Per Writer's article:

According to the ship’s project manager, the entire American effort in 66 days has skimmed off 600,000 barrels of oil. The ship’s owners claim that A-Whale can skim 500,000 barrels a day.

So where is the A-Whale now? In the Gulf? Not yet. It’s on its way there after being tied to a dock in Norfolk, Virginia, and won’t be allowed to join the cleanup effort until the Coast Guard and the EPA figure out whether it meets their standards

no one will know for certain whether it can operate at the full, advertised capacity.

However, the answer to that should be so what? We badly need increased skimming capacity. Even if this ship only ever gets one load of oil skimmed, that’s a potential 500,000 barrels of oil out of the Gulf, or an advance of 66 days at present rate.

Per Ptown's post:

This whole debacle is showing bureaucracies at their very worst. Awful.

This is exactly why conservatives, liberals, and just about everybody with common sense object when the phrase "we need more rules and regulations" is uttered by anybody. It's because of incidents like this, where rules and regulations weren't even applied to in the first place.
And THEN, when disasters DO happen, the system nuts-up and nothing is getting accomplished, and nothing is moving forward.

Put a paperweight on the damn bureaucratic papers temporarily and get shit done!
Then go back and change what needs to be changed accordingly. It's NOT THAT FREAKIN HARD TO FIGURE OUT!

But, come on whacko's. Let's clusterfu** this up even more with a billion new sheets of paper. Why the hell not? :mad:

Corporate greed and a lickspittle attitude by government toward petroleum industry caused this disaster. BP claimed they could safely drill a deep water well, they lied. They claimed to have a plan and expertise to build and maintain a deepwater drilling site, they lied. They claimed to have built in functioning safety devises to prevent a spill, they lied. They claimed to have a contingency plan to handle a spill, they believed. Once the spill happened they kept consistently underestimating the amount of spillage, they lied.
Once the spill had happened they claimed the ability and control over handling the spill, they lied. The government believed them.
Government should more closely regulate these folks

Yeah right, the very same government that has been shown repeatedly with links on this same thread to be almost as criminally negligent in cleaning up this spill as you say BP is.

That makes no sense...except to a liberal whose faith in government is akin to that of a Southern Baptist's faith in God.

Writerbuckeye;404198 wrote:Yeah right, the very same government that has been shown repeatedly with links on this same thread to be almost as criminally negligent in cleaning up this spill as you say BP is.

That makes no sense...except to a liberal whose faith in government is akin to that of a Southern Baptist's faith in God.

The government's problems in this situation originated from believing a corporation and not being strict enough in their treatment of them. If they are going to drill baby drill, then regulate baby regulate.

faith in goverment of the people, by the people, for the people

Isi,

Whether it's BP or anybody else, when the government creates rules and regulations the idea is to enforce them, not to believe that they are being enforced regulated.

And therein lies the problem, I think.

And THAT is why people are saying that the government is complicit with BP in this disaster. It's not because they're holding hands with BP, they're just looking at the bigger picture - more so than some. (concerning events leading up to and the occurence of this disaster)

The problem is that for several administration at least back until the Reagan Presidency that has been a let business alone attitude in the executive branch and a buddy/buddy relationship develop in individual agencies like the MMS. That allowed the Greed of BP to run rampant. They at worst got their wrists slapped for previous abuses. Why not push it, which they did producing destruction and death.

How did corporate greed cause this spill? The same goes for lickspittle attitudes?

Is this the only well BP has near our nation's shoreline? If so, then the above sources of distruction could be true. However, if not, then why did the above sources not attack the other wells?

Also, to say that President Obama and/or BP wanted this to happen is, to me, absurd. Pres. Obama wants a clean environment and so does BP. Both see this as counterproductive.

Jason Bourne;404464 wrote:How did corporate greed cause this spill? The same goes for lickspittle attitudes?

Is this the only well BP has near our nation's shoreline? If so, then the above sources of distruction could be true. However, if not, then why did the above sources not attack the other wells?

Also, to say that President Obama and/or BP wanted this to happen is, to me, absurd. Pres. Obama wants a clean environment and so does BP. Both see this as counterproductive.

They claimed to be able to drill in deep water in order to make money. They cut corners on the drilling site that cost the lives of 11 men and a mass spill. They had a record of operating dangerously for example, “BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for
Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health." OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation..
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-...0763042&page=1

Do these infractions go for every site, or just this well? Again, if just this well, then I think something else might be the problem. However, if every well is created and run the same, then we should expect all the wells to end in ruin. No?

what you see is a massive corporation with a demonstrated inclination toward violating safety needs to make profit, which bore fruit with the Gulf disaster.

Ok.

isadore;404521 wrote:what you see is a massive corporation with a demonstrated inclination toward violating safety needs to make profit, which bore fruit with the Gulf disaster.

You demand the massive federal government possess more power to regulate oil production off the gulf state's shores. Should not the gulf states be the regulators? Do they not have a greater stake in the environment surrounding their coastline? Wouldn't they be the less likely to look the other way? The pollution that could possibly result by their inaction would directly affect them.

Yet you demand more power for federal bureaucrats in Washington many times bought and paid for by big corporations. These bureaucrats are trumped by the best interests of Washington and have less interest in the local environment. They are political arms guided by politicians seeking to hold federal power. Those closest to problems are most capable to prevent them.

You need to get a grip on how things shake down in the world. Fantasy land does not exist. Uncorrupted benevolent government does not exist. Greed and corruption permeate mankind. What some of you fail to see is the greedy and corrupt need a vehicle to drive them. They seek the biggest and most powerful vehicle they can find. Whether it comes in the form of a business entity or a government entity. They find it and use it. The bigger the vehicle they get behind the greater affect their greed and corruption will have on the masses.

It is high time we stop allowing the sins of slavery to subject us to an imbalance of federal power that many of the founders sought to prevent. Our forefathers paid a great price for their injustice on their fellow man. Nearly 600,000 thousand young lives cut short. Today none of our citizens ever held slaves. Most despise it. And most would sacrifice their lives if anyone sought to deprive their fellow man of their God given freedom regardless of their skin color.

BP and Federal government are both complacent in the greatest environmental disaster this nation has ever experienced. The gulf states sovereignty to protect their coastline is today in the hands of the federal government. They have failed. And some want to reward them with more power. The feds are engaged in needless bureaucratic pissing matches with state authorities attempting to save themselves.

It is high time we return the trust and authority to those closest to them problem. Cut out the pissing matches and trust those with authority that have the personal vested interest. And in the best interest of the nation we can vote them the funds with no strings attached if they need them. But for the residents of the Gulf's sake Obama, stop the pissing matches and allow those whose lives depend on it the freedom to try an save themselves.

Isadore I will leave you with one question. Do you will have the balls to answer it? Whose pursuit of oil profits has cost the lives of more people? The federal government or BP?

Man Sparky....that was well said.

Very well said.

If this country would get back to where states rights dominated the political landscape, things would be much better for everyone.

For those who disagreed with what their state was doing the answer would be simple: move.

Like the free market, those states doing things "right" would be the ones prospering economically. Even with all the federal interference, we're seeing this happening today. Those states friendlier to businesses and more independent have been hurt less by the recession or are coming out of it quicker. Two examples that come to mind are Texas and Indiana.

sparky wrote:You demand the massive federal government possess more power to regulate oil production off the gulf state's shores. Should not the gulf states be the regulators? Do they not have a greater stake in the environment surrounding their coastline? Wouldn't they be the less likely to look the other way? The pollution that could possibly result by their inaction would directly affect them.

Yet you demand more power for federal bureaucrats in Washington many times bought and paid for by big corporations. These bureaucrats are trumped by the best interests of Washington and have less interest in the local environment. They are political arms guided by politicians seeking to hold federal power. Those closest to problems are most capable to prevent them.

You need to get a grip on how things shake down in the world. Fantasy land does not exist. Uncorrupted benevolent government does not exist. Greed and corruption permeate mankind. What some of you fail to see is the greedy and corrupt need a vehicle to drive them. They seek the biggest and most powerful vehicle they can find. Whether it comes in the form of a business entity or a government entity. They find it and use it. The bigger the vehicle they get behind the greater affect their greed and corruption will have on the masses.

It is high time we stop allowing the sins of slavery to subject us to an imbalance of federal power that many of the founders sought to prevent. Our forefathers paid a great price for their injustice on their fellow man. Nearly 600,000 thousand young lives cut short. Today none of our citizens ever held slaves. Most despise it. And most would sacrifice their lives if anyone sought to deprive their fellow man of their God given freedom regardless of their skin color.

BP and Federal government are both complacent in the greatest environmental disaster this nation has ever experienced. The gulf states sovereignty to protect their coastline is today in the hands of the federal government. They have failed. And some want to reward them with more power. The feds are engaged in needless bureaucratic pissing matches with state authorities attempting to save themselves.

It is high time we return the trust and authority to those closest to them problem. Cut out the pissing matches and trust those with authority that have the personal vested interest. And in the best interest of the nation we can vote them the funds with no strings attached if they need them. But for the residents of the Gulf's sake Obama, stop the pissing matches and allow those whose lives depend on it the freedom to try an save themselves.

Isadore I will leave you with one question. Do you will have the balls to answer it? Whose pursuit of oil profits has cost the lives of more people? The federal government or BP?

The spill happened 40 miles from shore, state claims only extend three miles, but even more obviously offshore oil drilling is interstate commerce. We can see the multiple state effects of the spill. That is an argument for better, stronger federal action, not state regulation. In fact state governments with their regulatory board are well known for their corruption, with Louisiana is poster child for it. For the right amount of bucks they have a proclivity for looking the other way.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5423099_ocean-mineral-rights.html
http://www.businessreport.com/news/2009/apr/06/appointed-or-anointed-gvpt1/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-corruption-louisiana_wittmar27,0,2957672.story
The states themselves are hardly outstanding repositories of freedom. Several states tried to leave the union in order to protect and expand the institution of chattel slavery. In the immediate post civil war period several southern state government tried to force blacks into a situation of near slavery
14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in an attempt to keep states from denying their citizens basic rights. It served as the legal basis for ending dejure segregation, the American apartheid system that states used to oppress their black citizens. The 14th amendment made it possible to end this system much to the disgust of Rand Paul and others of his ilk.
As opposed to you and your crypto Marxian view of American foreign policy, I do not believe the Gulf, Iraq or Afghani war have fought or died for oil profits, but instead in an effort to make our nation safer. Now as to your friends at BP, they have been stacking the bodies.

11 dead with the horizon explosion, two deaths in the clean up.
BP worker killed at Texas City refinery
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1552142820080115
Accident at BP Rotterdam refinery kills worker
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65F1UK20100616
BP was found liable for a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 workers. The Chemical Safety Board found that cost cutting and budget pressures from BP Group Executive managers impaired process safety at Texas City
http://georgemiller.house.gov/2010/05/bp-risk-vs-profits---oil-giants-pattern-of-violations-failures-puts-workers-environment-local-econom.shtml
After a crash by a few weeks before BP continued flights to its offshore site leading to a crash killing 16.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6025461.ece
At least 598 workers died on the job between 2002 and 2007 in the oil industry.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26645108/
Extrapolate it over the years of oil production you have tens of thousands of oil industry deaths for profit.

"Extrapolate it over the years of oil production you have tens of thousands of oil industry deaths for profit."

How many have died in automobiles? Planes? On boats? On trains? On ships? Falling in the bathtub?

You'll never get it. Risk is a part of life -- and that includes jobs, travel or going to the bathroom. The best we can hope for is to REASONABLY limit those risks without regulating ourselves into inactivity and economic oblivion.

So BP and its associates built unsafe structure without necessary safety devices and kill 11 of their employees, just another minor cost of doing business, lets not over regulate. Gosh I bet it was just one time thing.:
“After a 2005 BP refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas that killed 15 people and injured 180, a Justice Department investigation found that the explosion was caused by "improperly released vapor and liquid." Several procedures required by the Clean Air Act to reduce the possibility of just such an explosion either were not followed, or had not been established in the first place. BP admitted that its written procedures to ensure its equipment's safety were inadequate”
Anyone can make a couple of mistake and kill 26 workers, they didn’t kill as many people as the Nazi, so they mustn’t be so bad, its not like their a criminal enterprise, oh but
““BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for
Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health." OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.”

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042&page=1
They consider their fines just a minor cost of doing business.

isadore;405004 wrote:The spill happened 40 miles from shore, state claims only extend three miles, but even more obviously offshore oil drilling is interstate commerce. We can see the multiple state effects of the spill. That is an argument for better, stronger federal action, not state regulation.

I realize the feds currently have jurisdiction over offshore drilling. But you want to just gloss over the fact that they have utterly failed to uphold their end of the constitutional contract to promote the general welfare within their enumerated powers.

The general welfare statement is meant to constrain the federal government's enumerated powers to be used only to benefit the general welfare of the collective states, not to promote the welfare of one state above another, and sure as hell not to promote the welfare of the federal government above the states it is under contractual agreement to protect.

Yet that is just what they have done. In order to promote their welfare and secure their political power in the federal government they looked the other way and crawled into bed with a foreign corporation, turning their backs on their own countrymen, they looked away and shirked the regulatory power granted to them by the states through the constitutional contract.

And now as the states struggle to save themselves they stand in the way. Engaging in needless pissing matches in order to not allow this disaster show their weakness. Once again demonstrating their willingness to promote the welfare of their power in the federal government above that of the states they contracted with to protect. This has been pointed out many times on this thread.

isadore;405004 wrote: In fact state governments with their regulatory board are well known for their corruption, with Louisiana is poster child for it. For the right amount of bucks they have a proclivity for looking the other way.

As I stated above no entity is immune to corruption. It is a condition of mankind. The corruption in a state government like Louisiana, has a limited affect on the nation. Corruption in Washington has a massive affect on the nation.

The states have contracted with the federal government and granted them great authority. They are in violation of that contract in that they promoted the welfare of their own power in the federal government over that of the states.

It is high time we allow those with most at stake to regulate those that want to extract resources that place their environments at direct risk. This is the best guard we have against the depravity of man. Balancing power. Limiting power. And placing regulating authority into the hands of those that directly bare the consequences of their actions.

isadore;405004 wrote:The states themselves are hardly outstanding repositories of freedom. Several states tried to leave the union in order to protect and expand the institution of chattel slavery. In the immediate post civil war period several southern state government tried to force blacks into a situation of near slavery.

No doubt the immoral practice of slavery should have been outlawed. Those states that engaged in it were wrong. I only wish it could have ended without the ending of nearly 600,000 young men's lives. I think it was possible in time. Either way it took blood to end it at that point in time.

All states engaged at that time paid a great price. Nearly 600,000 lives lost and countless more maimed. No one is alive today that promoted the practice of slavery. Those that participated in the acts of state segregation are nearly gone from this earth and in no position of authority except in their nursing home bingo team. The southern states populations have greatly increased. Transplants from northern states seeking better climate or tax refuge.

The south at the time of the civil war was a minority of the population of the union. Most of the population resided in the north. Also most states did not participate in these immoral practices to any large extent. Yet you want all states to have their sovereignty stripped because of the sins of a few. I was born in the state of Ohio. None of my ancestors participated in the immoral practice of slavery. In fact they fought on the side of the union. May be the civil war was not just about ending the scourge of slavery but attaining federal power? All wars in our history have been a vehicle to increase federal power. The civil war was no different.

isadore;405004 wrote:14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in an attempt to keep states from denying their citizens basic rights. It served as the legal basis for ending dejure segregation, the American apartheid system that states used to oppress their black citizens. The 14th amendment made it possible to end this system much to the disgust of Rand Paul and others of his ilk..

The 14th amendment was intended to solidify the ending of the scourge of slavery in the union. I agree with that. But it has also been expanded to force state and local governments to forfeit the right to make reasonable laws in the best interest of their citizens.

Its funny you have not posted on the thread trumpeting the supreme courts decision to use this amendment to force the local government in Chicago to rescind their ban on handguns. Its quite telling in fact. You love federal power when it swings in you favor. You love finding ways to force your will on all Americans. I don't even if I vehemently disagree with a few million peoples decision.

isadore;405004 wrote:As opposed to you and your crypto Marxian view of American foreign policy, I do not believe the Gulf, Iraq or Afghani war have fought or died for oil profits, but instead in an effort to make our nation safer. Now as to your friends at BP, they have been stacking the bodies..

If you think the first gulf war was not about securing the free flow of oil at market prices there may be no hope for you. Many dictators around the world invade and take over small nations that do not possess this resource. Yet we do not rush to their defense. What pray tell could be the reason for this?

That being said I did agree with that reason for going to war as the free flow of oil is vital to our economy and our freedom. If we are going to sacrifice lives to secure that profit for the nation it should be taken seriously. Seriously enough to follow constitution to the letter and issue a formal declaration of war against Iraq. It should be spelled out truthfully and honestly before congress and the president should ask them to constitutionally put their necks on the line with him.

Same goes for the Iraq War and the Afghan war. Both had solid reasons that could have been presented to congress asking for their formal declaration of war. People want to just blame the president. Congress is all to willing to hand over their authority to formally declare war to the executive branch because they want to leave the back door open for political escape if things go to shit. They can point the finger at the president. Not themselves.

The human toll extracted for the free flow of oil to maintain a stable economy and our continued freedom is measured in the tens of thousands. BP can't compete with that. And that is just the first gulf war.

As I said before I am a realist in how the world works. It is governed unfortunately by the aggressive use of force. I understand the necessity in having to engage in the killing of our fellow man. I just ask that we follow the boundaries that the founders set up to the letter to guard against that authority being abused.

The Constitution is an agreement between the American people and their government, not the states. “We the People…do ordain and establish this Constitution.” There is no statement similar to from Article II of the Articles of Confederation that “Each state retains its sovereignty,” And the Constitution contains Supremacy clause that places Constitution as of course our highest law, then 2nd federal law overruling state constitutions and state law. And as it says a government created to promote the general welfare of the people, not the states. Once the Federal government was established its basic relationship was with the American people not the states. A permanent union was founded of the American people served by the government created for them and by them. If there was any question about that it was settle by the Civil War.
Those with most at stake are the people themselves, not the states, which are just intermediate government institutions. The problems created by any large scale disaster, environmental or economic call for national not state effort. Gosh when the rivers rise or a tornado passes through the state, what the first call, help us federal government. People and the states want federal action.
The federal government regulatory action was undermined in the later part of the 20th century by pro-business ethos in the government. To a much greater degree this philosophy effected state governments.
It is interesting that while the states are acting to aid business by pushing for a quick end to a drilling ban, the federal government is negotiating a 20 billion dollar fund from BP.
States Rights is one of the most pernicious ideologies in this country’s history. It has been used to justify the most reprehensible of state protected institutions.. From John Calhoun using it to protect chattel slave to George Wallace using it to protect de jure segregation, to Rand Paul using it to justify segregation in public accommodation. The Civil War put a dent in this evil philosophy as Union men from the north and south fought to defeat state rights advocates, save our nation and end slavery. In immediate post war period the 14th Amendment was passed to protect our citizens from state abuse of power. Although you see it as expanding federal power to “force state and local government the right to make reasonable laws in the best interest of their citizens.” Well its equal protection and due process clauses have been used to end the racial apartheid system established in various American states by states rights advocates.. This system extended beyond the old Confederacy by the case that began its end, Brown v Topeka, Kansas Board of Education.
The 14th amendment was used to protect from state’s rights advocates: the rights of women, children, minorities, freedom of religion, speech, petition, assemble, no self incrimination, no double jeopardy, restrictions on illegal search, right to a lawyer, right to a jury, no cruel and unusual punishment. States exercising states rights were doing all these abuses until the 14th Amendment was used to end or limit their efforts at abusing the people.

major sparks wrote:. Many dictators around the world invade and take over small nations that do not possess this resource. Yet we do not rush to their defense. What pray tell could be the reason for this?

During the Cold War we intervened in South Korea and South Vietnam and provided major aid for Afghanistan when they were invaded. When we intervened, none of those countries seemingly had any major resources. In the post cold war period when was there an example of a nation conquering and absorbing another nation as Iraq did with Kuwait. For our actions in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan we had joint resolutions passed by Congress before we took those actions. Those resolutions were debated and voted on by Congress.

isadore;406712 wrote:The Constitution is an agreement between the American people and their government, not the states. "We the People...do ordain and establish this Constitution."

You can't use a preamble as a binding force. It is a general statement that must be put into the context of the following binding contract. That is how you define a preamble. But I'll entertain the argument. If state sovereignty was a non issue and the convention was establishing a national state, just with the interests of the collective populace of the whole union to be equally observed, what make you of the electoral college? The sovereign STATES elect the chief executive of the federal government. Not the people.

Bush/Gore 2000 is a modern day example. The people of the United States elected Gore. The States elected Bush. By constitutional law the will of the States had power over the people of the United States. At least for now the states sovereign power to elect the chief executive over the people of the whole US has yet to be infringed upon. But in time who knows.

The constitution also through the 10th amendment reserves any power not specifically given to the federal government or prohibited by it to the states as a sovereign power of the states or local authorities.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

isadore;406712 wrote:There is no statement similar to from Article II of the Articles of Confederation that "Each state retains its sovereignty" And the Constitution contains Supremacy clause that places Constitution as of course our highest law, then 2nd federal law overruling state constitutions and state law. And as it says a government created to promote the general welfare of the people, not the states. Once the Federal government was established its basic relationship was with the American people not the states. A permanent union was founded of the American people served y the government created for them and by them.

The articles of confederation also had a supremacy clause. Yet no one thought it dissolved state sovereignty. You actually might like this one better.

Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

isadore;406712 wrote:If there was any question about that it was settle by the Civil War..

War uses the force of arms to settle issues. To the winner goes the spoils. I agree it most definitely had a great impact on this issue. It looks like even you agree the civil war was fought over this issue and not just slavery.

isadore;406712 wrote:Those with most at stake are the people themselves, not the states, which are just intermediate government institutions.

No those with the most at stake are the people that reside in the states that bare the brunt of any disaster or issue. The people of ND, OH, WA, CA, HI. etc..Do not have as much at stake in the current disaster in the gulf.

isadore;406712 wrote:The problems created by any large scale disaster, environmental or economic call for national not state effort. Gosh when the rivers rise or a tornado passes through the state, what the first call, help us federal government. People and the states want federal action.

Many times the states do need the help of the federal government. Especially in the case of a natural disaster. We even aid foreign states in these cases. I will say this states at times can be more than willing to use others money when they can get their hands on it. Even when they posses the resources to take care of the problem themselves. Like I pointed out before no institution of man is immune to selfish motives. No entities motives, whatever they are, make a case for breaking constitutional law.

isadore;406712 wrote:The federal government regulatory action was undermined in the later part of the 20th century by pro-business ethos in the government. To a much greater degree this philosophy effected state governments.
It is interesting that while the states are acting to aid business by pushing for a quick end to a drilling ban, the federal government is negotiating a 20 billion dollar fund from BP.

Why do you thing the states oppose the drilling ban? Because they want more oil to wash up on their shores? They have the interest of their citizens in mind. It will cost jobs. Oil drilling is now moving to other nations. Nations that realize that this is a once in a century disaster. Clean house in the MMS and lets get back to drilling.

isadore;406712 wrote:States Rights is one of the most pernicious ideologies in this country's history. It has been used to justify the most reprehensible of state protected institutions.. From John Calhoun using it to protect chattel slave to George Wallace using it to protect de jure segregation, to Rand Paul using it to justify segregation in public accommodation. The Civil War put a dent in this evil philosophy as Union men from the north and south fought to defeat state rights advocates, save our nation and end slavery.

And centralized power is one of the most pernicious ideologies in world history. It solidifies its abuses over larger masses of people. All government entities have a great potential to turn evil. When it is allowed to be centralized and concentrated a nefarious character will one day get the reigns. History proves it. When they do they will bring their evil philosophy to bear on the masses with murderous force. If you can guarantee me our federal government will perpetually be a benevolent force for the common good of 300 plus million people and growing, I will join your crusade. Can you guarantee me this? I'll wait. Please review some world history first.

isadore;406712 wrote:In immediate post war period the 14th Amendment was passed to protect our citizens from state abuse of power. Although you see it as expanding federal power to force state and local government the right to make reasonable laws in the best interest of their citizen's Well its equal protection and due process clauses have been used to end the racial apartheid system established in various American states by states rights advocates.. This system extended beyond the old Confederacy by the case that began its end, Brown v Topeka, Kansas Board of Education.
The 14th amendment was used to protect from state's rights advocates: the rights of women, children, minorities, freedom of religion, speech, petition, assemble, no self incrimination, no double jeopardy, restrictions on illegal search, right to a lawyer, right to a jury, no cruel and unusual punishment. States exercising states rights were doing all these abuses until the 14th Amendment was used to end or limit their efforts at abusing the people.

You missed the right to bear arms in your little list. Lets apply this across the board. No school district or state university can prevent the bearing of arms on public grounds by adult citizens. How about local and state parks? I no more agree with this than segregation. I am just one who sees the potential dangers of centralized power. Just like many of the founders.

isadore;406712 wrote:During the Cold War we intervened in South Korea and South Vietnam and provided major aid for Afghanistan when they were invaded. When we intervened, none of those countries seemingly had any major resources. In the post cold war period when was there an example of a nation conquering and absorbing another nation as Iraq did with Kuwait. For our actions in the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan we had joint resolutions passed by Congress before we took those actions. Those resolutions were debated and voted on by Congress

Weak resolutions authorizing force may have a constitutional argument. But if there is any reason to follow the constitution with out doubt to the letter it is when we ask our citizens to give their lives for a cause. Congress is more than willing to straddle the fence on this issue in order to provide themselves a political backdoor of no responsibility. Just in case things go to shit they may be able to salvage their jobs.

The cold war conflicts were in a different context. The gulf war was most definitely fought primarily for the free flow of oil at market prices. As I said I find agreement in our involvement. I just want our government to have the balls to stand behind their order to sacrifice the lives of their citizens for a cause with a formal declaration of war.

As mentioned before one of the ideas not carried over directly from the Articles to the Constitution is state sovereignty. Being whole subject matter for Article II of the Confederation document but not included in the Constitution, a wise choice. The Electoral college is an obvious remnant of a distant past. The framers were not attempting to empower the states. They were reacting the perceived limitations of the media at the time. They considered it unlikely that people throughout the nation could be truly informed to pick a candidate in a national election. The 10th Amendment is hardly a ringing endorsement of states rights, but just leaving the rump for the states. Powers not belonging to the national government, not belonging to the people, not forbidden to the states, you states can have what was left. Then of course wisely we had the elastic clause, interstate commerce clause, the Supremacy clause and other to keep them from screwing up too much the powers they were given. And even that wasn’t enough so we added the 14th Amendment to stop them from using the 10th to segregate schools and deny interracial couples the right to marry.
Luckily we formed our union to protect all its members, that can provide the resources when major disaster strikes all or a part of that union.

major sparks wrote: Oil Drilling is moving other nations. Nations that realize that this is once in a century disaster.

Once in a century, wow. Well of course there was the Exxon valdez. I guess you don’t count that because it a ship wreck spill rather than from a oil drilling platform. Oil spills are frequent and ours is not even the biggest one to happen in the Gulf, a bigger one happened 31 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
It is not in the best interests of our nation to give a free pass to these predatory oil companies. I agree with your statement about clean house at MMS, then truly empower it and put the agency back to work.
One great advantage of our union is that when those one in a century earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, snow storms hit an area, we have the resources of our nation to use against them.
As to the use of joint resolutions to authorize the President to use military force. They give our elected leaders more flexibility in dealing with our opponents, which is necessary in our present, very complex world. Voting for or against these resolutions is hardly straddling the fence. A politicians stand on these issues had political consequences, ask President Hillary Clinton. Her Senate vote for the war resolution was a major factor in her losing the Democratic nomination for President.
You of course return again and again to the fear of centralized power and look to the lessons of history. There is of course the opposite fear the disintegration of power in a state with the resulting anarchy. Our founders were wise enough to avoid both extremes and structure a state with the ability to adapt and grow.
They structured the best and most free nation for their time. Very few of us unless we happened to be white, male, protestant landowners would have wanted to live in this country 223 years ago. Our rights would be circumscribed or non existent. The framers ultimate brilliance was to prepare a document flexible enough to allow for the change. As we went from 3 million people living in a deferential, poor, agricultural, slaveholding country to 330 million Americans in the richest, most powerful, heterogeneous nation in the world with the Constitution. The document could allow our government to grow to meet the needs of the people while continuing to protect our rights. And adherence to states rights would have balkanized and buried this nation. It still might.

just got word from BOEMRE (formerly known as MMS) that they will be coming to inspect my platform in a few weeks.

wish me luck boys and girls.

j_crazy;407672 wrote:just got word from BOEMRE (formerly known as MMS) that they will be coming to inspect my platform in a few weeks.

wish me luck boys and girls.

Good luck.

j_crazy;407672 wrote:just got word from BOEMRE (formerly known as MMS) that they will be coming to inspect my platform in a few weeks.

wish me luck boys and girls.

You smell like a scapegoat!

Worst part is, thanks to this oil spill nobody has even mentioned the Hayden spill on the coast of Florida.