Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The country is full of fucking retards. We're going to shit. We've been sowing this shit and we're going to deserve whatever we reap.


21% say oil spill makes them MORE likely to support offshore drilling:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... al_511.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No kidding - they probably think this makes it easier to get the oil.

9% think that environmentalists caused the explosion.

Skelly, should the spill make folks less supportive of offshore drilling? Either the oil spill was caused by bad government oversight and corporate negligence or it was caused by inherent risks in offshore drilling done properly. You can't have it both ways. I myself think the former explanation is correct.

Not that what this 21% thinks will matter, anyways. This will most likely set back additional offshore drilling (if any plans are made at all) back many years. I say we should build more rigs and make sure they are built and maintained correctly. But of course short-sighted, knee-jerk environmentalism will probably win out on this issue now.

Pwns wrote: Either the oil spill was caused by bad government oversight and corporate negligence or it was caused by inherent risks in offshore drilling done properly. You can't have it both ways.

Why does it have to be a simple either/or? I believe bad government oversight, corporate negligence, and inherent risks in offshore drilling all played a role. Why can't it be all three? ... plus MORE reasons?

I guess it's easier for the public to digest if there's a simple narrative.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote: Either the oil spill was caused by bad government oversight and corporate negligence or it was caused by inherent risks in offshore drilling done properly. You can't have it both ways.

Why does it have to be a simple either/or? I believe bad government oversight, corporate negligence, and inherent risks in offshore drilling all played a role. Why can't it be all three? ... plus MORE reasons?

I guess it's easier for the public to digest if there's a simple narrative.

Because this is a clear case of negligence. It's like using Chernobyl to oppose nuclear power in the US. Why should this give us pause about offshore drilling? Just make extra sure that the rigs are built and running like they are supposed to.

Pwns wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
Why does it have to be a simple either/or? I believe bad government oversight, corporate negligence, and inherent risks in offshore drilling all played a role. Why can't it be all three? ... plus MORE reasons?

I guess it's easier for the public to digest if there's a simple narrative.

Because this is a clear case of negligence. It's like using Chernobyl to oppose nuclear power in the US. Why should this give us pause about offshore drilling? Just make extra sure that the rigs are built and running like they are supposed to.

I'm with pwns here.

This was a clear case of the rig not being properly maintained/built. This is something that you and Jon have been pounding since it came it happened is it not?

The safe gaurds that should have been in place would have likely prevented this.

SK is right - it was many causes - lax oversight from a corporate dominated agency, whose powers were gutted by the previous admin, greedy corporate cost-cutting, negligence/lax attention to safety, and the inherent risk of drilling at 5,000'.

At the very minimum, we should stop new drilling until we know what went wrong, how to fix it, and have the technology to quickly cap future blowouts at that depth.

Well, I wasn't a fan of drilling before. Now I'm not a fan even more.

dbackjon wrote:SK is right - it was many causes - lax oversight from a corporate dominated agency, whose powers were gutted by the previous admin, greedy corporate cost-cutting, negligence/lax attention to safety, and the inherent risk of drilling at 5,000'.

At the very minimum, we should stop new drilling until we know what went wrong, how to fix it, and have the technology to quickly cap future blowouts at that depth.

So by your thinking....there is absolutely ZERO chance that shit just happened and something broke?

Say when the factory made the ball joints or tie-rod ends on your car every one of 150,000 of them were fine yet one vehicle had a tie-rod end or ball joint that broke after 52,000 miles and caused an accident. They all passed inspection.


Someone should be liable for this accident or was it just a case of shit happens? I would vote that if you were driving the car that had that happen to you would be suing everyone you could think of.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:SK is right - it was many causes - lax oversight from a corporate dominated agency, whose powers were gutted by the previous admin, greedy corporate cost-cutting, negligence/lax attention to safety, and the inherent risk of drilling at 5,000'.

At the very minimum, we should stop new drilling until we know what went wrong, how to fix it, and have the technology to quickly cap future blowouts at that depth.

So by your thinking....there is absolutely ZERO chance that shit just happened and something broke?

Say when the factory made the ball joints or tie-rod ends on your car every one of 150,000 of them were fine yet one vehicle had a tie-rod end or ball joint that broke after 52,000 miles and caused an accident. They all passed inspection.


Someone should be liable for this accident or was it just a case of shit happens? I would vote that if you were driving the car that had that happen to you would be suing everyone you could think of.

Grizzaholic,
Obviously it just broke...
The point you are missing (and you almost always miss the point) is that The oil industry doesn't even know what's good for itself - example: a little safety regulation improvement and a little tougher standards - would actually HELP the very same oil industry that fights tougher standards

and now they're fucking themselves - as they will always do when left to define their own Rule Book

With what is at stake, you have to have triple redundancy at least to account for the "it just broke" situations.

Maybe that is all it was - something just broke. But the fact is, there was NO back up plan. No alternative to account for the "it just broke" scenario. The Interior Department wanted this, but Bush's White House, under intense lobbying from the oil companies, dropped safe-guard requirements.

dbackjon wrote:With what is at stake, you have to have triple redundancy at least to account for the "it just broke" situations.

Maybe that is all it was - something just broke. But the fact is, there was NO back up plan. No alternative to account for the "it just broke" scenario. The Interior Department wanted this, but Bush's White House, under intense lobbying from the oil companies, dropped safe-guard requirements.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'm confident that later on a lot of negligence on the part of the Bush admin and the oil company will be revealed. The oil rigs have a good track record of not spilling a lot of oil into the ocean.

Chizzang wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So by your thinking....there is absolutely ZERO chance that shit just happened and something broke?

Say when the factory made the ball joints or tie-rod ends on your car every one of 150,000 of them were fine yet one vehicle had a tie-rod end or ball joint that broke after 52,000 miles and caused an accident. They all passed inspection.


Someone should be liable for this accident or was it just a case of shit happens? I would vote that if you were driving the car that had that happen to you would be suing everyone you could think of.

Grizzaholic,
Obviously it just broke...
The point you are missing (and you almost always miss the point) is that The oil industry doesn't even know what's good for itself - example: a little safety regulation improvement and a little tougher standards - would actually HELP the very same oil industry that fights tougher standards

and now they're fucking themselves - as they will always do when left to define their own Rule Book

Well sorry for always missing the point. I will let the big boys play from now on and not have any comment on your important matters so as I don't confuse the special people. Since I always miss the point I thank you for correcting my constant thoughts.

Pwns wrote:

dbackjon wrote:With what is at stake, you have to have triple redundancy at least to account for the "it just broke" situations.

Maybe that is all it was - something just broke. But the fact is, there was NO back up plan. No alternative to account for the "it just broke" scenario. The Interior Department wanted this, but Bush's White House, under intense lobbying from the oil companies, dropped safe-guard requirements.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'm confident that later on a lot of negligence on the part of the Bush admin and the oil company will be revealed. The oil rigs have a good track record of not spilling a lot of oil into the ocean.

I'd say it already has. These guys get eight-figure bonuses, but BP can't afford a shutoff valve?

houndawg wrote:

Pwns wrote:
We'll have to wait and see, but I'm confident that later on a lot of negligence on the part of the Bush admin and the oil company will be revealed. The oil rigs have a good track record of not spilling a lot of oil into the ocean.

I'd say it already has. These guys get eight-figure bonuses, but BP can't afford a shutoff valve?