of cake, not even an effort.

In reality, the "best case" will be made IF scientific evidence can be gathered UNBIASED.
I am not disagreeing with this. However, the points you've made, seem to be arguing that scientists are being restricted from gathering evidence in places where only the government can restrict scientists, and where it would be illegal for BP to do that.

Man, I can't believe this. Several weeks ago, BP was shaking its head going, "DUH, we can't seem to get a handle on this .... now you cast them as the saviors who knew more than the science community which gathered round to debate the feasability of techniques to deal with the problem -- and there were many.
I have no illusions about BP. I am sure that if they had a choice between losing an oil rig worth billions, or losing the life of 10 men, they'd offer 10 men $10,000 each, to fix the rig, and if no-one agreed, they'd approach every person in the nearest 1000 miles, with the same deal.

I would love to see BP take a big hit, that would make oil companies keep much more to safety regulations. But I think that the situation is just getting too emotionally unbalanced. I think that the way things are going, that oil companies will conclude that Americans are p*ssed off, because AMERICANS have suffered, and not any other reason. So I would expect that in the future, that oil companies will just keep their rigs well away from America, but just keep on doing the same thing on other shores. So, instead of one super-massive disaster off America, I expect that there will be a lot more unsafe deep-sea drilling in the world, with a lot more super-massive disasters.

Where were you heroes, the lawyers? Finding ways to keep people from knowing the extent of the damage, loopholes to protect BP, and ways to keep from paying the clean up crews. Now they're trying to direct the flow of scientific investigation.
Lawyers don't dictate anything about a company. They are just lackeys who can provide a legal way for BP or the US government to get what they want. Scummy lackeys, yes. But they really just do what the company directors want.

They only have a few capacities in cases like this: to advise BP or the US government on the consequences of certain actions vis-a-vis a pending court case, and to draw up contracts as per the exact requirements of BP or the US government. Outside of that, they have no influence.

Take time from writing --- reflect on what ya said for a bit --- we'll hold a spot for ya here, in case your time for reflection still reflects your awe of BP and lawyers. On the bright side, at least this thread has discovered ONE worshiper of lawyers, especially BP lawyers.
Ya really don't get it, do ya? I'll spell it out for you. I believe that corporations and lawyers, should both be made fully responsible for their actions. But if you don't play fair, and charge EVERY lawyer for the wrongs they do, no matter how poor and un-powerful the person is, and EVERY oil company to cleap up EVERY oil spill, no matter where it happens, then lawyers and corporations will see that they only have to be careful when dealing with rich and powerful countries like America, which is the richest and most powerful in the world. They'll know that because Americans got over-mad over America, that it is an emotional reaction, not an reasoned choice, to protect everyone in the world. They'll go to drill for deep-sea oil, in every location off Africa, India, and Asia. If things play as they seem to be, then Americans won't act on those oil spills, and then the rest of the world will go to pot. If oil is found off the West coast of South America, then the Humboldt current could be completely polluted. Do you know what happen to the plankton and the fish if THAT gets polluted? Do you realise that as much as 50% of the world's oxygen come from plankton? I don't want Americans showing the oil companies, and the lawyers, that they can destroy our ability to breathe, just as long as they don't do it next to America.

RE Msg: 728 by mr.evil:
Now however someone is pizzing on my shoes and telling me it's raining!
You are saying it's raining, and I am telling you that you are p*ssing on your own shoes.

"Actually, shareholders are the legal owners of the "vehicle" and the "driver" can be asked to stop the bus and leave"

Oh c'mon scorpio! From alot of others on this forum I would expect that level of comment, NOT from you. First off, you make it sound as though, ma and pa english would toddle down and vote their shares, when you know most own them through large institutions who vote as a block to keep current management in place, as long as the bucks or pounds keep rolling in and the dividend is good.
Ma and Pa English aren't the major shareholders in these large corporations. They cannot afford many shares, at £410.50 each. The major shareholders, who attend these AGMs, are almost certainly millionaires, billionaires and other corporations. They don't care, as long as the money keeps rolling in.

If by your statement we are to imply that sh1t Hayward is representative of the british people, fukit, nuke the country now! They fire his azz, then give him a job in Russia? Pullezze, he got his payoff, for short circuiting safety procedures to "make a buck or pound"!
Tony Hayward isn't representative of the average Brit. But he is representative of those at the top. Just look at Tony Blair. Today, it was announced that he's going to require security at his book signing, at a cost of £250,000! He's been given an advance of over £4 million! But who is going to pay for it? Him? Nope. The British people are going to have to pay for it. So the British people have to pay £250,000, just so he can make millions!

As for the scientist, again BS! Look up the records, BP has hired Wakenhut to provide security with "armed guards" to keep everyone out of where the oil comes ashore. What fuking oil rig are you talking about? There is no fuking oil rig, it's on the bottom of the gulf!
It's ILLEGAL! Why can't your scientists just point that out to the local police? BP may be paying Wakenhut. But the US government is not doing anything to stop them, when they have the responsibility to, the power to, the right to, and they damn sure know it's going on.

You brits can get your panties in a bunch because they call it British Petroleum all you want, it ain't your shores or people who are poisoned!

The stink of 500 years of tyranny by the British throughout the world without BP. From America, to India, to the middle east, to Ireland and on and on. Stick your stiff upper lip up your azz! If you guys had any balls, you'd call a spade a spade and say these guys, who run BP, mostly Brits and Europeans are dirty as sh1t and stop defending the indefendable!
I'll just quote from my source above:
As British commentators have rushed to point out, we did not burn US executives in effigy after Occidental's Piper Alpha rig exploded, killing 167 men, in 1988. And Union Carbide's shamefully evasive performance before, during and since the Bhopal disaster in 1984 was highlighted in an Indian court again only last week. That killed 3,000 people directly, and many more since.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jun/14/obama-britain-bp-michael-white

Don't forget about the Exxon Valdez. It took Exxon 20 years to start paying out for the damage they caused.

Exxon, Occidental, and Union Carbide, are all American companies.

If you guys had any balls, you'd call a spade a spade and say these guys, who run BP, mostly Brits and Europeans are dirty as sh1t and stop defending the indefendable!
BP employs about 10,000 people in the UK. It employs about 24,000 in the US.

As to who owns it:
Approximately 40% of BP shares are held by UK shareholders, and 39% in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

Like it or not, Americans have as much control as us Brits, and double the control of the rest of the world.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 731
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 2:26:49 PM
RE Msg: 737 by imalwayssmiling:
Scorpiomover,Seriously most the country really likes you guys,I hear no one connecting BP to being a British problem.I trust you do hear from some of your people that its about being British,why would it be anything different than here.We have a strong tea party movement,they and conservatives say all sorts of things but we would hate to think you think that's how everyone feels.
That's why I asked you about this before, and when you responded that it wasn't the case, I was willing to let it go.

Someone else brought the matter up again.

However, in looking it up, I found one something else, that seems to explain why it might have come up.

It turns out that BP Plc, has a subsidiary company, called "BP America".
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/bplc/companies_31.htm

BP America is run by Lamar McKay. He holds a degree from from Mississippi State University and an MBA from Indiana University. He started out at Amoco in 1980, and worked on the BP-Amoco merger.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9026681&contentId=7048738

He took over being chairman and president of BP America in 2009.

The Deepwater Horizon was in operation from 2001. It has worked on several fields, with lots of success. In 2009, when Lamar McKay was in charge of BP America, the Deepwater Horizon drilled the deepest oil well in history, at a vertical depth of 35,000 feet.

This was Congress' response to Mr McKay from back in the middle of June:
Lamar McKay, the President of BP America, was asked to resign when he appeared before House Energy and Commerce Committee today as part of a congressional testimony. But Rep. Joseph Cao went medieval on McKay.

The Louisiana congressman, who represents New Orleans, invoked an ancient Japanese ritual as a suggestion for beleaguered exec at a separate hearing on Capitol Hill.

"Mr. Stearns asked Mr. McKay to resign," Cao said, referring to Rep. Cliff Stearns. "Well, in the Asian culture we do things differently. During the Samurai days, we just give you a knife and ask you to commit harakiri."

Harikari is a Japanese ritual suicide performed by soldiers or others who have committed a serious offense or brought shame upon themselves.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/15/2010-06-15_louisiana_rep_joseph_cao_tells_bp_exec_to_commit_ritual_suicide.html

I'm in full agreement, that as BP Plc owns BP America, that it does have to take ultimate responsibility for the actions of its subsidiaries, just like you would have to take ultimate responsibility for what your employees did while on company time.

But if your employee killed someone, while on a job, the person who must bear the brunt of the blame, is the employee, and that, in this case, is BP America. As a result, the companies that were involved in the Deepwater Horizon, were: BP America, an American company, Transocean, an American company, and Haliburton, an American company.

Other oil companies also do really bad things, and probably elsewhere, BP has done some really bad things. But Americans have to realise that American-run oil companies had a huge influence in making this disaster happen, or they'll let other American-run companies off the hook, and a similar level of disaster could happen again, maybe not in deep-sea drilling off American coasts, but in Alaska, or somewhere else in America.

At the moment Dan Quayle's kid is running a campaign on everything is Obama fault,all that is wrong now is because of him,whereas most of the country realizing the time frame is wrong,Bush fits the bulk of the problem Quayle mentions ,but doesn't include Bush, Obama owns some of the problem too we realize this. Quayle makes noise,its his platform.
Bush has got lots of connections with the Texas oilmen. But BP didn't even acquire exploration rights to the Macondo Prospect until August 2009. Bush could have put everyone together, to make the deal. But I think that is about all I can see, unless you have more evidence.

My advice,stop listening to these select few British American hater shock jocks,media types and select British politicians,and trust that some people, in each country, loves to make noise,that's all it is.
Fair enough.

We shouldn't only be hearing about BP,after all Halliburton zipped out of this mess like a ghost and remains not talked about,they are like a shadow.So is Halliburton an American company,? who knows? who cares? whats that got to do with it?Is BP this percentage American ,this percentage Burmese,this percentage British? who cares? whats that got to do with it.........................nothing at all !
It's also got Swiss and Japanese connections, as the Macondo prospect's exploration rights, are jointly owned by BP (65%), Anadarko (25%), based in Texas, and MOEX USA Corporation (10%), which is a subsidiary of the Matsui Group, a Japanese conglomerate.

Sorry about the tasteless European joke at your expense.Whats next Polish jokes.
I get that everyone is angry. However, if you can keep your cool, you have the power to change things.

Americans use 20.680 million barrels a day, 24% of the world's oil consumption. Each American uses 25.2 barrels a year. The next closest is China, which uses less than half of what America uses.
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/pie/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

21.7% of BP oil, is sold to Americans, at 18,686 barrels a day in 2009. The next closest is China again, which used only 8,625 barrels a day, at 10.40%, half of what Americans buy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/09/bp-energy-statistics-consumption-reserves-energy

Americans are the biggest consumers of oil in the world. They buy twice as much as China. They buy 10 times what the UK buys from BP. Americans are BP's very best customers, and the same is true for the the oil industry in general. That's why BP is spending so much on this spill. They don't want Americans to stop buying from BP.

That's your power. BP and the other oil companies will do anything, to keep you buying their oil. If you want them to do what you want, all you need to do, is to get Americans to stop using oil, until they do what you want.

You might wonder at that, as it seems our world is totally dependent on oil. But in reality, only 6% goes on oil used as power, and the majority, 74%, goes on transport.

Threaten BP, that if they don't do what you want, that Americans all over in America, will stop driving everywhere in gas-guzzlers, and they'll accede to your demands almost immediately.

Let every American know this. If you act together, as one nation, you can make the oil companies act decently.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 732
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 2:50:50 PM

So now, this poster was only recanting what he heard in the news.
Oh, no. I'm not recanting at all. I just think that Obama is a lawyer, so he knows what impact certain words and expressions have. Presidents have speech-writers, who write their speeches, and check them for him, along with lawyers, to make sure they don't say anything that is illegal, or might give the wrong impression, and these people are very high up in their field.

So I seriously doubt that when his staff discussed the speech, that no-one piped up and pointed out how the name of the corporation is BP, and NOT "British Petroleum". So I would be inclined to believe that someone did pipe up, and it was decided to put it in that way, deliberately.

I wouldn't make the same conclusion of an academic on an internet forum. But then, they aren't employing a whole fleet of staff to check their every word.


you are reading the, opinions of newspaper 'journalists' /writers, not those of the average citizen.

these writers are PAID to stir up the sh1t as much as they can, get people,angry, excited, and wanting more news coverage.

so when G.W. Bush said :"This is a Crusade.." referring to the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq, largely Muslim countries, by largely (at least nominally) Christian countries such as the USA & UK, he really meant it & it was vetted by all his top advisers?

hmm, seems to me he corrected himself shortly thereafter after some of his advisers had virtually apoplectic fits about his use of the words "A CRUSADE.."

historically & politically very sensitive area & reference, to Muslims..
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 733
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 2:54:29 PM

Threaten BP, that if they don't do what you want, that Americans all over in America, will stop driving everywhere in gas-guzzlers, and they'll accede to your demands almost immediately.

Let every American know this. If you act together, as one nation, you can make the oil companies act decently.
Well Obama has tried hard to crack down on them and heavy regulate them and the industry and thats why half this country is so mad at him for the gulf,The republicans want more drilling opened up and remove most the regulations.Obama says halt the drilling until we know how to control a spill,the other side laughs at him for such an odd notion.

Many an ignorant person would prefer to keep there job and worry only when the accident happens,many of us call that ridiculous short sighted,narrow minded thinking.

See its not Obama ,Obama is a threat to millions that find there way of life threatened,really,as far as they can see,whats an wrong with mass destruction of the gulf and a way of life if it effects thousands of oil company/driller jobs.Its like jumping over a dollar to save a dime.Just like the harm the miners do,doesn't matter how many get cancer,the shouting only starts when the miners way of life is threatened.

This country is full of odd thinking like that,Bp thinks its shareholders and profits are more important than millions in the Gulf.Obama tries to regulate to make a safer industry and the businesses,suppliers,drillers and families of these industries try to put him out of office because he is threatening their way of life.

Its always been this way.

Thanks for the dateline of who owns BP and when it all happened,actually I posted all those facts and dates about 1 page of posts ago.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 734
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 2:58:22 PM
P.s. think you misunderstood me stating Cheney is a root cause of many of our problems.I was talking the whole enchilada,not just oil industry.he and Halliburton led the black sites,torture,removal if civil liberties,wiretapping,false war of WMD,the list goes on and on.At times it seemed Cheney was the ventriloquist and Bush the dummy on his lap.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 736
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 6:27:42 PM
All this talk about the evil BP and where the blames should lay.It is important to to always look back and see who owns this problem.Cheney was quite a player,Bush and others too,even Obama has blame,but as for bad presidents,first term in office we all learn so if in Bushes case,as we learned what he actually was,including his cronies then shame on the American people for handing such a group a second term,blame go largely to those that voted for him a second time and not to those that opposed him.

Obama,I enjoy,but as his term goes on and say at time of second election we learn he broke many laws like Bush and started false wars,and such,becomes something like a Bush and his cronies were,wiretapping,torture,allowing Wall Street free reign,then place the blame on the American people that vote him in for a second term.I have seen good changes through Obama,I'm not worried yet.

Blame should always be given to the appropriate persons.

BP,same thing,they have a horrible track record ,dangerous sites,slack maintenance,environmental damages,deaths,high level abuses,ect.decades of this behavior

So we should have learned from this ,now for many years,BP is a bad abusive corporation.Its like they are a rattle snake,one expects a rattle snake to bite,and they will,they do.So lots of blame needs to go to the governmental agencies that give a company like this drilling rights,someone that has proven to be a very poor custodian around the world.We need better industry than this.

Many political leaders are to blame for letting them roam.Ultimately does one really blame the rattle snake for being a snake,does one really ultimately blame the 11 year old babysitter that blew it,or does one blame the Adults full well knowing 11 year olds will not make a good ,wise and trustful babysitter.

Shame on many of us that vote in people that support so many of these rattle snakes,and as to why we seem surprised when they bite us,I have no idea.

I don't think any of us knew that nothing existed for disaster on a deep water oil wells,except that is for those investigators and the industry people and some others I am not aware of.seemed most everyone, even the president was shocked as the proverbial fire bells rang and no engine existed to show up to the site.

I expect with this knowledge now that politicians would say never again and regulate to the umpteen degree this industry.Come on,at least cage the snake.If BP was a pet it would be a requirement a snake lives within a cage,the regulations are the cage in this case,the drilling rights are the cage.I have zero concern if controlling a snake will hurt others employment,that's the breaks,heck,those that get cancers and die from unsafe locations ultimately are out of work anyways.

Man has a right to a safe work place and the community has a right to a safe business among them that will not become their personal doom.and known of that could be pushed aside because we are afraid people will lose jobs.How about actually giving me a good reason,this is all I get now from the oil industry supporters,jobs at any cost is their bottom line even if the tv commercials say otherwise.

I am shocked at how many in this country feel its best if the rattler is not caged but let free to roam,without federal investigators and oil companies and abandoned wells regulated and spill equipment invented then made readily available, then expect the rattler to bite again and again,after all a snakes is a snake.

I like the concept of everyone refusing to drive there car,boy that will show them,huh.Sounds nice but will never in a million years happen.

If not the government ,then whom will watch them?

Do we need a type of group like Consumers report and independent agency that receives no pay from any one that they test.Is it possible to have a non governmental oversight body ,with the powers of Zeus,untouchable from likes of politicians and industry/labor lobbyists.

Well until you invent this group,then the government is all we have.I want prison terms for the governmental investigators that let BP and others sign their own paper.Laws with real meat.

Our laws in this country suck,when I say penalties with meat ,it needs to be tough.Right now we have stupid penalties,Take the three attorneys that robbed 450 clients of their tens of millions of dollars they were awarded to them then receive 10 to 20 years in prison for it,possibility of parole in 5 and these people originally awarded and then frauded are afflicted with cancers and some died from the lack of payment .

Or take a guy with 2 ounces of pot in a key state and he gets 10 years mandatory,no parole.

Where is the balance ,where is the justice.I'd want the 3 attorneys to get 100 years no parole and the kid with the pot,I do not for a minute want my valuable prison space wasted on that sort nor do I want to spend $75 a day of my tax money to house that guy,ESPECIALLY without opportunity of parole for ten whole years.

Put two million people in the gulf out of work because of short cutting the system,not doing maintenance falsifying records,well heads should roll.

Our courts in this country are a joke.And part of the overall problem
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 737
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/12/2010 6:30:57 PM
The BP oil spill and the Wall St debacle are just another sign of the times and really what is wrong with attitudes these days. We live in a smash and grab economy now, with those at the top taking all they can get right now and damn the consequences.

Both partially resulted with removing the safeties we've have in place, not having emergency plans in place and not doing all the research they could have done beforehand. That all costs money, and when the bean counters and managers get involved, those budgets get slashed and risks taken based on pie in the sky thinking- Things have gone well so far as so why would it change(?)

Such folly is always part of the human condition. It's been shown throught history and we still refuse to learn.

Hopefully nature can take care of the gulf eventually as the article about microbes shows the first stage of the reclamation. Oil refineries have been using microbes to treat their waste water for years- the biox units they have consume small amounts oil from their water effluent streams. I don't know if this idea can be used in a big open area like the gulf but maybe nature can provide.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 738
view profile
History
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/13/2010 10:57:58 AM
Ahhhhhhhh Cheney AKA president Cheney,now you are talking the problem of how we got here.The head man in the white house,Cheney actually was worse than his assistant junior Bush.Is it alright if when I refer to Cheney I just say president Halliburton.

What the hell are you talking about?

It legitimately concerns me that people don't say "what the hell are you talking about?" after almost everything you post.
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 739
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/13/2010 11:12:57 AM

Oh, no. I'm not recanting at all. I just think that Obama is a lawyer, so he knows what impact certain words and expressions have. Presidents have speech-writers, who write their speeches, and check them for him, along with lawyers, to make sure they don't say anything that is illegal, or might give the wrong impression, and these people are very high up in their field. So I seriously doubt that when his staff discussed the speech, that no-one piped up and pointed out how the name of the corporation is BP, and NOT "British Petroleum". So I would be inclined to believe that someone did pipe up, and it was decided to put it in that way, deliberately.


did it EVER occur to you that spelling out (pronouncing) the entire name could have been for CLARITY?

when you say initials, especaially ones like "B" & P" that RHYME with many other letters, things can get confusing.. I often say out full names rather than use letters & acronyms -I know many are SO fond of them, but sometimes they lack clarity.

for one thing the same acronym or short form/letters/initials can mean more than one thing.. can be confsuing

You may have noticed that the letters "B", "C", "D", "E", "G", "P", "T", "V", & in the USA, "Z". .all rhyme?

so when peoplesay these letters listeners can be confused.
"BP" might be heard as "TZ", etc.

that's why radio operators don't just say letters -too confusing, can be misheard & misinterpreted. they use words to represent letters, e.g "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, etc."
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 741
view profile
History
Did BP trade blood for money ? (or oil? ) it appears so!
Posted: 8/13/2010 12:00:45 PM

What the hell are you talking about?

It legitimately concerns me that people don't say "what the hell are you talking about?" after almost everything you post.
Oh I am sorry, are you new to this country,did you just crawl out from under a rock or have just awaken from a 7 year sleep.

People so incredibly out of touch and others so to the right that they are blind is an oddity to me,usually ones blinders have an opening in the front,sorry yours does not.
 imalwayssmiling
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 743
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/13/2010 2:33:49 PM

If I were a conspiracy nut, I would say that he is tired of getting phone calls from howdy doody in the white house telling him what to do. Can you explain why a CEO would retire after just barely making strides in turning GM around, unless it just wasn't worth it anymore?
Paul are you referring to the GM that was about to go under,because as a private industry they were running themselves out of existence through bad business choices and an unwillingness to change,thus putting all their shareholders and employees at risk, are you stating its better not even having a GM,compared to having to be bailed out rather than to be even in existence,that its worse to endure temporary conditions compared to just being alive.

As one can see Whitacre never stays long as a CEO.But hey at least you were able to write a post blaming Obama for everything.Paul someone once wrote something that made me immediately think of you,in fact I thought it was you when I read it,

and I quote "Those that feel, notice I didn't say "think"are only taken seriously by "their own kind".It is difficult to try to rationaly explain what they feel, and the only thing they have to go on is the possibillity of their parfticular conspiracy being right...............please excuse all the typos I cut and pasted the post as it was written!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/12/news/companies/GM_ceo_akerson/index.htm

Whitacre said he had always planned to give up the top job at GM as soon as possible, and that he's confident in the choice of Akerson.

"It was my duty to help restore the company to greatness and I didn't want to stay a day beyond that," said Whitacre. "Dan and I have been close for a number of months. He's been on the board. He's been very involved. I think this will be a very smooth transition."

Akerson, 61, who has been on the GM board for just over a year, is now managing director and head of global buyout for private equity firm Carlyle Group. He has been CEO of three other companies, although none in the auto industry.

He served as CEO and chairman of Nextel from 1996 to 1999, and stayed on as non-executive chairman until 2001. In 1999 he became chairman and CEO of XO Communications, helping to restructure that specialty communications company. He had previously served as chairman and CEO of General Instrument Co..................

Why stay long when leaving it so unrealistically profitable,one makes better money as a CEO to leave ,Tony Hayward also just learned how much better it is to change positions in a company at a CEO level,less heat and tens of millions for the honor.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 744
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/13/2010 3:27:53 PM

Oh I am sorry, are you new to this country,did you just crawl out from under a rock or have just awaken from a 7 year sleep.

People so incredibly out of touch and others so to the right that they are blind is an oddity to me,usually ones blinders have an opening in the front,sorry yours does not.

derrr...

I'm so out of touch I forgot to fashion my own tin-foil hat.

I aspire to be like you, and I cling to the hope I will mature to your level of... understanding...
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 746
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/13/2010 4:13:14 PM
Ahh Paul, GM, banks, Fannie and Freddie, AIG the list goes on and on.

I'll give you maybe Obama MAYBE driving down the wrong street, we don't know now, we don't know because as a country, we've never been here! Funny in my mind you have to look at this like an earthquake, where can you be to be safe. Frankly nobody knows for sure.

BUT its good to remember, the stock market crash happened in september 2008, under shrub and his policies of the previous 8 YEARS!! The stock market bottomed in March of 09, interesting, it was after the stimulus bill.

Now maybe he's in the dark, maybe grasping at straws. Do YOU really believe we would be better off under McCain and trailer trash Sarah? With a SECOND idiot, after shrub, a heartbeat away from the presidency?

The GM thing is very complicated, how they work the IPO, who gets what, what the unions gave up to keep the company going. Frankly I hate unions, but in this case, I can't find fault with them. It was the bean counters and the executives who sent 200,000 jobs out of the country, they eliminated union jobs, BUT kept their obscene paychecks, and bonuses. They even encouraged the only profitable part of GM to go into a market they NEVER belonged in Sub prime mortgages, which eventually drove GMAC under.

Yeah frankly I don;t care who's president, but with 30 billion of OUR dollars on the line, I'd want somebody's hand up the CEO of GM's azz! They've already shown us, they couldn't manage a lemonade stand.

Back to my pal Darth(Cheney) don't forget that idiot, supported "torture". He said screw the Geneva convention "we're merica", we can do as we please!!

Please guys face the facts, doesn't matter the party, doesn't matter the issue, if they decide things for us, in DC, we're screwed, they get theirs, we get it in the end, if you know what I mean.

As for the BP disaster, everyone, in DC, keeps saying "oh things are great now in the gulf, getting better by the day, in no time, they'll be sayin we don't need all that BP money, give some to the lawyers, a pittance to the people and let us politicians have at the rest, for our campaigns, our pork, our country club memberships.

You guys don't get it, they aren't for you, their ALL ABOUT THEMSELVES!!!!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 748
view profile
History
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/17/2010 5:28:35 AM
RE Msg: 741 by sarniafairyboy:
you are reading the, opinions of newspaper 'journalists' /writers, not those of the average citizen.
You did see where I quoted "average citizens" from UK blogs, didn't you?

these writers are PAID to stir up the sh1t as much as they can, get people,angry, excited, and wanting more news coverage.
I'm aware of that. I'm downplaying just how bad the furore was.

so when G.W. Bush said :"This is a Crusade.." referring to the invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq, largely Muslim countries, by largely (at least nominally) Christian countries such as the USA & UK, he really meant it & it was vetted by all his top advisers?

hmm, seems to me he corrected himself shortly thereafter after some of his advisers had virtually apoplectic fits about his use of the words "A CRUSADE.."

historically & politically very sensitive area & reference, to Muslims..
You mean like when General Allenby said in 1917, that the conquest of Jerusalem was the end of the Crusades, and WE won against the Arabs? That one little speech, convinced the Arabs that the West hates them, and so far, they still haven't seemed to change their minds.

RE Msg: 742 by imalwayssmiling:
Well Obama has tried hard to crack down on them and heavy regulate them and the industry and thats why half this country is so mad at him for the gulf,
For someone who is supposed to be cracking down on them, he seems to have made one almighty balls-up, to let an unpredicted drilling project with an appalling safety record, to go ahead on his watch.

The republicans want more drilling opened up and remove most the regulations.
In the UK, a politician is supposed to be skilled in diplomacy, the art of convincing others that want to do one thing, to do something entirely different. Obama is no longer displaying the qualities that would make Brits think of him as a good leader.

Obama says halt the drilling until we know how to control a spill,the other side laughs at him for such an odd notion.

Many an ignorant person would prefer to keep there job and worry only when the accident happens,many of us call that ridiculous short sighted,narrow minded thinking.

See its not Obama ,Obama is a threat to millions that find there way of life threatened,really,as far as they can see,whats an wrong with mass destruction of the gulf and a way of life if it effects thousands of oil company/driller jobs.Its like jumping over a dollar to save a dime.
The way I see things, there wouldn't BE a problem, if safety had been observed. The safety regulations that existed had not been followed properly at all. If safety regulations weren't enough, or we weren't sure, then it was up to Obama to pay scientists to work out what WOULD be enough to make it safe. It would have cost probably less than a million, and BP would have saved at least $9 billion. Obama could have even told BP, that if they wanted to drill there, they had to pay for the previous surveys by the government. Then there wouldn't have been a problem at all.

But then, that's common sense, and like someone else was pointing out to me last week, when did governments ever do what was common sense?

This country is full of odd thinking like that,Bp thinks its shareholders and profits are more important than millions in the Gulf.
That's the American and Western corporate model. Japan and Germany have a different model, that values customers and employers. Guess which business model is looking like it will take over the world? That's right. Theirs.

Obama tries to regulate to make a safer industry and the businesses,suppliers,drillers and families of these industries try to put him out of office because he is threatening their way of life.

Its always been this way.
Not for much longer, not the way economics looks set for America to change or sink into obscurity.

Thanks for the dateline of who owns BP and when it all happened,actually I posted all those facts and dates about 1 page of posts ago.
No problem. Anything I got wrong, let me know, and if you have more to contribute, please do.

RE Msg: 745 by imalwayssmiling:
Blame should always be given to the appropriate persons.

BP,same thing,they have a horrible track record ,dangerous sites,slack maintenance,environmental damages,deaths,high level abuses,ect.decades of this behavior
I agree that they need to be punished for their safety record. However, this isn't going to change, until we stop just letting safety violation after safety violation fly. We have to punish them as soon as we find those violations.

Many political leaders are to blame for letting them roam.
They'll keep letting us down, until we start punishing them every time they don't keep BP on track.

Do we need a type of group like Consumers report and independent agency that receives no pay from any one that they test.Is it possible to have a non governmental oversight body ,with the powers of Zeus,untouchable from likes of politicians and industry/labor lobbyists.
Why not? Feminists have organised themselves into lobbyist groups that changed the law. They have forced companies to accept zero tolerance of sexual harrassment. Why can't ordinary people other than feminists do that for another noble purpose?

RE Msg: 748 by sarniafairyboy:
did it EVER occur to you that spelling out (pronouncing) the entire name could have been for CLARITY?
Yes. I don't notice Obama saying "Imperial Chemical Industries" instead of ICI, or International Business Machines, instead of IBM, for clarity, and that is when those are acronyms. In this case, the company's name is "BP PLC", or "BP America". But it is not at all, in any way, British Petroleum. "ritish" and "retroleum" are not in the company name. Including them is causing quite a degree of lack of clarity. The company that was in charge of the Deepwater Horizon, was Amoco, is now BP America, and is now part of BP Plc. But at no time, was that company ever part of British Petroleum. So it's confusing everyone.

Mind you, confusion is great for the oil companies. It keeps everyone far from the truth.

that's why radio operators don't just say letters -too confusing, can be misheard & misinterpreted. they use words to represent letters, e.g "Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, etc."
He could have said "BRAVO PAPA PAPA LIMA CHARLIE", or "BRAVO PAPA America".

RE Msg: 756 by Krebby2001:
Ah, Scorp, thanks for such a LONG answer -- it allows me to study your logic and your rhetorical strategies.
No problem. It helps me, when people understand how I think, because they then start to realise that I don't care about proving if I'm right or not. I LIKE to be proved wrong, because when I am, I gain information that helps me. I'm really only interested in learning more information, and disseminating more information that will help others.

In a nutshell, I'm beginning to see a pattern. The first pattern is reading in "spot" rather than reading in "context." If ya pick bits and pieces out of any post, you can "seem" to be debating effectively, but that is truly not the case.
...
The second pattern -- smokescreen rhetoric, accented by hyperbole.
...
Thus, though I could point to other instances of your use of hyperbole, smokescreens, and non-contextual swiping of text, I will refrain from doing so. Just wanted to point out a pattern. I'll leave it up to you and others to determine if what I've said has "truth value."
Go ahead. It makes no difference to me, not after what I've been through, in my life.

1) Anyone who knows me, knows that I am pretty open about who I am. There is stuff that I don't tell every living soul. But that's the stuff where I will tell some people, and then they react as if I've just blown a nuclear bomb up in their face. I'm used to it. They are not. So it's a bit of face-saving for me, and a big chunk of face-saving for them.

2) However, I have to thank you, as it is clear to me, that certain types of people do seem to have a problem with my posts, in that they post that I'm being disingenuous. As you fall into that pattern, it is probably a pattern that I can rely on. So it is probably worth it to me, to sit down, and ask those types of people in my life, how best for me to deal with such people.

3) I would like to inform you of something, just for yourself. I asked myself if you were right. To answer that, I had to understand what you were saying. However, that brought up all sorts of required conditions for those statements to be stated by you, in that exact way. So by those few lines, you told me volumes about yourself.

For instance, if you had solid logic to rebut my points, you would have. That you felt the need to let me know that you "know my game", means that you felt that statement would strengthen your position. But that wouldn' help you to prove your points. It would only help you, if it made me back off. So you are telling me that you believe that psychological profiling, would put me off. However, you cannot assume something that you couldn't conceive, and you couldn't conceive something, unless it's a natural assumption that you would assume, because you would do it yourself. So, by making it clear that you wanted me to be absolutely sure that you were psychologically profiling me, you were subconsciously telling me that if someone was having an argument with you on a subject, that if they used psychological profiling on you, to point out a few things about your behavioural patterns, you yourself would back off.

Now, I don't want to use that on you. But I've known quite a few people who are quite skilled at picking up such things, and who would use that against you, to gain personal benefits for themselves, such as people who want to score points in the politics of academia, or in a court case.

You give me the general impression, though, that you have a good heart, and that when you speak from the heart, that you really make good points that others listen to you.

I am pointing out that one approach is likely to backfire on you with selfish, manipulative people, and another approach is likely to gain far more support.

The link that I provided led you to the article relating how an independent scientist was kept from going into the contaminated area, which I consider to be bad policy.
I understand that, and in the interests of gaining better information, that could help. However, I have considered a few things:

1) For people to work together, you need efforts to be co-ordinated, so that you don't get the same areas being covered 5 times, leaving other areas untouched, and so that you don't get 2 or more groups all trying to cover the same areas at the same time, leading to all of them getting in each others' way. So you need a single group co-ordinating everyone else's efforts.

2) The government is the agency of the people set up specifically to co-ordinate lots of types of services. So it makes sense to me that if anyone should be co-ordinating independent scientists on what to do, then it should be a government-appointed agency, which in this case, seems to be the NRDA.

3) If you don't trust the government, and you want whistle-blowers, then you still need to do a good job. Scientists are not trained in investigative journalism. Investigative journalists are, like Woodward and Bernstein, and plenty of modern-day investigative journalists in the UK. So, if scientists do wish to prove the government isn't doing its job, they are most likely to be successful, if they put themselves under the control of investigative journalists, and are most likely to be very unsuccessful, if they don't.

4) Every person is very good at what they are trained for, and for what they have quite a lot of personal experience in. If scientists are routinely trained to deal with oil spills in which there is a huge amount of inter-commerce conflict, or they have been forced to deal with a lot of difficult litigious inter-commerce conflict, then they know what they are doing. If they don't have that training or experience, they don't how to deal with it, just like Stephen Hawking, or anyone else.

So either way, in this situation, smart scientists are going to work for other groups, who know what they are doing in these situations.

If ya needed FURTHER documentation on this phenomenon, than why didn't ya say, "Can you tell me how extensive this is?" Perhaps it's an isolated instance."
It's not up to me, to assume that you are always in the right. It's part of any discussion, to have your claims questioned, and then, when questioned, to do your research, and produce more evidence. That's the give-and-take of discussion. When, in post #726, someone claimed that my point had no support whatsoever, I did my research, and produced several pieces of evidence, in post #739. Should I expect that you are less capable than I am? Do you need kid gloves?

You posit that expert witnesses will fall prey to the wiles of (your seemingly) heroic BP lawyers. Expert witnesses exist for the plaintiff AND the defendant.Which one is more credible will be the determining factor in a court of law, and this is not necessarily tied to money. Electronic Frontier lawyers, with donations, are fighting, quite successfully I might add, to defend the common man's rights with regard to rights to privacy on the internet. Same goes for the Southern Poverty lawyers, defending civil rights, and so on.
1) Get something straight: I don't work for BP or any oil company. I never worked for BP or any oil company. I have no current intentions to work in the oil industry in the future. I don't work and never worked for anyone who has connections to the oil industry, except for maybe owning a car, and using petrol or diesel. I have no pension scheme. I don't really care about the future of the oil industry, other than to ensure that the poor people of the world don't get screwed by the current situation. I am a disinterested party in this.

2) America is BP's largest customer base, by far. BP's main aim in this, is to restore the confidence and respect of the American public, to keep sales of their largest customer base. BP know, that if they get themselves off the hook, that the American public will seriously consider switching brands. They know the consequences of public dislike of a company. They know it will cost them several billions per year, if they cannot regain public confidence. So BP WANT to pay out.

Obama knows that this is his 9/11, and his war. He knows that wars win elections, and this is no different. So he wants BP to pay out.

So BP will pay out and willingly. The court case will never be contested.

What WILL be contested is the amount.

3) On the one hand, if BP pays too little, then the American people will feel cheated, and they will not regain public confidence.

On the other hand, BP knows that tensions are high, and people are selfish.

Many people will over-extend their claims, and will claim wasteland as previously-usable farmland, just to make more money off the compensation. BP doesn't see any purpose in giving money away to people who lied to them, and who probably screw you over as well.

BP also know that Americans feel angry at them, and want to make them pay, and so many will do whatever it takes to make BP pay as much as possible, far beyond any reasonable claims. They also know that vengeance is never satisfied, and so paying those people off, will achieve nothing for BP. It won't even make people think that at least BP paid for something useful, as when people are angry, they never buy stuff that is worthwhile.

So BP will pay out. But only for valid claims.

So BP are paying right now, for scientists to do research for BP, to work out what is and is not a valid claim.

4) BP know that American scientists are not robots, and are still neurotypical humans, and corporations have spend trillions on psychology, enough to already know that all neurotypical humans act the same way, without exception, scientists just like anyone else. So they know that they cannot trust angry scientists, any more than they can trust angry policemen, angry fishermen, or any other type of angry people. Americans are angry because they feel their country has been threatened. So there is no way that American scientists are going to not be biased.

So BP know they cannot rely on ANY American-run independent scientific investigation to not be biased, as long as it is run by subconsciously-biased Americans.

A swiss or Swedish team who wish to fly over there, no problem. They will probably ask BP and NARDA for permission anyway, and they'll probably get it, so long as they abide by BP's and NARDA's rules.

As a result, they aren't going to trust any report by ANY American scientist. They'll hire you. But they'll triple-check your work. But if they cannot do that, because you are trying to run an independent investigation, and keep them out the loop, then psychology tells us that you will be heavily baised against them, and you are denying them the opportunity to determine that you are not.

5) The end result is that So BP don't want to screw you over.

But BP know they are likely to be screwed over.

They will pay out, because even if they realise they won't regain public confidence, Obama will make them pay out.

6) But, if they are screwed over, they will cut their losses.

They will merge BP America with BP Plc. Right now, BP America is an American-based subsidiary. So it pays out taxes to the American government, which is used to supply vital services to poor Americans. If BP America merges with BP plc, it will no longer be a separate company, and will no longer be subject to American taxes. So Americans will lose millions every year.

They will move their offshore drilling to other countries. So Americans will no longer be employed in drilling by BP. That will cause millions to be wiped off the American economy. It will also ensure that American states no longer get huge kickbacks from those drilling operations. That will lose Americans still more millions.

So if BP are screwed over, Americans will pay, even more than BP will stand to lose.

7) Everything I've written here, is all clear and obvious. It was all discussed in the first week, by BP's lawyers and executives. So I'm not saying anything new. If anything, I'm behind in the situation. But it's up to Americans to realise that it is in their interest to work with BP and NARDA.

If American scientists aren't willing to work with BP or NARDA on the matter, then poor Americans will pay for it.

8) I don't have anything to gain from BP getting off lightly. If anything, I stand to lose, because they will just make everyone else's lives harder. But I'd like to see fair play here.

But I don't want to see Americans make their own people suffer, just because they are angry.

And when you argue that, if we continue our aggressive efforts to make BP responsible, then the oil companies will ONLY pick on the weak countries, or the not-rich, that's a bit of hyperbole , don't ya think? SOMEBODY has to set standards. And it takes resources to make that happen. So, now you want the POOR to squander their resources to do just that??
I quite agree that SOMEBODY has to set standards, and that the poor won't be able to. So, when rich countries like America set the standard, by taking BP to task for what it did on the shores of a poor country, that sets the standard for everyone else, that oil companies will not be allowed to pollute poor countries, not even when it's the oil companies of the rich country. But when it's a rich country taking BP to task, for what it did on ITS shores, but not for what it has already done on everyone else's shores, then it sets a standard as well, "do it where you like, just as long as it's not in the back-yard of rich countries". Then the standard is, "do it, but do it to the poor countries". That's not my country. That's not UK, or Israel.

That's countries like India, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and plenty of other countries. I don't want to see the poor people in those countries suffer.

One thing that you did point out that will be taken to heart -- there's culprits in these here woods, and, potentially, they ain't only BP, the NRDA, for example, and Haliburton, and the MMS. That much I will admit, and I thank you for it.
Good. If you can see that there are companies that aren't being demanded to pay partial compensation, and you can ensure that they pay their fair share too, then there will be more than enough money to go around, to compensate everyone who has been damaged by the incident.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 749
The BP oil spill in the Mexican Gulf ...
Posted: 8/17/2010 8:45:03 AM
So shrimping season has opened with much fanfare from DC! Now let me see if I have this right, the FDA, the White House and other agencies feel the best way to make sure the shrimp are alright, is to sniff them? Oh c'mon!! No lab testing for a couple of weeks, no better way than to hire sniffers?

Sorry British Petroleum had a blowout, the well spewed oil for nearly 100 days, millions and millions of gallons, and now we know for sure, the shrimp are safe, they never migrated through the oil. No possibility that a shrimp boat will stray to close to the area's that are still closed?

Further the Potomac 2 step is in high gear. Kinda reminds me of a clown car at the circus. The car(very tiny) drives in and a 2 dozen clowns pile out and work the crowd. Reminds me of all those officials now standing up and saying "it's all clear now" or "wanna help the gulf, eat the seafood".

On a seperate note, I am fairly sure the British people are nuts now. You got some Brit billionaire, paying $1 million to have someone flash the president. Maybe we need some Americans to "moon the queen" with signs saying "kiss our azzes"! Must be their diet, too much kidney pie! Hahahaha!
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >