Originally Posted by
SanHeChuan
I've answered you question, did I miss your answer to mine?
I actually felt those were answered in my previous post. In a nutshell, it's the Judicial Branch's responsibility to deal with the spill's consequences, not the Executive or Legislative Branch's responsibility. If you still are unsure of my stance, ask again and I'll answer those specifically.
Originally Posted by
SanHeChuan
The waivers didn't start with Obama, and aren't special compensation for donations. They are business as usual for the MMS. And as for Mr. Patton, he was operating under the rule and regulations of the MMS as he knew them.
Who cares who they started with. Let's say Bush gave out 5,382 waivers. Let's even say Bush openly sold the waivers. Obama promised "Change", so where is it?
And BP Oil also operated under the rules and regulations of the MMS. So why was their CEO grilled by Congress while Mr Patton was not?
Originally Posted by
SanHeChuan
The waiver was only to avoid an environmental impact study before drilling. Had they done that study do you really think, that they would have come up with an answer that would lead them to deny BP’s request to drill? They were over confident that nothing could go wrong, because nothing had gone wrong, in US waters at least.
The well blew up because the BP employees on the rig ingored warning signs, BP did not inspect thier equimpment as required, and because BP allowed the rig to operate with only one B.O.P., dispite the fact that almost every other rig was using two B.O.P.'s.
So it's all BP's fault?
Face it, they were operating lawfully, and 100% within the regulations. You finding ways to completely absolve Gov't in ANY way is getting ridiculous. At least I admit it's partially BP's fault, and partially the Federal Government's fault.
Originally Posted by
SanHeChuan
In this case the rule/regulations that were suppose to prevent this were messed up.
By Mr Patton, yes. Yet he gets a pass.
Originally Posted by
SanHeChuan
I would like more light on what changes are being made. And I would like to see tougher penalties for public servants who engage in bribery.
But according to you, it was all BP's fault. So if it's 100% their fault, why would we need to toughen the penalties for bribery? According to you there was no bribery in this case at all.
When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams