Conquer Club

Makes sense.

Of course, in a totally free market BP will have installed all the safety valves and followed all advice it received. Its the horribly weak government regulation which causes BP to act with such greed and indiscretion.

Are there government regulations for implementing safety systems in case this sort of thing happens? I have no idea, I'm just asking.

Obviously BP can't run their own company. It's definitely time for another US Government takeover of a private company.

bedub1 wrote:Obviously BP can't run their own company. It's definitely time for another US Government takeover of a private company.

NON SEQUITUR COMMENT 2010

Titanic wrote:Of course, in a totally free market BP will have installed all the safety valves and followed all advice it received. Its the horribly weak government regulation which causes BP to act with such greed and indiscretion.

Actually, in a completely free market, BP would be sued for all the damage it has done to the environment and to business in the Gulf. And it would not be allowed to declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a federal government concept, not a free market one. So, the protection it gets from suit (in the form of bankruptcy, among other things) could be considered regulation.

However, Sarah Palin is a moron and if she runs for office with the endorsement of the Tea Party, I'm out.

pimpdave wrote:Makes sense.

Did you mean dollars and cents? Wouldn't it be the lack of regulation that is problematic or does Sarah seem to think the regulators were slack in actually doing their job?

I do so wish Sarah Palin would start blogging so the rest of us sheep can find our direction by subscribing to her every word.

Sarah is against bloggin in case it upsets the bgreens by depleting the bforests.

thegreekdog wrote:

Titanic wrote:Of course, in a totally free market BP will have installed all the safety valves and followed all advice it received. Its the horribly weak government regulation which causes BP to act with such greed and indiscretion.

Actually, in a completely free market, BP would be sued for all the damage it has done to the environment and to business in the Gulf. And it would not be allowed to declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a federal government concept, not a free market one. So, the protection it gets from suit (in the form of bankruptcy, among other things) could be considered regulation.

However, Sarah Palin is a moron and if she runs for office with the endorsement of the Tea Party, I'm out.

She wont...

This thread is Troll spin.

Funny how we can only speculate on what a free market would be like, rather than hone up the the reality of what a mixed market is like.

Gov't 60% (with recent financial legislation)
Private 40%

thegreekdog wrote:Are there government regulations for implementing safety systems in case this sort of thing happens? I have no idea, I'm just asking.

There is a large amount safety regulations. There is loose enforcement and unfortunately the safety shut off valve failed.

A failure of all party's in this one.

jefjef wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Are there government regulations for implementing safety systems in case this sort of thing happens? I have no idea, I'm just asking.

There is a large amount safety regulations. There is loose enforcement and unfortunately the safety shut off valve failed.

A failure of all party's in this one.

It's a failure in the belief of government regulation. The government had the regulations, but it is true that both BP did not follow them and the Gov't did not enforce them. Of course, the solution they will present, which is no solution at all, is more government regulation.

Which interview was it where she claimed government regulation forced BP to cut corners? I want to read it for myself because usually the left wingers here take something she said out of context. I don't doubt she said something similar but it usually gets spun here on CC.

But as to the bigger issue - why wouldn't a company try to find ways to still make a profit within the current regulatory laws? They are trying to make a profit. I don't see anything evil about a company trying to make a profit.

Phatscotty wrote:

jefjef wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:Are there government regulations for implementing safety systems in case this sort of thing happens? I have no idea, I'm just asking.

There is a large amount safety regulations. There is loose enforcement and unfortunately the safety shut off valve failed.

A failure of all party's in this one.

It's a failure in the belief of government regulation. The government had the regulations, but it is true that both BP did not follow them and the Gov't did not enforce them. Of course, the solution they will present, which is no solution at all, is more government regulation.

Its not a failure of government regulation, its a failure of regulatory bodies getting too close to big companies and either not enforcing the law, relying solely on the companies good faith or intentionally writing weak legislation.

Phatscotty wrote: Funny how we can only speculate on what a free market would be like, rather than hone up the the reality of what a mixed market is like.

Gov't 60% (with recent financial legislation)
Private 40%

Pur-lease....prove this, I am begging you.

jonesthecurl wrote:Sarah is against bloggin in case it upsets the bgreens by depleting the bforests.

Damn it...took me a moment to get this one...well done, and quite funny.

There is some merit to her thought that government regulation could be forcing oil companies to drill in deep water (by restricting drilling in shallower waters and on land) where there is more potential for problems due to the extreme pressures BUT she is not intelligent enough to explain that quickly AND as someone so aptly put it "in politics if you are explaining - you are losing." See Obamacare for an another example of this.

If the right was smart they would just make the link between Obama and BP and point out how ineptly both the Big Government and Big Company are handling the whole thing...and just stay on that.

pimpdave wrote:http://www.ifitwasmyhome.com/#loc=New%20York%2C%20NY%2C%20USA&lat=40.7142691&lng=-74.0059729&x=-74.0059729&y=40.7142691&z=7

At least most of New Jersey is gone.

"Shouldn't the name of your site be ifitWEREmyhome.com?

Probably."

lol

So according to that site, water is as important as land. Gotcha.

I think the oil spill is horrible, but that's no reason to make an entire website worthy of the "Valid Comparisons Thread"...

deronimo wrote:Which interview was it where she claimed government regulation forced BP to cut corners? I want to read it for myself because usually the left wingers here take something she said out of context. I don't doubt she said something similar but it usually gets spun here on CC.

But as to the bigger issue - why wouldn't a company try to find ways to still make a profit within the current regulatory laws? They are trying to make a profit. I don't see anything evil about a company trying to make a profit.

I don't know if she said it in an interview, but here's her facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-pal ... 5324638434

jonesthecurl wrote:

deronimo wrote:Which interview was it where she claimed government regulation forced BP to cut corners? I want to read it for myself because usually the left wingers here take something she said out of context. I don't doubt she said something similar but it usually gets spun here on CC.

But as to the bigger issue - why wouldn't a company try to find ways to still make a profit within the current regulatory laws? They are trying to make a profit. I don't see anything evil about a company trying to make a profit.

I don't know if she said it in an interview, but here's her facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-pal ... 5324638434

Hurray for sarah! Her facebook statement is quite agreeable.

I'm sure all oil companies would rather drill on land and shallower waters. If this spill had happened where it is preferable to drill it could have/would have been contained within days. Possible even hours.

So why a mile down? Put some of the blame where it belongs.

For those who disagree go hug a tree.

Yup, that's why BP cut corners.

Short-sighted profit and flagrant disregard for anything but had nothing to do with it.

pimpdave wrote:Yup, that's why BP cut corners.

Short-sighted profit and flagrant disregard for anything but had nothing to do with it.

Actually it has everything to do with it. Yes BP was negligent and so were those who were supposed to be enforcing regulations BUT If they were not FORCED to drill that far down they WOULD NOT BE THERE. If this happened in shallow water divers could have taken care of it. If it was on land even easier to cure.

It's the simple truth.

Your powers of logic and argument are fascinating, jefjef. Simply fascinating.

pimpdave wrote:Your powers of logic and argument are fascinating, jefjef. Simply fascinating.

And common sense is foreign to you.

You mean like the common sense that when they run out of space on the land, they'll go drill in the sea?