The W
Views: 100904687
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.14 0842
The W - Current Events & Politics - As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief goes to yacht race (Page 4)
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
(148 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (86 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#61 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by wmatistic
      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.



I guess you missed the point. "taken under consideration" is a bullshit way for the government to say "NO". That's the point. Because if everybody on scene is saying we need more skimmers, and our administration is telling us we have enough, and denying some of the ones we have from deploying because they "might" be needed elsewhere, and the Administration is 'considering' the offers, they have absolutely zero intention of accepting the offer.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#62 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
      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.


I said Sort of because it's not a lie to say that they've refused aid - but if you don't define what aid is, people assume you mean free help.

My point here, which has been apparently lost on you - is that when someone offers to work for you and you say no, you are not refusing aid in the way that most people would think of it. Aid that requires reimbursement is a request to do work - not a gratuity given in time of need.

Do you know the cost of the services? I'm guessing you don't. I don't know them, either. Do the people in the state department? I would have to guess that they do. Can you even conceive of the possibility that people that work in the state department are working in the best interest of the USA and maybe there are strings attached? Maybe the price is too steep to pay, or it didn't seem feasible. Hell, read the list. Some of these "aid" offers are chemical dispersents which can't be used in the US - should they take those too?

If you assess the value of the help, and it's not a good deal, do you accept it just so your politcal enemies can't use it against you - or do you do what's right for the USA? Are you so sure that everyone at the State Department is an idiot and only you and the republicans can see the truth?

Look at the big picture. No one's best interest is served by the states being screwed here. No one is trying to tank the states.

I'm pretty sure that you haven't been down out to see the oil rig firsthand, and yet you feel that you have all of the information you need to "know" that you are correct. Why do you think you have better intel gathering skills than the President of the US? If you've gotten everything you need to know to understand the whole situation from reading the Houston paper, watching TV, and the internet - why is it critical that the President be on the ground in LA other than to be photographed "working"? I'm pretty sure he has a phone and an internet connection in the Oval Office.





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: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#63 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Mike Zeidler

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




Yeah, a two or three hour stop on his way to some fund raising trips. He even talked to some fishermen!
LEADERSHIP IN ACTION!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#64 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
Alright, let's reboot this thread after you answer my last one.

We'll start over.

Make one point, and defend it. What is the most important thing on your mind, right now, about this issue?




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

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#65 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.23
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    What is the most important thing on your mind, right now, about this issue?
POSTING HERE ABOUT IT OBVIOUSLY



StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#66 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Guru Zim

    I said Sort of because it's not a lie to say that they've refused aid - but if you don't define what aid is, people assume you mean free help.

Maybe by your definition aid is free help. Aid is somebody helping you. If you are asked to defray the cost of using their services and you decline to do so, you are refusing help.



    Do you know the cost of the services? I'm guessing you don't. I don't know them, either. Do the people in the state department? I would have to guess that they do. Can you even conceive of the possibility that people that work in the state department are working in the best interest of the USA and maybe there are strings attached? Maybe the price is too steep to pay, or it didn't seem feasible. Hell, read the list. Some of these "aid" offers are chemical dispersents which can't be used in the US - should they take those too?

I haven't once made mention to the dispersents, I've said repeatedly that we've had offers for SKIMMERS which everybody on scene says they need more of, and they've said no to the vast majority of them.
We can bail out the automakers, we can bail out the banks, we can spend a trillion dollars so 15% of the population can have health care, we can send a couple hundred million dollars to a terrorist backing government, but we can't foot the bill for helping save an entire ecosystem and billions of dollars in potential lost revenue? That's really your point, it might 'cost too much'?
And no I don't know the cost. And I don't think that there are NOT individuals in the state department who want to do everything they can. The point is, the POTUS and the SECT of State run the show where getting foreign assistance is concerned, and they are repeatedly saying NO. Every tar ball that washes on shore is there because we couldn't stop it from getting there, and we couldn't stop it because we don't posses the resources and refuse to accept the help that is offered.



Make one point and defend it:
The lives of countless fishermen, oyster farmers, shrimpers, oil drillers, hotel and restaraunt workers, rental car companies, airport employees, local bars, local establishments are in danger. There are four states who depend on taxes from the revenue generated by those people and they will suffer GREATLY at a time when our economy is in the shitter. There is a fragile ecosystem of our largest body of water in the United States that is being demolished.

I don't believe there should be any cost that is deemed prohibitive where it comes to accepting services from other nations in an effort to stop the destruction.

It is my theory that the POTUS is using this as a tool to push through legislation that is going to be otherwise a very tough sell, and it's my theory that he's dragging his feet, because he feels making this disaster as horrible as possible will get more people to side with his agenda.


(edited by StaggerLee on 30.6.10 1451)

(edited by StaggerLee on 30.6.10 1455)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








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

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 1 day
#67 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.35
    Originally posted by StaggerLee

    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.


You have been arguing this whole time that because it happened on Obama's watch that this problem, and the events leading up to it, are all his fault.

That is not the case when the MMS people have LITERALLY been in bed with oil execs. The same MMS that actually makes money off the oil companies.

Saying that this is Obama's fault as he was the president when it happened is as reckless as saying 9/11 was Bush's fault because he as in office. There are actions, and inactions, over the course of many years that lead up to both incidents.

You claim to be angry with Republicans as well, but you've done a good job at hiding it because most of what we have been reading from you just reads of Obama bashing for the sake of bashing Obama.


    I don't believe there should be any cost that is deemed prohibitive where it comes to accepting services from other nations in an effort to stop the destruction.


The people in charge think differently. No cost is prohibitive? REALLY? I can think of many scenarios where it would be too prohibitive.


Instead of complaining about it here, you might want to take that energy and write (NOT EMAIL nor "sign" online petitions and hand write) your Congresspeople, Senators, Governor, and other people in charge and voice your opinion to them. People who actually have the power to do things. Who knows, they might actually agree with you and there might be others with your same opinion and if everyone who felt the same as you spoke up to TPTB, you might get what you want done.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#68 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Zeruel

    You have been arguing this whole time that because it happened on Obama's watch that this problem, and the events leading up to it, are all his fault.

    That is not the case when the MMS people have LITERALLY been in bed with oil execs. The same MMS that actually makes money off the oil companies.

If the sitting President and the department that he is responsible for being the chief administrator over, were not functioning as they should be, who is responsible?
The MMS has apparently been screwed up for years. But, a year and a quarter into a new president's administration, if he hasn't policed what was wrong, then he's the one responsible.


    Saying that this is Obama's fault as he was the president when it happened is as reckless as saying 9/11 was Bush's fault because he as in office. There are actions, and inactions, over the course of many years that lead up to both incidents.

I don't have the time to go back and reread the 9-11 threads, but I know there are a LOT of people here who have said just that, Bush was in office, Bush's administration was warned, and nobody did a thing, and they lay the blame at his feet.
And, if 'it's always been messed up' why is the BP CEO the villain here? (I am not saying he wasn't a total douche, because he was)


    You claim to be angry with Republicans as well, but you've done a good job at hiding it because most of what we have been reading from you just reads of Obama bashing for the sake of bashing Obama.

Which Republican is in charge of the Department of Homeland Security/FEMA? Which Republican is in charge of the State Department? Which Republican is in control of both houses of Congress? Which Republican is sitting in the White House?
Which Republican is at the helm of the House Energy Sub-committee? Which Republican is the Sect of Energy?

And when all the GOP seems to want to do is grandstand in Congress, yes, it pisses me off. None of them has come up with any sort of plan, or any suggestions that would help stop the spill.


    The people in charge think differently. No cost is prohibitive? REALLY? I can think of many scenarios where it would be too prohibitive.

Would you think the same way if this was filling up the Chesapeake Bay and flowing on the Potomac? I mean, I know the industries being effected on the Gulf Coast are not the same that drive the economy in Maryland, but still, if it were polluting your area, making your life more complicated, limiting tax revenue for your state, thereby limiting services your state can offer, would you still think there was a price limit on saving and ecosystem and the four main sources of jobs and revenue?



    Instead of complaining about it here, you might want to take that energy and write (NOT EMAIL nor "sign" online petitions and hand write) your Congresspeople, Senators, Governor, and other people in charge and voice your opinion to them. People who actually have the power to do things. Who knows, they might actually agree with you and there might be others with your same opinion and if everyone who felt the same as you spoke up to TPTB, you might get what you want done.

I have spoken to Senator Claire McCaskill's office, Senator Kit Bond's office, and House Rep Blain Luektemeyer's office and voiced my concerns. My House Rep I was actually able to speak to directly. And, surprise surprise, both GOP members blamed the Dems, and McCaskill blamed the GOP.

That's why I've had it with all of these cretins who sit up in Washington with no grasp on reality and no other game plan than "make the other the scapegoat".
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#69 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
So here is your reply

    Make one point and defend it:
    The lives of countless fishermen, oyster farmers, shrimpers, oil drillers, hotel and restaraunt workers, rental car companies, airport employees, local bars, local establishments are in danger. There are four states who depend on taxes from the revenue generated by those people and they will suffer GREATLY at a time when our economy is in the shitter. There is a fragile ecosystem of our largest body of water in the United States that is being demolished.

    I don't believe there should be any cost that is deemed prohibitive where it comes to accepting services from other nations in an effort to stop the destruction.

    It is my theory that the POTUS is using this as a tool to push through legislation that is going to be otherwise a very tough sell, and it's my theory that he's dragging his feet, because he feels making this disaster as horrible as possible will get more people to side with his agenda.


Let me break that down into two things:

I do not argue with this section at all


    Make one point and defend it:
    The lives of countless fishermen, oyster farmers, shrimpers, oil drillers, hotel and restaraunt workers, rental car companies, airport employees, local bars, local establishments are in danger. There are four states who depend on taxes from the revenue generated by those people and they will suffer GREATLY at a time when our economy is in the shitter. There is a fragile ecosystem of our largest body of water in the United States that is being demolished.


In fact, I don't think anyone disagrees with you here. This is a bad deal, and none of us are happy it happened.

Here is an opinion you express:



    I don't believe there should be any cost that is deemed prohibitive where it comes to accepting services from other nations in an effort to stop the destruction.


I disagree with this opinion. There are clearly prices that are too high to pay. For example, I don't think we should accept chemical dispersents and use them if they aren't certified for use in the U.S. This is not the time to make it up as you go.

I don't think this is the time to send Kevin Costner out on the water and let him do whatever he wants to, since he is offering aid.

I don't think we should blow up a nuclear bomb near/in the well, because the collateral damage would be too high. That price is too high to pay.

I don't think we should accept "aid" that is merely an RFP for doing clean-up work. There are plenty of Americans who could do the work, here in the country.

Finally, you end with a conlcusion:


    It is my theory that the POTUS is using this as a tool to push through legislation that is going to be otherwise a very tough sell, and it's my theory that he's dragging his feet, because he feels making this disaster as horrible as possible will get more people to side with his agenda.


This is where you come off like a conspiracy theorist. Honestly, I don't know how you can think people are treating this like a political game.

You don't like the president taking action to get money for victims (Which, if the money is secured before a bankruptcy - would be more than victims would see). Getting the money now upfront while BP still feels like they are a going concern is a MUCH better idea than waiting until they've made the call to fold their hand and walk away. How much does the little guy get if that happens?

You can't say he's done nothing, and then bash what he's doing.

So here's my take-away - and why I disagree with you. In my opinion, this event show us:

* Regulation of this industry has sucked. The fact that many other companies have cookie cutter Disaster Recovery plans identical to the one for this operation, and the fact that they all refernce wildlife not found in the regions they are in, shows us that someone has been asleep at the wheel.
* Record oil profits probably need to go into some sort of FDIC plan where they get to have them paid out after X years accident free - and those profits need to be available for cleanup. The fact is, BP has been cutting corners for a long time while giving shareholders those profits - they probably should have been setting money aside
* Real plans need to be put in place for dealing with disasters
* There should be a standing cleanup / risk assessment group outside of any one company that can be called on. We clearly don't have a group on standby that can handle events of this magnitude
* Until we can come up with a safer method (not of incident avoidance, but for incident resolution) for drilling, we should stop. We clearly don't know what we are doing. If we did, this would be over by now.
* We need a plan to figure out how to fix this.

I don't see anything, other than the plan to fix this, as being the responsibility of the President. To be honest, the Department of the Interior, or State Department, or Commerce - somoene lower than the prez should be on it. Hell, I don't want Obama running down to the U.S. Mint to kick ass every time a kid can't buy a soda at the Coke machine with a folded $1 bill.

This issue is important, and bad, but I can't see how it is directly the president's fault.

Now that the issues are apparent, we need to judge how our government fixes itself and adapts. It is far too early to judge that. Obama will not be a failure in this event, in my eyes, if in 6 months a comprehensive review is completed and reforms begin. I don't know how long they would take. It appears the problems run pretty deep in these government divisions. I still don't think that's entirely the fault of the current administration. It sounds like the problem have been a cancer that has grown over the years.

Instead of railing agsint the president, I'd like to see what we can do to get this fixed. It doesn't make any sense to yell at the head of state.

(edited by Guru Zim on 30.6.10 1458)



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: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#70 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
    Originally posted by Guru Zim

    I disagree with this opinion. There are clearly prices that are too high to pay. For example, I don't think we should accept chemical dispersents and use them if they aren't certified for use in the U.S. This is not the time to make it up as you go.

    I don't think this is the time to send Kevin Costner out on the water and let him do whatever he wants to, since he is offering aid.

    I don't think we should blow up a nuclear bomb near/in the well, because the collateral damage would be too high. That price is too high to pay.

    I don't think we should accept "aid" that is merely an RFP for doing clean-up work. There are plenty of Americans who could do the work, here in the country.


I was talking monetary limits. Of course it's irresponsible to use unapproved chemicals, and nuclear weapons. As for Costner's machine, it seems as though it has enough promise to be usable, so why not give it a go?




    This is where you come off like a conspiracy theorist. Honestly, I don't know how you can think people are treating this like a political game.

    You don't like the president taking action to get money for victims (Which, if the money is secured before a bankruptcy - would be more than victims would see). Getting the money now upfront while BP still feels like they are a going concern is a MUCH better idea than waiting until they've made the call to fold their hand and walk away. How much does the little guy get if that happens?

    You can't say he's done nothing, and then bash what he's doing.

I can live with being called a conspiracy theorist, I've been called worse.
I don't like the President taking action to secure funds in a manner not prescribed to him in the constitution. But then again, I believe in a very limited government, and the theory that less is more in that regard.



    So here's my take-away - and why I disagree with you. In my opinion, this event show us:

    * Regulation of this industry has sucked. The fact that many other companies have cookie cutter Disaster Recovery plans identical to the one for this operation, and the fact that they all refernce wildlife not found in the regions they are in, shows us that someone has been asleep at the wheel.

Agreed 100%.


    * Record oil profits probably need to go into some sort of FDIC plan where they get to have them paid out after X years accident free - and those profits need to be available for cleanup. The fact is, BP has been cutting corners for a long time while giving shareholders those profits - they probably should have been setting money aside.

Again, this is where I wonder where the US Government has the authority to order foreign companies to behave in any manner they choose. Rescind their permits, fine them, whatever, but telling independent companies what to do with their resources isn't the government's place and responsibility.
Plus, there is a difference between profits and profit margin.


    * Real plans need to be put in place for dealing with disasters
    * There should be a standing cleanup / risk assessment group outside of any one company that can be called on. We clearly don't have a group on standby that can handle events of this magnitude

Agreed


    * Until we can come up with a safer method (not of incident avoidance, but for incident resolution) for drilling, we should stop. We clearly don't know what we are doing. If we did, this would be over by now.

Do you shut down every interstate highway because of one massive pileup? It's a knee jerk reaction to say that we don't know what we're doing. BP has a record of being unsafe and cost cutting to the detriment of safety, but every other company seems to be operating at a safe level. Industrial settings are never going to be 100% accident free, and oil rig drilling in the middle of the ocean is no different.



    I don't see anything, other than the plan to fix this, as being the responsibility of the President. To be honest, the Department of the Interior, or State Department, or Commerce - somoene lower than the prez should be on it. Hell, I don't want Obama running down to the U.S. Mint to kick ass every time a kid can't buy a soda at the Coke machine with a folded $1 bill.

But Guru, forcing cap and trade legislation isn't going to fix THIS problem.
It isn't going to eliminate the poor practices, or the lack of response from the company responsible.
Want to fix THIS, and all oil rig drilling? That's great, and needed. But that's not what the President said, he said he wanted to get us off oil based energy, which is not a solution.


    This issue is important, and bad, but I can't see how it is directly the president's fault.

    Now that the issues are apparent, we need to judge how our government fixes itself and adapts. It is far too early to judge that. Obama will not be a failure in this event, in my eyes, if in 6 months a comprehensive review is completed and reforms begin. I don't know how long they would take. It appears the problems run pretty deep in these government divisions. I still don't think that's entirely the fault of the current administration. It sounds like the problem have been a cancer that has grown over the years.

    Instead of railing agsint the president, I'd like to see what we can do to get this fixed. It doesn't make any sense to yell at the head of state.

    (edited by Guru Zim on 30.6.10 1458)


Well, we will just have to disagree with what we see as the President's responsibilities are, and who is to blame for the lack of progress in the clean up.

(edited by StaggerLee on 30.6.10 1757)
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#71 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05


Why? Because expecting people who watch Fox News to have any interest in actual facts is laughable? Because that's the only way this comment makes a lick of sense. Factcheck.org has a very good reputation and gets cited by Democrats and Republicans alike. Moreover, their report here is both highly specific and well documented, so if you have actual reason to think it's wrong, you should be able to offer evidence for that instead of just snark.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#72 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.36
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon


    Why? Because expecting people who watch Fox News to have any interest in actual facts is laughable? Because that's the only way this comment makes a lick of sense. Factcheck.org has a very good reputation and gets cited by Democrats and Republicans alike. Moreover, their report here is both highly specific and well documented, so if you have actual reason to think it's wrong, you should be able to offer evidence for that instead of just snark.


Apparently the new trope is that factcheck.org is a filthy liberal site. It makes as much sense as a lot of the claims that seem to be coming from the public face of the right wing. (rolls eyes)





You wanted the best, you got... the Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"...you are not a Meat Loaf mark; you're a member of the Meat Loaf Universe. (CRZ)

Von Maestro
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 260 days
Last activity: 13 min.
#73 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.50
    Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
    Why? Because expecting people who watch Fox News to have any interest in actual facts is laughable? Because that's the only way this comment makes a lick of sense. Factcheck.org has a very good reputation and gets cited by Democrats and Republicans alike. Moreover, their report here is both highly specific and well documented, so if you have actual reason to think it's wrong, you should be able to offer evidence for that instead of just snark.


You mean the same way the Left dismisses Fox simply because they attempt to marginalize it and mock it (Faux News...LOLZ), instead of factually challenging it?

From the factcheck answer about the US refusing help:

"To date (this entry was written on June 23rd), 25 countries and four international organizations have offered support in the form of skimming vessels, containment and fire boom, technical assistance and response solutions, among others. A chart provided by the State Department shows that as of June 23 five offers had been accepted and 50 were under consideration — including multiple offers from a single country or entity. One offer had been declined"

So in the 2 months since the well accident occurred, the best they can say in their response is that 5 offers of help were accepted (no mention of when they were accepted, just that they were in some point between the accident & 6/23) and they are CONSIDERING the other offers?

THIS is the criticism of the administrations response & it is deserved. No one in their right mind could blame them for the accident itself, that is absurd & plain dumb, but the response to the spill & the timeliness of that response is reprehensible & they should be held accountable.
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1134 days
Last activity: 271 days
#74 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.88
You can place yor bets on Hayward

http://www.paddypower.com/​bet/​novelty-​betting/​current-​affairs/​bp-​specials/​Will-​Tony-​Hayward-​be-​CEO-​on-​31st-​December-​2010%3F​-​1861927.html?​force_​racing_​css=N

I kind of like this comment

http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2010/05/hey-tony-hayward-wanna-make-bet.html

(edited by CajunMan on 1.7.10 1239)
CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered








Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!

Since last post: 1134 days
Last activity: 271 days
#75 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.88
(deleted by CajunMan on 1.7.10 1238)
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
#76 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.83
Read the actual chart.

An offer of aid, requiring reimbursement, is quote for a job. You don't hire everyone that shows up to work, just because they offer to work. If you have something for them to do, they are qualified, and the price is right - you hire them. I would assume this takes some consideration.




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

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#77 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by Peter The Hegemon
      Why? Because expecting people who watch Fox News to have any interest in actual facts is laughable? Because that's the only way this comment makes a lick of sense. Factcheck.org has a very good reputation and gets cited by Democrats and Republicans alike. Moreover, their report here is both highly specific and well documented, so if you have actual reason to think it's wrong, you should be able to offer evidence for that instead of just snark.


    You mean the same way the Left dismisses Fox simply because they attempt to marginalize it and mock it (Faux News...LOLZ), instead of factually challenging it?


Um, no. Fox News' blatant distortions have been very thoroughly documented. Including in the very article we're talking about.


    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    So in the 2 months since the well accident occurred, the best they can say in their response is that 5 offers of help were accepted (no mention of when they were accepted, just that they were in some point between the accident & 6/23) and they are CONSIDERING the other offers?

    THIS is the criticism of the administrations response & it is deserved. No one in their right mind could blame them for the accident itself, that is absurd & plain dumb, but the response to the spill & the timeliness of that response is reprehensible & they should be held accountable.


If THAT is the criticism of the Administration, then Fox News should have said that instead of lying about it.

I asked you to support your (implied) claim that factcheck.org was unreliable. All you say here is that you don't think their criticism of Fox News is sufficiently damning. Seems to me you've supported the position that factcheck.org is reliable and fair.
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#78 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
(deleted by CRZ on 2.7.10 1705)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 16 hours
#79 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.63
(deleted by CRZ on 2.7.10 1705)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#80 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.23
(deleted by CRZ on 2.7.10 1705)
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.
(148 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
So, by that logic, Felons should not pay taxes either?
The W - Current Events & Politics - As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief goes to yacht race (Page 4)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.142 seconds.