• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend

Coronado said:
I'm not sure how losing a rig, several workers and tens of thousands of barrels of oil is in their short-term interest. :shrug:

Safety is always in everyone's interest.
Click to expand...

I agree, safety is always in everyone's interest.

Short-term interest means that the extra cost of installing a remote shutoff valve is not incurred because it doesn't contribute to the bottom line; of course, in the mid- to longer-term it will certainly be viewed as penny-wise and pound-foolish that that valve wasn't installed and we are witnessing the consequences.
 
Jerry said:
When it comes to negative economic impact, this oil spill doesn't even register in the fact of Obama'Care.

The deaths caused are nothing comapired to doctor's mistakes.

The environmental impact doesn't exist when set side by side with recent volcano eruptions.

This oil spill is a non-issue nationally, and a minor issue locally.
Click to expand...

Stop! Stop moving the goal posts so much. I can't hit 4 at a time. :lol:

A "minor issue locally"? You should tell that to those fishermen and businesses that depend on the fishing industry for their living when they're standing in the Unemployment line or losing their homes. :roll:
 
Chappy said:
Interesting. For you it's about one side gaining a political advantage; this is all a zero-sum game: one side gains only at the expense of the other. Aren't you the one injecting partisanship in this discussion? I think so.

For me, I have stated that I think one of the real casualties in this emergency is Obama's offshore drilling proposal. If I was being purely partisan, at the very least, I wouldn't bring it up at all; instead, I would let it just drift away like so much sweet, light crude oil on the gentle waves of the Gulf of Mexico.
Click to expand...
If you think I'm the one being partisan then you truly don't get the arguments. There is nothing further to discuss with you. I care about my coast right now and the people who make it great. I don't care about the politics, either drop the 'tude or bring substance, but either way this isn't about politics.
 
Coronado said:
I'm not sure how losing a rig, several workers and tens of thousands of barrels of oil is in their short-term interest. :shrug:

Safety is always in everyone's interest.
Click to expand...

Step 1: Destroy multi-million dollar rig
Step 2: Settle lawsuits for dead oil workers.
Step 3: Lose hundreds of thousands of gallons of your raw material.
Step 4: Float the bill for environmental clean up, lawsuits form local fishing communities, and various fines from the government.
Step 5: ??????
Step 6: Profit.
 
I'd like to see all these "concerned" environmentalist that feel they contribute by lecturing the rest of us put their money where their mouths are. Since you guys hate oil so much and care, lock up your homes, start walking towards La. with your dishwashing liquid and cleaning rags, swim out to the landfall sites and start cleaning some birds. Remember though, since you hate oil and want to use this as an example of why we need to stop drilling you can't use any petroleum products or byproducts, otherwise you'd be a hypocrit. Start walking, then come back and tell us lowly dirtbags how it went.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'd like to see all these "concerned" environmentalist that feel they contribute by lecturing the rest of us put their money where their mouths are. Since you guys hate oil so much and care, lock up your homes, start walking towards La. with your dishwashing liquid and cleaning rags, swim out to the landfall sites and start cleaning some birds. Remember though, since you hate oil and want to use this as an example of why we need to stop drilling you can't use any petroleum products or byproducts, otherwise you'd be a hypocrit. Start walking, then come back and tell us lowly dirtbags how it went.
Click to expand...

I've camped on the outer shores of LA. while on fishing trips many times. The armchair environmentalists wouldn't last through one night there.
 
ADK_Forever said:
I don't want it destroyed for the sole purpose of making oil companies rich.
Click to expand...

I find that hilarious..... "sole purpose of making oil companies rich."

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Figure 1 illustrates the magnitude of government tax collections versus industry profits between 1977 and 2004. During this period, the 29 largest domestic energy firms earned a collective $630 billion after adjusting for inflation. These profits varied dramatically—from a low of $7.9 billion in 1995 to a high of $42.6 billion in 2004—based upon world market demand, supply, and international events.

In contrast, the taxes paid or remitted by domestic oil companies have been consistently far greater than their profits and now total more than $2.2 trillion (adjusted for inflation) over the past quarter century. The largest share of those taxes is federal and state gasoline excise taxes. In 2004, governments collected $58 billion in gasoline excise taxes. Overall, governments have collected $1.34 trillion in gasoline excise taxes since 1977.
Click to expand...

The Tax Foundation - Oil Company Profits and Tax Collections: Does the U.S. Need a New Windfall Profits Tax?

I sometimes wonder what reality these libs live in.... oh wait, no reality at all.
 
Gill said:
I've camped on the outer shores of LA. while on fishing trips many times. The armchair environmentalists wouldn't last through one night there.
Click to expand...
Oh I know it. But since they care they need to make those sacrifices for the greater good, to borrow their linguistic cliches.
 
Chappy said:
I agree, safety is always in everyone's interest.

Short-term interest means that the extra cost of installing a remote shutoff valve is not incurred because it doesn't contribute to the bottom line; of course, in the mid- to longer-term it will certainly be viewed as penny-wise and pound-foolish that that valve wasn't installed and we are witnessing the consequences.
Click to expand...
What corporation only considers the short-term effects of what it does? Only one that wants to be a short-term business.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
I know what you mean, but I will try to refrain from making this a political thing because it effects everyone.

What people don't realize is that unless they want to walk to work and the grocery store, THEY are the reasons these wells are even out there. If you own a car, it's because of YOU. And if the wells weren't out there, we'd be even MORE reliant on foreign oil than we already are and thus would be giving more money to terrorist nations like Iran.

Drilling for oil is a dangerous business. It can be made safer, but it is dangerous. Driving a prius doesn't help, it still uses gas. Only a bicycle helps. This is a really bad thing that happened, but it just reiterates how important my fathers job is, justifying flying all those inspectors out to check on wells and such. How many lives it has saved can't be counted because we'll never know but obviously if one life is saved its worth it!
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh.... just one point.

There wouldn't be a grocery store to walk to if it weren't for the oil industry.

Other than that, good post.
 
Chappy said:
I think it's not about using a crisis for political gain but about using it to effect change to protect society from suffering the same avoidable negative consequences again. …
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
~~Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's Chief of Staff.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think you make my point.

Excerpted from “” By JACK ROSENTHAL, “On Language,” The New York Times, Published: July 31, 2009
[SIZE="+2"]J[/SIZE]ust after Barack Obama’s election in November, Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, made this memorable statement to an interviewer: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The underlying insight is wise. In a sprawling, contentious democracy, competing interests suspend their antagonisms only when they have to confront an alarming common threat. The thought struck a universal chord and has since been attributed to Emanuel many times.

But there’s a problem: Authorship. Emanuel did not claim to be coining an epigram, only to be describing a moment of opportunity. Nevertheless, he was unwittingly echoing something that the Stanford economist Paul Romer said in November 2004 at a venture-capitalist meeting in California. Referring to the increasing competition that America faces from rapidly rising education levels in other countries, Romer said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” …
Click to expand...

My emphasis.
 

Attachments

  • 02safire-600.jpg
    02safire-600.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 0
Middleground said:
You have to be kidding me, Coronado. :doh

What do you expect? Enviromentalists to live like the Amish? How do you expect people in today's world to live a normal life without using ANY gas or oil-based products? Please, don't go all extreme on me and expect people to live like this.

Me, I do everything I can to reduce my usage. I have been for years. But there is nothing -- I mean nothing -- that I can purchase that will make me completely independent of oil when it comes to commuting, owning a home and buying necessities. Not in today's world!

But I am pushing for change and I am as proactive as I can be with my personal lifestyle.

I, alone, cannot develop these much needed technologies, but we, as a society, can. Unfortunately, that that will only come from desperation, it seems. It does not matter that alarm bells have been ringing since the 70s. It will come only when oil will be more and more scarce, and then we'll finally realize that we are so behind the 8-ball. And people will be bitching why we have not developed ANYTHING that replaces oil.

I say do it now. This is desperation time.

And this is why I think offshore drilling is fruitless. It IS finite.
Click to expand...

Bull ****.... put a solar cell array on your roof and run off 12 volt.

Walk or ride a bike where ever you go, or don't go.

Grow your own food and spend most of your time picking bugs of your veggies so you get at least a third for yourself.

Grow rabbits if you just have to eat meat….. put the **** on your garden.

There are lots of things you could do, but they are all just soooooooooo inconvenient.

Just ask Algore. :roll:
 
Coronado said:
What corporation only considers the short-term effects of what it does? Only one that wants to be a short-term business.
Click to expand...

That would be true of corporations could think and cared. But coroprations are legal entities.
It's individuals who make the choices, and $40M in the short-term actually means "you're set forever", which is defacto also the long-term.
Furthermore the recent financial crisis you'd think would have been a reminder to you that corporations regulary do have directors who think short-term.

I can assure you that the people "in charge" either don't enough information to know how all their decisions impact things, and/or don't have the power (coroprate power) to do anything about it.
Expecting every CEO to know precisely how risky every drilling is, is a stretch. It's not in their best interest no matter how you cut it. It's up to everyone else to make the limits, fairly and reasonably.

It's not about fault really, it's about prevention.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
That would be true of corporations could think and cared.

It's individuals who make the choice, and $40M in the short-term actually means "you're set forever", which is defacto also the long-term.

Furthermore the recent financial crisis you'd think would have been a reminder to you that corporations regulary do have directors who think short-term.

It's not about fault really, it's about prevention.
Click to expand...

Have you ever owned a business with employees ??

Never mind... I already know the answer.
 
Gill said:
Have you ever owned a business with employees ??
Never mind... I already know the answer.
Click to expand...

More than a few. Why is that relevant?

I was born and raised near there, have family still in BR, NO, Alex, etc. I knew about the spill the next morning (4/21) because of friends having family working in that area as drilling engineers. So what does any of that have to do with what I wrote? All this "I know best because XYZ" doesn't float in any thread, on any topic.

Suggesting that corporations can and will do what's appropriate in all cases to prevent catastrophic accidents that affect way more than their employees is absurd. They will even tell you it's absurd. They are trying to manage a company, not the entire Gulf Coast. It's up to people to ensure their environment is properly managed and risked. Putting it 100% on a company is ludicrous.

As others note, we don't even know what the actual breakdown was. But we do know some genreal things about the limits of coroporate behavior in *any* industry.
 
Last edited:
Mickey Shane said:
I guess I won't be deep-sea fishing off of Port Aransas this year.

Man :-(
Click to expand...

Why would ya wanna do that when the best fishing in Texas is a stones throw from the beach. Port A. Aransas pass, Port Isabel, Laguna Madre...

****, I'll just fish the flats and be happier than a pig wallowing in ****.

I just hope the slick stays away from Clearwater/Hundon bay/New Port Richey in Florida. Specks, reds, groupers and AJ's, here I come!

Fish FEAR me!
 
Gill said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Only took 168 posts before someone blamed this on Bush. :roll:
Click to expand...

But now that it's been brought to the table, not to single Bush out but to give a clearer idea how most republicans (and maybe even a handfull of democrats) with their historical "Screw the environment/Go-big-business" stances usually come about, let's just take Mr. Bush for an example. But, it must be said, Mr. Bush isn't alone in putting dollars ahead of our lands.

It's a fixed game. The same industry that is at fault will be the same industry that will make huge profits from this disaster. However, although I wouldn't wanna be in BP's shoes right now, I'm certain the big oil industry will grease enough pockets to minimize their losses. In the end, no matter which way it goes, you and I will end up paying for this. Mark my word.

The Governor's Gusher: The Bush Profiteers
 
Last edited:
Captain America said:
But now that it's been brought to the table, not to single Bush out but to give a clearer idea how most republicans (and maybe even a handfull of democrats) with their "Screw the environment/Go-big-business" stances usuallu come about, let's just take Mr. Bush for an example. But, it must be said, Mr. Bush isn't alone in putting dollars ahead of our lands.

It's a fixed game. The same industry that is at fault will be the same industry that will make huge profits from this disaster. However, although I wouldn't wanna be in BP's shoes right now, I'm certain the big oil industry will grease enough pockets to minimize their losses. In the end, no matter which way it goes, you and I will end up paying for this. Mark my word.

The Governor's Gusher: The Bush Profiteers
Click to expand...

I agree partially with you, except that the Dems are just as bad as the Rupublicans when it comes to bailing out businesses.... they are just sneakier about it. Just look at the deal Obama cut with big Pharma.

After all, they have to get their share of campaign money. The Dems can't get all of it from movie stars and Soros.
 
Gill said:
I agree partially with you, except that the Dems are just as bad as the Rupublicans when it comes to bailing out businesses.... they are just sneakier about it. Just look at the deal Obama cut with big Pharma.

After all, they have to get their share of campaign money. The Dems can't get all of it from movie stars and Soros.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo my brutha from anutha mutha. Each party has their own special interests and it's usually the ones who put the most $$$ in their pockets. That's why there is always such partisanship actions instead of acting in the best interests of the people. That's the set-up. That's the game. It's Yin meet Yang.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'd like to see all these "concerned" environmentalist that feel they contribute by lecturing the rest of us put their money where their mouths are. Since you guys hate oil so much and care, lock up your homes, start walking towards La. with your dishwashing liquid and cleaning rags, swim out to the landfall sites and start cleaning some birds. Remember though, since you hate oil and want to use this as an example of why we need to stop drilling you can't use any petroleum products or byproducts, otherwise you'd be a hypocrit. Start walking, then come back and tell us lowly dirtbags how it went.
Click to expand...


Sorry, LaMid... this post is downright asinine and completely off the mark.
 
Chappy said:
Thanks, I think you make my point.

My emphasis.
Click to expand...

Actually you just made mine. Good to see you agree this story is being exploited for political purposes.
 
Jerry said:
Actually you just made mine. Good to see you agree this story is being exploited for political purposes.
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to make an accusation by using the word ‘exploited’ but it's not very meaningful in this context, at least so far.

“In a sprawling, contentious democracy, competing interests suspend their antagonisms only when they have to confront an alarming common threat.” — JACK ROSENTHAL, explanation of the phrase, “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”†​

The spill is a crisis, Americans will look to their political leaders to work together and address their concerns about these events. Politicians of all stripes will be under pressure to deliver. You say “this story is being exploited for political purposes” but its the American people who are the driving force.

I think the real discussion will wrap around the substance of those political purposes. Will Obama's offshore oil drilling expansion plans be curtailed or abandoned? Will the regulations be sufficiently toughened? Etc. If you don't think there should be any political repercussions then I think you are seriously misreading the American people.
 
Chappy said:
I think you're trying to make an accusation by using the word ‘exploited’ but it's not very meaningful in this context, at least so far.

“In a sprawling, contentious democracy, competing interests suspend their antagonisms only when they have to confront an alarming common threat.” — JACK ROSENTHAL, explanation of the phrase, “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”†​

The spill is a crisis, Americans will look to their political leaders to work together and address their concerns about these events. Politicians of all stripes will be under pressure to deliver. You say “this story is being exploited for political purposes” but its the American people who are the driving force.

I think the real discussion will wrap around the substance of those political purposes. Will Obama's offshore oil drilling expansion plans be curtailed or abandoned? Will the regulations be sufficiently toughened? Etc. If you don't think there should be any political repercussions then I think you are seriously misreading the American people.
Click to expand...

It sounds as if Jerry is stocking this thread with red herrings to divert the reality of the subject. Lots of strawmen, too.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom