I couldn't watch much, it made me ill.
It was completely inaccurate, right from the beginning. Those estimates he mentions right at the beginning? Those were BP's estimates, not the governments. Those were in BP's plan SUBMITTED to the government. SO yeah, the government had it on file, but that doesn't make it a fucking government estimate.
ANY argument based on utterly false pretenses is going to be utterly useless. It'd be like arguing that we no longer need unemployment, because people out of work can chase down Leprechauns at the end of rainbows to steal their pots of gold to pay for rent. Problem solved, right?
Fucking retards.
-Arlos
I <3 Andrew Napolitano
Moderator: Dictators in Training
Re: I <3 Andrew Napolitano
Apparently you missed the part about BP needing to show they comply with the government's rules/regs/data during the permitting process, which would explain why it's BP's plan. Regardless though, the best part of the video doesn't happen until Shepard gets done raging and the Judge sets him straight.
Re: I <3 Andrew Napolitano
only part i appreciated (read: could stomach) was the part where judge talked about the idiocy of a liability cap (specifically, that no insurance is needed providing the drilling co. is willing to shell out damages up to the cap)
under whose watch did that particular law get inked?
edit: and does the existence of that particular law-- and, in judge's opinion, its failure here-- make a case FOR more industry regulations or AGAINST?
under whose watch did that particular law get inked?
edit: and does the existence of that particular law-- and, in judge's opinion, its failure here-- make a case FOR more industry regulations or AGAINST?
compost the rich
Re: I <3 Andrew Napolitano
He said that it's a perfect example of how the government is incompetent when it comes to telling a business how to conduct its business, and that the insurance company would have made certain that they were drilling safely if they didn't have the liability cap and needed insurance.
I have no doubt at all that a for-profit insurance company would put more effort into minimizing their own risk by heavily (effectively) regulating those they insure than the government and politicians would. But these days, people are so used to government solutions for everything that they don't even realize a free market solution exists, let alone could be far superior.
I have no doubt at all that a for-profit insurance company would put more effort into minimizing their own risk by heavily (effectively) regulating those they insure than the government and politicians would. But these days, people are so used to government solutions for everything that they don't even realize a free market solution exists, let alone could be far superior.