BP Oil Spill

[Professor S]

???

Am I missing something?

[TheSlyMoogle]

Lol what does that have to do with the oil spill?

[The Germanator]

I think he got lost looking for the "Something Positive" thread. Which the BP oil spill is not.

[Teuthida]

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I think he got lost looking for the "Something Positive" thread. Which the BP oil spill is not.

Nah, I was just hoping it would subtly change the topic into something else, as I tried to do before.

I thought it was funny when Angrist posted the thing about Germy's band in here - because it's a terribly thread to do it in - so I was going off of that.


It was a slow day.

[Angrist]

At least my post made sense.

[TheSlyMoogle]

Well they put the cap back on

[Teuthida]

[Bond]

Thanks for ruining a great thread guys. Thanks a lot.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Bond

Thanks for ruining a great thread guys. Thanks a lot.

As the creator of the thread, I would like to say that the thread was ruined the moment Glen Beck posted.

[Dylflon]

I heard a Louisiana judge overturned Obama's decision to put a moratorium on off shore drilling over 500 feet deep...

Apparently this judge has investments in the oil industry.


Question:

Why does this judge still have his job? Start taking names, Obama.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I heard a Louisiana judge overturned Obama's decision to put a moratorium on off shore drilling over 500 feet deep...

Apparently this judge has investments in the oil industry.


Question:

Why does this judge still have his job? Start taking names, Obama.

If you have a 401k, a money market fund, IRA or any other equity based investment you probably have investments in the oil industry too. Does that make you corrupt? No. It means nothing. Actions and evidence matters, not correlative "evidence" based on emotion. Hell, Obama took a lot of campaign funds from BP. Does that make his response corrupt? Or just inept?

The question is whether or not the executive branch has the authority to call a moratorium on oil drilling. I don't know he answer to that, but we'll never know until we start asking the right questions.

Whether or not the judge has oil investments is not the right question.

[Typhoid]

Does that make you corrupt? No.

However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.

I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The question is whether or not the executive branch has the authority to call a moratorium on oil drilling. I don't know he answer to that, but we'll never know until we start asking the right questions.

Beck knows good and well the answer to that question. The real question is, why was it allowed before, and why isn't it being allowed now. And what Dyflon posted is likely part of that answer.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

However being in a position to directly control what happens, and putting your personal gain on top of the well-being of everything else, does.

I wouldn't call an umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field [made by another umpire] - but I would call that umpire corrupt if he reversed the call on the field because he placed a bet on the game.

And besides the fact that some level of his portfolio has oil investment in it, as does every form of collective equity investment to be honest, what leads you to believe he "threw the game"? I hate to repeat myself but you ignore the majority of my argument where I covered Dyflon's points you just repeated in story form.

Again, you are asking the wrong question. The question is whether or not the decision was legally sound. If it wasn't, then maybe you have a point. If it was, you don't. But until we answer that question, making accusations about the judge's motivation is pointless.

While we are here, why not discuss the logic of the moratorium in the first place? While this accident was horrible, it is also exceedingly rare. Does it make sense to put all of these people out of work, and tie up millions in funds, to suspend an activity that the overwhelming evidence suggests is more than reasonably safe? There are nearly 4,000 oil rigs in the gulf alone, and this is the first disaster in how long?

Calling a moratorium on all oil rig exploration based on one accident on one rig by one company is absurd, especially considering how stellar the safety records of the other oil companies have been. Its the equivalent of recalling all cars produced in the 70's because the Ford Pinto blew up. Its a political move, meant to placate the anger of the masses, not a policy based on reason.