Gulf Oil Spill

Jesus Christ guys, it was a simple fucking question it wasnt a fucking suggestion, it does require such vial responses. No one in the post was suggesting using Nuclear weapons they were informing those on the board who may not know that the idea being floated around was the use of Nuclear weapons. Jesus, JG was not suggesting that he supported the use of nukes, he was stating that the idea being floated was the use of nukes. fuck forget I asked. Thought maybe we could have a thread where someone wasn't calling people stupid, or attacking but I guess its not possible on this board.

Jesus Christ guys, Originally Posted by dirty dog

Sorry, I wasn't calling anyone on this board stupid. I don't think anyone on this board came up with the "nuclear option." There are a lot of people promoting this idea. I can't believe that anyone with any knowledge of oil and gas production isn't thinking that this is a really stupid idea. I suspect a lot of the real experts who know better aren't willing to stick their necks out and get involved in the urinary Olympics at this time, so they aren't pointing out that it's a phenomenally stupid idea.

It sort of sounds like a good idea if you don't understand much about geology and O&G production.

This is getting kind of tedious having to explain what was apparent in the original post.

Nuclear weapons have ALREADY been used by the Soviet Union to close wells. You would have to ask them what they inherited because of that decision, but it has been done already.

Some nuclear weapons have extremely brief half-lives, some measured in seconds.

Your talk about enjoying watching Obama fail is inflammatory. I, like many others, do believe he will fail because of his poor understanding of Americans and lack of experience. We do not enjoy the pain he is causing American or our allies. To suggest anything else is (I can't print the word because it may misconstrued as a personal attack).

I am not as impersonal as our liberal media. If I were to see a pelican having trouble swimming I would help it and not just photograph it. Kind of like a few years ago when the tsunami killed thousands in the Indian Ocean. The media transported all of their gear by helicopter to the disaster sight and commented how people were dying because of lack of clean water and food. Duh??? One less camera man would be 180 lbs of water. I could never be a reporter.

BP gave more money to the Obama campaign than they ever gave anyone else. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

I propose that we dam up the Gulf of Mexico, drain the seawater and wildlife, and create America's Oil Lake! (that's sarcasm you know)

I started this thread by asking people to be unemotional and play nice.

Even though I dislike many of the policies and the ideology JG stands for, he has every right to say what he pleases.

Even if you find what is said offensive, please remain civil in tone and language with all posts and replies.

I believe I was defending JG not attacking, if this was directed at me.

"BP gave more money to the Obama campaign than they ever gave anyone else."http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html


Yes, but is the amount being mentioned really an issue given the amount he was given in total? BP gave the Obama campaign one one-hundredth of one percent of his total campaign cash. Read the following and make up your own mind if that's a big deal.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005060041

Also the track record for accuracy in Ms Lovely's reporting seems to take a rather nasty beating in this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_146425.html

and this one

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...xic-stupidity/

as well as this one

http://www.grist.org/article/politic...c-malpractice/

I'm just sayin' maybe there's room for debate how important that money BP gave in 2008 and prior is to the current situation.

I also would be willing to say there is room to debate Obama's causing pain to our allies. I have not heard much from Britain, Germany, Australia, the rest of NATO, Japan, Taiwan or anyone other than American conservatives talk about Obama negatives.

On your sarcasm JG, I enjoyed it. One problem though. If we built a dam, it would have to run through some island countries populated by mostly brown people. Then they could walk across it to the U.S.! Big problem for a lot of conservatives...(that's irony you know).

Naw, DD, I was talking mostly to my two like minded posters and JG.

By the way just in case no one spots it, that next to last paragraph was a joke, and not intended as a provocation...just thought I would point that out. "My hypocrisy only goes so far". LOL

[quote=Longermonger;336813] Well, ask yourself if that BP oil rig would have even been drilling in the gulf if Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force didn't secretly set U.S. energy policy back in 2001 with the CEO of BP?..... Are you referring to the IG report that found a too cozy relationship between MMS inspectors and the petroleum industry? You know, sort of like Dick Cheney and the CEO of BP being a little too cozy for the benefit of the rest of us slobs. As I understand it most of those meth&coke using, bribe-taking inspectors were hired by the previous administration.
quote]

Pst...Barak is president now.

For those with military experience, imagine for a minute that you are assigned a new position. Platoon SGT, Platoon Leader, Squad Leader, Company Commander, whatever. Say something goes wrong, say two months after you took over. What would happen if you blamed your predecessor? Exactly how red in the face would your commander get. Now stretch it out a little...to 18 months. Would you even get out of your commander's office with the 'Bush's fault' defense, without getting relieved.

On the very first day of any presidency, the president gets to ride in fancy airplanes, eat food I can't spell, rub elbows with famous people...and they also get all the hard stuff, known as Responsibility.

Setting off nuclear weapons under water could have grave consequences. Did we not learn any lessons from the Japanese when dealing with Godzilla?

The one positive thing about all the Bush bashers is that they can NEVER blame Bush again for 9/11. Since Bush is still responsible for the Gulf after 18 months of Obama that means ANYTHING that happened up until 18 months into Bush's first term is Bill Clinton's fault by extension. Anyone have an extra petard on them?

JG and Crew need to get your stories straight. LOL

Now, to un-conflate...

I brought up Cheney, not Bush. But they were both neck deep in the oil industry, so...close enough. That administration made a big effort to deregulate big business. We've been watching the results of that (idiotic) laissez-faire political philosophy play out on Wall Street and the Gulf of Mexico. Obama is responsible for cleaning up their mess on day one. But the mess that took eight years to make isn't cleaned up in one week. Obama is responsible for the federal government's response after the oil rig caught fire, sank, and started puking oil into the Gulf. I'll give him a less than 100% grade but response is much better than the clusterfuck of Bush's Katrina response. (less than 1% of the body count, too!)

Bush/Cheney are responsible for the response after 9/11. I doubt you'd argue that point. But they are also mostly responsible for the lax defense against terrorists leading up to 9/11. To equate national defense (the #1 job of the POTUS) from a well known terrorist organization that had attacked the same target before to not weeding out bad inspectors put in place by the Bush administration FAST ENOUGH is just preposterous.

Where is Dick Cheney lately? He sure is quiet. You'd think he'd have something to say about this child of his oil industry deregulation. But not a peep from the veep. Hrmmm. I thought he claimed to be some kind of expert on this oil stuff and this executive branch stuff. Guess not.

Monger I was in agreement with a lot of stuff until you got here "Bush/Cheney are responsible for the response after 9/11. I doubt you'd argue that point. But they are also mostly responsible for the lax defense against terrorists leading up to 9/11. To equate national defense (the #1 job of the POTUS) from a well known terrorist organization that had attacked the same target before to not weeding out bad inspectors put in place by the Bush administration FAST ENOUGH is just preposterous."

Using your own reasoning, how is Bush responsible for the lax defense on terroism. They had only been in office less than 9 months and you are giving the O a break cause he had only been in office 17 months. You say it takes time for O to fix the things that Bush messed up, yet you say Bush should have been able to fix the dismanteling of the military and intellegence departments Clinton did in 9 months, you say Bush should have been prepared for Al Queda because we were attacked by them in 93, how come our failure to be ready is Bush's fault and not Clintons. Flawed reasoning, or manipulation of facts, you tell me which one it is.

I thought Obama said this was his problem & the buck stops with him to get fixed.

Using your own reasoning, how is Bush responsible for the lax defense on terroism. They had only been in office less than 9 months and you are giving the O a break cause he had only been in office 17 months. You say it takes time for O to fix the things that Bush messed up, yet you say Bush should have been able to fix the dismanteling of the military and intellegence departments Clinton did in 9 months, you say Bush should have been prepared for Al Queda because we were attacked by them in 93, how come our failure to be ready is Bush's fault and not Clintons. Flawed reasoning, or manipulation of facts, you tell me which one it is. Originally Posted by dirty dog

So you're equating the "military and intellegence departments [sic]" with Mineral Management Service inspectors? Yes. That's exactly what you just did.

I'll just quickly mention that I used the word 'mostly' because I believe there is plenty of blame to go around. Most of it goes on Bush's shoulders. The lack of good intelligence was his problem, in a personal sense.

As you just pointed out, Obama has kept the country safe almost TWICE as long as Bush did before there was a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Your argument requires that you admit Obama is 100% responsible for that success, and that he's not just better but TWICE as good as Bush.
Or are you going to credit Bush for Obama's success. I know you want to but you can't. LOL

Its a neat trick. Obama takes the high road, and takes responsibility, while his henchmen blame Cheney, Bush, etc. Its a tired cynical political play. Obama used it successfully throughout his campaign, and the media pretended like it didn't even happen....its not working for the big O on this one though.

Please note, I don't for a minute think the spill is Obama's fault...but its not Cheney's either.

Deregulation...I've seen this movie before, and I know the ending. If BP had followed existing regulations, if the MMS had followed existing regulations, none of this would have happened. Well now its happened, and suddenly it becomes an opportunity for 'more regulation'. Why not enforce the existing regulations? (Obama might have a million an$wers for this )

Please be very specific: What regulation was in place before Bush/Cheney, which was subsequently removed by Bush/Cheney, and led to this disaster? Hint: nuttin'

Also you mentioned the financial industry. You're damned right, derugulation sunk us all. Glass-Steagall should have never been repealled...but that was a bipartisan mistake, almost unanimous (and there wasn't a Bush in the WH).

Obama signed an order to close Gitmo on day two of his presidency. He could just as easily revoked the phantom derugulation you speak of, if he cared to do so. Get it? He's in charge now. I didn't even really care for Bush, but holy cow, he can't be responsibly for everything....COG and Obama should get some of the credit.