So turned off by the BP commercial...

[Darsa]

Wow, I have to agree with brmom. How much more selfish and self-serving could you possibly sound? I don't think you could, honestly. So sad that people are all fine-and-dandy in their own little corner of the world, complete with walls that block out everything else around them... I wonder what that person would say if something happened in THEIR neck of the woods. Or if something THEY prefer to eat was unattainable. WOW, I'm blown away.

Here's a fact: BP is far more important to our economy and our nation than a) Gulf Coast beach resorts, b) fishermen; and c) fish.

Disgusting.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

When this first happened, I gave BP the benefit of the doubt. It is pretty clear, now, that this probably could have been prevented had BP not been so cheap when putting this well into service, or when there was clear evidence that the blowback protector was damaged. The second part, the most important part, was a local decision made by the man running the rig, not BP executives. If I were a betting man, I would bet a great deal of money that the management team away from the rig were not aware of the signs of the destroyed rubber seals.

That said, the length of time that this has taken to resolve is a result of all sorts of mistakes and outright corruption. Why do countries like China require that relief well be drilled for deep water wells before they are put into production, but we do not? Seriously, does China care more about its environment than we do? I doubt it. It comes down to government corruption.

Blame this all on BP if you wish, and the accident itself was certainly their fault, but the length of time that it is taking to resolve the leak needs to be examined in greater depth. Had a relief well been in place, this spill would have lasted no more than a week. It would still have caused problems, but it would not have created this nightmare.

 

[sunnyday123]

Again, for as much as any of us know, that money was money already spent on an annual contract with their PR firm, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. At this point, it isn't clear whether any money spent on the commercial came from BP, versus funds already committed to their relationship with Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Beyond that, there is a $10 billion cap on liability, and even if that cap could possibly be lifted, total damages are estimated to go no higher than $31 billion. BP is still worth over $70 billion, even after their drop in market capitalization, so these few commercials very comfortably sit in that $39 billion cushion.

Energy expended on criticizing them for running these commercials is energy wasted.

Well, excuse me for wasting energy. I'm still going to criticize them for the 11 lives that were lost, the countless number of wildlife being killed and or washing up on shore covered in oil, and the thousands of people who are being affected.

 

[SaraJayne]

I don't know if I've seen the particular commercial the OP is referring to but the BP bashing is getting old. I agree with the PP who said that no matter what they do, at this point someone will vilify them.

Do they need to take a chunk of the blame? Of course they do. But if I am following the press releases correctly, not one but three safety systems simultaneously failed. No one has made a credible allegation that they skimped on safety or did anything that caused the accident. They simply did not have a plan for containing a deep water problem of this type.

Dead men tell no tales.

And BP was well known for cutting corners and sacrificing safety for $$$$.

 

[bicker]

Well, excuse me for wasting energy. I'm still going to criticize them for the 11 lives that were lost, the countless number of wildlife being killed and or washing up on shore covered in oil, and the thousands of people who are being affected.

Instead of directing that energy toward expressing care, concern, advocacy and assistance in those directions?

Why?

 

[sunnyday123]

Instead of directing that energy toward expressing care, concern, advocacy and assistance in those directions?

Why?

Um, in addition to my so-called "wasting energy" post, which in reality, how much energy does it take to post what I did-I have expressed concern, care AND donated to the cause. Don't assume, bicker. You know what it does. But just to you.

 

[bicker]

You didn't answer the question.

 

[sunnyday123]

You didn't answer the question.

Because I live in America and I have the freedom to do so. Also, because I'm angry. Let's try to not turn this into some high school debate that you find so thrilling. Move along. K?

 

[bicker]

If you think these issues are just matters of "high school" debate, then you're not understanding the message, but whatever. You indicated that your comments were just reflections of your being angry. That clarifies it.

 

[sunnyday123]

If you think these issues are just matters of "high school" debate, then you're not understanding the message, but whatever. You indicated that your comments were just reflections of your being angry. That clarifies it.

In no way do I think these issues are a "high school debate" matter. What I said was you turn everything into a debate. I don't want to get into it with you. I know I am helping with this tragedy. Are you?

Nevermind, don't answer that. Please.

 

[Darsa]

I have to agree with you on that, sunnyday; Goodness but it gets bothersome at times!

 

[jasta]

Really? Not one celebrity is doing anything to help? Where is George Clooney and his pals now...don't they want to help all the people who are being affected by this? Celebrities.....charity starts at home!

 

[bicker]

In no way do I think these issues are a "high school debate" matter. What I said was you turn everything into a debate.

When people disagree about something, it typically involves discussing the nature of the disagreement. If you want an unrebutted soap-box to just have your one side of things presented, this is not the place.

I don't want to get into it with you. I know I am helping with this tragedy. Are you?

Yes.

Nevermind, don't answer that. Please.

So you ask a prejudicial question, insinuating that I'm perhaps not helping, and then implore me not to contradict you? That's ridiculous.

If you don't want to discuss the issue, then don't. Don't tell other folks not to engage in discussion about the issue, just because you don't want to.

 

[sunnyday123]

Oh for Pete's sake, Bicker lets get it over with.

Tell me what I should and shouldn't do ( oh wait, you already did) then pick apart every post I've written on this thread ( you did that too) and finish with a wordy paragraph about free speech, and bend my words to mean something other than what I meant. Oh, you've done that too.

Are we done here? I didn't tell anyone else to not agree with me, or question my words. Just you. And I just simply told you I didn't want to debate with you about whether or not BP had already paid for a commercial that upsets tons of people, I told you that I am angry with the way they are handling the matter and that I am trying to assist in any way possible that I can.

What more do you want? My first-born? A pint of blood?

 

[Toad_Passenger]

And I just simply told you I didn't want to debate with you about whether or not BP had already paid for a commercial that upsets tons of people, I told you that I am angry with the way they are handling the matter and that I am trying to assist in any way possible that I can.

So this begs the question, what do you think they should do? Do you not think they want to solve this problem?

You've admitted you're angry by the whole thing, and that anger will cloud anything you see about BP, or coming from BP. I'm angry about this, too (especially when I see the pictures of the wetlands and wildlife), but I try to temper that anger so I can actively listen and understand everything that is being attempted or said.

Debating/discussing from a point of emotion gets us nowhere.

 

[bicker]

Indeed.

If someone doesn't want to participate in a discussion, that's fine. They can leave it to those of us who do want to participate in a discussion. No blood necessary.

 

[Notatourist]

The tourism industry in Louisiana was already pretty much dead. The fact remains that, on a national level, the tourism industry in Louisiana is absolutely irrelevant. A

I've changed the color of my response... You obviously haven't ever been to Louisiana. It's a pretty place, people do vacation there and they were just starting to get back to normal after Katrina.

And do you realize that it is safer to drill closer to the shore? If it weren't for unreasonable drilling restrictions, lives would have been saved.

If it had been closer to shore, that explosion could have caused even more damage on land.


I don't eat seafood, so doesn't bother me. But that quote makes my point - it is very easy, safe and efficient to drill for oil near the shorelines, yet we are not allowed to, which is ridiculous.

Ah, they thought it was safe to drill out as well. Want to test that option? You do realize what this is doing to the oil industry? BP is known for their LACK of safeguards.



No, its actually not, when we remove emotion from the equation. Americans will end up benefiting from cheaper oil prices, which will create cheaper costs for durable and perishable goods.

Its a disaster for the Gulf Coast, but not for all. And, the fact is that the industries hurt - fishing and tourism in the Gulf - are absolutely irrelevant to America as a whole.

Have you heard of the Gulf Stream? This spill is going GLOBAL. Therefore, soon enough the fishing industry in the Atlantic will be affected, which will add to the hurt the Gulf has already added to the economy. Then it will hit Europe.

Something to think about.

 

[sunnyday123]

So this begs the question, what do you think they should do? Do you not think they want to solve this problem?

You've admitted you're angry by the whole thing, and that anger will cloud anything you see about BP, or coming from BP. I'm angry about this, too (especially when I see the pictures of the wetlands and wildlife), but I try to temper that anger so I can actively listen and understand everything that is being attempted or said.

Debating/discussing from a point of emotion gets us nowhere.

Hey, have you met Bicker?

Indeed.

If someone doesn't want to participate in a discussion, that's fine. They can leave it to those of us who do want to participate in a discussion. No blood necessary.

Again, I didn't say I didn't want to participate in a discussion. I don't want to participate in one with you.

 

[Anjelica]

Have you heard of the Gulf Stream? This spill is going GLOBAL. Therefore, soon enough the fishing industry in the Atlantic will be affected, which will add to the hurt the Gulf has already added to the economy. Then it will hit Europe.

Something to think about.

While yes the Gulf Stream hits Europe and has an effect on part of Africa indicating it's "going Global" is not quite accurate. The Gulf Stream does not have an effect on the other Oceans of the world (i.e. Pacific, Indian, etc.)

 

[DawnCt1]

Have you heard of the Gulf Stream? This spill is going GLOBAL. Therefore, soon enough the fishing industry in the Atlantic will be affected, which will add to the hurt the Gulf has already added to the economy. Then it will hit Europe.

Something to think about.

All deep ocean blow outs have the potential to go "global", which is why I would always prefer that we drill in our waters where we have oversight.