I have been reading a lot of backlash from all sides of the aisle after President Obama gave his speech last night. The headlines are:
President of Change Unwilling to Tackle US Oil Addiction – Der Spiegel
Obama should be thanking BP, not demonizing it – The Telegraph
No gushing over Obama's oil spill spiel – The Guardian
Even long standing ardent supports of Obama spoke out against the speech. Olbermann quipped after the speech, "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Matthews quipped after the speech, "I don't sense executive command" and even compared Obama to President Carter. Howard Fineman was the tamest of the trio after the speech by quipping, "He wasn't specific enough." Did President Obama fall short? Did President Obama convince the American public and those directly affected by the oil spill?
I did not get to watch the spiel but I did read the transcript. President Obama is correct that we need to wane ourselves from our addiction on foreign oil. The President was a bit off on the amount of oil we have available in North America and why rigs are forced into deeper waters. While writing this blog entry BP announced that it would set up a $20 billion fund to assist those affected by the oil spill. President Obama announced that one of his Czar's would oversee the fund. But I digress. The way to help American's with their addiction of oil is to give them more.
Hear me out. Per President Obama, America uses 20% of the oil consumed in the world. It is time that America increases their use to push the green agenda. If the goal is to really move toward only green energy we need to deplete the resource that feeds our addiction. Let's drill all the oil we can from North America and use it like the gluttons we are. Bring back the SUV's that get 13 mpg and demand that all Americans drive these vehicles only for the next ten years to burn up as much oil as we can. I know this an out of the box idea but let's use our strength's as America to push the green agenda.
Moronic. Idiotic. Ludicrous. Ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAnon
ReplyDeleteMy solution proposed was meant to be tongue n cheek. Since you responded so eloquently, I wonder if my idea is any less “Moronic. Idiotic. Ludicrous. Ridiculous.” than the outlandish spending that was plagued Congress over the past 5 years. The CBO, and others, are anticipated that our debt will be over 30% of GDP by 2025 and possibly our 80% by 2035. So tell me which idea more insane: Using the entire world’s oil quickly to push a green agenda or spending the United States into receivership?
The deal or shall I say demand or shakedown by President Obama of BP’s $20 billion fund borders on the line of socialism. Not to mention the raising of its Constitutionality. BP already said it would pay legit claims. The BP fund is TARP part 2 and is another slush fund.
Is there an order from the White House requiring it? Was a law passed requiring it? Is the President forcing them to do it? Seems like they agreed, to me. They might not have liked their other options, but they still agreed.
ReplyDeleteToph
ReplyDeletePlease. There was a deal struck and arm twisting was done by the President. I will be suprised if Attorney General's investigation of BP goes anywhere now. We can use all the jargon we want, the fund is a payoff. If it is not that then why not allow BP to handle the claims as they come? Why are we having the Pay Czar involved? UNIONS!!!!!
Of course there was. So what? They weren't forced to. They could have said no. They knew they would get bent over by the public. It saves millions and millions and millions in legal fees. You don't think BP would drag every lawsuit out as long as possible and hope to settle for pennies on the dollar?
ReplyDeleteTo me, everyone wins in the long run.
The lawsuit isn't going anywhere. The AG and President will get bent over just like BP if there isn't.
As I said, we can use semantics to describe how BP came to their final outcome. A dangerous slope has been established. What is to prevent the President from demanding a similar slush fund from another industry. If someplace like Brazil or China demanded an American company do the same we'd be up in arms.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the fund may stem the tide of lawsuits. I just feel worse now for those in the Gulf because this money will not get to those really that require it. It will go to Union shops and other areas that are favorable to the administration.
You're an idiot. Really Viper. To continue my use of eloquent language. Get a fucking clue!
ReplyDeleteYou're mad because the President stood up for the victims of the worst environmental disaster in American history and demanded that BP compensate legitimate claims of victims? Really? And I'm sure that you would have been just fine with BP litigating the hell out of this for decades. They can take a page out of Exxon's book. A payoff. Yeah, again, get a clue! I would hope to God that there was arm twisting! And you honestly believe that this sets a dangerous precedent? In some ways, I hope it does. If another company fucks up royally and causes an environmental disaster on this scale, yes, I hope they do preemptively set aside billions of dollars to compensate the legitimate claims of victims.
How are you so sure that the $20,000,000,000 will go to "Union shops and other areas [whatever the fuck that is] that are favorable to the administration"? Is that what has happened with the 9/11 fund? Since you obviously have no clue, Ken Feinberg is the guy who administered that fund and will be administering this fund.
I just can't get over your complete lack of intelligence and conspiracy theorist bullshit!
Why don't you just go back to what you were really doing earlier tonight and finish that letter of apology to BP on behalf of the American people right now.
"Dear Mr. Hayward,
First, I want to thank you for all that you and BP have done for the U.S. You bring us all the petroleum products we could ever want. You are the greatest.
Secondly, don't worry about that little issue in the Gulf. It's a big ocean. Plus, it's a mile under water. There's no way that this is going to be a big issue. People just need to calm down.
But, the real reason I wrote this letter is to apologize for all the trouble that we, the American people and our elected officials have caused you. I totally understand that you "want your life back". It can't be fun for you. I mean really, what's a little oil in the ocean? It's no big deal. But the gall of our President. Who is he to stand up for the American people and the alleged "victims" of this little seepage of oil?
I'm so sorry that you've been forced to set aside one year's worth of profits to pay all these lazy, welfare seeking money sucking leeches. They really need to be happy that your company will still provide us with all the oil we'll ever need. I hope you know that this money is just going to fund the Chicago style politics of this President, all his cronies, his Muslim brothers, the terrorists that he pals around with and of course, last but not least, the Unions. What a bunch of lazy fuckers!
Anyways, sorry again. It's a shame that there aren't more people like Joe Barton in our country. If there were, then you wouldn't have to waste so much of your time dealing with this little problem. Don't give it a second thought.
Chris Lund
Anon
ReplyDeleteI am not mad at President Obama standing up for the victims of the Gulf. Remind you that BP is not alone in this. There are two other companies and a whole host of regulators that signed off. Why are we not focusing on the regulators that allowed the variances and signed off on BP actions? Because that would be a stain on Obama and it is easier to go after the evil corporate giant; even after they gave you money to campaign with.
President Obama has not lifted the Jones Act to allow other countries to help us in the clean up efforts. Many skimmers have been held off the waters because they do not contain Union workers. Why is that? I am not against penalizing a company for the devastation created but let’s do it correctly. As I said, I will be very surprised if Attorney General Holder moves forward with his investigation into BP’s decisions. I understand the Ken Feinberg assisted in the funds after 9/11 and a lot of the money did go to Unions. Remember a lot of those that died in the aftermath of the towers falling were Union employees.
It is unfortunate that you are stuck in your ideological stance and cannot see what is going on and must resort to vulgar language to punctuate your point. Gov Jindal was bent today because skimmers were being held in port by the Coast Guard, why are they not deploying them?
Because the skimmer boats (at the time) weren't operating legally. They were held in port for approx 24 hours to ensure that they had the proper operating and safety equipment. Sounds like a pretty good idea since that's exactly what the regulators DIDN'T do with the oil well, huh?
ReplyDeleteAnd, the boats weren't even fully inspected. It took "calls to the White House" for the boats to be released. Isn't that the kind of "bending-of-the-rules" and avoiding-regulations that caused this mess up (and that you're against) in the first place?
So let's say we focus on the regulators. Are they now supposed to come up with $20,000,000,000? Should that really be the immediate focus while people directly affected by this spill sit there and have no income?
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as the Jones Act (never knew you were an expert in Maritime Law), per Thad Allen, no waivers have been requested even though they've developed an expedited process for approval.
Finally, please tell me what ideological stance prevents me from being able to comprehend the wisdom of your ideas? I'd love to hear it.
Oh, one more thing. Your union comments are pretty funny. In an earlier comment you stated that this "slush fund" will go "to Union shops and other areas that are favorable to the administration" clearly implying some sort of misappropriation. Don't even try to deny that little shot. Mind you this is all before the money has even been set aside by BP.
ReplyDeleteThen when I mention Ken Feinberg's role as the administrator of the 9/11 fund, you do one of two things by casually mentioning that a lot of the people receiving money from that fund were union. You are either: (1) implying that money from the 9/11 fund was misappropriated and given to unions based upon their allegiance to a political party; or (2) proving that your previous shot at unions was hollow (money went to union people because the people harmed were in unions. Which is it?
Anon
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge that some vessels were held in port because of not having enough life preservers as for the not being fully inspected I had not heard that part. Yes, it would be wise to ensure the boats have been properly inspected so they are capable doing the job intended.
I am not a Maritime Law expert but it does not take one to read the Jones Act and understand it. Gov Jindal had made repeated attempts to get Dutch and other countries to assist but has been denied because President Obama would not lift the Jones Act. Some suspect that it is due to the use on non-Union crews on the other vessels. Let’s face it, the Obama administration and stumbled their way through this one. Guess that is what we get when we elect a community organizer to the highest position in the land.
And no, I do not expect the regulators to come up with $20 Billion but let’s not place all the blame at the feet of BP. A lot of the blame yes but not all. Had regulators done their jobs and forced BP to put in the safety measures this oil spill could have been prevented.
Where your ideological blinders come into play is that if an American company was paraded before another country like BP, the progressives would be all up in arms. Especially if that company contained Union employees.
I'm glad that "some suspect" that the Jones Act hasn't been lifted because of "non-union crews" on certain ships. Sounds like solid factual reporting.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know that the explosion, fire and collapse of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and subsequent spill could have been prevented if regulators had done their job? You're one smart cookie!
Let's look at your guess as to why my ideological blinders are preventing me from understanding your wisdom. According to your logic, the progressives in the UK should be up in arms about BP being paraded before the US. Unfortunatley that theory doesn't seem to hold true. Yes, it's my theory, but tell me why it's wrong or tell me why the Lib-Dems or the Labour party in the UK aren't (or at least don't appear to be) too outraged over BP being paraded before the US. Even the Torries are pretty quiet on this one.
I know. Chicago politics. Obama paid them off.
So you take a heroin addict and instead of weening them off heroin you force feed it to them until they're so bloated and toxified that the supply of heroin runs out? What if the heroin addict dies prior to you running out of heroin?
ReplyDeleteStupid stupid stupid idea even as a tongue in cheek one. By the way, typically, people making tongue in cheek remarks follow their remark with the real intent of the commentary. This is done so it is clear to the reader that it is indeed tongue in cheek. You only do so after being called moronic, a comment which I agree with by the way with regards to your "tongue in cheek" post. I say that because your method of debate is disingenuous to say the least and more likely outright dishonest in it's nature.
What I find most interesting here though, is that for someone who claims deregulation is the answer to the worlds dreams and free market aspirations, you sure seem happy to place the blame for the failures in this disaster squarely at their feet. Now I'm sure you'll come back with some ill concieved response stating that your intent wasn't to hold ONLY the regulators responsible but let me preclude that response by pointing out how outrageously transparent it and your prior posts are in their intent - an intent bent on placing the blame for this on the very government you rail against daily.
So to my original point, which is it Chris, are you a free marketer who believes in deregulation or are you a socialist who believes the government is ultimately responsible for everything?
I suspect you're a faux free-marketer until a business falls into their own deregulated shit pile and then you want the government to bail them out. I come to this conclusion based upon the fact that you rail against big government and bailouts with your right side of your mouth and then beg for state/federal funding to help Hamburg pay for an improved sewage treatment plant out of the left. In other words, its only bad until it's helping you - then it's good.
That's hypocrisy in action man, plain and simple but then, I've called you on it before havne't I?
A piece of advice though.
Stop calling yourself an independent since it's most evident to everyone here that you are nothing but a far right leaning republican based upon the crap you regurgitate nightly after watching Hannity or Beck.
At least if you were honest with us in your intent and beliefs we could accept your hypocrisy as fruit of the poisonous tree and deal with you on a level playing field. But your continually putting yourself forward as an independent who is only debating the "truth" here is a charade and nothing more. You are neither intent on debating nor on truth - you are intent on nailing an administration to the cross because you don't believe in their political ideology.
So perhaps you should work for the source of the "truth" you claim to be searching for and debating here - Fox news. At least then you'd be at home with a group of reporters whose "tongue in cheek" comments and "evidence" are are as disingenuous as your own.
“So to my original point, which is it Chris, are you a free marketer who believes in deregulation or are you a socialist who believes the government is ultimately responsible for everything?”
ReplyDeleteI am a free marketer. That being said, if the government feels compelled to spend my tax money on regulators then I do expect that they will do their job. The New York Times is running a story today that discovers that fail-safe device, known as blind shear ram, was signed off by regulators without ensuring the device was actually there and didn’t ask for the test results that would have made sure the device worked.( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us/21blowout.html?ref=global-home)
Even though Corporations ultimate responsibility is to their shareholders, they do, or should, have the moral fortitude to not cut corners. When a company like BP or Goldman Sachs, or GM find hard times because of their own doing, no I do not see where the government should step in and bail them out. Now, with the oil spill cleanup we enter into a different realm of government assistance.
BP will be held accountable there is no question about that. As for your assertion that I think a bailout is required by the state for the unfunded mandate place on Hamburg I/I issue, if the state or federal government mandates something to take place then there ought to be funds available for towns, like Hamburg, to achieve the mandate. It is not being hypocritical on my part. The kicker of the I/I issue is that if Hamburg does not rectify it, the city will be on the hook to pay penalties and fines.
So did you read just the first page of that NY Times article? Or all 9 pages? Come on, be honest. You saw this,
ReplyDelete"It reveals that the federal agency charged with regulating offshore drilling, the Minerals Management Service, repeatedly declined to act on advice from it's own experts on how it could minimize the risk of a blind shear ram failure. It also shows that the Obama administration failed to grapple with either the well-known weaknesses of blowout preventers or the sufficiency of the nation's drilling regulations even as it made plans this spring to expand offshore oil exploration."
And said "Case closed!!!"
Anon
ReplyDeleteIs that how many pages it was? I read the entire story on my blackberry this morning. Did you read the entire story? I did find it very enlightening that most rigs have two of those droids and it was decided, because of space constraints, to only have one on this rig. Mind you that the government agency, under Obama’s watch, did sign off on it. So, to answer you original question I read it completely. The article was refreshing as it shed light on failures to revamp the cozy relationship promised by Obama and for the Times to publish it too. Perhaps journalism may make a comeback.
"That being said, if the government feels compelled to spend my tax money on regulators then I do expect that they will do their job."
ReplyDeleteSo, you're a free marketer unless the government is regulatory, then you're for strong regulation? That makes no sense and I think you know it. Make up your mind and quit trying to walk that middle road of intellectual indecision.
"Even though Corporations ultimate responsibility is to their shareholders, they do, or should, have the moral fortitude to not cut corners."
Yes, because history has proven that corporations have the societies best interests in mind. This is my greatest issue with libertarianism - the idea of an absolute free market. I struggle with it for the reason I stated above - that corporations have proven they DO NOT have societies interests in mind. I think this is the achilles heel of Libertarianism much like greed was the achilles heel of Communism.
Read "The smartest men in the room" or better yet "The Jungle" or any of a number of other books that show what corporations do to citizens of this country if regulation doesn't protect us. That's why I'm a libertarian who supports limited by EXTREMELY strong regulations. One of them is a the simple idea that if you break it, you're liable for ALL costs to fix it. The government is in no way on the hook to fix this problem. Was MMS poorly run and too cozy, absolutely. But it's been that way for 30 years, since just after the oil crisis of the late 70's when Reagan took office.
And as to Hamburg, federal/state mandates happen all the time that are unfunded. But that was never your argument in the past. You said the reason was that Hamburg could not grow economically without additional resources invested in waste treatment and that the artificial cap was set by the state. I can go back and quote you if you'd like. The fact that you grew without the investment and now exceed the federal/state mandate is putting the effect ahead of cause. Think of it as the cart before the horse.
If you want to grow, fund it. If you don't fund it, and exceed the guidelines set, expect to pay taxes through penalties. There was no requirement to grow and exceed the cap the state set. Your community chose to do so without investing in the necessary resources. Either way, it's your localities responsibility, not the state/federal governments. Only Hamburg's tax dollars should be used to fix Hamburg's mess. Don't think that because you grew and exceeded the rules now it's the states problem, it's not.
Being a free marketer while recognizing that some government regulation is needed is not attempting to walk “that middle road of intellectual indecision”; rather I know that greed is the Achilles heel of a totally free market. The greed men display has always been the undoing. I agree with you that some regulation is needed and if the government is going to implement regulations then apply them. In the case of the oil rig, regulators failed Americans. These regulators need to be held accountable.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that the MMS has been cozy with the oil industry and Obama ran on a platform to change that. He has been in office nearly two years and it is under his watch that we are experiencing the worst oil spill in American history.
Yes, you are correct the reason why Hamburg cannot attract new business or homes is due to the I/I capacity being maxed. As for our tax dollars, residents of Hamburg are the highest taxed households in Carver County and not all the tax money stays in the coffers of the city. My point for Hamburg to gain assistance is justified when other communities are getting community centers, bike paths, volleyball complexes, and other non-infrastructure money.
"Being a free marketer while recognizing that some government regulation is needed is not attempting to walk “that middle road of intellectual indecision”; rather I know that greed is the Achilles heel of a totally free market."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what you said Chris, you said, "I am a free marketer. That being said, if the government feels compelled to spend my tax money on regulators then I do expect that they will do their job."
Your quote implies that you are anti-regulation (thus the term free marketer). However, if the government chooses not to be free market, then you expect regulations to be enforced. That's like saying, I'm for the constitution, but if the government chooses to not uphold the constitution I expect them to do it to the full degree.
In other words, it makes no sense.
Thus my question again, are you for regulations or aren't you?
You can't be a free-marketer and be for regulations, those are contrarian positions. By definition, a free-market is, and I quote, "a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to enforce ownership ("property rights") and contracts."
If you are for some regulations other than those that support contracts and property rights, then you are, BY DEFINITION, not a free-marketer. Since the spill in the gulf is not about contracts or property rights per se, it should not be the governments pervue if you are a free-marketer and therefore the failures of the MMS are immaterial to the discussion since the MMS shouldn't exist in the first place.
So which is it Chris, because you seem to be walking that line you claim not to be walking. Me, I'm honest about my dislike for a pure free-market. I don't claim to be one. It's where I break with purist libertarians. I'm too pragmatic for that. I'm asking you to honestly stake a claim to your beliefs and more importantly understand what they mean. Because it feels like you are trying to be both sides of the coin.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteMMS exist and is part of cause for the oil spill. Now, regardless if one is a free marketer or not does not matter here as MMS exists. Philosophically I am a Free Marketer. The Free Market will set price/supply based on demand and resources to fill those demands. Academically speaking, as that is what comprises those within the Obama industry, regulations hamper growth and sustainable economics.
We both agree that to apply free market ideals on Main Street that greed and unscrupulous creatures seek to take advantage of opportunities. The moral compass gets lost as free will takes over.
I do agree that SOME regulation is needed. I work in the heaviest regulated realms of them all and while some are overreaching there are many in place to ensure the market reflects fair and honest trading. Even though, philosophically, I believe in the Free Market, I recognize that man, in the liberal sense of the term, has applied free will to fill their own glutton wants. If everyone transacted business with a moral fortitude we would have no need for regulations.
" If everyone transacted business with a moral fortitude we would have no need for regulations." Since we all have a different idea of what morality is, those with opposing morals can still carry them with fortitude, regulations are always necessary. And you mean your morals, correct?
ReplyDeleteIf my free will drives me to fill my glutton wants and I'm fine with that, my morals aren't in danger. So, philosophically, the free market is made for the man you seem to dislike.
You talk about fair and honesty but that is one man's idea of those terms.
"MMS exist and is part of cause for the oil spill."
ReplyDeleteWrong, but I'll allow you to explain yourself since you seem to think MMS was responsible for this in anyway.
That said, here's my argument why you're wrong. MMS in no way managed the drilling operations, rig operations or anything else associated with the failure of this rig and the subsequent disaster. According to whave I've read, MMS did not break any regulatory guidelines when managing the rig. Everything the rig did was within the required guidelines set by congress. Therefore, the MMS was doing EXACTLY what the regulatory atmosphere allowed them to do. Therefore, they COULD NOT be the cause of the rig disaster.
Now, that said, there are arguments that their oversight might have been laxed due to the cozy nature of their relationship to the industry, but that's not illegal nor is it a causation for responsibility. Again from everything I've heard that is reliable, even from those attacking MMS, have stated that nothing they did surrounding the Rig regulatory management was illegal or unethical.
Therefore, if there was a failure, it wasn't with MMS it was with the regulations themselves. That is the pervue of congress though, not MMS. MMS is an enforcement and management arm of government, not one that enacts new rules/legislations except where their charter authorizes it. And that charter is again set down by congress and the president.
"The Free Market will set price/supply based on demand and resources to fill those demands."
This is macro-economics, not free market philosophy.
And technically it is "The MARKET will set price/supply based on demand and resources to fill those demands."
These supply/demand forces occur even in socialist and communist nations.
"Academically speaking, as that is what comprises those within the Obama industry, regulations hamper growth and sustainable economics."
Ignoring your obvious, absurd and completely unnecessary sideways barb at the administration, regulation DOES NOT hamper growth and sustainable economics if it is applied evenly. This was shown in the meat packing industry in the 1800/1900's. They claimed that regulation would drive them out of business, but yet the records for that industry show that it flourished under the regulatory environment because consumer confidence in the safety of the product went up. So based upon this type of example, the argument that regulation stagnates economic growth and development is patently false.
"If everyone transacted business with a moral fortitude we would have no need for regulations."
I find it incredibly amusing that you are using the same moral absolutism argument that was used to support communism/socialism by Karl Marx.
The idea that there is some absolute morality that all humans abide by is wrong, and was proven so decades ago. Descriptive relativism states that two people will often make different moral decisions when faced with the same facts and consequences set before them. Scientific studies have proven this to be the case. Therefore, moral absolutism does not exist. Moreover, meta-ethical relativism states that descriptive relativism can be taken a step further and that variances in morality can often be attributed to upbringing, geography, social acceptability, etc.
Since this is the case, the purist idea of free-markets are always just as doomed to fail. Just like Communism was.
Kevin
ReplyDeleteWhat about the studies done that experts told MMS to require two blind shield rams due to the propensity of failure? Why did they sign off on the oil rig for allowing just one due to space constraints claimed by BP? Why didn’t MMS demand and follow up to obtain required, as per regulations, the test data to ensure the blind shield ram would work when called upon?
All of these things are where the MMS failed us. Did they do anything illegal? I am not sure on that. Unethical? Yes. They should have taken action on the study and they should have ensured the data was collected to ensure the one blind shield ram was working. Based on what I have read about the regulation about the test data, the request has to come from MMS and is not something that BP, or any other company, needs to perform proactively.
"What about the studies done that experts told MMS to require two blind shield rams due to the propensity of failure?"
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with the MMS being to blame and somehow a cause? Are the regulations laid down by congress requiring 2 rams and the MMS skirted this with an exception to the regulation? That would be a cause. I can find experts that say that deepwater drilling may cause spills, does that mean that the MMS should never have allowed the drilling in the first place?
Chris, you assume that because an expert says something, it is enough justification for MMS to change the regulations. It's not, and moreover they don't have the authority to change the regulations even if they wanted to.
Unless you have proof that the skirted or broke congressionally approved regulations managing this industry, MMS did exactly what they're required to do.
"Did they do anything illegal? I am not sure on that."
Yet you assert that there is liability here. That insinuates illegality. Nice cop out of an answer. You do this all the time, imply something then say "But I'm not sure about it". That's a Fox news smear tactic, nothing more. It's not honest debate.
"Unethical? Yes."
Exactly what was unethical? Please show me evidence that MMS broke their regulatory obligations? What you stated above only that MMS didn't go above and beyond their regulatory obligations, not that the breached them.
"They should have taken action on the study and they should have ensured the data was collected to ensure the one blind shield ram was working."
Show me the regulation that requires this and then confirm that MMS does not have the authority to excempt applicants from that regulation as deemed necessary. If the regulation does not exist, or if they DO have the authority to exempt, then they ARE NOT required to do this, no matter how much you say they are.
Again, MMS does not set regulation and from what I understand, the volume of loopholes in the regulation are big enough to drive a super-tanker through. And those loopholes were created by congress and the oil/gas industry. If there is blame in government it is in congress and the presidency when these laws were enacted, not with MMS.
That's because they only enforce the rules, not enact them. You seem to be missing this. And from what I've seen, nothing has been shown to be negligence on the part of MMS. They have not been shown to break any regulations.
And for a guy who wants free-markets, again I point out how intrusive you seem to want the regulatory environment to be in this specific case. Combine that with your fervor at laying sending barbs at the administration and your intent is clear, even if you won't be forthcoming about it.
To put my post in a nutshell Chris, you're blaming the cops for the robbery perpetrated by the criminal.
ReplyDeleteAre the police to blame for the fact that crime occurs? Or are they limited by the rules put in place to govern them by society?
So therefore, who is responsible for crime? I would argue that it's the criminal, not the cop.