# Why Not Feel Sorry for BP?



## Kevin_Kennedy

> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.



Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


----------



## California Girl

That article actually makes some really good points.  BP are one of the most ethical petro companies on the planet. That's not to say they are perfect but demonizing them is ridiculous. BP plow huge amounts of money into researching renewable energies - they employ 29,000 people in the US alone. If they go under because of this, not only do we have 29,000 more unemployed but the impact on research for renewables will be huge. It could set us back decades in the effort to cut carbon emissions and replace oil. 

There are really important issues that are being ignored by the hysteria from the whiners about BP... From their hysterical rants, one can clearly see that they have absolutely no idea how important BP are, not just in the US but globally. In their enthusiasm for 'blame' they don't consider the bigger picture, they have absolutely no idea about BP - other than they are an oil producer. Fucking morons.


----------



## eagleseven

If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.

Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.


----------



## California Girl

eagleseven said:


> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.



It's not just about our cars. Parts of the country would starve, because they can't produce enough food and need to transport it in. We'd all be making our own clothes.... cus we wouldn't be able to run the factories that make them.... here or abroad.... And even if they could be manufactured, we couldn't move stuff around the country. 

Basically, we'd go back a century. One has to wonder 'is that the "progress" that the left really support?' 

It's laughable.


----------



## HUGGY

eagleseven said:


> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.



Judging from the sounds that eminate from the HOMO cage I believe there are those that enjoy a powerful muscular animal between thier legs.  If we asked for a show of hands I'm sure Krusty Frank and Continuous Lisp would confirm.  Anybody else?


----------



## eagleseven

Not to mention all the oil-based products we consume...

Plastics.
Dyes.
Nylon.
Cosmetics.

...just to name a few.


----------



## eagleseven

HUGGY said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from the sounds that eminate from the HOMO cage I believe there are those that enjoy a powerful muscular animal between thier legs.  If we asked for a show of hands I'm sure Krusty Frank and Continuous Lisp would confirm.  Anybody else?
Click to expand...


(Huggy, this isn't the flame zone. Try using your brain.)


----------



## California Girl

eagleseven said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judging from the sounds that eminate from the HOMO cage I believe there are those that enjoy a powerful muscular animal between thier legs.  If we asked for a show of hands I'm sure Krusty Frank and Continuous Lisp would confirm.  Anybody else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Huggy, this isn't the flame zone. Try using your brain.)
Click to expand...


He's got nothing.


----------



## California Girl

eagleseven said:


> Not to mention all the oil-based products we consume...
> 
> Plastics.
> Dyes.
> Nylon.
> Cosmetics.
> 
> ...just to name a few.



Yea, that's what I mean. Without the petro industy, we step back a century. Which is kind of funny since the supporters of ditching petro products are the 'progressives'. I wonder if they see the sheer stupidity of their stance?


----------



## eagleseven

California Girl said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention all the oil-based products we consume...
> 
> Plastics.
> Dyes.
> Nylon.
> Cosmetics.
> 
> ...just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that's what I mean. Without the petro industy, we step back a century. Which is kind of funny since the supporters of ditching petro products are the 'progressives'. I wonder if they see the sheer stupidity of their stance?
Click to expand...

The rational solution is to develop alternative fuels, be it hydrogen, natural gas, electric, or liquid coal for our transportation needs, and use our remaining oil stocks for polymer synthesis.

The vast majority of our oil is used as fuel...if we only used it to make plastic, for instance, I am certain our reserves will last for a few more generations, at least.


----------



## California Girl

eagleseven said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention all the oil-based products we consume...
> 
> Plastics.
> Dyes.
> Nylon.
> Cosmetics.
> 
> ...just to name a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that's what I mean. Without the petro industy, we step back a century. Which is kind of funny since the supporters of ditching petro products are the 'progressives'. I wonder if they see the sheer stupidity of their stance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The rational solution is to develop alternative fuels, be it hydrogen, natural gas, electric, or liquid coal for our transportation needs, and use our remaining oil stocks for polymer synthesis.
> 
> The vast majority of our oil is used as fuel...if we only used it to make plastic, for instance, I am certain our reserves will last for a few more generations, at least.
Click to expand...


Yea, but who pays for the development? Because if BP goes bankrupt because of this, that's a HUGE chunk of funding that needs to come from somewhere else.


----------



## eagleseven

California Girl said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, that's what I mean. Without the petro industy, we step back a century. Which is kind of funny since the supporters of ditching petro products are the 'progressives'. I wonder if they see the sheer stupidity of their stance?
> 
> 
> 
> The rational solution is to develop alternative fuels, be it hydrogen, natural gas, electric, or liquid coal for our transportation needs, and use our remaining oil stocks for polymer synthesis.
> 
> The vast majority of our oil is used as fuel...if we only used it to make plastic, for instance, I am certain our reserves will last for a few more generations, at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, but who pays for the development? Because if BP goes bankrupt because of this, that's a HUGE chunk of funding that needs to come from somewhere else.
Click to expand...

That all depends on the current state of the petroleum industry.

If another American or European company is in position to buy up BPs assets and turn it around, they could be the source. If the Chinese or Russian national oil agencies buy up BPs assets, though, we won't be seeing the benefits of any oil income.

In fact, I'd bet money that, in the event of BP bankrupcy, China will make a grab for BPs assets. They _need_ oil desperately.


----------



## California Girl

eagleseven said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rational solution is to develop alternative fuels, be it hydrogen, natural gas, electric, or liquid coal for our transportation needs, and use our remaining oil stocks for polymer synthesis.
> 
> The vast majority of our oil is used as fuel...if we only used it to make plastic, for instance, I am certain our reserves will last for a few more generations, at least.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, but who pays for the development? Because if BP goes bankrupt because of this, that's a HUGE chunk of funding that needs to come from somewhere else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That all depends on the current state of the petroleum industry.
> 
> If another American or European company is in position to buy up BPs assets and turn it around, they could be the source. If the Chinese or Russian national oil agencies buy up BPs assets, though, we won't be seeing the benefits of any oil income.
> 
> In fact, I'd bet money that, in the event of BP bankrupcy, China will make a grab for BPs assets. They _need_ oil desperately.
Click to expand...


Yea, I could see that happening. Do we really think the Chinese or Russians are gonna plow billions into renewables in the US? I somehow doubt it. 

Personally, I'd prefer to see BP stay afloat. Unlike the loony left, I can see a bigger picture here that is not good for the US.


----------



## eagleseven

Tis the problem with our entire political class...they cannot see beyond their own noses.


----------



## Ravi

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Click to expand...

I do feel sorry for them. It's a shame you have to go and demonize people that are concerned about the environment, though.


----------



## Bfgrn

From Lew Rockwell's article: _"It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading *victim*, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses."_

Victim? BP and big oil has fought and lobbied for years against rules and safety procedures that would have prevented this blowout. BP has a dismal safety record, now THEY are the victims?

Reports Show BP Opposed New Safety Rules - WSJ.com
BP leads the nation in refinery deaths - Houston Chronicle


Ironic, this weekend Don Blankenship, Massey Energy CEO, where last month 29 miners perished in a deadly blast at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia NOW claims HE is the victim of 'evil people'

Massey chief calls critics evil - Charleston Daily Mail

These type of catastrophes clearly shine a light on who or 'what' right wingers are. They put property and money WAY before people or any living, breathing creature on this planet and their 'personal responsibility' mantra only applies to 'others', usually the ones that actually DIE.

The right...'VICTIMS'...

Kevin, I misjudged you. It thought you had some ethics and human decency, I was wrong. You join the ranks of right wing extremists...the PEA brains


Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
Edmund Burke


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do feel sorry for them. It's a shame you have to go and demonize people that are concerned about the environment, though.
Click to expand...


It is the article's author that criticizes environmentalists, Ravi, not any poster. 'You' is not any of us. It is the author. It's a common thing on USMB. Someone links to an article and that poster is questioned like they wrote the piece they reference. That's kind of dumb. 

Fact is, the impact of BP's demise would be very, very bad, not just for the shareholders, but for the environment, and in general. They are not a bad company.  That's the 'inconvenient truth'.


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just about our cars. *Parts of the country would starve, because they can't produce enough food and need to transport it in. We'd all be making our own clothes....* cus we wouldn't be able to run the factories that make them.... here or abroad.... And even if they could be manufactured, we couldn't move stuff around the country.
> 
> Basically, we'd go back a century. One has to wonder 'is that the "progress" that the left really support?'
> 
> It's laughable.
Click to expand...


SO...BP is too big to fail? 

"We'd all be making our own clothes"...your pea brain premises are truly laughable... if BP fails it will shut down sweat shops in Asia and India? 

I'm glad to see you seek out the 'Union label' on garments. At least you support unions...even if it IS unwittingly...


----------



## HUGGY

*Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? 
*           I laughed till I cried..                  Rockwell's piece was pathetic.  BP is in the proccess of being FIRED for doing a lousy job.   There are many companies or pieces of what BP dos waiting in the wings to gobble up a market that BP has failed to steer competantly..  This pining over 29,000 jobs is rediculous.  Those jobs will still be there for the taking after BP is shut down.  The "Jobs" lost will be BP management.  Sorry Rockwell.   When the captain runs the ship aground...The captain is given his walking papers and the crew just signs on with another ship.


----------



## California Girl

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just about our cars. *Parts of the country would starve, because they can't produce enough food and need to transport it in. We'd all be making our own clothes....* cus we wouldn't be able to run the factories that make them.... here or abroad.... And even if they could be manufactured, we couldn't move stuff around the country.
> 
> Basically, we'd go back a century. One has to wonder 'is that the "progress" that the left really support?'
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO...BP is too big to fail?
> 
> "We'd all be making our own clothes"...your pea brain premises are truly laughable... if BP fails it will shut down sweat shops in Asia and India?
> 
> I'm glad to see you seek out the 'Union label' on garments. At least you support unions...even if it IS unwittingly...
Click to expand...


Petro by products are used in a huge number of industries, including clothing. And, even if India and Asia could produce the clothes.... how do we transport them? The Star Ship Enterprise? Without transport - everyone eats what can be produced locally. Everyone wears what can be produced locally. Empty malls and and millions out of work.


----------



## HUGGY

Why is it that the laws of the free market JUST CAN'T WORK if your choices in stock market purchases turn out to be bogus?


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> Why is it that the laws of the free market JUST CAN'T WORK if your choices in stock market purchases turn out to be bogus?



DiaperBoy Logic. "I have decided that CG owns shares in BP, therefore CG does own shares in BP." Even you must see how fucking moronic that logic is.


----------



## HUGGY

I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....


----------



## California Girl

HUGGY said:


> I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....



Since you choose to keep spreading lies about me, as an individual, I choose to challenge these lies. Try not to be a moron all your life, Diaper. You state, with conviction, that I own BP shares. Prove it.


----------



## HUGGY

A certain someone thinks I made a statement of fact concerning that someones finances.  That someone is, as usual, in error.  I suggested that that someone sell BP.  That is all.


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just about our cars. *Parts of the country would starve, because they can't produce enough food and need to transport it in. We'd all be making our own clothes....* cus we wouldn't be able to run the factories that make them.... here or abroad.... And even if they could be manufactured, we couldn't move stuff around the country.
> 
> Basically, we'd go back a century. One has to wonder 'is that the "progress" that the left really support?'
> 
> It's laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO...BP is too big to fail?
> 
> "We'd all be making our own clothes"...your pea brain premises are truly laughable... if BP fails it will shut down sweat shops in Asia and India?
> 
> I'm glad to see you seek out the 'Union label' on garments. At least you support unions...even if it IS unwittingly...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Petro by products are used in a huge number of industries*, including clothing. And, even if India and Asia could produce the clothes.... how do we transport them? The Star Ship Enterprise? Without transport - everyone eats what can be produced locally. Everyone wears what can be produced locally. Empty malls and and millions out of work.
Click to expand...


Like WAR and imperialism?

I wonder what Iraq would look like today if BP and the CIA didn't fund the Ba'athists?

Abd al-Karim Qasim

Qasim was Prime Minister of Iraq from July 1958 - February 1963.

Qasim soon withdrew Iraq from the pro-Western Baghdad Pact and established friendly relations with the Soviet Union. Iraq also abolished its Treaty of mutual security and bilateral relations with the UK. Also, Iraq withdrew from the agreement with the United States that was signed by the monarchy from 1954 to 1955 regarding military, arms, and equipment. On May 30, 1959, the last of the British soldiers and military officers departed the al-Habb&#257;niyya base in Iraq.

On July 26, 1958, the Interim Constitution was adopted, proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion. 

The government freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings. The exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime.

Qasim lifted a ban on the Iraqi Communist Party, and demanded the annexation of Kuwait. He was also involved in the 1958 Agrarian Reform, modeled after the Egyptian experiment of 1952.

Qasim is said by his admirers to have worked to improve the position of ordinary people in Iraq, after the long period of self-interested rule by a small elite under the monarchy which had resulted in widespread social unrest. 

Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 99% of Iraqi land from the *British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company*, and distributed farms to more of the population. This increased the size of the middle class. Qasim also oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes. The most notable example, and indeed symbol, of this was the new suburb of Baghdad named Madinat al-Thawra (revolution city), renamed Saddam City under the Baath regime and now widely referred to as Sadr City. 

Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage womens participation in the society.

Qasim was overthrown by the Ba'athist coup of February 8, 1963, motivated by fear of communist influence and state control over the petroleum sector. This coup has been reported to have been carried out with the backing of the British government and the American CIA.

Iraq Petroleum Company

The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), until 1929 called Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), was an oil company jointly owned by some of the world's largest oil companies, which had virtual monopoly on all oil exploration in Iraq from 1925 to 1961.

July 1928: shareholders sign a formal agreement: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (which in 1935 became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company using the oil reserves of the Middle East. APOC was renamed Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1935 and eventually became the* British Petroleum Company (BP) *in 1954, as one root of the *BP* Company today.


----------



## uscitizen

eagleseven said:


> Tis the problem with our entire political class...they cannot see beyond their own noses.



Like our financial industry could see beyond their own immediate profit?

LIke our individual citizens could see why going eyeball deep in debt was a bad thing?

Or using the equity they had built up in their home like a credit card?


----------



## Care4all

I don't believe for a nano second we would go back a hundred years CG, if we had never decided to use oil for gasoline for our cars....if oil did not exist, we would have used electricity to move people around in cars or coal for the steam engines in trains or even made more nuclear plants....

We are NOT stupid people, we are creative, we have ingenuity, we would have used it....we are not a country made up of defeatists.

Care


----------



## Mr Natural

Fuck 'em.

If they went under tommorrow, there'd be someone else to take up the slack in no time flat.


----------



## Care4all

*If* BP is to blame, or who they contracted, then they SHOULD get the blame put on them....

why dance around it?  

Al capone did alot of good with charities, that did not give him the grace to do as he pleased....

i don't know where people are getting that BP is one of the safest oil drillers....they have a horrible record, from what I have read?

Yes, I do feel sorry for them....BUT if they or their contractors CAUSED THIS and the eleven men were killed unnecessarily, then they merely reap what they sowed...that's how it is for any of us peons, why give the special treatment to them?


----------



## Sarah G

I do feel sorry for BP, I saw their CEO being interviewed and he seemed terribly upset and admitted they were responsible and acting as quickly as possible to get it cleaned up.

I just wish they could get the dang thing shut off and cleaned up and find better ways to avoid this in the future.


----------



## California Girl

Care4all said:


> I don't believe for a nano second we would go back a hundred years CG, if we had never decided to use oil for gasoline for our cars....if oil did not exist, we would have used electricity to move people around in cars or coal for the steam engines in trains or even made more nuclear plants....
> 
> We are NOT stupid people, we are creative, we have ingenuity, we would have used it....we are not a country made up of defeatists.
> 
> Care



We used to be, absolutely. Now, it appears we are becoming a nation of European-esque whiners and 'gimme, gimme, gimme'. 

It is NOT just about our cars. Petro-chems are used in a vast number of products that we would not have. Even our damned computers wouldn't exist without that industry. It is not about getting from a to b....

And, sure, others would come in to take over BP.... those companies will probably be the big Russian or Chinese companies. Think they are more ethical owners of companies like BP? Seriously? Look at their companies track records. Do we really want to be even more beholden to countries like Russia and China?


----------



## California Girl

Sarah G said:


> I do feel sorry for BP, I saw their CEO being interviewed and he seemed terribly upset and admitted they were responsible and acting as quickly as possible to get it cleaned up.
> 
> I just wish they could get the dang thing shut off and cleaned up and find better ways to avoid this in the future.



How sensible!! Finally, we have some liberals who see something other than the 'corporation' and see the people behind it. People forget that BP is made up of human beings - most of them are honest, hard working, decent people. Their CEO certainly is. 11 of his staff died on that rig. Anyone who thinks that does not weigh heavily on him is an idiot. I'm glad you saw his interview. Like you, I think we should focus on how fast they can stop it and clean it up and let the blame game wait until the disaster is sorted.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Ravi said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a private corporation and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do feel sorry for them. It's a shame you have to go and demonize people that are concerned about the environment, though.
Click to expand...


Well I didn't actually say anything in that post myself, so I didn't demonize anyone.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> From Lew Rockwell's article: _"It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading *victim*, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses."_
> 
> Victim? BP and big oil has fought and lobbied for years against rules and safety procedures that would have prevented this blowout. BP has a dismal safety record, now THEY are the victims?
> 
> Reports Show BP Opposed New Safety Rules - WSJ.com
> BP leads the nation in refinery deaths - Houston Chronicle
> 
> 
> Ironic, this weekend Don Blankenship, Massey Energy CEO, where last month 29 miners perished in a deadly blast at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia NOW claims HE is the victim of 'evil people'
> 
> Massey chief calls critics evil - Charleston Daily Mail
> 
> These type of catastrophes clearly shine a light on who or 'what' right wingers are. They put property and money WAY before people or any living, breathing creature on this planet and their 'personal responsibility' mantra only applies to 'others', usually the ones that actually DIE.
> 
> The right...'VICTIMS'...
> 
> Kevin, I misjudged you. It thought you had some ethics and human decency, I was wrong. You join the ranks of right wing extremists...the PEA brains
> 
> 
> Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe.
> Edmund Burke



Yes, you are misjudging me.  I am not on the "right," so therefore couldn't possibly be a "right wing extremist."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

HUGGY said:


> I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....



Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> *If* BP is to blame, or who they contracted, then they SHOULD get the blame put on them....
> 
> why dance around it?
> 
> Al capone did alot of good with charities, that did not give him the grace to do as he pleased....
> 
> i don't know where people are getting that BP is one of the safest oil drillers....they have a horrible record, from what I have read?
> 
> Yes, I do feel sorry for them....BUT if they or their contractors CAUSED THIS and the eleven men were killed unnecessarily, then they merely reap what they sowed...that's how it is for any of us peons, why give the special treatment to them?



Accidents generally are unnecessary.  Nobody is saying give special treatment to BP.  They took a risk and it backfired.  Now they're losing money daily, they'll have to pay for the cleanup, 11 people are dead, and their reputation is in the trash.  This was obviously not a deliberate act on their part, so why should we act like they're pure evil?


----------



## Bfgrn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.
Click to expand...


Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.

WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.

When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute


----------



## Care4all

California Girl said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for a nano second we would go back a hundred years CG, if we had never decided to use oil for gasoline for our cars....if oil did not exist, we would have used electricity to move people around in cars or coal for the steam engines in trains or even made more nuclear plants....
> 
> We are NOT stupid people, we are creative, we have ingenuity, we would have used it....we are not a country made up of defeatists.
> 
> Care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We used to be, absolutely. Now, it appears we are becoming a nation of European-esque whiners and 'gimme, gimme, gimme'.
> 
> It is NOT just about our cars. Petro-chems are used in a vast number of products that we would not have. Even our damned computers wouldn't exist without that industry. It is not about getting from a to b....
> 
> And, sure, others would come in to take over BP.... those companies will probably be the big Russian or Chinese companies. Think they are more ethical owners of companies like BP? Seriously? Look at their companies track records. Do we really want to be even more beholden to countries like Russia and China?
Click to expand...


Why do you presume it would be the russians or chinese instead of someone like ExxonMobile?  do the russians and the chinese have a speciaql relationship with bp?

bp made $6billion in profit in just ONE QUARTER, 3 months....this spill is costing them about $6 million a day in clean up/containment expense is what i heard on the 24/7....it would take 1000 days (3 YEARS) of spending 6 million a day to come to the PROFITS they make in 90 days....I don't see them going UNDER or bankrupt off of this....even if it costed more that $6 million a day.....


----------



## California Girl

Care4all said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe for a nano second we would go back a hundred years CG, if we had never decided to use oil for gasoline for our cars....if oil did not exist, we would have used electricity to move people around in cars or coal for the steam engines in trains or even made more nuclear plants....
> 
> We are NOT stupid people, we are creative, we have ingenuity, we would have used it....we are not a country made up of defeatists.
> 
> Care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We used to be, absolutely. Now, it appears we are becoming a nation of European-esque whiners and 'gimme, gimme, gimme'.
> 
> It is NOT just about our cars. Petro-chems are used in a vast number of products that we would not have. Even our damned computers wouldn't exist without that industry. It is not about getting from a to b....
> 
> And, sure, others would come in to take over BP.... those companies will probably be the big Russian or Chinese companies. Think they are more ethical owners of companies like BP? Seriously? Look at their companies track records. Do we really want to be even more beholden to countries like Russia and China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you presume it would be the russians or chinese instead of someone like ExxonMobile?  do the russians and the chinese have a speciaql relationship with bp?
> 
> bp made $6billion in profit in just ONE QUARTER, 3 months....this spill is costing them about $6 million a day in clean up/containment expense is what i heard on the 24/7....it would take 1000 days (3 YEARS) of spending 6 million a day to come to the PROFITS they make in 90 days....I don't see them going UNDER or bankrupt off of this....even if it costed more that $6 million a day.....
Click to expand...


I didn't 'presume', I put forward a 'what if' scenario. BP has incredibly valuable resources - both the Russian and Chinese would be very, very happy to get their hands on those assets. They also have very, very deep pockets.... it is likely that many, probably not all, of those assets would fall into Russian or Chinese hands. If you have no problem with that, fine. I do. My main problem is that neither the Russians or the Chinese are exactly environmentally friendly. You think BP are profit driven? Just wait till you see what the Russians and Chinese are like.

To be honest, I don't see them going under either. They made $17 b last year and $24b the year before that. They have a massive asset bank. I think they'll survive. I'm just considering those who want to see the demise of BP and hoping they'll understand that the break up of BP would not necessarily be in the best interests of Americans.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.
> 
> WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.
> 
> When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
Click to expand...


Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.


----------



## HUGGY

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.
> 
> WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.
> 
> When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
Click to expand...


I think you will need to apply for food stamps before you can say there are free markets.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

HUGGY said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.
> 
> WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.
> 
> When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will need to apply for food stamps before you can say there are free markets.
Click to expand...


If I applied for food stamps I would be a hypocrite.  Hopefully I'll never be in a position to have to make that choice, but I hope I'd be a little more principled than to accept them.


----------



## HUGGY

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will need to apply for food stamps before you can say there are free markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I applied for food stamps I would be a hypocrite.  Hopefully I'll never be in a position to have to make that choice, but I hope I'd be a little more principled than to accept them.
Click to expand...


Good on ya...got kids?  you make sure that if ya ever get hopelessly broke that you train them youngins to Buck Up just like daddy an push thier buggin eyes back in the sockets cuz it's not principaled.


----------



## eagleseven

Care4all said:


> Why do you presume it would be the russians or chinese instead of someone like ExxonMobile?  do the russians and the chinese have a speciaql relationship with bp?


Both Russia and China have nationalized petroleum industries, and thus can use their entire government budget to outbid private American petroleum companies.

If we tried to legally block them from bidding, China would threaten to stop funding our national debt.



Care4all said:


> bp made $6billion in profit in just ONE QUARTER, 3 months....this spill is costing them about $6 million a day in clean up/containment expense is what i heard on the 24/7....it would take 1000 days (3 YEARS) of spending 6 million a day to come to the PROFITS they make in 90 days....I don't see them going UNDER or bankrupt off of this....even if it costed more that $6 million a day.....


That is because you are ignoring the massive costs of negative PR.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

HUGGY said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you will need to apply for food stamps before you can say there are free markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I applied for food stamps I would be a hypocrite.  Hopefully I'll never be in a position to have to make that choice, but I hope I'd be a little more principled than to accept them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good on ya...got kids?  you make sure that if ya ever get hopelessly broke that you train them youngins to Buck Up just like daddy an push thier buggin eyes back in the sockets cuz it's not principaled.
Click to expand...


Sure don't.


----------



## Care4all

eagleseven said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume it would be the russians or chinese instead of someone like ExxonMobile?  do the russians and the chinese have a speciaql relationship with bp?
> 
> 
> 
> Both Russia and China have nationalized petroleum industries, and thus can use their entire government budget to outbid private American petroleum companies.
> 
> If we tried to legally block them from bidding, China would threaten to stop funding our national debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> bp made $6billion in profit in just ONE QUARTER, 3 months....this spill is costing them about $6 million a day in clean up/containment expense is what i heard on the 24/7....it would take 1000 days (3 YEARS) of spending 6 million a day to come to the PROFITS they make in 90 days....I don't see them going UNDER or bankrupt off of this....even if it costed more that $6 million a day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because you are ignoring the massive costs of negative PR.
Click to expand...


true....

but as with everything, time heals all wounds....we forget the bad things.

it ain't hurting exxon/mobile now, is it?


----------



## Care4all

eagleseven said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume it would be the russians or chinese instead of someone like ExxonMobile?  do the russians and the chinese have a speciaql relationship with bp?
> 
> 
> 
> Both Russia and China have nationalized petroleum industries, and thus can use their entire government budget to outbid private American petroleum companies.
> 
> If we tried to legally block them from bidding, China would threaten to stop funding our national debt.
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> bp made $6billion in profit in just ONE QUARTER, 3 months....this spill is costing them about $6 million a day in clean up/containment expense is what i heard on the 24/7....it would take 1000 days (3 YEARS) of spending 6 million a day to come to the PROFITS they make in 90 days....I don't see them going UNDER or bankrupt off of this....even if it costed more that $6 million a day.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is because you are ignoring the massive costs of negative PR.
Click to expand...


and this is also why BP has chosen their PR strategy....

i feel sorry for BP, especially IF it was the halliburton subsidiary that might have made the mistake that killed those 11 men and caused this catastrophe....


----------



## Bfgrn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.
> 
> WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.
> 
> When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
Click to expand...


You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day. 

The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Belief in a free market and what we have today are as different as day and night. I subscribe to many libertarian beliefs found on Lew's site, but when it come to economics, I depart from their naivete.
> 
> WE LIVE under free markets. Corporations live under socialism. The cost of that socialism impacts We, the People in the form of corporate cost externalization. When you factor in workplace injuries, medical care required by the failure of unsafe products, health costs from pollution, and many others, the costs to U.S. taxpayers was $3.5 trillion per year in 1995. It has only escalated over the past decade of Bush's extreme corporate socialism.
> 
> When Good Corporations Go Bad | Worldwatch Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day.
> 
> The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.
Click to expand...


So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?

And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.


----------



## Bfgrn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day.
> 
> The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?
> 
> And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.
Click to expand...


Really? Then explain the Reagan revolution to me Kevin?


----------



## uscitizen

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well where are these free markets?  Hard to have a free market with the massive level of regulations coming from the federal government, and the manipulation of our currency by the Federal Reserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day.
> 
> The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?
> 
> And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.
Click to expand...


True just free spending and routing govt money to corporations.


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> That article actually makes some really good points.  BP are one of the most ethical petro companies on the planet. That's not to say they are perfect but demonizing them is ridiculous. BP plow huge amounts of money into researching renewable energies - they employ 29,000 people in the US alone. If they go under because of this, not only do we have 29,000 more unemployed but the impact on research for renewables will be huge. It could set us back decades in the effort to cut carbon emissions and replace oil.
> 
> There are really important issues that are being ignored by the hysteria from the whiners about BP... From their hysterical rants, one can clearly see that they have absolutely no idea how important BP are, not just in the US but globally. In their enthusiasm for 'blame' they don't consider the bigger picture, they have absolutely no idea about BP - other than they are an oil producer. Fucking morons.



Morons?

No.

They're just looking to continue the free ride they've been on since Katrina. 

S. Louisianna is addicted to being on the Federal Dole.

Time for them to grow-the-fuck-up, already, and stop looking for a blank check from the rest of the nation.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> and this is also why BP has chosen their PR strategy....





BP's PR strategy of employing tens of thousands of Americans, and bank-rolling alternative energy sources pales in comparison to the Administrations PR strategy of denying that DOI should have been regulating producers, and dancing around the fact that they were asleep at the wheel (AGAIN:see SEC and AIC).


----------



## Samson

uscitizen said:


> True just free spending and routing govt money to corporations.



What? Dept of Interior didn't have a budget to carry out their Mission: Protecting the Natural Resources of the USA?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day.
> 
> The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?
> 
> And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Then explain the Reagan revolution to me Kevin?
Click to expand...


Well what did he really change, honestly?  He talked a good game, but if we only go by what politicians say then we're being a little foolish.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are living in a dream world Kevin. A naive utopia that is destined to fail. An unregulated market will only lead to an aristocracy and disaster. Do you need to look any father than our current failed economy, 29 miners dying in a mine where regulations were ignored, the current BP spill after regulations and safety procedures were lobbied away so maximum profits would rule the day.
> 
> The world has witnessed 2 failed revolutions based on extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?
> 
> And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True just free spending and routing govt money to corporations.
Click to expand...


Which is not the free market.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a* private corporation* and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Click to expand...




I love how righties always feel sorry for corporations that do bad things but won't shed a tear for the kid who is beat by his parents and grows up to rob liquor stores.

I love how BP gets some sort of special protection because they are a "private corporation" - its as if they are exempt from criticism. Never mind the fact this "private" corporation is leaking oil at an alarming rate into PUBLIC waters. Never mind their long list of  violations, including the largest criminal fine in Clean Air Act history, which amply suggests that the company had a practice of blowing off regulations. None of that is relevant. 

What matters is BP is a corporation that creates jobs, so you shut the FUCK up and let them do WHATEVER they want and SUCK their cock while they are doing BITCHES! You're only the PEOPLE and you don't count for DICK!


----------



## eagleseven

SpidermanTuba said:


> What matters is BP is a corporation that creates jobs, so you shut the FUCK up and let them do WHATEVER they want and SUCK their cock while they are doing BITCHES! You're only the PEOPLE and you don't count for DICK!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctVmNbVu2KA]YouTube - Big Booty Bitches (the Official Video) @ALostPeople[/ame]

YEAH!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was 21 years ago that the Exxon-Valdez leaked oil and unleashed torrents of environmental hysteria. Rothbard got it right in his piece "Why Not Feel Sorry for Exxon?"
> 
> After the BP-hired oil rig exploded last week, the environmentalists went nuts yet again, using the occasion to flail a* private corporation* and wail about the plight of the "ecosystem," which somehow managed to survive and thrive after the Exxon debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Not Feel Sorry for BP? by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how righties always feel sorry for corporations that do bad things but won't shed a tear for the kid who is beat by his parents and grows up to rob liquor stores.
> 
> I love how BP gets some sort of special protection because they are a "private corporation" - its as if they are exempt from criticism. Never mind the fact this "private" corporation is leaking oil at an alarming rate into PUBLIC waters. Never mind their long list of  violations, including the largest criminal fine in Clean Air Act history, which amply suggests that the company had a practice of blowing off regulations. None of that is relevant.
> 
> What matters is BP is a corporation that creates jobs, so you shut the FUCK up and let them do WHATEVER they want and SUCK their cock while they are doing BITCHES! You're only the PEOPLE and you don't count for DICK!
Click to expand...


Yep, that's exactly what the article said.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim




The above quote, from the OP article, is proof positive that every now and then, a baby that would ordinarily die shortly after childbirth from severe brain defects, though some freak miracle, survives, and grows up to be a blogger.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above quote, from the OP article, is proof positive that every now and then, a baby that would ordinarily die shortly after childbirth from severe brain defects, though some freak miracle, survives, and grows up to be a blogger.
Click to expand...


If I were as rude as you I'd say sometimes they grow up to be posters on message boards, but like I said, that'd be rude.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses




That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies. 

Fucking MORONS


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies.
> 
> Fucking MORONS
Click to expand...


Yes, Rockwell clearly meant that we should send "Get well soon" cards to the entity known as BP.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies.
> 
> Fucking MORONS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Rockwell clearly meant that we should send "Get well soon" cards to the entity known as BP.
Click to expand...



Maybe you can better explain then, what he meant, by





> ...expression of sadness for the company...



If not send them a get well card, what should I do? I wouldn't want to hurt a corporations feelings, after all, they've got more rights than I do.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies.
> 
> Fucking MORONS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rockwell clearly meant that we should send "Get well soon" cards to the entity known as BP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can better explain then, what he meant, by
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...expression of sadness for the company...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If not send them a get well card, what should I do? I wouldn't want to hurt a corporations feelings, after all, they've got more rights than I do.
Click to expand...


He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.  They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy so why should we act like they're evil and intentionally wanted to do this for whatever reason?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.


Who fucking cares if they're not laughing about it? If I get hammered on booze and take off driving in a car and kill someone, you won't find me laughing about it - does that mean you should feel sorry for me? I suppose if I was a corporation YOU WOULD.



> They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy...



You're full of absolute crap. BP will be around long after all the fishing businesses they destroy close up shop, not to mention that this tragedy is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rockwell clearly meant that we should send "Get well soon" cards to the entity known as BP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can better explain then, what he meant, by
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...expression of sadness for the company...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If not send them a get well card, what should I do? I wouldn't want to hurt a corporations feelings, after all, they've got more rights than I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.  They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy so why should we act like they're evil and intentionally wanted to do this for whatever reason?
Click to expand...


of course they are not in their boardrooms secretly laughing, but more than likely, they were in their boardroom at a previous time deciding whether to spend the money to take extra precautions on this venture, or to save the money, because it could make them more profitable IF nothing goes wrong.

In other words....THIS is what capitalism is ALL ABOUT and this is one of the safety meassures of the FREE MARKET.

If the company makes a mistake or takes risks that can hurt others in order for them to be profitable, THEN THEY MUST BE OPEN to criticism and negative pr if they SCREW UP....

THIS IS NOT just for BP to not REPEAT their shortcuts or mistakes for that extra dime in profit, but this is also so that other companies such as them, like Exxon etc, will NOT ALSO take the same shortcuts or profit saving measures, risking the lives of an entire region, let alone the lives of their workers, for that extra dime in their own pockets.

PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND LAW SUITS are suppose to keep "the free market" on the up and up....honest, and considerate of their workers and the community they reside in, instead of solely looking at the bottom line penny....

THIS BASHING of BP is what is necessary to scare the crap out of the next guy, so that he does not take  or make decisions that can hurt the community they reside in.


----------



## Bfgrn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we have free markets, but free markets are a dream world?
> 
> And the "Reagan Revolution" was not a "revolution" for free markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then explain the Reagan revolution to me Kevin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well what did he really change, honestly?  He talked a good game, but if we only go by what politicians say then we're being a little foolish.
Click to expand...


What did he change? What we've witnessed via the Reagan revolution is an ideology that private entities, markets, corporations and industries can regulate and police themselves. That government of the people, by the people, and for the people that our founding fathers created is no longer a valid model, it's just in the way, an obstruction. The FACT our founding fathers regulated corporations and banks with a VERY heavy hand is no longer 'wisdom' because somehow human nature has 'evolved'. The modern day robber barons just need to be coddled. Empower the aristocracy monied class and leave them to their own devices, and this beloved oligarchy will make so much money that it will just fall out of their pockets and trickle down to the rest of us. It is simple minded drivel.

Reagan was the biggest socialist in our history. He sanctioned and authored the largest transfer of wealth we've ever seen, from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations and created the perversity where the wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate. And even worse, he raised payroll taxes, then looted Social Security and used it to fund his deficits and protect the wealthy from any tax increases. It undermined the retirement system.

But the biggest 'hit' was directly to the solar plexus of the true engine of jobs, innovation and American enterprise; small business and the self employed. The self-employment tax under Reagan jumped as much as 66 percent.  

Reaganomics and the trickle down theory was do-over for the robber barons. They were just misunderstood humanitarians. The Hoover Republicans also got a do-over...with strikingly similar results!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> Who fucking cares if they're not laughing about it? If I get hammered on booze and take off driving in a car and kill someone, you won't find me laughing about it - does that mean you should feel sorry for me? I suppose if I was a corporation YOU WOULD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of absolute crap. BP will be around long after all the fishing businesses they destroy close up shop, not to mention that this tragedy is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
Click to expand...


Why wouldn't we feel sorry for you?  You've essentially ruined your life.  That doesn't mean we excuse what you did, or BP in this case.  Nobody is saying this isn't their responsibility.  They made a mistake and they're going to suffer for it, but that doesn't mean we have to see them as evil.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you can better explain then, what he meant, by
> 
> If not send them a get well card, what should I do? I wouldn't want to hurt a corporations feelings, after all, they've got more rights than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.  They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy so why should we act like they're evil and intentionally wanted to do this for whatever reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course they are not in their boardrooms secretly laughing, but more than likely, they were in their boardroom at a previous time deciding whether to spend the money to take extra precautions on this venture, or to save the money, because it could make them more profitable IF nothing goes wrong.
> 
> In other words....THIS is what capitalism is ALL ABOUT and this is one of the safety meassures of the FREE MARKET.
> 
> If the company makes a mistake or takes risks that can hurt others in order for them to be profitable, THEN THEY MUST BE OPEN to criticism and negative pr if they SCREW UP....
> 
> THIS IS NOT just for BP to not REPEAT their shortcuts or mistakes for that extra dime in profit, but this is also so that other companies such as them, like Exxon etc, will NOT ALSO take the same shortcuts or profit saving measures, risking the lives of an entire region, let alone the lives of their workers, for that extra dime in their own pockets.
> 
> PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND LAW SUITS are suppose to keep "the free market" on the up and up....honest, and considerate of their workers and the community they reside in, instead of solely looking at the bottom line penny....
> 
> THIS BASHING of BP is what is necessary to scare the crap out of the next guy, so that he does not take  or make decisions that can hurt the community they reside in.
Click to expand...


Criticism and acting like BP is nothing but pure evil for this accident are two different things.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then explain the Reagan revolution to me Kevin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well what did he really change, honestly?  He talked a good game, but if we only go by what politicians say then we're being a little foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did he change? What we've witnessed via the Reagan revolution is an ideology that private entities, markets, corporations and industries can regulate and police themselves. That government of the people, by the people, and for the people that our founding fathers created is no longer a valid model, it's just in the way, an obstruction. The FACT our founding fathers regulated corporations and banks with a VERY heavy hand is no longer 'wisdom' because somehow human nature has 'evolved'. The modern day robber barons just need to be coddled. Empower the aristocracy monied class and leave them to their own devices, and this beloved oligarchy will make so much money that it will just fall out of their pockets and trickle down to the rest of us. It is simple minded drivel.
> 
> Reagan was the biggest socialist in our history. He sanctioned and authored the largest transfer of wealth we've ever seen, from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. He sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations and created the perversity where the wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate. And even worse, he raised payroll taxes, then looted Social Security and used it to fund his deficits and protect the wealthy from any tax increases. It undermined the retirement system.
> 
> But the biggest 'hit' was directly to the solar plexus of the true engine of jobs, innovation and American enterprise; small business and the self employed. The self-employment tax under Reagan jumped as much as 66 percent.
> 
> Reaganomics and the trickle down theory was do-over for the robber barons. They were just misunderstood humanitarians. The Hoover Republicans also got a do-over...with strikingly similar results!
Click to expand...


So it's your contention that Reagan got rid of all federal regulations on businesses, lowered taxes and spending to balance the budget, and gave the country sound money during his Presidency?  Because that would be a free market.  The reality is that regulations were still there, Reagan raised taxes and spending, and the country still suffered under a ponzi scheme of a monetary system.  Which are not hallmarks of a free market.


----------



## editec

The* invisible hand of the market* gently nudged BP into not making the oil rig as safe as possible.

You just gotta love that invisible hand, doncha?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

editec said:


> The* invisible hand of the market* gently nudged BP into not making the oil rig as safe as possible.
> 
> You just gotta love that invisible hand, doncha?



Because this scenario is keeping their costs down far more than the alternative, right?


----------



## Care4all

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.  They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy so why should we act like they're evil and intentionally wanted to do this for whatever reason?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course they are not in their boardrooms secretly laughing, but more than likely, they were in their boardroom at a previous time deciding whether to spend the money to take extra precautions on this venture, or to save the money, because it could make them more profitable IF nothing goes wrong.
> 
> In other words....THIS is what capitalism is ALL ABOUT and this is one of the safety meassures of the FREE MARKET.
> 
> If the company makes a mistake or takes risks that can hurt others in order for them to be profitable, THEN THEY MUST BE OPEN to criticism and negative pr if they SCREW UP....
> 
> THIS IS NOT just for BP to not REPEAT their shortcuts or mistakes for that extra dime in profit, but this is also so that other companies such as them, like Exxon etc, will NOT ALSO take the same shortcuts or profit saving measures, risking the lives of an entire region, let alone the lives of their workers, for that extra dime in their own pockets.
> 
> PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND LAW SUITS are suppose to keep "the free market" on the up and up....honest, and considerate of their workers and the community they reside in, instead of solely looking at the bottom line penny....
> 
> THIS BASHING of BP is what is necessary to scare the crap out of the next guy, so that he does not take  or make decisions that can hurt the community they reside in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criticism and acting like BP is nothing but pure evil for this accident are two different things.
Click to expand...


who is acting like bp is pure evil and not just criticising them for their actions?

either way, making them out as evil is free speech, it is the poster's opinion....no?  And you criticizing their opinion, is your opinion, and so on and so forth.

And I disagree that bp is getting some sort of unfair bashing for this disaster...frankly, I am SHOCKED that the criticism hasn't been greater than what it has been, for such a horrific disaster, that could probably have been prevented, for very little expense comparitively, to what would have been made when the oil was brought up.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND LAW SUITS are suppose to keep "the free market" on the up and up....honest, and considerate of their workers and the community they reside in, instead of solely looking at the bottom line penny....





Then why have the DOI? 

I mean other than an excuse for Washington to pick our pockets.



Care4all said:


> THIS BASHING of BP is what is necessary to scare the crap out of the next guy, so that he does not take  or make decisions that can hurt the community they reside in.



The "BASHING of BP" is what is necessary to deflect attention away from an ineffectual Administration that promised "change" but hasn't accomplished anything in almost 2 years: Unless we Count Apologizing, for the USA's "Superpower Status," or whining about citizens that have too much money.

Who "scares the crap" out of Government Bureaucracy with its thumbs up their asses?


----------



## Care4all

I disagree...the criticism of BP will lead to the uncovering of all that went wrong, including regulations or the lack of regulating properly....

There is no way BP will take this hit completely if they are not the ones solely at fault, and there is no way that a catastrophe of this size will not bring forward the deficiencies that took place, and hopefully measures to prevent them in the future....imo.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> I disagree...the criticism of BP will lead to the uncovering of all that went wrong, including regulations or the lack of regulating properly....
> 
> There is no way BP will take this hit completely if they are not the ones solely at fault, and there is no way that a catastrophe of this size will not bring forward the deficiencies that took place, and hopefull measures to prevent them in the future....imo.



Really?

Well, so far I've seen no apology from the administration for DOI.

Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Care4all said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course they are not in their boardrooms secretly laughing, but more than likely, they were in their boardroom at a previous time deciding whether to spend the money to take extra precautions on this venture, or to save the money, because it could make them more profitable IF nothing goes wrong.
> 
> In other words....THIS is what capitalism is ALL ABOUT and this is one of the safety meassures of the FREE MARKET.
> 
> If the company makes a mistake or takes risks that can hurt others in order for them to be profitable, THEN THEY MUST BE OPEN to criticism and negative pr if they SCREW UP....
> 
> THIS IS NOT just for BP to not REPEAT their shortcuts or mistakes for that extra dime in profit, but this is also so that other companies such as them, like Exxon etc, will NOT ALSO take the same shortcuts or profit saving measures, risking the lives of an entire region, let alone the lives of their workers, for that extra dime in their own pockets.
> 
> PUBLIC OUTRAGE AND LAW SUITS are suppose to keep "the free market" on the up and up....honest, and considerate of their workers and the community they reside in, instead of solely looking at the bottom line penny....
> 
> THIS BASHING of BP is what is necessary to scare the crap out of the next guy, so that he does not take  or make decisions that can hurt the community they reside in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criticism and acting like BP is nothing but pure evil for this accident are two different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who is acting like bp is pure evil and not just criticising them for their actions?
> 
> either way, making them out as evil is free speech, it is the poster's opinion....no?  And you criticizing their opinion, is your opinion, and so on and so forth.
> 
> And I disagree that bp is getting some sort of unfair bashing for this disaster...frankly, I am SHOCKED that the criticism hasn't been greater than what it has been, for such a horrific disaster, that could probably have been prevented, for very little expense comparitively, to what would have been made when the oil was brought up.
Click to expand...


From some of the responses in this very thread you'd think I posted up an article saying Charles Manson is just misunderstood.

Yes, it is their opinion, and I certainly have no authority to stop them from giving it.  Neither do I feel that I was coming across as such.  What I'm attempting to do is give reasons as to why their opinion is wrong, in my own opinion of course.

You don't think Robert Gibbs saying that they're going to keep their boot on BP's throat is unfair, and quite frankly a little ridiculous?


----------



## California Girl

Care4all said:


> I disagree...the criticism of BP will lead to the uncovering of all that went wrong, including regulations or the lack of regulating properly....
> 
> There is no way BP will take this hit completely if they are not the ones solely at fault, and there is no way that a catastrophe of this size will not bring forward the deficiencies that took place, and hopefully measures to prevent them in the future....imo.



As some of us have pointed out, the facts surrounding the accident are not yet fully known, so assigning the blame is a bit premature to say the least. However, certain posters, like Spiderman Tuba, scream like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum, about the evil corporation and decide that those of us who refuse to condemn BP somehow also support parents who beat their children.... because that's really logical, isn't it? 

Now, the states affected by this catastrophe all wanted the money that would come from the drilling, the federal government wanted the drilling, American people want cheap gas, and the by products of petro-chem industry. So if blame is being apportioned, let's all take some responsibility. We ALL use the by-products of this industry and we refuse to cut back on our consumption - so look in a mirror and you'll find where the responsibility lies. 

As to exactly what happened and why and how - the intelligent among us will wait for the facts to be ascertained. 

If there was a fund set up to assist individuals affected by the catastrophe, I would probably donate. But I will not condemn a decent company before I know exactly who it is that is responsible.


----------



## California Girl

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> Who fucking cares if they're not laughing about it? If I get hammered on booze and take off driving in a car and kill someone, you won't find me laughing about it - does that mean you should feel sorry for me? I suppose if I was a corporation YOU WOULD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're going to get hit harder than anybody else for this tragedy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're full of absolute crap. BP will be around long after all the fishing businesses they destroy close up shop, not to mention that this tragedy is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
Click to expand...


Please link to the findings of the inquiry into the incident to back up your claim of responsibility. Thanks.


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> However, certain posters, like Spiderman Tuba, scream like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum, about the evil corporation and decide that those of us who refuse to condemn BP somehow also support parents who beat their children.... because that's really logical, isn't it? .



He must "wave the bloody shirt."

ST like many in S. Louisianna, has benefitted from having been on the Public Dole since 2005, and it looks like money from the Feds may dry up any day now. This spill is manna from heaven as long as he milks it as a "disaster." 

Whether or not it is an ecological, or economic disaster is remains to be seen: Louisianna has no beaches, and seafood industry worth $2.4B/yr is a far cry from the $80B damages from Katrina.

He'll need to keep "screaming like a two year old" to make this look anyting like Katrina.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Care4all said:


> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.



They were laughing at the fact they were installing acoustic switches on their British rigs - even though Britain did not require it - but not on the Gulf rigs, because the Gulf Coast can be damned but the world would end of their shitty 3rd world island limey coast got a drop of oil on it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Why wouldn't we feel sorry for you?  You've essentially ruined your life.  That doesn't mean we excuse what you did, or BP in this case.  Nobody is saying this isn't their responsibility.  They made a mistake and they're going to suffer for it, but that doesn't mean we have to see them as evil.



You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?


Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were laughing at the fact they were installing acoustic switches on their British rigs - even though Britain did not require it - but not on the Gulf rigs, because the Gulf Coast can be damned but the world would end of their shitty 3rd world island limey coast got a drop of oil on it.
Click to expand...


It would appear that you genuinely believe they wanted this rig to explode.


----------



## uscitizen

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we feel sorry for you?  You've essentially ruined your life.  That doesn't mean we excuse what you did, or BP in this case.  Nobody is saying this isn't their responsibility.  They made a mistake and they're going to suffer for it, but that doesn't mean we have to see them as evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
Click to expand...


He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we feel sorry for you?  You've essentially ruined your life.  That doesn't mean we excuse what you did, or BP in this case.  Nobody is saying this isn't their responsibility.  They made a mistake and they're going to suffer for it, but that doesn't mean we have to see them as evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
Click to expand...


I don't feel the need to demonize people for their mistakes.  If somebody ruins their life I am perfectly capable of feeling sympathy for them.

No.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Because this scenario is keeping their costs down far more than the alternative, right?




The chance of this accident occurring was not 100% at the time BP made its decisions.  You'd be a horrible actuary.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

uscitizen said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why wouldn't we feel sorry for you?  You've essentially ruined your life.  That doesn't mean we excuse what you did, or BP in this case.  Nobody is saying this isn't their responsibility.  They made a mistake and they're going to suffer for it, but that doesn't mean we have to see them as evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
Click to expand...


I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Samson said:


> The "BASHING of BP" is what is necessary to deflect attention away from an ineffectual Administration...



Wow you actually believe that crap?

Bow to your corporate master.


----------



## uscitizen

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
Click to expand...


You might try taking your own advice.
I see your hatred for Obama, but seldom see criticism of right wingers.
Rand Paul is a republican not a Libertarian.  Else Cheney would not endorse him.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

California Girl said:


> Please link to the findings of the inquiry into the incident to back up your claim of responsibility. Thanks.



Is this a joke? Do you honestly think BP has been spending millions to try and cap a leaking well its not responsible for? Are you really that stupid?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Samson said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, certain posters, like Spiderman Tuba, scream like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum, about the evil corporation and decide that those of us who refuse to condemn BP somehow also support parents who beat their children.... because that's really logical, isn't it? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must "wave the bloody shirt."
> 
> ST like many in S. Louisianna, has benefitted from having been on the Public Dole since 2005, and it looks like money from the Feds may dry up any day now.
Click to expand...




I work for a living you pathetic cocksucking douchebag.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might try taking your own advice.
> I see your hatred for Obama, but seldom see criticism of right wingers.
> Rand Paul is a republican not a Libertarian.  Else Cheney would not endorse him.
Click to expand...


I suggest you look closer.

You're very confused.  I never said Rand Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party.  Cheney did not endorse Rand Paul, he endorsed Trey Grayson.  That's the second time I've corrected you on that.


----------



## uscitizen

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might try taking your own advice.
> I see your hatred for Obama, but seldom see criticism of right wingers.
> Rand Paul is a republican not a Libertarian.  Else Cheney would not endorse him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you look closer.
> 
> You're very confused.  I never said Rand Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party.  Cheney did not endorse Rand Paul, he endorsed Trey Grayson.  That's the second time I've corrected you on that.
Click to expand...


Yes you are correct, my apologies.
However Rand Is a republican.

And you seldom do criticize republicans.  Except in a vauge and generalized way.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

uscitizen said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might try taking your own advice.
> I see your hatred for Obama, but seldom see criticism of right wingers.
> Rand Paul is a republican not a Libertarian.  Else Cheney would not endorse him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look closer.
> 
> You're very confused.  I never said Rand Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party.  Cheney did not endorse Rand Paul, he endorsed Trey Grayson.  That's the second time I've corrected you on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you are correct, my apologies.
> However Rand Is a republican.
> 
> And you seldom do criticize republicans.  Except in a vauge and generalized way.
Click to expand...


I never claimed Rand was not a Republican.

Well I believe I criticized Ronald Reagan in this very thread, but you may be right that my criticism for Republicans is less than my criticism for Democrats.  But Democrats are in charge right now.  They're the ones currently messing up so they're the ones that get the most criticism.


----------



## Bfgrn

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
Click to expand...


Why don't you tell us Kevin, or you could continue to post artifice.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Bfgrn said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell us Kevin, or you could continue to post artifice.
Click to expand...


Libertarians believe in the non-aggression axiom, which means that we believe any action that requires the use of force to be illegitimate.  The same cannot be said for conservatives or progressives.


----------



## JiggsCasey

California Girl said:


> Yea, I could see that happening. Do we really think the Chinese or Russians are gonna plow billions into renewables in the US? I somehow doubt it.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to see BP stay afloat. *Unlike the loony left, I can see a bigger picture here that is not good for the US*.



Poetic irony...

you people don't ever see a "bigger picture" ... Don't kid yourself. ... If you did, you'd admit what the IEA, the DoE, the Pentagon, ASPO, Total Oil, and countless petrol geologist have all concluded.

This thread is funny. The denial has gotten so pathetic that they're actually trying to pass off sentiment that the Valdez spill "took care of itself."

No one is buying your convenient self-rationalization and utter nonsense any longer, con men. That ended somewhere around 2004.


----------



## Samson

JiggsCasey said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I could see that happening. Do we really think the Chinese or Russians are gonna plow billions into renewables in the US? I somehow doubt it.
> 
> Personally, I'd prefer to see BP stay afloat. *Unlike the loony left, I can see a bigger picture here that is not good for the US*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poetic irony...
> 
> you people don't ever see a "bigger picture" ... Don't kid yourself. ... If you did, you'd admit what the IEA, the DoE, the Pentagon, ASPO, Total Oil, and countless petrol geologist have all concluded.
> 
> This thread is funny. The denial has gotten so pathetic that they're actually trying to pass off sentiment that the Valdez spill "took care of itself."
> 
> No one is buying your convenient self-rationalization and utter nonsense any longer, con men. That ended somewhere around 2004.
Click to expand...


The preceding message was brought to you by Rollyourown.com, Schlitz Malt Liquor, and Doritos


----------



## Avatar4321

California Girl said:


> That article actually makes some really good points.  BP are one of the most ethical petro companies on the planet. That's not to say they are perfect but demonizing them is ridiculous. BP plow huge amounts of money into researching renewable energies - they employ 29,000 people in the US alone. If they go under because of this, not only do we have 29,000 more unemployed but the impact on research for renewables will be huge. It could set us back decades in the effort to cut carbon emissions and replace oil.
> 
> There are really important issues that are being ignored by the hysteria from the whiners about BP... From their hysterical rants, one can clearly see that they have absolutely no idea how important BP are, not just in the US but globally. In their enthusiasm for 'blame' they don't consider the bigger picture, they have absolutely no idea about BP - other than they are an oil producer. Fucking morons.



I don't think the left really cares about renewable energy.


----------



## Samson

Avatar4321 said:


> I don't think the left really cares about renewable energy.





Don't you think their in touch with their inner child?


----------



## HUGGY

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the left really cares about renewable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think their in touch with their inner child?
Click to expand...


Oh like Charlie Manson and his followers..."The Looney Left"  His Gal Pal Linda Kasabian sure was in touch with Sharon Tates inner child.

Sound sick?...I'll bet for 90% of the fundis it just scratches the surface.  This is how they really feel about you dumb ass progressives.  This is why they will NEVER agree to ANYTHING you want.  

This is just where I cut in Samson..Dante..whatever...  You may resume watching your normal chanel.....


----------



## Samson

HUGGY said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the left really cares about renewable energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think their in touch with their inner child?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh like Charlie Manson and his followers..."The Looney Left"  His Gal Pal Linda Kasabian sure was in touch with Sharon Tates inner child.
> 
> Sound sick?...I'll bet for 90% of the fundis it just scratches the surface.  This is how they really feel about you dumb ass progressives.  This is why they will NEVER agree to ANYTHING you want.
> 
> This is just where I cut in Samson..Dante..whatever...  You may resume watching your normal chanel.....
Click to expand...




Isn't there a Brit somewhere that you should be abusing......?


----------



## Avatar4321

eagleseven said:


> Tis the problem with our entire political class...they cannot see beyond their own noses.



That's cause they are too busy trying to pick our pocket for theirs.


----------



## Avatar4321

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I..Think I hear someone in the distance but I can't be sure....Oh well..I'll just *ignore * it.  It seems like "someone" has a personal interest in a certain company that has failed.  That certain someone...has shown a leaning towards market forces to be the rule of the rule up until now.   Strange.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's saying anything about not allowing the free market to do what it needs to do?  I haven't seen anyone in this thread say BP should be bailed out or that they're too big to fail.  We have only made the point that it's a shame this accident happened, not only for the loss of life, but because it will also likely cost many people their jobs as a good business struggles.  One can feel sorry for BP while still believing in the free market.
Click to expand...


No they can't. It's a conspiracy.


----------



## Avatar4321

SpidermanTuba said:


> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies.
> 
> Fucking MORONS
Click to expand...


I don't know why this is difficult to understand. But a corporation is an association of _people_.

So yeah I feel sorry for all the people who are being maligned by you and who will lose their jobs because of people like you.


----------



## Avatar4321

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were laughing at the fact they were installing acoustic switches on their British rigs - even though Britain did not require it - but not on the Gulf rigs, because the Gulf Coast can be damned but the world would end of their shitty 3rd world island limey coast got a drop of oil on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that you genuinely believe they wanted this rig to explode.
Click to expand...


Of course they did. Like anyone else they love throwing billions down the drain and losing their job and livelyhood. What else do you think those evil people are doing?


----------



## HUGGY

Avatar4321 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be obvious that BP is by far the leading victim, but I've yet to see a single expression of sadness for the company and its losses
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because corporations do not have feelings, so there is no need to offer them our sympathies.
> 
> Fucking MORONS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is difficult to understand. But a corporation is an association of _people_.
> 
> So yeah I feel sorry for all the people who are being maligned by you and who will lose their jobs because of people like you.
Click to expand...


All WHAT people?  BP mangement failed to direct thier people to work more responsibly.  

If BP goes under there will be no less work to do.  Yes there will be new management and rightly so.  The workers paychecks will have different signatures...so what?  The sale of BP as it exists within our boundaries is totally possible.   The auction or whatever can stipulate a new way of addressing regulations.  If anything it will mandate a few more jobs.


----------



## Avatar4321

SpidermanTuba said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please link to the findings of the inquiry into the incident to back up your claim of responsibility. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this a joke? Do you honestly think BP has been spending millions to try and cap a leaking well its not responsible for? Are you really that stupid?
Click to expand...


Yes. I honestly think that BP would spend millions to try to cap a leak they are not responsible for when it's causing them bad PR, and especially when its costing even more money in revenues by not capping it.


----------



## Avatar4321

SpidermanTuba said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, certain posters, like Spiderman Tuba, scream like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum, about the evil corporation and decide that those of us who refuse to condemn BP somehow also support parents who beat their children.... because that's really logical, isn't it? .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He must "wave the bloody shirt."
> 
> ST like many in S. Louisianna, has benefitted from having been on the Public Dole since 2005, and it looks like money from the Feds may dry up any day now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living you pathetic cocksucking douchebag.
Click to expand...


Remind me never to go to your McDonalds.


----------



## Samson

Avatar4321 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> He must "wave the bloody shirt."
> 
> ST like many in S. Louisianna, has benefitted from having been on the Public Dole since 2005, and it looks like money from the Feds may dry up any day now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living you pathetic cocksucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remind me never to go to your McDonalds.
Click to expand...


You're giving him alot of credit.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> He meant that maybe instead of condemning BP for this accident and asking for their heads, we should realize that they're not in their board rooms secretly laughing about this turn of events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were laughing at the fact they were installing acoustic switches on their British rigs - even though Britain did not require it - but not on the Gulf rigs, because the Gulf Coast can be damned but the world would end of their shitty 3rd world island limey coast got a drop of oil on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would appear that you genuinely believe they wanted this rig to explode.
Click to expand...

It would appear that you genuinely believe their number #1 priority was the preservation of our coastal wetlands and the hard working coon asses and rednecks and vietnamese that feed their children off those wetlands - and not profit. I submit you are mistaken.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd feel sympathy for someone who gets hammered drives off and kills someone? Really?
> 
> 
> Ever thought of being a criminal defense attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
Click to expand...



The difference is clear. Right wingers run for office, and libertarians vote for right wingers running for office. They go to Washington -you stay home - that's the only difference.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

S





Avatar4321 said:


> I don't know why this is difficult to understand. But a corporation is an association of _people_.




My bad, I forget its the BP Social Aide and Pleasure Club, not the BP Fuck Your Coastal Wetlands Give Us Our Fucking Money Bitches Club.

My mistake.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Avatar4321 said:


> Yes. I honestly think that BP would spend millions to try to cap a leak they are not responsible for when it's causing them bad PR, and especially when its costing even more money in revenues by not capping it.



Why would it be costing them revenue if its not their problem?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Avatar4321 said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> He must "wave the bloody shirt."
> 
> ST like many in S. Louisianna, has benefitted from having been on the Public Dole since 2005, and it looks like money from the Feds may dry up any day now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living you pathetic cocksucking douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remind me never to go to your McDonalds.
Click to expand...


I have no fucking clue why you would go to a Mcdonald's in New Orleans. You would be the most stupid fucker in the world if you did that.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were laughing at the fact they were installing acoustic switches on their British rigs - even though Britain did not require it - but not on the Gulf rigs, because the Gulf Coast can be damned but the world would end of their shitty 3rd world island limey coast got a drop of oil on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would appear that you genuinely believe they wanted this rig to explode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would appear that you genuinely believe their number #1 priority was the preservation of our coastal wetlands and the hard working coon asses and rednecks and vietnamese that feed their children off those wetlands - and not profit. I submit you are mistaken.
Click to expand...


That would be incorrect.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would not defend a criminal unless they were incorporated or right wing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is clear. Right wingers run for office, and libertarians vote for right wingers running for office. They go to Washington -you stay home - that's the only difference.
Click to expand...


Clearly you don't know anything about libertarians.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you learn the difference between a libertarian and a right-winger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is clear. Right wingers run for office, and libertarians vote for right wingers running for office. They go to Washington -you stay home - that's the only difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know anything about libertarians.
Click to expand...


LOL! OK tell us who you voted for President in 2000 and 2004


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is clear. Right wingers run for office, and libertarians vote for right wingers running for office. They go to Washington -you stay home - that's the only difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know anything about libertarians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! OK tell us who you voted for President in 2000 and 2004
Click to expand...


I was too young to vote in 2000 and 2004.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you don't know anything about libertarians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! OK tell us who you voted for President in 2000 and 2004
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was too young to vote in 2000 and 2004.
Click to expand...



ROTFLMFAO! Then you're too fucking young for me to care!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! OK tell us who you voted for President in 2000 and 2004
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was too young to vote in 2000 and 2004.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO! Then you're too fucking young for me to care!
Click to expand...


It is the realm of the intellectually bankrupt to use age as an excuse to avoid a discussion.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was too young to vote in 2000 and 2004.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO! Then you're too fucking young for me to care!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the realm of the intellectually bankrupt to use age as an excuse to avoid a discussion.
Click to expand...


It is the realm of the under 25 to think anyone actually gives a shit what they say. Sorry buddy but you're just cannon fodder. You've signed up for Selective Service, right? Because that's all I give a crap about.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO! Then you're too fucking young for me to care!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the realm of the intellectually bankrupt to use age as an excuse to avoid a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the realm of the under 25 to think anyone actually gives a shit what they say. Sorry buddy but you're just cannon fodder. You've signed up for Selective Service, right? Because that's all I give a crap about.
Click to expand...


It is the realm of anyone who posts on an online message board to believe that anyone actually cares what they say, so you and I are in the same boat.  I don't see why you'd care whether I signed up for selective service, but yes I did.  I did so to avoid the nonsense that would come along with not signing up.  But if there is ever a draft I will not participate.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I don't see why you'd care whether I signed up for selective service, but yes I did.  I did so to avoid the nonsense that would come along with not signing up.  But if there is ever a draft I will not participate.



I'm sorry you hate your country. Have you considered moving to another? I'll chip in $100. Just send me a copy of you denouncing your citizenship, and you get $100.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you'd care whether I signed up for selective service, but yes I did.  I did so to avoid the nonsense that would come along with not signing up.  But if there is ever a draft I will not participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you hate your country. Have you considered moving to another? I'll chip in $100. Just send me a copy of you denouncing your citizenship, and you get $100.
Click to expand...




So slavery is patriotic?


----------



## SpidermanTuba

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see why you'd care whether I signed up for selective service, but yes I did.  I did so to avoid the nonsense that would come along with not signing up.  But if there is ever a draft I will not participate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you hate your country. Have you considered moving to another? I'll chip in $100. Just send me a copy of you denouncing your citizenship, and you get $100.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So slavery is patriotic?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in WW II. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you hate your country. Have you considered moving to another? I'll chip in $100. Just send me a copy of you denouncing your citizenship, and you get $100.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So slavery is patriotic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in WW II. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.
Click to expand...


None of my freedoms were threatened in WW2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.


----------



## SpidermanTuba

kevin_kennedy said:


> spidermantuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kevin_kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So slavery is patriotic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in ww ii. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> none of my freedoms were threatened in ww2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.
Click to expand...


how the fuck would you know, your mother wasn't even born yet


----------



## Old Rocks

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So slavery is patriotic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in WW II. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of my freedoms were threatened in WW2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.
Click to expand...


You fucking idiot!


----------



## Old Rocks

Feel sorry for BP?  

They chose not to install a valve, $500,000, that would have prevented this. For that decision, millions of people are going to have diminished lives as the beachs and estuaries that their homes are near are damaged by this spill. Life from the bottom of the sea to the surface will die by the millions as this poison spreads in the Gulf.

You braindead Conservatives hoorawed the Supreme Court decision that stated that Corperations were individuals. So now one of the "individuals" has committed a crime that has impacted our nation in a horribly negative way. Time for capital punishment for that "individual".


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> eagleseven said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for oil producers drilling wells, we would all be on horseback.
> 
> Deep-sea drilling is one of the most dangerous and expensive types of engineering we perform (just shy of aerospace engineering). When any such construct takes damage, for whatever reason, it hurts the world economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just about our cars. Parts of the country would starve, because they can't produce enough food and need to transport it in. We'd all be making our own clothes.... cus we wouldn't be able to run the factories that make them.... here or abroad.... And even if they could be manufactured, we couldn't move stuff around the country.
> 
> Basically, we'd go back a century. One has to wonder 'is that the "progress" that the left really support?'
> 
> It's laughable.
Click to expand...


That doesn't stop them from using them as a strawman.


----------



## California Girl

Old Rocks said:


> Feel sorry for BP?
> 
> They chose not to install a valve, $500,000, that would have prevented this. For that decision, millions of people are going to have diminished lives as the beachs and estuaries that their homes are near are damaged by this spill. Life from the bottom of the sea to the surface will die by the millions as this poison spreads in the Gulf.
> 
> You braindead Conservatives hoorawed the Supreme Court decision that stated that Corperations were individuals. So now one of the "individuals" has committed a crime that has impacted our nation in a horribly negative way. Time for capital punishment for that "individual".



The valve MAY have prevented it. It is not a fact that it would - it is untested at this depth. Personally, I'm not an expert on this kind of thing but experts say 'may' not 'would have'. Accuracy is your friend. 

And..... Obama should have pulled the fucking plug on the deal if he was not happy with the safety precautions being undertaken.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

SpidermanTuba said:


> kevin_kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spidermantuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in ww ii. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> none of my freedoms were threatened in ww2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how the fuck would you know, your mother wasn't even born yet
Click to expand...


Well if you can't possibly know anything about World War II without having been alive at the time, how do you know that our freedoms were threatened?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry to hear you think one my grandfathers was a slave for fighting for your freedom in WW II. If that's what you really believe, you really, really should move. I've upped my bid to $200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of my freedoms were threatened in WW2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot!
Click to expand...


That's very rude.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Feel sorry for BP?
> 
> They chose not to install a valve, $500,000, that would have prevented this. For that decision, millions of people are going to have diminished lives as the beachs and estuaries that their homes are near are damaged by this spill. Life from the bottom of the sea to the surface will die by the millions as this poison spreads in the Gulf.
> 
> You braindead Conservatives hoorawed the Supreme Court decision that stated that Corperations were individuals. So now one of the "individuals" has committed a crime that has impacted our nation in a horribly negative way. Time for capital punishment for that "individual".



Not a conservative.


----------



## Old Rocks

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of my freedoms were threatened in WW2, and if your grandfather was drafted against his will then he certainly was made a slave by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's very rude.
Click to expand...


My father and four uncles served in WW2. Three of them were under fire, two killed many times in the line of duty. They absolutely hated the war, and considered war an atrocity. Yet all of them stated that the war was neccessary.

To state that your freedoms were not threatoned by WW2 is just about the stupidest thing I have seen on this board. Had the Japanese and Germans won WW2, freedom as we know it would be nonexistant. Your freedom, and that of every person alive today was under threat from the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.

My rudeness does not compare to the ingratitude that you display for the men and women that fought and died for the nation that you enjoy today.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking idiot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's very rude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My father and four uncles served in WW2. Three of them were under fire, two killed many times in the line of duty. They absolutely hated the war, and considered war an atrocity. Yet all of them stated that the war was neccessary.
> 
> To state that your freedoms were not threatoned by WW2 is just about the stupidest thing I have seen on this board. Had the Japanese and Germans won WW2, freedom as we know it would be nonexistant. Your freedom, and that of every person alive today was under threat from the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.
> 
> My rudeness does not compare to the ingratitude that you display for the men and women that fought and died for the nation that you enjoy today.
Click to expand...


I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's very rude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My father and four uncles served in WW2. Three of them were under fire, two killed many times in the line of duty. They absolutely hated the war, and considered war an atrocity. Yet all of them stated that the war was neccessary.
> 
> To state that your freedoms were not threatoned by WW2 is just about the stupidest thing I have seen on this board. Had the Japanese and Germans won WW2, freedom as we know it would be nonexistant. Your freedom, and that of every person alive today was under threat from the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.
> 
> My rudeness does not compare to the ingratitude that you display for the men and women that fought and died for the nation that you enjoy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.
Click to expand...


you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> My father and four uncles served in WW2. Three of them were under fire, two killed many times in the line of duty. They absolutely hated the war, and considered war an atrocity. Yet all of them stated that the war was neccessary.
> 
> To state that your freedoms were not threatoned by WW2 is just about the stupidest thing I have seen on this board. Had the Japanese and Germans won WW2, freedom as we know it would be nonexistant. Your freedom, and that of every person alive today was under threat from the Japanese Empire and Nazi Germany.
> 
> My rudeness does not compare to the ingratitude that you display for the men and women that fought and died for the nation that you enjoy today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.


----------



## elvis

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.
Click to expand...


you gonna cry now?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

elvis said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> you need to grow the fuck up and quit being a delusional moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who can't help but insult me at every opportunity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you gonna cry now?
Click to expand...


Don't think so.  Just pointing out the irony.


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.



Seems if we left things in your hands, you wouldn't bother using the troops until Hitler and Japan were invading our lands.

Every day that Hitler lived as dictator of Germany was a day that the freedoms that we as Americans today cherish were put under danger. Do you honestly believe and are ignorant enough to believe that Hitler would of stopped if given what he wanted?

You seemed to forget that Hitler got what he wanted, then he wanted more. Besides, what would of you done? Made a deal with that monster? Perhaps sacrifice a couple more million people to the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war?

Do tell.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support the troops so much that I'd prefer it if they were here at home with their friends and family rather than fighting and dying in unnecessary wars overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems if we left things in your hands, you wouldn't bother using the troops until Hitler and Japan were invading our lands.
> 
> Every day that Hitler lived as dictator of Germany was a day that the freedoms that we as Americans today cherish were put under danger. Do you honestly believe and are ignorant enough to believe that Hitler would of stopped if given what he wanted?
> 
> You seemed to forget that Hitler got what he wanted, then he wanted more. Besides, what would of you done? Made a deal with that monster? Perhaps sacrifice a couple more million people to the Holocaust in order to stay out of the war?
> 
> Do tell.
Click to expand...


Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States.  As for Japan, they were provoked.

The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States.  As for Japan, they were provoked.
> 
> The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.



You listen to Pat Buchanan too much. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world. He wanted Britain to stand aside as he killed millions of innocent women and children. Same for the U.S.

As for Japan, will you stop being so ignorant? Japan wanted to expand their empire through lands that would of immediately benefited Hitler with the resources to take a strong grip hold over WWII and win. Never mind the countless crimes against humanity that Japan committed throughout Asia at the time.

Also, you seem to forget a little detail called Pearl Harbor.

So Kevin, I want a answer for this one, no dodging.

If you were FDR in 1941, Hitler came to you with a deal. You stay out of the war, and we won't fight. Would you accept?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler didn't want war with the United Kingdom, let alone the United States.  As for Japan, they were provoked.
> 
> The U.S. wasn't responsible for Hitler's crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You listen to Pat Buchanan too much. Hitler wanted to conquer the entire world. He wanted Britain to stand aside as he killed millions of innocent women and children. Same for the U.S.
> 
> As for Japan, will you stop being so ignorant? Japan wanted to expand their empire through lands that would of immediately benefited Hitler with the resources to take a strong grip hold over WWII and win. Never mind the countless crimes against humanity that Japan committed throughout Asia at the time.
> 
> Also, you seem to forget a little detail called Pearl Harbor.
> 
> So Kevin, I want a answer for this one, no dodging.
> 
> If you were FDR in 1941, Hitler came to you with a deal. You stay out of the war, and we won't fight. Would you accept?
Click to expand...


Now Pat Buchanan is my hero?  Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?

We can't police the world.  In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things.  And bankrupted ourselves in the process.

I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler.  My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Now Pat Buchanan is my hero?  Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?
> 
> We can't police the world.  In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things.  And bankrupted ourselves in the process.
> 
> I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler.  My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.



You seem to not get something Kevin. There is a difference between policing the world and doing what needed to be done during World War II. While you live in a idealistic bubble, you like to think that you can simply avoid war by not getting involved at all. It is a good thing that people like you and Ron Paul will never get near the Presidency. While you have some nice ideas, it's things like this that ruin any of them.

You seem to think that Hitler is a nice man who would of just left the U.S and UK alone, especially once he got the manpower and resources after wiping out the Soviet Union and Europe. Who knows how much of the world's population would of died because of your ignorance.

You would of twiddled your thumbs, with your head up your ass until Hitler came knocking on our doors, wanting to "help" the United States by taking over personally. And knowing what you would of done up until that point, you would of surrendered gladly, saying "yes, fuhrer, what else can I do for you?"


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Pat Buchanan is my hero?  Are you simply going to attribute every one of my views to anyone that may agree?
> 
> We can't police the world.  In our efforts to be the biggest, baddest good guys on the block we've done some pretty horrible things.  And bankrupted ourselves in the process.
> 
> I wouldn't have needed the deal from Hitler.  My position would have been to stay out of the war from the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to not get something Kevin. There is a difference between policing the world and doing what needed to be done during World War II. While you live in a idealistic bubble, you like to think that you can simply avoid war by not getting involved at all. It is a good thing that people like you and Ron Paul will never get near the Presidency. While you have some nice ideas, it's things like this that ruin any of them.
> 
> You seem to think that Hitler is a nice man who would of just left the U.S and UK alone, especially once he got the manpower and resources after wiping out the Soviet Union and Europe. Who knows how much of the world's population would of died because of your ignorance.
> 
> You would of twiddled your thumbs, with your head up your ass until Hitler came knocking on our doors, wanting to "help" the United States by taking over personally. And knowing what you would of done up until that point, you would of surrendered gladly, saying "yes, fuhrer, what else can I do for you?"
Click to expand...


Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done.  Fighting Communism needed to be done.  Fighting terrorism needs to be done.  Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done.  We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.

See what I did there?


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done.  Fighting Communism needed to be done.  Fighting terrorism needs to be done.  Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done.  We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.
> 
> See what I did there?



Yes, you compared World War II to The War in Iraq. Care to be a little more ignorant and dishonest?

Answer this question, yes or no. I don't want some bullshit spin or excuse on your part.

Do you think Adolf Hitler was a man who could be reasoned with and honestly would of had no inclination to invade the UK or U.S at any point?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, fighting Hitler needed to be done.  Fighting Communism needed to be done.  Fighting terrorism needs to be done.  Saddam was doing terrible things to his people, fighting him needed to be done.  We should probably invade Africa because getting rid of some of those horrible despots needs to be done.
> 
> See what I did there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you compared World War II to The War in Iraq. Care to be a little more ignorant and dishonest?
> 
> Answer this question, yes or no. I don't want some bullshit spin or excuse on your part.
> 
> Do you think Adolf Hitler was a man who could be reasoned with and honestly would of had no inclination to invade the UK or U.S at any point?
Click to expand...


Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam.  Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done.  Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.

I will answer this question however I see fit.

I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with.  Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.


----------



## Modbert

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam.  Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done.  Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.
> 
> I will answer this question however I see fit.
> 
> I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with.  Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.



I wanted a yes, or a no there Kevin. You couldn't even give me that. But hey, you'll make a great politician some day. You already have the lots of fat but no real meat in your answers. 

What you're trying to do is turn this around on me, saying that Hitler = Saddam, and therefore if invading Iraq was wrong than so was Germany.

Very very dishonest on your part. Especially when you don't know my criteria, you're just guessing at it.

As for him wanting a war with the UK or US:

The UnMuseum - Hitler Targets New York



> To reach these targets, however, the Germans needed more than plans. They needed planes. Specifically, long-range bombers capable of reaching the North American continent from Europe. As early as 1938, Hermann Goring, the head of Luftwaffe, recognized this gap in his air force's armaments. In a speech to aircraft manufacturers he said, "I completely lack the bombers capable of round-trip flights to New York with a 5-ton bomb load. I would be extremely happy to possess such a bomber which would at last stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea."





> It wasn't until August of 1940 that the priority of the Me 264 project changed when it was determined that German objectives in Africa required a bomber with a range of at least 3,728 miles. Soon after that the air ministry got serious about attacking the United States from France and issued requirements for a bomber that could make a round-trip of 7,457 miles. In 1941, Messerschmitt got the contract to build six prototypes of the Me-264 and was told that if he met requirements, the German government would order an additional 24 planes for use against the United States. At the same time Messerschmitt started planning a six-engine version of the craft to further increase the payload and range of the plane.





> F*ortunately for the United States, as the war progressed the Germans were under pressure to build as many defensive aircraft as possible and this kept the America Bomber programs from having the priority to move forward at anything but a snail's pace*. The war ended before any actual missions were ever conducted, *though it is rumored a Ju 390 flew a test flight that came within 12 miles of New York City and photographed the Long Island coastline*.





> The Germans were also working on other ways to launch missiles at the Americans beyond the idea of towing them within range behind submarines. *As early as 1941,* engineers were thinking of how to extend the range of the V-2 /A-4. The easiest change was to add two wings to the rocket (renaming it the A-4B). This would allow the device t not to just simply plunge straight down when its fuel was exhausted, but operate as a high-speed glider.





> Guiding such a missile to a target, even a city-sized target, though, would be even more difficult than it was with the V-2. One way to solve this problem was to make the A-9 manned. The pilot would point his high-speed glider toward its final target, usually thought of as the Empire State Building, then bail out to be recovered and brought back to Germany by a lurking submarine. An alternative proposal would have involved using U-boats to plant a series of floating radio beacons in a path across the Atlantic with the final one placed in a New York hotel by German spies. The rocket could then simply follow the radio signals to the target.
> 
> Fortunately the war ended before any of these ideas could be tried. Would they have worked? The Germans thought so. In 1944 aerial photographs showed seven large concrete structures of unknown purpose being built in France. It was later determined that these bunkers were to be used for the launching of rockets - thought to be either the V-1 or V-2. Most of these bunkers were oriented facing London or Bristol. The Americans became alarmed, however, when one of the seven, located at Wizernes, was found to be facing New York City. Though the bunkers were never used for their intended purposes, when the one at Wizernes was captured, it was found to have bombproof doors twice the size needed for the V2/A4. Though no records exist as to why this was so, historians speculate that this was supposed to be the launch site of the A10/A9 New York rocket.



Gee, why would one want to be able to launch rockets to NYC and America in 1938 if we're suppose to be neutral forever?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy

Modbert said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a tyrannical dictator who killed innocent people, and so was Saddam.  Using your criteria for what needs to be done I would have to imagine getting rid of Saddam needed to be done.  Sounds a lot like policing the world to me though.
> 
> I will answer this question however I see fit.
> 
> I don't believe Hitler could be reasoned with.  Whether he would have sought a war with the UK or the US is purely speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted a yes, or a no there Kevin. You couldn't even give me that. But hey, you'll make a great politician some day. You already have the lots of fat but no real meat in your answers.
> 
> What you're trying to do is turn this around on me, saying that Hitler = Saddam, and therefore if invading Iraq was wrong than so was Germany.
> 
> Very very dishonest on your part. Especially when you don't know my criteria, you're just guessing at it.
> 
> As for him wanting a war with the UK or US:
> 
> The UnMuseum - Hitler Targets New York
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To reach these targets, however, the Germans needed more than plans. They needed planes. Specifically, long-range bombers capable of reaching the North American continent from Europe. As early as 1938, Hermann Goring, the head of Luftwaffe, recognized this gap in his air force's armaments. In a speech to aircraft manufacturers he said, "I completely lack the bombers capable of round-trip flights to New York with a 5-ton bomb load. I would be extremely happy to possess such a bomber which would at last stuff the mouth of arrogance across the sea."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans were also working on other ways to launch missiles at the Americans beyond the idea of towing them within range behind submarines. *As early as 1941,* engineers were thinking of how to extend the range of the V-2 /A-4. The easiest change was to add two wings to the rocket (renaming it the A-4B). This would allow the device t not to just simply plunge straight down when its fuel was exhausted, but operate as a high-speed glider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guiding such a missile to a target, even a city-sized target, though, would be even more difficult than it was with the V-2. One way to solve this problem was to make the A-9 manned. The pilot would point his high-speed glider toward its final target, usually thought of as the Empire State Building, then bail out to be recovered and brought back to Germany by a lurking submarine. An alternative proposal would have involved using U-boats to plant a series of floating radio beacons in a path across the Atlantic with the final one placed in a New York hotel by German spies. The rocket could then simply follow the radio signals to the target.
> 
> Fortunately the war ended before any of these ideas could be tried. Would they have worked? The Germans thought so. In 1944 aerial photographs showed seven large concrete structures of unknown purpose being built in France. It was later determined that these bunkers were to be used for the launching of rockets - thought to be either the V-1 or V-2. Most of these bunkers were oriented facing London or Bristol. The Americans became alarmed, however, when one of the seven, located at Wizernes, was found to be facing New York City. Though the bunkers were never used for their intended purposes, when the one at Wizernes was captured, it was found to have bombproof doors twice the size needed for the V2/A4. Though no records exist as to why this was so, historians speculate that this was supposed to be the launch site of the A10/A9 New York rocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, why would one want to be able to launch rockets to NYC and America in 1938 if we're suppose to be neutral forever?
Click to expand...


You wanted a yes or no question to a hypothetical situation.  How in the world should I know whether if X Y and Z had happened if Hitler would have at some point wanted a war with the U.S.?  I answered the question that I could answer.  But don't expect me to try to predict what might have happened had the stars aligned and Jupiter been in Saturn's seventh house.

My point with comparing Hitler to Saddam was that "what needs to be done" is entirely subjective.  But if you give into the ideal of interventionism then you create a moral hazard for future interventions that you may not agree with.  You say Hitler had to be dealt with, and Bush says Saddam had to be dealt with.  Why is your word more valid than his?

You want to talk about being dishonest, while coming in here and trying to say that I'd be responsible for the deaths that resulted from Hitler's atrocities if we had done things my way.  Absolutely ridiculous.

And no, I wouldn't and won't make a great politician someday.  Not only would my chances be likely less than .01% to actually win an election, but I have absolutely no desire to run for office.


----------

