The Gulf Oil Spill

Message boards : Politics : The Gulf Oil Spill
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1002379 - Posted: 10 Jun 2010, 4:33:20 UTC

Hmmm
Looks like business as usual with more of the same old same old.
These efforts didn't work in 1979 and strangely enough, they haven't worked now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo&feature=player_embedded
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1002379 · Report as offensive
Iona
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 790
Credit: 22,438,118
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1002635 - Posted: 10 Jun 2010, 19:14:53 UTC

I have to admit, that as a former engineer, I'm finding some of the comments coming out of the mouths of U.S. politicians, rather hypocritical. Lets be quite honest (something politicians avoid); every company who is piping oil from under the sea, is hoping that something like this, does not happen to them. No doubt, many will breathe a sigh of relief that today, it has not happened to them! If Mr Obama thinks he can fix things straight away, well, let him try - lawyers always seem to think they are experts on everything, when they go into Politics. Does he think its just a case of sending down a plumber wearing goggles and a snorkel, with a roll of Duck Tape?!

Mr Obama has certainly been very critical of BP (it has not been British Petroleum for about 20 years, due to mergers etc) and yet, how many Union Carbide employees have actually stood trial in India over Bhopal? Seven. All Indian nationals, who were found guilty this week, whilst Warren Anderson remains a 'fugitive', with an outstanding Indian arrest warrant, having not responded to summonses and seemingly aided by the U.S. Government. Between 2,200 and 15,000 people were killed and many times that exposed to toxins, and the U.S. Courts have proved to be very helpful to UCC. On this, Mr Obama and indeed, many U.S. politicians, have been very quiet, in the week that seven Indian men who stood trial, were found guilty, whilst any American involvement has barely been recognised. Thats a very odd set of standards. Contrast that, with the grief that has been aimed at Tony Hayward. Now, what was Nancy Pelosi saying about a lack of integrity?



Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!
ID: 1002635 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1002657 - Posted: 10 Jun 2010, 20:49:15 UTC - in response to Message 1002635.  

I have to admit, that as a former engineer, I'm finding some of the comments coming out of the mouths of U.S. politicians, rather hypocritical. Lets be quite honest (something politicians avoid); every company who is piping oil from under the sea, is hoping that something like this, does not happen to them. No doubt, many will breathe a sigh of relief that today, it has not happened to them! If Mr Obama thinks he can fix things straight away, well, let him try - lawyers always seem to think they are experts on everything, when they go into Politics. Does he think its just a case of sending down a plumber wearing goggles and a snorkel, with a roll of Duck Tape?!

Mr Obama has certainly been very critical of BP (it has not been British Petroleum for about 20 years, due to mergers etc) and yet, how many Union Carbide employees have actually stood trial in India over Bhopal? Seven. All Indian nationals, who were found guilty this week, whilst Warren Anderson remains a 'fugitive', with an outstanding Indian arrest warrant, having not responded to summonses and seemingly aided by the U.S. Government. Between 2,200 and 15,000 people were killed and many times that exposed to toxins, and the U.S. Courts have proved to be very helpful to UCC. On this, Mr Obama and indeed, many U.S. politicians, have been very quiet, in the week that seven Indian men who stood trial, were found guilty, whilst any American involvement has barely been recognised. Thats a very odd set of standards. Contrast that, with the grief that has been aimed at Tony Hayward. Now, what was Nancy Pelosi saying about a lack of integrity?



There is plenty of blame to go around in this mess but the one group that no blame will fall on is the U.S. Government unless it's blame Bush. Problems are not solved unless the source of the problem is identified and the years of the U.S. government not doing their job is the place to start looking. The time for the government to fix this was before it happened. Now it's time for the government to step back and let people who have the most skill in that environment to do their job.
Obama said every move BP was making to correct the problem had to be approved by the government. Could that be why things are moving so slow?

ID: 1002657 · Report as offensive
Profile uwe Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 124
Credit: 177,257
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 1002688 - Posted: 10 Jun 2010, 22:25:35 UTC - in response to Message 1002657.  

I have to admit, that as a former engineer, I'm finding some of the comments coming out of the mouths of U.S. politicians, rather hypocritical. Lets be quite honest (something politicians avoid); every company who is piping oil from under the sea, is hoping that something like this, does not happen to them. No doubt, many will breathe a sigh of relief that today, it has not happened to them! If Mr Obama thinks he can fix things straight away, well, let him try - lawyers always seem to think they are experts on everything, when they go into Politics. Does he think its just a case of sending down a plumber wearing goggles and a snorkel, with a roll of Duck Tape?!

Mr Obama has certainly been very critical of BP (it has not been British Petroleum for about 20 years, due to mergers etc) and yet, how many Union Carbide employees have actually stood trial in India over Bhopal? Seven. All Indian nationals, who were found guilty this week, whilst Warren Anderson remains a 'fugitive', with an outstanding Indian arrest warrant, having not responded to summonses and seemingly aided by the U.S. Government. Between 2,200 and 15,000 people were killed and many times that exposed to toxins, and the U.S. Courts have proved to be very helpful to UCC. On this, Mr Obama and indeed, many U.S. politicians, have been very quiet, in the week that seven Indian men who stood trial, were found guilty, whilst any American involvement has barely been recognised. Thats a very odd set of standards. Contrast that, with the grief that has been aimed at Tony Hayward. Now, what was Nancy Pelosi saying about a lack of integrity?



There is plenty of blame to go around in this mess but the one group that no blame will fall on is the U.S. Government unless it's blame Bush. Problems are not solved unless the source of the problem is identified and the years of the U.S. government not doing their job is the place to start looking. The time for the government to fix this was before it happened. Now it's time for the government to step back and let people who have the most skill in that environment to do their job.
Obama said every move BP was making to correct the problem had to be approved by the government. Could that be why things are moving so slow?


Mr. President: with all due respect, you have to get involved, sir. The priorities and timeline of an oil company are not the same as the public’s. You cannot outsource the cleanup and the responsibility and the trust to BP and expect that the legitimate interests of Americans adversely affected by this spill will somehow be met.
ID: 1002688 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 16328
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1002696 - Posted: 10 Jun 2010, 22:40:55 UTC - in response to Message 1002657.  
Last modified: 10 Jun 2010, 22:41:53 UTC

... Obama said every move BP was making to correct the problem had to be approved by the government. Could that be why things are moving so slow?

I doubt it.

The news indicates that it is considered cheaper to pollute the Gulf than to hire bigger tankers to contain the full amount of oil that can already be collected!


Two things for sure: The oil companies have been contemptuously running fast and high risk for far too long, and the government has been far too weak to force them to stay safe.

Hence, people have died and most of the Gulf may well yet die.

Trying to save the Tuna from extinction may well be a moot point if they are all to die whilst in the Gulf...


All a criminal mess!


Perhaps the only way such companies will learn to be less aloof and less reckless is if BP and EVERYTHING associated with BP is hit with a world-wide boycott. The real question is whether that is even possible with our dependence on oil.

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1002696 · Report as offensive
Profile rebest Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 00
Posts: 1296
Credit: 45,357,093
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1002778 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 2:08:07 UTC

Of course, watching the US place all fault on BP is like watching a crack addict blame the coca grower for his addiction.

We want abundant, cheap oil and successive administrations in Washington have been willing to look the other way while BP and others cut corners and skirted regulations in order to meet our demand.

What's left of the Gulf of Mexico will be a monument to our stupidity for the next 50 years.

Sorry, kids. We did it yet again.

Pass the pipe.


Join the PACK!
ID: 1002778 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64912
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 1003066 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 17:01:24 UTC - in response to Message 1002696.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2010, 17:02:31 UTC

... Obama said every move BP was making to correct the problem had to be approved by the government. Could that be why things are moving so slow?

I doubt it.

The news indicates that it is considered cheaper to pollute the Gulf than to hire bigger tankers to contain the full amount of oil that can already be collected!


Two things for sure: The oil companies have been contemptuously running fast and high risk for far too long, and the government has been far too weak to force them to stay safe.

Hence, people have died and most of the Gulf may well yet die.

Trying to save the Tuna from extinction may well be a moot point if they are all to die whilst in the Gulf...


All a criminal mess!


Perhaps the only way such companies will learn to be less aloof and less reckless is if BP and EVERYTHING associated with BP is hit with a world-wide boycott. The real question is whether that is even possible with our dependence on oil.

Regards,
Martin

And It all goes back to Republicans saying that industry can police Itself and to Republican Higher ups liking deregulation and less Government(Less capable of fighting Industry like Teddy(Theodore) Roosevelt did(I like and respect TR), And Teddy was a Republican, A real one, Bully), Execs like spending as little as possible, Why? The bottom line, Sheer Profit, Some is ok, But they do It to excess, 6 Super Tankers and Kevin Costners pumps could start sucking up those sub surface oil plumes, But what did BP Execs say? It would cost too much(of their profits), BP also denied at first that the plumes even existed and then they poo pooed NOAA Scientists and said the plumes were smaller than that and still no action as some of the Execs are in the way, Government wants the mess cleaned up and I guarantee the ordinary workers in the oil industry do too, Just not some of the penny pinching Execs, If An Exec says NO or says something is too expensive, I say arrest them for obstruction of Justice and find someone who will do what their told. Even the head of BP We all see is spouting more PR than any action, Workers along the beaches could be tripled, But that hasn't happened, Florida has not seen any booms and some area has started beach cleanup with a machine and BP wouldn't approve of that(too expensive, Profit is all important) and now It's rumored that BP will go Bankrupt, I say seize control of BP and keep BP out of our courts.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 1003066 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003095 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 17:59:20 UTC - in response to Message 1003066.  

... Obama said every move BP was making to correct the problem had to be approved by the government. Could that be why things are moving so slow?

I doubt it.

The news indicates that it is considered cheaper to pollute the Gulf than to hire bigger tankers to contain the full amount of oil that can already be collected!


Two things for sure: The oil companies have been contemptuously running fast and high risk for far too long, and the government has been far too weak to force them to stay safe.

Hence, people have died and most of the Gulf may well yet die.

Trying to save the Tuna from extinction may well be a moot point if they are all to die whilst in the Gulf...


All a criminal mess!


Perhaps the only way such companies will learn to be less aloof and less reckless is if BP and EVERYTHING associated with BP is hit with a world-wide boycott. The real question is whether that is even possible with our dependence on oil.

Regards,
Martin

And It all goes back to Republicans saying that industry can police Itself and to Republican Higher ups liking deregulation and less Government(Less capable of fighting Industry like Teddy(Theodore) Roosevelt did(I like and respect TR), And Teddy was a Republican, A real one, Bully), Execs like spending as little as possible, Why? The bottom line, Sheer Profit, Some is ok, But they do It to excess, 6 Super Tankers and Kevin Costners pumps could start sucking up those sub surface oil plumes, But what did BP Execs say? It would cost too much(of their profits), BP also denied at first that the plumes even existed and then they poo pooed NOAA Scientists and said the plumes were smaller than that and still no action as some of the Execs are in the way, Government wants the mess cleaned up and I guarantee the ordinary workers in the oil industry do too, Just not some of the penny pinching Execs, If An Exec says NO or says something is too expensive, I say arrest them for obstruction of Justice and find someone who will do what their told. Even the head of BP We all see is spouting more PR than any action, Workers along the beaches could be tripled, But that hasn't happened, Florida has not seen any booms and some area has started beach cleanup with a machine and BP wouldn't approve of that(too expensive, Profit is all important) and now It's rumored that BP will go Bankrupt, I say seize control of BP and keep BP out of our courts.

You need to get your political parties correct. Bush, McCain and Teddy Roosevelt were progressives as is Obama. When a conservative is a progressive, it's called a compassionate conservative. If it's a liberal the term is progressive or liberal. The problem with the term liberal is that it was hijacked and the liberal after the 1900's is a whole different animal than the one before the 1900's. There are very few classical liberals in congress today and most of them are called Blue Dog Democrats. Also don't forget that most of the laws that started the problem were passed under Bill Clinton. As I said, there is plenty of blame to pass around so don't start picking side because the democrats have as much or more fault in this because they wanted the environmental vote so they pushed oil drilling into very deep water where the risk of something like this happening was far higher.
If you want to seize BP, the you remove the restriction from the government to seize anything that you own personally. The law applies both ways and in my case I want as much protection from a power mad dictator as possible. FDR locked up the Japanese Americans with an executive order and the courts had been so loaded by that time that no move was made to stop him. Woodrow Wilson did the same thing to people who opposed him during World War One. Tell me if you want your Freedom or Revenge. You can't have both at the same time.
ID: 1003095 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1003178 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 19:50:08 UTC - in response to Message 1003095.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2010, 19:57:37 UTC

I'm not even going to start picking apart your logic or reasoning other than to Same the Limbaughesque tranference syndrome is clearly at work. Bush a Progressive? Liberals Pushed them further offshore? I'm going to stop short of calling everything you've typed in your last post as a bald faced lie. This really is pathetic. Post so much crap that it takes hours to research it and in the end you'll just deny it. It's really a shame to see such outlandish and revisionist history brought to the fore. Thanks but I like the reality where I currently live. Lets talk about that one. Not the one you just dreamed up

A Mack Truck sized hole in the thing you'd call the truth. You might consider turning fox news and Limbaugh off and listen to NPR at least there you are allowed to disagree.

Here's a Clue and and FYI. When Fox or Rush say they have an unnamed source, it usually means one of the editors made up the story... Fox news we don't just deliver the News we make it (up)


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1003178 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003199 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 20:11:43 UTC - in response to Message 1003178.  

I'm not even going to start picking apart your logic or reasoning other than to Same the Limbaughesque tranference syndrome is clearly at work. Bush a Progressive? Liberals Pushed them further offshore? I'm going to stop short of calling everything you've typed in your last post as a bald faced lie. This really is pathetic. Post so much crap that it takes hours to research it and in the end you'll just deny it. It's really a shame to see such outlandish and revisionist history brought to the fore. Thanks but I like the reality where I currently live. Lets talk about that one. Not the one you just dreamed up

A Mack Truck sized hole in the thing you'd call the truth. You might consider turning fox news and Limbaugh off and listen to NPR at least there you are allowed to disagree.

Here's a Clue and and FYI. When Fox or Rush say they have an unnamed source, it usually means one of the editors made up the story... Fox news we don't just deliver the News we make it (up)

For starters, I have only listened to Rush a few times. What turned me in this direction was I discovered in all my schooling I had never heard the word progressive before. An Internet search turned up very little about the subject so I turned to books and discovered the existence of a political force that has been active in the United States for 110 years and nobody other that a few historians knew about it. Your remark shows the lack of your knowledge history, not the bias of mine. I can suggest several books if you would like to understand the politics of the 20th and 21th century. You need to stop listing to the NPR and start reading history books and not those that have been cleaned up by the political parties.
ID: 1003199 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1003233 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 21:03:45 UTC - in response to Message 1003199.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2010, 21:22:36 UTC

Heck Lincoln was a Progressive. You have to dig deeper than the Name tag that history gives Political parties. until the late 1940's the Democrats and Republicans were a mix of conservativism and progressives. When Civil rights became an issue, the Conservative Democrats, not surprisingly called Dixiecrats, left the party to become Republicans. Note that the Republicans, now relatively pure conservatives after then Dixiecrat infusion, willingly and intentionally defaulted against Civil rights and the founding notion of America of WE the PEOPLE to the Democrats. Conservatives became more interested in the Military and industrial complex that Eisenhower, probably the last Progressive Republican, warned us about. We obviously didnt listen very well to his warning. So logically you'd see what we now call Progressives in the Republican party until the late 1940's but after that the Progressives like the Dixiecrats became polarized to the parties. calling anyone a Progressive in Todays Republican party is a joke. The Republicans gone so far as to call fellow republicans not republicans but RINO's Republican in name only when they are just Moderate Conservatives.

From what I've seen the Country as a whole has been dragged kicking and scream towards being more Conservative only because the extreme Right wing of the COnservatives produced more outlandish ideas the extreme Progressives are forced to move towards the center and the moderates likewise. This shifts the balance of actually being progressive. Heck if you check out a moderate Republican from the 1960's you'd see the ideals that the Progressives are espousing. Why? because of the extreme right. To win a tug of war you have to move to the center or face losing the entire rope to the other side. when things settle down again the Liberals will attempt the same thing the Conservatives are doing albeit with a lot less economic support since the Conservative are pretty much in the back pocket of Big business.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1003233 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003243 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 21:09:29 UTC - in response to Message 1003233.  
Last modified: 11 Jun 2010, 21:27:05 UTC

Heck Lincoln was a Progressive. You have to dig deeper than the Name tag that history gives Political parties. until the late 1940's the Democrats and Republicans were a mix of conservativism and progressives. When Civil rights became an issue, the Conservative Democrats, not surprisingly called Dixiecrats, left the party to become Republicans. Note that the Republicans, now relatively pure conservatives after then Dixiecrat infusion, willingly and intentionally defaulted against Civil rights and the founding notion of America of WE the PEOPLE to the Democrats. Conservatives became more interested in the Military and industrial complex that Eisenhower, probably the last Progressive Republican, warned us about. We obviously didnt listen very well to his warning

Please stop quoting history when you don't know it. The progressive movement didn't start till the end of the 19th century. It is a form of Marxism and that came out of Germany in the last half of the 19th century.
The debate is between Marxism and the Republic. Don't be mislead by other political terms. If you don't understand this you better start reading.
ID: 1003243 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1003258 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 21:38:05 UTC - in response to Message 1003243.  

So you don't think Lincolns Freeing of the slaves was an act towards Civil rights? a Liberal Ideal?

I never stated when the Progressive movement started in America. I was making a point of Lincoln not being all that Conservative. I was also pointing out the political polarity that now divides this nation was started on the bigotry in the Deep south.

What always gets me is the little man that stands up to defend the Massive corporation claiming that they need the lower taxes so they can pass savings onto the common man and make their products cheaper. Neigh neigh. When Corporations had High taxes they still turned a tidy profit and made a reasonably priced product. Think about it. Would you by a toaster that cost $500. I bet not.

The problem lies in the executive stucture and the value of a Companies stock. Executives didnt always live like kings. They, like the Japanese corporate executives now, made about 10X what their average production worker made. Today not so much since it became clear that to make more profit it is logical to save money and pay people less. Like the people of China. they certainly work for less that what an American does. Funny though that the price of the products made in China and elsewhere don't drop like the wages paid to employees. Could it be that the Corporate folks are maximizing their profit by eliminating American worker and lining their pockets at the same time. The answer is Yes. Lets not forget that most Exectutives receive their pay in "stock" options. Why you ask would they do something so odd as to accept stock instead of money. Because they'd pay 35% tax on their cash earnings while only paying 15% on their stock options. that's a pretty sweet deal if you can get it. they pay what the poorest in America Pay in income tax.

Hmmmmm perhaps we should reevaluate our tax structure and how dividends and stock options are taxed. Much like the malined tax free insurance that some of us get. Congress barks about how a few hundred dollars gets off tax free when they are collection 20% less than they could on executives. Touche' Congress Touche'


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1003258 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003261 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 21:44:07 UTC - in response to Message 1003258.  

So you don't think Lincolns Freeing of the slaves was an act towards Civil rights? a Liberal Ideal?

I never stated when the Progressive movement started in America. I was making a point of Lincoln not being all that Conservative. I was also pointing out the political polarity that now divides this nation was started on the bigotry in the Deep south.

What always gets me is the little man that stands up to defend the Massive corporation claiming that they need the lower taxes so they can pass savings onto the common man and make their products cheaper. Neigh neigh. When Corporations had High taxes they still turned a tidy profit and made a reasonably priced product. Think about it. Would you by a toaster that cost $500. I bet not.

The problem lies in the executive stucture and the value of a Companies stock. Executives didnt always live like kings. They, like the Japanese corporate executives now, made about 10X what their average production worker made. Today not so much since it became clear that to make more profit it is logical to save money and pay people less. Like the people of China. they certainly work for less that what an American does. Funny though that the price of the products made in China and elsewhere don't drop like the wages paid to employees. Could it be that the Corporate folks are maximizing their profit by eliminating American worker and lining their pockets at the same time. The answer is Yes. Lets not forget that most Exectutives receive their pay in "stock" options. Why you ask would they do something so odd as to accept stock instead of money. Because they'd pay 35% tax on their cash earnings while only paying 15% on their stock options. that's a pretty sweet deal if you can get it. they pay what the poorest in America Pay in income tax.

Hmmmmm perhaps we should reevaluate our tax structure and how dividends and stock options are taxed. Much like the malined tax free insurance that some of us get. Congress barks about how a few hundred dollars gets off tax free when they are collection 20% less than they could on executives. Touche' Congress Touche'

OK. We have established that you are a Marxist and you have no interest in the Republic.
ID: 1003261 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1003289 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 23:25:14 UTC - in response to Message 1003261.  

Actually I'm a Moderate independent. I do know when someone is watching a show and not reading the history. I do resent being called a Marxist. I have no problem with capitalism when the leaders take care of their workers. When the workers such as were seen in 19th and preunion years of the 20th century were just disposable cogs in the Robber barons wheel of greed yes I have a problem. I honestly dont see how a Corporations grossly undertaxed status and excessive exutive pay makes me a markist. If anything this makes the Corporate fatcats Fascists. They want corporations running the gov't not the people.

Its so easy to forget that the first words are We the People, At no point does that document declare that corporations are people. that was some idiot judge.

As much as I dislike how the GOv't is run I really can't see myself being lorded over by some megacorp like BP whose give a shite attitude about the locals when it comes to the current and previous catastrophes, leads me to believe that Corporations are not capable of making any sort of decision on any public matter.

We had 8 years of Corporation sponsored Gov't under Bush II and reagan/bush I wasnt much better. Do we really need someone entity that is so big that the gov't cant even prevent it from destroying and entire gulf of water.



In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1003289 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003301 - Posted: 11 Jun 2010, 23:59:40 UTC - in response to Message 1003289.  

Actually I'm a Moderate independent. I do know when someone is watching a show and not reading the history. I do resent being called a Marxist. I have no problem with capitalism when the leaders take care of their workers. When the workers such as were seen in 19th and preunion years of the 20th century were just disposable cogs in the Robber barons wheel of greed yes I have a problem. I honestly dont see how a Corporations grossly undertaxed status and excessive exutive pay makes me a markist. If anything this makes the Corporate fatcats Fascists. They want corporations running the gov't not the people.

Its so easy to forget that the first words are We the People, At no point does that document declare that corporations are people. that was some idiot judge.

As much as I dislike how the GOv't is run I really can't see myself being lorded over by some megacorp like BP whose give a shite attitude about the locals when it comes to the current and previous catastrophes, leads me to believe that Corporations are not capable of making any sort of decision on any public matter.

We had 8 years of Corporation sponsored Gov't under Bush II and reagan/bush I wasnt much better. Do we really need someone entity that is so big that the gov't cant even prevent it from destroying and entire gulf of water.

If you read Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, you will find services a Republic is permitted to provide. To provide services beyond that changes the government to something other than a Republic. In our country, the push out of a Republic is provided by the Progressive/Marxist movement. The Marxist movement is not one form of government but many. It includes Socialist, Communism and Fascism but strange as it may seem didn't include the Nazis. The Nazis had many elements in common with the Marxist but because the people in power were after power and not a political idea, they were not Marxist. Corporations are not Fascists because in no way do they believe in Marxist ideas.
You have the idea of share the wealth and that idea only exist in the Marxist idea of government. I have many other names I could call you that match that political idea, but I think they are to harsh for what you believe.

At one time I like you didn't see the evil of the progressive (there's that word again) tax structure but I also didn't understand how a free economy worked and what a Republic was. It's not hard to fall into that trap, but I won't fall into it again.
ID: 1003301 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1003434 - Posted: 12 Jun 2010, 5:33:55 UTC - in response to Message 1003301.  
Last modified: 12 Jun 2010, 5:37:24 UTC

lets just quote THE Fascist old uncle Benito. Mussolini to the rest of us.


Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.


or [i]
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. [i/]

The end.

This doesnt seem to me to be remotely related to any form or Marxism since its the corporations not the people that are in charge. Had the Corporations been dissolved and reconstituted as gov't bureaus then sure. But you see we have here exactly what our current set of Neocons wants. They call it Privatization when it really means they are carving portions of the gov't off and feeding it to Corporations. Seems those who don't learn history are doomed to either be a moronic president or repeat the mistakes of the past.
now lets get back to our regularly scheduled thread about oil spills.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1003434 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003440 - Posted: 12 Jun 2010, 6:05:29 UTC - in response to Message 1003434.  

lets just quote THE Fascist old uncle Benito. Mussolini to the rest of us.


Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.


or [i]
The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute, individuals and groups relative. [i/]

The end.

This doesnt seem to me to be remotely related to any form or Marxism since its the corporations not the people that are in charge. Had the Corporations been dissolved and reconstituted as gov't bureaus then sure. But you see we have here exactly what our current set of Neocons wants. They call it Privatization when it really means they are carving portions of the gov't off and feeding it to Corporations. Seems those who don't learn history are doomed to either be a moronic president or repeat the mistakes of the past.
now lets get back to our regularly scheduled thread about oil spills.

You might take another look at history. The government has been carving off portions of industry with taxes and regulation for the most part starting with FDR. You can't tell me that Amtrak, GM Wall street are in control of the government. It's the other way around. Progressive control is not a overnight thing, it is a long range plan. That's why they call it progressive instead of a revolution. A free market means no government tampering. GM has been bailed out twice. FDR had many programs to control and shape the market place. The EPA has been forcing industry to move out of the country because restriction were so ridged they could no longer operate in this country. Restricting oil drilling on land and near the shore has cause BP and other oil companies to move into deeper water and at the edge of their ability to recover oil. The only effect the business has on government is contributions to political parties. I am sure many who contributed to Obama are now having buyers remorse.

We have been socialist country for almost 100 years now. That's why you don't understand what has happened and is still happen to the country. None of us have lived in a true republic because it was gone before we had a chance to experience it. For this we have a reason to be angry at some of the people in our history, for stealing what our founding father gave to us.
ID: 1003440 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1003632 - Posted: 12 Jun 2010, 14:44:06 UTC - in response to Message 1003178.  

I'm not even going to start picking apart your logic or reasoning other than to Same the Limbaughesque tranference syndrome is clearly at work. Bush a Progressive? Liberals Pushed them further offshore? I'm going to stop short of calling everything you've typed in your last post as a bald faced lie. This really is pathetic. Post so much crap that it takes hours to research it and in the end you'll just deny it.


It gets old, doesn't it? I don't see any logic in engaging people like Dena in a discussion.
There's no give and take in any exchange with her. It's just a one way pipeline coming straight from the far right talking points issued by Fatface Limbaugh and the getting fatter by the day Beckerhead.

Why regular people would take their marching orders from super rich ideologs is a question I can never answer.




I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1003632 · Report as offensive
Dena Wiltsie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Apr 01
Posts: 1628
Credit: 24,230,968
RAC: 26
United States
Message 1003641 - Posted: 12 Jun 2010, 15:23:31 UTC - in response to Message 1003632.  

I'm not even going to start picking apart your logic or reasoning other than to Same the Limbaughesque tranference syndrome is clearly at work. Bush a Progressive? Liberals Pushed them further offshore? I'm going to stop short of calling everything you've typed in your last post as a bald faced lie. This really is pathetic. Post so much crap that it takes hours to research it and in the end you'll just deny it.


It gets old, doesn't it? I don't see any logic in engaging people like Dena in a discussion.
There's no give and take in any exchange with her. It's just a one way pipeline coming straight from the far right talking points issued by Fatface Limbaugh and the getting fatter by the day Beckerhead.

Why regular people would take their marching orders from super rich ideologs is a question I can never answer.

There is no give and take in the constitution. If there was, why bother writing the document? If you don't understand the United States founding documents, please refrain from commenting on them.
ID: 1003641 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Gulf Oil Spill


 
©2022 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.