| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Whose Country is This?
On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote: It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the Atlantic Coast? What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches? I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER! cuhulin Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic and (cough cough) Halliburton. FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many other locations, is apparently lacking. They seem to have a corporate culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the radar with problems is rampant. They probably are not the only ones. This is probably an understatement. Nobody gets rich being honest anymore. Bruce BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this spill. BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry. BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon. |
Whose Country is This?
On May 14, 10:10*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote: It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the Atlantic Coast? What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches? I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER! cuhulin Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic and (cough cough) Halliburton. FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many other locations, is apparently lacking. *They seem to have a corporate culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the radar with problems is rampant. *They probably are not the only ones. This is probably an understatement. *Nobody gets rich being honest anymore. Bruce * BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this spill. * BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry. * BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you still think BP deserves the award? It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5 minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck. There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S. does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or without regulation, should employ these methods anyway. It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be very hesitant to use their services. I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably could have avoided this problem. Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those proportionate shares. Bruce Jensen |
Whose Country is This?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this spill. BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry. BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon. More WLS facts? Newser) – As the Gulf of Mexico turns into an oil-slicked environmental disaster, BP is quick to point the finger at Transocean, the owner and operator of the doomed Deepwater Horizon. But, as the New York Times reports, the oil giant itself has a history littered with spills, blowouts, safety violations, and promises to clean up its act. “It is a corporate problem,” says Rep. Bart Stupak, who will grill BP execs Wednesday. “Their mentality is to get in the foxhole and batten down the hatch." Among infractions on BP's safety resume: a 2005 blast at a Texas refinery that killed 15 employees; a neglected pipeline that burst in 2006 and dumped 200,000 gallons of oil on Alaska's North Slope; and more than $550 million in safety fines in the years since, including 700 violations in the Texas refinery alone last year. Ironically, the Times notes the standard-bearer of industry safety: ExxonMobil, author of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. |
Whose Country is This?
bpnjensen wrote:
I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably could have avoided this problem. The cement failed its pressure test, twice. BP gave the OK anyway (after an alleged 3rd pressure test for which there are no records) to seal the hole. |
Whose Country is This?
On 5/14/10 13:16 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 14, 10:10 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/14/10 10:52 , bpnjensen wrote: On May 14, 8:03 am, wrote: It IS an OIL GUSHER!http://www.rense.com/general90/spill.htm What will they (''They'') call that OIL GUSHER when it gets into the Gulf Stream and starts Fouling the Beaches and Wildlife along the Atlantic Coast? What will the Brits call it when it gets to British Beaches? I call it a British POLLUTION OIL GUSHER! cuhulin Indeed - but it could have been *any* one of a number of oil companies, American too, whose well went bad - BP's number just came up this time...along with their American subcontractors Transoceanic and (cough cough) Halliburton. FWIW, according to some sources, BPs quality control, here and in many other locations, is apparently lacking. They seem to have a corporate culture in which bending the regulations and tryig to fly under the radar with problems is rampant. They probably are not the only ones. This is probably an understatement. Nobody gets rich being honest anymore. Bruce BP was slated to receive an award for it's environmental friendliness until Obiteme ordered it killed in the wake of this spill. BP was to be recognized for it's environmental responsibility and exceptional safety record, with the fewest injuries, and lowest volume of oil spilled, over its history, in the industry. BP is positively antiseptic compared to Exxon.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Do you still think BP deserves the award? Depends on the outcome of the investigation. BP did not own the platform, and was not exclusively involved in its maintenance and operation. It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5 minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck. There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S. does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or without regulation, should employ these methods anyway. It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be very hesitant to use their services. There are only two companies in the world that offers those services. One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is not a domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be difficult to enforce. That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these services. I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably could have avoided this problem. There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the forces encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or imagination, there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is not something we can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be powering New York with lightning. We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species, that we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability to control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with. Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of the oil business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago. And I expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at the time (he owned the radio station) his interests were served in answering my questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I was allowed to ask straight forward unvarnished questions from non-PR types...ie, working crew on the platform. Since he was a scientist and not a wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than when I asked the same questions of those actively producing. One of my clients owns oil wells, and I get a lot of first hand, there, too. And it's a much different perspective. The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are equally enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when estimates are expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they can be inadequate to what's really encountered. You must bear in mind that the technology is often developed on the spot in direct response to conditions that can't be predicted, and are fueled by Mother Nature's moods. Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to wells that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them shut and destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because management is impossible. It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two companies doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best, with the best track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does not have the resources, the experience or the ability to do what Halliburton does. Nor do they give enough of a **** about the consequences of an accident to put them in charge of such a well as Deepwater Horizon. You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are surgical theatres by comparison. But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens. Nonetheless, BP has the best track record. The award, had it been issued, would have been earned. Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those proportionate shares. There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going to be a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will be politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage. But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of this spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the Gulf through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on for centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with that seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the hundreds of years of seepage in the Gulf. Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil that's been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already disappeared. Not just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled up by the ocean. Some of it's settling out, and attaching to the silt, as with natural seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been consumed by natural chemical processes, and some has been consumed by biological entities. All of which points to the growing understanding that the damage, as expected, will be less than predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed. The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years. Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local lifestyle is better than before the spill. Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as the hand wringers were claiming. This one won't be either. |
Whose Country is This?
RHF wrote:
- Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. - The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local - lifestyle is better than before the spill. Exxon Valdez Anniversary: 20 Years Later, Oil Remains Christine Dell'Amore National Geographic News March 23, 2009 Two decades after the worst oil spill in U.S. history, huge quantities of oil still coat Alaska's shores with a toxic glaze, experts say. More than 21,000 gallons of crude oil remain of the 11 million gallons of crude oil that bled from the stranded tanker Exxon Valdez on the night of March 23, 1989. The oil—which has been detected as far as 450 miles (724 kilometers) away from the spill site in Prince William Sound—continues to harm wildlife and the livelihoods of local people, according to conservation groups. (See an Alaska map.) Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, who was on the ground at the Exxon Valdez disaster as Alaska's commissioner of environmental conservation, remembers wading through knee-deep pools of bubbling, thick oil. The smell of the pure oil was intense and pungent, he said. When he returned to the same beaches years later, he found "surprisingly fresh" oil just below the sand. (Related: "Alaska Oil Spill Fuels Concerns Over Arctic Wildlife, Future Drilling".) "The damage that [the spill] created is something beyond anyone's imagination," said Michel Boufadel, Temple University's Civil and Environmental Engineering chair, who has just completed research on why the oil persists. Oil-Munching Bacteria An 11,000-person crew removed oil from the beaches until 1994, when government officials decided to end the clean up effort. At that time, what was left of the the oil was naturally disintegrating at a high rate, and experts predicted it would be gone within a few years. But they were wrong. Oil naturally "disappears" through two processes: As the tide rises over an oil patch, the water sloughs off bits of oil, which then disperse into the ocean as tiny, less harmful droplets that can biodegrade easily. Biodegradation occurs when bacteria or other microorganisms break down oil as part of their life cycle. But Prince William Sound is what ecologists call a closed system—it's not exposed to big, pounding waves, so the oil has time to seep into the sand, according to Margaret Williams, who oversees conservation in the Bering Sea for the nonprofit World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In these stagnant areas, oil-munching bacteria don't receive the nutrient-rich water flow they need to thrive, said Temple University's Boufadel. "The assumption that oil is going to disappear is surprising—we have to put an effort into understanding oil spills and how they interact with the environment much better," Boufadel said. Boufadel's research on the leftover oil was funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, a state and federal partnership to restore the damaged ecosystem. Shangri-La of the North Twenty years of oil exposure has injured this stretch of Alaska's coast, which WWF's Williams calls the Shangri-la of the north. In its first toxic sweep, the oil spill killed about 250,000 seabirds, 4,000 sea otters, 250 bald eagles, and more than 20 orca whales, according to WWF. Today, one of the orca pods that lost family members has not recovered. Sea otters and harlequin ducks continue to die by digging into the sand for food and releasing buried oil. At the bottom of the food chain, pink salmon eggs and small invertebrates such as mussels and clams are not yet back to their original population levels. And local fishers, who lost more than U.S. $286 million after the herring fishery collapsed in 1989, are still waiting for the fishery to rebound. |
Whose Country is This?
Peter, I'm curious. just where did you find all this info? I
think you better check all your facts. don't follow the company line printed else where. and, BTW, Halliburton is based out of Abu Dhabi, and a badly run company. BP is only second to Exxon, on their safety/spill record. and,as for Adare, his use of explosive, depleted the oxygen on a well head. then the head was capped. it's the same way as done today. remember all the burning wells during the gulf war? blow and cap is faster and safer. as you said, i spent a few years in the oil fields over seas. my family has an interest. Drifter... On 5/14/2010 3:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5 minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck. There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S. does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or without regulation, should employ these methods anyway. It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be very hesitant to use their services. There are only two companies in the world that offers those services. One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is not a domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be difficult to enforce. That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these services. I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably could have avoided this problem. There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the forces encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or imagination, there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is not something we can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be powering New York with lightning. We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species, that we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability to control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with. Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of the oil business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago. And I expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at the time (he owned the radio station) his interests were served in answering my questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I was allowed to ask straight forward unvarnished questions from non-PR types...ie, working crew on the platform. Since he was a scientist and not a wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than when I asked the same questions of those actively producing. One of my clients owns oil wells, and I get a lot of first hand, there, too. And it's a much different perspective. The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are equally enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when estimates are expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they can be inadequate to what's really encountered. You must bear in mind that the technology is often developed on the spot in direct response to conditions that can't be predicted, and are fueled by Mother Nature's moods. Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to wells that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them shut and destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because management is impossible. It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two companies doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best, with the best track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does not have the resources, the experience or the ability to do what Halliburton does. Nor do they give enough of a **** about the consequences of an accident to put them in charge of such a well as Deepwater Horizon. You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are surgical theatres by comparison. But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens. Nonetheless, BP has the best track record. The award, had it been issued, would have been earned. Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those proportionate shares. There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going to be a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will be politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage. But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of this spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the Gulf through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on for centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with that seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the hundreds of years of seepage in the Gulf. Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil that's been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already disappeared. Not just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled up by the ocean. Some of it's settling out, and attaching to the silt, as with natural seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been consumed by natural chemical processes, and some has been consumed by biological entities. All of which points to the growing understanding that the damage, as expected, will be less than predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed. The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years. Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local lifestyle is better than before the spill. Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as the hand wringers were claiming. This one won't be either. |
Whose Country is This?
On 5/14/10 22:47 , Drifter wrote:
Peter, I'm curious. just where did you find all this info? Read it again. I think you better check all your facts. don't follow the company line printed else where. and, BTW, Halliburton is based out of Abu Dhabi, and a badly run company. BP is only second to Exxon, on their safety/spill record. and,as for Adare, his use of explosive, depleted the oxygen on a well head. then the head was capped. it's the same way as done today. remember all the burning wells during the gulf war? blow and cap is faster and safer. as you said, i spent a few years in the oil fields over seas. my family has an interest. Drifter... On 5/14/2010 3:19 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote: It is true that their record is good, and BP certainly trumpets this attitude in its ads, but former employees and inspectors, including some from Alaska, have suggested that BP cuts corners when nobody is looking. At least one former employee has suggested that certain mandatory high-pressure well tests, which are specified to last 5 minutes, were frequently shut off after just 30 seconds when inspectors were not present. With a behind-the-scenes operation like this, their safety and environmental record was a sitting duck. There are also safety and equipment regulations present in other countries (such as certain kinds of pressure valves - sorry to be less than specific, but I think you kwow what I refer to) that the U.S. does not require. A company who prides itself on safety, with or without regulation, should employ these methods anyway. It seems to me (and I would have to go looking for this information to verify it) that I have also read or viewed that Halliburton's concrete casements have been responsible for the large majority of failures of these structures in recent years; with a record like that, if I were an oil company concerned with safety and the environment, I would be very hesitant to use their services. There are only two companies in the world that offers those services. One is Halliburton. The other is Schlumberger, which is not a domestically owned company, so environmental rules would be difficult to enforce. That leaves Halliburton. There is no one else offering these services. I am not sure how a company can anticipate the sudden presence of a large expansive methane bubble, but it appears that this was not an isolated incident and that they happen with some frequency. Proper outfitting and procedures - specified from the top down - probably could have avoided this problem. There is no way to specify from the top down, because, often the forces encountered are so far outside expectation, experience, or imagination, there is no specification. Mother nature in her fury is not something we can predict, nor manage. If we could, we'd be powering New York with lightning. We've gotten so used to controlling natural events, as a species, that we sometimes forget that there are things outside our ability to control, outside our ability to manage, or even deal with. Methane bubbles are the nature, and one of the great risks, of the oil business. I worked for a petroleum geologist some years ago. And I expressed these same concerns, and as an active broadcaster at the time (he owned the radio station) his interests were served in answering my questions. So he took me out onto the platforms where I was allowed to ask straight forward unvarnished questions from non-PR types...ie, working crew on the platform. Since he was a scientist and not a wildcatter, I got a nowhere near exposure than when I asked the same questions of those actively producing. One of my clients owns oil wells, and I get a lot of first hand, there, too. And it's a much different perspective. The risks are enormous. And the forces being dealt with are equally enormous. And nearly impossible to predict. Even when estimates are expanded to 10 times expected pressures and more, they can be inadequate to what's really encountered. You must bear in mind that the technology is often developed on the spot in direct response to conditions that can't be predicted, and are fueled by Mother Nature's moods. Companies like Red Adair came into being to bring solutions to wells that can't be controlled. Adair's solution is to dynamite them shut and destroy the well. A massive resort to violence. Because management is impossible. It's a business full of risks. That's why there are only two companies doing it. Halliburton and Schlumberger. BP hires the best, with the best track record. That's Halliburton. Schlumberger does not have the resources, the experience or the ability to do what Halliburton does. Nor do they give enough of a **** about the consequences of an accident to put them in charge of such a well as Deepwater Horizon. You should see a Schlumberger site. Halliburton's sites are surgical theatres by comparison. But, again, we're dealing with Nature and her whims. **** happens. Nonetheless, BP has the best track record. The award, had it been issued, would have been earned. Having said this, while I am strong believer in the buck stopping at the top, I think there is enough evidence that each player among the top three shares some responsibility. It would be nice if they could sort it out amicably among themselves, but in lieu of that, I suppose we'll have to go through a protracted process to resolve those proportionate shares. There's no doubt it's going to be a legal mess. And there's going to be a lot of punitive action clamored for. But likely, that will be politically motivated. Not equal to the actual damage. But here's something that's not being discussed: The amount of this spill is about the same volume of petroleum that seeps into the Gulf through the silt, every day. And that seepage has been going on for centuries. The ocean, and nature have found a way to deal with that seepage. And a protracted oil slick hasn't developed from the hundreds of years of seepage in the Gulf. Which goes a long way toward explaining that about 35% of the oil that's been spilled is no longer in the slick. It's already disappeared. Not just dissipated. Gone. It, too, has been gobbled up by the ocean. Some of it's settling out, and attaching to the silt, as with natural seepage. Some has dissipated. Some has been consumed by natural chemical processes, and some has been consumed by biological entities. All of which points to the growing understanding that the damage, as expected, will be less than predicted, with far, far shorter endurance than claimed. The Exxon Valdez spill was supposed to have destroyed the oceanic environment for 100 miles around the spill for the next 150 years. Today, it's a thriving aquatic environment, teeming with life. The oyster and crab beds are richer than ever, and the local lifestyle is better than before the spill. Doesn't mean it wasn't bad. Just that it wasn't as cataclysmic as the hand wringers were claiming. This one won't be either. |
Whose Country is This?
Coast worried as pivotal Summer season nears.
http://www.clarionledger.com Underwater Katrina Lurking? Huge underwater oil plumes. It Affects Mississippi, it Affects ME! It Affects millions of people in other States in America too.At least Twenty Percent of America's Seafood comes from the Gulf of Mexico.Do you want imported Seafood from Asia, other countries? cuhulin |
Whose Country is This?
Michigan Joins other States in health care LAWSUIT.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=289310 That is GOOD News. GOOD on yer Michigan, GOOD on yer! Whose Country is This? One thing is for Sure, the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC Of AMERICA IS NOT the Born in Kenya! TERRORIST USURPER'S COUNTRY!!! http://www.devilfinder.com Constitutional Republic of America NOT a Damn democracy!!! cuhulin |
Whose Country is This?
On May 16, 1:08*pm, wrote:
NOT a Damn democracy!!! cuhulin I hope you don't really feel this way. |
Whose Country is This?
Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../14/109847.htm I Want the Gulf Stream to haul Every Bit of that British POLLUTION to Britain and Dump Every Bit of that Crap on Britain!!! I do NOT LIE about that either. cuhulin |
Whose Country is This?
|
Whose Country is This?
On May 16, 4:33*pm, wrote:
Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie. You really condemn democracy? |
Whose Country is This?
On May 16, 5:29*pm, wrote:
BP chief admits he may lose his job.http://www.timesonline.co.uk GOOD! LOSE IT!!! cuhulin Not before he pays up, I hope. |
Whose Country is This?
http://www.devilfinder.com
The Gulf Stream Yeahhhhh, Gulf Stream,,, Haul that BP SH.T to Limeyland! cuhulin |
Whose country is this?
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 16, 4:33 pm, wrote: Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie. You really condemn democracy? I can't speak for Cuhu. But James Madison certainly condemned democracy. So did Mencken and Saki and many others. And so do I. If the majority is allowed to seize your property or make its opinions into law whenever it so chooses, how is that different from an autocracy? (With an autocrat, bad as that system is, at least you have a _chance_ that the ruler will be wise or benevolent or both. With democracy, there is no chance whatsoever.) That is why the founders opposed democracy and gave us a constitution that would protect us from it, just as much or more as it protected us from would-be kings. They tied down the government with the stringent chains of the Constitution, which, especially the Tenth Amendment, severely restricted the areas in which government could do anything at all. But politicians, notably Lincoln and the Great War Criminal but also many others including G.W. Bush and Obama, have found that, through bluster, intimidation -- and packing the court (and the law schools) with those whose main goal was avoiding the founders' strictures -- they could get away with trashing the Constitution on almost every level. The result is that we now do indeed have the "democracy" that the founders were trying to avoid; with the thoughtless majority easily manipulated into doing almost anything the ethnically distinct media masters want them to do. The result is that we openly tolerate the invasion of our southern border while we slaughter innocents by the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East who never constituted even a slight threat to America. The result is that we have a National Security surveillance state which arrogates to itself the right to "monitor" almost everything we say and do, and spy on our formerly private transactions and interactions. The result is that we now have almost totally given up the right of freedom of association and must hire and buy and sell and send our children off to school all in accordance with our masters' latest arcane formulations based on the race and ethnicity of their "subjects." The result is indefinite detention without trial. The result is "extrajudicial rendition." The result is Predator drone attacks on apartment buildings containing mothers and children. The result is the openly admitted ordering of the assassination of an American citizen by one of those Predator drones. Yes, I condemn "democracy" as it currently exists in the country which is, quite anachronistically, still called by the name "United States of America." With all good wishes, Kevin Alfred Strom. -- http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Whose country is this?
You ever heard of Lloyd Marcus? Paul Gallo is talking to him right now.
http://www.supertalkms.com http://www.devilfinder.com Lloyd Marcus Lloyd Marcus is a GOOD Guy. You want to know about democracy? http://www.devilfinder.com Dave Daubenmire And to the Republic cuhulin |
Whose country is this?
http://www.devilfinder.com
Red Skelton I Pledge Allegiance To The Republic I used to watch Red Skelton's tv shows back in the 1950's.Sometimes he is in some old movies, usually on the TCM channel. cuhulin |
Whose country is this?
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
Yes, I condemn "democracy" as it currently exists in the country which is, quite anachronistically, still called by the name "United States of America." With all good wishes, Kevin Alfred Strom. We are a liberal democracy. Not a pure democracy. You're a pompous old fart, aren't you? |
Whose country is this?
Paul Gallo got that one Right too.
People who have those cell phones and doing all that texting,,, That Will Make You Look Like An Idiot In Five Seconds! cuhulin |
Whose Country is This?
On May 16, 6:52*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
- On May 16, 4:33*pm, wrote: - - Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie. - You really condemn democracy? BpnJ arguing {reasoning} with Cuhulin - priceless ~ RHF What is Democracy without the full and complete participation of the Common Man . . . The Tyranny of the Elite (the few) over the Masses. Equality For One : Must Be Equality For All for all are equal and all are one ~ RHF |
Whose country is this?
On May 17, 6:38*am, dave wrote:
Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: Yes, I condemn "democracy" as it currently exists in the country which is, quite anachronistically, still called by the name "United States of America." With all good wishes, Kevin Alfred Strom. - We are a liberal democracy. *Not a pure democracy. - - You're a pompous old fart, aren't you? More Dave 'facts' We are a Representative Democracy [.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Democracy alas you are simply 'dave' ~ RHF |
Whose country is this?
Recap of Day FOUR.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=289386 I am going to bed.Move over doggy,,, you wants ah cookie? WOO WOO WOOF! cuhulin |
Whose Country is This?
RHF wrote:
On May 16, 6:52 pm, wrote: - On May 16, 4:33 pm, wrote: - - Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie. - You really condemn democracy? BpnJ arguing {reasoning} with Cuhulin - priceless ~ RHF What is Democracy without the full and complete participation of the Common Man . . . The Tyranny of the Elite (the few) over the Masses. Equality For One : Must Be Equality For All for all are equal and all are one ~ RHF . If people are stupid and uninformed they should have no right to vote. They do more harm than good. |
We are all liberal democrats
RHF wrote:
More Dave 'facts' We are a Representative Democracy [.] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Democracy alas you are simply 'dave' ~ RHF . You're just a garden variety old fart. Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where elected representatives that hold the decision power are moderated by a constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties and the rights of minorities in society, such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law, and many more. Such constitutional rights, also named liberal rights, are guaranteed through various controlled institutions and various statutory laws. Additionally the constitution of most of the contemporary liberal democracies protects the rights of individuals and minorities, and prohibits the will of majority (majoritarianism), by almost eliminating that rule in practice. Some would argue that liberal democracy isn't democratic or liberal at all. They would argue that "liberal democracy" does not respect majority rule, except when citizens are asked to vote for their representatives, and also that its "liberty" is restricted by the constitution or precedent decided by previous generations. They would argue that, by prohibiting citizens the right to cast votes on all issues—especially for serious subjects like going to war, constitutional amendments or constitution abolishment etc.—this turns "liberal democracy" into the precursor of oligarchy. Others would say that only a liberal democracy can guarantee the individual liberties of its citizens and prevent the development into a dictatorship. Unmoderated majority rule could—in this view—lead to an oppression of minorities. The concept of an open society is closely related to liberal democracies. Since many liberals see democracies with strong statist reflections through the public choice theory as slow, dogmatic, conservative and not too apt for change, the liberal democracy contrasts with what could be called the "statist" democracy in that it emphasizes the civil society as the engine of its public discourse and development further. |
We are all liberal democrats
Pascagoula revives Blessing of the Fleet.
http://www.clarionledger.com Backwater hick Fleet. Fiskars (Fiskars scissors and other Fiskars tools, I saw some Fiskars hatchets for sale last January at the Sears store) is opening a big distribution center and warehouse in Southaven, 100 new jobs for those backwater hicks. cuhulin, the backwater hick |
Whose country is this?
dave wrote:
RHF wrote: On May 16, 6:52 pm, wrote: - On May 16, 4:33 pm, wrote: - - Of Course I feel that way.I do NOT Lie. - You really condemn democracy? BpnJ arguing {reasoning} with Cuhulin - priceless ~ RHF What is Democracy without the full and complete participation of the Common Man . . . The Tyranny of the Elite (the few) over the Masses. Equality For One : Must Be Equality For All for all are equal and all are one ~ RHF . If people are stupid and uninformed they should have no right to vote. They do more harm than good. Now, there's something we definitely agree on. There would be extremely vociferous opposition to any intelligence test -- or even the simplest civics test -- as a requirement for voting, however. Even a literacy test would be verboten in the insane asylum that passes for the United States these days. The reason? Any such test would be condemned as "racist." Certain races would fail even the simplest test in disproportionate numbers. So, until reality hits us in the face hard enough to make us abandon the religion of racial equality (which is just as kooky as fundamentalism), we will continue with a system in which vicious gangsters and borderline morons barely able to dress themselves have an equal vote with honors graduates and brilliant inventors. Of course, reality _will_ hit us in the face eventually, since the morons and thugs are increasing their percentage of the population every hour. And it is, more and more, _their_ tastes and predilections and "culture" which shape our society, determine its policies, and select its leaders. With every good wish, Kevin Alfred Strom. -- http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Whose country is this?
On May 18, 7:17*am, Kevin Alfred Strom
wrote: If people are stupid and uninformed they should have no right to vote. They do more harm than good. Now, there's something we definitely agree on. There would be extremely vociferous opposition to any intelligence test -- or even the simplest civics test -- as a requirement for voting, however. Even a literacy test would be verboten in the insane asylum that passes for the United States these days. The reason? Any such test would be condemned as "racist." Certain races would fail even the simplest test in disproportionate numbers. So, until reality hits us in the face hard enough to make us abandon the religion of racial equality (which is just as kooky as fundamentalism), we will continue with a system in which vicious gangsters and borderline morons barely able to dress themselves have an equal vote with honors graduates and brilliant inventors. Of course, reality _will_ hit us in the face eventually, since the morons and thugs are increasing their percentage of the population every hour. And it is, more and more, _their_ tastes and predilections and "culture" which shape our society, determine its policies, and select its leaders. With every good wish, Kevin Alfred Strom. --http://kevinalfredstrom.com/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Kevin - at the founding of this nation, and continuing on for quite a while, What percentage of the population do you suppose could read or write? And did this Constitutionally prevent anyone from being able to vote? We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen |
Whose country is this?
On 5/18/10 09:21 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 18, 7:17 am, Kevin Alfred wrote: If people are stupid and uninformed they should have no right to vote. They do more harm than good. Now, there's something we definitely agree on. There would be extremely vociferous opposition to any intelligence test -- or even the simplest civics test -- as a requirement for voting, however. Even a literacy test would be verboten in the insane asylum that passes for the United States these days. The reason? Any such test would be condemned as "racist." Certain races would fail even the simplest test in disproportionate numbers. So, until reality hits us in the face hard enough to make us abandon the religion of racial equality (which is just as kooky as fundamentalism), we will continue with a system in which vicious gangsters and borderline morons barely able to dress themselves have an equal vote with honors graduates and brilliant inventors. Of course, reality _will_ hit us in the face eventually, since the morons and thugs are increasing their percentage of the population every hour. And it is, more and more, _their_ tastes and predilections and "culture" which shape our society, determine its policies, and select its leaders. With every good wish, Kevin Alfred Strom. --http://kevinalfredstrom.com/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Kevin - at the founding of this nation, and continuing on for quite a while, What percentage of the population do you suppose could read or write? And did this Constitutionally prevent anyone from being able to vote? We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen Bruce, you need to come to Chicago. |
Whose country is this?
On 5/18/10 09:21 , bpnjensen wrote: We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen There's a reason for that. Alphonse Capone. Johnny Torrio Frank Nitti William Daddano Sam Giancana Paul Ricca Tony Accardo George Moran William McGarigle Michael Cassius McDonald Mossy Enright Roger Touhy Southside O'Donnells Dion O'Banion Frank McErlane Jake Guzik John Factor Paul Jaworski Joseph Saltis Richard Leonard Kuklinski Hymie Weiss Joseph Filkowski Joseph Stazek |
Whose country is this?
bpnjensen wrote:
On May 18, 7:17 am, Kevin Alfred Strom wrote: If people are stupid and uninformed they should have no right to vote. They do more harm than good. Now, there's something we definitely agree on. There would be extremely vociferous opposition to any intelligence test -- or even the simplest civics test -- as a requirement for voting, however. Even a literacy test would be verboten in the insane asylum that passes for the United States these days. The reason? Any such test would be condemned as "racist." Certain races would fail even the simplest test in disproportionate numbers. So, until reality hits us in the face hard enough to make us abandon the religion of racial equality (which is just as kooky as fundamentalism), we will continue with a system in which vicious gangsters and borderline morons barely able to dress themselves have an equal vote with honors graduates and brilliant inventors. Of course, reality _will_ hit us in the face eventually, since the morons and thugs are increasing their percentage of the population every hour. And it is, more and more, _their_ tastes and predilections and "culture" which shape our society, determine its policies, and select its leaders. With every good wish, Kevin Alfred Strom. --http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ [...] Kevin - at the founding of this nation, and continuing on for quite a while, What percentage of the population do you suppose could read or write? And did this Constitutionally prevent anyone from being able to vote? The property requirement was effectively a proxy for education and culture -- as well as a bar against mob rule and against the have-nots being used to plunder others via the ballot box. Later, many states instituted literacy and simple civics tests for voting, without which representative government is much less free, workable, and honest. They were all struck down in the so-called "Civil Rights" power grab. They should have been made more stringent instead. We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen Some of them were. But since they are genetically, biologically, and cerebrally virtually indistinguishable from the Anglo-Saxons and Celts who formed the American people, their addition to our culture and gene pool did not result in any long-term degradation, endangerment, exploitation, hatred, resentment, or any other kind of incompatibility. This doesn't mean we should hate or harm those who are incompatible. We should just realize that we should go our separate ways, and support their self-determination and freedom from the Evil Empire. The Republic of Lakotah is a first step. Perhaps the Tea Parties are -- as Pat Buchanan says -- the faintest beginnings of a second. With my best, Kevin Alfred Strom. -- http://kevinalfredstrom.com/ |
Whose country is this?
On 5/18/10 10:30 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:
This doesn't mean we should hate or harm those who are incompatible. We should just realize that we should go our separate ways, and support their self-determination and freedom from the Evil Empire. The Republic of Lakotah is a first step. Perhaps the Tea Parties are -- as Pat Buchanan says -- the faintest beginnings of a second. It will be interesting to see what Russell Means accomplishes with the Repubic of Lakotah. The more I read about his intentions, and his motivations for them, the more I find to appreciate. |
Whose country is this?
http://www.devilfinder.com
Viking battles to keep manufacturing in U.S. Viking Stoves/Ranges/Ovens, that kind of stuff, in Greenville, backwater hick Mississippi. backwater hicks trying to keep Manufacturing in U.SA.and attracting more jobs/ffactories in the Constitutional REPUBLIC of United States of America. cuhulin, the backwater hick. (Ahh talkee likee ah embusul) |
Whose country is this?
Ooops, Greenwood, backwater hick Mississippi.Viking Manufacturing.
cuhulin, teh embusul |
Whose country is this?
On May 18, 8:16*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
* On 5/18/10 09:21 , bpnjensen wrote: We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen * There's a reason for that. * Alphonse Capone. * Johnny Torrio * Frank Nitti * William Daddano * Sam Giancana * Paul Ricca * Tony Accardo * George Moran * William McGarigle * Michael Cassius McDonald * Mossy Enright * Roger Touhy * Southside O'Donnells * Dion O'Banion * Frank McErlane * Jake Guzik * John Factor * Paul Jaworski * Joseph Saltis * Richard Leonard Kuklinski * Hymie Weiss * Joseph Filkowski * Joseph Stazek A tiny fraction of the millions who came and ultimately contributed positvely to the nation in a million small ways. |
Whose country is this?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
George Moran William McGarigle Michael Cassius McDonald Mossy Enright Roger Touhy Southside O'Donnells Dion O'Banion Frank McErlane Apparently the bigots who chased the Irish out of Chicago in 1850 were psychics. |
Whose country is this?
On 5/18/10 12:13 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 18, 8:16 am, "D. Peter wrote: On 5/18/10 09:21 , bpnjensen wrote: We used to think the Irish, the Italians and the Poles were thugs too... Bruce Jensen There's a reason for that. Alphonse Capone. Johnny Torrio Frank Nitti William Daddano Sam Giancana Paul Ricca Tony Accardo George Moran William McGarigle Michael Cassius McDonald Mossy Enright Roger Touhy Southside O'Donnells Dion O'Banion Frank McErlane Jake Guzik John Factor Paul Jaworski Joseph Saltis Richard Leonard Kuklinski Hymie Weiss Joseph Filkowski Joseph Stazek A tiny fraction of the millions who came and ultimately contributed positvely to the nation in a million small ways. And yet, each came to polarize countless millions by contributing negatively as individuals in the name of their ethicities. The reason we used to, and many times still do, think of the Irish, the Italians, and the Poles as thugs is not because of the millions who aren't, but because of the some who were. |
Whose country is this?
Irish thugs built the Railroads from East to West, the Chinese Coolies
built the Railroads from West to East.They had some Railroad Cars of ill repute hooked up to some (or all) of those Choo Choo Trains.''Cat Houses'' they were. cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com