Rand Paul: Obama's criticism of BP 'un-American'

Wow, this is the type of nonsense that got Rand is trouble in the first place. Being that stuck to an ideology and relying on no other alternatives, one will find themselves trapped in a corner at times. No government intervention? Are you kidding me? Without regulations criminals will take the opportunity to rape, pillage, and con anyone anywhere for whatever profit they can grasp. Yes, government with too much power is dangerous, but the alternative is true as the day is bright. Big companies with no regulations upon them are just as dangerous.

I came to ATS for alternative views, but it seems as if people tend to take to these so called "Heores" and will follow ideologies off a cliff if need be. Don't just support something just because the man has a "Paul" as his surname. What is wrong with some of you, hell, some of you will just hate an organization because someone in it has "Rockefeller" as a surname.

My point is, once one becomes too dedicated to an ideology they tend to just follow it. Rand is a prime example. Any sensible person would see that regulation is needed in some cases. Any sensible person would know not to be either a conservative or a liberal. Any sensible person would know that all problems require balance. Life itself is about balance. Tip the scales either way too far and disharmony will follow.

Saying that government regulation is not American while mentioning the BP oil situation is akin to defending BP. Assuming BP is going to pay the world what it owes of its own volition, is naive. Deny Ignorance, embrace balance; its for your own good.

reply to post by TheOneElectric


So, tell me with the regulators smoking meth and not doing their job, did they stop this?

C'mon, tell me how more regulation would have stopped this?

If one causes harm, they should be punished. That is a Libertarian tenet.

Now, we are going to see if the government as we know it, will do anything to this company.

Especially since the poster boy for big corporate campaign contributions, Barry O, received the most contributions from BP than any other candidate.

Now I have a frelling question. How could Barry have gotten contributions from a FOREIGN company?

That is a weird one.

Why is THAT not on any MSM sources?

Nothing to see here, walk away.

reply to post by endisnighe


You just said it yourself. Regulators not doing their jobs. When regulators don't do their jobs, big companies will take any little short cut to save money.

www.examiner.com...

As seen in the article, the 2003 regulations were too lax. They didn't even require BP to have this device on their rigs.

Yes, regulation gets ties up sometime, and sometimes people have no one overseeing their work. However, the fact remains that regulation is needed and would be a great preventative tool if enforced. You are right, we are seeing the prime example of a company with lax regulations and a lot of free reign.

If you think they are going to pay back with out being forced...
blcnn.wordpress.com...

Define legitimate claims please...
Companies need regulation

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
My point is, once one becomes too dedicated to an ideology they tend to just follow it. Rand is a prime example. Any sensible person would see that regulation is needed in some cases. Any sensible person would know not to be either a conservative or a liberal. Any sensible person would know that all problems require balance. Life itself is about balance. Tip the scales either way too far and disharmony will follow.

A very good statement. I find it rather telling that instead of arguing about Rand Paul supporting BP people took to arguing about David changing his beliefs. I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind when presented with different information than I have ever had for egotistical ideologues who are committed to riding the horse till it dies. What is the sense in that?

Libertarian thought appealed to me some years ago. I actually worked two of their campaigns. I have since realized Libertarian ideals are a pipe-dream. These ideals depend on one thing: Humans actually being responsible for their actions. Most humans can't even accept responsibility for their farts. It depends on humans being conscious of the others around them. Listening to some of the political conversation should tell you that's not going to happen anytime soon. How many people say "I can't get a job because of them". Well, how in the hell do they know that? Maybe they can't get a job because they suck as an employee. It was Victor Frankl who said we need a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast to compliment the Statue of Liberty. I heartily agree with him, maybe the problem isn't someone or something else-Maybe it's YOU.

Who said they would clean this mess? BP. Who was the main company in charge of that endeavor? BP. You can argue it was another company who ran the rig, but who contracted with that company? I managed bars for a few years. I can tell you this, if an employee of mine screwed up I was going to be held over the fire as well. I hired them, I accepted responsibility for them. It is not unamerican to demand someone take responsibility for their actions. Rand Paul isn't my type of candidate, the pandering to the Christian groups was bad enough. Now we get this crap.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by antonia]

Cant you tell that obama probably knows whos really responsible for this disaster, it was probably him and his fellow agenda people trying to # more things up for us. He needs to get off his #ing ass and take more responsibility, i dont care whos frigin platform it is, someone probably sabotaged it anyways, considering they knew that it had no safety back ups to stop such a leak. If he was truely a good president he would stop pointing his scrawny ass fingers and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. I dont care what color or race he is, he is just a monster. Why they decided to do this in the gulf of mexico is beyond me, maybe something to do with the possible war gaining speed down there, all I know is that somebody is responsible for this and obviously anything on the main stream media is brain washing anyways, and not the truth.

As usual BP has created another disaster in the United States,

currently wrecking our southern shores & fishing areas,

how EXACTLY is that 'not' the business of the United States?

In what brain-dead, logic twisted Universe is that NOT the business of the United States?

It is BP who should no longer EVER be allowed to do any business in these United States.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Am I hearing this right?

Not only is Rand defending BP but people here on ATS are also defending BP???

Crazyness. How can anyone defend BP on this?

Because, in the minds of the many crazies on ATS, and of Rand Paul, the ability to insult Obama at any cost is too much for them.

So, since they detest Obama so much, they'll side with Rand's insanely dumb comment and with BP, the corporation that has caused the greatest ecological disaster of our time...

Wow being an avid Ron Paul fan his son is turning out to be a real idiot. The entire point of being a libertarian is smaller government yadda yadda. Well with smaller government also comes the idea that the US government should provide for a strong national defense and protect our borders from all enemies foreign and domestic. Sounds to me like BP is definitely on the enemies list. Who the hell cares if they are a "business". They've just destroyed thousdands of businesses. Tourism, agriculture etc are RUINED! The US government should have dealt with this spill the minute it happend. The military should have been sent to the area and something should have been done IMMEDIATELY!

We had a better response to the earthquakes in Haiti and they are a third world country and not even our own people. Pathetic.!

I don't know. The environmental issue is a huge one for me. And time and time again both government AND private businesses show that they just don't care about the environment. It's one thing for libertarians and the Paulites to be against stupid legislation such as cap and trade and the whole global warming thing is stll not proven. But this is an as in your face environmental catastrophe as you can get. BP and whoever else is responsible should be destroyed and every last asset used to clean this mess up. I mean is Rand Paul even paying attention........this is going to affect the gulf, europe and THE ARCTICE!

Come on Rand! I mean what would a libertarian world look like anyways? All of our National Parks privatized? All our roads become toll roads? And companies like BP get away with environmental plundering and pillaging without repercussion? Pathetic that he is saying what he is saying. If that's not what he means well now is not the time for philosophical dialogue.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

While Mr Paul was busy defending BP by saying something to the affect that he hasn't heard BP was planning to renege on promise to pay for damages from the spill, I just found this:

Low oil spill estimate could save BP millions in court, experts say

BP's estimate that only 5,000 barrels of oil are leaking daily from a well in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Obama administration hasn't disputed, could save the company millions of dollars in damages when the financial impact of the spill is resolved in court, legal experts say.

Source: www.kansascity.com...

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Can you hear me now?


[edit on 22-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Dear Mr. Paul, corporations per say are not all bad, just as people are not all bad. But if I caught a person who had just allowed my neighbor to be killed and his property destroyed, through this person's negligence, I certainly would "put my boot heel on the throat of" this person until justice and restitution were made. Otherwise, I doubt the s.o.b would hang around.

And, notice, Mr. Paul, that you are defending foreign corporations (hell, even Halliburton is only as American as it wants to be). If a foreign country or terrorist killed my neighbor and destroyed his property, you'ld call it war and rush to retaliate. Make no mistake, Mr. Rand, 11 Americans were killed and American soil and way of life have been destroyed as a result of this Gulf War for oil.

And this was about as much an "accident" as if I "accidentally" killed someone with my car. It's called manslaughter. Just as the old growth Western forests have been logged out decades ago, the easier areas to drill for oil have been drilled. BP, as other corporations, are exploring for and finding and capping wells to return later in order to satisfy the developing world's thirst for oil. This deeper and deeper water drilling is riskier and riskier, going where we haven't gone before. There's a big difference between digging pits in a sandbox and mining a rock quarry.

Lastly, Mr. Paul, this country which you and I both love has finally jumped the energy shark this 21st Century. Since 1980 we have refused to grow up, be energy responsible, and put American ingenuity into 21st energy technology. Instead of passive solar, Americans became passive and allowed themselves to be ridiculed into thinking that Green Technology was for sissies. Well, our Black Technology will be our undoing, as we are surpassed by India, China and other countries, and all done without anyone firing a shot.

We have met our enemy, and it is us.

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
My point is, once one becomes too dedicated to an ideology they tend to just follow it. Rand is a prime example. Any sensible person would see that regulation is needed in some cases. Any sensible person would know not to be either a conservative or a liberal. Any sensible person would know that all problems require balance. Life itself is about balance. Tip the scales either way too far and disharmony will follow.

A very good statement. I find it rather telling that instead of arguing about Rand Paul supporting BP people took to arguing about David changing his beliefs. I have a lot more respect for someone who can change their mind when presented with different information than I have ever had for egotistical ideologues who are committed to riding the horse till it dies. What is the sense in that?

[edit on 22-5-2010 by antonia]

" A very good statement " Really ? Electric has utilized one brief ( baited ) exchange by RP and extrapolated > RP is not a sensible person." David changing his beliefs " Considering David is the OP, his ' opinions ' are certainly worth challenging. If you go back to the post of David changing his beliefs and withdrawing his support for a candidate. It is based on two flawed assumptions. RP is a racist and he is defending BP. Both of which are incorrect, therefore unworthy of further discussion . I thought ' Navieko' summed it up very well 21-5 @ 17:05

Some of the responses in this thread are shocking.

I know one poster uploaded the actual video that this mess started from, and i would seriously recommend watching it in its entirety before forming an opinion, or commenting about what the media has said about it.

His remarks have been taken out of context, and while he did call out the President, it was not because he believes the government should have zero regulatory agencies, or oversights on ecological operations. He was simply saying that the Pres should not have jumped the gun in threatening BP before they have even refused to do what's been asked of them...that's all.

For the sake of clarity, Mr. Paul claimed that President Obama used the term:
"We have our boots on the throat of BP" I've found a clip where Press Secretary Gates made that quip but not President Obama. Anybody got links?

While not related to the specifics of this OP, I conducted a little research to become better acquainted with the views of Mr. Paul. The results were chilling regarding his religious extremism and constructionist agenda.

Amidst the hullaballoo over Republican Ran Paul’s upset victory in the Kentucky GOP primary for US Senate, one of the few journalists to raise the issue of Paul’s somewhat uncomfortable proximity to Christian Reconstructionism has been Alternet’s Adele Stan, who observes that Rand Paul’s father Ron Paul is personal friends with one of the bigger names in the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Howard Phillips, founder of the US Taxpayers Party – now re-branded as The Constitution Party. But there’s direct evidence tying Rand Paul to the Constitution Party, whose national platform declares,

“The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations…

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law”

blogs.alternet.org...

www.alternet.org...

www.talk2action.org...

In the meantime I'm anxious for the "boot on throat" quote source. Thanks.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by kinda kurious]

Unfortunately, it looks like Rand doesn't have the common sense of his father. Another politician...:sigh:

Originally posted by bigdaddy7ftr
Some of the responses in this thread are shocking.

I know one poster uploaded the actual video that this mess started from, and i would seriously recommend watching it in its entirety before forming an opinion, or commenting about what the media has said about it.

His remarks have been taken out of context, and while he did call out the President, it was not because he believes the government should have zero regulatory agencies, or oversights on ecological operations. He was simply saying that the Pres should not have jumped the gun in threatening BP before they have even refused to do what's been asked of them...that's all.

They're not doing what's asked of them.

Since day one of this accident, they've been covering their asses in EVERY SINGLE way so that they don't lose profit, are not brought to court on this, etc.

Obama has every right to call them out on it...

Rand is an idiot. I don't like his father too much either, but at least Ron Paul has an air of dignity, common sense, and intelligence to not say an OUTLANDISH comment like his son did.

Originally posted by endisnighe

Why no link to the INTERVIEW?

Well, that may be your OPINION, everyone has one, but let the people decide what he REALLY SAID!

Hey, found this NICE interview with Stephanopoulos.

Just to clarify, for those harping on about Rand Paul being "stuck to an ideology" of absolutely no government regulations, I suggest you watch the video that endisnighe posted of Rand actually making the comment that is the subject of the OP. You can jump right to about 5:55, just before he makes the "un-American/boot heel" comment.

He explicitly states that he believes that regulatory agencies need Congressional oversight, that is, he believes regulations need "approval of the people through their representatives".

He also says he DOES believe that we need the EPA and that he believes we DO need to regulate drilling in the ocean, that most of the EPA's regulations on drilling are probably justified.

He goes on to say that we need to learn from this accident, that we use logic and objective facts to figure out what could have been done to prevent it.

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems as if some people are interpreting the "un-American" sound bite as him taking the position that there should be absolutely no regulation of anything ever, which is clearly not the case. You just need to take the time to put his statement into context.

I'm actually pro-American, as far as British society goes, i like the place, people etc. But seriously, the guys across the pond are doing some serious blame shifting where the gulf of Mexico is concerned.

Hayward under intense US criticism

Now, fair enough the oil company is responsible for safety etc. But this seems less like pursuit of justice and more like a back of rabid animals out for the kill.

Another point that has really grated on me is the US politicians' insistency of calling BP by a name it hasn't gone by in over ten years: British Petroleum. Why does Obama constantly refer to BP, which changed its name to better reflect its multinational status by a name that is now obsolete if not to incite blame from Americans to British?

BP is owned 40% by British stakeholders, and 39% is owned by American which is all but even. BP were not the only company working and managing on the rig either, with only 7 members of staff on the rig actually working for BP. Read the next article for full details

Why should BP take all the blame?

Originally posted by xEphon
Err? I'm not following you here Rand. Are you saying that the fact that there was catasrophic failure which could have been prevented but wasn't, because it was 'too costly,' not a good enough reason to, dare I say it, blame bP!?

I loathe BP to no end... but I'm seeing a flaw in this argument: how much would playing it safe cost opposed to how much per day they'd make ensuring success, and opposed to the costs of screwing up?

From the semi-limited data, I might more side with the idea of it being deliberate, as opposed to laziness, if I had to choose. We're dealing with MULTIPLE failures in one incident here.

[edit on 18-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]