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: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Then why did he cancel his interview on meet the press? Only two others have ever done that... Farakhan, and a Saudi Prince...

Rand is an idiot... Him and Palin will ruin the tea party

[edit on 22-5-2010 by HunkaHunka]




posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


Wrong, problem is solved when a non corrupt Gov set the right laws in place with no influence from outside sources.

Hell, BP probably helped write the laws. same as the bankers.

As I see it, BP did nothing wrong, they did what was required.
What is wrong is " what is required" was not enough....



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by truthquest
 


Wrong, problem is solved when a non corrupt Gov set the right laws in place with no influence from outside sources.

Hell, BP probably helped write the laws. same as the bankers.

As I see it, BP did nothing wrong, they did what was required.
What is wrong is " what is required" was not enough....


What are you, some sort of socialist now??

Rand Paul better learn to cloak his viewpoints more effectively, or even more of the general public will learn how different their viewpoints truly are from the wing-nut teabaggers.

Best,
SN



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by virgom129
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Or was the $500000 safety valve thread BS too??????

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


How did Obama make this "bed?" The Deepwater Horizon rig was completed in 2001, well before Obama was President. And oil corps. have been drilling for decades, so again: how is this Obama's "bed?"

This whole disaster is so far beyond this Obama vendetta you seem bent on perpetuating in this thread that I don't know whether to laugh at your ignorance or fear your hatred. This is not a thread about Obama so go peddle your drivel in a thread where it belongs.

You may be the first person on my ignore button, but I know you don't care...and yea..go ahead and say something about Obama too,


Anyway, back to the grown up table. Who here can excuse those who are responsible? Is it BP? Trans Ocean? Haliburton? It doesn't matter who, but that it is someone. The fact that people have been killed by this tragedy have been obscured by the more apparent ecological problem. Who is responsible for the deaths of those men? No one? Please.

**shouldn't have called ^said poster a simpleton, it was childish,

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Threadfall]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


lol, seriously, can we blame eveyone who came before us?? Funny, I can't.
The judge will say ignorance is no excuse.
Obama isn't new anymore. The honeymoon is over. America is how HE wants it to be.
I agree the oil rig is a huge disaster. I hope people hang for it.
But look at who to blame in an even light.
THe law makers who set lax rules, the companies that followed them to save a buck?

Tell me, did BP break any laws?
Tell me, who sets them laws?

Don't call me a simpleton, you just look stupid.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
BP is not to blame? Ok. Sure. BP 'pressured oil rig workers to drill faster'

But I guess it depends on who you believe...The huge multi-national corporation or the lone worker that just dodged death. I'm sure he's been waiting to spring this elaborate ruse of his for a long time



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Ahh the trolls called in the reinforcements...

LOL, you still didn't answer what your avatar rant is about.


Please follow my posts in answer to the rest of your rant.

Thank god I'm sane cause If I needed a shrink like you I'd be screwed,



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Ahh, so you dnt want to answer 2 simple questions??

But I'm the simpleton...
K, I gotcha, better to attack than defend



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
What the hell. All costs will flow down hill. Like Yahoos tossing their crap down upon the Yahoos below them.

Rand Paul. I bought a sign from his election campaign and have hed it in my front yard for months. I could hope, yes?

I read his words on his website, I trusted him. And I hoped, as an "outsider" he could be good. Heh

Once the spotlight hit him he destructed himself.

Now I have the sign on my front yard with a universal symbol of NO, spray painted on it.

So tell me, who do i vote for in November? The obvious answer is "none of the above." But WTF?

Seriously, do I have to vote for the lesser of two evils?

Or just abstain?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. This is the same thing. The people who ran those places didn't expect accidents. But if the plant goes up and a 50 mile radius is obliterated, who pays? Who pays for the survivors who are sick and deformed?

Who is expected to pay or be held accountable? Who's the guy doing the accounting? Can we trust him to do his job to the fullest extent of the law?

What exactly do our laws say PB should be held accountable for? Does anyone know?

If I have a radio tower in my back yard and I don't secure it good enough and it falls over and crushes your house, kills your wife and two kids, I am held 100% responsible. PB should be no different.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


First of all. The govt. sets the laws. But Obama did not.

Second. Did BP break any laws? I do not know, and I ask you can you honestly say you know either? Furthermore, do you honestly think that as long as it doesn't break a "law" that an action(s) is not harmful, reprehensible, deadly, evil...I could go on.

Finally, refer to my previous post, sorry for calling you a simpleton...you're just wrong.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


THere is no right or wrong, just opinions.

Mine differs to yours, thats life and I can live with my opinions.

Like I said, someone (or many) should hang for this disaster.
I just hope they hang the right ones.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


First of all. The govt. sets the laws. But Obama did not.

Second. Did BP break any laws? I do not know, and I ask you can you honestly say you know either? Furthermore, do you honestly think that as long as it doesn't break a "law" that an action(s) is not harmful, reprehensible, deadly, evil...I could go on.

Finally, refer to my previous post, sorry for calling you a simpleton...you're just wrong.


How can I be wrong for asking who is legally to be held accountable? I don't know these answers... that's why i'm asking.

I don't think you understood my post. I asked some questions that were on my mind, then I gave an opinion based on what would happen in a similar real life situation. How can that be wrong?

I certainly don't think PB should get away scott free and the Government foot the bill. This was not an act of nature like Katrina. An accident, yes.. but you don't play with dangerous things.. even if you are a grownup and you call it an oil rig and expect no consequences when it all goes wrong and hurts somebody.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


Accidents do happen.. tis true..

BP said they will pay the cost of the clean up .. move on. We are a reactionary society.. when something bad happens, accident or not, we jump up and down demanding regulation, regulation, regulation.

And technically speaking, it wasn't BP's fault, it was the rig company that owned and operated the oil rig.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Threadfall
 


And technically speaking, it wasn't BP's fault, it was the rig company that owned and operated the oil rig.


Who owned and operated the oil rig? I haven't heard about this in the news.. everyone talks about it like it was PB's rig. If PB does not own it.. how then are they involved.. just buying someone else's oil?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Transocean Ltd

It's BP's well .. they are responsible.. Transocean Ltd requested their liability be capped at a mere $2 million .. dunno if that was actually granted or not.


Transocean, the world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, provides the most versatile fleet of mobile offshore drilling units to help clients find and develop oil and natural gas reserves. Building on more than 50 years of experience with the highest specification rigs, our 18,000 employees are focused on safety and premier offshore drilling performance.


www.deepwater.com...

[edit on 5/22/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest

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]


First of all, you can be guilty of something through negligence. Not installing a $500k device that's been used by a lot of countries to prevent just such incidents can be considered as negligence.

If you have a 6yr old kid, and let it take your car and cruise around the neighborhood, killing a few of your neighbors in the process, you as a parent are liable. You didn't do anything yourself, but your NEGLIGENCE caused the deaths.

I guess you never went to law school


And yes, BP will have to pay, but that doesn't REPAIR the damage. It's like an airline company paying families of plane crash victims, it doesn't REPAIR anything...it's more a punishment than anything else.

It is beyond me how anyone can seriously claim to be ok with how BP handled the situation, how deep up the ass of big business do you have to be to justify that position???

Also, for those wondering, Transocean operated the rig, but it was BP who put the pressure on that company to perform in a risky manner.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by MrXYZ]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


"Building on more than 50 years of experience with the highest specification rigs, our 18,000 employees are focused on safety and premier offshore drilling performance. "


AND HOWS THAT WORKING OUT FOR THEM ??



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

First of all, you can be guilty of something through negligence. Not installing a $500k device that's been used by a lot of countries to prevent just such incidents can be considered as negligence.

If you have a 6yr old kid, and let it take your car and cruise around the neighborhood, killing a few of your neighbors in the process, you as a parent are liable. You didn't do anything yourself, but your NEGLIGENCE caused the deaths.


I don't care how bad a person screws up. I'm never going to say that someone who did something on accident is a criminal. It just doesn't make sense. Mentally retarded people make mistakes all the time and if they killed someone they would not be criminals for doing such a thing. Yes, they would be negligent, but I wouldn't consider them guilty of a crime. I don't believe in criminal negligence.

So BP is guilty of a mistake but not of a crime so long as they do everything in their power to rectify what they've done. If the law says otherwise then the law is wrong and needs correction.


And yes, BP will have to pay, but that doesn't REPAIR the damage. It's like an airline company paying families of plane crash victims, it doesn't REPAIR anything...it's more a punishment than anything else.


Fair point. BP cannot unkill all of the wildlife they killed.


It is beyond me how anyone can seriously claim to be ok with how BP handled the situation, how deep up the ass of big business do you have to be to justify that position???

Also, for those wondering, Transocean operated the rig, but it was BP who put the pressure on that company to perform in a risky manner.


It is beyond me how anyone can seriously claim there are people out there who accept how BP handled the situation. They were idiots and they messed up. I would imagine not only I but Rand Paul too believes it was highly negligent. Neither Rand Paul or myself has indicated BP's behavior was acceptable. Rand Paul indicated his faith that BP would be paying the price of the cleanup and repairs, with the point being it is wrong to slander BP unless they actually fail to do so or even indicate they won't. Personally I have my doubts, but like Paul, I won't bash BP until AFTER they actually fail to mend any and all damages.

If you are the president of the USA you should know better than to convict someone before a crime is committed.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


They should be forced to go further than just paying a fine. They can't undo the damage, but if all BP offers to do is pay a fine and clean up as good as they can, that's not good enough and people have a right to be angry at BP.

The first thing they should have done is to announce that ALL their rigs will be equipped with that safety device in the future. They HAVEN'T done so. So in effect, they take a reactionary position to work safety and environmental protection. As long as that's the case, people have a right to be angry...because it means they still piss on human lives and the environment when it comes to the maximization of profits.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join