The house of reps votes 209-193 to bitchslap big oil and BP

Discussion in 'Politics' started by cruztbone, Jul 31, 2010.

  1. cruztbone

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,291
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Capitola CA USA
    BP a good buy? perhaps not for long. The house finally found its balls and its conscience yesterday and voted to change the way big oil does business in the US. BP may be a good buy, BUT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE A CONSCIENCE AND A CLUE DONT BUY OIL FROM CORPORATIONS WHO RELENTLESSLY PILLAGE OUR EARTH AND OUR NATION!
    DO YOU SUPPORT AL-QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN AS WELL?:eek:
     
  2. sbat

    sbat New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you drive a car? Do you use public roads in any capacity? Do you take advantage of any federally or state funded infrastructure? Do you do anything other than live in a cave in the woods, ganking internet bandwidth with a self-crafted device made from stone and wood? Then you've contributed to the demand for oil exploited from the earth by one of those relentless pillagers, either directly or indirectly.

    Get off your high horse
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Using something out of necessity is a lot different than people exploiting it for profit. Someone filling up their gas tank so they can get to work or keep warm in the winter is not the same as investing in the company's stock. Not a single one of us has not needed oil at one time, directly or indirectly... but some people need it a LOT less than others.

    Let's not get cruztbone's message twisted here. Everyone here should know what he's implying.
     
  4. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA
    Yeah, a bicycle rider is just as guilty as a hummer driver, because bicycle tires are made of oil, and the bearings require oil lubrication.

    :rolleyes:
     
  5. SeeDickRun

    SeeDickRun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    "Using something out of necessity is a lot different than people exploiting it for profit."
    OK, let's take this a little further. I take it you then must think that oil companies should be a non-profit organization, right? Especially since it's a necessity. OK. I got it. Who, do you think, would risk the money needed for exploration if there was no profit potential. Better to put the not for profit money in the bank and let it draw interest.

    Food is also a necessity. Should the supermarket chains and mom and pop grocers also be profit free? Since it's a necessity, it's just as sinful, following your logic, to make a profit on that too.

    Now, housing is also a necessity. Another "not for profit" opportunity?

    Oh, I know. We just need to turn everything over to the state, and let them run everything for us. That way, they can just make a larger automatic deduction from out paycheck, say, something like 98% of the gross, and we can then have anything we need, according the the rules of the government.

    Thanks for letting me clarify my thought processes. I didn't realize it was that easy to figure out this "necessity of life" thing.
     
  6. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA
    Nationalized oil companies don't do that bad.
     
  7. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Wow... from one "extreme" to another. LOL!!!! :rolleyes:

    All that ranting and you still missed it by a mile. :rolleyes:
    Just because something is a necessity doesn't mean that companies that provide the service should not profit. The problem arises when these same companies overexploit the fact that certain things are necessities and raise the prices to their goods so high that the average person risks losing their own livelihood to make ends meet. Too many money grubbing f***ers trying to make every waking moment an attempt to put another dollar in their pocket. Too many idiots thinking that having 8 digits before the decimal point means you're a better person than the person who barely has 4.

    To break it down to one word... GREED.

    Your sarcasm would have been more poignant if you actually knew what you were talking about. Work on that next time. However, if you still think you know what I'm trying to say, want to make more faulty assumptions, go on more pointless rants and further embarrassing yourself then knock yourself out, OK? :rolleyes:
     
    #7 B_VinylBoy, Jul 31, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  8. sbat

    sbat New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    There is intention and there is impact.
    Contributing to some oil company's bottom line (by buying their product out of "necessity") contributes just as much to the monster as buying stock. Both give it money to stay alive.

    You're not going to beat down the irresponsibility of the BP's of the world through harsh, castigating, self-righteous rhetoric. The reason they exist is that the consumer is too lazy and too unknowledgeable about the energy conversion process to DIY - even though in theory it would be possible.

    cruztbone's message would be a hell of a lot stronger if he talked about the research grant he applied for to get money for community-based solar energy initiatives that would help take a set % of energy needs away from fossil fuels, or if he talked about some other substantive action he was doing that could be really effective in damaging BP's (and other irresponsible resource extractor's) ability to do business IF ONLY WE JUMPED ONBOARD TOO.

    But no. Just self-righteous blabber. And more of "let's get behind congress and government, because they really have a track record of working quickly and efficiently to resolve social issues in a cost effective and constructive manner...":rolleyes:
     
  9. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    The whole BP oil disaster has been over-hyped.
    Yes, 11 workers died on the rig, and that's important.
    But the spill killed less than one percent of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez, 21 years ago.
    Louisiana feared huge losses of its marshland, but only 350 acres were affected, a piddling amount compared to the 15,000 acres of wetlands that the state loses every year.
    Fish and shrimp seem to be clean.

    Clean-up crews have had problems finding anything to clean.

    The United States is lucky that the oil flowing from the floor of the Gulf of Mexico was 'sweet' crude, which easily breaks down under sunlight, and easily evaporates in the warm waters of the Gulf.
    With natural evaporation and breakdown, most of the oil is already gone, and the rest will soon follow.
    As Paul Kemp, of Louisiana State University's Coastal Ecology Institute says, "People
    see oiled pelicans and they go crazy," he says. "But this has been a disaster for people, not biota (animal and plant life)."

    No one would say that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a good thing, but it's just not shaping up as the historical disaster peeps were predicting.

     
  10. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA
    Ope, someone's been reading the Propaganda from Time magazine. BP makes sure pictures of damage are not allowed, reporters are not allowed, and what do you know.... the plebes living in the shadow cave believe everything they have not seen. (you should link when you quote, BTW).

    There are still many scientists who say this will be an epic disaster, and that the damage is yet to come.
     
  11. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    If the well blows again, then perhaps the damage will yet come.
    But apparently fewer scientists say this will be an epic disaster than you think.
    Sure, Time has weighed in, but so have other publications.
    Read the Daily Telegraph, for example.
    Someone must have done the math and determined that the outflow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico is roughly equal to a drop of oil in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
    There is constant natural seepage of oil into the Gulf, which is full of microbes able to deal with oil, quite unlike the case in Alaska, 21 years ago.
    Keep reading.
    I predict a strong change in the tone of reporting over the next month.
     
    #11 D_Gunther Snotpole, Jul 31, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  12. sbat

    sbat New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone have a link to the legislation mentioned in the OP?
     
  13. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Get off your high horse..................... yeah no shit and no whining about gas when it hits eight bucks a gallon because they stopped offshore drilling and everything else they are yammering about. It does not even make good political fodder.
     
  14. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA



    from your Brit owned article:
    LoL

    Already trying to minimize perceived impact. There will just be abnormally low wildlife for a year or two, or five, which BP will attribute to Global warming or some other rubbish.

    The Gulf of Mexico is not an Olympic sized swimming pool, nor does it have the same dimensions, and the most important areas of the gulf are near the surface, where the oil accumulated.
    I saw the satellite pictures. Are you telling me a drop of oil in an olympic sized swimming would create a slick that covered nearly 20% of its surface? Did you think about the ridiculousness of the comparison before taking their word for it? Hell, why didn't he just compare it to the size of the solar system?

    Of course, we know why BP was doing everything they could to reduce the visual impact of the spill... ..so they could sell shit like this, and actually have people believe it is relevant or even true.

    You predict BP will start allowing reporters to report on the damage?
     
    #14 B_New End, Jul 31, 2010
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  15. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,255
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    What surprises me is how some seem already in a rush to begin minimizing the "damage" done from this spill. The "damage" is not minimal and the long term "damage" is at present still an unknown.

    First of all we have the deaths of eleven men and the needless loss their loved ones have suffered in the wake of this disaster, not to mention other seldom mentioned persons who were injured, some critically, and who no doubt will continue to endure pain and suffering for some time to come.

    And who's to say what the health risks are for possible pollution of the water supply, for the contaminants (oil, petroleum, various chemical dispersants used extensively by BP) in the food and water? How long before various illnesses directly linkable to this disaster begin to show up?

    And what about the many fishermen and sportsmen whose livelihoods depend on what they catch? Now without that income they are effectively jobless, with mortgages and bills to pay, children to clothe and feed.

    Further we have the damage done to the seafood industry and the effects locally and elsewhere. Companies whose business it is to process seafood have shut their doors.

    There are food items (oysters) that have literally disappeared from the menus of local restaurants. The cost of other items (shrimp for example) having skyrocketed, that's IF you want to chance eating any of it.

    Many customers have chosen to stay clear of some seafood and the restaurants whose specialty is seafood. Businesses that deal in these products have suffered for it.

    What about the loss of tourism in areas that have been negatively impacted by oil on the beaches and the effects of that lost income upon the economy of the affected areas?

    And what has been and will be the known (and yet to be discovered) impact on marine life and wildlife in and around these waters, in the wetlands and adjoining areas? How does one even measure or “guestimate” the damage?
     
    #15 b.c., Aug 1, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2010
  16. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,255
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Not only that, but the more successful they are at minimizing the "damage" and environmental impact, the less they have to come out of pocket to pay for reparations (they figure), and the sooner they can stop supporting clean up efforts in the affected areas.

    All of which makes BP a "good-bye".
     
  17. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA
    I find it amazing how people are taking the word of BP paid scientists... having already forgot that BP pretty much owned the coast Guard and the GoM for 3 months... making reporting or taking pictures there a felony.

    Obviously, they were doing it because they wanted to hide all the good news they had for America. It was all to set up a surprise party. Surprrise! Everything is fine!

    It will be just like the Gulf War syndrome and veterans, or the 9/11 responders and their high mortality and cancer rates. The government/BP (same thing) will deny the spike in illnesses (esp amongst clean up workers exposed to corexit), the lack of fishing, the low population of shrimp a decade later, etc, are from the spill. And they'll have their right wing chorus singing the praises of Rush and BP.

    Even though right before THEIR FUCKING EYES Americans saw they were being lied TO THIER FACES, BALD FACED LYING, as to about how much was spilling, and saw BP trying to cover every minute detail up...

    ...now that the well is capped, they are going to forget all that, and trust BP again. That is how stupid America has become.
     
    #17 B_New End, Aug 1, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2010
  18. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    These are statements of scientists who are unaffiliated to BP.
    They are trying to give an accurate sense of what the real impact will be.
    Is this less than what guesstimate had put it at?
    Apparently.
    And if so, that can only be good.
    But, we need more reports than we've yet had.

    I predict they'll come in quickly.

    The claim that it was roughly the same as a drop of oil in an Olympic-sized pool has nothing to do with the dimensions, nor with the fact that the Gulf is not an Olympic-sized swimming pool. (You can only use the simile because the Gulf is not an Olympic-sized pool. Think about this.)
    It does, if true (and I'm making no claim about that), give a sense of the actual quantitative relation between the amount of oil and the quantity of water in the Gulf.
    That is all.



    No, I don't think that a drop of oil in an Olympic-sized swimming pool would create a slick that covered nearly 20 percent of the surface.
    But the oil from the Deepwater Horizon would all be on the surface, and the Gulf is infinitely deeper than a swimming pool, at one point 13,000 feet deep, and contains roughly 660 quadrillion gallons of water.
    The oil will sit in a very shallow slick on the surface.
    It may well spread very broadly, without offering any prejudice to the claim that its volume is infinitely tiny compared to the volume of water in the Gulf.
    He doesn't compare it to the size of the solar system because he wants to make relevant comparisons.



    What shit is BP selling?
    These are reports of scientists who wished, with no particular preconceptions, to determine the scale of the damage.
    They found that few sea animals had died, very few birds had died, marshes were much less affected than they had feared, etc.
    It now seems that the oil will not be carried on the Gulf Stream around the tip of Florida and up the eastern coastline.
    There appears to be all kinds of good news here.
    Why does it bother you?


    The reports are coming in, so I don't predict it.
    I mention what is in fact happening.
     
  19. B_New End

    B_New End New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,029
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    WA
    And who cares? He could have compared it to the solar system too, and it would have been accurate, it also would have been irrelevant, since most of the life is in the first 30 feet of water.

    yes

    You missed the point. Would it be any more relevant if he compared it to the Atlantic Ocean? Do you get it? Comparing it to an Olympic size swiiming pool is irrelevant, because most of the water in the GoM is irrelevant. So he used the volume of the GoM to make the amount of oil spilled sound tinier than it is in comparison. He could have picked any point of reference to make the comparison. Perhaps he should have picked the volume of the first 30 ft of depth across the GoM, and then told us how much oil would be required to have the same ratio in an Olympic sized swimming pool... wouldn't that be more honest?



    How do these scientists know? Were they given free access to the Gulf to study how much wildlife died? How are they able to determine how much wildlife died? who is providing them the numbers? What about all the animals that died already while out at sea? Has there been time to do a comprehensive study on how much wildlife is left? what about effects on their reproduction capabilities?

    It bothers me because you are swallowing the tales of corporate media without even questioning it with a critical mind. You couldn't even follow the swimming pool logical fallacy, even though I spelled it out for you. You followed it for a bit, but then got lost on why using the swimming pool analogy was misleading and irrelevant.

    drop of oil in an Olympic Swimming pool. Use your eyes. Look at those satellite images. Do you see the disconnect? Do you see the dishonesty in such a statement? right before your eyes, they are trying to pull the wool. Can you see it? Tell me you can.
     
    #19 B_New End, Aug 1, 2010
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2010
  20. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    You can look at whatever damage we finally agree occurred, and decide how outrageous it is.
    But it seems that this oil disaster will not even score among the top 50.
    This is so far below what we thought we would be dealing with, that it is silly to dismiss mention of that fact as an attempt to 'minimize.'



    This is undeniably unfortunate and not to be forgotten.
    But it is a bit beside the point.
    Those facts were known from the outset.
    What was not known was the scale of environmental disaster that the oil leakage would cause.
    Some people were predicting that the fisheries would be destroyed for generations.
    The Gulf itself might take decades to recover.
    None of this appears to coincide with what will actually happen.
    That's the whole point that people in the Time magazine commentary, the Daily Telegraph piece, and many other British papers were saying.


    The dispersants are probably the greatest risk.
    The oil itself would not have been nearly as dangerous.
    Already, there are claims that the fish may be edible now.
    (We'll have to see about that, of course.)
    The oil did not seem to kill many seals or dolphins, and killed roughly one percent of the number of birds that died in the Exxon Valdez spill.
    Why don't you say, "Hey, if this is true, that's great"?

    That's a huge problem, but the good news, if future reports continue to bear out what I'm saying now, is that the fishery will be restored to health much more quickly than originally predicted.
    Why do you dislike this claim?


    Ditto.
    I'm not saying that no damage was done, but that it looks like the total damage will be only a small fraction of what we feared.


    Ditto.


    It appears that it will be of shorter duration than we feared.
    This is my point.


    We'll find out when we find out.
    But whatever it is, it looks like it will be far less significant than we were being told.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted