isadore;402171 wrote:lol, gosh when someone does not accept your corporate speil then they are being irrational. Those men deserved protection from the greed motivated criminal incompetence of BP. Making a living is not a sentence of death, corporations and their officiers have responsibility for the safety of their employees. This must be the time when you now apologize to BP for my comments.

And you have the sack to actually call someone out on their "spiel?" Dude....highly laughable. :rolleyes:

If BP is found to have done something CRIMINAL as it relates to the deaths of those men, then they should be punished appropriately. I never said otherwise.

Until that happens, everything you just said is a bunch of emotional hyperbole.

Writerbuckeye;402293 wrote:If BP is found to have done something CRIMINAL as it relates to the deaths of those men, then they should be punished appropriately. I never said otherwise.

Until that happens, everything you just said is a bunch of emotional hyperbole.

You forgot poorly written emotional hyperbole.

Writerbuckeye;402293 wrote:If BP is found to have done something CRIMINAL as it relates to the deaths of those men, then they should be punished appropriately. I never said otherwise.

Until that happens, everything you just said is a bunch of emotional hyperbole.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I do believe those men accepted those jobs WILLINGLY and KNOWING THE RISKS from working on such a rig

Trying to respin, are you. from your previous defense of BP. Like this little statement above that makes it sound as if these workers were knowingly volunteering for a death mission. First wave on Omaha Beach, rather than a job in industrial extraction. Which of course gave BP the right to use them as they please after all they were getting a “good paying job “ “when they are hard to find.” They should expect to put their lives on the line. They knew the were going to work on “a rig.” What no one told them was that it was because of greed and incompetence ill designed and ill managed.

You're the one who's spinning this.

My statements were fair and accurate. Men take on dangerous jobs every day of the week not expecting anything bad will happen. Sometimes, it does and people die. That's the world as it really exists -- and no amount of government regulations can or will change it. So long as humans are doing the work, risks will exist.

The rest of your diatribe is emotional hyperbole.

Writerbuckeye;402405 wrote:You're the one who's spinning this.

My statements were fair and accurate. Men take on dangerous jobs every day of the week not expecting anything bad will happen. Sometimes, it does and people die. That's the world as it really exists -- and no amount of government regulations can or will change it. So long as humans are doing the work, risks will exist.

The rest of your diatribe is emotional hyperbole.

Yes it is but you have to admit Isadore is a lot more fun to debate than most of the lefties on this forum. Sort of a more intellectual Ablublud from the "other site."

Writerbuckeye;402405 wrote:You're the one who's spinning this.

My statements were fair and accurate. Men take on dangerous jobs every day of the week not expecting anything bad will happen. Sometimes, it does and people die. That's the world as it really exists -- and no amount of government regulations can or will change it. So long as humans are doing the work, risks will exist.

The rest of your diatribe is emotional hyperbole.

Now there is a corporate spin, nothing we can about it, workers are just going to die.
Government regulation has already changed that world making it safer. Industrial disease and industrial injury go down
Its annual fatality rate is about nine for every one hundred thousand miners employed. A century ago in 1900 about three hundred out of every one hundred thousand miners were killed on the job each year. 2
Fatality and Injury rate in steel industry
1910-1913 fatalities .40 injuries 44.1
As government regulations increased
1937-1939 fatalities .13 injuries 11.7
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/aldrich.safety.workplace.us

I suspect even with the Deepwater Horizon disaster there are many professions that have more fatalities in a year than oil rig workers, we just don't hear about it because it doesn't make a compelling news story.

and I am sure
a. that some on this thread would argue for those deaths that is just the way things are, that those workers knew what they were getting into and its pretty much their tough luck
b. that many of those lives could have been saved by more tightly enforced government regulations

I will say this again: No matter how much regulation you do, people are going to die doing jobs that are considered dangerous. Why? Because people aren't infallible and mistakes are going to happen, even under the best of circumstances.

So how much do you continue to regulate when your overall safety laws are doing the job -- but you have people continuing to die because of human error? You going to try and regulate human mistakes out of the equation?

Not gonna happen. People are going to die on the job no matter what you attempt to do.

You may as well come up with a reasonable amount of regulations and be done with it. Punish those companies or organizations that flaunt safety and put people unnecessarily at risk, but don't make the bureaucracy so ridiculous and expensive that the jobs simply disappear.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote:My statements were fair and accurate. Men take on dangerous jobs every day of the week not expecting anything bad will happen. Sometimes, it does and people die. That's the world as it really exists -- and no amount of government regulations can or will change it. So long as humans are doing the work, risks will exist.

Obviously those statements were wrong. As the goverment got more involved, and when it more forceable enforced those regulation, many more workers did not become job fatalities. And all along the process there has been that pro corporate chorus saying that saving those lives will hurt the business,, the greatest of sins.

Writerbuckeye;402454 wrote:You may as well come up with a reasonable amount of regulations and be done with it. Punish those companies or organizations that flaunt safety and put people unnecessarily at risk, but don't make the bureaucracy so ridiculous and expensive that the jobs simply disappear.

Writer, Writer, Writer....If I've told you once I've told you a thousands times DO NOT argue logic and common sense with liberals. They get confused and their heads explode.

KnightRyder;399264 wrote:now thats hysterical

You opinion is hysterical especially since mine has been backed up by studies.

isadore;402460 wrote:Obviously those statements were wrong. As the goverment got more involved, and when it more forceable enforced those regulation, many more workers did not become job fatalities. And all along the process there has been that pro corporate chorus saying that saving those lives will hurt the business,, the greatest of sins.

It's generally true that (1) not all risk can be eliminated, and (2) many of the most egregious risks can be mitigated by regulation and oversight. But it's short-sighted to focus on (2) as being an end in itself, without considering the economic impact of that regulation. There is always a trade-off between safety and profit (to some extent and in some degree). We could theoretically make deepwater drilling 100% safe by banning it--which would mean we all pay more for gas, and the hundreds of thousands of people directly/indirectly employed by the industry would be unemployed. It's important to recognize that there are tradeoffs to any decision to regulate.

FFT: common sense does not appeal to people of Isi's mindset.

fan_from_texas;404281 wrote:It's generally true that (1) not all risk can be eliminated, and (2) many of the most egregious risks can be mitigated by regulation and oversight. But it's short-sighted to focus on (2) as being an end in itself, without considering the economic impact of that regulation. There is always a trade-off between safety and profit (to some extent and in some degree). We could theoretically make deepwater drilling 100% safe by banning it--which would mean we all pay more for gas, and the hundreds of thousands of people directly/indirectly employed by the industry would be unemployed. It's important to recognize that there are tradeoffs to any decision to regulate.

The curing most egregious violations not being a high priority, really, that is obviously BP’s policy.

“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
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,
….
In 2007, a BP pipeline spill poured 200,000 gallons of crude oil into the pristine Alaskan wilderness. In researching the environmental hazard, investigators discovered BP was aware of corrosion along the pipeline where the leak occurred but did not respond appropriately”
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bps-dismal-safety-record/story?id=10763042&page=1

And they pay some fines that hardly cut into their corporate profits

fan_from_texas;404281 wrote:It's generally true that (1) not all risk can be eliminated, and (2) many of the most egregious risks can be mitigated by regulation and oversight. But it's short-sighted to focus on (2) as being an end in itself, without considering the economic impact of that regulation. There is always a trade-off between safety and profit (to some extent and in some degree). We could theoretically make deepwater drilling 100% safe by banning it--which would mean we all pay more for gas, and the hundreds of thousands of people directly/indirectly employed by the industry would be unemployed. It's important to recognize that there are tradeoffs to any decision to regulate.

FFT you can't use common sense with isadore, it just doesn't work.