Everything is George Bush's Fault

[segsurfer]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Conservative, espec. libertarian-type:

A person who wants free-enterprise to reign supreme, i.e "let the market take care of itself". In this case, the Drill baby, drill! mantra would apply....right up to the point where the free market proves yet again that it can be trusted only to put profits above all else, and it does something really stupid.

Then it's "Why didn't the government do something to keep this from happening, and why aren't they doing more now."

The hypocrisy is stunning.

At the risk of being drawn into this political shouting match, let me just say this; saying that all conservatives and libertarians are slaves to the free market economy is as ignorant as saying that all liberals are prius driving nut jobs who are drunk on Pelosi's rhetoric. I consider myself a libertarian, and while I am a strong supporter of the free market economy, I am not one to put profits above safety as was the case with the BP debacle. My primary motivation for identifying myself as a libertarian is because I'm fiscally conservative yet socially moderate; and so far, "libertarian" has been the best label to meet both those requirements. For the record, I'm a proud 6th generation Florida native. I was born a fisherman and I'll die a fisherman, and although I don't do it for a living, I feel for the watermen of the Gulf Coast. The spill affects not only the meat fisherman, but also the fishing guides, the boat captains, the restauranteurs, and all manor of other folks that live and work around the coast. It breaks my heart to think that the previous administration's regulatory negligence coupled with BP's unchecked greed allowed this to happen, however I'm as angry if not more so at the current administration's hinderance of the recovery effort (ie refusing to allow the construction of berms to protect the shoreline until an environmental impact study is done...WTF, OIL VS. SAND BERMS what the heck do you think is worse for the environment.) So there you go, I'm a PO'd, free market loving, safety conscious, water hippy; And I'm a libertarian. Have I sufficiently shattered your shallow, ill founded misconceptions about libertarians yet?
-segsurfer

[JohnM]

Bush's Fault? Obama's fault? Naayyyhh.

All the blame is equally shared by LBJ and Nixon. And we haven't learned a d@mn thing since. It's the same old mistakes over and over and over.....

If only Barry Goldwater had won in '64......

[KSagal]

I find this debate interesting.

I too, am a fiscal conservative, and social ... well, I am pretty socially traditional, but feel that the federal government has no place, nor most smaller government entities, in most social issues. I do not look to the government for moral guidance, but rather for certain functions, like keep the country secure, as in Armed forces and border integrity. (This includes port and product security shipped, flown, driven and bootlegged in)

I know in my heart that the federal government cannot constitutionally tell me to buy a product from a private company, like this current insurance bills do, but that is part of the moral imperative to change the basic freedoms that all Americans have, or used to have.

At the same time, the government does have the right, and quite possibly the responsibility to require that all products offered and surely those imposed on me are done so to a reasonable level of safety.

Insurance minimums for a car insurance policy is not a problem for me. Want the privilege to drive? It will cost you the freedom to either have insurance or post a bond to prove you have fiscal capacity to be responsible for your actions. That is okay.

It is nice an all to blame the Bush Administration for the oil spill, and make believe that it is because of the administrations actions that this happened, but are there any facts to support this? Was there something that Bush legislated that allowed BP to do this, when the previous administration or the following administration would not allow? I don't know, but also have not heard of anything.

I have heard that since shallow water permits were not obtainable, it forced more deep water drilling. Was this a Bush Administration legislative act that created this? Or does it go back farther? I would love to know.

I also wonder about any legislative responsibility that the Bush Administration has, because I always thought that congress passes legislation, and not the Executive branch.

I happen to think that both the Democrat party, and the Republican party are morally corrupt, and neither would I trust to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. They are only looking out for themselves and their cronies.

I believe the creators of our country had a better idea, in that the citizens should elect representatives and send them to Washington, then they serve for a while, and return to their homes and districts, and get on with their lives.

I believe that much of the corruption comes from a new class of autocrat, that did not exist in colonial times, and that is the professional politician.

Since the vast majority are lawyers, Billy S. said it best, our only real fix is to start by getting rid of them.

[KSagal]

Just a quick bit of research yielded the following information, offered for the edification of all.

This particular oil well platform was built during the end of the Clinton Administration. (Late 90's)

This particular oil well first went into service on February 23, 2001. (33 days into the Bush Administration.)

At the time of the accident, it was drilling in the Macondo Prospect oil field. This particular oil rig can drill a well, then move on to another area.

The Macondo Prospect oil field well permits were acquired by BP in August 2009, according to the department of the interior. I think that Obama was the administration in power at that time.

I could not find any reference to Bush doing anything specifically that changed the likelihood of this particular accident, or this particular drilling rig, over the previous or post administrations...

It was built during the Clinton Administration and there were no problems with it of this sort at the time.
It was used often and moved often during the Bush Administration, and there were no problems of this sort.
The permit to move it and drill where the problem occurred happened during the Obama Administration.

Yeah, seems obvious that this is all Bush's fault. NOT!

[segsurfer]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I find this debate interesting.

I too, am a fiscal conservative, and social ... well, I am pretty socially traditional, but feel that the federal government has no place, nor most smaller government entities, in most social issues. I do not look to the government for moral guidance, but rather for certain functions, like keep the country secure, as in Armed forces and border integrity. (This includes port and product security shipped, flown, driven and bootlegged in)

I know in my heart that the federal government cannot constitutionally tell me to buy a product from a private company, like this current insurance bills do, but that is part of the moral imperative to change the basic freedoms that all Americans have, or used to have.

At the same time, the government does have the right, and quite possibly the responsibility to require that all products offered and surely those imposed on me are done so to a reasonable level of safety.

Insurance minimums for a car insurance policy is not a problem for me. Want the privilege to drive? It will cost you the freedom to either have insurance or post a bond to prove you have fiscal capacity to be responsible for your actions. That is okay.

It is nice an all to blame the Bush Administration for the oil spill, and make believe that it is because of the administrations actions that this happened, but are there any facts to support this? Was there something that Bush legislated that allowed BP to do this, when the previous administration or the following administration would not allow? I don't know, but also have not heard of anything.

I have heard that since shallow water permits were not obtainable, it forced more deep water drilling. Was this a Bush Administration legislative act that created this? Or does it go back farther? I would love to know.

I also wonder about any legislative responsibility that the Bush Administration has, because I always thought that congress passes legislation, and not the Executive branch.

I happen to think that both the Democrat party, and the Republican party are morally corrupt, and neither would I trust to do the right thing, because it is the right thing. They are only looking out for themselves and their cronies.

I believe the creators of our country had a better idea, in that the citizens should elect representatives and send them to Washington, then they serve for a while, and return to their homes and districts, and get on with their lives.

I believe that much of the corruption comes from a new class of autocrat, that did not exist in colonial times, and that is the professional politician.

Since the vast majority are lawyers, Billy S. said it best, our only real fix is to start by getting rid of them.

Very well said, I too believe that a limited government is key. Although I take a moderate stance on social issues, I believe that the government deserves a say in very few of them. With that, I'm going back to being a passive observer; as more often than not these discussions degenerate into mindless drivel.
-segsurfer

[DarthSegVator]

Mindless drivel? What would life be without it?

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by DarthSegVator

Mindless drivel? What would life be without it?

All I know is that I have 7,225 posts of mindless drivel. I'll leave it to you to determine which of my posts are not.

[segsurfer]

Originally Posted by DarthSegVator

Mindless drivel? What would life be without it?

Originally Posted by KSagal

All I know is that I have 7,225 posts of mindless drivel. I'll leave it to you to determine which of my posts are not.

That's not to say that conversations with you guys are mindless drivel, merely political discussions of differing opinion in general. Given enough time, all political discussions of differing opinion will devolve into the classic "I know you are but what am I" format.
-segsurfer

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by segsurfer

That's not to say that conversations with you guys are mindless drivel, merely political discussions of differing opinion in general. Given enough time, all political discussions of differing opinion will devolve into the classic "I know you are but what am I" format.
-segsurfer

I appreciate your position, but I do not agree.

If two people are set in their ideology, they will spout off at each other as you suggest, but not all political discussions are that way.

I like a rousing debate. I like an impassioned one. But those do not always also include intransigent positions.

I have often believed an old saying that says, " if you are not a liberal when you are 20, you have no heart, and if you are not a conservative when you are 40, you have no brain."

Helping people to see the fallacy of failed ideology is a great calling. People do it all the time in many areas, religion, self awareness, financial responsibility, drug and alcohol abuse, and many more. Politics is just one more.

So, especially on the internet, while some are just here to spout and not listen, I always hope to learn, and if lucky, enlighten.