^"...not related in any way to your response."^

You know, that's actually not true. It's one of your standard comebacks, just one level above "I don't really mean any of this stuff, I just say it to pull your chain," but it's not true.

^"Economically it may make sense for those who are gambling with other people's money, and for those who are willing to take high personal risk because of the potential for enormous reward."^

- The oil companies aren't gambling with other people's money. They're gambling with their own. If they couldn't make money at it, they wouldn't do it. These aren't emotional decisions on their part.

^The answer is now starting to become clear: as long as offshore drilling is restricted, those who for their own interest oppose a policy of energy conservation and industrial and consumer restraint can always justify their agenda by claiming that only the stubborn refusal to drill, drill, drill is responsible for the problems resulting from energy dependence. Energy shortages mean high energy prices. The fact that the rig was owned by a British firm and managed by a South Korean company suggests there is little American business enthusiasm for this risk. Let's face it, American executives prefer making their money by shuffling paper in the banks and securities (and commodities!) markets, not getting their hands greasy in the real world.^

^...I submit that politically and economically, there is little will to actually take this kind of risk when there are still fortunes to be made by marketing foreign cartel petroleum. I suspect the call to "drill, drill, drill" is coming from those who don't really want to, they just want to see their political opponents embarrass themselves by opposing it. As long as the greens and hippies and liberals oppose offshore exploration, the enormous problems raised by reliance on foreign oil cannot be blamed on a policy of unlimited consumption at all costs.^

- Your "political" theory, that the oil companies love getting crapped on at every level, is at least creative, even if it makes little sense.

.

South Korea only built the rig for a customer. Transocean, which currently owns Deepwater Horizon, is based in Switzerland, and has rigs everywhere. BP has contracted for the rig's use, and it has been used all over the Gulf.

This is from ExxonMobil, one of the American companies you seem to think has "little enthusiasm for this risk." This is the powerhouse of Western civilization, not, as most liberals would have us believe, ignorant politicians passing laws to redistribute what others have made.

Keep in mind that most of that response above is statements I'm making related to the subject, not just a direct response to something you said.

And I stand firmly behind the last sentence in that post. I'm also beginning to suspect you're used to arguing with people when neither of you is actually processing the arguments. Things like inconsistency, factual errors, and other things don't really matter. It's like arguing about whether or not asparagus is tasty. I think it honks you off because I don't let you get away with it here.