The W
Views: 99380329
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.10.14 1135
The W - Current Events & Politics - As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief goes to yacht race (Page 3)
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
(145 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (86 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by drjayphd

    No, you were perfectly clear. The point was that they were left twisting during Katrina, under a Republican president, one who earned their electoral votes.

So, the day the levee broke, and people were on their roofs and the Coast Guard was picking people off those roofs, and sending zodiac boats out to rescue people, were they just doing that on their own? Or was the federal government responding with the assets on hand?


    I wouldn't claim Bush did that deliberately, and if you want to blame anyone for not going balls-out, look at the governors of those states for not deploying the National Guard, when they have plenty that they could directly do about the spill. This has everything to do with geography and nothing to do with politics.


So, Bobby Jindahl having national guard troops building artificial islands to prevent the oil from reaching their marshes, only to be told by the Federal government to stop, he WASN'T trying to do something?

How many countries offered help, asking only for the USA to pick up the expenses of getting their people and equipment to our shores, and the Federal Government said "thanks buy no thanks"? Nearly 30.

And again, having 'troops' to deploy means jack squat if they aren't allowed at sea, or have no equipment to soak up the oil, or skim it. And, who is to blame for their not being enough resources? Is it Bobby Jindahl's? Is it Haley Barbour's? Is it Bob Riley's? Is it Charlie Crist's? Or is it Janet Napolitano's and the POTUS?

And, point out that Bush didn't have troops on the ground to do something IN New Orleans and repeating that mantra ignores Nagin's ineptitude and the Governor's mishandling. Let's not forget, when she was asked for help, it was granted the very next day with money and resources and troops.

Everybody wants to forget that the infrastructure in and around New Orleans was decimated, and that delayed the federal response. Everybody forgets that an evacuation order was issued,and was widely ignored.

There are a ton of differences between the two incidents, with the only real correlation being the state/areas being effected.

And, if you don't think Barry "Don't think we aren't keeping score, brother" Obama is capable of letting horrible shit happen to further his agenda, then you haven't paid attention to his words and actions since he's been in the public eye.

Just today he held a meeting to discuss "energy issues" which were spurred by the incident,(meaning he wants to get "energy reform" going soon) yet refused to even discuss the oil spill.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/​thenote/​2010/​06/​gop-​sen-​to-​obama-​you-​cant-​talk-​energy-​bill-​without-​talking-​bp.html

This guy is using an incident to further his own agenda, to the detriment of an entire region, three major industries (drilling, fishing and tourism). He was able to get hundreds of millions of dollars, aid, medical support and supplies to Haiti within a day of the earthquake, yet it takes his cronies over a week to get down for a flyover above Louisiana?


    I'm still trying to comprehend how anyone can, in all seriousness, claim that any President would want a state to suffer solely because they didn't win that state in their election. Ludicrous doesn't even begin to describe it. It would be absolute insanity if someone actually did that, and even thinking it would happen shows some disconnect.


Yep, I'm 'disconnected' from the kool aid. If you can't realistically see what's going on, and how countless basketball games, golf outings, fund raisers, and photo ops seem more pressing than addressing the problem that's effecting a large majority of the region, you may want to step back and take another look.

Refusing to meet with the head of BP, but not being afraid to (illegally) coerce them into setting up a $20Billion 'fund' for those effected (only to have the IRS want their share), knowing of the problems at this well, and the very real possibility of this happening in FEBRUARY, and doing nothing.... it all seems like he's either willfully letting shitty things happen to the reason, or he is criminally negligent.

Which do you think it is?

(edited by StaggerLee on 30.6.10 0056)
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 12 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.18
There are plenty of ways Obama could have handled this better and I think it's going to be a HUGE blemish on his Presidency. But it seems we're well past any reasonable discussion on that front.

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Refusing to meet with the head of BP, but not being afraid to (illegally) coerce them into setting up a $20Billion 'fund' for those effected (only to have the IRS want their share), knowing of the problems at this well, and the very real possibility of this happening in FEBRUARY, and doing nothing.... it all seems like he's either willfully letting shitty things happen to the reason, or he is criminally negligent.

    Which do you think it is?


I think that, if this were a Republican President who had taken the EXACT same actions as Obama, you'd be bending over backwards defending him from any liberal critique. I think any steps Obama would have taken to prevent this would have had you SCREAMING about federal government intrusion into the private sector and you would have berated him for over-reacting. And I think that, no matter what Obama did and however effective he MIGHT have been, it wouldn't have satisfied you. You're looking for just about any reason to be outraged, and hence, you are outraged. Congrats.

And the fact that you have the temerity to portray BP as the VICTIM of some "illegal and coerced" shakedown more than just convinces me of my previous paragraph - it makes me wonder if you really give a damn about the condition of these Red States at all - outside of giving you yet another reason to Obama-bash.

Other than throwing you into the same GROUP O' CRAZY as I do the 9/11 Truthers, that's about the best response I can muster...

(edited by Leroy on 29.6.10 2344)

Who likes the little little duckies in the pond? I do, I do, I do, a chicka-quack quack.

That's Mr. WSLC to you.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie


    Gov. Bobby Jindal's message has been loud and clear, using language such as "We will only be winning this war when we're actually deploying every resource," "They (the federal government) can provide more resources" and "It's clear the resources needed to protect our coast are still not here."



Is this the same Bobby Jindal who made his debut on the national stage with a response to the State of the Union that made fun of budgeting money for disaster prevention? I'm just sayin'...
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Leroy

    I think that, if this were a Republican President who had taken the EXACT same actions as Obama, you'd be bending over backwards defending him from any liberal critique. I think any steps Obama would have taken to prevent this would have had you SCREAMING about federal government intrusion into the private sector and you would have berated him for over-reacting. And I think that, no matter what Obama did and however effective he MIGHT have been, it wouldn't have satisfied you. You're looking for just about any reason to be outraged, and hence, you are outraged. Congrats.


Then you'd be wrong. If it had been McCain in office, and he had no organizational control over the MMS, ignored reports of problems, and then took his sweet time doing anything, I'd be just as pissed.


    And the fact that you have the temerity to portray BP as the VICTIM of some "illegal and coerced" shakedown more than just convinces me of my previous paragraph - it makes me wonder if you really give a damn about the condition of these Red States at all - outside of giving you yet another reason to Obama-bash.

I never said BP was a victim of a shakedown. I said they were coerced into basically giving $20Billion to a 'relief fund' which has no real criteria for who gets paid, or how to handle claims. Just curious, what's wrong with good old time class action law suits?


    Other than throwing you into the same GROUP O' CRAZY as I do the 9/11 Truthers, that's about the best response I can muster...

    (edited by Leroy on 29.6.10 2344)

The difference between the truthers and those of us who are noticing what is going on, is that it's unfolding before our eyes, and everybody except Obamabots, progressives, hippies and willfully ignorant people, can see what's happening. And, if you don't think the stuff that's happening and unfolding on a daily basis isn't being done SPECIFICALLY to allow the push for "climate change" ask yourself why that was the focus of Obama's speech about it.

Having to rid ourselves of our "addiction" to oil? Pushing for more "comprehensive reform". How does that in any way, shape or form, fix what happened in the gulf, and what is continuing to happen? It doesn't.
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 6 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.50
So you're outraged that an environmentally conscious politician is using an environmental disaster to - gasp! - push for more environmentally friendly legislation? What is the world coming to. SL, no-one can fix this problem with a snap of their fingers. not Obama, not BP, no-one. You're rushing to bemoan the federal government's lack of intervention and ignoring every other aspect of this massively complicated story. You are, in short, a far-left liberal in the days after Katrina.

I think the worst part about all this, politically speaking, is the GOP abandoning all pretense of its "freek market" values in its rush to defend BP and bash Obama. See, government intrusion with private enterprise is a bad thing....unless private enterprise fucks up and needs help.

(edited by Amos Cochran on 30.6.10 0525)
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by StaggerLee


    How many countries offered help, asking only for the USA to pick up the expenses of getting their people and equipment to our shores, and the Federal Government said "thanks buy no thanks"? Nearly 30.



Yeah, no.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/

Try and listen/read something from a place other than Fox News for once.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 92 days
Last activity: 11 days
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.86
    Originally posted by StaggerLee on 30.6.10 0050.27
    Refusing to meet with the head of BP, but not being afraid to (illegally) coerce them into setting up a $20Billion 'fund' for those effected (only to have the IRS want their share)...


    Originally posted by StaggerLee, about 70 minutes later
    I never said BP was a victim of a shakedown. I said they were coerced into basically giving $20Billion to a 'relief fund' which has no real criteria for who gets paid, or how to handle claims. Just curious, what's wrong with good old time class action law suits?


StaggerLee: First of all, Democrats are slippery, and the Republican response wasn't properly calibrated before I started spouting it. Just ask Mike Green...

Mike Green: Guys, I saw the whole argument - he drove straight into the Rush Limbaugh-approved talking points, and I'm pretty sure that if Obama let people file 'good old time class action law suits', Stagger would just start whinging about the need for tort reform.

StaggerLee: He’s just kidding... we need a second opinion.



StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    So you're outraged that an environmentally conscious politician is using an environmental disaster to - gasp! - push for more environmentally friendly legislation?

No, I'm outraged that a President has been dragging his feet on this, has refused to do anything other than have his minions say it was all Bush's fault, and tried to use it as an excuse to pass -GASP!- more taxes. Cap and Trade won't prevent another oil rig disaster. Its the typical democrat response, take something bad, and pass a law that doesn't fix it, but does bring in more tax dollars for them to waste, and more control over people's lives. (see also: health care reform, financial reform) All the talk about solar, wind, and nuclear power is great. How many viable solar, wind or nuclear powered cars are there? Until there are working models that are practical, pushing "environmentally friendly legislation" is a total waste of time, if it's aim is to end our "addiction to foreign oil" as was the claim Obama made.

Not to mention the simple fact that had this well been allowed closer to shore, it wouldn't be 5000 feet beneath the surface, and would have been FAR more manageable in both the short and long run.



    SL, no-one can fix this problem with a snap of their fingers. not Obama, not BP, no-one. You're rushing to bemoan the federal government's lack of intervention and ignoring every other aspect of this massively complicated story. You are, in short, a far-left liberal in the days after Katrina.
There is a HUGE difference between a weeks response time in the case of Katrina, and over a month's time to even really acknowledge things are going south in the gulf. HUGE actually isn't even close enough.



Actually, my news wasn't from Fox, it was from the Houston Chronicle which has run several stories about the administration's unwillingness to accept help from foreign nations.
And, I never once mentioned the Jones Act, which is the dominating topic of your link.

Bottom line is, other countries offered to help us out, which may have helped abate the oil from reaching our shores, marshes and wildlife and was refused for any number of reasons that the Unified Command could have had waived. If ruining 4 states coastal waters, coastal wild life, fishing industries, tourism industries and stopping oil drilling industries wasn't enough of a reason to waive any of the arbitrary rules about who could help, then I ask, what WOULD be a good reason to treat this like the environmental and economic catastrophe that it is?
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    No, I'm outraged that a President has been dragging his feet on this, has refused to do anything other than have his minions say it was all Bush's fault, and tried to use it as an excuse to pass -GASP!- more taxes. Cap and Trade won't prevent another oil rig disaster. Its the typical democrat response, take something bad, and pass a law that doesn't fix it, but does bring in more tax dollars for them to waste, and more control over people's lives. (see also: health care reform, financial reform) All the talk about solar, wind, and nuclear power is great. How many viable solar, wind or nuclear powered cars are there? Until there are working models that are practical, pushing "environmentally friendly legislation" is a total waste of time, if it's aim is to end our "addiction to foreign oil" as was the claim Obama made.



Yeah, of course we shouldn't try to solve the problem until after the problem is solved. That's some catch, that catch 22.

Pardon us for trying to "control people's lives" by keeping them from canceling people's insurance when they get sick, destroying the economy, and damaging the environment.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 203 days
Last activity: 39 days
#50 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.80


To make a joke about Fox News & then use factcheck.org as your rebuttal source is kinda laughable...

The bottom line is that the federal response to the oil spill has been woefully insufficient. Regardless of your personal politics, the feds have really dropped the ball on this one.

    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    So you're outraged that an environmentally conscious politician is using an environmental disaster to - gasp! - push for more environmentally friendly legislation?


I think it's more that after waiting weeks to hear from the President, and then he finally decides to speak on the subject, AND he chooses to make the address from the Oval Office (a relatively rare occurrence and usually one reserved for generally historic moments), Obama decided to give a campaign speech and added almost nothing with regards to the current crisis in the gulf.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#51 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
Here's what I see as your arguments:

Obama is president, therefore all policies regarding offshore drilling are his fault. Ignore the last 40 years of policy and procedure in this area - every issue started and ended the day Obama was elected.

Factcheck.org is a less reliable source of information than the hometown newspaper in an oil town. Because you did not mention the Jones act, any reference to foreign aid that was not refused is moot since it is also contained in the factcheck.org article.

We shouldn't talk about alternative energy in a time of crisis, even though it might have avoided the crisis.

We should instead only focus on how to make it easier to drill closer to land?

The Federal government is more responsible for the safety of states than state government. Any actions by governers which are not in their states interest are superceded by federal inaction. You do not believe that deploying national guard troops or not deploying them reflects on the performance of the state government, or that this is somehow irrelevant because national guardsmen have not been trained in oil cleanup.

You imply by the above statement that the U.S. Federal government has a large source of fully trained oil clean-up workers who we are holding out on deploying.

The President should have flown out immediately to the coastline and that this is the only kind of action that shows he is working. This would not have been a Photo op. Of course, there wasn't any oil on the coastline immediately - but this isn't the point.

Have I put words in your mouth or am I pretty close to summarizing your arguments in this thread?











Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#52 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
Has the US refused Aid?

Sort of.

Let's put it this way, if you have an overgrown lawn, and someone offers to mow it for you - they've offered you aid. They might want $500 to do it, though. Would you take that deal? Would you rant and rave that I was refusing aid if I didn't?

Here's the chart from the state department that is linked from that Fact Check site. If you look, all of the aid that is under consideration requires reimbursement.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143488.pdf

I don't know the terms. The state department does. Do you really doubt that all of the people in the state department want to do their jobs? Do you think they all walk in lock-step to make republicans suffer?






Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#53 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Here's what I see as your arguments:
    Obama is president, therefore all policies regarding offshore drilling are his fault. Ignore the last 40 years of policy and procedure in this area - every issue started and ended the day Obama was elected.


The President of the United States is basically the CEO of the Federal Government. Like it or not, HE is the man responsible, and like it or not, the actions of President Ford don't negate his responsibilities. Elizabeth Birnbaum was appointed head of the MMS on HIS watch. In February reports were sent to the MMS citing problems with Deep Water Horizon which went ignored. So yeah, Obama is President and he's responsible.


    Factcheck.org is a less reliable source of information than the hometown newspaper in an oil town.
Yes, because it's an 'oil town' everybody in the town will go out of their way to defend the industry, right? When they interviewed the Dutch Embassy representative (who is the person who gave the information that the Dutch had officially offered help with manpower and most importantly skimming ships, but were turned away), was HE defending the oil industry as well?


    Because you did not mention the Jones act, any reference to foreign aid that was not refused is moot since it is also contained in the factcheck.org article.

I didnt mention the jones act, because it wasn't relevant to my view that Obama had been offered help, and turned it down. If the jones act plays no part, as the factcheck.org article points out, then the FACT that other nations offered help and were turned down is the only important FACT that we really need to know.



    We shouldn't talk about alternative energy in a time of crisis, even though it might have avoided the crisis.

How many power plants in America run on petroleum?
The answer is 108. Why not replace these with clean, safe nuclear technology? Because nobody wants a nuclear plant 'in my back yard'.
Promoting windmills and solar panels would not have effected the oil consumption on any appreciable level.

If it's alternative energy he's concerned with, where are there only 4 new nuclear plants being built in the USA out of the 24 applications that have been submitted to the Federal Government?
If it's a priority, why don't we have solar panels on every square mile of unused federal property in the country?
Why aren't the Rockies and great plains filled with windmills to capture the canadian jet stream as it comes in constantly?
Why are there no plans in place to even attempt to do anything like that?
Instead, the 'logic' is, we tax emissions and....... how will that change our 'addiction' to foreign oil?




    We should instead only focus on how to make it easier to drill closer to land?

Is the excuse as to why this oil spill is so difficult to control based on anything other than the depth of the well and the inability to get the proper equipment and/or workers in range to get it plugged, capped, or otherwise fixed?
Would it therefor not be reasonable to assume that if it were at a depth that a deep sea diver could safely reach, that it would have been stopped by now?


    The Federal government is more responsible for the safety of states than state government. Any actions by governers which are not in their states interest are superceded by federal inaction. You do not believe that deploying national guard troops or not deploying them reflects on the performance of the state government, or that this is somehow irrelevant because national guardsmen have not been trained in oil cleanup.

I believe that in the case of Katrina, which somebody else brought up, that the Governor of Louisiana balked at accepting federal assistance, and that when she did, and it was granted, federal troops had a difficult time getting TO New Orleans because of the infrastructure damage. Contrary to some people's belief, the federal government doesn't just have big warehouses full of emergency supplies positioned every 100 miles along every major road, interstate or highway. The logistics of getting people THERE to help was hampered by the effects of the storm.
The President authorized the use of the Louisiana NG to assist means that they would foot the bill, and that Bobby Jindahl could use his forces at his discretion. That being said, let's look at the forces he has at his disposal:
* 256th Infantry Brigade
* 225th Engineer Brigade
* 61st Troop Command
* 156th Army Band
* 415th Military Intelligence Battalion (Linguist)
* 165th Combat Sustainment Support Battalion (POL)
* 773rd Military Police Battalion
* 204th Theater Airfield Operations Group
* 199th Leadership Regiment

Infantry soldiers, people who drive tanks, the Army Band (I am sure they'd be REALLY useful) Translators, a police battalion and air traffic controllers.
Do *ANY* of these other than the Engineering Brigade sound like they would have any experience, training or expertise in any way, shape or form in natural disaster response, oil spill response or anything of the like? Do ANY of these brigades or battalions sound like they have any EQUIPMENT that would be useful, (other than the Engineering Brigade)?
And, the Engineering Brigade WAS building sand booms and were halted by the federal government.
So tell me, is "not using them" really the issue, or is it a square peg in a round hole situation?



    You imply by the above statement that the U.S. Federal government has a large source of fully trained oil clean-up workers who we are holding out on deploying.

No, I stated that the federal government has resources that they will not deploy. I stated they have also refused help from those willing to do so.


    The President should have flown out immediately to the coastline and that this is the only kind of action that shows he is working. This would not have been a Photo op. Of course, there wasn't any oil on the coastline immediately - but this isn't the point.

If by "Immediately" you mean "sometimes between April 22nd and June 14th" then yes, he should have flown out "immediately".
And, believe it or not, the President can go someplace, take a flight over the sight, talk to the people on the ground doing the cleanup, asking what other resources they might need, and offer to help WITHOUT strolling on the beach and saying "it's fine folks, come on down". Not everything has to be a photo op, or a public relations stunt.



    Have I put words in your mouth or am I pretty close to summarizing your arguments in this thread?

yes, and no.







StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#54 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Has the US refused Aid?

    Sort of.

    Let's put it this way, if you have an overgrown lawn, and someone offers to mow it for you - they've offered you aid. They might want $500 to do it, though. Would you take that deal? Would you rant and rave that I was refusing aid if I didn't?

Sort of? The answer would be "YES", in case you are unaware when the government tells you "we'll take it under consideration" that's a nice way of saying NO.

And, under your contrived situation, my grass being too overgrown PROBABLY isn't effecting everybody for 500 miles to either side of me, and collapsing their economy.

So, I assume your point is, if it costs us too much, we just shouldn't do it. I seem to remember you having the exact opposite opinion during the health care debate.


    I don't know the terms. The state department does. Do you really doubt that all of the people in the state department want to do their jobs? Do you think they all walk in lock-step to make republicans suffer?



"all of the people" in the State Department work for the Secretary of State, who in turn works for the President. If they are told "we aren't going to accept any offers for help if it's going to cost us X amount of dollars, they follow their orders.
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    I didnt mention the jones act, because it wasn't relevant to my view that Obama had been offered help, and turned it down. If the jones act plays no part, as the factcheck.org article points out, then the FACT that other nations offered help and were turned down is the only important FACT that we really need to know.


No it's not by any means the only important FACT(capital letters mean more). The FACT that we didn't turn them all down and in FACT only turned one offer down, and for a solid reason. The FACT that many offers were accepted. The FACT that many more are still being considered but have perfectly valid issues such as cost or other hazards associated with their use, or are simply of no use to us at this stage of the cleanup.

Why do none of those FACTS matter?
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
If you go to your boss and say "hey I've got this great idea" and you spell it out and your boss looks at you and says "I'll take that under consideration" do you think you've been given any real chance of your suggestion being taken up, or has he dismissed your idea without actually saying so?

And, the FACTS (because the capitalized represent the key word in the sentence) that the people on the scene say more skimmers are needed, yet we've said no thanks to just about every single country that has offered to send their skimmers over, means the POTUS is basically refusing all help.

If it's worth $20billion in compensation from BP, surely some of that money could be used to help get supplies and manpower from other countries to our shores to help stop this.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 45 min.
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.35
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      Originally posted by Guru Zim
      Here's what I see as your arguments:
      Obama is president, therefore all policies regarding offshore drilling are his fault. Ignore the last 40 years of policy and procedure in this area - every issue started and ended the day Obama was elected.


    The President of the United States is basically the CEO of the Federal Government. Like it or not, HE is the man responsible, and like it or not, the actions of President Ford don't negate his responsibilities. Elizabeth Birnbaum was appointed head of the MMS on HIS watch. In February reports were sent to the MMS citing problems with Deep Water Horizon which went ignored. So yeah, Obama is President and he's responsible.


You must be really pissed at Bush then, because alot of stuff happened with the former MMS on his watch making him responsible, in your eyes.

The Wikipedia says:

    Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_the_Interior#Controversy
    On September 10, 2008, Inspector General Devaney found wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, then known as the Minerals Management Service. In a cover memo, Devaney wrote “A culture of ethical failure” pervades the agency. According to the report, eight officials accepted gifts from energy companies whose value exceeded limits set by ethics rules — including golf, ski, and paintball outings; meals; drinks; and tickets to a Toby Keith concert, a Houston Texans football game, and a Colorado Rockies baseball game. The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” According to the New York Times, "The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch."[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]




-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
wmatistic
Andouille








Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If you go to your boss and say "hey I've got this great idea" and you spell it out and your boss looks at you and says "I'll take that under consideration" do you think you've been given any real chance of your suggestion being taken up, or has he dismissed your idea without actually saying so?




This is your argument now? A made up scenario complete with fictional dialogue?

OK then.

StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
#59 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
Yes, I am pissed at Bush for allowing the cozy relationships to get even closer than they were, and to allow the climate of corruption to exist.
I've never once tried to say otherwise.

I've pretty much given up hope for both parties since neither seem to actually do their job and SERVE the people who voted them in. So, save your breath bashing the GOP, you're not going to get me to defend them.



And, if you're one of the people still saying this isn't partisan and Obama isn't running a well oiled show to make his 'climate reform' possible, politico has a nice article.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39225.html
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 49 days
Last activity: 9 days
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.85
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If you go to your boss and say "hey I've got this great idea" and you spell it out and your boss looks at you and says "I'll take that under consideration" do you think you've been given any real chance of your suggestion being taken up, or has he dismissed your idea without actually saying so?


I know *MY* boss actually takes considers suggestions, but yours may be different.

Didn't the President fly down to the Gulf around a week after the spill was first, um, diagnosed?





"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Thread ahead: Federal court overturns FCC Censorship policy
Next thread: SCOTUS upholds gun rights
Previous thread: Former Klansman dead.
(145 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Previously, in this story: http://the-w.com/t/39248 So I guess the second eBay auction didn't go so well - the winner, who had won with a bid of $10,099.99 (KSTP)
The W - Current Events & Politics - As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief goes to yacht race (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.137 seconds.