ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good.. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots.
Am I wrong though? You see, you were claiming the government is bad, because they did not regulate. I'm saying, we have one party that is rabidly anti regulation, and has proven it will work underhandedly against regulation. So why blame 'government' in general, when in fact it is the people who hate government and stand in its way that have caused the problem in this particular case.
I would like to make it clear: one party is at least nominally pro regulation, the other is rabidly against it. The party that is against it is to blame for the lack of regulation leading up to this disaster.
I welcome any attempts on your part to argue against this position, no matter how pathetic they may be. But ad hominems will get you nowhere, you know that right? Around these parts, ad hominems are taken as a sure sign of defeat. Rather than attacking me, you may as well just admit I've won for all the good your ad hominems do.
"experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment. "
While not all of it is gone, apparently a good portion of it is.
Reabsorbed into the environment. Like ducks, and seaweed, and marsh grass. Fantastic. Why didn't we think of that before? Just let the environment soak it up. That will sure keep the oil out of the... oh wait.
It's almost as if major portions of the US population have developed Stockholm Syndrome and empathize with their oppressors. They think they are in the same class of people as their oppressors. They think of the United States as 'us.' I guarantee that the rich do not think that way.
Bush appointed people who would hire non-appointed government bureaucrats who would entrench themselves in the regulatory agencies and continue to obstruct attempts at regulation long after Bush left office. Those porn watching government officials were not lazy, they were doing what Republicans hired them to do: destroy good government.
Did anyone actually think that when we said "we're going to Iraq to steal their oil" what we meant was "So we can have cheap oil?" That's ridiculous. It was so the rich could have cheap oil to sell at a high cost.
I did read the link. What was I supposed to be looking for? The story says what I just said? You don't say. I just thought it was important to preempt the idiots by pointing out the important fact that 'we can't find it' does not mean 'it is gone.'
Hehe, I read this as "I can't stand it when the hippies are right, and I have no argument against them, so as usual, I shall punch the hippies." You meant it as a joke, but it comes out as a statement of defeat.
Is that what history teaches us about oil spills that get into sensitive wetlands? Funny, I've heard a different story from actual scientists who have studied the problem.
Remember this post when your car spring a leak and you don't call the EPA and clean it up right away with the kitty litter you keep in your trunk at all times in case it happens. You do keep kitty litter in your trunk, right? I mean, how irresponsible can you be to not be prepared for a disaster!!! You should be forced to spend every remaining cent in your savings to clean up any accidents you have. You should also be lambasted on the evening news so everyone will be aware of how horrible you are.
I can't be the only one sick of the stupid comments people are making? Basically asking for the heads of people.
Because accidentally elbowing someone in the nose is the same as mowing down thousands with machine gun fire to make a few extra dollars.
Funny that Goldman Sachs' stock actually went UP after the the financial reform bill passed, no? That bill is widely viewed as a gift to GS wrapped in consumerist rhetoric.
Widely and falsely touted by conservatives who actually want even less regulation. It's not as though they were advocating for more oversight. The stock went up because the uncertainty was gone. The reform bill isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Obviously, you must agree that we need more regulation of the financial industry. You wouldn't be lying about wanting more as a ruse to convince people to do away with the reform because you actually want less regulation. Nope. No one would be that underhanded.
You only prosecute and jail if something illegal was done, not to prove a point. I'm not saying they didn't do anything illegal, they very well might have. If they didn't though, it's purely a civil matter and should not end in jail time.
You aren't making any sense. We prosecute to prove the point that someone needs to go to jail. If it looks as though someone, say, willfully violated safety regulations over 760 times in a three year period where the next most egregious offender had all of nine willful violations, I'd say that is enough evidence to warrant a thorough, crawl up their ass with a microscope sort of criminal investigation.
I am this worked up over that conservative in liberal's clothing. Of course, he has passed the reform bill, which nearly all conservatives opposed. Obama is a corporate conservative, but even that isn't enough for Republicans. Obama could be a Bush clone and they would still hate him.
Oh boo hoo! BP screwed up so I'm going to jump on the hate bandwagon and pretend that everyone involved needs to be brutally skinned, murdered, and have their genitals flown to all parts of the world...
Because you blame yourself.
How dare we demand accountability, right? I mean, BP is a big corporation, with lots of power, and might makes right, so BP must be right. It is quite unnatural for the weak to attack the strong. The meek will inherit the Earth? Like that's going to happen. The meek will sit down, shut up, and not bother their betters, like they always have.
While the thought of Superman cockpunching Tony Hayward is certainly satisfying, would that really have stopped the leak? Perhaps if Superman lined up the punch he could will have (is that the correct time travel tense?) performed a 'junk shot' using Tony Hayward's actual junk.
Democrats have done more to reign in spending than any Republican ever has. Clinton balanced the budget that Reagan and Bush Sr. destroyed. When Democrats have been in power over the last 100 years or so, the GDP has grown by about 8%, on average. When Republicans were in power, it grew by n average of 0.4%. If you are generous and do not include Herbert Hoover, that jumps to a whapping 3%. Republicans seek only to plunder the national wealth for their corporate cronies. The Democrats, while certainly imperfect, are orders of magnitude better than Republicans. It is quite obvious who the lesser of two evils is.
I've read Breitbart, and he is a liar, an attention whore, and a straight up sociopath who does not care who or what he destroys to get his way.
Quoting this destructive sociopath defending himself on his own websites does not help your case one bit.
There is no infiltration of the Teaz Party, those are the real views of real supporters who have never, as you claim, been denounced. In fact, if they were, it would be no problem for the Tea Party to do as the NAACP requested, and denounce the racists. Why won't they?
You know what? Screw this. We really have nothing to talk about. I am diametrically opposed to the evil you stand for and conversing with you will lead nowhere. You lie and distort the facts, you are not interested in open and honest debate, you simply want to win.
Sherrod and Duke are nothing alike. You have absolutely no evidence of Sherrod acting in a racist fashion, ever. Seriously, what did she do that was racist? She did not work as hard as she could to help a white farmer. Initially. Is that racist? Most people wouldn't even think about it. Heck, government worker, not working as hard as they could for someone, uh, sadly not uncommon. It took someone who was actively working on correcting her own racial biases to even think about that act as potentially racist.
And when she did what few others would do and looked at her own biases, she immediately tried to correct her mistake. She went out of her way to help because she felt badly about what she would done. Right there, we have proof she is in no way racist. First, most people, even most tolerant people, would not look so closely at their own actions. Second, most people, upon realizing their mistake, offer up an 'I'm sorry' at best. They do not take on extra work to correct their mistakes.
Now, this is all coming from a woman whose father was murdered by a white racist, in cold blood, tied to a tree, and set on fire back in 1965. You simply can not hang the term 'racist' on this woman. She is the exact opposite of a racist. She is an exemplar of how to look at and correct your own racial biases.
Don't think for a second that reasonable people anywhere are convinced by6 your flimsy, transparent, insulting, and yes, frankly racist attitude. You know, as does anyone, that Sherrod and Duke are in no way comparable. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are sitting at your keyboard smirking like a chimp over your clever race baiting. You know exactly what you are doing and how ridiculous it is to compare a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black woman who for a short period of time did not give her all to a white farmer, but corrected her mistake before it impacted the man, his family, or his farm.
So, I will come right out and denounce you as a racist for comparing said Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black lady who ended up helping a white farmer avoid foreclosure.
Slashdot Mirror
ahhh yes, (R) bad (D) good .. sock puppet. You're almost as annoying as the Bushbots.
Am I wrong though? You see, you were claiming the government is bad, because they did not regulate. I'm saying, we have one party that is rabidly anti regulation, and has proven it will work underhandedly against regulation. So why blame 'government' in general, when in fact it is the people who hate government and stand in its way that have caused the problem in this particular case.
I would like to make it clear: one party is at least nominally pro regulation, the other is rabidly against it. The party that is against it is to blame for the lack of regulation leading up to this disaster.
I welcome any attempts on your part to argue against this position, no matter how pathetic they may be. But ad hominems will get you nowhere, you know that right? Around these parts, ad hominems are taken as a sure sign of defeat. Rather than attacking me, you may as well just admit I've won for all the good your ad hominems do.
"experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment. "
While not all of it is gone, apparently a good portion of it is.
Reabsorbed into the environment. Like ducks, and seaweed, and marsh grass. Fantastic. Why didn't we think of that before? Just let the environment soak it up. That will sure keep the oil out of the... oh wait.
BOOM! Headshot.
It's almost as if major portions of the US population have developed Stockholm Syndrome and empathize with their oppressors. They think they are in the same class of people as their oppressors. They think of the United States as 'us.' I guarantee that the rich do not think that way.
Bush appointed people who would hire non-appointed government bureaucrats who would entrench themselves in the regulatory agencies and continue to obstruct attempts at regulation long after Bush left office. Those porn watching government officials were not lazy, they were doing what Republicans hired them to do: destroy good government.
I see you are unfamiliar with sarcasm. ;)
Did anyone actually think that when we said "we're going to Iraq to steal their oil" what we meant was "So we can have cheap oil?" That's ridiculous. It was so the rich could have cheap oil to sell at a high cost.
I did read the link. What was I supposed to be looking for? The story says what I just said? You don't say. I just thought it was important to preempt the idiots by pointing out the important fact that 'we can't find it' does not mean 'it is gone.'
Well, if we can't find it, it must not be a problem, right? Whew. Glad that's over. I was actually worried for a while.
Hehe, I read this as "I can't stand it when the hippies are right, and I have no argument against them, so as usual, I shall punch the hippies." You meant it as a joke, but it comes out as a statement of defeat.
Is that what history teaches us about oil spills that get into sensitive wetlands? Funny, I've heard a different story from actual scientists who have studied the problem.
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-crude-mother-nature-breaks-slick/story?id=11254252
Sorry to preempt your Two Minutes of Hate like that...
Oh thank God! All the oil has simply disappeared. If we can't find it, it can't hurt the environment.
Remember this post when your car spring a leak and you don't call the EPA and clean it up right away with the kitty litter you keep in your trunk at all times in case it happens. You do keep kitty litter in your trunk, right? I mean, how irresponsible can you be to not be prepared for a disaster!!! You should be forced to spend every remaining cent in your savings to clean up any accidents you have. You should also be lambasted on the evening news so everyone will be aware of how horrible you are.
I can't be the only one sick of the stupid comments people are making? Basically asking for the heads of people.
Because accidentally elbowing someone in the nose is the same as mowing down thousands with machine gun fire to make a few extra dollars.
Funny that Goldman Sachs' stock actually went UP after the the financial reform bill passed, no? That bill is widely viewed as a gift to GS wrapped in consumerist rhetoric.
Widely and falsely touted by conservatives who actually want even less regulation. It's not as though they were advocating for more oversight. The stock went up because the uncertainty was gone. The reform bill isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
Obviously, you must agree that we need more regulation of the financial industry. You wouldn't be lying about wanting more as a ruse to convince people to do away with the reform because you actually want less regulation. Nope. No one would be that underhanded.
You only prosecute and jail if something illegal was done, not to prove a point. I'm not saying they didn't do anything illegal, they very well might have. If they didn't though, it's purely a civil matter and should not end in jail time.
You aren't making any sense. We prosecute to prove the point that someone needs to go to jail. If it looks as though someone, say, willfully violated safety regulations over 760 times in a three year period where the next most egregious offender had all of nine willful violations, I'd say that is enough evidence to warrant a thorough, crawl up their ass with a microscope sort of criminal investigation.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-funds-20100727,0,3856364.story
You see, when all us crazy liberals were saying we were going to Iraq to steal their oil, we were right. That's what we did.
I am this worked up over that conservative in liberal's clothing. Of course, he has passed the reform bill, which nearly all conservatives opposed. Obama is a corporate conservative, but even that isn't enough for Republicans. Obama could be a Bush clone and they would still hate him.
Oh boo hoo! BP screwed up so I'm going to jump on the hate bandwagon and pretend that everyone involved needs to be brutally skinned, murdered, and have their genitals flown to all parts of the world...
Because you blame yourself.
How dare we demand accountability, right? I mean, BP is a big corporation, with lots of power, and might makes right, so BP must be right. It is quite unnatural for the weak to attack the strong. The meek will inherit the Earth? Like that's going to happen. The meek will sit down, shut up, and not bother their betters, like they always have.
We could do it like we did in Iraq, where eight billion dollars (out of nine billion total) in oil revenue has simply disappeared.
While the thought of Superman cockpunching Tony Hayward is certainly satisfying, would that really have stopped the leak? Perhaps if Superman lined up the punch he could will have (is that the correct time travel tense?) performed a 'junk shot' using Tony Hayward's actual junk.
I'm referring to a New York Times piece from six months ago or so, sorry, I tried google but can't find it.
Democrats have done more to reign in spending than any Republican ever has. Clinton balanced the budget that Reagan and Bush Sr. destroyed. When Democrats have been in power over the last 100 years or so, the GDP has grown by about 8%, on average. When Republicans were in power, it grew by n average of 0.4%. If you are generous and do not include Herbert Hoover, that jumps to a whapping 3%. Republicans seek only to plunder the national wealth for their corporate cronies. The Democrats, while certainly imperfect, are orders of magnitude better than Republicans. It is quite obvious who the lesser of two evils is.
Can we change corporate policy by voting? No? Then you should have no trouble deciding which is worse.
I've read Breitbart, and he is a liar, an attention whore, and a straight up sociopath who does not care who or what he destroys to get his way.
Quoting this destructive sociopath defending himself on his own websites does not help your case one bit.
There is no infiltration of the Teaz Party, those are the real views of real supporters who have never, as you claim, been denounced. In fact, if they were, it would be no problem for the Tea Party to do as the NAACP requested, and denounce the racists. Why won't they?
You know what? Screw this. We really have nothing to talk about. I am diametrically opposed to the evil you stand for and conversing with you will lead nowhere. You lie and distort the facts, you are not interested in open and honest debate, you simply want to win.
Good day, sir.
Sherrod and Duke are nothing alike. You have absolutely no evidence of Sherrod acting in a racist fashion, ever. Seriously, what did she do that was racist? She did not work as hard as she could to help a white farmer. Initially. Is that racist? Most people wouldn't even think about it. Heck, government worker, not working as hard as they could for someone, uh, sadly not uncommon. It took someone who was actively working on correcting her own racial biases to even think about that act as potentially racist.
And when she did what few others would do and looked at her own biases, she immediately tried to correct her mistake. She went out of her way to help because she felt badly about what she would done. Right there, we have proof she is in no way racist. First, most people, even most tolerant people, would not look so closely at their own actions. Second, most people, upon realizing their mistake, offer up an 'I'm sorry' at best. They do not take on extra work to correct their mistakes.
Now, this is all coming from a woman whose father was murdered by a white racist, in cold blood, tied to a tree, and set on fire back in 1965. You simply can not hang the term 'racist' on this woman. She is the exact opposite of a racist. She is an exemplar of how to look at and correct your own racial biases.
Don't think for a second that reasonable people anywhere are convinced by6 your flimsy, transparent, insulting, and yes, frankly racist attitude. You know, as does anyone, that Sherrod and Duke are in no way comparable. In fact, I'm pretty sure you are sitting at your keyboard smirking like a chimp over your clever race baiting. You know exactly what you are doing and how ridiculous it is to compare a Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black woman who for a short period of time did not give her all to a white farmer, but corrected her mistake before it impacted the man, his family, or his farm.
So, I will come right out and denounce you as a racist for comparing said Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard with a black lady who ended up helping a white farmer avoid foreclosure.
doWhatIWant()
and
doItFaster(doWhatIWant)