Goodbye, Joe

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Aren't you the one that wants less government, less regulations?

Gawd, you're a moron.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Gawd, you're a moron.

And you're an ignorant hypocrite...one that does not want power as long as all the rule's favor just wtf he likes.

Read this article and substitute consume gas at lower prices with protecting children
and you will have a better understanding of what it is we are really up aganist.

http://www.rosporkad.com/2010/07/09/...he-gulf-spill/

With any complex, technological, highly competitive industry (oil, not space), risk is inevitable, even essential, to progress. NASA, Gladwell explains, could have chosen to improve the o-ring. However, having improved the safety of the space shuttle by a small increment, it would have felt justified in taking a new risk–with a new kind of metal or tubing, or whatever. This is called consuming a benefit, rather than saving it.
We consume a safety benefit rather than save it every time we drive our cars. We could ensure public safety by driving 30 mph, and in tanks. But people need to get places, and they don’t want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a vehicle to take them. So we drive 70 mph, in cars of moderate safety. The National Highway Safety Transportation Administration reported 34,017 fatal car accidents in 2008, but nobody is seriously considering a major change in speed limit or car design.
In the case of the oil rig, BP achieved a satisfactory level of safety and efficacy at a low enough cost, and they opted to move forward with drilling. They got in their car and drove 70, in other words. They passed along the benefit to us. And we consumed it. That benefit, of course, was cheap oil. We could have insisted that they achieve higher standards for safety and the environment, but by groaning at the gas pumps, we told our Congressmen not to set or enforce such standards. So they didn’t.
What about the market? Why didn’t BP adhere to higher standards voluntarily in order to avoid such a costly catastrophe? Well, remember the “Hand Formula” from yesterday’s post? The likelihood of a harm multiplied by the magnitude of the harm is equivalent to how much you should spend to avoid it. Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker has done the very rough math at the fascinatingBecker-Posner Blog. As a business decision, how much should BP have spent to avoid this mess? $2 million at the low end; $200 million at the high end–to avoid a cost ranging from $100 to $200 billion.
BP gambled, just like us. Evidently they spent something closer to $2 million and just hoped the odds were in their favor. Similarly, we spent far too little to regulate BP in favor of lower gas prices.
So long as we would rather consume gas at lower prices than accept higher safety standards, accidents like the one we’re now facing will be an inevitability

[CuteOldGuy]

Yeah, I want laws to protect people who intentionally fail to report child rape. You are a fucking moron.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah, I want laws to protect people who intentionally fail to report child rape.

Hopefully, this is wrongly stated - or sarcasm!?!

[CuteOldGuy]

It was sarcasm. I'm getting tired of WTF's stupidity.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It was sarcasm. I'm getting tired of WTF's stupidity.

My stupidity?

I'm not the one wanting to save the world from itself without any laws.

All you do is gripe about the size of government, yet when something like this happens, you want more laws, government laws!

Don't you understand that is why we have so many God Damn laws!

[CuteOldGuy]

You have no idea how stupid you sound.

Chica, this is my thread. Please close it.

[I B Hankering]

Here's the crux: Paterno, Curley, and Schultz all deny McQueary's current account of events. They presently claim McQueary has changed his story from Sandusky "inappropriately showering with a minor" to child molestation. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz deserve their day in court.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here's the crux: Paterno, Curley, and Schultz all deny McQueary's current account of events. They presently claim McQueary has changed his story from Sandusky "inappropriately showering with a minor" to child molestation. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz deserve their day in court.

+1

When I B and WTF agree, people should take note. WE just might be on to something.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You have no idea how stupid you sound.

Chica, this is my thread. Please close it.

You have no idea how chickenshit you sound.

''WTF is making me look like a hypocrite, please close my thread!'' blablabla

You will probably get your wish, everytime Olivia makes a false charge, the thread gets closed before she has to answer. I for one would like to hear her explain the post below away. Remember, she has said that she did not accuse anyone of defending rapist.

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

. Yes, you are defending those that didn't defend a child against a predator rapist, and that rapist went on to rape other children after his true vile nature was known to very powerful people.

The bottom line is that the facts are out and no one is denying them. There's your wait and see. Peace bitch.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

''WTF is making me look like a hypocrite, please close my thread!'' blablabla

Yeah. That's it.

[CuteOldGuy]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...rpc=22&sp=true

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah. That's it.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...rpc=22&sp=true

You keep posting in a thread you asked to be closed!

Hypocrite

[London Rayne]

heh

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by London Rayne

heh

I DON'T THINK LONDON UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID I WANTED TO SEE HER KITTY......