Piyush Jindal makes me sad

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
And Obama's response, in which no one even knew who was in charge (BP or the Coast Guard) did better? Oh please oh please ask me to show how much money they wasted and how many bullshit political games were played. I will have to start looking for the pics of people "cleaning up the oil" in brand new shiny white boots when Obama came in for a visit and then got bused back out literally within hours of Obama leaving.

Oooh, how about the federal regulators getting hookers and blow from the people they were regulating? Thousands upon thousands of workers doing jack shit but walking around and fucking off day after day (but it looked really good for photo ops and 45 sec commercials)? The CG recalling vessels that Louisiana built themselves to suck oil out of the marshes because the CG forgot to check to make sure they had enough life jackets on them (instead of maybe sending a small fast boat out to check them at sea)? The emergency response that BP had previously presented to the Feds? Refusing resources that would have actually made a difference?

You literally could not dream of a more fucked up uncoordinated response then what happened but sand berms that would have been there to rebuild our eroding coast line and would have been a buffer to both the oil AND hurricanes had the Feds not been fucking Louisiana out of royalty sharing that it deserves (and almost every other state gets) is your only point?

Wow, could you possibly have flung more poo in random directions? Unless of course you have credible evidence of this gross Federal mismanagement.

The only party responsible for the oil spill is BP.

As for the cleanup...this had never happened before, so the response, by whoever, was going to be difficult and failure prone.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Wow, could you possibly have flung more poo in random directions? Unless of course you have credible evidence of this gross Federal mismanagement.

The only party responsible for the oil spill is BP.

As for the cleanup...this had never happened before, so the response, by whoever, was going to be difficult and failure prone.
This is manifestly NOT true. The regulators failed to regulate; certainly they bear some responsibility. Deepwater Horizon certainly bears a LOT of the responsibility, being the party actually in charge. Certainly BP acted very badly, but Deepwater Horizon had a responsibility to not be pressured into short-cutting safety, if only to protect their own employees who needlessly lost their lives. I don't blame Obama - he had effectively no control and no way to affect the clean-up - but it's not just BP.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
And I don't agree that walking up to a contributing member of society and murdering them is the same as vacuuming a leech's brain out while it's still in the uterus.

Even 5 minutes before birth?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Even 5 minutes before birth?
In at least one state the baby could legally be killed even after birth, as long as the cord had not been cut. If memory serves, that state's law has been fixed after that actually happened. There may or may not be other states with that law; I suspect not though.

I would think that everyone would agree that killing a baby who is viable outside of the womb should be murder unless there is truly a significant risk of death to the mother. But I recognize that a significant part of our population feels that the mother can kill her baby for any reason at any point, up to actual birth. Our President doesn't even agree that a baby accidentally born during an abortion deserves medical care, or didn't as a state senator anyway; as a politician he would never take that position if not guaranteed of significant numbers of voters who agree. And plenty of people don't really count the lives of even mobile, talking children as equal to that of an adult, as witnessed by the treatment of Andrea Yates and women like her.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Even 5 minutes before birth?

Strawman argument. Even the vast majority of pro-choicers (myself included) do not believe that the right to abortion should extend all the way through a pregnancy. The only exceptions should be when a fetus has a severe defect that is incompatible with life.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,477
6,897
136
This is manifestly NOT true. The regulators failed to regulate; certainly they bear some responsibility. Deepwater Horizon certainly bears a LOT of the responsibility, being the party actually in charge. Certainly BP acted very badly, but Deepwater Horizon had a responsibility to not be pressured into short-cutting safety, if only to protect their own employees who needlessly lost their lives. I don't blame Obama - he had effectively no control and no way to affect the clean-up - but it's not just BP.


Agreed. However, I'm left wondering just how corrupted/sympathetic the regulators were by/toward the industry they were meant to watch over. The old skeptic in me thinks the regulatory agencies that are supposed to watch over the oil giants have been thoroughly infiltrated with industry-friendly or in-place corrupted personnel.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Agreed. However, I'm left wondering just how corrupted/sympathetic the regulators were by/toward the industry they were meant to watch over. The old skeptic in me thinks the regulatory agencies that are supposed to watch over the oil giants have been thoroughly infiltrated with industry-friendly or in-place corrupted personnel.
That's a big problem. The only people really qualified to inspect and regulate an industry like this are the people working in this industry. One solution might be crash courses for tree huggers. A tree hugger regulator might not understand exactly why the drillers were unhappy about the test results, but if he/she knew anything at all about the process I'm betting they would not have been allowed to proceed until these questions had been fully addressed.

The system needs to be fundamentally reworked as well. Helicoptering out to a platform a few times a year is doing no one any good. Regulators need to be spending days at a time on the platform to really get a good feel for what is going on. Even the paperwork isn't being properly checked.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Strawman argument. Even the vast majority of pro-choicers (myself included) do not believe that the right to abortion should extend all the way through a pregnancy. The only exceptions should be when a fetus has a severe defect that is incompatible with life.
Or when the mother's life (not "health") is severely threatened. No point in risking a born person's life for an unborn person who may or may not survive. A bird in the hand . . .
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Or when the mother's life (not "health") is severely threatened. No point in risking a born person's life for an unborn person who may or may not survive. A bird in the hand . . .

Well if it's past the point of viability then you can just deliver the baby if the mother's life is threatened. As I've said before I'm strongly pro-choice, but once you're late in a pregnancy I think abortion should only be legal for serious (i.e. brain growing outside the head, no way the baby will survive after delivery) birth defects.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
And plenty of people don't really count the lives of even mobile, talking children as equal to that of an adult, as witnessed by the treatment of Andrea Yates and women like her.

I'm one of those people. *shrug*
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well if it's past the point of viability then you can just deliver the baby if the mother's life is threatened. As I've said before I'm strongly pro-choice, but once you're late in a pregnancy I think abortion should only be legal for serious (i.e. brain growing outside the head, no way the baby will survive after delivery) birth defects.
I think sometimes the strain of birth or Caesarian might dictate an abortion; although those times are very rare, I wouldn't want my granddaughter to be the one in a million who died rather than get a late-term abortion. I just don't agree with those who want a broad definition of health, so that a woman can abort a perfectly viable baby because it would hurt her self-esteem or something else trivial.

I'm one of those people. *shrug*
I find my valuation of children varies directly with their cuteness and relationship to me, and inversely with their noise and proximity. LOL
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I find my valuation of children varies directly with their cuteness and relationship to me, and inversely with their noise and proximity. LOL

I've never met a person under 10 years of age that I cared for.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I went to Catholic schools in New Orleans from K-12 and I never encountered creationism in science class. I concede the point that it belongs in religion or philosophy.

Leftists are to creationists what I am to abortionists. They say, "no one who could believe such nonsense could possibly make a good leader." I say no different, but about abortion. If your position is that killing your own offspring in the name of convenience is acceptable, I can't in good conscience vote for you. No other issue, no matter how practical, can take precedence over that.

Furthermore, I find it amusing when I get derided by the left for being a "single-issue voter" when this forum is replete with examples of liberals bemoaning how every creationist candidate would be disastrous in office sheerly because of their creationist beliefs.

As far as your comment that it will never be changed regardless of the politician, similar words were spoken about slavery.

You are rightly criticized for being a single issue voter. Your analogy fails because I don't see it being argued that a creationist candidate is out of bounds regardless of their views on any other issue. I see creationist candidates being derided as anti-science, but who is saying such a candidate is out of bounds regardless of any others views they hold?

Personally, belief in creationism is a minor issue, while advocating that it be taught as science in public schools is a big negative. However, neither is a litmus test. If I agree with the candidate on most other issues, I'd probably vote for him.

- wolf
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Jindal ?

Hell, we sent a Senator to Washington that all the hookers know as 'Diaper Dave'.