[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.

I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.

Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.

Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.

Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]

Brian,

Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.

[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]

For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.

Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.

[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: I hate to tell you this, but he won’t be answering you. Brian doesn’t like facts. For that matter, his other Leftist confederates, like IForget and Daniel, don’t either. Facts are incredibly bothersome and tend to wreck the rhetoric and polemic that Brian & Company put forth.

He doesn’t answer direct questions, nor, when confronted, does he provide counterarguments or meaningful ripostes.[/quote]

Allan,

I appreciate your response but I really only confront Brian with facts for two purposes.

1) Kill a thread that he has destroyed with non-arguments

2) Hope to get the topic back on discussion.

If I may ask. It was brought up earlier in the thread about Obama’s political strategy to the spill. In light of today’s news conference and the Sestak scandal what do you think is in store for the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: I hate to tell you this, but he won’t be answering you. Brian doesn’t like facts. For that matter, his other Leftist confederates, like IForget and Daniel, don’t either. Facts are incredibly bothersome and tend to wreck the rhetoric and polemic that Brian & Company put forth.

He doesn’t answer direct questions, nor, when confronted, does he provide counterarguments or meaningful ripostes.[/quote]

Allan,

I appreciate your response but I really only confront Brian with facts for two purposes.

1) Kill a thread that he has destroyed with non-arguments

2) Hope to get the topic back on discussion.

If I may ask. It was brought up earlier in the thread about Obama’s political strategy to the spill. In light of today’s news conference and the Sestak scandal what do you think is in store for the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: I hate to tell you this, but he won’t be answering you. Brian doesn’t like facts. For that matter, his other Leftist confederates, like IForget and Daniel, don’t either. Facts are incredibly bothersome and tend to wreck the rhetoric and polemic that Brian & Company put forth.

He doesn’t answer direct questions, nor, when confronted, does he provide counterarguments or meaningful ripostes.[/quote]

Allan,

I appreciate your response but I really only confront Brian with facts for two purposes.

1) Kill a thread that he has destroyed with non-arguments

2) Hope to get the topic back on discussion.

If I may ask. It was brought up earlier in the thread about Obama’s political strategy to the spill. In light of today’s news conference and the Sestak scandal what do you think is in store for the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: I hate to tell you this, but he won’t be answering you. Brian doesn’t like facts. For that matter, his other Leftist confederates, like IForget and Daniel, don’t either. Facts are incredibly bothersome and tend to wreck the rhetoric and polemic that Brian & Company put forth.

He doesn’t answer direct questions, nor, when confronted, does he provide counterarguments or meaningful ripostes.[/quote]

Allan,

I appreciate your response but I really only confront Brian with facts for two purposes.

1) Kill a thread that he has destroyed with non-arguments

2) Hope to get the topic back on discussion.

If I may ask. It was brought up earlier in the thread about Obama’s political strategy to the spill. In light of today’s news conference and the Sestak scandal what do you think is in store for the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Jim: I hate to tell you this, but he won’t be answering you. Brian doesn’t like facts. For that matter, his other Leftist confederates, like IForget and Daniel, don’t either. Facts are incredibly bothersome and tend to wreck the rhetoric and polemic that Brian & Company put forth.

He doesn’t answer direct questions, nor, when confronted, does he provide counterarguments or meaningful ripostes.[/quote]

Allan,

I appreciate your response but I really only confront Brian with facts for two purposes.

1) Kill a thread that he has destroyed with non-arguments

2) Hope to get the topic back on discussion.

If I may ask. It was brought up earlier in the thread about Obama’s political strategy to the spill. In light of today’s news conference and the Sestak scandal what do you think is in store for the next couple of weeks?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.

The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.

Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.

Welcome to the post-fact era.[/quote]

I think Brian would do well trying to shop medical malpractice lawsuits to Hillbillies in North Carolina with John Edwards. Can we line him up with John Edwards equivalent in the oil litigation industry?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.

The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.

Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.

Welcome to the post-fact era.[/quote]

I think Brian would do well trying to shop medical malpractice lawsuits to Hillbillies in North Carolina with John Edwards. Can we line him up with John Edwards equivalent in the oil litigation industry?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.

The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.

Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.

Welcome to the post-fact era.[/quote]

I think Brian would do well trying to shop medical malpractice lawsuits to Hillbillies in North Carolina with John Edwards. Can we line him up with John Edwards equivalent in the oil litigation industry?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.

The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.

Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.

Welcome to the post-fact era.[/quote]

I think Brian would do well trying to shop medical malpractice lawsuits to Hillbillies in North Carolina with John Edwards. Can we line him up with John Edwards equivalent in the oil litigation industry?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: I had a good conversation with an engineer yesterday on risk analysis and risk management and your comments above dovetail perfectly into what he was saying. The thrust of his conversation was that we now operate in a “post-fact” environment. No one really cares about getting things done right anymore, they’re just focusing on covering their ass and protecting themselves from liability.

The “fine technical details” are anything but. Oil rig operations are fairly simple, from a technical standpoint, but this is fairly irrelevant, and largely because the talking heads on television are idiots reading from a teleprompter. You hold yourself forth as an intelligent individual, but you completely missed (or ignored) the FACT that the cementing process was at issue here, not the drilling itself.

Of course, you don’t like facts and prefer not to argue them. As my attorney is fond of saying, “Why let the facts get in the way of a good story?”. This quote finds traction in your comment, “The promise of the oil industry that they can safely drill…”. Completely wrong and wrong-headed, but you don’t care: Its the rhetoric and polemic that matter, not the FACTS.

Welcome to the post-fact era.[/quote]

I think Brian would do well trying to shop medical malpractice lawsuits to Hillbillies in North Carolina with John Edwards. Can we line him up with John Edwards equivalent in the oil litigation industry?

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.
[/quote]

There is no way I am letting this pass on this board as fact. Maybe you should open up the NYT and look to see that that Obama led Interior Department approved the rig WITHOUT the required permits.

Brian, I would like you to either retract your previous statement or figure out a way to counter mine.

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.
[/quote]

There is no way I am letting this pass on this board as fact. Maybe you should open up the NYT and look to see that that Obama led Interior Department approved the rig WITHOUT the required permits.

Brian, I would like you to either retract your previous statement or figure out a way to counter mine.

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.
[/quote]

There is no way I am letting this pass on this board as fact. Maybe you should open up the NYT and look to see that that Obama led Interior Department approved the rig WITHOUT the required permits.

Brian, I would like you to either retract your previous statement or figure out a way to counter mine.

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements.

[Jim Jones]

[quote=briansd1]

Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.
[/quote]

There is no way I am letting this pass on this board as fact. Maybe you should open up the NYT and look to see that that Obama led Interior Department approved the rig WITHOUT the required permits.

Brian, I would like you to either retract your previous statement or figure out a way to counter mine.

U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits

The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.

Those scientists said they were also regularly pressured by agency officials to change the findings of their internal studies if they predicted that an accident was likely to occur or if wildlife might be harmed.

Aside from allowing BP and other companies to drill in the gulf without getting the required permits from NOAA, the minerals agency has also given BP and other drilling companies in the gulf blanket exemptions from having to provide environmental impact statements.

[Author]

Posts