Rex Kickass Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:18 PM) Well, lets be fair. Obama could provide the moon and they'd still find something to be unhappy about. I would say waiting a year for recess appointments to the NLRB, after it was clear that the Senate minority was never gonna let any nominated people through to a vote would be pretty frustrating. Especially given that yesterday, the Supreme Court threw out every decision the NLRB made in the last couple years when it only had two of five members appointed and confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 08:47 PM) This might seem like some incredible statement, but I think Obama is a good man. And I think for the most part he's done what he thought is best for the country. Has he got all of these things right? No. Maybe he's even gotten them all wrong. But lets be reasonable. I can support a politician without thinking he's a Messiah. In fact that's what's inherently difficult about supporting a politician. They're going to screw up, and they're going to make decisions I don't like. I think Obama would like to see the American economy and the car companies recover, and the oil spill stop, not only because that's the sane thing to think, but because it's in his best political interests and those of the country. I think he cares more about his re-election, than about spreading the wealth. The idea that Obama let the oil spill so he could, turn this into a environmentalist, or socialist (which one is it) cause is probably as silly as the idea that the Bush administration let the terrorists attack so they could invade middle eastern countries. I trust these people more than that. In addition, aren't GM and Chrysler doing pretty good again? And I'm not going to say this is because Obama and Congress bailed them out (they'll do that on their own). But isn't it safe to at least consider that that was a good decision, and that it might eventually turn into a profit for taxpayers? And what about the stimulus? Didn't pretty much every single country do it? I kind of doubt that every government thought of it as Robin Hood stuff. Good example of groupthink, probably not a good example of all these countries perpetrating some svengalian act of secret socialism. Seriously, after all the villifying of Bush you did. No one becomes the president of the US because they want to f*** up the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 But kap's been saying that Obama is deliberately letting things get worse in just about every situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) But kap's been saying that Obama is deliberately letting things get worse in just about every situation. Yeah, but you didn't see Jas agree with those statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Wow, I step out for a few days and Kap and Chi just go all out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:30 PM) Seriously, after all the villifying of Bush you did. No one becomes the president of the US because they want to f*** up the country. I know I personally went over the top with some of my criticisms of Bush back in the day. But to be clear, I think my political views have matured a great deal in recent years. I was still in high school when the invasion of Iraq was beginning. Still Obama>Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) But kap's been saying that Obama is deliberately letting things get worse in just about every situation. Because he has. GM's profitable? Wow, who'd a thunk that? Too bad it's not legit. But, I don't know anything about any of that... Just so you understand, they would have been just as profitable under a real chapter 11... but I don't know anything about that, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 10:07 PM) Because he has. GM's profitable? Wow, who'd a thunk that? Too bad it's not legit. But, I don't know anything about any of that... Just so you understand, they would have been just as profitable under a real chapter 11... but I don't know anything about that, either. Because there was just freaking boatloads of emergency financing available from the big banks in December08/May 09, and no chance that they'd have wound up in chapter 7 after they found zero banks to offer bridge loans. Hell, the financing offers were just lining up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 They already had financing lined up before USTREAS said no, we must do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 19, 2010 -> 08:14 AM) They already had financing lined up before USTREAS said no, we must do it. We haven't heard about this before or from anyone other than you, can I ask you to source that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 Clearly, the Obama Administration is only doing this so that when another spill happens, they'll be able to demonize another company and use that to ruin our chances at cheap, painless oil drilling by imposing an evil carbon tax. Despite President Barack Obama's promises of better safeguards for offshore drilling, federal regulators continue to approve plans for oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico with minimal or no environmental analysis. The Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service has signed off on at least five new offshore drilling projects since June 2, when the agency's acting director announced tougher safety regulations for drilling in the Gulf, a McClatchy review of public records has discovered. Three of the projects were approved with waivers exempting them from detailed studies of their environmental impact — the same waiver the MMS granted to BP for the ill-fated well that's been fouling the Gulf with crude for two months. In a May 14 speech in the Rose Garden, Obama said he was "closing the loophole that has allowed some oil companies to bypass some critical environmental reviews." Environmental groups, however, say the loophole is as wide as ever and that the administration is allowing oil companies to proceed with drilling plans that may be just as flawed as BP's, which concluded that a major spill was "unlikely" and that the company was equipped to manage even the worst-case blowout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 09:02 PM) Again, this president INTENTIONALLY sat on his ass letting the oil destroy the coast, all so people like you would get pissed and call off all offshore drilling, all the while setting up to control a privately held company and an industry right with it. He definitely sat on his ass while BP was trying to save the coast and Obama basically told them to slow-walk because it was not part of his anti-offshore drilling agenda which he so conveniently came out for a few weeks earlier. Nothing like a good conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 What Barack Obama does has nothing to do with BP. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to comprehend. Oh wait, because it's a good cover. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 20, 2010 -> 09:56 PM) What Barack Obama does has nothing to do with BP. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to comprehend. Oh wait, because it's a good cover. Got it. Aren't you bashing the President immensely for bullying BP into accepting that escrow account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I have no sympathy for BP, and I don't blame Obama for this, just as I didn't blame Bush for Katrina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 10:05 AM) I have no sympathy for BP, and I don't blame Obama for this, just as I didn't blame Bush for Katrina. There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Agreed. After news of the oil spill hit, he should have seized their assets and appointed Rahm to run the company. Obamaocracy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Well, I'm not one to defend Obama, but no, I don't think it's fair to blame him for a lot of that, there is more too it than just 'slow response'. Did he respond slow, sure...so did the entire senate/congress, and everyone else involved. But he didn't "cause" it. Lax rules didn't "cause it"...BP completely ignoring rules/regulations did. And seriously, enough with the f***ing "reforms". BP was negligent from the get go. These "rules and reforms" are the same as Daley's gun laws. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE. BP didn't care...so you could have had all the safety reforms in place, and it wouldn't have mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) Well, I'm not one to defend Obama, but no, I don't think it's fair to blame him for a lot of that, there is more too it than just 'slow response'. Did he respond slow, sure...so did the entire senate/congress, and everyone else involved. But he didn't "cause" it. Lax rules didn't "cause it"...BP completely ignoring rules/regulations did. And seriously, enough with the f***ing "reforms". BP was negligent from the get go. These "rules and reforms" are the same as Daley's gun laws. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE. BP didn't care...so you could have had all the safety reforms in place, and it wouldn't have mattered. The logic of Obama supporters (on this issue): BP ignored security/safety measures and current regulation concerning the operations of an oil well. The government failed to enforce said regulations, allowing BP to continue operation despite said violations. More regulation would have solved the problem. What we need is more regulation, because going forward, BP WILL follow the rules (even though they clearly ignored them before). BP has started to pay out claims for said violations. BP has never indicated that they WOULDN'T pay for said claims. However, BP cannot be trusted to act appropriately because another oil company 30 years ago didn't. Therefore, Obama must ignore the judicial system, demand 20 billion, and become the chief claim administrator. See how they can argue both angles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Quit defending BP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) And seriously, enough with the f***ing "reforms". BP was negligent from the get go. These "rules and reforms" are the same as Daley's gun laws. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE. BP didn't care...so you could have had all the safety reforms in place, and it wouldn't have mattered. Then we shouldn't be drilling in the Gulf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) The logic of Obama supporters (on this issue): BP ignored security/safety measures and current regulation concerning the operations of an oil well. The government failed to enforce said regulations, allowing BP to continue operation despite said violations. More regulation would have solved the problem. What we need is more regulation, because going forward, BP WILL follow the rules (even though they clearly ignored them before). BP has started to pay out claims for said violations. BP has never indicated that they WOULDN'T pay for said claims. However, BP cannot be trusted to act appropriately because another oil company 30 years ago didn't. Therefore, Obama must ignore the judicial system, demand 20 billion, and become the chief claim administrator. See how they can argue both angles? see: kap's avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 10:25 AM) see: kap's avatar Are you not advocating both positions? Haven't you argued that we need more regulations, and that BP can't be trusted? I fail to see how my point is wrong. You think BP or other similiar companies will simply follow the rules (as if they haven't broken them before) and that the government will enforce them adequately (as if they haven't failed to before), yet you don't trust BP to pay out claims and act responsibly because of their negligence (despite no evidence to the contrary). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 I'm not arguing the strawman versions of those positions that you're building, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts