Rand Paul: Criticizing BP Is Un-American

by Ben Hoffman

This illustrates the difference between right-wingers and left-wingers:

Kentucky’s Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul criticized President Barack Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill Friday as putting “his boot heel on the throat of BP” and “really un-American.”

“What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,”‘ Rand said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”

On the oil spill, Paul, a libertarian and tea party darling, said he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn’t pay for the spill that threatens devastating environmental damage along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

“And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen,” Paul said.

Read more…

To right-wingers, America is corporate America and the military. To left-wingers and our founding fathers, America is the people.

Advertisements

24 Comments to “Rand Paul: Criticizing BP Is Un-American”

  1. This illustrates the difference between right-wingers and left-wingers:

    Hurricanes cause untold billions of dollars in damages each year. Why don’t you just go pass legislation that outlaws hurricanes from hitting the US coast line?

    • That’s an odd question.

      • That’s an odd question.

        So is asking a company what they are going to do to “make sure this never happens again”.

        We know that all things, natural and man made, are fallible. As such, we should begin to temper our expectations. I can guarantee you another oil spill will occur. Just as surely that another airplane will fall out of the sky.

        So, rather than alienate a corporation or an industry for something that we KNOW is going to happen, we should be cooperating with them and working with them to extended the MTBF [mean time between failure] and decrease the MTTR [mean time to restore].

        Far far more devastating than an oil spill would be to stop drilling for oil.

      • Why don’t you find out some of the facts about the oil disaster? It appears that BP cut corners to save money and that caused the explosion. Nobody requires you to care about our country to live here, but some of us would like to protect it from a disaster that could have been avoided.

      • It appears that BP cut corners to save money and that caused the explosion.

        So make them responsible for the damage they do; no one disputes this. We all know of the moral hazard of the company that pollutes a river…the company doesn’t care about the river and in so polluting it, restricts the Liberties of those that enjoy and depend upon that river being clean.

        The same applies to the oceans and the coast line. This is well understood and reasonable.

        What is NOT reasonable, is “putting a boot on the throat of BP” or any other corporation.

        Just reinforces “Gangsta Government” and Obama’s “gun to a knife fight” image.

  2. [What is NOT reasonable, is “putting a boot on the throat of BP” or any other corporation.]

    What does that mean? What specific action by the government are you outraged over?

    • What does that mean? What specific action by the government are you outraged over?

      It means that “putting your boot” on someone’s throat sounds much more an act of violence than does:

      We are working around the clock to identify the exact nature of the rupture in order that we are better able to work with BP in providing any and all technical assistance to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf.

      When we have been able to demonstrate to our experts that we have, in fact, managed to control the rupture and place ourselves firmly on the path of resolution, we will begin an investigation that involves BP and the rest of the oil industry to identify the true cause of the failure and work through solutions that will contribute to a safer and more reliable oil drilling industry in the future.”

      The first sounds like you are a politician that grew up in the cesspool we call Chicago.

      The other sounds like a partner to the oil industry and demonstrates a willingness to continue that partnership in a way that will lead to more and safer oil drilling.

      And that took me, a simple long hair, about 3.2 minutes to craft.

      • What? That’s “putting a boot to BP?” You have got to be kidding. You should be outraged over the environmental destruction. Thousands of fishermen will be out of work from this disaster. Beaches will be polluted, which will affect the tourism industry. Not to mention all the wildlife that will be killed by the oil.

        Like I said before, nobody requires you to care about our country, but some of us do.

      • What? That’s “putting a boot to BP?” You have got to be kidding.

        No, not at all.

        My point, and Rand Paul’s is that you have two responses.

        1. Boot to throat.
        2. Mine.

        One sounds anti-corporate and antagonistic. The other, mine, sounds cooperative. We object to Obama using phrases like “boot to throat” when referring to corporations.

        And yes, the speaker in my example is just as upset over the damage done to the water, the beaches and to the fishes and fishermen. However, in my example, the speaker, the government, sounds much more willing to work with the corporation to:

        A: Clean up the damage
        B: Work to build better equipment
        C: Ensure that future corporations have a place at the table.

        Question to you:

        What GOOD is done by using the phrase “boot to the throat….”?

      • [What GOOD is done by using the phrase “boot to the throat….”?]

        First of all, when did Obama say that? I know Gibbs used that expression but I don’t think Obama did.

        Second, who gives a flying f*ck if they used insensitive language. We have a major catastrophe on our hands.

  3. America = Capitalism

    Boot to Throat of private corporation = Communism

    Communism does not = Capitalism

    Boot to throat of private corporation does not = Capitalism

    Thus

    Boot to throat of private corporation does not = America

    Oh, and Gibbs speaks for the White House.

    Feel free to comment on my blog anytime. I welcome putting my boot on the throat of any hippie.

  4. If our Supreme leader Barak Hussein Obama was competent, he would have called in all available industry, military, and technical people from around the World as soon as it became apparent that this was not an ordinary well blow out.

    BP obviously needs help. So what did our ” FEARLESS LEADER ” do? He threatened BP. He said he would put his boot on their neck. That may play well with his rabid capitalist hating green base, but it did not stop the well from leaking oil.

    There will be plenty of time to string up BP after they plug the well. Our ” FEARLESS LEADER ” looks impotent to do anything constructive. What would he do if we had a nuclear meltdown like Chernobile ? How many people would die with his boot on a company neck ? How would be handle a 911 or a Katrina, I mean something totally unexpected ?

    I believe we have our answer.

    Now imagine if this had happened while Bush was still President ? Olbermann would be counting day 30 something since Bush’s oil buddies polluted the Gulf of Mexico. You know the oil buddies who gave so much money to the President. I wonder if Liberals will note the $77,000 President Bush got from BP? Wait,,,my mistake. President Obama got $77,000 from BP.

    I can’t find whether Mr. Paul got as much from BP as President Obama. I hope he did not say those things for free.

    • [If our Supreme leader Barak Hussein Obama was competent, he would have called in all available industry, military, and technical people from around the World as soon as it became apparent that this was not an ordinary well blow out.]

      I agree. While oil companies are probably the only entities with the equipment to work 5,000 feet below the surface of the ocean, the government should get every oil skimmer and whatever other technology exists to clean up the mess. BP is out there spraying dispersants when the oil should be gathered.

      [BP obviously needs help. So what did our ” FEARLESS LEADER ” do? He threatened BP. He said he would put his boot on their neck. That may play well with his rabid capitalist hating green base, but it did not stop the well from leaking oil.]

      BP has proven to be totally irresponsible in their operations. A little harsh language is the last thing people should be complaining about.

    • [Now imagine if this had happened while Bush was still President ? ]

      Bush set the stage for this catastrophe. The MMS didn’t become incompetent overnight. It was a long time in the making.

  5. Mr. Hoffman,

    This little mistake of BP does not change my opinion of offshore drilling. It must continue. We don’t ground jetliners every time one crashes. We improve the safety and keep flying.

    Government can order more resources brought in and bill BP. There are other oil companies that could come in. The Brazilians have drilled the deepest wells that I’m aware of.

    You do know I’m right about the difference that Bush would have gotten in news coverage than Obama. This would have made the Katrina Bush blamefest look like a celebrity roast .

    The money Obama got from BP would have gone to Bush and we would have gotten the usual smear job from you guys. Only now, that a month of oil is finally washing up onshore, is Obama getting the slightest heat.

    The final answer is not to ban offshore drilling. The final answer is not more worthless green energy. The final answer is for government and industry to have continguency plans for a worst case.

    The military always has plans on the shelf for doomsday scenarios. Almost none of them ever get used.

    Lets see what your great hero learns from this. Probably just how to politically exploit it. Real Presidents create capabilities for the future. Like Bush did militarily and with intelligence to combat terror.

    • [Only now, that a month of oil is finally washing up onshore, is Obama getting the slightest heat.]

      If Obama took control of the situation, you right-wingers would complain that he’s socializing the oil industry.

      [Real Presidents create capabilities for the future. Like Bush did militarily and with intelligence to combat terror.]

      Bush WAS the terrorist.

  6. But more oil money goes to Congress as a whole than to presidential candidates. Sunlight, an advocate for government transparency, lists the 10 biggest recipients of BP cash who are currently serving in Congress:

    * Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) — $73,300
    * Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — $44,899
    * Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) — $41,400
    * Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) — $31,000
    * Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) — $28,200
    * Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) — $27,350
    * Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) — $22,300
    * Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — $22,000
    * Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) — $20,950
    * Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) — $19,500

    Few surprises here. Quick review: Inhofe is the Senate’s lead climate-change denier; Barton is his counterpart in the House; McConnell is the Senate GOP leader; McCain has abandoned his former interest in climate legislation; Young is the sole rep from an oil-intensive state; Dingell is a chief protector of the Detroit auto industry, and Landrieu hearts the Gulf oil and gas industries.

    Point being, if you want to fault Obama for taking Big Oil money, go for it. If you think it may have influenced his decision to expand offshore drilling, fine. But he wants to sign a decent clean-energy bill, according to everything we’ve seen him do and heard him say.

    The Senate is where the bill is stalled out. That’s where oil money is doing the most damage.

    http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-05-bps-donations-to-congress-more-worrying-than-donations-to-obama/

  7. Mr. Hoffman

    ” Bush WAS the terrorist. ”

    You are simply not rational. Your Bush hatred over rides your commonsense. Bush took on evil and did not care about the political consequences. You see, this is why over the long run Americans perceive Democrats as wimps and Republicans as strong .

    Your hero goes around apologizing for his country ” in front ” of terrorists . Crazy ole Joe Biden is in Brussels bad mouthing America to a bunch of loser Europeans . Brussels is in Belgium. Belgium pretty much raped and pillaged the native people of Africa in the 19th Century .

  8. [Bush took on evil and did not care about the political consequences.]

    Bush used the fight against “evil” FOR political purposes. He did more damage to our country and killed far more innocent people than any terrorist ever did.

    [Belgium pretty much raped and pillaged the native people of Africa in the 19th Century .]

    And the U.S. decimated the native American population in the 19th century.

  9. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” And the U.S. decimated the native American population in the 19th century. ”

    The only thing that I agree with you on. Are you willing to give the mansion in which you live on back to Indians? The land I own was stolen from the Indians in the 18th century . I can’t afford to give it back, but I acknowledge the debt I owe.

    ” Bush used the fight against “evil” FOR political purposes. He did more damage to our country and killed far more innocent people than any terrorist ever did. ”

    A 1,000% untrue . Again, you are blinded by your irrational hatred.

    One of the reasons your bumbling hero has the luxury of concentrating on health care and the environment is that Bush and Cheney did all of the hard work, and took all of the heat for the hard decisions.

    Your bumbling hero has to figure out who he will blame first, before he makes a hard decision. Remember how long he waffled just to decide the surge in Afghanistan. I heard the snipers were going nuts waiting for Obama the Great to make a decision on whether they could shoot the pirates in the freaking life raft.

    Well, true to form Obama fiddles while the Gulf Coast is coated with oil .

    • [Again, you are blinded by your irrational hatred.]

      No, my hatred is rational. Bush did a lot of damage to our country.

      Your hatred, on the other hand, is irrational. You lie to create reasons to hate Obama and you lie to defend Bush. That’s irrational.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    I am rather proud to be the flip side of you . I am slightly older and wiser than you . I’ve followed politics since the Watergate hearings . I’ve been amazed how perceptions change with history . I remember Nixon being hated more than Bush, Reagan and Clinton combined, and later even Democrats recognizing his accomplishments .

    Who would have thought that you Democrats would have allowed an airport named after Reagan. I’m also amazed that even Clinton has been rehabilitated in the public mind. Each President is the worst we’ve ever had until the next guy gets in and something goes wrong.

    Jimmy Carter is the only President who history has been unkind to in my life time. The more things go wrong now for Obama, the better Bush will look .

    That is my historical long view of the world . So when I call Obama, Jimmy Carter, I am giving him the worst insult there is.

  11. 1773: Americans throw Britain’s tea in the ocean… 2010: British Petroleum throws American oil into the ocean… Freakin’ Brits sure hold a grudge!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: