PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: "Too Much Government in the Gulf!"




Reason
06-21-2010, 11:32 AM
Too Much Government in the Gulf (http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20 found,ID=100621_3712,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml)

Sadly, the disaster in the Gulf continues this week as BP’s efforts at containment keep hitting snags and residents along the coast scramble to clean up and defend their shores and wildlife. Many have criticized the federal government in the past weeks for not doing enough. The reality is there is only so much government can do to help, yet a lot they can do to prolong the problem and misdirect the pain. For example, in the interest of “doing something” the administration has enacted a unilateral ban on offshore drilling. This is counterproductive. I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban. Why punish other oil companies and their hard-working employees who had nothing to do with this disaster, and who have better safety records?

And, as usually happens after disasters, countless people – even officials in local and state government - have come forward who know what needs to be done and are willing to help, but have been stymied by federal bureaucratic red tape as the oil continues to gush. The real problem is not so much a lack of government assistance, but government getting in the way of those who have solutions. We witnessed the same phenomenon during hurricanes Katrina and Ike. It seems government’s main role in these situations is to find excuses to stall relief, hold meetings and press conferences, waste money, punish the wrong people, and over-regulate.

Yet even after many examples of past incompetence, people still look to government to solve problems in the wake of disasters. A government that tries to be all things to all people might engender a lot of learned dependence, but ultimately it only harms the very people it is supposed to serve as they wait helplessly for salvation from Washington.

Government could help by holding the appropriate parties fully liable for damages and clean-up costs. I am hopeful that efforts to do this are genuine and BP is indeed held responsible for all damages, not shielded by liability caps or reimbursed under the table by taxpayers. Unfortunately, a large sum of taxpayer money has been slipped into the upcoming supplemental bill for Gulf cleanup costs that should fall on BP. Taxpayers should not have to bail out a major oil company that has caused this horrible damage to our shores.

It should be noted that BP is not exactly a bastion of free market capitalism. Rather, they are very vested in acquiring government subsidies, favorably slanted policies, and competition-hobbling regulation. BP has even been a major lobbying proponent of cap-and-trade because of certain provisions in the legislation it could profit from. Considering who lobbies for them and what they lobby for, my concern is that attempts to hold them strictly and fully accountable could end up being nothing more than a shell game, with taxpayers ultimately holding the bag.

If the government’s idea of action in crisis is to punish the innocent, bail out the guilty, and raise prices at the pump on everybody, we should want them to do less, not more. Recent polls show sharply waning support for offshore drilling. We still need oil, and a lot of good jobs depend on oil production. It is crucial to the functioning of our economy. But if accidents continue to be handled this way, it is easy to understand why so many see more cost than benefit to off-shore drilling, and that is also a tragedy.

Posted by Ron Paul (06-21-2010, 12:49 PM)

VBRonPaulFan
06-21-2010, 11:57 AM
well said, as always

georgiaboy
06-21-2010, 12:18 PM
yeppers

klamath
06-21-2010, 12:32 PM
Once again he has it right.

sevin
06-21-2010, 01:02 PM
Damn, he sums it all up superbly. I'm reposting that everywhere I can.

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 02:08 PM
Dr. Honorable Ron Paul is a national treasure.

There is no substitute.

:)

Reason
06-21-2010, 02:53 PM
//

sailingaway
06-21-2010, 03:10 PM
He is so right, and I don't know why Obama can't see that getting out of the way is the best he can do -- unless he WANTS to keep the crises at peak force to pass his energy bill.

charrob
06-21-2010, 06:48 PM
i agree with Ron Paul on 60% of his policies. This is the 40% where i vehemently disagree with him.

...very surprising-- he cares enough about life to end wars, end the death penalty, and torture, and end abortion of pre-life being. Yet here is an example of life: fully living, healthy, independent, and intelligent (particularly sperm whales, dolphins, and porpoises) yet he is willing to take the chance on their deaths so people can drive gas guzzling and unnecessarily wasteful SUVs. i must ask Dr. Paul: would he take that chance on a fetus?

idirtify
06-21-2010, 07:27 PM
i agree with Ron Paul on 60% of his policies. This is the 40% where i vehemently disagree with him.

...very surprising-- he cares enough about life to end wars, end the death penalty, and torture, and end abortion of pre-life being. Yet here is an example of life: fully living, healthy, independent, and intelligent (particularly sperm whales, dolphins, and porpoises) yet he is willing to take the chance on their deaths so people can drive gas guzzling and unnecessarily wasteful SUVs. i must ask Dr. Paul: would he take that chance on a fetus?

Clarification needed. Back up and restart by specifying the exact quote with which you vehemently disagree.

charrob
06-21-2010, 07:31 PM
Clarification needed. Back up and restart by specifying the exact quote with which you vehemently disagree.

"I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban."

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 07:55 PM
"I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban."

Good for him.

Ron Paul ftw.

devil21
06-21-2010, 08:00 PM
"I am proud to cosponsor legislation to lift that ban."

Im really not clear what you're trying to say? I don't think Dr. Paul is a PETA member nor an animal rights activist. If you are that's fine but don't ascribe your beliefs on animals being "equal" to humans as a downside of his (completely accurate) summation.

charrob
06-21-2010, 08:15 PM
Im really not clear what you're trying to say? I don't think Dr. Paul is a PETA member nor an animal rights activist. If you are that's fine but don't ascribe your beliefs on animals being "equal" to humans as a downside of his (completely accurate) summation.

if you read my original comment, this is the 40% of Ron Paul that I cannot, and will not, accept.

imo, it is completely hypocritical to worry about a "pre" life fetus and not worry about a living, intelligent, thriving life form in the Gulf.

I'm not saying that anyone on this forum would ever see things the way I do and, frankly, I could care less. I'm simply stating my opinion, which I am entitled to.

Theocrat
06-21-2010, 08:25 PM
i agree with Ron Paul on 60% of his policies. This is the 40% where i vehemently disagree with him.

...very surprising-- he cares enough about life to end wars, end the death penalty, and torture, and end abortion of pre-life being. Yet here is an example of life: fully living, healthy, independent, and intelligent (particularly sperm whales, dolphins, and porpoises) yet he is willing to take the chance on their deaths so people can drive gas guzzling and unnecessarily wasteful SUVs. i must ask Dr. Paul: would he take that chance on a fetus?

Inherent to your disagreement with Congressman Paul's position is the belief that animals and humans are somehow equal to each other. From an evolutionary standpoint, I can understand your reasons for believing that to be so. However, from a transcendental (divine) standpoint, that is not the case. Animals were made lower than humans, so your comparison of a fetus to some aquatic creature does not hold to be a sound argument. Otherwise, you'd have to argue for the equal "lives" of bacteria and for us humans to stop breathing so we don't kill them in the environment.

charrob
06-21-2010, 08:42 PM
Inherent to your disagreement with Congressman Paul's position is the belief that animals and humans are somehow equal to each other. From an evolutionary standpoint, I can understand your reasons for believing that to be so. However, from a transcendental (divine) standpoint, that is not the case. Animals were made lower than humans, so your comparison of a fetus to some aquatic creature does not hold to be a sound argument. Otherwise, you'd have to argue for the equal "lives" of bacteria and for us humans to stop breathing so we don't kill them in the environment.

I believe in a Supreme Being / God (so I guess I'd be considered a "deist"). I don't believe in any particular religion and think most of it is a bunch of bullshit man made up consisting of man's viewpoint of the world (not God's viewpoint).

imho, God sees all sentient creatures on earth equally, and wants us to share the earth fairly and equitably. Creatures equal in intelligence such as whales, dolphins, porpoises: I believe God sees hurting these creatures as a mortal sin; and hurting these creatures for oil is nothing less than totally despicable.

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 08:50 PM
So then offshore drilling for petroleum is a net moral positive, as opposed to hunting and killing whales for their oil, which we used to do, of course, before the discovery of oil and how to extract it from the ground.


I believe in a Supreme Being / God (so I guess I'd be considered a "deist"). I don't believe in any particular religion and think most of it is a bunch of bullshit man made up consisting of man's viewpoint of the world (not God's viewpoint).

imho, God sees all sentient creatures on earth equally, and wants us to share the earth fairly and equitably. Creatures equal in intelligence such as whales, dolphins, porpoises: I believe God sees hurting these creatures as a mortal sin; and hurting these creatures for oil is nothing less than totally despicable.

charrob
06-21-2010, 09:03 PM
So then offshore drilling for petroleum is a net moral positive, as opposed to hunting and killing whales for their oil, which we used to do, of course, before the discovery of oil and how to extract it from the ground.

...tell that to the marine life that have suffered and died as a result of spilled oil...

ClayTrainor
06-21-2010, 09:06 PM
i agree with Ron Paul on 60% of his policies. This is the 40% where i vehemently disagree with him.

...very surprising-- he cares enough about life to end wars, end the death penalty, and torture, and end abortion of pre-life being. Yet here is an example of life: fully living, healthy, independent, and intelligent (particularly sperm whales, dolphins, and porpoises) yet he is willing to take the chance on their deaths so people can drive gas guzzling and unnecessarily wasteful SUVs. i must ask Dr. Paul: would he take that chance on a fetus?

What kind of oil drilling to you approve of? If it were up to you, would you ban all humans from Drilling oil in the water?

ClayTrainor
06-21-2010, 09:06 PM
...tell that to the marine life that have suffered and died as a result of spilled oil...

The leak/spill would be a lot easier to contain if the government didn't regulate them into the deep waters. Do you realize this?

charrob
06-21-2010, 09:11 PM
What kind of oil drilling to you approve of?
land-based drilling only.




If it were up to you, would you ban all humans from Drilling oil in the water?


yes.

jmdrake
06-21-2010, 09:13 PM
...tell that to the marine life that have suffered and died as a result of spilled oil...

The marine life didn't die as a result of oil spilled by Shell, Exxon or a host of other companies that haven't spilled oil in the Gulf. Alsowhat Ron Paul is doing is actually 100% consistent with his views on foreign intervention. You worry about the whales and seek government intervention. Others worried about people dying at the hands of Saddam or now in Darfur or Somalia or some other place we intervene. It's the sincere belief that government has the power to fix everything that leads to a lot of problem.

Ask yourself this question. Why was BP drilling SOOOO far into the deep water? Could it have anything to do with the NIMBY (not in my back yard) effect? Maybe if government didn't prevent drilling in the arctic and in shallow water near "sensitive beaches", the spill wouldn't have been more epic and would have been easier to fix.

jmdrake
06-21-2010, 09:14 PM
land-based drilling only.

Would you keep ANWAR off the table?

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 09:15 PM
...tell that to the marine life that have suffered and died as a result of spilled oil...

I, personally, have harvested and killed more marine life than this spill will end up claiming.

TNforPaul45
06-21-2010, 09:17 PM
...tell that to the marine life that have suffered and died as a result of spilled oil...

As self-aware, reasoning, language using creatures, we Humans have been given dominion over all the animals and plants on the entire earth, a natural right given by the Creator.

This means we are caretakers of them. We should protect them, but also harvest them when needed to sustain our lives.

When X is given dominion over Y by the Creator of both, X > Y. A rigid hierarchy is formed. We are not to act irresponsibly with Y, but X must value its survival over Y's.

In other words, the spirit which Dr. Paul is espousing here, is that we as Human society should not reverse the quality of our lives and revert back to the non usage of oil via internal combustion engines in order to minimize the damage to the dolphins and whales and fishes.

But as a person who is not callous and who has a kind spirit, I believe that he would agree with the description that when it is not necessary to hurt the animals or their environment (like dumping an easily recyclable waste into an wildlife environment), we should not do so.

I say all this to say: Human life is superior in desireability and sustainability than animal life. If I am hungry, and there's only me and a Cow in the desert, I'm having hamburgers tonight! But if my belly is full, then I'll let the cow much on some grass.

ClayTrainor
06-21-2010, 09:18 PM
land-based drilling only.


Is there enough oil that can be drilled on land to provide for the world without reaching peak oil?



yes.

Okay, so if you got your wish the cost of oil would go wayyy up, as well as everything else as an effect. Food will become much more expensive to produce and distribute. The millions of People in this world who already struggle to eat, will now struggle even harder. Starvation will become a much more common theme.

How do you justify this?

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 09:23 PM
Is there enough oil that can be drilled on land to provide for the world without reaching peak oil?

No.

Not to mention that all you're doing is deflecting the problem.

Land based drilling has it's own set of problems in transportation of the final product.


Okay, so if you got your wish the cost of oil would go wayyy up, as well as everything else as an effect. Food will become much more expensive to produce and distribute. The millions of People in this world who already struggle to eat, will now struggle even harder. Starvation will become a much more common theme.

How do you justify this?

I'd like to hear this as well.

The scenario described would result in the deaths of millions, perhaps billions.

jmdrake
06-21-2010, 09:28 PM
Is there enough oil that can be drilled on land to provide for the world without reaching peak oil?



Okay, so if you got your wish the cost of oil would go wayyy up, as well as everything else as an effect. Food will become much more expensive to produce and distribute. The millions of People in this world who already struggle to eat, will now struggle even harder. Starvation will become a much more common theme.

How do you justify this?

I've got the solution! We ban all offshore drilling and instead supplement our energy needs with whale oi..... just kidding

charrob
06-21-2010, 09:53 PM
The marine life didn't die as a result of oil spilled by Shell, Exxon or a host of other companies that haven't spilled oil in the Gulf.


there's plenty of, albeit smaller, oil spills that go on continually-- you just don't hear about them in the news because the affected life forms are considered "less important" by humans and so remain silent victims. Here's some info. that was posted prior to the current Gulf Oil Spill:







Also what Ron Paul is doing is actually 100% consistent with his views on foreign intervention.


His views on foreign intervention stop this country from its murderous pathology. His views on offshore drilling aide this country in its murderous pathology.

As mentioned above, I've opposed offshore drilling way before this spill ever occurred. And I agree with 60% of Ron Paul's views: this is the 40% I disagree with. it's just an opinion is all...

charrob
06-21-2010, 09:55 PM
I, personally, have harvested and killed more marine life than this spill will end up claiming.

mammals?

charrob
06-21-2010, 10:12 PM
As self-aware, reasoning, language using creatures, we Humans have been given dominion over all the animals and plants on the entire earth, a natural right given by the Creator.

...very sorry...i don't ascribe to that belief, particularly when intelligent life forms such as sperm whales and dolphins are involved.

the issue that makes this especially obtuse is that not only are we responsible for the deaths and suffering of these life forms, but we are doing so callously: Morning Rush Hour: SUV after SUV, single occupied, sits and idles for literally hours in traffic. People act like we have a GLUT of oil, not a shortage! To see this kind of waste and to think of the creatures suffering and dying for this waste, is beyond comprehension.



But as a person who is not callous and who has a kind spirit, I believe that he would agree with the description that when it is not necessary to hurt the animals or their environment (like dumping an easily recyclable waste into an wildlife environment), we should not do so.


is it necessary for hundreds of thousands of single-occupied SUV's and TRUCKS to sit literally idling in rush hour traffic every day so that one person can travel from their suburban home to their job in the city? Is that behavior so necessary that we are willing to kill sentient beings with the intelligence and consciousness of a human in order to do it?

jmdrake
06-21-2010, 10:16 PM
there's plenty of, albeit smaller, oil spills that go on continually-- you just don't hear about them in the news because the affected life forms are considered "less important" by humans and so remain silent victims. Here's some info. that was posted prior to the current Gulf Oil Spill:


His views on foreign intervention stop this country from its murderous pathology. His views on offshore drilling aide this country in its murderous pathology.

As mentioned above, I've opposed offshore drilling way before this spill ever occurred. And I agree with 60% of Ron Paul's views: this is the 40% I disagree with. it's just an opinion is all...

Oh I'm sure there are smaller oil spills. And their are small human genocides too. Ron Paul is consistent in that he seeks to limit government intervention in either.

charrob
06-21-2010, 10:26 PM
Okay, so if you got your wish the cost of oil would go wayyy up, as well as everything else as an effect.


...that is the best thing that could happen. -awhile back oil went up to $4 a gallon and it was amazing to see all the SUV's being traded in for honda fits and fuel efficient cars.... then when the price went down, people went back to buying huge trucks and SUVs.

If the price goes up, alternative transportation, train systems, and alt. energies will surely follow; we said we were going to do this in the 1970's... but then oil got cheap again. Which proves: we will never do this until we are made to.




Food will become much more expensive to produce and distribute. The millions of People in this world who already struggle to eat, will now struggle even harder. Starvation will become a much more common theme.

How do you justify this?

one day we will have to do without oil because it is a finite resource: and we will find alternative methods. If there was no such thing as oil to begin with, humans would have figured out other ways. The reason we haven't thus far is because it is easier to exploit silent wildlife victims than it is to create change.

as oil prices increase, alternatives will avail themselves. 50% of our oil is used for passenger transportation: this is something we can change.

ClayTrainor
06-21-2010, 10:29 PM
I'd like to hear this as well.

The scenario described would result in the deaths of millions, perhaps billions.

Yes...

I'm with Charrob on her love for nature. I hate the idea of innocent creatures getting soaked in oil, and suffering. I want to limit this kind of suffering as much as possible, but not at the expense of millions to billions of human lives.

Once you recognize that the government are the ones who forced the companies to drill in the deep water areas, you should understand that the government does not look after our best interests, nor the whales best interests.

If you want to ban all water driling to save every single whalee from ever getting soaked in oil again, then you will have to compensate for that with the starvation of millions to billions of humans. If you want to limit the amount of destruction on the whales and the humans, than you must support free-markets and private property.

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 10:30 PM
mammals?

Oh, I didn't know we were applying the sliding scale to the "marine life being killed".

Course, I've never seen any whales in this area, in 15 years now.

And I've yet to seen a dead porpoise or dolphin from this.

But, no, not mammals.

Although I once contacted the Norwegian Consulate's office in NY about shipping out on one of Norway's whaling vessels back in the 1980s.

They turned me down, Norwegian mariners only. :(

Anti Federalist
06-21-2010, 10:32 PM
Yes...

I'm with Charrob on her love for nature. I hate the idea of innocent creatures getting soaked in oil, and suffering. I want to limit this kind of suffering as much as possible, but not at the expense of millions to billions of human lives.

Once you recognize that the government are the ones who forced the companies to drill in the deep water areas, you should understand that the government does not look after our best interests, nor the whales best interests.

If you want to ban all water driling to save every single whalee from ever getting soaked in oil again, then you will have to compensate for that with the starvation of millions to billions of humans. If you want to limit the amount of destruction on the whales and the humans, than you must support free-markets and private property.

Then ask yourself, who benefits from a Malthusian, draconian and authoritarian scheme such as this?

Why government, of course.

ClayTrainor
06-21-2010, 10:58 PM
one day we will have to do without oil because it is a finite resource: and we will find alternative methods.

There is still plenty of oil left. By supporting private property and free-markets we can help reduce the risk of drilling on wildlife. By ending government subsidies on oil, we will see the true cost of drilling, which will help us find the real viable alternatives without starving millions of people by banning our most plentiful source of energy. Do you realize what you're advocating?




as oil prices increase, alternatives will avail themselves. 50% of our oil is used for passenger transportation: this is something we can change.

How? Asking Obama and other bureaucrats to monopolize the waters and ban all drilling?

TNforPaul45
06-21-2010, 11:40 PM
...very sorry...i don't ascribe to that belief, particularly when intelligent life forms such as sperm whales and dolphins are involved.

the issue that makes this especially obtuse is that not only are we responsible for the deaths and suffering of these life forms, but we are doing so callously: Morning Rush Hour: SUV after SUV, single occupied, sits and idles for literally hours in traffic. People act like we have a GLUT of oil, not a shortage! To see this kind of waste and to think of the creatures suffering and dying for this waste, is beyond comprehension.

is it necessary for hundreds of thousands of single-occupied SUV's and TRUCKS to sit literally idling in rush hour traffic every day so that one person can travel from their suburban home to their job in the city? Is that behavior so necessary that we are willing to kill sentient beings with the intelligence and consciousness of a human in order to do it?

Ok...

First, no animal on the planet has the "Intelligence and consciousness of a human." If they did, they would be sitting in traffic in THEIR SUV's going to work in the mornings too.

Last time I checked, my SUV didn't directly kill any animal. Also the last time I checked, before this current oil spill, we've not had a lot of major oil spills in the past 100 years. 6? 8?

Whether or not you subscribe to a Creator is not for me to either praise or bash. But at a basic level, I am a living breathing sentient creature as well. We have intelligence for a reason, and that reason is to:
1. Survive
2. Improve
3. Thrive.

The thing that completely separates us from ALL the animals on this planet is that they are all trapped within their specific ecosystem, while we are ABOVE and BEYOND all planetary ecosystems. We dont like living in the deserts? We MOVE. We don't like eating plants? We kill a few animals and EAT THEM.

And yes it is necessary for people to sit in their SUV's to go to work every day, because we humans, again with our superior intellects, have created a NEW ecosystem called CAPITALISM, and within that, we carry out our Human Actions in order to Survive, Improve and Thrive.

We seek to thrive, so that we can improve not only our condition, but the condition of the animals on this planet which we are superior to, and are the caretakers of. Remember how industrial society was run by Coal? Now we use Oil, Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind, and Nuclear. Some day we will use Spontaneous Atomic Fusion, Gravity, and any other untold discovered energy sources, which will be zero emission, and the staining (not harm) to our planet will end.

We did not and cannot go straight from sticks -> Zero Emission infinitely renewable power sources. CAnnot happen. The energy sources on our planet have been placed (or are just here, again, according to your beliefs) so that we have stepping stones from one up to the next, continually improving ourselves.

Yes it is sad that dolphins have died, birds, fish, whales, animals on the land, sea, and air due to human action during our intelligent existence. But I will be dammed if I am going to go back to living in the disease ridden, cold mud and eat berries because I'm afraid of killing a few hundred animals.

And keep in mind that this earth, LONG before humans ever sharpened the first stick, experienced EIGHT EXTINCTION EVENTS, which have continually killed almost all life, and then life has "found a way" to come back. It always does. It adapts. It flourishes. It renews.

A single day of an erupting volcano puts more emissions in the air then all of the SUV's in the world running in Rush Hour ever could. This earth has been hit by a MARS sized object in it's past, suffered several large meteor strikes, Went snowball and then completely tropical dozens of times, been blasted from space by levels of radiation we cannot even imagine. It is a tough world. It contains tough life. The piddance of carbon dioxide coming from my car's exhaust, my car which carries me to work or school or to my offspring, means not a microscopic sliver of difference to the complex and incredibly powerful workings of this world.

All this to say: We can have our cake and eat it too.

heavenlyboy34
06-22-2010, 12:01 AM
Nice rant. Don't see this kind of quality on RPFs much anymore. :(


Ok...

First, no animal on the planet has the "Intelligence and consciousness of a human." If they did, they would be sitting in traffic in THEIR SUV's going to work in the mornings too.

Last time I checked, my SUV didn't directly kill any animal. Also the last time I checked, before this current oil spill, we've not had a lot of major oil spills in the past 100 years. 6? 8?

Whether or not you subscribe to a Creator is not for me to either praise or bash. But at a basic level, I am a living breathing sentient creature as well. We have intelligence for a reason, and that reason is to:
1. Survive
2. Improve
3. Thrive.

The thing that completely separates us from ALL the animals on this planet is that they are all trapped within their specific ecosystem, while we are ABOVE and BEYOND all planetary ecosystems. We dont like living in the deserts? We MOVE. We don't like eating plants? We kill a few animals and EAT THEM.

And yes it is necessary for people to sit in their SUV's to go to work every day, because we humans, again with our superior intellects, have created a NEW ecosystem called CAPITALISM, and within that, we carry out our Human Actions in order to Survive, Improve and Thrive.

We seek to thrive, so that we can improve not only our condition, but the condition of the animals on this planet which we are superior to, and are the caretakers of. Remember how industrial society was run by Coal? Now we use Oil, Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind, and Nuclear. Some day we will use Spontaneous Atomic Fusion, Gravity, and any other untold discovered energy sources, which will be zero emission, and the staining (not harm) to our planet will end.

We did not and cannot go straight from sticks -> Zero Emission infinitely renewable power sources. CAnnot happen. The energy sources on our planet have been placed (or are just here, again, according to your beliefs) so that we have stepping stones from one up to the next, continually improving ourselves.

Yes it is sad that dolphins have died, birds, fish, whales, animals on the land, sea, and air due to human action during our intelligent existence. But I will be dammed if I am going to go back to living in the disease ridden, cold mud and eat berries because I'm afraid of killing a few hundred animals.

And keep in mind that this earth, LONG before humans ever sharpened the first stick, experienced EIGHT EXTINCTION EVENTS, which have continually killed almost all life, and then life has "found a way" to come back. It always does. It adapts. It flourishes. It renews.

A single day of an erupting volcano puts more emissions in the air then all of the SUV's in the world running in Rush Hour ever could. This earth has been hit by a MARS sized object in it's past, suffered several large meteor strikes, Went snowball and then completely tropical dozens of times, been blasted from space by levels of radiation we cannot even imagine. It is a tough world. It contains tough life. The piddance of carbon dioxide coming from my car's exhaust, my car which carries me to work or school or to my offspring, means not a microscopic sliver of difference to the complex and incredibly powerful workings of this world.

All this to say: We can have our cake and eat it too.

idirtify
06-22-2010, 12:01 AM
I'm not saying that anyone on this forum would ever see things the way I do and, frankly, I could care less. I'm simply stating my opinion, which I am entitled to.

An assertion of one’s right to have an opinion is usually a sign that the opinion has a weak basis, especially when the right to have an opinion is not the slightest bit related to the topic.

idirtify
06-22-2010, 12:08 AM
imho, God sees all sentient creatures on earth equally, and wants us to share the earth fairly and equitably. Creatures equal in intelligence such as whales, dolphins, porpoises: I believe God sees hurting these creatures as a mortal sin;

So I guess God sees predators and carnivores as sinful. :D

TNforPaul45
06-22-2010, 12:12 AM
Nice rant. Don't see this kind of quality on RPFs much anymore. :(

Sadly HB34, I agree.

I've just had it with this idea that we are at the bottom of the "food" chain. This excuse to give up who we are for the sake of some cartoon-ish notion of the dolphins sitting around having a conversation about how disquieting the oil spill to their afternoon tea and crumpits.

This mental foolishness and anthropomorphic misguidance must end.

The punishing of all (forced abandonment of technology) due to the criminal actions of a few (<----) is one of the pillars of tyranny. Does anyone really think that anybody in this government cares one whit about the animals, or the planet in general.

Those people are empty, dark shells. Severe opportunists who will do and say anything to continue their power, and protect the mechanisms which feed power to them.

They play off the well meaning of people like charrob in order to funnel more power and control. Power is like a drug, the more you get the more you want. It's intoxicating. And like drugs, it matters not what happens, as long as that sweet substance enters you with a higher frequency and potency.

jmdrake
06-22-2010, 05:40 AM
So I guess God sees predators and carnivores as sinful. :D

The government needs to do something about whale on whale crime.

http://www.brandoncole.com/profile%20photos/WHALES/orca/pt1296-D-orca_attacking_gray_whale_brandon_cole.jpg

Badger Paul
06-22-2010, 07:30 AM
Ron: "It should be noted that BP is not exactly a bastion of free market capitalism. Rather, they are very vested in acquiring government subsidies, favorably slanted policies, and competition-hobbling regulation. BP has even been a major lobbying proponent of cap-and-trade because of certain provisions in the legislation it could profit from. Considering who lobbies for them and what they lobby for, my concern is that attempts to hold them strictly and fully accountable could end up being nothing more than a shell game, with taxpayers ultimately holding the bag."

Ron gets it, I wish other Republicans and libertarians would as well.

dean.engelhardt
06-22-2010, 08:25 AM
I don't think RP goes far enough to expose the Federal government's causation of this spill. As Judge Nap has said, BP had authority to drill in 500 feet of water from Louisiana. The Feds stepped in and overruled the state authority and forced BP to drill in 5,000 feet of water.

Had the feds stayed out, the leak would have been in shallower water and easier to cap.

Flash
06-22-2010, 10:32 AM
The government needs to do something about whale on whale crime.

http://www.brandoncole.com/profile%20photos/WHALES/orca/pt1296-D-orca_attacking_gray_whale_brandon_cole.jpg

Quick correction, thats actually a dolphin and a whale.

jmdrake
06-22-2010, 12:54 PM
Badger Paul: Thanks for highlighting that point. Here's another good one.

Government could help by holding the appropriate parties fully liable for damages and clean-up costs. I am hopeful that efforts to do this are genuine and BP is indeed held responsible for all damages, not shielded by liability caps or reimbursed under the table by taxpayers. Unfortunately, a large sum of taxpayer money has been slipped into the upcoming supplemental bill for Gulf cleanup costs that should fall on BP. Taxpayers should not have to bail out a major oil company that has caused this horrible damage to our shores.

dean.engelhardt: Good point too! I knew that federal regulations forced oil companies to the deep, but I didn't know BP had received state permission to drill in shallow water first.

This is starting to look like the financial crisis. The feds created that problem largely through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with unjustifiably low interest rates and tax policy that favored home mortgage debt. Then after causing the problem the feds "steps in" with a "bailout solution". How typical.

Flash: You're right. Killer whales are just big dolphins. I should have said "The government needs to step in and stop cetacean on cetacean crime." :D

Travlyr
06-22-2010, 01:57 PM
I'm with Charrob on her love for nature. I hate the idea of innocent creatures getting soaked in oil, and suffering. I want to limit this kind of suffering as much as possible, but not at the expense of millions to billions of human lives.

Once you recognize that the government are the ones who forced the companies to drill in the deep water areas, you should understand that the government does not look after our best interests, nor the whales best interests.

If you want to ban all water driling to save every single whalee from ever getting soaked in oil again, then you will have to compensate for that with the starvation of millions to billions of humans. If you want to limit the amount of destruction on the whales and the humans, than you must support free-markets and private property.

I agree as most people love nature and are looking for what is the best solution, but not at the expense of living.

Charrob, you do realize that what you propose is to continue the devastation... right? Governments do not give a damn about marine life, air quality, my life or your life. Governments are responsible for around 260 million human deaths last century. None of us wish for unnatural extinction of any life.

Government laws/regulations by definition are based on force. Military and law enforcement are charged with carrying out the violence necessary to force behavior on the offenders. There is a better way... a peaceful, efficient prosperous and harmonious way to live our lives. That is what people in this thread are sharing with you. Rather than continuing to kill unnecessarily; why not try laissez-faire liberty?

Badger Paul
06-22-2010, 02:17 PM
"This is starting to look like the financial crisis. The feds created that problem largely through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac along with unjustifiably low interest rates and tax policy that favored home mortgage debt. Then after causing the problem the feds "steps in" with a "bailout solution". How typical."

Amen to that.

rich34
06-22-2010, 02:54 PM
As mentioned above, I've opposed offshore drilling way before this spill ever occurred. And I agree with 60% of Ron Paul's views: this is the 40% I disagree with. it's just an opinion is all...


That's fine, but technically speaking if we were truly running a free market and a constitutional government Ron Paul's position would be correct and you therefore would have to ammend the constitution in order to achieve what you desire. You're going against the founders just sayin so you can keep that in mind.

Just giving my opinion, but perhaps if it wasn't for all the laws and regulations that are already on the books just maybe BP wouldn't have had to go that far out into the ocean and drill so deep into the crust as to where only robots and such can do the work. I'm not defending BP in the least, I believe they should pay for all the damages thus for that they have done to all the property and businessnes, but perhaps if it wasn't for the aleady drilling bans on the land and sea, BP would never had to drill so far out and so far down. There's always more than one way at looking at government regulation, or what you mike think is "non regulation."

klamath
06-22-2010, 03:20 PM
Quick correction, thats actually a dolphin and a whale.

I think that is a killer whale.

jmdrake
06-22-2010, 06:16 PM
I think that is a killer whale.

Yes. But killer whales are actually the biggest member of the dolphin family. Weird huh?

dannno
06-22-2010, 06:25 PM
I think that is a killer whale.

FYI somewhere in this thread I mention you :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=250365

klamath
06-22-2010, 06:53 PM
FYI somewhere in this thread I mention you :p

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=250365

I was trying to avoid that thread, now you made me read the damned thing:D

Reason
06-24-2010, 05:33 PM
YouTube - Ron Paul Explains Why He Voted Against Giving Subpoena Power To Presidential Commission On BP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cOptmoF_dg)

LiveFree79
06-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Too much government in the BP disaster? LOL. Ron Paul and his son are real idiots sometimes. His son lately the bigger one. Like another poster said I agree with Ron Paul on most of the issues. But when it comes to corporate America he's just another corporate shill. You can't be anti-US government and pro big global corporations. They are one in the same nowadays. And some of you Paulites need to get a clue. Not everything the man says is gold. I support him overall but my god..........he's wrong on some issues and just flat out wrong some of the time.

It's not that we don't need government down there............we need a COMPETENT, EFFICIENT, and JUST government down there and moreover a leader that can take names and kick some ass. That's what we need......not a lack of government. There is nothing wrong with government interference in a crisis......or a catastrophe. That's the whole point of a government and a social safety net for times like this.

klamath
06-24-2010, 06:19 PM
Too much government in the BP disaster? LOL. Ron Paul and his son are real idiots sometimes. His son lately the bigger one. Like another poster said I agree with Ron Paul on most of the issues. But when it comes to corporate America he's just another corporate shill. You can't be anti-US government and pro big global corporations. They are one in the same nowadays. And some of you Paulites need to get a clue. Not everything the man says is gold. I support him overall but my god..........he's wrong on some issues and just flat out wrong some of the time.

It's not that we don't need government down there............we need a COMPETENT, EFFICIENT, and JUST government down there and moreover a leader that can take names and kick some ass. That's what we need......not a lack of government. There is nothing wrong with government interference in a crisis......or a catastrophe. That's the whole point of a government and a social safety net for times like this.
Did you even read what he said?? He stated that BP isn't exactly a model of free markets and that the liability cap should be removed so BP has to pay for all damages and not the tax payers. Maybe what we also need a leader that comes up with technical solutions and impliments them efficiently and doesn't pound his chest while he proudly states how he has his boot on BPs neck. What in the hell did that do to help the problem???
You sir are the one that is flat out wrong.

Reason
06-24-2010, 06:53 PM
Ron Paul and his son are real idiots sometimes.

Why are you on these forums?

heavenlyboy34
06-24-2010, 07:12 PM
Why are you on these forums?

I think it's better to just ignore trolls like him. ;)

klamath
06-25-2010, 09:55 PM
A little article backing up RP'.

It was treated as an oddball twist in the otherwise wrenching saga of the BP oil spill when Kevin Costner stepped forward to promote a device he said could work wonders in containing the spill's damage. But as Henry Fountain explains in the New York Times, the gadget in question — an oil-separating centrifuge — marks a major breakthrough in spill cleanup technology. And BP, after trial runs with the device, is ordering 32 more of the Costner-endorsed centrifuges to aid the Gulf cleanup.

The "Waterworld" actor has invested some $20 million and spent the past 15 years in developing the centrifuges. He helped found a manufacturing company, Ocean Therapy Solutions, to advance his brother's research in spill cleanup technology. In testimony before Congress this month, Costner walked through the device's operation—explaining how it spins oil-contaminated water at a rapid speed, so as to separate out the oil and capture it in a containment tank:





The device can purportedly take in thousands of gallons of oil-tainted water and remove up to 99% of the oil from it. On Thursday, BP posted to its YouTube page a video of the news conference featuring Costner and BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles announcing the news. You can watch the video here:




"Doug Suttles was the first guy to step up in the oil industry," Costner said at the presser, "and I'm really happy to say when he ordered 32 machines, it's a signal to the world, to the industry, where we need to be."

Suttles said the additional machines will be used to build four new deep-water systems: on two barges and two 280-foot supply boats.

"We tested it in some of the toughest environments we could find, and actually what it's done — it's quite robust," Suttles said. "This is real technology with real science behind it, and it's passed all of those tests." He added that Costner's device has proved effective at processing 128,000 barrels of water a day, which "can make a real difference to our spill response efforts."

In his congressional testimony, Costner recounted his struggle to effectively market the centrifuge. He explained that although the machines are quite effective, they can still leave trace amounts of oil in the treated water that exceeds current environmental regulations. Because of that regulatory hurdle, he said, he had great difficulty getting oil industry giants interested without first having the approval of the federal government.



[B]It's true, as Fountain notes in the Times, that innovation on spill technology has been hobbled in part by the reach of federal regulation — though Fountain also notes that oil companies have elected to devote comparatively little money for researching cleanup devices in the intensely competitive industry.
Costner said that after the device was patented in 1993, he sought to overcome oil-company jitters by offering to allow U.S. oil concerns to use it on a trial basis. He'd extended the same offer to the Japanese government in 1997, he said, but got no takers there either.

— Brett Michael Dykes is a national affairs writer for Yahoo! News.

RM918
06-25-2010, 10:06 PM
But when it comes to corporate America he's just another corporate shill. You can't be anti-US government and pro big global corporations.

He's not 'pro' corporation at all, your comment has absolutely no truth to it. He's 'pro' treating them like any other business, and getting rid of their relationship with the government.


It's not that we don't need government down there............we need a COMPETENT, EFFICIENT, and JUST government down there and moreover a leader that can take names and kick some ass.

And when does this awesome fantasy manifest? Not any time soon, I'd wager.