Rand Paul: "Obama should be nice to BP over oil spill"

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

like a true lover of big business and pollution...

like a true hater of the American people and a clean Earth.

[daredelvis]

The nation's best defense against extremist and idiots, is their own words. How anyone can support any part of this defective blood line is beyond me.

And I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen,

Daredelvis

[pgwenthold]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

like a true lover of big business and pollution...

like a true hater of the American people and a clean Earth.

But not like a true libertarian, is it?

I mean, a TRUE libertarian would say that BP has the right to run as shoddy of an operation as they want, BUT that they are also responsible for their actions, so if they cause damage, they are responsible for taking care of it. If their shoddy operations cause such a big problem that it causes them to go out of business, then that is only the market doing what it should.

I wonder, how many people who complain about the government bailout of banks also think that BP should have limited liability in cleaning up the effects of their spill?

[KingMerv00]

like a true hater of the American people and a clean Earth.

Oh come on. Look, I don't like the guy either but is this really necessary?

Rand Paul is not a villain from Captain Planet.

[Thunder]

Oh come on. Look, I don't like the guy either but is this really necessary?

is it neccessary for him to call Obama's criticism of BP "unAmerican"?

since when it is "unAmerican" for criticizing a major oil company for spilling millions of gallons of oil into our waters?

why does BP seem to be dragging its heals to try to save their well...rather then just killing the thing and saving our environment and fisheries?

who's side is Paul on.....the rich and powerful..or the American people?

[daredelvis]

Oh come on. Look, I don't like the guy either but is this really necessary?

Rand Paul is not a villain from Captain Planet.
I beg to differ. The guy is a first class *******. He just recently came out against the ADA, and there is this little gem.

n a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

Jr.'s vision of America is one where the weakest have no government protection from discrimination. If he wants to live in a free market Libertarian paradise I would rather he moved to Somalia, than work his magic to turn this great country into one. It is best for people to know what warped views he holds before voting for him.

Daredelvis

[Darth Rotor]

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Actually, it sounds like any number of American politicians I've heard in my life, to include Jimmy Carter's windfall profits tax rhetoric, and some of Dick Cheney's saber rattling in re Iran recently. Some pols talk tough when they think the timing is right.

I'd have prefer he added Haliburton and Transocean to boot stomping, if he's sincere about taking action. IN a remark I heard on radio a week or so ago, President Obama clearly stated that the governmental oversight was insufficient. He needs to save some of his boot for the government's neck.

Rand Paul is being a windbag.

In other news, Saddam Hussein is still dead.

DR

[Thunder]

Quote:
"In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

you stay classy, Rand Paul.

[thaiboxerken]

Oh come on. Look, I don't like the guy either but is this really necessary?

Rand Paul is not a villain from Captain Planet.

He does have some rather cartoonish views. I think he's a moron.

[KingMerv00]

is it neccessary for him to call Obama's criticism of BP "unAmerican"?

since when it is "unAmerican" for criticizing a major oil company for spilling millions of gallons of oil into our waters?

Tu quoque.

Criticize him all you want. He deserves it. But you run the risk of appearing histrionic when you say he "hates a clean Earth".

[Thunder]

Tu quoque.

Do you seriously think Rand sits around cackling with glee over every dead otter?

no. but I also think he values "the free market" more than clean air, clean water, and healthy wildlife.

[Thunder]

he also seems to think the right to discriminate and be a racist, is more important than the right to a job, a home, and to buy food at a restaurant.

[headscratcher4]

Best understand that Paul is only a limited "libertarian"...for example, when it would allow a business to discriminate based on race (which, btw, is a completely stupid misreading of the situation in 1964 that the Civil Rights Act was trying to correct...for example, discrimination was sanctioned by the state, a business that said it wanted to integrate its lunch counter would have been shut down by Government...that's why the law was necessary among other reasons). He's ok with the Federal government restricting abortion or even restricting the right of states to liberalize abortion laws. He's opposed to government healthcare mandating that people buy health insurance, but seemingly would be ok with those who are without insurnance getting essentially free services that the taxpayers must pay for... or else, he's for hosptials being able to choose to not serve uninsured sick people, but is afraid to say so. He was also supportive of the effort to up Medicaid payments to doctors (saying doctors like him deserve a good living) but one would think that he has to oppose Medicaid on principle if he is a real libertarian...one wonders how a campaign in a poor state like Kentucky against Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security will go over (because those are the places where you'd have to go and cut deep to achieve any meaningful budget balancing effort).

[Thunder]

He's ok with the Federal government restricting abortion or even restricting the right of states to liberalize abortion laws.

He was also supportive of the effort to up Medicaid payments to doctors (saying doctors like him deserve a good living) but one would think that he has to oppose Medicaid on principle if he is a real libertarian...one wonders how a campaign in a poor state like Kentucky against Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security will go over.

Rand Paul......***hole, hypocrite, and faux-Libertarian extraordinaire.

[timhau]

since when it is "unAmerican" for criticizing a major oil company for spilling millions of gallons of oil into our waters?

Not just a major oil company, but a British major oil company.

[headscratcher4]

Also, opposed to drug (pot) legalization....one wonders, as an MD, if he is opposed to the FDA? Doesn't the FDA get in the way of free enterprise and build in cost to the medical system? Shouldn't he be out there saying abolish the FDA and just make drug companies completely liable for their failures? Wouldn't that be t he libertarian way?

[daredelvis]

Also, opposed to drug (pot) legalization....one wonders, as an MD, if he is opposed to the FDA? Doesn't the FDA get in the way of free enterprise and build in cost to the medical system? Shouldn't he be out there saying abolish the FDA and just make drug companies completely liable for their failures? Wouldn't that be t he libertarian way?
But if a drug goes wrong and kills a bunch of people, wouldn't that just be a bunch of people making a mistake? Don't want to play the blame game here.

Daredelvis

[headscratcher4]

You got me. They were free not to take it...so the manufacturer shouldn't have any responsibility whatsoever.

[ravdin]

There's no need to misquote Paul. Here's what he really said: "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

See- you can still make him look like a lunatic without putting words in his mouth!

[dudalb]

Rand Paul might be the best thing to the happen to the Democrats this year........

[Thunder]

Sarah Palin and Rand Paul may secure Obama's victory in 2012.

[Chaos]

Sarah Palin and Rand Paul may secure Obama's victory in 2012.

Sarah Palin and Rand Paul could secure the victory of a dustbin painted blue, if it came to that.

[dudalb]

Rand Paul might be a Win/Win for the Dems.
If he loses,they pick up a GOP Senate Seat
If he wins, he will be a constant emabarssment to the GOP for at least six years.

[Thunder]

Rand Paul might be a Win/Win for the Dems.
If he loses,they pick up a GOP Senate Seat
If he wins, he will be a constant emabarssment to the GOP for at least six years.

;):):D

[daredelvis]

Rand Paul might be a Win/Win for the Dems.
If he loses,they pick up a GOP Senate Seat
If he wins, he will be a constant emabarssment to the GOP for at least six years.
I see what you are saying, and even agree but a Win/Win for the Democrats is not necessarily a Win/Win for the citizens of the U.S.. An embarrassment to the GOP would not justify the damage of this pickle-head being in the Senate. I don't know anything about his opponent, but I hope whoever it is, they have an IQ above room temperature.

Daredelvis

[dudalb]

I agree that picking up a Senate Seat would be the best outcome.
But having a total loon who will constantly embarass the GOP in the Senate is a nice consolation prize.
Not to mention Rand is going to be at odds with the GOP Senate leadership all the time. If nothing else, his ultra isolationist foreign affairs viewponts will make his a nagging headahce to the GOP Senate leadership.

[Thunder]

Palin-Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!

:D

[MikeMangum]

Quote:
"In a May 30, 2002, letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, Paul's hometown newspaper, he criticized the paper for endorsing the Fair Housing Act, and explained that "a free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

you stay classy, Rand Paul.

A free society will abide unofficial, private speech, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to say dispicable things.

Disagree?

Do we necessarily endorse the speech of every group whose speech we don't find worthy of criminal sanction?

For what it's worth, Jim Crow only survived because it was enforced by state governments.

[pgwenthold]

A free society will abide unofficial, private speech, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to say dispicable things.

Disagree?.

No, but what does free speech have to do with discrimination in housing?

That is an action, not speech. You can say what you want, but when you start preventing citizens opportunities based on race, then you are acting, not talking.

[KingMerv00]

He's ok with the Federal government restricting abortion or even restricting the right of states to liberalize abortion laws.

That's not necessarily an anti-libertarian stance. If you think the baby is alive and has rights, then it has the right to life.

I'm pro-choice but I don't see that as hypocritical.

[drkitten]

A free society will abide unofficial, private speech, even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to say dispicable things.

Unless, of course, there's an actual impact on the person who hears the words, in which case he can sue for damages, the First Amendment not withstanding. One of the reasons we can get away with "freedom of speech" is because, as your mother put it, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me."

Following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we might choose to allow anyone to discriminate in housing. With the understanding that if they do, they can and will be sued for the value of the house plus triple damages as punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs. I.e. it's your choice. Show me (and sell me) a $200,000 house or pay me $800,000 plus costs.

I suspect that would bother Mr. Paul much and the corporations for whom he shills a lot more than the FHA does.

[headscratcher4]

That's not necessarily an anti-libertarian stance. If you think the baby is alive and has rights, then it has the right to life.

I'm pro-choice but I don't see that as hypocritical.

Possibly, but I see it as a government interference arguement...if you want small government, you wouldn't be an advocate for national anti-abortion laws, IMO.

[KingMerv00]

Possibly, but I see it as a government interference arguement...if you want small government, you wouldn't be an advocate for national anti-abortion laws, IMO.

I never hear libertarians talk about big STATE government. Anything the feds can take from you can be taken by the local government too.

Seems to me a lot of "libertarians" are actually anti-federalists.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if Rand Paul believes that the free market would correct this failure of BP and it's partners.

[Chaos]

I guess in a free market, oil would not spill, but instead offer itself for sale to the highest bidder.

[Darth Rotor]

I guess in a free market, oil would not spill, but instead offer itself for sale to the highest bidder.
Only if you assume oil as a rational actor in that market. ;)

[dudalb]

Guess what? Rand Paul buys into Conspiracy Theories, just like his old man:

http://gawker.com/5544827/rand-paul-...gaffes-suggest

The guy is a full service nutcase, and no matter what is going to be albatross around the neck of the GOP.

[daredelvis]

Guess what? Rand Paul buys into Conspiracy Theories, just like his old man:

http://gawker.com/5544827/rand-paul-...gaffes-suggest

The guy is a full service nutcase, and no matter what is going to be albatross around the neck of the GOP.
From dudalb's link.

Rand Paul, it seems, is the political-contender version of the mouth-breathing conspiracy theorist with missing teeth and a torn plastic bag full of photocopies who you hope doesn't sit next to you on public transport.
If it weren't for the "public transport" qualifier, I would have thought that the author and I hung out at the same rifle range in Arizona.

Daredelvis

[lomiller]

Jim Crow only survived because it was enforced by state governments.

Can you support this? From what I can see these laws existed because there was a large section of the population that wanted them. Furthermore this population was clearly is a position to enforce segregation with or without State laws.

To me this reflects an all to common hole in libertarian philosophy. They wrongly assume no one will ever collude to get their way if it were not for the existence of the State when if fact the modern State exists primarily to bring such agenda’s into a framework where they can be fairly dealt with.

[MattusMaximus]

There's no need to misquote Paul. Here's what he really said: "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

See- you can still make him look like a lunatic without putting words in his mouth!

Agreed. Rand Paul is doing a good enough job with his own words making himself out to be a moron.

Between this, his comments about the Civil Rights Act, and his kerfluffle with Mitch McConnell this moron is proving to be a nightmare for the GOP... and a blessing for the Democrats.

:popcorn1

[lomiller]

Between this, his comments about the Civil Rights Act, and his kerfluffle with Mitch McConnell this moron is proving to be a nightmare for the GOP... and a blessing for the Democrats.


The first of many such candidates I suspect. Rand Paul may be more high profile then most but at the moment winning the republican primary means being so far out on the fringe you can’t even reasonably pretend to support a platform that could stand up to public scrutiny.

[MattusMaximus]

The first of many such candidates I suspect. Rand Paul may be more high profile then most but at the moment winning the republican primary means being so far out on the fringe you can’t even reasonably pretend to support a platform that could stand up to public scrutiny.

What's going on in Florida with Crist bolting the GOP yet maintaining widespread public support despite the Tea Party furor is another example of how, in many ways, the TP is a tempest in a teapot. That, and it looks like they'll end up being a liability for the Republicans in the long run.

:popcorn6

[dudalb]

What's going on in Florida with Crist bolting the GOP yet maintaining widespread public support despite the Tea Party furor is another example of how, in many ways, the TP is a tempest in a teapot. That, and it looks like they'll end up being a liability for the Republicans in the long run.

:popcorn6

It's interesting that the GOP Candidate in Florida seems to be tyring to distence himself from the Tea Party now that he has the nomination....

[hgc]

It's interesting that the GOP Candidate in Florida seems to be tyring to distence himself from the Tea Party now that he has the nomination....


At least Rubio (in Fla) has actual tea party cred. I like how Scott Brown snuck himself a helping of tea party buzz to get elected, when in actuality he was always going to be 3rd Republican senator from Maine. For Brown to get re-elected, he'll have to go to the left of Barbara Boxer. So look for tea party opposition to him on 2012, if they're still around.

[MattusMaximus]

It's interesting that the GOP Candidate in Florida seems to be tyring to distence himself from the Tea Party now that he has the nomination....

Yup, and they (the TP crowd) aren't going to like that come the general election. As we've been saying all along, sliding hard to the right to appease the TP types and win GOP primaries may be good for a little while, but that right-wing nutiness is going to come back to haunt a lot of people when more moderate voters start to tune in.

And if in the general election some of these candidates attempt to moderate their views, then the TP types will go crazy and stay home on election day. Just look at how Scott Brown has caught so much flak from the TPers since he got elected. Does anyone here honestly think the TP folks are going to support him next time around?

[Neally]

Just were did Paul say "Obama should be nice to BP over oil spill" as quoted in the thread title? Didn't see it in the linked article.

[ktesibios]

Y'know, every once in a while we're blessed with a politician who constantly says such ridiculous things- whether in the way of bat guano insanity or in the way of fighting a losing battle with the English language- you know, the kind of guy whose dentist had to go back to school to study podiatry because every time he looked in the patient's mouth there was a foot in the way, that he inspires the compilation and publication of collections of his most risible sayings.

Frank Rizzo was one such politician. I think that the late great Mike Royko did the same for Richard Daley the elder and I would be surprised if noone did the same for George W. Bush.

Rand Paul looks to be a promising canddidate for a "little red book" of his own.

[Alan]

Just were did Paul say "Obama should be nice to BP over oil spill" as quoted in the thread title? Didn't see it in the linked article.
It's annoying when things in quotation marks after someone's name and a colon aren't actually quotes. It's tabloidy sensationalism. This is what he said, though:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" he said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

[hgc]

Y'know, every once in a while we're blessed with a politician who constantly says such ridiculous things- whether in the way of bat guano insanity or in the way of fighting a losing battle with the English language- you know, the kind of guy whose dentist had to go back to school to study podiatry because every time he looked in the patient's mouth there was a foot in the way, that he inspires the compilation and publication of collections of his most risible sayings.

Frank Rizzo was one such politician. I think that the late great Mike Royko did the same for Richard Daley the elder and I would be surprised if noone did the same for George W. Bush.

Rand Paul looks to be a promising canddidate for a "little red book" of his own.


For sheer volume of entries, Dan Quayle has got to be the all time champ. But his absurd quotes are mostly of the stumbling-on-his-feet variety. Paul's entries reveal a deeply sheltered intellect that (selectively) reifies "liberties" without any regard to the impact that these policies have.

I think that libertarianism attracts people who are willing to disregard the evidence of history in favor of an attractive political theory. There just aren't that many such people around. Most people don't process theory.

[JoeTheJuggler]

since when it is "unAmerican" for criticizing a major oil company for spilling millions of gallons of oil into our waters?

And as I recall, Obama's strongest criticism wasn't about the accident itself, but the behavior of BP, Transocean and Halliburton for spending too much time trying to blame each other rather than taking any responsibility.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's annoying when things in quotation marks after someone's name and a colon aren't actually quotes. It's tabloidy sensationalism. This is what he said, though:

"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" he said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

OK, then let's apply the same standards to Paul. Where did Obama ever say what's in the quotation marks inside Paul's quote? ("I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.")

If we're going to criticize paraphrases in quotation marks, then Paul's is much worse (much less accurate and more spun) than what the thread title says.

ETA: I'm just curious-- which one annoys you more?

[Alan]

OK, then let's apply the same standards to Paul. Where did Obama ever say what's in the quotation marks inside Paul's quote? ("I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.")

If we're going to criticize paraphrases in quotation marks, then Paul's is much worse (much less accurate and more spun) than what the thread title says.

ETA: I'm just curious-- which one annoys you more?
I try to apply the same standards to all comparable things.

I am not a libertarian, Paul is silly and Obama is mostly great but too far to the right. And criticising somebody for doing one thing isn't support of another person doing a similar thing, for some strange reason.

My post was a response to Neally's post about the specific point that Paul did not use the specific words from the title. I pointed out to Neally that Paul had said things to that effect but commented that the "[Name]: [Paraphrase]" format is very annoying. I intended the latter part to be a side-point.

[Neally]

It's annoying when things in quotation marks after someone's name and a colon aren't actually quotes. It's tabloidy sensationalism. This is what he said, though:

And what he actually said bears no resemblance to the alleged quote. As a suggestion, if you're going to smear something by lying about what they said, go over the top with some reference to Hitler. Like maybe:
Rand Paul: "Where's Hitler when we really need him?"

OK, then let's apply the same standards to Paul. Where did Obama ever say what's in the quotation marks inside Paul's quote? ("I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP.")

If we're going to criticize paraphrases in quotation marks, then Paul's is much worse (much less accurate and more spun) than what the thread title says.

ETA: I'm just curious-- which one annoys you more? Paul wasn't quoting Obama. He was describing the attitude of the administration. His statement wasn't structured as a direct quote in the same sense as:
Persons Name: "quoted statement"
Big difference.

[Thunder]

Paul wasn't quoting Obama. He was describing the attitude of the administration. His statement wasn't structured as a direct quote in the same sense as:
Persons Name: "quoted statement"
Big difference.

how exactly should we deal with BP..when they seem to have spent the last month trying to find a way to salvage their precious oil...rather than just putting a stop to the leak?

[Neally]

how exactly should we deal with BP..when they seem to have spent the last month trying to find a way to salvage their precious oil...rather than just putting a stop to the leak?Maybe you should start by creating a new thread laying out your claim that BP wants to save their oil rather than stop the leak, which is very different than this thread which was started to smear someone by lying about what they said.

[Tricky]

how exactly should we deal with BP..when they seem to have spent the last month trying to find a way to salvage their precious oil...rather than just putting a stop to the leak?

They're doing both. They're planning to stop the well with heavy mud AND trying to recover the oil that has already spilled. They are working 24 hours a day on this. They are expecting to spend billions of dollars containing and cleaning up, not to mention settling with all the lawsuit-crazy people who take advantage of any opportunity to sue a big company.

If you think BP is complacent about this, then you are simply ignorant.

[thaiboxerken]

Sure, there will be law-suit crazy people. However, BP is not an innocent player here. Facts about shortcuts in safety have been coming out.

Neally is correct, Rand Paul didn't say Obama should be nicer to BP. Not in so many words. He did say it's unAmerican to have his boot heel on BP's throat to ensure that they pay for this accident. Paul said "accidents just happen."

No, Rand, this accident was not just a happening, this was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency.

[Thunder]

Maybe you should start by creating a new thread laying out your claim that BP wants to save their oil rather than stop the leak, which is very different than this thread which was started to smear someone by lying about what they said.

poor Rand Paul. soo misunderstood.

everyone is just ganging up on poor Rand Paul.

:p

[Neally]

Neally is correct, Rand Paul didn't say Obama should be nicer to BP. Not in so many words. He did say it's unAmerican to have his boot heel on BP's throat to ensure that they pay for this accident. Paul said "accidents just happen."
Paul never said BP shouldn't have to pay for it. From the link: Paul said BP has agreed to pay the costs of the cleanup and damage.

poor Rand Paul. soo misunderstood....with help from people like you that lie about his statements.

[Thunder]

...with help from people like you that lie about his statements.

yeah....people like me.

Mr. Paul will ruin his own career....ALL by himself. He is the gift that just keeps on giving. Just like Sarah Palin.

Ain't nobody gonna shut him up!! He stands for the Constitution and Freedom!!

:p

[thaiboxerken]

Paul never said BP shouldn't have to pay for it.


You are correct, and no one has made that assertion. However, Rand seems to trust BP to do what they say they will. I don't share that trust, and I'm glad President Obama doesn't as well.

[Neally]

yeah....people like me.

Mr. Paul will ruin his own career....ALL by himself.

That may be. He has a lot to learn and may fizzle before getting far.

Are you so desperate/fearful of him that you have no problem with lying to criticize him?

[elbe]

That may be. He has a lot to learn and may fizzle before getting far.

Are you so desperate/fearful of him that you have no problem with lying to criticize him?

It seems like he's taking after his dad, so he's probably a nutter that will always remain a marginal politician popular with fringe loons.

[Alan]

And what he actually said bears no resemblance to the alleged quote. As a suggestion, if you're going to smear something by lying about what they said, go over the top with some reference to Hitler. Like maybe:
Rand Paul: "Where's Hitler when we really need him?"

Paul wasn't quoting Obama. He was describing the attitude of the administration. His statement wasn't structured as a direct quote in the same sense as:
Persons Name: "quoted statement"
Big difference.
It should have been made explicit that this thread's title was paraphrased but it does bear a resemblance to the meaning of his quote. Rand Paul criticised Obama's administration for not being nice enough to BP:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" he said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America." "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

[eeyore1954]

Sure, there will be law-suit crazy people. However, BP is not an innocent player here. Facts about shortcuts in safety have been coming out.

Neally is correct, Rand Paul didn't say Obama should be nicer to BP. Not in so many words. He did say it's unAmerican to have his boot heel on BP's throat to ensure that they pay for this accident. Paul said "accidents just happen."

No, Rand, this accident was not just a happening, this was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency.

Do you know enough about Oil rigs to make this judgement. Maybe it was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency but I doubt if anyone knows that.


Thunder do you have special knowledge to claim this.
how exactly should we deal with BP..when they seem to have spent the last month trying to find a way to salvage their precious oil...rather than just putting a stop to the leak?

[INRM]

Why should Obama be nice to them? Assuming there is no element of radical environmentalists sabotaging the rig, they screwed up big time! They're responsible for fixing the mess they made. Not only is BP accountable so is Halliburton, and at least one other company.

[Ausmerican]

Frank Rizzo was one such politician. I think that the late great Mike Royko did the same for Richard Daley the elder and I would be surprised if noone did the same for George W. Bush.

Rand Paul looks to be a promising canddidate for a "little red book" of his own.

There are already several collections of "Bushisms" that have been released.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Paul wasn't quoting Obama. He was describing the attitude of the administration. His statement wasn't structured as a direct quote in the same sense as:
Persons Name: "quoted statement"
Big difference.

That's a silly double standard. The paraphrase in quotes in this thread title is a more accurate description of Paul's position than the mock Obama quote Paul used is an accurate description of the "attitude of the administration".

If the quote was not meant to be attributed to Obama, who is the antecedent of the pronoun used as the subject of the sentence?

[Alan]

Right below that paragraph:
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told CNN on May 2: "Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

[thaiboxerken]

Do you know enough about Oil rigs to make this judgement. Maybe it was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency but I doubt if anyone knows that.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the facts. I guess you don't really care for the facts, since big business is always trustful.

Myself, I understand there can be accidents that were never imagined or planned for. However, in this case, safety was given the backseat to profits. This is a fact, not an opinion.

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by eeyore1954
Do you know enough about Oil rigs to make this judgement. Maybe it was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency but I doubt if anyone knows that.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the facts. I guess you don't really care for the facts, since big business is always trustful.

Myself, I understand there can be accidents that were never imagined or planned for. However, in this case, safety was given the backseat to profits. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Where did I say big business is always trustful. I said maybe it was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency. I just doubt that you or I know enough about the subject matter to make that decision.
What are the facts you are talking about?

In some way safety is always given a backseat to profits because no endeavor such as oil drilling can ever be completely safe so there is some point where risk is allowed.

[Neally]

That's a silly double standard. The paraphrase in quotes in this thread title is a more accurate description of Paul's position than the mock Obama quote Paul used is an accurate description of the "attitude of the administration".

If the quote was not meant to be attributed to Obama, who is the antecedent of the pronoun used as the subject of the sentence?The quoted phrase was attributed to the Obama administration through Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as mentioned in the article.

[Alt+F4]

It seems like he's taking after his dad, so he's probably a nutter that will always remain a marginal politician popular with fringe loons.

If he is taking after his father I wonder if Kentucky voters know that if elected he will vote NO on every bill in the Senate.

Rand Paul should be presented with every bill in the Senate from say the last six that benefited Kentucky and explain to the voters why he would have voted no.

[NoScotsman]

Rand Paul is an idiot ...

America could use a viable political party that sought the reduction in the power/size of the US gov't. ... A party that didn't put drug users in jail, or prohibit gambling, prostitution, etc ... a party that didn't see the need for 100+ foreign military bases, etc.

However, when you move to the "bottom" part of the political spectrum--that part which is opposed to government power (i.e., the "up"/"down" axis as opposed to "left" vs "right" axis) you see only lunatics.

Libertarianism, Libertarian socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, classical liberalism, etc. are all viable forms of government in the hands of rational folks. However, they will never be politically popular. Socialism (for obvious reasons) is where the future lies.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The quoted phrase was attributed to the Obama administration through Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as mentioned in the article.

But it was a misquote. My point is, if someone is going to jump on the OP for this thread title, I find it ironic that they don't mind Paul offering a made-up quote.

If you think there's a big difference between what Paul said and the quote in the thread title, then you have to agree that there's a big difference between:

"Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities they have both under the law and contractually to move forward and stop this spill."

and, "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP."

[rwguinn]

But it was a misquote. My point is, if someone is going to jump on the OP for this thread title, I find it ironic that they don't mind Paul offering a made-up quote.

If you think there's a big difference between what Paul said and the quote in the thread title, then you have to agree that there's a big difference between:

"Our job basically is to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum to carry out the responsibilities they have both under the law and contractually to move forward and stop this spill."

and, "I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP."
Is American English your second language?
"... this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'"..."
Is a long way from:
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5961720#post5961720)Rand Paul: "Obama should be nice to BP over oil spill"

The "Sort of" part is a dead giveaway that what follows in not a direct quote. The ":", followed by quotation marks is used as a direct quote.
Now, given that Paul & son are guanofrentic individuals, there is still no reason to make **** up about what they mean and say.

[thaiboxerken]

Where did I say big business is always trustful. I said maybe it was the direct result of poor decisions to curtail safety for expediency. I just doubt that you or I know enough about the subject matter to make that decision.
What are the facts you are talking about?

In some way safety is always given a backseat to profits because no endeavor such as oil drilling can ever be completely safe so there is some point where risk is allowed.

Have you NOT been paying attention to the news? The dead-man switch for the valve had a dead battery. Negative pressure tests on the safety valve failed. Safety protocols were ignored to speed up the process.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Salt-Lake-City-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m5d17-CBS-60-Minutes-covers-oil-spill-rig-explosion-happened-because-BP-wanted-to-make-money-video

You can see the 60 Minutes expose here.

Sure, there is always risk when doing things, but unnecessary risks are intolerable when so much is at risk.

[dc1971]

Oh come on. Look, I don't like the guy either but is this really necessary?

Rand Paul is not a villain from Captain Planet.

I've been receiving mail from Rand Paul and Campaign for Liberty! Does that make me evil?? :-)

[JoeTheJuggler]

Is American English your second language?
"... this sort of, 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'"..."
Is a long way from:
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5961720#post5961720)Rand Paul: "Obama should be nice to BP over oil spill"

The "Sort of" part is a dead giveaway that what follows in not a direct quote. The ":", followed by quotation marks is used as a direct quote.
Now, given that Paul & son are guanofrentic individuals, there is still no reason to make **** up about what they mean and say.

You're confusing which paraphrased quote comes from which one.

Paul said that the administration's attitude toward BP was "unAmerican". He said that sometimes you have to recognize that accidents just happen. (As I pointed out in my first post in this thread, I don't think anyone in the Obama administration has criticized BP for an accident happening. The criticism has been about their failure to take responsibility for it.)

It's a reasonable translation to say that means he thinks Obama should be nicer to BP.

My point was strictly about someone's complaint that the quote in the thread title was unwarranted. If it's unwarranted, then isn't Paul's misquote also unwarranted? In fact, I think the one in the thread title is the more accurate.

And please don't insult my skills with the English language. That's an ad hominem attack and does nothing to refute the point I've been making.

[Alferd_Packer]

Sure, there is always risk when doing things, but unnecessary risks are intolerable when so much is at risk.


:p

I know what you are trying to say, but I had to laugh at that.

[Beerina]

But not like a true libertarian, is it?

I mean, a TRUE libertarian would say that BP has the right to run as shoddy of an operation as they want, BUT that they are also responsible for their actions, so if they cause damage, they are responsible for taking care of it. If their shoddy operations cause such a big problem that it causes them to go out of business, then that is only the market doing what it should.

I wonder, how many people who complain about the government bailout of banks also think that BP should have limited liability in cleaning up the effects of their spill?




A libertarian would point out that you do not, in fact, have the right to ruin things which are not yours. The ocean is not theirs, even if the oil rights for this particular area are.

Assuming this area is under the control of a (free) government, they would have to abide by the regulations.

One of these would be setting an acceptable risk. Whether they met this or not, or whether it was adequately defined to begin with, are other questions.

But keep in mind this would not necessarily be set to some incredibly hard standard to meet. The Industrialization of the West was coincidental with plummeting death rates and skyrocketting populations until the cultures shifted to not having 20 babies a couple in hopes a few would survive to take care of the business and the parents in old age, should they live that long.


As for cleanup, well, it's a trade-off between rate of cleanup and money. If you did nothing, 0.00$, it'd probably be ok in a decade? 100 years? How's the shoreline of Alaska today? 100 billion dollars? Well, maybe it would be ok in a year or two. Have no idea, but there you go: a curve to map out of time vs. money spent.


The whole thing is ridiculously mired in idiotic politics, with money being wasted to freakin' clean individual birds. Just send Dwight Shrute over; he'll know what to do.

[Darth Rotor]

Have you NOT been paying attention to the news? The dead-man switch for the valve had a dead battery. Negative pressure tests on the safety valve failed. Safety protocols were ignored to speed up the process.

http://www.examiner.com/x-19632-Salt-Lake-City-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m5d17-CBS-60-Minutes-covers-oil-spill-rig-explosion-happened-because-BP-wanted-to-make-money-video

You can see the 60 Minutes expose here.

Sure, there is always risk when doing things, but unnecessary risks are intolerable when so much is at risk.
Ken, please head over to the Science forum and see the discussion on the oil spill. Three or four actual oil industry JREF members who know how to get oil out of the ground have made some worthwhile observations and input.

Two things to look for: issues about cement, and mud, and mud logs.

Based on the discussion there (if those insights are correct) the BOP working or not working isn't the root cause, though I am still not sure how the BOP's role plays out. It is a safety system put in for good reason.

Other point, FWIW to anyone. Have a drinking buddy who worked many years in oil fields, but only on dry land. In his experience, the BOP's and like safety features were checked/tested on a daily basis. It surprised him to hear on the news that they were checked bi weekly. However, he concedes that how to run a rig on dry land and how to run one in the ocean were different in a great many ways.

DR