It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul's son says Obama too tough on BP

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Well, here is the article where Rand Paul, who just overwhelmingly won the Kentucky GOP primary, stating that Obama is being too hard hard on BP

The son of Ron Paul, a hero of the black helicopter crowd
, who will most likely be representing his district in Congress thinks Obama is being too hard on BP for the still uncapped oil gusher one mile beneath sea level in the gulf.

I don't know if father and son are at odds with this issue, since I do not know of Ron Paul's opinion on the matter...But I can understand a little political posturing by the younger Paul since he's trying to get elected and criticizing Obama is very en vogue with the GOP, and particularly the tea party movement that is so enamored with Mr. Paul. I personally think that the people who are in charge of the corporation(s) that are responsible for this disaster should be charged with whatever they can legally be charged with. Moreover, I'll go even farther, and say that this incident should be a catalyst to enact tougher laws against those in charge of corporations that are responsible for these so-called accidents. They do not share their wealth, but they are more than eager to share whatever burden they incur with the masses while pursuing their profits...

The younger Paul goes so far to say that, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticisms of businesses."

Well, Mr. Paul, it is not as if President Obama is going after some young, hard-working entrepreneur and trying to stifle enterprise. Obama is talking about a huge multi-national corporation...whose "leaders" are probably going to make millions of dollars personally no matter how much damage this immense spill will do...whose profits dwarf the GDP of many nations...

Rand Paul continues, "I've heard nothing from BP about not paying for the spill," Paul continued. "I think it's part of this blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault, instead of the fact that sometimes accidents happen."

Well, of course BP is not going to come out and say outright that it should not pay...they're a little more savvy than that. But their finger pointing at Trans Ocean and Haliburton belies their true views on who should pay. Mr. Rand defends BP by saying it is just an accident and no ones fault while BP is pointing fingers and saying 'it is their fault not ours.'

Mr. Paul is right that accidents happen. This is more than an accident even if it is just that. Who does he want to pay for this mistake? You and I?

The younger Paul has made his first impression on me, and it is a bitter one.




[edit on 22-5-2010 by Threadfall]




posted on May, 21 2010 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Libertarians are crazy.

Let me restate that more colorfully.

Libertarians are crazy.




[edit on 22-5-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Ron Paul is the Libertarian hope in Congress.

Libertarianism means removing all constraints from the rich and powerful.

All the talk of freedom means only freedom for the rich and powerful, as it's in the interest of the wealthiest that the rest are powerless pawns, and without legal restraints on them we will be.

People putting melamine in baby formula?
The Libertarian answer is that after babies start dying parents might work out the cause and stop buying the stuff, and the firm might lose money.
Of course the saving from using melamine instead of milk protein might make it worth it.

If vaccine makers managed to commit genocide with a vaccine, you can be sure the Pauls would dismiss that as another accident too, and help them evade penalties.

When will brainwashed people start seeing that much law is written to protect us from the potential tyranny of business? And it's would-be tyrants and their minions who want these laws removed.

We hear about Goldman Sachs being behind Obama, (which I'm sure is true,) but who is behind Ron Paul?

I believe TPTB had placed Ron Paul where he is so that if we rejected their buddy, Obama, we'd be saddled with someone even more to their liking.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
considering that obama and the federal government dont even have the technology to do ANYTHING AT ALL about the oil leak i would think that the federal government is in a bit of a pickel? capping this leak off is in the hands of BP AND BP ALONE! most of the Paul bashing is because 1 he is a liberatarian 2 he is a republican 3 he is part of the tea party. all these things alone fly in the face of liberal establishment media. personally every day i read the news the federal government is taking something else over, banks cars health care, people dont have jobs and we are dependend on the state for food and shelter through food stamps wealfare and unemployment. if the state wants us to do something they are at the point where they can simply take our food away! we are at the point where we are almost 50% state owned, health care represents 1/6 of the economy alone. the only thing we can hope for is that a republican win this november will deadlock the government and make it less of a functioning entity. its like a virus growing out of control, im not a republican but im also not a communist, and i know just from studing other countries, when a nation nationalizes something you never get it back, how much has been nationalized in this country so far?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Politics is personality.
Libertarianism appeals to the independent personality.
The Libertarian voter is the swing voter.
It is not a matter of logic.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Not sure why some posters are attacking Ron Paul, he didnt say anything.

Anyways, what I see Rand saying is the Gov should have laws in place to stop this sort of thing and enforce them!!!

Not have Obama pandering to the cameras and pretending he actually cares and means what he says. He will do nothing. He needs the BPs of the world for his next election campaign.

Rand Pauls is correct. Set the rules, make them tough and ENFORCE them.
Let the right system work.

But if Obama wants to get on camera,how about a speech on his Banker Buddies? They also have ruined the US and most of the world.

Better yet, what about a news conference where the journos can actually ask questions without being prescreened? We might then learn how Obama does without a script.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall

The son of Ron Paul ... thinks Obama is being too hard on BP ...


What a pussy.

Sounds like he doesn't even have the balls to say that the situation sucks. Nothing like his dad.

Nuke the damn hole already.

Audit the Fed.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by Freedom or Death]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
My guess is Ron Paul would have a little different opinion, but that is just my opinion.

Now, to clear up something.. Libertarians believe in protection of private property above business interest. That being said, the ones I know support the EPA, not their practices, but the idea. They believe there should be regulation in protection of the environment from a property stance.

Example: Company dumping chemicals that damage your water supply can be fined and regulated because of damage done to your life, liberty or property.

The EPA is a joke.. and libertarians are about as mixed as they come.

Again, these are the libertarians that I know, and I know a few. I am not of their beliefs.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by virgom129
 


Did you even read the article? Rand Paul says nothing what you say he says...And please don't try to hijack this thread and turn it into some GOP vs. Dems pissing contest. And if you think Obama doesn't actually care about this spill and it's affect on American then you are...hell, I can't even think of a word. I mean, whatever you think of Obama fine, but to say that the President doesn't care at all about this situation is preposterous. And to, essentially, excuse BP is just disgusting. You sound like a shill.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Although I've just starting learning about Rands personal views recently, I've noticed that he seems to have a strongly magnetic mouth and foot made of metal.

Luckily he seems to be able to speak out of both sides of his face.

It's lovely that he wants to come to the rescue of poor BP, but they might want to to ask him not to do them any favors right now.

I do wonder what his fathers' take on the situation would be.
Certainly there should be some differences, right?

- Lee



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Everytime some disaster happens somebody has to be blamed, that seems to me the modus operandi of Obamabots. IT MUST be the fault of greedy Amerians and BP for the oil spill. I'm sorry but this planet has been through far more than just some oil spill.

Look at the vastness of the oceans, the oil comes from the planet, it was meant to exist in this planets biosphere, to think otherwise really just ignores the past. Earth has survived through 200 plus mass extinctions in the history of the existence.

Everytime these politicians' play the blame game on these environmental disasters it only increases people's anger towards them, and Obama seems to want to blame anyone and everyone but himself for what has gone wrong, I thought the government was unstoppable with him in charge, he was a superman that could do anything, I find it amazing that the same people that lashed out during Katrina are so eager to go crazy on BP while Obama acts like it maybe no big deal since he didn't do it?

He maybe more interested in talking about racism than actually fixing any real problems that affect all people. Getting rid of racism would be like getting rid of music geners, sorry but it will never go away, so why dwell on that fact and make everyone hate themselves or each other. As far as the spill goes I think the volcanoes are probably more able to disrupt our lives, I feel sorry for the wildlife, but they will climb back, as they know best how to. Plus I find it strange how they OK'd the lax inspection just prior to the explosion on the rig....again how many rigs were damaged by Katrina?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   
But it's their "freedom" to pollute...more freedom, less government.


That's exactly why this idiot should have never been elected! By making retarded comments like that, he spits in the face of all the people affected by this catastrophe. It WAS BP's fault, and they should pay for ruining US citizens' lives.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Rand Paul was saying this: BP should not be slandered until AFTER they show that they have no intention of fully repairing all damages. He is totally right and I it really is un-American to say someone is guilty until proven innocent, which is exactly what Obama tried to do with BP. As usual, Rand Paul is right and Obama is wrong. What a freakin' genius.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Rand Paul was saying this: BP should not be slandered until AFTER they show that they have no intention of fully repairing all damages. He is totally right and I it really is un-American to say someone is guilty until proven innocent, which is exactly what Obama tried to do with BP. As usual, Rand Paul is right and Obama is wrong. What a freakin' genius.


BP put incredible pressure on the owner of the rig, to the point where they neglected investing in a $500k security device that would have prevented this catastrophe. A device that countries like Norway have been using since the 70s!!! Why? Because $500k is apparently too much to protect the lives of the workers, the environment, and the people living in proximity of the rig.

I'd say they are guilty alright.

And saying they will "repair the damage" is laughable!! Do you know how they control the oil?? They spray chemicals on it! Poisonous chemicals that further pollute the environment, and therefore risks the livelihood of a lot of people living there.

Wanna know how big oil companies look at human lives?



They PISS on it as long as they make $$$.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Libertarians are crazy.

Let me restate that more colorfully.

Libertarians are crazy.


Libertarians have all the practical viewpoints that work in real life. Sorry you can't appreciate such a fact. In real life, violence is rarely the answer. But you since you hate libertarians, I imagine you think violence is the solution to just about everything. Libertarianism is about solving problems through voluntary human interaction and believing people have a capacity for good. Socialism is about involuntary interactions and the assumptions that people are not good... they are selfish and must never be trusted for charity or anything similar. I think that is also true for liberals and the neocon crowd.

Libertarians are pretty much right about everything. Its the only position that makes sense. Lets debate on any issue and I'll easily show you why libertarians are great and the others are not. The only problem with most libertarians is they don't really believe what they are saying a lot of the time so they end up sounding stupid.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


I want some of the stuff you're smoking.

I never mentioned any party and If you think Obama really cares then maybe he should improve/enforce the laws.

I cant believe you got 4 stars for that post but maybe you have 4 mates.

Rand Paul is right. Get the laws right then enforce them.
Obama could have changed the laws to demand all safety precautions but he didn't want to upset his campaign contributers.
Or was the $500000 safety valve thread BS too??????

He made the bed but now wants to blame the maid...



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
BP put incredible pressure on the owner of the rig, to the point where they neglected investing in a $500k security device that would have prevented this catastrophe. A device that countries like Norway have been using since the 70s!!! Why? Because $500k is apparently too much to protect the lives of the workers, the environment, and the people living in proximity of the rig.

I'd say they are guilty alright.


Absolutely wrong. Guilty means doing something on purpose. Are you really going to tell me they did that on purpose?


And saying they will "repair the damage" is laughable!! Do you know how they control the oil?? They spray chemicals on it! Poisonous chemicals that further pollute the environment, and therefore risks the livelihood of a lot of people living there.


Nice guesswork. I think you're wrong. BP has to pay for the damages they do. They are required to by law.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by truthquest]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Threadfall
 


I want some of the stuff you're smoking.

I never mentioned any party and If you think Obama really cares then maybe he should improve/enforce the laws.

I cant believe you got 4 stars for that post but maybe you have 4 mates.

Rand Paul is right. Get the laws right then enforce them.
Obama could have changed the laws to demand all safety precautions but he didn't want to upset his campaign contributers.
Or was the $500000 safety valve thread BS too??????

He made the bed but now wants to blame the maid...


If the 500k safety valve really was the problem then no law is needed. Drillers shouldn't be so stupid to fail to put in the valve again and if they do and can't pay 100% of the damages that are caused they can simply take some time in prison. Problem solved right there without any additional regulations needed.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by lee anoma
Although I've just starting learning about Rands personal views recently, I've noticed that he seems to have a strongly magnetic mouth and foot made of metal.

Luckily he seems to be able to speak out of both sides of his face.

It's lovely that he wants to come to the rescue of poor BP, but they might want to to ask him not to do them any favors right now.

I do wonder what his fathers' take on the situation would be.
Certainly there should be some differences, right?

- Lee


Rand Paul never implied for a fraction of a second he wanted to do ANYTHING to rescue BP. He in fact made it clear BP would be repairing ALL the damages they caused. That was the point. But you suggest the exact opposite for some reason.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Oh BP will pay alright. Might cost them a billion. Then the price of gas will go up and make them 10 billion.

Poor BP


And they didn't have to (by law) spend the 500k for that little valve.
They just had a choice as set out by the US Gov and chose profit first..

I'll say once more, the Gov sets the laws. Dont whine about companies when they are not tough enough, elect a new Gov that will enhance the laws!!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join