Judge blocks drilling ban

[XTE]

Wow! Apologist post of the year. Good one.



I see, so what was his role at MMS prior to his promotion, and how did he get it?

You acted like you knew this information earlier, saying Clinton appointed him. Now you don't know? "I'm not going to do your homework for you."

How is the first apologist? It's the facts man! LOL! If he had JUST UP AND ONE IT, you would call him a dictator for circumventing the law. You'll take any means to get at the President. You yourself have told me you are purposefully annoying to me and to others. Obama shouldn't be left out of that equation.

 

[lordbt]

You acted like you knew this information earlier, saying Clinton appointed him. Now you don't know? "I'm not going to do your homework for you."

Just because I ask a question doesnt mean I dont already know the answer. Maybe I just want to hear yours. The truth is, the info I got came from the Huffington Post. I should have known better than to use that as a source, no?

Chris Oynes, MMS Official, To Step Down In Wake Of Gulf Oil Spill

How is the first apologist? It's the facts man! LOL!

Really? but you didnt post any facts, just an apology for Obamas inaction. A fact would be some evidence that his justice department had been spending the last 55 days combing through case law to see if Obama really had the authority to act. Not even you believe that.

 

[XTE]

Just because I ask a question doesnt mean I dont already know the answer. Maybe I just want to hear yours. The truth is, the info I got came from the Huffington Post. I should have known better than to use that as a source, no?

Chris Oynes, MMS Official, To Step Down In Wake Of Gulf Oil Spill

Really? but you didnt post any facts, just an apology for Obamas inaction. A fact would be some evidence that his justice department had been spending the last 55 days combing through case law to see if Obama really had the authority to act. Not even you believe that.

You don't know the answer. How is head of gas and oil leasing in Lousiana a Federal Appointment? Chris Oynes ONLY appointment was under the Bush Administration in 2007. That's it! The article you site doesn't give any indication he was a Clinton Appointment and you know that, you just refuse to accept that someone fired in 1995 could possibly not be a Clinton Appointment. LOL!

There is no inaction that I can see. I think it's all in your imagination. I think the president has done more than enough to insure the livelihoods of those effected by the gross negligence of BP and it's lack of safety. I think the Marshall Islands failed to keep on it's commitment to insuring outside inspections on the Oil Platform, OH I MEAN SHIP. I think the Oil Industry should be in charge of clean-up and responsible for paying for it. I think the Oil Industry should look ahead, as if it cares about the environment instead of investing a shoot-ton in PR that says otherwise.

At least Chaz, and here I am giving him more credit, will use words like "seems" or "it appears" to point out he rest everything in speculation. You expect everyone to be an absolutely fool and believe that someone working in government in Louisiana must have been a Clinton Appointment if the year was 1995.

I think Obama should have done and should do now a fair amount of cleaning to get rid of the cronies Bush installed. To assume that Bush had the people's interests at heart is to far a stretch to consider. That is where I place blame on Obama.

Last of all, Obama has done a wonderful job of making sure these people get paid for a job they want to do but cannot and paid through any lasting damage this oil spill may cause them in the future. The escrow, which Republicans cannot stand either is a huge deal for those people. I hope those Southern States wake up and realize that Republicans do not speak for them because they are not individual sponsors for The Chamber of Commerce.

All you are is a steady stream of speculation I waste my time arguing the facts against. And this to someone that doesn't even know what a fact is...

YOU HAVE SAID YOURSELF THAT YOU ARE PURPOSEFULLY ANNOYING TO ME.

 

[Charlie V]

Posted by Charlie V:

“Is that a serious question?”

Yes.

But, you guys want to argue over an analogy and avoid the issue of the thread, be my guest.

Now I'm real confused.

Was it an analogy?

If it was an analogy, it wasn't a serious (literal) question.

I'm not avoiding anything. I haven't read all the previous posts. I read your post and the question didn't make sense to me. Sometimes I go into a thread and read a couple posts just to see what's going on. I don't always read the twelve pages preceding.

The question still doesn't make sense--if serious (literal) or analogy (what's it analogous to?)

Charlie

 

[JustOneWay]

Now I'm real confused.

Was it an analogy?

If it was an analogy, it wasn't a serious (literal) question.

I'm not avoiding anything. I haven't read all the previous posts. I read your post and the question didn't make sense to me. Sometimes I go into a thread and read a couple posts just to see what's going on. I don't always read the twelve pages preceding.

The question still doesn't make sense--if serious (literal) or analogy (what's it analogous to?)

Charlie

He must be talking about me. Talking to me must mean that I speak for everybody he disagrees with....

His first sentence in the thread was

Ringo, of course I hope this never happens, but suppose you are in an auto accident, and when the paramedics show up the first thing they start doing is looking for someone to blame.

Then he proceeds to mention Democratic Underground, grammar, and how paramedics could show up for a car crash 54 days late....

Yes, yes.....we should follow his lead and discuss the topic of a judge lifting a Presidential ban on drilling.

 

[XTE]

Hahahaha! Ty Jow!

 

[Gawron]

Posted by Charlie V:

“Now I'm real confused.”

I know.

Posted by JustOneWay:

“I shot down your argument”

Don’t flatter yourself.

“Yes, yes.....we should follow his lead and discuss the topic of a judge lifting a Presidential ban on drilling.”

Which was the one part of my original post all of you have avoided.

Oh, and, nice folksy story, XTE. Holidays must be a blast at your house.

 

[XTE]

I WROTE THIS EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO GAWRON SAYING "Corporations don't want to hurt us." This, all from a guy that thinks you and government always are out to hurt him... I can't believe we have Corporate Shills in living rooms now... Anyways, this is what I wrote earlier:

BULL! They make MORE money externalizing everything possible under the law!

I live around more refinery than residential property. After a rain, there is hardly a stack or flare in these plants that isn't still going. They have tank yards assigned to hold bad product so they can dump when the time comes and that is during a good storm. Once they start it, they can't turn it off like they would want to, so you see them still going after the storm. If they get caught, they are burning at the same time so they just point the finger at one another. They don't care about anything but profit! In Texas, they are allowed a certain amount of emissions and after that they have to pay to burn. It's a form of carbon credit you were unfamiliar with before you heard your side demonize the term so you can repeat as if original here on these forums.

Here is another example:

I bought a 2006 Jetta for my wife. She wanted this particular make and model because it had everything that year. We found it in Louisiana. We bought the car with 15,000 miles and it seemed to be in good shape. Roughly 3000 miles later we had to put a new set of tires on it due to a blowout. I took the car to get inspected by a body-shop. They told me it had been in 2 wrecks. This was something I couldn't see without professional help. They sold me the car as never being in a wreck. I put together a case. After 2 years, I can no longer file criminal charges against the employees there. If I had ever filled criminal charges, I could not under the law in Louisiana also file a civil lawsuit for damages and seek restitution for their lies. So, guess what? The dealership doesn't even touch my case for 2 years! They are allowed under the law to sit on it until the statute for criminal charges has passed. This leaves me with only the option of a civil lawsuit. Now, they can bargain better on their behalf no matter where justice lies and THEY KNOW IT! They love it! It's now 2.5 years and I got my first settlement offer of 1,500. If that is the only offer they give and I still had the option of pressing criminal charges, then I would just press criminal charges and send these liars to jail. Unfortunately, I cannot. So it's going to be a couple more years of back and forth before I hopefully reach something that pays for the tires.

See, they don't care. As long as they have people like you thinking everything BUT CORPORATIONS are the jerks, they have a pass in a lot of ways.

It's cheaper and more profitable to dump chemicals in the air at night during a rain storm.

It's cheaper to pay Rush Limbaugh 80,000,000 a year to preach lies on your behalf to an isolated majority who think belief is an actual virtue rather than foster reality.

It's cheaper to threaten to move to another country, effectively putting a gun to our collective heads, than pay an equal share of taxes.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Oh, and, nice folksy story, XTE. Holidays must be a blast at your house.

I wrote the above and your response is as simple as that? Your only worry is that my holidays are ruined because of a prolonged case the law allows?

Your response is pathetic and you know it. As a matter of fact, look at all of your trite responses to EVERYONE!

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[lordbt]

All you are is a steady stream of speculation I waste my time arguing the facts against. And this to someone that doesn't even know what a fact is...

Thats pretty funny coming from a guy who said this: "That's right, he had to make sure he was within the law." Sounds an awful lot like pure speculation to me and pretty void of any facts.

I WROTE THIS EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO GAWRON SAYING "Corporations don't want to hurt us." This, all from a guy that thinks you and government always are out to hurt him... I can't believe we have Corporate Shills in living rooms now... Anyways, this is what I wrote earlier:

BULL! They make MORE money externalizing everything possible under the law!

I live around more refinery than residential property. After a rain, there is hardly a stack or flare in these plants that isn't still going. They have tank yards assigned to hold bad product so they can dump when the time comes and that is during a good storm. Once they start it, they can't turn it off like they would want to, so you see them still going after the storm. If they get caught, they are burning at the same time so they just point the finger at one another. They don't care about anything but profit! In Texas, they are allowed a certain amount of emissions and after that they have to pay to burn. It's a form of carbon credit you were unfamiliar with before you heard your side demonize the term so you can repeat as if original here on these forums.

Here is another example:

I bought a 2006 Jetta for my wife. She wanted this particular make and model because it had everything that year. We found it in Louisiana. We bought the car with 15,000 miles and it seemed to be in good shape. Roughly 3000 miles later we had to put a new set of tires on it due to a blowout. I took the car to get inspected by a body-shop. They told me it had been in 2 wrecks. This was something I couldn't see without professional help. They sold me the car as never being in a wreck. I put together a case. After 2 years, I can no longer file criminal charges against the employees there. If I had ever filled criminal charges, I could not under the law in Louisiana also file a civil lawsuit for damages and seek restitution for their lies. So, guess what? The dealership doesn't even touch my case for 2 years! They are allowed under the law to sit on it until the statute for criminal charges has passed. This leaves me with only the option of a civil lawsuit. Now, they can bargain better on their behalf no matter where justice lies and THEY KNOW IT! They love it! It's now 2.5 years and I got my first settlement offer of 1,500. If that is the only offer they give and I still had the option of pressing criminal charges, then I would just press criminal charges and send these liars to jail. Unfortunately, I cannot. So it's going to be a couple more years of back and forth before I hopefully reach something that pays for the tires.

See, they don't care. As long as they have people like you thinking everything BUT CORPORATIONS are the jerks, they have a pass in a lot of ways.

It's cheaper and more profitable to dump chemicals in the air at night during a rain storm.

It's cheaper to pay Rush Limbaugh 80,000,000 a year to preach lies on your behalf to an isolated majority who think belief is an actual virtue rather than foster reality.

It's cheaper to threaten to move to another country, effectively putting a gun to our collective heads, than pay an equal share of taxes.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

What is really fascinating is that you thought this so profound as to need repeating. These examples of yours highlight inadequacies in the law, not business. Laws that protect those that would defraud you need to be changed, otherwise they encourage the growth of fraudulent businessmen.

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[XTE]

Thats pretty funny coming from a guy who said this: "That's right, he had to make sure he was within the law." Sounds an awful lot like pure speculation to me and pretty void of any facts.

What is really fascinating is that you thought this so profound as to need repeating. These examples of yours highlight inadequacies in the law, not business. Laws that protect those that would defraud you need to be changed, otherwise they encourage the growth of fraudulent businessmen.

Of course I can only effect the LAW, that's why we have it!

Let me shorten your post to make you look as as possible:

These are examples of inadequate law, not business. We change the law so as not to encourage the growth of fraudulent businessman.

You completely contradict yourself in 2 consecutive sentences! LOL!

YOU HAVE TOLD ME YOURSELF YOU POST TO ANNOY PEOPLE LIKE ME.

 

[lordbt]

Of course I can only effect the LAW, that's why we have it!

Let me shorten your post to make you look as as possible:

These are examples of inadequate law, not business. We change the law so as not to encourage the growth of fraudulent businessman.

You completely contradict yourself in 2 consecutive sentences! LOL!

Nothing contradictory there, sport. I'd explain it, but why should I? Do your own homework. There are any number of liberals on this site that it is possible to have interesting dialogue with. You just happen not to be one of them. Its all heat with you, no light. While that is fun at times, I dont plan to risk being banned for engaging you in pointless verbal battles. Discussions with people like you can really only take place on unmoderated forums. So off you go to the secular purgatory that is the 'ignore' list. I have no doubt that you wont care, in fact, you will probably be quite happy about it. You can be as abrasive and inaccurate as you wish and wont have to worry about me calling you on it and annoying you. I will leave that to others who have a higher level of tolerance.

So, farewell XTE. No, not farewell, that wouldnt be sincere. Guess Im just going to have to settle for this

 

[Wolseley]

So off you go to the secular purgatory that is the 'ignore' list. I have no doubt that you wont care, in fact, you will probably be quite happy about it. You can be as abrasive and inaccurate as you wish and wont have to worry about me calling you on it and annoying you.

He seems to be turning up on a lot of those lately.....

 

[rambot]

It's already been pointed out that the government is doing these things:

Deepwater BP Oil Spill | The White House

So when you argue "Obama is doing nothing", well, clarify what the heck you'd expect him to do that you are keenly aware he has the legal authority to do.

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[XTE]

Nothing contradictory there, sport. I'd explain it, but why should I? Do your own homework. There are any number of liberals on this site that it is possible to have interesting dialogue with. You just happen not to be one of them. Its all heat with you, no light. While that is fun at times, I dont plan to risk being banned for engaging you in pointless verbal battles. Discussions with people like you can really only take place on unmoderated forums. So off you go to the secular purgatory that is the 'ignore' list. I have no doubt that you wont care, in fact, you will probably be quite happy about it. You can be as abrasive and inaccurate as you wish and wont have to worry about me calling you on it and annoying you. I will leave that to others who have a higher level of tolerance.

So, farewell XTE. No, not farewell, that wouldnt be sincere. Guess Im just going to have to settle for this

This is the most accurate post I remember you making.

Good Riddance!

YOU HAVE TOLD ME YOURSELF YOU ARE PURPOSEFULLY ANNOYING TO ME(I figured this would work eventually...).

 

[tanzanos]

.

 

[NotreDame]

Where are the conservatives to denounce this as activist judging?

Because perhaps this is not activist judging? If you believe this ruling constitutes as activist judging, then you need to articulate your reasons and evidence why this is so, as opposed to merely presuming it.

 

[NotreDame]

The judge's decision is not a bad one at all. Rather, the judge essentially said the agency did not make a sufficient evidentiary finding/record to justify its conduct.

 

[manchambo]

Because perhaps this is not activist judging? If you believe this ruling constitutes as activist judging, then you need to articulate your reasons and evidence why this is so, as opposed to merely presuming it.

The problem is that activist judging usually means "anything a judge does that I disagree with." I don't think it's a particularly useful concept because it's most used by people who have no idea what they're talking about to describe decisions they don't like. But, this is activist judging in the sense that it goes a good bit further than judges usually go in second-guessing administrative decision-making.