Now that we've relented and opened drilling along the coast lines. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/oil.spill.wildlife/index.html?hpt=T1 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/oil.spill.wildlife/index.html?hpt=T1)
Quote(CNN) -- A huge oil spill oozing toward the Gulf Coast on Thursday threatens hundreds of species of wildlife, some in their prime breeding season, environmental organizations said.
The Coast Guard said Wednesday that the amount of oil spilling from an underwater well after an oil rig explosion last week has increased to as many as 5,000 barrels of oil a day, or 210,000 gallons, five times more than what was originally believed.
Although efforts to minimize the damage are under way and options under consideration include asking the U.S. military for assistance, wildlife conservation groups say the oil could pose a "growing environmental disaster."
"The terrible loss of 11 workers (unaccounted for after the rig explosion) may be just the beginning of this tragedy as the oil slick spreads toward sensitive coastal areas vital to birds and marine life and to all the communities that depend on them," said Melanie Driscoll, director of bird conservation for the Louisiana Coastal Initiative, in a statement.
Coastal areas of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida could be at risk, the organization said.
"For birds, the timing could not be worse; they are breeding, nesting and especially vulnerable in many of the places where the oil could come ashore," she said. "The efforts to stop the oil before it reaches shore are heroic, but may not be enough. We have to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, including a true catastrophe for birds.". . .
And this is just going to be the start. BP needs to get their ass in gear and get this thing plugged. Fuel prices will go through the roof over this one too. Experts are saying this event will exceed the Exxon Valdez incident in terms of coasts and damage done. The LA shrimp industry is going to be trashed too. . .
Well, there. . .you. . .go! :rant:
There's always Alaska. Na, lets just stay dependent on foreign oil. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on April 29, 2010, 10:06:35 PM
Na, lets just stay dependent on foreign oil.
Sugar, BP is a
British firm. What's your point?
Quote from: me on April 29, 2010, 10:06:35 PM
There's always Alaska. Na, lets just stay dependent on foreign oil. :rolleyes:
Alternative fuels and energy is the real answer here!
Quote from: me on April 29, 2010, 10:06:35 PM
There's always Alaska. Na, lets just stay dependent on foreign oil. :rolleyes:
How can we not be dependent on foreign oil when we only have about 2% of the world's reserves anyway? Also, all oil here is sold on the commodities exchange just like all the other oil. There is no such thing as American oil keeping American gas/oil prices down. There are no guarantees that a single iota of oil drilled and extracted in the US will remain here. It just doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Locutus on April 29, 2010, 10:14:26 PM
How can we not be dependent on foreign oil when we only have about 2% of the world's reserves anyway? Also, all oil here is sold on the commodities exchange just like all the other oil. There is no such thing as American oil keeping American gas/oil prices down. There are no guarantees that a single iota of oil drilled and extracted in the US will remain here. It just doesn't work that way.
EXACTLY. And add to that mix that big name investment firms like Morgan Stanley, etc., now have controlling interest in the US oil import market; to the point where they can hold oil in their reserves and artificially drive fuel prices sky high so they can buy low and sell high. . .
This whole thing is totally unacceptable on
so many levels. . . This shit will end up making Katrina look like a bird fart. . .Just watch. . . :rant:
What's more worrisome is that if they can't get that artificial submarine to plug the damn thing, which isn't looking good, drilling a relief well could take up to 2 months. This is a HUGE environmental and ecological disaster. That area is teeming with seafood. Oysters, shrimp, and other forms of marine life. Those will take DECADES to recover from this if they ever do.
BTW, MSNBC is breaking news that the slick has reached the Mississippi river delta as of this hour. :'(
:(
let all those pro drillers go and clean it up at their own expense. :rant:
I think I will go the way of the conspiracy theory, it was sabatoge. Think about it.
Quote from: Anne on April 29, 2010, 11:07:52 PM
I think I will go the way of the conspiracy theory, it was sabatoge. Think about it.
Why, because of Obama's recent support of new offshore drilling initiatives?
Quote from: Moonglow on April 29, 2010, 10:53:04 PM
let all those pro drillers go and clean it up at their own expense. :rant:
Starting with Sarah fuckin' Palin.
I'd like to treat her like the pig she is. :razz:
Quote from: Anne on April 29, 2010, 11:07:52 PM
I think I will go the way of the conspiracy theory, it was sabatoge. Think about it.
That would be something the "greens" would do ya know. They're idiots.
All we need now is a seismic event to happen in the gulf and we'll have a 100 foot wall of oil laden tsunami! :spooked:
Quote from: Locutus on April 29, 2010, 11:12:11 PM
Why, because of Obama's recent support of new offshore drilling initiatives?
Yes. It was certain to make him rethink his decision.
Quote from: Anne on April 30, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Yes. It was certain to make him rethink his decision.
I'd be suspicious of anyone who didn't revisit that decision. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on April 30, 2010, 12:10:54 PM
All we need now is a seismic event to happen in the gulf and we'll have a 100 foot wall of oil laden tsunami! :spooked:
Oh sheesh PH ya just had to go and say that didn't ya? That same thought ran through my head yesterday. :spooked:
Quote from: Anne on April 30, 2010, 06:00:41 PM
Yes. It was certain to make him rethink his decision.
I am quit sure he will change his mind in some way. He will make it safe and will still do a little drilling, because we have to do something.
He won't do what old George W., ask the heavenly father for advice, do it even if it is wrong and wouldn't change his mind on anything. Just plain stupid. :trustme:
I have some pictures to post later...heartbreaking. :(
If this oil spill doesn't kill the American shrimp industry nothing will. After years of the foreign invasion of foreign farm produced shrimp (who know what kind of poison they feed them).
Next time your in the store, pick up a package of shrimp or fish and see where it came from. While in Florida, I went looking for some local fish and shrimp. Could not find any. All of it comes from Alaska, China and other far East countries and it's frozen. They thaw it out, put it in the case and sell it, as if it is fresh.
Troll :kickcan:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 30, 2010, 12:10:54 PM
All we need now is a seismic event to happen in the gulf and we'll have a 100 foot wall of oil laden tsunami! :spooked:
I was thinking the same thing. Hurricane season is only a month away.
aquaculture is the fastest growing industry in agricultura. I wish i had the seed monies. :yes:
well, democrats have been in control for nearly five years and I STILL don't see us advancing towards alternative fuels anymore than what we have been.....they PROMISED energy independence and lower gas prices.........WELL, they have done NOTHING, but lip service....Gas is still about the same price as it has been, and even Obama has decided to drill of coast............so don't give me any crap about "republicans asking for it".........dems / repubs...they are ALL politicians who have pockets lined with cash, and they don't give a crap about what is best for America.
just like the stonewalling repugnants
Quote from: Moonglow on May 03, 2010, 08:54:49 AM
just like the stonewalling repugnants
blah, blah, blah....you have control....and all you can come up with is "stonewalling".......... ;D
that is classic.... ;D
drunk already?
:beer: :beer:
Quote from: Moonglow on May 03, 2010, 08:59:14 AM
drunk already?
:beer: :beer:
you are on it moon!!...good one!!!.. ;D :razz: ...did you write these yourself? :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 03, 2010, 08:16:28 AM
well, democrats have been in control for nearly five years and I STILL don't see us advancing towards alternative fuels anymore than what we have been.....they PROMISED energy independence and lower gas prices.........WELL, they have done NOTHING, but lip service....Gas is still about the same price as it has been, and even Obama has decided to drill of coast............so don't give me any crap about "republicans asking for it".........dems / repubs...they are ALL politicians who have pockets lined with cash, and they don't give a crap about what is best for America.
Your memory is quite short isn't it.
Which political party used "Drill baby, drill!" as its 2008 campaign slogan? And which party has kept so much pressure on the POTUS to do so, that in a gesture of goodwill he decided to compromise and give in a little?
ANSWERS - REPUBLICANS
Quote from: Palehorse on May 03, 2010, 09:11:11 AM
Your memory is quite short isn't it.
Which political party used "Drill baby, drill!" as its 2008 campaign slogan? And which party has kept so much pressure on the POTUS to do so, that in a gesture of goodwill he decided to compromise and give in a little?
ANSWERS - REPUBLICANS
and I still believe that is the correct thing to do, UNTIL we achieve a better resource......GOODWILL my ass, he is doing it because he knows it is the right thing to do......(unless he has other political motives behind it)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 03, 2010, 09:16:36 AM
and I still believe that is the correct thing to do, UNTIL we achieve a better resource......GOODWILL my ass, he is doing it because he knows it is the right thing to do......(unless he has other political motives behind it)
I'm sorry. I forgot you had a direct line to the POTUS and his thoughts and reasoning. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 03, 2010, 09:21:49 AM
I'm sorry. I forgot you had a direct line to the POTUS and his thoughts and reasoning. :rolleyes:
Just like YOU did when Bush was in office.....
nice try!!..
Obama SUCKS!!! how is that for me putting that out there..........and before you jump on me, it has NOTHING to do with skin color....I think he is an inexperienced PUNK, who is arrogant and is in over his head.....
say what you want, but that is why I hope to God, he is a one term POTUS...
btw, I have my opinions, and they are MY opinions based upon nothing else but my own experiences of observing politics for the last thirty years....
too bad we can't run our cars on seafood
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 03, 2010, 09:29:37 AM
Just like YOU did when Bush was in office.....
nice try!!..
Obama SUCKS!!! how is that for me putting that out there..........and before you jump on me, it has NOTHING to do with skin color....I think he is an inexperienced PUNK, who is arrogant and is in over his head.....
say what you want, but that is why I hope to God, he is a one term POTUS...
btw, I have my opinions, and they are MY opinions based upon nothing else but my own experiences of observing politics for the last thirty years....
I didn't have to; the Shrub did a fine job of screwing up and making it quite clear he was (is) nothing more than an oil investor / businessman, who couldn't find his ass if a pipe wrench was sticking out of it. And if you will be quite honest with yourself and remove those glasses of hate, you will recall that the Shrub enjoyed my support until the truth came out surrounding Iraq. After that, he was the shrub.
NEWSFLASH - God doesn't give a damned about politics. You of all people should know that.
And those things you call "your opinions" are chock full of sour grapes and present-day propaganda. Are you saying you are the originator of these?! :spooked:
He and people like him don't know where one opinion starts and the other ends anymore, PH.
Brainwashing = A+
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 03, 2010, 10:51:30 AM
He and people like him don't know where one opinion starts and the other ends anymore, PH.
Brainwashing = A+
True dat! :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 03, 2010, 10:46:48 AM
NEWSFLASH - God doesn't give a damned about politics. You of all people should know that.
And those things you call "your opinions" are chock full of sour grapes and present-day propaganda. Are you saying you are the originator of these?! :spooked:
using God was JUST an expression nothing more nothing less...
it is NOT propaganda at all...THAT just happens to be how many, many, many Americans FEEL these days...and my opinion fall's in line with many, many, many OTHER Americas because we are ALL seeing what is happening and we don't LIKE it one bit....
PH, I have NEVER been more honest with myself than I have over the last four or five years....and what I see, is corruption at it's highest degree....starting with the media, right down to 1600 penn ave....I do not like the way this country is being led!!! it is THAT FUCKING SIMPLE!!...as you can tell I am using words I do NOT like to use, but it seems like THAT is the only way I can stress my sincerity and my passion of how this opposing party is leading!!..
THEY SUCK!!
You use "4 or 5" years because you think that's when the democrats took over. If you were really being honest w/yourself about our country's issues, then you would have started much earlier than that. You'd rather blame Obama and the democrats rather than learn the difference between being in majority and being in control.
The democrats were in majority the last two years of Bush's reign of terror, but were not in control and therefore can hardly be blamed as a group for Bush and co's problems.
Obama and the democrats are just skapegoats for you and your ilk NOT to be truthful with yourselves.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on May 03, 2010, 12:13:17 PM
You use "4 or 5" years because you think that's when the democrats took over. If you were really being honest w/yourself about our country's issues, then you would have started much earlier than that. You'd rather blame Obama and the democrats rather than learn the difference between being in majority and being in control.
The democrats were in majority the last two years of Bush's reign of terror, but were not in control and therefore can hardly be blamed as a group for Bush and co's problems.
Obama and the democrats are just skapegoats for you and your ilk NOT to be truthful with yourselves.
blah, freakin blah!!!!
Quote from: Palehorse on May 03, 2010, 01:24:36 PM
Interpretation = :busted:
not at all, I have made my point quite well, just some have tunnel vision and are not able to see the big picture.....
Look, I am not wrong....I have very quitely listened to my friends here for years and I can no longer sit back and take it....I have NEVER in my life known for a fact that I am on the right side of things than I am now....It has amazed me that some of you simply cannot see the truth...I have listened to you guys bad mouth me (or conservatives) for the longest time...and I just take it, becaues of the respect I have for you....but, I'm done....it was starting to bother me....and I feel enlightened now that I have come to the terms that I am RIGHT.... it is really that simple.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 03, 2010, 01:49:49 PM
not at all, I have made my point quite well, just some have tunnel vision and are not able to see the big picture.....
Look, I am not wrong....I have very quitely listened to my friends here for years and I can no longer sit back and take it....I have NEVER in my life known for a fact that I am on the right side of things than I am now....It has amazed me that some of you simply cannot see the truth...I have listened to you guys bad mouth me (or conservatives) for the longest time...and I just take it, becaues of the respect I have for you....but, I'm done....it was starting to bother me....and I feel enlightened now that I have come to the terms that I am RIGHT.... it is really that simple.
:deadhorse: :rifle: Don't go out in the woods to hunt mushrooms, the squrrels might get you. They like nuts. :rotfl: :rotfl: The Troll :no1:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 29, 2010, 10:03:33 PM
Now that we've relented and opened drilling along the coast lines. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/oil.spill.wildlife/index.html?hpt=T1 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/oil.spill.wildlife/index.html?hpt=T1)
And this is just going to be the start. BP needs to get their ass in gear and get this thing plugged. Fuel prices will go through the roof over this one too. Experts are saying this event will exceed the Exxon Valdez incident in terms of coasts and damage done. The LA shrimp industry is going to be trashed too. . .
Well, there. . .you. . .go! :rant:
I notice Obama wasn't in any big hurry to do his part in resolving this situation......seems like this is pretty quite.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270151/Obama-slow-act-oil-slick-disaster.html
Of course had this been Bush, the media would have been beside themselvs overthis...He only waited 12 days to head down to Louisiana...What has the EPA done?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/29/expanding-oil-slick-poses-political-peril-obama/
Why haven't they try to burn this off, like the Coast Gaurd suggested a few days ago?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 10:05:28 AM
I notice Obama wasn't in any big hurry to do his part in resolving this situation......seems like this is pretty quite.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270151/Obama-slow-act-oil-slick-disaster.html
Of course had this been Bush, the media would have been beside themselvs overthis...He only waited 12 days to head down to Louisiana...What has the EPA done?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/29/expanding-oil-slick-poses-political-peril-obama/
Why haven't they try to burn this off, like the Coast Gaurd suggested a few days ago?
Wow. . . you've really got to expand your horizons when it comes to the news gathering sources you are using. . .
The POTUS has been on top of this since the inception, and you'll be happy to hear he is paying strict attention surrounding where the funding is coming from surrounding control and clean up. He has already come out and said that BP needs to foot the bill for this, but it will not gate necessary federal response or resources nor be an impediment toward deploying them.
In case you didn't notice this is an environmental disaster on many levels, and not just the fact there is an oil slick growing larger by each minute. The utilization of quick fixes, like using dispersants, carry with them long reaching environmental ramifications that in some cases make the cure worse than the disease.
They did indeed start burning it off, but the gale force winds the area had been experiencing forced them to stop, Had you truly cared about this situation, and were not just trying to find a new bat to beat the POTUS with, you would have already known all of this. It has been all over the mainstream media. . .
so those articles that I read and posted mean nothing?.....because your news sources said otherwise?... :rolleyes:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0)
SPIN METER: There since Day One? Maybe not Maybe you should do some research and read other articles other than ones that suit your view, before you assume I am only trying to BEAT the POTUS with a new bat.....there are several articles that suggest he may have been slow...including the Associated Press, the Washington Times and the NY Times... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.........I do know it took him 10 days to go visit Louisiana folks about it... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html) just showing you there ARE other legit sources that shine a different light on it...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6425MV20100504 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6425MV20100504)
the fact box shows it was not until the 9th day until he mad a public statement....
just sayin.... ;)
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html)
Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill
If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Former-NOAA-oil-spill-cleanup-boss-says-Obama-waited-too-long-in-Gulf-disaster--92631189.html (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Former-NOAA-oil-spill-cleanup-boss-says-Obama-waited-too-long-in-Gulf-disaster--92631189.html)
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/29/general-us-oil-spill-what-went-wrong_7563574.html (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/29/general-us-oil-spill-what-went-wrong_7563574.html)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 11:56:56 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0)
SPIN METER: There since Day One? Maybe not Maybe you should do some research and read other articles other than ones that suit your view, before you assume I am only trying to BEAT the POTUS with a new bat.....there are several articles that suggest he may have been slow...including the Associated Press, the Washington Times and the NY Times... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.........I do know it took him 10 days to go visit Louisiana folks about it... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html) just showing you there ARE other legit sources that shine a different light on it...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 11:40:21 AM
so those articles that I read and posted mean nothing?.....because your news sources said otherwise?... :rolleyes:
Get your nuts out of the vice for crying out loud. I said he was ON TOP OF IT, not there. You want to talk about spin take a gander in the mirror. . . Sheesh. . . Now if you want to talk about when he was there it was May 1, SUNDAY. The day after the oil first hit the shorelines. . .
Now lets just consider which would have been the more advantageous course of action: A) take the time to gather the information that will provide a gauge surrounding the size of the problem and potential scope, hold strategies sessions with top level officials of the EPA, US Military, and other potential resources to formulate a plan of action and contingency plans, and a timeline for deployment, or, B) jump on a plane and fly down there before the oil even hits shore, and stand around hand wringing and pointing fingers??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 12:15:56 PM
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html)
Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill
If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Former-NOAA-oil-spill-cleanup-boss-says-Obama-waited-too-long-in-Gulf-disaster--92631189.html (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Former-NOAA-oil-spill-cleanup-boss-says-Obama-waited-too-long-in-Gulf-disaster--92631189.html)
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/29/general-us-oil-spill-what-went-wrong_7563574.html (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/04/29/general-us-oil-spill-what-went-wrong_7563574.html)
And I suppose that is his fault too huh? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 04, 2010, 12:23:00 PM
Get your nuts out of the vice for crying out loud. I said he was ON TOP OF IT, not there. You want to talk about spin take a gander in the mirror. . . Sheesh. . . Now if you want to talk about when he was there it was May 1, SUNDAY. The day after the oil first hit the shorelines. . .
Now lets just consider which would have been the more advantageous course of action: A) take the time to gather the information that will provide a gauge surrounding the size of the problem and potential scope, hold strategies sessions with top level officials of the EPA, US Military, and other potential resources to formulate a plan of action and contingency plans, and a timeline for deployment, or, B) jump on a plane and fly down there before the oil even hits shore, and stand around hand wringing and pointing fingers??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It is NOT remotley possible that YOUR boys just got caught moving a little slow on this is it?..........personaly, I think it is NOT that big a deal, I realize that he knew there was things going on, and I think it got much worse than the realized .... my point is had this been Bush, the media, without a fucking doubt would have had a fit on how this was handled.....
I made my point even if you refuse to accept it....you would rather defend him no matter what.....
next.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/columnists/article/ROSSCOL0315_20090313-212305/231260 (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/opinion/columnists/article/ROSSCOL0315_20090313-212305/231260)
If Bush Had Done What Obama Is Doing . . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 12:27:27 PM
It is NOT remotley possible that YOUR boys just got caught moving a little slow on this is it?..........personaly, I think it is NOT that big a deal, I realize that he knew there was things going on, and I think it got much worse than the realized .... my point is had this been Bush, the media, without a fucking doubt would have had a fit on how this was handled.....
I made my point even if you refuse to accept it....you would rather defend him no matter what.....
next.
M
"My boys" include AP, CNN, MSNBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, Chicago Sun Times, and a list that isn't worth putting down. And they were all consistent in reporting what I have stated here. Now, stop filtering and cherry picking your news chumley. . .
Could he have done better? Probably, but it depends on HIS sources and so many other variables you and I have no concept of. I do know that BP at first reported a "moderate" spill in process, and that was LATER updated to significant and growing status. . . But I guess you wanted a knee jerk reaction from the government to jump in and take control from the onset. . . Doesn't that go 180 degrees from your usual stance???
And lets see who you blame when this is all over. . .
You lost, get over it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 10:05:28 AM
I notice Obama wasn't in any big hurry to do his part in resolving this situation......seems like this is pretty quite.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1270151/Obama-slow-act-oil-slick-disaster.html
Of course had this been Bush, the media would have been beside themselvs overthis...He only waited 12 days to head down to Louisiana...What has the EPA done?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/29/expanding-oil-slick-poses-political-peril-obama/
Why haven't they try to burn this off, like the Coast Gaurd suggested a few days ago?
Like you honestly care w/an exception to how you and yours can twist this to make it all about Obama. Yet you defended Bush and Fema.
:rolleyes:
Matter of Trust is collecting donations of hair, fur( as in that recently cut from a head or animal in a salon) and nylons ( as in stockings, fishnet and otherwise). Yes, these things are being used to collect oil.
www.matteroftrust.org
QuoteCalifornia Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday reversed his position on expanding drilling off California's coast in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
"You turn on the television and see this enormous disaster, you say to yourself, 'Why would we want to take on that kind of risk?' " Schwarzenegger said at a news conference.
The announcement ensures that no new drilling will take place off the state's coastline in the foreseeable future because Schwarzenegger would have to include the drilling proposal in his May revision of the state budget.
Schwarzenegger had been counting on revenue from expanded drilling in the ocean off Santa Barbara to help close the state's $20 billion budget deficit. Democrats last year blocked a similar proposal, but Schwarzenegger renewed his support for the plan, saying it was a reliable way to increase revenue as the state grapples with an ongoing fiscal crisis.
On Monday, Schwarzenegger said his support had been based on numerous studies finding it was safe to drill. But now, "I see on TV, the birds drenched in oil, the fishermen out of work, the massive oil spill, oil slick destroying our precious ecosystem," the governor said.
A Houston-based company wanted to drill 30 new slant wells into state territory from an existing platform in federal waters. It would've brought the state $100 million. Schwarzenegger said he would find another way to plug the state's budget deficit.
In 1969, a blowout at an oil platform off the Santa Barbara coast fouled miles of beaches, helped spark the environmental movement and led to a moratorium on offshore drilling.
Currently, 27 platforms operate off the central and southern California coasts. They produced 13.3 million barrels of oil in 2009.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126490422&sc=fb&cc=fp
Quote from: Palehorse on May 04, 2010, 01:30:41 PM
M
"My boys" include AP, CNN, MSNBS, NBC, CBS, ABC, Chicago Sun Times, and a list that isn't worth putting down. And they were all consistent in reporting what I have stated here. Now, stop filtering and cherry picking your news chumley. . .
Could he have done better? Probably, but it depends on HIS sources and so many other variables you and I have no concept of. I do know that BP at first reported a "moderate" spill in process, and that was LATER updated to significant and growing status. . . But I guess you wanted a knee jerk reaction from the government to jump in and take control from the onset. . . Doesn't that go 180 degrees from your usual stance???
And lets see who you blame when this is all over. . .
You lost, get over it.
Well of course your MSM boys at nbc and company has NEVER, ever, reported anything that might cast a negative shadow on the almighty one.....
again, just want to show the hypocritical BS'ers out there who screamed 'it was Bush's fault'....everytime the wind shifted....
I guess this is just throwing it back in your faces....
like I said before, I don't care if he jumped on it the first minute or yesterday.....what is done is done is done....I don't think he would intentionaly want a disaster to happen....( or would he?... :confused: ).... it would be a really 'nice' way to stop the off-shore drilling once and for all, that the liberals so badly want.
personaly, I think the U.S. lost....and I will get over it this Novemeber.... :razz: ...Chumly... ;)
Whatever. . . I guess you think this is Burger King. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 04, 2010, 11:56:56 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gLiUWM39KjSOCwqEl9nZDVncfSlgD9FFSJ8O0)
SPIN METER: There since Day One? Maybe not Maybe you should do some research and read other articles other than ones that suit your view, before you assume I am only trying to BEAT the POTUS with a new bat.....there are several articles that suggest he may have been slow...including the Associated Press, the Washington Times and the NY Times... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.........I do know it took him 10 days to go visit Louisiana folks about it... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/opinion/01sat1.html) just showing you there ARE other legit sources that shine a different light on it...
No words needed!
:det:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 03, 2010, 09:11:11 AM
Your memory is quite short isn't it.
Which political party used "Drill baby, drill!" as its 2008 campaign slogan? And which party has kept so much pressure on the POTUS to do so, that in a gesture of goodwill he decided to compromise and give in a little?
ANSWERS - REPUBLICANS
and btw, who was the top recipent of BP CASH?... :spooked: ....yep, Pres. Obama.. :yes: ..hmmmmmmmmmmm, MAYBE, THAT is why he decided to suddenly allow off shore drilling.....ya think?.... ;) .....like ph always says, follow the cash!... ;)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505)
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/45293 (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/45293)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2010, 08:18:01 AM
and btw, who was the top recipent of BP CASH?.......yep, Pres. Obama....hmmmmmmmmmmm, MAYBE, THAT is why he decided to suddenly allow off shore drilling.....ya think?.........like ph always says, follow the cash!...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505)
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/45293 (http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/45293)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html)
I think you might want to rethink your posting, given the fact your hero the shrub' was neck deep in oil investments and contributions during his reign of terror. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 05, 2010, 08:20:48 AM
I think you might want to rethink your posting, given the fact your hero the shrub' was neck deep in oil investments and contributions during his reign of terror. :rolleyes:
I don't need to rething crap here PH, be honest on this one, don't bring up Bush, (like always)....FACT-Obama IS the biggest CASH recipient by BP..........FACT-Obama suddenly decides off shore drilling is a good idea...something that he spoke against during his campaign...he even canceled off shore drilling that Bush had put into place as soon as he got into office.
but, now it is becoming QUITE clear.....lets see what happens next.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2010, 08:26:39 AM
I don't need to rething crap here PH, be honest on this one, don't bring up Bush, (like always)....FACT-Obama IS the biggest CASH recipient by BP..........FACT-Obama suddenly decides off shore drilling is a good idea...something that he spoke against during his campaign...he even canceled off shore drilling that Bush had put into place as soon as he got into office.
but, now it is becoming QUITE clear.....lets see what happens next.
First of all, show me a candidate that has not ever accepted funding from big oil, and I'll show you a liar.
Secondly, you had better check your own facts before you start flinging bullshit my way. Obama NEVER said he was against off shore drilling, just the "drill baby, drill" approach to it. During his campaign he made the case for "an intelligent approach toward off shore drilling, that takes into account every aspect, from environmental impacts to safety". Do a little research and you'll find out the real truth. . .
And don't go plastering the topic with a bunch of sour grapes infused articles from Floridians surrounding the area he has opened up that directly impacts them. Nor all those articles claiming broken promises. The majority of that tripe is just spin initiated by detractors and the opposition.
I heard him specifically say what I have quoted two or three times during his run for office. All you guys heard is something going against the "drill baby, drill" approach!
Quote from: Palehorse on May 05, 2010, 09:16:57 AM
First of all, show me a candidate that has not ever accepted funding from big oil, and I'll show you a liar.
Secondly, you had better check your own facts before you start flinging bullshit my way. Obama NEVER said he was against off shore drilling, just the "drill baby, drill" approach to it. During his campaign he made the case for "an intelligent approach toward off shore drilling, that takes into account every aspect, from environmental impacts to safety". Do a little research and you'll find out the real truth. . .
And don't go plastering the topic with a bunch of sour grapes infused articles from Floridians surrounding the area he has opened up that directly impacts them. Nor all those articles claiming broken promises. The majority of that tripe is just spin initiated by detractors and the opposition.
I heard him specifically say what I have quoted two or three times during his run for office. All you guys heard is something going against the "drill baby, drill" approach!
frist of all, he not only accepted money from BP, he was the LARGEST recipient of cash by BP.
secondly, I would appreciate if you quit accusing me of not checking my facts first, that is getting old.
I have attached a speech of Obama saying he was against off shore drillng. He said it does NOT help in any way of cutting costs at the tank....that it would take years to reap any benefits from it....please listen. unless an actual video of him doing a press conference is not acceptable as evidence.
Ph there is NO spin, whatsover on my part....that is just a worn out record used by the left to attach those on the right...
IF, he was against off shore drilling, which he clearly states here...........then WHY has he now suddenly allowed it to happen?
ask his buddies at BP maybe... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2010, 09:36:24 AM
frist of all, he not only accepted money from BP, he was the LARGEST recipient of cash by BP.
secondly, I would appreciate if you quit accusing me of not checking my facts first, that is getting old.
I have attached a speech of Obama saying he was against off shore drillng. He said it does NOT help in any way of cutting costs at the tank....that it would take years to reap any benefits from it....please listen. unless an actual video of him doing a press conference is not acceptable as evidence.
Ph there is NO spin, whatsover on my part....that is just a worn out record used by the left to attach those on the right...
IF, he was against off shore drilling, which he clearly states here...........then WHY has he now suddenly allowed it to happen?
ask his buddies at BP maybe... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss)
What part of :"
First of all, show me a candidate that has not ever accepted funding from big oil, and I'll show you a liar. ", did you not understand? Are you wanting to criticize the POTUS for doing what everyone else did/does, and what your hero continues to do? That's a double edged sword and to chastise one and not the other is hypocritical. Do I like the fact he took the money? No. Do I think its right? No, not anymore than I thought it was right for the Shrub to do so. But what I will not do is jump onto an already large pile of idiots who are looking for any and every angel to be critical of this POTUS because they're harboring less than admirable intentions. And the bottom line is that I will not add to the unreasonable atmosphere you jackasses are nurturing here.
If you think accepting funding from big oil is such a crime, where were you when the Shrub was busy bolstering their profits via legislation etc., to promote his own self interests? Oh, that was okay then huh?
Why do you think I am so critical of the SCOTUS decision granting individuals. constitutional rights to corporations? You think candidates taking contributions is so bad now, wait until you see what happens because of that decision!
Now as to your "youtube" link: June 2008, while in the middle of the campaign. So it is your position that no one has the prerogative to modify their position once they achieve a higher level of understanding surrounding the bigger picture?(Which he clearly did later toward the end of his campaign, and earlier this year).
Moreover, his decision to partially open up some of the areas "drill baby, drill" wanted to ravage without thought or consideration toward environmental and safety, is something one would think would have been greeted with support instead of utilizing it as something to further criticize him over. He fully explained his position and reasoning behind this decision, and it was all over the media. . .
The fact remains that offshore drilling was a key component of the republican's campaign during the 2008 election process, and this latest incident with BP's rig exploding in the Gulf is solid validation for the POTUS's stated approach to this issue.
my point is the same as I have been trying to make for the past three days.......
the very people that thought Bush/Cheney and republicans was so very bad for things like big oil and not jumping there very second Katrina hit...........the same thing can be said about Obama....but, you guys put him on a pedestal and praise him....
i don't think getting funding from big oil is anymore of a crime than getting it from the unions or george soros or bill gates or gm or whoever....
but it seems me like you think it is hunky dory, for obama to get BIG money from BP...and not making anything out of the fact that he changed his positon on off shore drilling to now being okay....
I am going to fess up and admit....I am ready to jump on ANYTHING to prove that he is NOT the right guy to turn this country around....I am up front from the beginning, that I have not liked his ideas or his platform...I think they are bad, especially with the likes of Pelosi and Reid behind him, pushing him and promoting more liberal ideas that are WAY too far left for my liking....
Proving you and your ilk consider this Burger King. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on May 05, 2010, 01:05:03 PM
Proving you and your ilk consider this Burger King. . .
:confused:
SAN ANTONIO -- A massive fire broke out Wednesday morning when an 18-wheeler being loaded with fuel at a San Antonio refinery has exploded just southeast of downtown.
At least two people are confirmed to be injured following the blast.
The fire started at the AGE Refinery on South Presa. Large black plumes of smoke were seen spilling into the skies above San Antonio.
AGE Refining Inc. marketing director Jeff Morrow says the truck exploded late Wednesday morning at the facility that refines gas and jet fuel.
The company refines several specialized petroleum products, including jet fuel and diesel. The company was founded in 1991.
An eyewitness told KENS 5 that there were three explosions right before the fire broke out at the building.
San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood told KENS 5 that the fire had spread to the refining facility, and authorities were trying to assess whether neighbors should be evacuated.
http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Reports-of-92876584.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Reports-of-92876584.html?hpt=T2)
And now this one. . . this ought to be good for another 20 or 30 cent hike to diesel. . . :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 05, 2010, 01:05:03 PM
Proving you and your ilk consider this Burger King. . .
AND HOW ARE YOU ANY DIFFERENT? Your ilk want's it THEIR way...thus, why we have a tea party, so we can have it OUR way....
(http://www.funnyhub.com/content_images/4857_2429_new-burger-king-item.jpg)
Here's yer sign!
Quote from: Palehorse on May 05, 2010, 01:49:45 PM
SAN ANTONIO -- A massive fire broke out Wednesday morning when an 18-wheeler being loaded with fuel at a San Antonio refinery has exploded just southeast of downtown.
At least two people are confirmed to be injured following the blast.
The fire started at the AGE Refinery on South Presa. Large black plumes of smoke were seen spilling into the skies above San Antonio.
AGE Refining Inc. marketing director Jeff Morrow says the truck exploded late Wednesday morning at the facility that refines gas and jet fuel.
The company refines several specialized petroleum products, including jet fuel and diesel. The company was founded in 1991.
An eyewitness told KENS 5 that there were three explosions right before the fire broke out at the building.
San Antonio Fire Chief Charles Hood told KENS 5 that the fire had spread to the refining facility, and authorities were trying to assess whether neighbors should be evacuated.
http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Reports-of-92876584.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.kens5.com/news/local/Reports-of-92876584.html?hpt=T2)
And now this one. . . this ought to be good for another 20 or 30 cent hike to diesel. . . :rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
It must have been Obamba and his gang in Washington to cover his ass on what he personally did in the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 05, 2010, 09:36:24 AM
frist of all, he not only accepted money from BP, he was the LARGEST recipient of cash by BP.
secondly, I would appreciate if you quit accusing me of not checking my facts first, that is getting old.
I have attached a speech of Obama saying he was against off shore drillng. He said it does NOT help in any way of cutting costs at the tank....that it would take years to reap any benefits from it....please listen. unless an actual video of him doing a press conference is not acceptable as evidence.
Ph there is NO spin, whatsover on my part....that is just a worn out record used by the left to attach those on the right...
IF, he was against off shore drilling, which he clearly states here...........then WHY has he now suddenly allowed it to happen?
ask his buddies at BP maybe... ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8fkbEuCQss)
Washington (CNN) -- As petroleum giant BP comes under congressional scrutiny as its ruptured oil rig pumps thousands of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, its political contributions are being scrutinized, too.
The top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
When questioned about the donations Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a point of noting that
the money came from employees and not the company itself.White House spokesman Ben LaBolt added that Obama wasn't tied to big oil companies.
"This claim lacks one thing: credibility," LaBolt said in a statement.
"President Obama didn't accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign. He raised $750 million from nearly 4 million Americans. And since he became President, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives."BP employees gave more than $3 million in campaign contributions during the past decade and almost $110,000 in 2010.Fifty-seven percent of BP's contributions went to Republicans, while 43 percent went to Democrats.
BP America President Lamar McKay has been asked to appear next week to discuss the oil spill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, whose members received the largest share of BP's campaign contributions over the last two election cycles, the Center for Responsive Politics notes.
"In 2009, individuals and political action committees associated with BP donated $16,000 to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee," the center found.
The center says five of the top 10 recipients of BP dollars in the House sit on that committee: John Dingell, D-Michigan; Joe Barton, R-Texas; Ralph Hall, R-Texas; Roy Blunt, R-Missouri; and Fred Upton, R-Michigan.
"All have received upward of $13,000 from BP-related individuals and political action committees during the past two decades," according to the Center for Responsive Politics. "Dingell, the second most favored recipient of BP money in the House, has received $31,000.". . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/05/bp.lobbying/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/05/bp.lobbying/index.html?hpt=T2)
So, we're talking about $71,000 of $750,000,000 raised, and all of it from 4,000,000 Americans. . .
Less than 1% of the total funds raised and the 71k in question here was from private individuals that had an association with BP, and NOT from BP itself! :rolleyes:
Yet another example of the "sky is falling" approach of the opposition; crying wolf. . . Frail grasp on the big picture. . .
You guys keep running that your going to get a blister!
Quote from: The Troll on May 05, 2010, 06:41:35 PM
It must have been Obamba and his gang in Washington to cover his ass on what he personally did in the Gulf of Mexico.
Nope, I'm thinking it was those anti oil people, you know the ones who burn houses and spike trees and cut water off to farmers. Have enough oil problems and they will succeed in banning all oil based energy long before we can change over to other forms of energy. :icon_evil:
Quote from: Anne on May 05, 2010, 07:51:25 PM
Nope, I'm thinking it was those anti oil people, you know the ones who burn houses and spike trees and cut water off to farmers. Have enough oil problems and they will succeed in banning all oil based energy long before we can change over to other forms of energy. :icon_evil:
There is not way in hell that the tree hugging S.O.B's are ever going to have our oil cut off.
Taking an American's car away from him or her would be sure way of dying. It's going to be years and years before we are off of oil. Most likely we will both be dead. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
It has been several years ago, in Southern Indiana some antideer hunting people were messing with the deer hunter's cars. Well, I personlly knew two deer hunters and they had friends who were planning to play Sniper with these people. These people must have got wind of the plan and they left the woods running.
THE TROLL :seeya2:
PH, sugar coat things all you want.......I never said the sky is falling....no one on here has, you guys like to put words into our mouths to make your agruements complete....I have only pointed out some facts. One of those FACTS was Obama was the leading CASH recipient the last few years BY BP....and that he CHANGED his position on off shore drilling.....those are TWO FACTS with "emperical" evidence...(as you like to put it).
you keep on spinning those facts, and you might convince yourself that you are right... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 06:50:09 AM
PH, sugar coat things all you want.......I never said the sky is falling....no one on here has, you guys like to put words into our mouths to make your agruements complete....I have only pointed out some facts. One of those FACTS was Obama was the leading CASH recipient the last few years BY BP....and that he CHANGED his position on off shore drilling.....those are TWO FACTS with "emperical" evidence...(as you like to put it).
you keep on spinning those facts, and you might convince yourself that you are right... :razz:
Okay you make a political contribution to the candidate of your choice and it gets credited to your employer? :rolleyes:
BULLSHIT. Read what the article I posted says, and PROVE otherwise. As for the POTUS changing his position, yes he did, in August 2008 BEFORE he was elected, and again this year by opening SOME of the areas "drill baby drill" wanted, and leaving in place bans for a boatload of others. So now he cannot even compromise of modify his position on something based upon current information either? You guys keep running that you're gonna get a blister!
"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, from 1990 to 2001, BP contributed more than US$5 million to political campaigns in the United States (72 percent to Republican and 28 percent to Democratic candidates), making it the United States' 100th largest donor to political campaigns."
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/BP (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/BP)
"BP employees gave more than $3 million in campaign contributions during the past decade and almost $110,000 in 2010.
Fifty-seven percent of BP's contributions went to Republicans, while 43 percent went to Democrats."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/05/bp.lobbying/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/05/bp.lobbying/index.html)
They can work those figures any way they want just like the Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck and who ever else that donated to Obama's campaign so it just don't matter when push comes to shove.
Quote from: Palehorse on May 06, 2010, 08:47:42 AM
Okay you make a political contribution to the candidate of your choice and it gets credited to your employer? :rolleyes:
BULLSHIT. Read what the article I posted says, and PROVE otherwise. As for the POTUS changing his position, yes he did, in August 2008 BEFORE he was elected, and again this year by opening SOME of the areas "drill baby drill" wanted, and leaving in place bans for a boatload of others. So now he cannot even compromise of modify his position on something based upon current information either? You guys keep running that you're gonna get a blister!
again, ALL I pointed out was, Obama was the TOP (#1) cash recipient, by BP.....(of all politicians, repub or dems)....
AND, I pointed out that his views NOW have changed on off shore drilling.......(could there be a link between the two? )...I know DAMN well, if this had been a republican, you would have been calling him all sorts of names about being in bed with big oil....just like you did with Bush/Cheney.....
why can't you just be "real" on this ONE subject, and NOT defend what it may very well be?.... Do you honestly think he is above ALL the other politicians?
Quote from: me on May 06, 2010, 10:00:15 AM
They can work those figures any way they want just like the Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Donald Duck and who ever else that donated to Obama's campaign so it just don't matter when push comes to shove.
Do you have some different figures to share with us?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 10:25:02 AM
again, ALL I pointed out was, Obama was the TOP (#1) cash recipient, by BP.....(of all politicians, repub or dems)....
AGAIN .... BP employees!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 10:25:02 AM
AND, I pointed out that his views NOW have changed on off shore drilling.......
Did you not read Pale Pony's post?
"As for the POTUS changing his position, yes he did, in August 2008 "
What part of August 2008 do you not understand?
All I know is that in June 2008, he was clearly against off-shore oil drilling...........what happened over those 30 days?...hmmm maybe BP offered him some cash? :confused: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 12:17:12 PM
All I know is that in June 2008, he was clearly against off-shore oil drilling...........what happened over those 30 days?...hmmm maybe BP offered him some cash? :confused: :rolleyes:
Prove it!
I proved his opinion in june of 2008 already...
I am just stating facts PH....his opinion and his cash that he received....those two are proven facts.
I just layed out there the question.............. why did he "suddenly" feel that, despite it being worthless and would take years to effect prices at the pump....did he change his mind over the course of a month or two?.....
I don't have to prove squat....it is just a curious observation.....that I guarantee, that would be very curious to you if it was McCain or a Republican in the same situation.....just facts.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
I proved his opinion in june of 2008 already...
I am just stating facts PH....his opinion and his cash that he received....those two are proven facts.
I just layed out there the question.............. why did he "suddenly" feel that, despite it being worthless and would take years to effect prices at the pump....did he change his mind over the course of a month or two?.....
I don't have to prove squat....it is just a curious observation.....that I guarantee, that would be very curious to you if it was McCain or a Republican in the same situation.....just facts.
You have proven NOTHING except for a presidential candidates view-point during a specific point of his campaign; and once again when presented with proof to the contrary you wave it off like a soiled piece of toilet paper.
You've been provided with the official response to the fantasy allegations you and your ilk have dreamed up, and I see nothing refuting the facts as presented by your target.
The reality of this whole thing is that republican interests in big oil, as evident within their "drill baby drill" campaign and philosophy, represents increased and unacceptable risk levels surrounding its potential for negative environmental and private sector impacts; similar or worse than the current BP fiasco. An immediate moratorium on ALL ocean drilling within US territorial waters, should be imposed until such time as a thorough and comprehensive review of current practices is accomplished, and safety procedures to remediate these risks are identified and implemented.
Finally, this whole house of cards the republicans have built surrounding validation for their "drill baby drill" philosophy, has been exposed for the deplorable initiative it is. They utilize emotional hot points like oil prices and the price of fuel to enrage and emotionally engage their target citizenry; by pretending that through increasing production within US resources it would magically have a positive impact upon consumer price levels.In actuality this country does not possess or have access to, anything more than 2% of the oil in the world today; and should we increase utilization of those resources we do have, we will soon find ourselves with none left to our name if we are not careful. Not to mention the severe and unacceptable environmental impacts such an initiative would drive.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on May 06, 2010, 12:32:21 PM
I proved his opinion in june of 2008 already...
I am just stating facts PH....his opinion and his cash that he received....those two are proven facts.
I just layed out there the question.............. why did he "suddenly" feel that, despite it being worthless and would take years to effect prices at the pump....did he change his mind over the course of a month or two?.....
I don't have to prove squat....it is just a curious observation.....that I guarantee, that would be very curious to you if it was McCain or a Republican in the same situation.....just facts.
You need a TV show of your own, on Fox News. You could replace Glen Beck and not even have to study. In fact you, in many ways have already beat him. On radio you could fill in for old Rush and the show wouldn't skip a beat.
The Troll :rotfl: :rotfl: Just shooting and beating Henry's :deadhorse: :rifle:
Quote from: The Troll on May 05, 2010, 09:23:05 PM
There is not way in hell that the tree hugging S.O.B's are ever going to have our oil cut off.
Taking an American's car away from him or her would be sure way of dying. It's going to be years and years before we are off of oil. Most likely we will both be dead. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
It has been several years ago, in Southern Indiana some antideer hunting people were messing with the deer hunter's cars. Well, I personlly knew two deer hunters and they had friends who were planning to play Sniper with these people. These people must have got wind of the plan and they left the woods running.
THE TROLL :seeya2:
Won't stop them from trying.
Quote from: Anne on May 06, 2010, 03:05:45 PM
Won't stop them from trying.
No Anne, it won't stop them. Even nuts can have a say. These people have heads as hard as a Black Walnut is to open and once you open it there isn't much meat in it.
But, all you have to do is look at is all of the cars, trucks, planes, trains we have. Plus the plastic we use in everything and the asphalt we need for our roads, I think oil is going to be around for over 20 to 30 years and longer and I don't think you and I will have to worry about happen after we go off of oil. It would be something interesting to see what science will come up with.
Interesting things happen in interestion times. The Troll :dark: :salute:
I will be interesting, I hope I live long enough to see some of it, although I have no plans of suffling off this earth anytime soon. They could, however, cause us to be more depended on foreign thatn we are now if they succeed in blocking more drilling in the US. My son works in nuclear power and I think that will be a great source of electricity in the future, but it is going to take many years to get there.
Quote from: Anne on May 07, 2010, 10:06:46 AM
I will be interesting, I hope I live long enough to see some of it, although I have no plans of suffling off this earth anytime soon. They could, however, cause us to be more depended on foreign thatn we are now if they succeed in blocking more drilling in the US. My son works in nuclear power and I think that will be a great source of electricity in the future, but it is going to take many years to get there.
Right on,
:science: :science: :science: :science: :science: :clap: :thumbsup: :flag: :no1: :fireworks: :fireworks: :fireworks:
Well, their giant cap solution is not going well. They've had to set the thing off to the side and figure out how to deal with crystals that have accumulated inside of it. . . :rant:
It must be methane ice. If you put methane under enough pressure you can turn it into a liquid and then an a ice. Just like carbon dioxide. You can't freeze water at that pressure.
What suprises me is the size of the pipe coming out of the concrete casing, sure look small to me.
This might be out in left field, but they might pump some hot water down to the bottom of the inverted funnel and use it as an antifreeze to liquid the frozen methane. .
Quote from: The Troll on May 09, 2010, 09:55:33 AM
It must be methane ice. If you put methane under enough pressure you can turn it into a liquid and then an a ice. Just like carbon dioxide. You can't freeze water at that pressure.
What suprises me is the size of the pipe coming out of the concrete casing, sure look small to me.
This might be out in left field, but they might pump some hot water down to the bottom of the inverted funnel and use it as an antifreeze to liquid the frozen methane. .
They must be reading your posts! :biggrin:
Quote
. . .Two options officials are looking at to resolve the problem are heating the dome or adding methanol to dissolve the hydrates, Suttles said, adding that they are continuing to assess other methods to capturing the oil.. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/08/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/08/gulf.oil.spill/index.html?hpt=T2)
I'm not to keen on the methanol though. It could escape and increase the problem. Heating the dome also could present the possibility of yet another explosion that would do the same. . . :spooked: