http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965)
WOW....a very interesting read:
The Spill, The Scandal and the President
Rolling Stone Magazine....
...the "moratorium" on drilling announced by the president does little to prevent future disasters. The ban halts exploratory drilling at only 33 deepwater operations, shutting down less than one percent of the total wells in the Gulf. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Cabinet-level official appointed by Obama to rein in the oil industry, boasts that "the moratorium is not a moratorium that will affect production" – which continues at 5,106 wells in the Gulf, including 591 in deep water.
Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors. In a May 19th letter to Salazar, 26 congressmen called for the rig to be shut down immediately. "We are very concerned," they wrote, "that the tragedy at Deepwater Horizon could foreshadow an accident at BP Atlantis."
The administration's response to the looming threat? According to an e-mail to a congressional aide from a staff member at MMS, the agency has had "zero contact" with Atlantis about its safety risks since the Deepwater rig went down.
--------------------------------
...Salazar himself has worked hard to foster the impression that the "prior administration" is to blame for the catastrophe. In reality, though, the Obama administration was fully aware from the outset of the need to correct the lapses at MMS that led directly to the disaster in the Gulf. In fact, Obama specifically nominated Salazar – his "great" and "dear" friend – to force the department to "clean up its act." For too long, Obama declared, Interior has been "seen as an appendage of commercial interests" rather than serving the people. "That's going to change under Ken Salazar."
-------------------------------
On April 6th of last year, less than a month after BP submitted its application, MMS gave the oil giant the go-ahead to drill in the Gulf without a comprehensive environmental review. The one-page approval put no restrictions on BP, issuing only a mild suggestion that would prove prescient: "Exercise caution while drilling due to indications of shallow gas."
-------------------------------
Obama and Salazar appeared together at Andrews Air Force Base on March 31st to introduce the plan. The stagecraft was pure Rove in its technicolor militaristic patriotism. The president's podium was set up in front of the cockpit of an F-18, flanked by a massive American flag. "We are not here to do what is easy," Salazar declared. "We are here to do what is right." He insisted that his reforms at MMS were working: "We are making decisions based on sound information and sound science." The president, for his part, praised Salazar as "one of the finest secretaries of Interior we've ever had" and stressed that his administration had studied the drilling plan for more than a year. "This is not a decision that I've made lightly," he said. Two days later, he issued an even more sweeping assurance. "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," the president said. "They are technologically very advanced."
Eighteen days later, on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the Deepwater Horizon rig went off like a bomb.
------------------------------
....Instead of seizing the reins, the Obama administration cast itself in a supporting role, insisting that BP was responsible for cleaning up the mess. "When you say the company is responsible and the government has oversight," a reporter asked Gibbs on May 3rd, "does that mean that the government is ultimately in charge of the cleanup?" Gibbs was blunt: "No," he insisted, "the responsible party is BP." In fact, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan – the federal regulations that lay out the command-and-control responsibilities for cleaning up an oil spill – makes clear that an oil company like BP cannot be left in charge of such a serious disaster. The plan plainly states that the government must "direct all federal, state or private actions" to clean up a spill "where a discharge or threat of discharge poses a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States."
------------------------------------
The failure of the obama administration to crack down on BP – and to tackle the crisis with the full force of the federal government – is likely to haunt the Gulf Coast for decades to come. Oil continues to lap up onshore in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Pelican rookeries are fouled, their eggs and nests soaked in oil. The region's fisheries – some of the richest in the world – are imperiled; anglers and shrimpers have been barred from more than a third of the Gulf's waters, which may never fully recover from the toxic stew of crude and chemical dispersant now twisting in its depths. The region's beaches are empty, and tourist towns are dying. Administration officials now admit that the oil may continue to gush into the Gulf until August, when relief wells are finally in place.
Both the government and BP have reasons to downplay the extent of the spill. For BP, the motive is financial: Under the Clean Water Act, the company could owe fines of as much as $4,300 for every barrel spilled, in addition to royalties for the oil it is squandering. For the Obama administration, the disaster threatens to derail the president's plan to expand offshore drilling. "It's crystal clear what the federal response to the tragedy ought to be," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who chairs the Senate subcommittee on environmental health. "Bring a dangerous offshore drilling pursuit to an end."
The administration, however, has made clear that it has no intention of reversing its plan to expand offshore drilling. Four weeks into the BP disaster, when Salazar was questioned in a Senate hearing about the future of the president's plan, he was happy to stand up for the industry's desire to drill at any cost. "Isn't it true," asked Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, "that as terrible as the tragedy is, that unless we want $14, $16, $18, $20-a-gallon gasoline, that it's not realistic to think that we would actually stop drilling for oil in the Gulf?" Unbowed by the catastrophe that was still unfolding on his watch, Salazar heartily agreed, testifying that the president had directed him to "move forward" on offshore drilling.
The only part of this "article" you find "interesting" are the points critical of the president.
We'll see how you like their followup in 6 months, where they scald the Shrub and his Shotgun!
Years and years of greed and bureaucratic boondoggling has led to a crisis that we are now going to lay at the feet of a person who has been the POTUS for how long?
But, hell yeah, we have to blame someone, don't we?
Kinda like blaming the Great Depression on Hoobert Heever...er, ah Herbert Hoover, isn't it?
(Another post for contemplation. No asscutting intended.)
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 11, 2010, 09:33:14 PM
Years and years of greed and bureaucratic boondoggling has led to a crisis that we are now going to lay at the feet of a person who has been the POTUS for how long?
But, hell yeah, we have to blame someone, don't we?
Kinda like blaming the Great Depression on Hoobert Heever...er, ah Herbert Hoover, isn't it?
(Another post for contemplation. No asscutting intended.)
Hoover didn't cause it. It was greed. A lot of it was like now, with the failure of the stock market and speculation.
But he sure didn't do anyting to get us out of it. Just sat on his ass and let the market take care of it's self. Bad, Hoover.
Quote from: The Troll on June 12, 2010, 03:42:57 PM
Hoover didn't cause it. It was greed. A lot of it was like now, with the failure of the stock market and speculation.
But he sure didn't do anyting to get us out of it. Just sat on his ass and let the market take care of it's self. Bad, Hoover.
Watch it, or the Texas Tea Party will dig his ass up and run him! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 12, 2010, 03:54:08 PM
Watch it, or the Texas Tea Party will dig his ass up and run him! :biggrin:
:rotfl: :rotfl: You know a lot of the people in the TeaBagger Party look the cast from the movie, the "Living Dead." :rotfl:
Quote from: The Troll on June 13, 2010, 07:34:47 AM
:rotfl: :rotfl: You know a lot of the people in the TeaBagger Party look the cast from the movie, the "Living Dead." :rotfl:
:biggrin: :biggrin: :yes: :yes:
that's right fella's, change the subject and make your jokes.......turn it all on the tea party and simply ignor the fact YOU gusy f't up and elected a inexperienced punk in office and the best you can do is find someone else to blame it on!!??
(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/rotfl.gif)
all I can do anymore is laugh, until november....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:57:36 AM
...elected a inexperienced punk...
You are very disrespectful and it's more a reflection on yourself than anyone else.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 07:57:36 AM
that's right fella's, change the subject and make your jokes.......turn it all on the tea party and simply ignor the fact YOU gusy f't up and elected a inexperienced punk in office and the best you can do is find someone else to blame it on!!??
(http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/rotfl.gif)
all I can do anymore is laugh, until november....
Elected an inexperienced punk. You are really a joke. You elected, I mean the Supreme Court elected the inexperienced punk. and you voted for him twice. George W. Bush, the Governor of Texas. :rotfl: :rotfl:
Henry you can't say anything about Obama, that your George W. hasn't trumped any president America has ever had.
You are a joke when it come to bashing the Democrats. :genius:
November, you're going to win a few, that the way thing have happened for years. But you're not going to win the way you think you're going to win. I bet Reid wins in Nevada. Want to bet he doesn't. :biggrin: :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 08:25:24 AM
You are very disrespectful and it's more a reflection on yourself than anyone else.
pot calling kettle black!!.. :yes:
Why not just go ahead and use the 'n' word; it's clear that's your issue.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 09:06:14 AM
Why not just go ahead and use the 'n' word; it's clear that's your issue.
for a guy who is bright as I know that you are, and I know that you are well educated.....you could not be more wrong about this. I can tell you from the bottom of my heart, it has NOTHING what-so-ever to do with his skin color. It has EVERYTHIHG to do with his arrogant personality, and his overall demeanor, that I do not like about him.....
Honestly, I don't really care IF you believe me...but that is a fact....and I know that is the way MOST folks who don't like him feel.
http://www.youtube.com/v/2AAa0gd7ClM
His "arrogance" and "overall demeanor"?
Very subjective, but based on your excuse for logic and the fact that you were (and continue to be) supportive of Bush...you do not consider Bush arrogant and you like his overall demeanor.
Bush is a good ol' boy, you can relate to that. Ex is right.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 11:51:26 AM
His "arrogance" and "overall demeanor"?
Very subjective, but based on your excuse for logic and the fact that you were (and continue to be) supportive of Bush...you do not consider Bush arrogant and you like his overall demeanor.
Bush is a good ol' boy, you can relate to that. Ex is right.
If that is what you want to believe then, you are wrong...100%.....I actually DO, like Bush, not that I agreed with him on several issues, but I like his personality. Based upon reading what those who actually had personal realationships with him have all cited where he was a very likable person and was very genuious.
not that I owe any explanation on Obama, but he IS a very arrogant and pompous...I can acknowlege that even Bill Clinton was a very likable and charming person....I don't see that in Obama.
You try to use EVERY lame and subjective reason available attempting to discredit Obama and I find it VERY amusing. ;D
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 12:49:27 PM
You try to use EVERY lame and subjective reason available attempting to discredit Obama and I find it VERY amusing. ;D
I have only tried ONE....he is arrogant and a punk.....I am not trying to discredit him at all............you have to HAVE credit in the first place.....he has sucked since he was a candidate, and he has NOT improved any to GIVE him an ounce of credit.......he SUCKS and THAT is why he will only be a one term POTUS......not THAT I find very, very amusing.... ;D
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 12:56:23 PM
I have only tried ONE....he is arrogant and a punk.....I am not trying to discredit him at all............you have to HAVE credit in the first place.....he has sucked since he was a candidate, and he has NOT improved any to GIVE him an ounce of credit.......he SUCKS and THAT is why he will only be a one term POTUS......not THAT I find very, very amusing.... ;D
That is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to that much. But the MAJORITY of Americans disagreed with you at election time and they will again. . . And you'll still think the same ol' same ol'!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 14, 2010, 01:08:12 PM
That is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to that much. But the MAJORITY of Americans disagreed with you at election time and they will again. . . And you'll still think the same ol' same ol'!
keep telling yourself that.... ;)
half of the Oprah crowd NOW understand what it means when you cast a vote, and the repercussions of that vote......they won't be there for him next time... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 01:15:44 PM
keep telling yourself that.... ;)
half of the Oprah crowd NOW understand what it means when you cast a vote, and the repercussions of that vote......they won't be there for him next time... :razz:
Keep believing that if it makes you feel good. . . Watch out for the crash though. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 14, 2010, 01:16:51 PM
Keep believing that if it makes you feel good. . . Watch out for the crash though. . .
the crash has already happened........November will be the turn around point to rebuilding this nation again.....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 01:20:58 PM
the crash has already happened........November will be the turn around point to rebuilding this nation again.....
Again, if that makes you happy keep believing it. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 14, 2010, 01:23:18 PM
Again, if that makes you happy keep believing it. . . :rolleyes:
I'm just tring to soften the blow for you and my liberal buddies here.....so it don't ruin your Christmas... :razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 01:29:39 PM
I'm just tring to soften the blow for you and my liberal buddies here.....so it don't ruin your Christmas... :razz:
Yeah. . . riggggght. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 09:06:14 AM
Why not just go ahead and use the 'n' word; it's clear that's your issue.
Ya know what EX, I didn't agree with Carter or Clinton and nothing was said about being a racist nor were blacks who disagreed with any presidents called racists so what seems to be the problem here? Do people have to agree with everything Obama does because he's black? It is a convenient thing to say to make whoever disagrees look bad and discredit them period.
Quote from: me on June 14, 2010, 01:54:28 PM
Ya know what EX, I didn't agree with Carter or Clinton and nothing was said about being a racist nor were blacks who disagreed with any presidents called racists so what seems to be the problem here? Do people have to agree with everything Obama does because he's black? It is a convenient thing to say to make whoever disagrees look bad and discredit them period.
it seems to me that they are making a big deal out of anyone who disagrees with him....and I have clearly stated from the begining that I don't like his arrogance and I have thought he was inexperienced....and now that it is starting to show that he IS arrogant and inexperienced, they are turning up the head on the race card because that is what liberals do when they have nothing else....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 12:16:39 PM
not that I owe any explanation on Obama, but he IS a very arrogant and pompous...
Read: uppity negro.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 02:01:26 PM
Read: uppity negro.
:rolleyes: Try uppity
man...period.....Leave color the hell out of it for a change.
Like the two of you would be acting the same way about a white guy with similar traits? Bullshit.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 02:13:48 PM
Like the two of you would be acting the same way about a white guy with similar traits? Bullshit.
'Scuse me......John Edwards, Pelosi, Reed, Boxer, and with a little more time I can come up with more and some who aren't even politicians or Dem's.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 14, 2010, 02:13:48 PM
Like the two of you would be acting the same way about a white guy with similar traits? Bullshit.
I can careless of anyones color, but I will call it like I see it.........and this POS President YOU voted for is arrogant!!...he is inexperienced....that has been proved.... I don't like his ideology of expanding our government and his anti-business attitude.....I would hate that if he was my uncle or my dad.....
Umm humm. . . :rolleyes:
So then, its just the party kool aid you are drinking and not from the chalice of racism?
Quote from: Palehorse on June 14, 2010, 02:40:39 PM
Umm humm. . . :rolleyes:
So then, its just the party kool aid you are drinking and not from the chalice of racism?
JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION OF WHAT MAY BE THE WORST PRESIDENT TO EVER BE ELECTED...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 02:42:37 PM
JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION OF WHAT MAY BE THE WORST PRESIDENT TO EVER BE ELECTED...
I think Carter still holds that honor.
Keep throwing that chum. . .
:lipsrsealed2:
Who left office with a higher approval rating? Carter or Dubby?
I think Bush holds that distinction.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 04:27:28 PM
Who left office with a higher approval rating? Carter or Dubby?
I think Bush holds that distinction.
He still sucked as a president and I can say that 'cause I voted for the dumb ass.
So did Bush and you voted for him too. I see a trend here. :spooked: ;D
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 04:43:27 PM
So did Bush and you voted for him too. I see a trend here. :spooked: ;D
Nope, learned a lesson after the Carter fiasco. Didn't vote for Bore.....too smarmy.... :puke: I don't care if his mommy did tell him he would grow to be president.... :razz:
Uh keep up...you voted for Bush...he sucked. Barney could have been in the Oval office and done a better job than Bush.
The fact that you didn't vote for Gore is irrelevent. The fact that you can't seem to spell his name right is a lil' sad though. :razz:
Barney who?....Fife?......................NOW, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT POTUS!!! :yes:
Or the dinosaur... :biggrin
I meant the dog though :yes:
Why didn't Obama waive this so other countries who offered could help pump the oil off? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
Bush waived it after Katrina so supplies could be brought in by other countries so what's the problem now?
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 04:54:56 PM
Uh keep up...you voted for Bush...he sucked. Barney could have been in the Oval office and done a better job than Bush.
The fact that you didn't vote for Gore is irrelevent. The fact that you can't seem to spell his name right is a lil' sad though. :razz:
Oh I'm sorry, he is a bore and his last name is Gore......
...and you'd be a good judge 'cause you're so crafty :biggrin:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 06:00:11 PM
...and you'd be a good judge 'cause you're so crafty :biggrin:
:wink:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 14, 2010, 05:14:23 PM
Or the dinosaur... :biggrin
I meant the dog though :yes:
Yeah, I had visions of the purple dinosaur singing "I love you ... you love me..." Isn't that song supposed to contain satanic references if you play it backwards? But really, who would go to the trouble to play it backwards?
Yeah, I think it says "Tinky Winky, now that's good lovin'", but don't quote me. ;D
Quote from: LOsborne on June 14, 2010, 06:44:08 PM
Yeah, I had visions of the purple dinosaur singing "I love you ... you love me..." Isn't that song supposed to contain satanic references if you play it backwards? But really, who would go to the trouble to play it backwards?
I won't go to the trouble to listen to it forwards ..........unless I need to bleed out my middle ear.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 14, 2010, 07:23:47 PM
...unless I need to bleed out my middle ear.
Is that a frequent occurrence? I don't believe I have ever needed to do that.
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.
And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.
Why didn't the Administration act sooner?
Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy.
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.
But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 01:09:36 PM
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.
And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.
Why didn't the Administration act sooner?
Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy.
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.
But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
So what conservative propaganda source did you plagiarize this tripe from? :rolleyes:
read it first and I will tell you.....and I didn't plagerize (I Italizide it...but you wouldn't read it otherwise....and I'm convinced you STILL didnt'...) :rolleyes:
and it is only tripe because you are not able to be unbiased enough to accept it.....so that makes it tripe... :rolleyes:
Emotional flotsam, but if you find it fulfilling go with that. I am a prick.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 01:09:36 PM
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.
And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.
Why didn't the Administration act sooner?
Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy.
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.
But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
The bolded above is what I asked about two or three times and no one acknowledged it. Had that been waived this spill may not have reached the coastline or at least there may not be as much because there would have been more help containing the spill.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 01:21:40 PM
Emotional flotsam, but if you find it fulfilling go with that. I am a prick.
you are full of emotional flotsam......and you find THIS hard to swollow?
and for the record....I don't think you are a prick... :no:
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 01:23:14 PM
The bolded above is what I asked about two or three times and no one acknowledged it. Had that been waived this spill may not have reached the coastline or at least there may not be as much because there would have been more help containing the spill.
that is just emotional flotsam me.....nothing in this article COULD be remotely true....(
sarcasm... ;) )
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 01:23:14 PM
The bolded above is what I asked about two or three times and no one acknowledged it. Had that been waived this spill may not have reached the coastline or at least there may not be as much because there would have been more help containing the spill.
Again, a bunch of what ifs and shoulda woulda coulda speculation.
WHAT are they going to do? There are already over 5,000 USN vessels, the entire USCG available fleet, over 27,000 US Military personnel, and a host of BP hired vessels and personnel on the job across the gulf and employing the best known methods to contain the surface oil. . . Putting foreigners into the mix will only create confusion and increase the odds of a maritime incident that will negatively contribute to this disaster by putting more fuel oil into the sea.
The "experts" in the oil industry (BP and their ilk) have said from the onset that this would be contained, and they were not very transparent and forthcoming surrounding the size and scope of the spill until governmental pressure was brought to bear surrounding it.
The fact is that moving any potential foreign vessels and equipment into the Gulf will take upwards of 6 to 10 weeks by sea at best, and most of the identical equipment is already there. It does nothing for the underwater plumes that are being generated does it?. . .
Are they going to magically put all of the fishermen and shrimpers back to work? NO! Are they going to magically remove the irreparably damaged environment? NO!
Interesting that you are so adamant about accepting foreign workers and vessels, while at the same time scream for the hispanic individuals to be summarily arrested and deported.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
Again, a bunch of what ifs and shoulda woulda coulda speculation.
WHAT are they going to do? There are already over 5,000 USN vessels, the entire USCG available fleet, over 27,000 US Military personnel, and a host of BP hired vessels and personnel on the job across the gulf and employing the best known methods to contain the surface oil. . . Putting foreigners into the mix will only create confusion and increase the odds of a maritime incident that will negatively contribute to this disaster by putting more fuel oil into the sea.
The "experts" in the oil industry (BP and their ilk) have said from the onset that this would be contained, and they were not very transparent and forthcoming surrounding the size and scope of the spill until governmental pressure was brought to bear surrounding it.
The fact is that moving any potential foreign vessels and equipment into the Gulf will take upwards of 6 to 10 weeks by sea at best, and most of the identical equipment is already there. It does nothing for the underwater plumes that are being generated does it?. . .
Are they going to magically put all of the fishermen and shrimpers back to work? NO! Are they going to magically remove the irreparably damaged environment? NO!
Interesting that you are so adamant about accepting foreign workers and vessels, while at the same time scream for the hispanic individuals to be summarily arrested and deported.
Not even close to the same and you know it. It would not be people coming into our country illegally and taking advantage or our welfare system it would be people trying to help us
legally.
Had BP been able to use those resources if the Jones act had been waived they may have chosen to do so. It didn't create any confusion or chaos when Bush waived it after Katrina.
if you are saying that the POTUS trusted BP to fix this then, he is not a leader.......and don't compare our illegal immirgration problems with us accepting help from someone who has been in a similar situation and was able to fix things....that is about the lamest comment you have ever made... :rolleyes:
again, this move by obama proves his arrogance......
but, he a liberal democrat so he and the media will make things all better by themselves....
I am sitting back and watching this admin self destruct....day by day.....because of arrogance and inexperience...
But, gosh, Henry, if the President had just run roughshod over BP and grabbed the reins, everybody would be whining that the government shouldn't stick its nose into private business, who are the experts on drilling, blah, blah, blah.
Spin it any way you like. We have no expertise to tell anyone how to stop the leak, nor do we know enough about the meetings to know if something more could have been done.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 15, 2010, 02:24:18 PM
But, gosh, Henry, if the President had just run roughshod over BP and grabbed the reins, everybody would be whining that the government shouldn't stick its nose into private business, who are the experts on drilling, blah, blah, blah.
Spin it any way you like. We have no expertise to tell anyone how to stop the leak, nor do we know enough about the meetings to know if something more could have been done.
the potus sure did know enough to threaten BP with lawsuits....and ranting and raving whose ass to kick........and screaming "stop the damn leak"........I never said he should run roughshod over BP....but you would have thought, maybe, just maybe, it migh behoove him to have a meeting with the CEO, right after this happened and evaluated BP and possible offered BP some assistance.....to perhaps offered MORE assistance to Gov Jindall when he was screaming for help....to accept help from countries who have ALREADY experienced such tragedies....
ftw, there is no spinning going on.............this is clearly how many Americans (not just republicans) see it......
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 15, 2010, 02:24:18 PM
But, gosh, Henry, if the President had just run roughshod over BP and grabbed the reins, everybody would be whining that the government shouldn't stick its nose into private business, who are the experts on drilling, blah, blah, blah.
Spin it any way you like. We have no expertise to tell anyone how to stop the leak, nor do we know enough about the meetings to know if something more could have been done.
A good start would have been to waive the Jones act in case they might have needed more and/or bigger ships which weren't US to help alleviate the problem.
That's just beautiful 20/20 hindsight.
Genius.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 01:51:07 PM
. . . us accepting help from someone who has been in a similar situation and was able to fix things....that is about the lamest comment you have ever made... :rolleyes:
. . .
WTF????
WE were in this exact
same situation over thirty years ago, only in shallow water, and Trans Ocean was the company in that one too. The same friggin results, with the spewing not being stopped until the relief wells were completed.
"We" didn't learn anymore in the subsequent 30 years, and neither did BP, Trans Ocean, Halliburton, or any other oil company; because they submitted the very same disaster plan that they had back then, and listed the author's phone number as the "go to" expert, even though he has been dead for over 5 years! And "we" gave them a permit to go ahead despite this?!
How the hell can you lay this off on the current POTUS is beyond comprehension and is well into insidious in basis. If a damned elephant took a healthy crap on your head you'd blame that on him too.
This man, our President, is doing a far better job than anyone else could have done given the same situations to address. Lincoln faced the very same kind of criticisms during his presidency, and it is a god damned sad thing to see this nation has not moved beyond such pettiness 145 years later.
You want to hang the POTUS for the corruption that was allowed to germinate and flourish over the previous 30 years?! I dare say that had McUseless been successful in winning the last presidential election we'd be seeing a far different reaction from you despite the fact that he would have done no more than what is currently being done. . . One has to ask just why that is?!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 02:42:43 PM
the potus sure did know enough to threaten BP with lawsuits....and ranting and raving whose ass to kick........and screaming "stop the damn leak"........I never said he should run roughshod over BP....but you would have thought, maybe, just maybe, it migh behoove him to have a meeting with the CEO, right after this happened and evaluated BP and possible offered BP some assistance.....to perhaps offered MORE assistance to Gov Jindall when he was screaming for help....to accept help from countries who have ALREADY experienced such tragedies....
ftw, there is no spinning going on.............this is clearly how many Americans (not just republicans) see it......
Weren't you the one, not too long ago, who accused the POTUS of being too academic and detached and of not being very passionate, or emotional, about the problem -- like Jindal was. (Oh, that's right, Jindal is a-a-a-a REPUBLICAN! Of course, that has NOTHING to do with your assessment.)
Now, when the POTUS
is emotional, he is now "ranting and raving."
Just how would you like him to act, Henry, so that it would meet your approval?
Of course, you don't know, either, what assistance he did offer and to whom, and when he might have offered it.
Neither do I.
But one thing I know for sure -- bitching and moaning ain't going to solve the problem.
Quote from: followsthewolf on June 15, 2010, 02:50:57 PM
That's just beautiful 20/20 hindsight.
Genius.
Hindsight here has cost the US and BP valuable time and lots of money. It should have been done as a matter of common sense in case it was needed and is part of showing leadership rather than just shove it off as someone else's responsibility. Doing things of that nature is not trying to take over or run a company but rather help in a logical manner so it wouldn't become an issue. Placing blame and yelling law suit is doing nothing to help solve the problem and sending people to investigate what caused it is doing nothing either at this point and these people are probably more in the way than anything. That is something that needs done
after they get it stopped.
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 03:04:01 PM
Hindsight here has cost the US and BP valuable time and lots of money. It should have been done as a matter of common sense in case it was needed and is part of showing leadership rather than just shove it off as someone else's responsibility. Doing things of that nature is not trying to take over or run a company but rather help in a logical manner so it wouldn't become an issue. Placing blame and yelling law suit is doing nothing to help solve the problem and sending people to investigate what caused it is doing nothing either at this point and these people are probably more in the way than anything. That is something that needs done after they get it stopped.
You still never answered my questions:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 01:37:13 PM
Again, a bunch of what ifs and shoulda woulda coulda speculation.
WHAT are they going to do? There are already over 5,000 USN vessels, the entire USCG available fleet, over 27,000 US Military personnel, and a host of BP hired vessels and personnel on the job across the gulf and employing the best known methods to contain the surface oil. . . Putting foreigners into the mix will only create confusion and increase the odds of a maritime incident that will negatively contribute to this disaster by putting more fuel oil into the sea.
The "experts" in the oil industry (BP and their ilk) have said from the onset that this would be contained, and they were not very transparent and forthcoming surrounding the size and scope of the spill until governmental pressure was brought to bear surrounding it.
The fact is that moving any potential foreign vessels and equipment into the Gulf will take upwards of 6 to 10 weeks by sea at best, and most of the identical equipment is already there. It does nothing for the underwater plumes that are being generated does it?. . .
Are they going to magically put all of the fishermen and shrimpers back to work? NO! Are they going to magically remove the irreparably damaged environment? NO!
. . .
Now there was a fire aboard the ship sucking oil from the gusher and collection has stopped. . .
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 02:49:34 PM
A good start would have been to waive the Jones act in case they might have needed more and/or bigger ships which weren't US to help alleviate the problem.
QuoteWhile discussing the Jones Act, Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade misleadingly referenced "our inability or decision not to use the rest of the world's offers to help us skim up the sludge." In fact, the U.S. has used cleanup equipment from other nations "and will continue to do that," according to Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen.
QuoteIn fact, Allen stated that "we are using" equipment from other nations for oil clean-up. In a June 10 press briefing, Allen confirmed that "we are using" foreign technology:
Q: There are many people who say that the best dredgers and skimmers in the world come from countries like the Netherlands and France and that they can't -- they're not being asked to come in because of the Jones Act. Is that the case? And why not get around that, suspend that, so you can bring that other you know technology in?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, first of all, those are source countries. That's correct, they're available. But we are using them. We are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and other places. Anyplace that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them, and we actually have, in some cases, actually transferred the equipment down and will continue to do that.
If it gets -- if it gets to the point where there's a Jones Act required, we're willing to do that, too. Nobody's come to me with a request for a Jones Act waiver, but any skimming capability we can bring in, we're looking for.
Q: So are the actual boats being brought in or just the equipment?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, in some cases it's the skimmer itself. In some cases, the skimming equipment is organic to the vessel itself. It depends on what you're talking about. To my knowledge, what we brought in is actually skimming equipment rather than the vessels themselves, but we can give you a detailed listing.
QuoteFox & Friends aired only Allen's statement that "nobody's come to me with a request for a Jones Act waiver." Fox & Friends only aired Allen's statement during a June 10 press briefing that "if it gets to the point where there's a Jones Act required, we're willing to do that, too. Nobody's come to me with a request for a Jones Act waiver." But Fox & Friends did not air Allen's statement that "we are using" technology from other nations and that "[w]e are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and other places. Anyplace that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them, and we actually have, in some cases, actually transferred the equipment down and will continue to do that."
Fox & Friends misleads on international aid to the Gulf spill (http://mediamatters.org/research/201006110023)
QuoteQ: You said that you're willing to entertain Jones waivers requests.
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Yes.
Q: But none have come—none have come to you. Who would they come from?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: They would be sent up—come from a variety of ways. For—I'll give you a good one right now we're working on. The State of Louisiana is looking for as many dredges as they can bring in to do the barrier island berm project that's been approved, now funded.
We worked with the Army Corps of Engineers to release any dredges that aren't needed from projects. They are putting out a solicitation around the country for additional dredges. If there is a shortfall, they can bring foreign dredges in, but that would require a Jones Act waiver. And I've told the State of Louisiana, if you get to that point, submit a waiver, and we'll consider it. That would be a typical scenario.
LIEUTENANT COMMANDER RUSSELL: Thank you all very much.
http://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/2931/627127/
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 01:09:36 PM
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes.
And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late.
Why didn't the Administration act sooner?
Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy.
When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway.
But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
Henry's source:
http://www.bitchaboutobama.com/2010/06/15/obama-an-incompetent-executive/
:biggrin:
Very unbiased. Did either one of you yahoos fact check the thing?
:biggrin: :owned:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
WTF? ??? WE were in this exact same situation over thirty years ago, only in shallow water, and Trans Ocean was the company in that one too. The same friggin results, with the spewing not being stopped until the relief wells were completed.
What does that have to do with stopping this oil from reaching shore?.........folks in Louisana would have welcomed anyone that could have stopped that oil from reaching land, and those who are willing to clean it up....too, late now.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
How the hell can you lay this off on the current POTUS is beyond comprehension and is well into insidious in basis. If a damned elephant took a healthy crap on your head you'd blame that on him too.
How in the hell can you NOT, accept the fact that this has been very badly mishandled?..........I know!!! because you are a democrat (despite what you say)...and you will NEVER admit that this POTUS is a poor example of a President....just because he got elected does NOT make him a qualified leader...if an elephant took a crap on your head, you would blame it on Bush, and claim Obama will figure out whose ASS to kick and he would make damn sure the elephant paid for all of YOU damages...
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
This man, our President, is doing a far better job than anyone else could have done given the same situations to address. Lincoln faced the very same kind of criticisms during his presidency, and it is a god damned sad thing to see this nation has not moved beyond such pettiness 145 years later.
prove it, you can't.........and please you have no basis to compare him to Lincoln.....he is more comparable to Carter....THAT I could see.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 02:52:31 PM
You want to hang the POTUS for the corruption that was allowed to germinate and flourish over the previous 30 years?! I dare say that had McUseless been successful in winning the last presidential election we'd be seeing a far different reaction from you despite the fact that he would have done no more than what is currently being done. . . One has to ask just why that is?!
Well there is no way to know for sure, but one thing I can say is that McCain is far more experienced than a one-term senator, community organizer....just like Dick Morris said (in the thread that I attached earlier)....obama has acted like a legislater, a lawyer and a populist....NOT a leader.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 15, 2010, 03:19:34 PM
Henry's source:
http://www.bitchaboutobama.com/2010/06/15/obama-an-incompetent-executive/
:biggrin:
Very unbiased. Did either one of you yahoos fact check the thing?
first of all it is an opinion peice, I never claimed it to be a scientific study....and it is written by a former democrat and a democrat advisor to Bill Clinton......so, he is probably as biased as you will find when it comes to politics...he has been on both sides of the fence.
QuoteQ: There are many people who say that the best dredgers and skimmers in the world come from countries like the Netherlands and France and that they can't—they're not being asked to come in because of the Jones Act. Is that the case? And why not get around that, suspend that, so you can bring that other you know technology in?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, first of all, those are source countries. That's correct, they're available. But we are using them. We are dealing with folks like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada and other places. Anyplace that's got skimming capability that's available, we're willing to talk to them, and we actually have, in some cases, actually transferred the equipment down and will continue to do that.
If it gets—if it gets to the point where there's a Jones Act required, we're willing to do that, too. Nobody's come to me with a request for a Jones Act waiver, but any skimming capability we can bring in, we're looking for.
Q: So are the actual boats being brought in or just the equipment?
ADMIRAL ALLEN: Well, in some cases it's the skimmer itself. In some cases, the skimming equipment is organic to the vessel itself. It depends on what you're talking about. To my knowledge, what we brought in is actually skimming equipment rather than the vessels themselves, but we can give you a detailed listing.
Wouldn't it be quicker to bring in the ship than to dismantle it and then fit the equipment to another vessel. You have shown nothing to dispute what I have said about waiving the Jones act.
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 03:47:28 PM
Wouldn't it be quicker to bring in the ship than to dismantle it and then fit the equipment to another vessel. You have shown nothing to dispute what I have said about waiving the Jones act.
No. Once dismantled it can be loaded aboard cargo aircraft and flown here. Ships take several weeks to get to the Gulf, to months depending upon location.
What exactly do you want them to do just remove all restrictions without anyone justifying the need to do so? You know, Mexicans could then just come across on any old boat they want! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 03:39:35 PM
first of all it is an opinion peice, I never claimed it to be a scientific study....and it is written by a former democrat and a democrat advisor to Bill Clinton......so, he is probably as biased as you will find when it comes to politics...he has been on both sides of the fence.
So I was right; tripe! :yes:
Quote from: me on June 15, 2010, 03:47:28 PM
Wouldn't it be quicker to bring in the ship than to dismantle it and then fit the equipment to another vessel. You have shown nothing to dispute what I have said about waiving the Jones act.
Did you bother to read? If so,where do the requests come from?
You have not supported a need for waiving the Jone's act.
I don't see where it speaks to "dismantling" anything, but perhaps it's more cost effective to ship the parts that are required rather than the entire kit-and-kaboodle which are not.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
So I was right; tripe! :yes:
:biggrin: :yes:
and you were reading my mind.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 03:52:10 PM
No. Once dismantled it can be loaded aboard cargo aircraft and flown here. Ships take several weeks to get to the Gulf, to months depending upon location.
What exactly do you want them to do just remove all restrictions without anyone justifying the need to do so? You know, Mexicans could then just come across on any old boat they want! :rolleyes:
I doubt that since other countries enforce their illegal immigrant laws and they would have to get past them first. :razz:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 03:52:42 PM
So I was right; tripe! :yes:
Isn't that pretty much ALL that is on here...(the forum that is?)....just a bunch of opinions?.....from now on I will refer to ALL of your opinions as "tripe"...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 03:37:31 PM
What does that have to do with stopping this oil from reaching shore?.........folks in Louisana would have welcomed anyone that could have stopped that oil from reaching land, and those who are willing to clean it up....too, late now.
So screw the 20+ million unemployed in this country and bring in foreigners? Don't pull something stretching like that.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 03:37:31 PM
How in the hell can you NOT, accept the fact that this has been very badly mishandled?..........I know!!! because you are a democrat (despite what you say)...and you will NEVER admit that this POTUS is a poor example of a President....just because he got elected does NOT make him a qualified leader...if an elephant took a crap on your head, you would blame it on Bush, and claim Obama will figure out whose ASS to kick and he would make damn sure the elephant paid for all of YOU damages...
First of all, if an elephant shits on
my head I'll kill him, tan his hide, and sell it to the highest bidder, and have a nice set of ivory handles made for my handguns with his tusks.
Mishandled? YES! BY BP! The government carries their share of the blame for nurturing an environment that brought us to this place within the industry, but that is not the fault of the current POTUS. But it is his job to correct it.
You just do not like him, by your very own admission, and no matter what he does or does not do you will find fault in him and the situation. Sour grapes.
If I were to claim affiliation with a political party it would be far better that it be democratic as opposed to republican. I don't understand how you consider that a slur though.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 03:37:31 PM
prove it, you can't.........and please you have no basis to compare him to Lincoln.....he is more comparable to Carter....THAT I could see.
Well there is no way to know for sure, but one thing I can say is that McCain is far more experienced than a one-term senator, community organizer....just like Dick Morris said (in the thread that I attached earlier)....obama has acted like a legislater, a lawyer and a populist....NOT a leader.
Well lets see, where do I begin?
BOTH were lawyers
BOTH were from Illinois
BOTH were elected amidst periods of great upheaval within this country
BOTH are known to be open to new ideas, listen to criticism, and seek out opinions from all sides of a given issue.
BOTH are prolific speech writers, strong orators, with a strong sense of morality within their rhetoric.
BOTH have a calming, confident demeanor and tone. (YOU take this as arrogance).
BOTH were US Senators representing the State of Illinois
Obama is a Lincoln scholar and often refers to Lincoln's speeches within his own. He aspires to emulate this great president.
The white house china are exact replicas of that which Lincoln dined upon during his presidency.
Shall I continue?
McUseless would have been a total disaster with his drill baby, drill approach to the presidency. His bimbo Sara would have been his lap dog.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 04:13:00 PM
.....from now on I will refer to ALL of your opinions as "tripe"...
And that will be different how exactly? I am after all a prick.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 04:13:27 PM
Well lets see, where do I begin?
BOTH were lawyers
BOTH were from Illinois
BOTH were elected amidst periods of great upheaval within this country
BOTH are known to be open to new ideas, listen to criticism, and seek out opinions from all sides of a given issue.
BOTH are prolific speech writers, strong orators, with a strong sense of morality within their rhetoric.
BOTH have a calming, confident demeanor and tone. (YOU take this as arrogance).
BOTH were US Senators representing the State of Illinois
Obama is a Lincoln scholar and often refers to Lincoln's speeches within his own. He aspires to emulate this great president.
The white house china are exact replicas of that which Lincoln dined upon during his presidency.
Shall I continue?
WOW!! and you accused me of plagurism...http://ameritales.com/blog/?p=22 (http://ameritales.com/blog/?p=22) ...shall I continue? (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/icon_biggrin.gif) (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/pwned.gif)
and btw, I never called you a prick... :no: ...it didn't happen....nor would I ever do that to you.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 04:29:14 PM
WOW!! and you accused me of plagurism...http://ameritales.com/blog/?p=22 (http://ameritales.com/blog/?p=22) ...shall I continue? (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/icon_biggrin.gif) (http://theunknownzone.us/smf/Smileys3/default/pwned.gif)
and btw, I never called you a prick... :no: ...it didn't happen....nor would I ever do that to you.
WRONG! Here are my "sources": which I did NOT quote verbatum but did utilize in assuring my listing was accurate. So try again. :rolleyes: (Why you think I asked you if you wanted me to continue?) :rolleyes:
http://www.reobama.com/ObamaLincoln.htm (http://www.reobama.com/ObamaLincoln.htm)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/politics/main4731552.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/politics/main4731552.shtml)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.lincoln/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.lincoln/index.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/12/23/mcpherson.lincoln/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/12/23/mcpherson.lincoln/index.html)
http://www.sj-r.com/time_out/x199495734/Obama-and-Lincoln-similarities (http://www.sj-r.com/time_out/x199495734/Obama-and-Lincoln-similarities)
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/20/similarities-between-obama-and-lincoln/ (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/20/similarities-between-obama-and-lincoln/)
And yes, you did. . .
Quote
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 14, 2010, 02:49:29 PM
I guess you don't believe in the first admendment right?......or are you just practicing democrat politics of being a prick?
:owned: :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 15, 2010, 04:43:39 PM
WRONG! Here are my "sources": which I did NOT quote verbatum but did utilize in assuring my listing was accurate. So try again. :rolleyes: (Why you think I asked you if you wanted me to continue?) :rolleyes:
http://www.reobama.com/ObamaLincoln.htm (http://www.reobama.com/ObamaLincoln.htm)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/politics/main4731552.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/17/politics/main4731552.shtml)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.lincoln/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/obama.lincoln/index.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/12/23/mcpherson.lincoln/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/12/23/mcpherson.lincoln/index.html)
http://www.sj-r.com/time_out/x199495734/Obama-and-Lincoln-similarities (http://www.sj-r.com/time_out/x199495734/Obama-and-Lincoln-similarities)
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/20/similarities-between-obama-and-lincoln/ (http://www.vcstar.com/news/2009/jan/20/similarities-between-obama-and-lincoln/)
And yes, you did. . . :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:
nice try.....just becasue you said do you want me to continue, does not mean you was going to own up to it....
and I said "are you just
practicing democrat politics of being a prick"...I never called you a prick....nor would I ever....there some folks on here that I wouldn't hesitate on doing that, but not you.....again, this is typical of taking a quote and making it something that it is not, or was not intended that way......
So he's just a liar? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
nice try.....just becasue you said do you want me to continue, does not mean you was going to own up to it....
Own up to what? Show me where I plagiarized! :rolleyes: Now I am a liar too?!
You inferred that because my position mirrors a democratic one I am a prick. Spin it anyway you like, I know what it meant.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 15, 2010, 04:57:37 PM
nice try.....just becasue you said do you want me to continue, does not mean you was going to own up to it....
Well, Henry, you never did "own up" to it. Sandy had to post your source.
You didn't answer the question "did you bother to fact check it" either. Because I did. And most of it is bullshit.
Your constant whine about the POTUS being "not a leader" is absurd. He isn't a wizard. BP got the deep water permit from George Bush, whose administration was supposed to have examined the emergency and contingency plans. He isn't a little Dutch boy, either, who can stick his finger in the leak and make it stop.
BP has been calling the shots on the efforts to end the leak, because they are the only ones who know what is really going on at the bottom of the sea. They will probably lose control of the project soon, because they haven't produced any real results. But deep water experts aren't just hanging around waiting to jump in with THE ANSWER. You're acting like a spoiled third-grader who is secretly delighted to see the popular boy blamed for a mess he didn't make.
:smile:
Quote from: LOsborne on June 15, 2010, 07:17:55 PM
Well, Henry, you never did "own up" to it. Sandy had to post your source.
You didn't answer the question "did you bother to fact check it" either. Because I did. And most of it is bullshit.
Your constant whine about the POTUS being "not a leader" is absurd. He isn't a wizard. BP got the deep water permit from George Bush, whose administration was supposed to have examined the emergency and contingency plans. He isn't a little Dutch boy, either, who can stick his finger in the leak and make it stop.
BP has been calling the shots on the efforts to end the leak, because they are the only ones who know what is really going on at the bottom of the sea. They will probably lose control of the project soon, because they haven't produced any real results. But deep water experts aren't just hanging around waiting to jump in with THE ANSWER. You're acting like a spoiled third-grader who is secretly delighted to see the popular boy blamed for a mess he didn't make.
there is nothing to fact check, it is an opinion piece by Dick Morris.....and I didn't attach a name because a certain indvidual will NOT even read it IF they see this name attached, but I did Italicize it, as I always do when I copy and paste a story.....hell, even I know I cannot write something that well composed....I just happen to agree with everythng Morris said, and thought it would be good for debate on here, but like normal, everything but the topic of discussion was ranted about.
and I am not being absurd about KNOWING that this man being a qualified leader...he is not. He may be a great guy, and good lawyer and legislater, but I am not impressed with his leadership....period. I have never thought he was qualified from the beginning...It has nothing to do with his race or his party affiliation. It has EVERYTHING to do with his ideology and his demeanor and his style of leading. I had no problem with Bill Clinton as a leader. I did not like his politics, but he was a very good leader.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 08:35:22 AM
there is nothing to fact check, it is an opinion piece by Dick Morris.....and I didn't attach a name because a certain indvidual will NOT even read it IF they see this name attached, but I did Italicize it, as I always do when I copy and paste a story.....hell, even I know I cannot write something that well composed....I just happen to agree with everythng Morris said, and thought it would be good for debate on here, but like normal, everything but the topic of discussion was ranted about.
and I am not being absurd about KNOWING that this man being a qualified leader...he is not. He may be a great guy, and good lawyer and legislater, but I am not impressed with his leadership....period. I have never thought he was qualified from the beginning...It has nothing to do with his race or his party affiliation. It has EVERYTHING to do with his ideology and his demeanor and his style of leading. I had no problem with Bill Clinton as a leader. I did not like his politics, but he was a very good leader.
Dick Morris a pile of dog shit. You would think Clinton was a good leader, he was the best Republican President you ever had. He got passed, old Bush 42's NAFTA, then you guys had enough balls to empeach him, which failed. You guys walking in "Goose Step" fail again. Goose Stepping, walking in lock step and saying No, No, No, No, and No. What a G-grand O-old P-party, the party of no. The party of no guts.
What you got against Obama in in you own mind. You have believed all of the bullshit your Republican leaders have crammed into that little little brain. Really I think there's a little thing about his tan. Hummmmm.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html)
MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"
THIS is what I am talking about, even Chris Matthews, who adores this POTUS, says "I don't sense executive command."
Keith Olbermann said..."It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
I think this POTUS is used to giving "speeches"....but has NO sense of leadership. what more can I say.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 09:06:01 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html)
MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"
THIS is what I am talking about, even Chris Matthews, who adores this POTUS, says "I don't sense executive command."
Keith Olbermann said..."It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
I think this POTUS is used to giving "speeches"....but has NO sense of leadership. what more can I say.
They'd better be careful or they'll be on the *S* list with Fox. :yes:
Neither Henry or me has given him a chance to lead from the beginning. They were trash talking almost before anyone knew who he was. The crap gets old, seriously. He couldn't do anything right. They'll both always find fault. There's no debating this or any other issue involving Obama with those two.
As for your opinion piece, Henry. Everyone is entitled to one, but not every opinion is valid. An opinion is only as good as the facts that back it up. The opinion of Dick Morris failed against the fact test. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy and all tingly inside, but other than that, it's garbage.
Whew! I feel SO much better ;D
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 16, 2010, 11:26:14 AM
Neither Henry or me has given him a chance to lead from the beginning. They were trash talking almost before anyone knew who he was. The crap gets old, seriously. He couldn't do anything right. They'll both always find fault. There's no debating this or any other issue involving Obama with those two.
As for your opinion piece, Henry. Everyone is entitled to one, but not every opinion is valid. An opinion is only as good as the facts that back it up. The opinion of Dick Morris failed against the fact test. It might make you feel warm and fuzzy and all tingly inside, but other than that, it's garbage.
Whew! I feel SO much better ;D
and I must follow up, so that I will feel much better,
I am sick to death, that folks like you keep saying "you never gave him a chance".....what chance did I owe him?....he, from the days of his campaign, spoke of liberal idea's.....idea's I believe are wrong for this country...he blew his chance when he spoke of redistributing the wealth ie, Joe the plumber....when he said people making less than $250,000 will not see any form of tax increase...I knew that was a lie he couldn't keep, and he proved that a lie very quickly.... How long of time of folks like me do you consider "enough" time?
I never, from the first time I saw him, believed he was a person who had the qualification to be our president, based upon his history....I was NOT talking trash, I was talking my opinion of him....
please tell me what fact test did Dick Morris fail...? :confused: patronize me and show me....everything he said was his opinions based upon facts....and there was no garbage involved other than you didn't like what he said...
and for the record to all:.......I do not like Barak Obama as our POTUS...and have not since the beginning....now, if he begins to lead, and do some of the things that I hoped he would based upon his campaign promises....such as running a transpartent goverment:
Not negotiating behind closed doors and bring both sides together....but he lied.
have negotiations on cspan.........but he didn't...a lie.
post all bills on line for five days before a vote.....didn't do it.
just a couple of things that I thought would have been great, but he lied.
so I'm not talking trash, and if it is getting old because I'm not jumping up and down for this POTUS...that is just the way it is....he needs to do something to impress me.....something, anything.....then we will talk.
I'm on my phone and can't post links, but if you had bothered to fact check his opinion then you would have seen that he's twisting in the wind. You fact check nothing and post any and every biased piece of junk you can find.
You don't discuss. A discussion is when people are willing to exchange ideas. You just want to shove propaganda down people's throats and act incredulous when someone easily calls you on it. Exchanging ideas, doesn't seem to cross your mind.
I don't care one way or the other if you like him. I care even less if you gave him a chance. But don't pretend you want to discuss anything b/c that"s the farthest thing from your mind.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 16, 2010, 12:10:02 PM
I'm on my phone and can't post links, but if you had bothered to fact check his opinion then you would have seen that he's twisting in the wind. You fact check nothing and post any and every biased piece of junk you can find.
You don't discuss. A discussion is when people are willing to exchange ideas. You just want to shove propaganda down people's throats and act incredulous when someone easily calls you on it. Exchanging ideas, doesn't seem to cross your mind.
I don't care one way or the other if you like him. I care even less if you gave him a chance. But don't pretend you want to discuss anything b/c that"s the farthest thing from your mind.
will you get over yourself.....I'm not shoving NO propaganda down ANYONES throat.....read it, don't read it.....I posted it for one reason and one reason only....I liked what he had to say......if you don't want to discuss it with me, then don't discuss it with me.....it is THAT simple........I didn't act incredulous, I only responeded when it was stated I plagerized something which I didn't and YOU guys know that I didn't....and as far as fact checking....there is nothing to fact check......it is all one man's opinion.
If you'd ever shown the slighest interest in discussing an issue rather than plastering threads w/your right wing propaganda, I might be willing to give you a break, but as it stands all I see is babbling :bs:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 16, 2010, 12:32:54 PM
If you'd ever shown the slighest interest in discussing an issue rather than plastering threads w/your right wing propaganda, I might be willing to give you a break, but as it stands all I see is babbling :bs:
ditto!!!.. ;)
bump....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 09:06:01 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html)
MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"
THIS is what I am talking about, even Chris Matthews, who adores this POTUS, says "I don't sense executive command."
Keith Olbermann said..."It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
I think this POTUS is used to giving "speeches"....but has NO sense of leadership. what more can I say.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 09:06:01 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html)
MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"
THIS is what I am talking about, even Chris Matthews, who adores this POTUS, says "I don't sense executive command."
Keith Olbermann said..."It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."
I think this POTUS is used to giving "speeches"....but has NO sense of leadership. what more can I say.
He said all that he can say. There is nothing he can do about this mess. He called in all of the experts on what to do. The verdict is out. You surely seen all of the lying the oil company BP did, on how they were equipped on cleaning up a spill. They didn't have shit.
Henry, I have asked you before. What should he do. Your an engineer train how to think deep on things like this. I know you don't know, because nobody knows how to stop the flow.
I don't think there is much he can do, but he says he can and then doesn't. He says he "made" BP establish a slush fund for paying for the cleanup and people who lost money because of the spill. We all know he didn't "make" them do anything, he asked and they agreed but he took credit of "making" them do it. So I guess imo he would be better off to quit making those disruptive trips to the gulf and llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think there is much he can do, but he says he can and then doesn't. He says he "made" BP establish a slush fund for paying for the cleanup and people who lost money because of the spill. We all know he didn't "make" them do anything, he asked and they agreed but he took credit of "making" them do it. So I guess imo he would be better off to quit making those disruptive trips to the gulf and llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs.
Source for this?
According to the top dog at BP, this was all done at the insistence of the POTUS. BP just wanted to keep doing it themselves with their corporate -2% NET 90 DAY approach!
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think there is much he can do, but he says he can and then doesn't. He says he "made" BP establish a slush fund for paying for the cleanup and people who lost money because of the spill. We all know he didn't "make" them do anything, he asked and they agreed but he took credit of "making" them do it. So I guess imo he would be better off to quit making those disruptive trips to the gulf and llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs.
Let's face it "Anne" if he took the money out of his own pocket and offered to pay for a cruise for you and someone else to take with you. He's still a sucmbag. Still a tanned scumbag. Why, because you are a Republican and you want them back in so they can continue to screw up this country. Right, "Anne"
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 04:41:36 PM
... llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs.
Who are these people, and why haven't they been doing these things?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 08:35:22 AM
I had no problem with Bill Clinton as a leader. I did not like his politics, but he was a very good leader.
Has one hell of a cute butt, too.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 08:35:22 AM
....hell, even I know I cannot write something that well composed...
Yes, you can, if you would just take the time to spell and grammar check your stuff. You express yourself well, Henry. That's why I read your posts. That's why you
sometimes make me reconsider my position.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 16, 2010, 08:35:22 AM
...and I am not being absurd about KNOWING that this man being a qualified leader...he is not.
I am not disputing your opinion of his leadership abilities in general. I
am disputing your insistence that there is something more he could be doing personally, in this particular case.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 04:41:36 PM
I don't think there is much he can do, but he says he can and then doesn't. He says he "made" BP establish a slush fund for paying for the cleanup and people who lost money because of the spill. We all know he didn't "make" them do anything, he asked and they agreed but he took credit of "making" them do it. So I guess imo he would be better off to quit making those disruptive trips to the gulf and llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs.
More hate and malice with nothing of substance to back it up. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 04:58:22 PM
Source for this?
According to the top dog at BP, this was all done at the insistence of the POTUS. BP just wanted to keep doing it themselves with their corporate -2% NET 90 DAY approach!
British Company, I don't think he can take control of the company and "make" them do anything. He can freeze their holdings in the US but he can't take them over like he can a US company. The "make" them do something, watch any speech he has made in the last two weeks. Insistance is not "making" anyone do anything.
Quote from: The Troll on June 16, 2010, 05:51:56 PM
Let's face it "Anne" if he took the money out of his own pocket and offered to pay for a cruise for you and someone else to take with you. He's still a sucmbag. Still a tanned scumbag. Why, because you are a Republican and you want them back in so they can continue to screw up this country. Right, "Anne"
If who took money out of his pocket? You make no sense.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 08:07:45 PM
British Company, I don't think he can take control of the company and "make" them do anything. He can freeze their holdings in the US but he can't take them over like he can a US company. The "make" them do something, watch any speech he has made in the last two weeks. Insistance is not "making" anyone do anything.
The terms of the agreement (Read Permit) provides for just that. They are subject to US Law and control, and they agreed to that as a condition of their permit. Jeopardy is attached.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 06:48:02 PM
Who are these people, and why haven't they been doing these things?
Well,it certainly isn't President Obama, even he said he doesn't know how to stop the "leak", so why is he going down there and getting in the way of people who are working. I can bet while he was on the beach not one thing was being done to clean it up. Like I said I think he has done what he can, and I think he has done what he said last night, it is time to let the people who understand the mechanics do what needs to be done or at least try to fix things.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 08:10:12 PM
The terms of the agreement (Read Permit) provides for just that. They are subject to US Law and control, and they agreed to that as a condition of their permit. Jeopardy is attached.
Provide for the US to take over the company?
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 08:12:52 PM
Well,it certainly isn't President Obama ...
I didn't ask who it isn't, Anne. You said, "llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs." That implies there are people who know what to do. Who do you think they are?
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 08:14:24 PM
Do your own homework.
Don't give me that shit. If you cite a factual document you claim exists, provide the source or I'll have no choice but to assume you made it up. Rules of debate.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 08:15:02 PM
I didn't ask who it isn't, Anne. You said, "llet the people who know what to do get on with their jobs." That implies there are people who know what to do. Who do you think they are?
The people who are working on the ships and putting out the containment booms, the people cleaning up the beach and the engineers who are working on the problems of stopping the leak. I can't give you names and companies if that is what you want, but I did see where Kevin Costner has some equipment that I think he said separates the oil and water.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 08:25:20 PM
The people who are working on the ships and putting out the containment booms, the people cleaning up the beach and the engineers who are working on the problems of stopping the leak....
In what way do you see the POTUS's visit impeding their efforts?
..and if he didn't go, then he'd be a uncaring POS :rolleyes:
He can't win.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 08:13:18 PM
Source, please?
This part of it is over 408 pages and it surrounds EPA jurisdiction and legal authority over deep water - off shore oil rigs
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20002XFX.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991%20Thru%201994&Docs=&Query=%28permit%29%20OR%20FNAME%3D%2220002XFX.txt%22%20AND%20FNAME%3D%2220002XFX.txt%22&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C91THRU94%5CTXT%5C00000007%5C20002XFX.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=23 (http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20002XFX.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1991%20Thru%201994&Docs=&Query=%28permit%29%20OR%20FNAME%3D%2220002XFX.txt%22%20AND%20FNAME%3D%2220002XFX.txt%22&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=1&ExtQFieldOp=1&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C91THRU94%5CTXT%5C00000007%5C20002XFX.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=10&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=23)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/20002XGJ.png)
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 08:17:02 PM
Don't give me that shit. If you cite a factual document you claim exists, provide the source or I'll have no choice but to assume you made it up. Rules of debate.
Then read it yourself. above.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 08:26:39 PM
In what way do you see the POTUS's visit impeding their efforts?
Have you ever been around when a VIP of that importance shows up, everything stops, traffic, work, shopping, absolutely everything. Too much security for anything to function.
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 16, 2010, 08:33:30 PM
..and if he didn't go, then he'd be a uncaring POS :rolleyes:
He can't win.
Well, I wouldn't see it that way.
Moreover, the site lies within the EEZ that is recognized world wide, as I have already provided the information to the same screen name previously:
Quote from: Palehorse on May 26, 2010, 07:41:29 PM
The deep water horizon was operating 40 nautical miles off the cost, but within the exclusive economic zone which extends out to 200 nautical miles from the end of territorial water, the baseline of which begins at the low water mark. (TW = 12 miles off any coast on average).
The "exclusive economic zone" provides the coastal nation with control over all resources contained within it, including fish, mining, oil exploration, and pollution. BP could not operate within this zone without a written agreement with the United States that subjects it to US law and control.
Laws of the sea. The term "international waters" is a misnomer, since a very large number of regional agreements, conflicts surrounding exceptions to territorial waters agreements, and global agreements encompass what the landlubber would assume are international waters. . .
http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/20_eezmap.pdf (http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/20_eezmap.pdf)
And here is a copy of the legal document signed by the POTUS
. . .The exclusive economic zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas Territories and possessions. The exclusive economic zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In cases where the maritime boundary with a neighbouring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the exclusive economic zone shall be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance with equitable principles.
Within the exclusive economic zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the sea-bed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment. . .
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/USA_1983_Proclamation.pdf (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/USA_1983_Proclamation.pdf)
http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prepub_report/primer.pdf (http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prepub_report/primer.pdf)
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 08:17:02 PM
Don't give me that shit. If you cite a factual document you claim exists, provide the source or I'll have no choice but to assume you made it up. Rules of debate.
Assume whatever the hell you like. I'm sick of doing everybody's homework for them over and over and over again. I've cited my sources previously to the VERY SAME inquiry, from the VERY SAME poster.
Keep up will yah!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 09:36:39 PM
Assume whatever the hell you like. I'm sick of doing everybody's homework for them over and over and over again. I've cited my sources previously to the VERY SAME inquiry, from the VERY SAME poster.
Keep up will yah!
Okay, I gave you every chance. My source (NY Times) says Deepwater Horizon didn't
have a permit.
WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.
Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?hp
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 09:55:38 PM
Okay, I gave you every chance. My source (NY Times) says Deepwater Horizon didn't have a permit.
WASHINGTON — The federal Minerals Management Service gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits from another agency that assesses threats to endangered species — and despite strong warnings from that agency about the impact the drilling was likely to have on the gulf.
Those approvals, federal records show, include one for the well drilled by the Deepwater Horizon rig, which exploded on April 20, killing 11 workers and resulting in thousands of barrels of oil spilling into the gulf each day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html?hp
Yeah. . . and what difference does that make? They STILL were operating within the EEZ of the US and by international law, (See UN LINK) , are bound by its provisions
which place them squarely under the direct jurisdiction of US law and policy. Spin it any way you like, the US has the authority to impose "command and control" over them due to their
uncontrolled release of pollutants and the resulting negative economic impact. (See EPA link).
They are still bound by the provisions that would have been contained within any permit, whether or not they had one.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 09:06:33 PM
Then read it yourself. above.
Man, your hurting my brain with all of the information. But from what I get from
from you and television, Man, I do belive you. :clap: :clap: :clap: :tiphat:
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 09:14:40 PM
Have you ever been around when a VIP of that importance shows up, everything stops, traffic, work, shopping, absolutely everything. Too much security for anything to function.
I believe he was in Mississippi in the morning, Alabama in the afternoon, and Florida in the evening of June 14. That really doesn't sound like very many hours of disruption any -- especially since he didn't even touch down in Louisiana. Sorry, I think you are parroting party-line.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/president_obama_official_sched_337.html
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:00:25 PM
Yeah. . . and what difference does that make?
They are still bound by the provisions that would have been contained within any permit, whether or not they had one.
But I asked for your source on the permit. You said
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 08:10:12 PM
The terms of the agreement (Read Permit) provides for just that. They are subject to US Law and control, and they agreed to that as a condition of their permit. Jeopardy is attached.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you meant we should read the permit. I tried. I couldn't find one. I did find several stories stating BP and Trans Ocean didn't have one.
Sorry. I got excited thinking you had found the mysterious missing permit.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:10:05 PM
But I asked for your source on the permit. You said
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you meant we should read the permit. I tried. I couldn't find one. I did find several stories stating BP and Trans Ocean didn't have one.
Sorry. I got excited thinking you had found the mysterious missing permit.
Moving forward I shall endeavor to utilize proper terminology lest I be subjected to semantic whippings repeatedly.
Just don't wind me up, making me think you have found something I have been searching for, unsuccessfully. (You don't happen to know the present location of the holy grail, do you?)
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:14:44 PM
Just don't wind me up, making me think you have found something I have been searching for, unsuccessfully. (You don't happen to know the present location of the holy grail, do you?)
Yes. And I am keeping it. I may have to hock it when the republicans ruin the country.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:17:26 PM
Yes. And I am keeping it. I may have to hock it when the republicans ruin the country.
Don't hock it. Auction it off on E-Bay. More bang for the buck.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:18:56 PM
Don't hock it. Auction it off on E-Bay. More bang for the buck.
E Bay will not be around once the conservatives take over. . . None of this will be here.
Have you no faith in the revolution?
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:26:44 PM
Have you no faith in the revolution?
You cannot get this bunch of people to agree on even the simple things; what makes you think they'll agree on something as important as a change in direction for this nation? Who will they kill this time and how many? :spooked:
Hell, look how many of them squirreled out over a campaign of change, then how many joined them when they tried to implement some. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:30:53 PM
You cannot get this bunch of people to agree on even the simple things; what makes you think they'll agree on something as important as a change in direction for this nation? Who will they kill this time and how many? :spooked:
Think yip. And pharmaceuticals in the water supply.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:32:40 PM
Think yip. And pharmaceuticals in the water supply.
I had my days with the yips. Now the pharma thing, well. . . they had better hurry the hell up before the Naz. . . errr. . . Tea Party beats them to it!
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:35:00 PM
I had my days with the yips.
Really. Did we run across each other, ya' think?
Quotehey had better hurry the hell up before the Naz. . . errr. . . Tea Party beats them to it!
No worries. They use the wrong compounds.
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:41:05 PM
Really. Did we run across each other, ya' think?
I highly doubt it, unless you got up into northern Illinois. . .
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:41:05 PM
No worries. They use the wrong compounds.
Yeah, and that is primarily due to the fact that they forget to titer, and can't even make a batch of latex right.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:45:37 PM
I highly doubt it, unless you got up into northern Illinois. . .
No farther north than Chicago. Good enough?
Quote from: Palehorse on June 16, 2010, 10:45:37 PM
Yeah, and that is primarily due to the fact that they forget to titer, and can't even make a batch of latex right.
snicker
Quote from: LOsborne on June 16, 2010, 10:06:51 PM
I believe he was in Mississippi in the morning, Alabama in the afternoon, and Florida in the evening of June 14. That really doesn't sound like very many hours of disruption any -- especially since he didn't even touch down in Louisiana. Sorry, I think you are parroting party-line.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/president_obama_official_sched_337.html
All right, consider this, my husband was driving through Chicago a few years ago when some big wig from Canada was there for a speech of some sort. Traffic on the interstate was stopped for four hours while his motorcade went through town. Do you think there would be less hassle with President Obama showing up? When he was in Chicago over Memorial Day and he walked to a neighbors for a cookout it completely disrupted the traffic on the street and that was supposed to be low key, not a major news story with all the attendent aides, ss, and press.My daughter lives near DC and works there, she says it is always a mess when the president makes an appearance.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 10:53:01 PM
All right, consider this, my husband was driving through Chicago a few years ago when some big wig from Canada was there for a speech of some sort. Traffic on the interstate was stopped for four hours while his motorcade went through town. Do you think there would be less hassle with President Obama showing up? When he was in Chicago over Memorial Day and he walked to a neighbors for a cookout it completely disrupted the traffic on the street and that was supposed to be low key, not a major news story with all the attendent aides, ss, and press.My daughter lives near DC and works there, she says it is always a mess when the president makes an appearance.
Maybe that's the way it should be. Remember it wasn't really like this before they shot and killed Kennedy.
Now we have a half white president that a lot of crazed rednecked teabaggers would like to shoot.
Protect all of our presidents. :flag: :flag: :flag:
Good point, Troll. Of course, it's in the south too. Some of those people are still fighting the Civil War, nevermind the fact he's half black, just being from Chicago makes him suspect. ;D
Most of the important parts of the process, I imagine, are taking place on water or the shore, so hopefully his presence wouldn't impede too much. :wink:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 17, 2010, 06:01:59 AM
Good point, Troll. Of course, it's in the south too. Some of those people are still fighting the Civil War, nevermind the fact he's half black, just being from Chicago makes him suspect. ;D
Most of the important parts of the process, I imagine, are taking place on water or the shore, so hopefully his presence wouldn't impede too much. :wink:
To these cry baby Republicans if he didn't go, he's not doing his duty. So let's impeach him. He goes down there, he's show boating, let's impeach him.
The Republican mantra, :'( :kickcan: :'( :boohoo: :'(
:flap: :'( :preach: :'( :boohoo: :koolaid:
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 17, 2010, 06:01:59 AM
Good point, Troll. Of course, it's in the south too. Some of those people are still fighting the Civil War, nevermind the fact he's half black, just being from Chicago makes him suspect. ;D
Most of the important parts of the process, I imagine, are taking place on water or the shore, so hopefully his presence wouldn't impede too much. :wink:
The Civil war was not fought over slavery.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 10:53:01 PMMy daughter lives near DC and works there, she says it is always a mess when the president makes an appearance.
I live and work there too. Trust me on this. It is ALWAYS a mess here. You could go out and spit on a street and traffic would come to a halt. And don't even get me started about the Beltway! :rant:
Quote from: me on June 17, 2010, 08:35:33 AM
The Civil war was not fought over slavery.
While it was not the initial issue that sparked hostilities between the North and South, it was a key component in the conflict. The civil war resolved two questions left unresolved by the revolutionary war: Whether the United States was to be a dissolvable confederation of sovereign states or an indivisible nation with a sovereign national government;
and whether this nation, born of a declaration that all men were created with an equal right to liberty, would continue to exist as the largest slaveholding country in the world.
As the conflict progressed, slavery became the lynch-pin issue for the majority of the states engrossed within the initiative.
Quote from: Anne on June 16, 2010, 10:53:01 PM
All right, consider this, my husband was driving through Chicago a few years ago when some big wig from Canada was there for a speech of some sort. Traffic on the interstate was stopped for four hours while his motorcade went through town. Do you think there would be less hassle with President Obama showing up? When he was in Chicago over Memorial Day and he walked to a neighbors for a cookout it completely disrupted the traffic on the street and that was supposed to be low key, not a major news story with all the attendent aides, ss, and press.My daughter lives near DC and works there, she says it is always a mess when the president makes an appearance.
I lived in Chicago for many years, and traffic is
always jacked up. One little fender bender can close interstates for half the day.
Besides, from most locations in Chicagoland, if an interstate is closed you can easily divert to secondary roads or another interstate to get where you are going. . .
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 17, 2010, 06:01:59 AM
Good point, Troll. Of course, it's in the south too. Some of those people are still fighting the Civil War, nevermind the fact he's half black, just being from Chicago makes him suspect. ;D
Most of the important parts of the process, I imagine, are taking place on water or the shore, so hopefully his presence wouldn't impede too much. :wink:
Being from Chicago myself and with family in the south, I can personally attest to the prejudice held by southerners toward those from Chicago. :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 17, 2010, 09:13:09 AM
Being from Chicago myself and with family in the south, I can personally attest to the prejudice held by southerners toward those from Chicago. :yes:
My wife and I spent a lot of time around Gulf Shores and Foley Alabama and those people definitely have a different attitude towards life, blacks and Yankees. Some keep it hidden pretty well, but when it comes out there is a lot of hate in those Southern bones yet today.
Quote from: me on June 17, 2010, 08:35:33 AM
The Civil war was not fought over slavery.
Of course not.........it was states' rights, the right to determine for themselves if they wanted to own other human beings. They didn't want any gubmint interference in their lives and huge profit-making from slavery.
Oops. There's that career capitalist money-making thing kickin' in again.
Heck, they might have had to pay an honest wage to people who picked the cotton, etc., instead of owning human machines and not having to pay them to do it.
Quote from: Olias on June 17, 2010, 08:45:38 AM
I live and work there too. Trust me on this. It is ALWAYS a mess here. You could go out and spit on a street and traffic would come to a halt. And don't even get me started about the Beltway! :rant:
I know, driven there myself a couple times, but it is worse when the president is making an appearance, and DC is used to it. Try all that out in someplace like Pensecola.
PH, you and Troll are both right. Heck, I was living in southern WV near TN and souther VA and consided myself southern. I was certainly well below the Mason Dixon line. Anyway, I visited my dad in Arkansas and was treated like I was contagious. Finally, I asked one old hateful guy why and he said "because you're a yankee!" I said, "A yankee? I'm from south of the Mason-Dixon line" and he said, "that don't matter, if you live north of TN, then you're a yankee". There was a distinct and firm separation of races. I risked "ruining my reputation" by befriending a black girl. I don't think I could live in the deep south. :no:
I like this magazine a lot, but I have to admit that I'm a little put off by the use of the word "ballsy", it's kinda juvenile and the word "maverick" will never be the same for me after the 2009 election, but still, it's a good article.
What do you think? should they try it? work out a less risky compromise? What about a test run in a lab setting? Although I'm not sure if that's possible. :-\
QuoteIs there a quick way to stop the flow of oil in the Gulf of Mexico? One maverick scientist says the answer may be as simple as dropping steel balls into the gushing well and that there's no harm in trying. But some petroleum engineers say the idea is too good to be true and could make matters worse.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/one-ballsy-proposal-to-stop-the-.html
Oil spill quiz:
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/energy/great-energy-challenge/oil-spill-quiz/
Quote from: Sandy Eggo on June 17, 2010, 09:33:15 PM
I like this magazine a lot, but I have to admit that I'm a little put off by the use of the word "ballsy", it's kinda juvenile and the word "maverick" will never be the same for me after the 2009 election, but still, it's a good article.
What do you think? should they try it? work out a less risky compromise? What about a test run in a lab setting? Although I'm not sure if that's possible. :-\
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/one-ballsy-proposal-to-stop-the-.html
First and foremost, the scientist should establish the flow pressure(s) at the point(s) of potential insertion of these proposed steel balls, and build an experiment above ground to provide some measure of validation for his theory. As a physicist doing this should be well within his ability utilizing the same pumps he refers to in his presentation.
"A picture is worth a thousand words", and providing a visual for those nay-sayers, along with repeatable data, should be enough to obtain enough support that would allow implementation. A looped system utilizing opaque media, that duplicates the structures presently leaking a mile beneath the ocean's surface, along with a viscous media to represent the oil at identical pressures, should do the trick.
If nothing else, perhaps BP should provide him with some funds to purchase the necessary materials to build his experiment and give it a go. It cannot hurt anything and may save them a TON of money in the long run.
All that being said, I cannot imagine that enough opposing force can be developed to "force" a steel ball of 1.5 centimeters to counteract the pressure of the well at the ejection point. If it could, then I would have expected one of their previous tries with the drilling mud would have at least been marginally successful. Even given the increased mass of the steel ball, it doesn't seem to me to be enough. . . but then again I am not a physicist. . . The guy did work magic in Kuwait. . .
This thing brings visions of a giant shotgun going off on the ocean floor. . .
Quote from: Anne on June 17, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
I know, driven there myself a couple times, but it is worse when the president is making an appearance, and DC is used to it. Try all that out in someplace like Pensecola.
Yeah, there is only one major highway along the coast. Try pulling a 32 ft. RV trailer throught there on a week end. Did it once, never again.
Obama IS a modern-day "liberal". That is why, like the chorus of crybaby "progressives" here, he is talk without action. When was the last demonstration you saw against off-shore oil drilling? When was the last 'teach-in' on why many foreign countries have taxed gasoline much higher than America for many decades? Once upon a pre-dumbed-down time it was understood that in a democracy, citizens not the president are ultimately responsible for making change happen
Quote from: Doc on June 18, 2010, 09:28:25 PM
Obama IS a modern-day "liberal". That is why, like the chorus of crybaby "progressives" here, he is talk without action. When was the last demonstration you saw against off-shore oil drilling? When was the last 'teach-in' on why many foreign countries have taxed gasoline much higher than America for many decades? Once upon a pre-dumbed-down time it was understood that in a democracy, citizens not the president are ultimately responsible for making change happen
You Conservative blowhards alway want to blame the liberals for your stupidity in worshiping the Market and the predatory capitalist whose only wish is to improve their bottom line at the expense of the American people.
We had not had a major oil blow out from an oil rig in the last 40 years. And the well might have worked if BP not have cut corners and let safety go to hell and to save a buck and some time. They were working way over their heads on this well. Way beond their ability to handle any problem that would come. WELL PROBLEMS CAME UP and you see what we got. Are you happy with your corporations now and the way they lied to us.
Just what would your precious leaders George 43, George W. and Dick Chaney have done about this blow out. There oil men and their family were oil people. Nothing more that what has been now. Nobody know and that is the problem. Do you know how to handle it? No?
But remember it was the Republicans that were in power that took all of the regulations of the drilling procedures and the oil companies. Don't give me your Republican Bullshit.
Yep, name-calling they're good at...solutions...not so much :no:
Quote from: Doc on June 18, 2010, 09:28:25 PM
Once upon a pre-dumbed-down time it was understood that in a democracy, citizens not the president are ultimately responsible for making change happen
Okay, you've convinced me. I'll meet you in Washington on the Fourth, and we'll levitate the Pentagon.