Rush Limbaugh: "Environmentalist Whackos blew it up!"

[Dorian Gray]

He is just noteing the timing.

You know, Rush Limbaugh is not a politician.

If liberals take him seriously and are angered, they only have themselves to blame.

What if, as is more likely, conservatives take him seriously and are angered?

By the way, everyone, Rush just said that there's nothing to worry about, oil is natural, and the ocean will take care of everything.

 

[Unabogie]

What if, as is more likely, conservatives take him seriously and are angered?

By the way, everyone, Rush just said that there's nothing to worry about, oil is natural, and the ocean will take care of everything.

Jokes! He didn't mean it! He also said that global warming was a hoax and we've had no warming for 15 years! Just jokes!!!

Oh wait, he was serious about that part? So which should I take seriously and which should I laugh off?

Dittoheading is hard.

 

[DavidJames]

So which should I take seriously and which should I laugh off?

That's beauty, you get to choose. You like what he says, he's serious. You think he says something stupid, he's kidding.

ConsevativeSpeak - Words mean whatever you want them to mean.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Jokes! He didn't mean it! He also said that global warming was a hoax and we've had no warming for 15 years! Just jokes!!!

Oh wait, he was serious about that part? So which should I take seriously and which should I laugh off?

Dittoheading is hard.

Easy, when you're talking to the initiated then he is a brilliant man standing up to liberal lies. When you're talking to liberals and rational conservatives who know he's full of it just pretend that it was all a joke.

 

[Piggy]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that Bush/Cheney means their administration, just like anything the Obama administration does can be said to have been done by Obama. Of course there are exceptions, like actions by the DOJ, which are technically supposed to be done independent of the Executive, but I think you're just playing a semantic game and everyone else got the gist...

No, I'm not playing a semantic game.

Do you believe that Bush and Cheney were behind that decision?

(I'm not saying they weren't, btw.)

If so, then what's your evidence for that?

My apologies in advance if you've already posted a cite and I've missed it.

Thanks.

 

[Unabogie]

No, I'm not playing a semantic game.

Do you believe that Bush and Cheney were behind that decision?

(I'm not saying they weren't, btw.)

If so, then what's your evidence for that?

My apologies in advance if you've already posted a cite and I've missed it.

Thanks.

I posted a link earlier in this thread about the Bush administration nixing a recommendation to use the acoustic valve because it was too expensive. The sent it back for "further study". The link was from the WSJ.

 

[shawmutt]

When a talk show host has the leader of the Republican party kissing his ass, he's more than a shock jock. He was, of course, only kidding around this time.

So just because he threw out a theory one day does not mean he is confusing supposition with fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH!!!!! Hooo boy, now that right there is funny.

Try listening to Rush Limbaugh. His show, I mean, not what people say he says.

 

[Piggy]

I posted a link earlier in this thread about the Bush administration nixing a recommendation to use the acoustic valve because it was too expensive. The sent it back for "further study". The link was from the WSJ.

Would you mind terribly re-posting the link, if you have it handy?

If not, I can go dig it up.

But as you say, what happens in any given administration is not necessarily the result of what the POTUS and VP are doing.

You might consider it semantics, but to me, there's a very real difference between saying that "the Bush administration" took some action, versus "Bush/Cheney" took some action.

Then again, that's my line of work, so I'm a bit of a wonk.

 

[Unabogie]

Would you mind terribly re-posting the link, if you have it handy?

If not, I can go dig it up.

But as you say, what happens in any given administration is not necessarily the result of what the POTUS and VP are doing.

You might consider it semantics, but to me, there's a very real difference between saying that "the Bush administration" took some action, versus "Bush/Cheney" took some action.

Then again, that's my line of work, so I'm a bit of a wonk.

Here is the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

But are we back to the semantics? I have no idea if Bush or Cheney personally intervened on this or if they merely had a policy of always siding with oil companies and sent that out as a memo ("ALWAYS SIDE WITH BP, LOVE DICK"). All I know is that the issue was on the table, and under Bush, the valve that would have stopped this catastrophe, and is in place in other countries, was rejected.

 

[Piggy]

Here is the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212031417936798.html

But are we back to the semantics? I have no idea if Bush or Cheney personally intervened on this or if they merely had a policy of always siding with oil companies and sent that out as a memo ("ALWAYS SIDE WITH BP, LOVE DICK"). All I know is that the issue was on the table, and under Bush, the valve that would have stopped this catastrophe, and is in place in other countries, was rejected.

No, I don't think we're "back to the semantics" -- it's just that different people have different tolerances for precision in language... and come to that, even from person to person it depends on the subject.

Here's what the article says:

The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well.

So if this is accurate (and I assume it is) then the MMS decided that an acoustic switch would be redundant. And apparently only 2 other nations in the world have decided otherwise.

So before I (meaning me, personally, not trying to get generic here) asserted that "Bush/Cheney" killed the idea, I'd want to know whether they had any input into the decision, or even knew that it was before the MMS.

From my point of view, it's one thing to say that a mandate for an acoustic switch was killed during the Bush/Cheney administration, and quite another thing to say that Bush/Cheney killed the mandate.

Ymmv, but to me, that's a significant distinction.

And in the interest of full disclosure, it should also be mentioned that the article notes that we have no way of knowing whether an acoustic switch would have made any difference in this incident anyway.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Unabogie, you seem to be forgetting that the Congress has play in this. The Congress in 2000-2004 was mostly GOP, so Congress, in the larger sense, was very open to quite a bit of dereg sentiment in the energy business. I remember this with some clarity, as the noise regarding "make ourselves independent of those rag heads and their oil" got out in full voice.

Bush and Cheney need not have lifted a finger, as the lobbies went into a full court press in Congress.

Just sayin', since legislation, regulation and law are the provenance of Congress. But I'm guessing W wasn't going to veto much dereg ... but this isn't a matter of dereg, it's a matter of getting a regulation passed.

DR

 

[Unabogie]

No, I don't think we're "back to the semantics" -- it's just that different people have different tolerances for precision in language... and come to that, even from person to person it depends on the subject.

Here's what the article says:



So if this is accurate (and I assume it is) then the MMS decided that an acoustic switch would be redundant. And apparently only 2 other nations in the world have decided otherwise.

So before I (meaning me, personally, not trying to get generic here) asserted that "Bush/Cheney" killed the idea, I'd want to know whether they had any input into the decision, or even knew that it was before the MMS.

From my point of view, it's one thing to say that a mandate for an acoustic switch was killed during the Bush/Cheney administration, and quite another thing to say that Bush/Cheney killed the mandate.

Ymmv, but to me, that's a significant distinction.

And in the interest of full disclosure, it should also be mentioned that the article notes that we have no way of knowing whether an acoustic switch would have made any difference in this incident anyway.

I'm no expert here, but what the article says is that even though the device has never been put to the test because the primary shut off systems almost always work, and this leak is very, very far underwater,having one in place now would provide a means to shut off what cannot now be shut off at all. The fact that it's possible the device could also possibly fail isn't an argument against using it or having it. I have never, ever used my emergency break in a car, and frankly I have no idea if it would help, but it's there as an added safeguard. The engineers seem to think this is important. And I'm sure there are lots of engineers who think this would have prevented this problem and none of them are interviewed for this story.

For me, though, the telling part of that story is the the Bushies didn't reject it because they thought it wouldn't work. They said, quote, "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

It seems as though they made a decision based on profits and not safety.

 

[Unabogie]

Unabogie, you seem to be forgetting that the Congress has play in this. The Congress in 2000-2004 was mostly GOP, so Congress, in the larger sense, was very open to quite a bit of dereg sentiment in the energy business. I remember this with some clarity, as the noise regarding "make ourselves independent of those rag heads and their oil" got out in full voice.

Bush and Cheney need not have lifted a finger, as the lobbies went into a full court press in Congress.

Just sayin', since legislation, regulation and law are the provenance of Congress. But I'm guessing W wasn't going to veto much dereg ... but this isn't a matter of dereg, it's a matter of getting a regulation passed.

DR

Couldn't the MMS (which I have to admit I've never heard of until now) have put this regulation in place? The way that article reads, they had that authority. And I don't think it's just the GOP by the way. We have a very business friendly congress, even now. And I'm fine with that as long as our safety is taken seriously. This could be a big thread derail, but deregulation almost always leads to disaster since companies need to compete to the utmost level that the law allows.

 

[Piggy]

I'm no expert here, but what the article says is that even though the device has never been put to the test because the primary shut off systems almost always work, and this leak is very, very far underwater,having one in place now would provide a means to shut off what cannot now be shut off at all. The fact that it's possible the device could also possibly fail isn't an argument against using it or having it. I have never, ever used my emergency break in a car, and frankly I have no idea if it would help, but it's there as an added safeguard. The engineers seem to think this is important. And I'm sure there are lots of engineers who think this would have prevented this problem and none of them are interviewed for this story.

For me, though, the telling part of that story is the the Bushies didn't reject it because they thought it wouldn't work. They said, quote, "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly."

It seems as though they made a decision based on profits and not safety.

The Bushies?

Can you tell me who was on staff at MMS when the decision was made, and who put them there? How do you know that "Bushies" made the decision?

And the way I read the article, the decision was made because it was determined not to be cost-effective since other measures were already in place which were deemed sufficient to contain any potential problems.

The fact that this turned out to be wrong does not mean that the evidence at that time did not actually support such a conclusion.

As for your car, there are certainly many potential safety devices which could have been added to it, but which would be superfluous.

Full disclosure: Bush was a disaster. Completely incompetent. Chaos knows how long we'll be paying for his administration's astounding mismanagement of government. But that doesn't mean that his leadership was somehow responsible for the decision not to make acoustic switches mandatory, or that this decision was wrong given what was known at the time.

 

[Piggy]

The Congress in 2000-2004 was mostly GOP, so Congress, in the larger sense, was very open to quite a bit of dereg sentiment in the energy business.

The previous Democratic Congress was just as pro-dereg.

 

[Unabogie]

The Bushies?

Can you tell me who was on staff at MMS when the decision was made, and who put them there? How do you know that "Bushies" made the decision?

And the way I read the article, the decision was made because it was determined not to be cost-effective since other measures were already in place which were deemed sufficient to contain any potential problems.

The fact that this turned out to be wrong does not mean that the evidence at that time did not actually support such a conclusion.

As for your car, there are certainly many potential safety devices which could have been added to it, but which would be superfluous.

Full disclosure: Bush was a disaster. Completely incompetent. Chaos knows how long we'll be paying for his administration's astounding mismanagement of government. But that doesn't mean that his leadership was somehow responsible for the decision not to make acoustic switches mandatory, or that this decision was wrong given what was known at the time.

And yet they also list several companies who do it on a purely voluntary basis, so obviously, there are people who see it as a smart idea.

And if not the Bushies, who? MMS is an executive branch department. If the EPA makes a decision under Obama, that's on Obama. If MMS makes a decision (in this case based on cost) under Bush, that's on Bush. You keep trying to say that Bush isn't responsible for what happened on his watch. This is one of those cases where that's just silly to argue.

By the way, a cursory look at wikipedia shows that MMS under Bush was, shall we say, less than effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Management_Service#Controversy

Interior Department officials, while handling billions of dollars in oil and gas royalty payments, engaged in illicit sex with industry employees and accepted meals, drinks, ski junkets and golf outings from major oil companies, internal investigators reported Wednesday.

Interior Department Inspector General Earl Devaney's release of three reports, which stem from a $5 million investigation dating to 2005, implicated at least 19 current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service in unethical relationships with industry, frolics that included marijuana and cocaine use.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The previous Democratic Congress was just as pro-dereg.

The previous Congress was pro dereg, sure, but IIRC, from 1994 to 2000, the House went GOP. Probably not fair to refer to that as a Democratic Congress, is it?

DR

 

[Unabogie]

The previous Congress was pro dereg, sure, but IIRC, from 1994 to 2000, the House went GOP. Probably not fair to refer to that as a Democratic Congress, is it?

DR

The House went GOP from 1994-2006. The Senate briefly changed hands when Jeffords switched to Democratic shortly before 9/11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jeffords#Departure_from_the_GOP

 

[Piggy]

You keep trying to say that Bush isn't responsible for what happened on his watch.

I've never said that. In fact, I said explicitly that I'm not saying that Bush wasn't responsible. I have no idea to what degree he was responsible for that decision -- directly or indirectly -- or whether it was the right decision or not.

All I was asking you was who made those decisions and who put those decision-makers in those positions.

Obviously, you don't know, and neither do I.

So you may be willing to say that the idea was killed by Bush/Cheney. I'm not, because I don't know that this is actually the case. All I know is that the proposal to mandate acoustic switches was turned down during the Bush administration.

Who all was involved in that decision, who hired and promoted them and when, the totality of evidence they were looking at, the presence or absence or degree of any political pressure from outside the agency... I have no clue.

And that's all there is to that, I reckon.

 

[Unabogie]

I've never said that. In fact, I said explicitly that I'm not saying that Bush wasn't responsible. I have no idea to what degree he was responsible for that decision -- directly or indirectly -- or whether it was the right decision or not.

All I was asking you was who made those decisions and who put those decision-makers in those positions.

Obviously, you don't know, and neither do I.

So you may be willing to say that the idea was killed by Bush/Cheney. I'm not, because I don't know that this is actually the case. All I know is that the proposal to mandate acoustic switches was turned down during the Bush administration.

Who all was involved in that decision, who hired and promoted them and when, the totality of evidence they were looking at, the presence or absence or degree of any political pressure from outside the agency... I have no clue.

And that's all there is to that, I reckon.

I'll concede the point that we don't know who exactly made this decision. Would you support a congressional inquiry to find out?

By the way, did you read those articles about MMS I linked to? They were literally in bed with the oil industry. Literally. They were taking graft left and right. I think we can both agree that during Bush's reign, regulating the oil industry wasn't a high priority, judging by who he put in place and how they behaved.