PDA

View Full Version : Obama's SUCKS! Govt Ain't In Charge!!!!!



Sid_Vicious
05-28-2010, 03:41 PM
Obama gets my wrath again. He stood up there yesterday, and said that he and the govt were in charge of the spill, AND at that moment he said that, the mud had stopped flowing for hours without him knowing about it!!! Obama is a wuss, his foot surely won't dislodge from his mouth any more, this situation is so sick and sad for our gulf. First you have a lying bunch with BP. NOW you have a president bullshitting about KNOWING what's going on. Obama is pit-E-full, as Grany Clampet would say. If that man(Obama) does not relentlessly address these falsehoods he keeps spewing out, and kicks BP's butts, then the Democrats can accept the losses they have coming.

This oil leak: First we were told this top kill would be the first step, THEN if that failed(FAILED) they'd go to planB, the junk shot. Well, BP nor Obama has said that the top kill failed, BUT we are now told that the junk shot has actually begun. Somebody is lying their asses off, and it may just be our own president joining in on the lie-fest now. I haven't heard one thing which has been truth, from BP or the Administration. I still say that we bomb the crap out of the sub surface of that BOP, and kill all chances of that well being viable anymore. BP is apparently working to save that hole, and our own president is allowing all these lies to continue, pandering to BP. Obama needs to borrow Hillary's balls, because his pair are "innies."

"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one!" Obama, you best get intensely on top of this thing. You will pay, if you don't. sid

pooltchr
05-28-2010, 04:35 PM
Why not tell us what you REALLY think?

(BTW, I agree)

He went down there today and actually went out on the beach and picked up a tar ball. Then he DROPPED IT BACK ON THE BEACH!!!!

You know, the guy could have gotten out there with the volunteers who actually pick them up and bag them to haul them off. An hour or two of actually personally doing something might have bought him a little good will.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-28-2010, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama gets my wrath again. He stood up there yesterday, and said that he and the govt were in charge of the spill, AND at that moment he said that, the mud had stopped flowing for hours without him knowing about it!!! Obama is a wuss, his foot surely won't dislodge from his mouth any more, this situation is so sick and sad for our gulf. First you have a lying bunch with BP. NOW you have a president bullshitting about KNOWING what's going on. Obama is pit-E-full, as Grany Clampet would say. If that man(Obama) does not relentlessly address these falsehoods he keeps spewing out, and kicks BP's butts, then the Democrats can accept the losses they have coming.

This oil leak: First we were told this top kill would be the first step, THEN if that failed(FAILED) they'd go to planB, the junk shot. Well, BP nor Obama has said that the top kill failed, BUT we are now told that the junk shot has actually begun. Somebody is lying their asses off, and it may just be our own president joining in on the lie-fest now. I haven't heard one thing which has been truth, from BP or the Administration. I still say that we bomb the crap out of the sub surface of that BOP, and kill all chances of that well being viable anymore. BP is apparently working to save that hole, and our own president is allowing all these lies to continue, pandering to BP. Obama needs to borrow Hillary's balls, because his pair are "innies."

"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one!" Obama, you best get intensely on top of this thing. You will pay, if you don't. sid </div></div>

What do you think he should do, Martin? He has sent thousands of people down there. He has called all of the experts together, trying to find solutions. He admits, that BP has to be in the lead on stopping the leaking oil. I heard T. Boone Pickens on Larry King's show last night, saying that both the top fill, and the junk shot, are long shots.

Here's what he told King, "We'll likely be sitting right here in another thirty eight days, watching the same picture of oil flowing from the bottom of the ocean.

Pickens said, the fact is, the only reliable method, is drilling other relief wells. That takes three months. The nuke idea, has been called too riskey, and most likely to cause bad, unintended consequences, such as multiple leaks, possibly worse than this one.

To some degree, the president is at the mercy of BP, because we don't have the experience, expertise, nor the equipment, to close the hole. And if we took that over, legal obligations for BP would be compromised, which, really we can''t take it over anyway.

Just tell me what you think the President should do. The fact is, he's been doing everything he can do, and since the government does not have the technology, equipment, nor experise, to take charge of this disaster, BP is our main shot at closing this thing up.

I can't understand why there are not loads of skimmers, skimming up that oil. I also can't understand why it takes the Coast Guard so long to approve building those burns????????

This tragedy is a result of deregulatory policies. The oil companies have been allowed to write their own regulations since Bush removed all of the previous regulations.

I don't think that this President has <span style='font-size: 11pt'>enough</span> bull**** with him. That seems to me to be his main problem.

People get anxious, understandably, over such a heart breaking disaster, but the fact is, everyone is afraid of setting the bar too high, when they all know, there are very few options beyond drilling relief drills, which takes three months. This is the worst oil disaster in our history, unprecedented. BP doesn't jump on the phone to tell the President every time they have to stop the top fill, to check the pressure, intermittantly. I don't think that means that President Obama is lying, at all.

Just my 2C.

G.

pooltchr
05-28-2010, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Just tell me what you think the President should do.

I can't understand why there are not loads of skimmers, skimming up that oil. I also can't understand why it takes the Coast Guard so long to approve building those burns????????

G. </div></div>

You just answered your own question. He should have had skimmers, centrafuges, and anything else available to have started cleaning up the oil before it ever got that close to land.

And here's a little fact for you. By virtue of being commander in chief, Obama is the top dog in the Coast Guard, since they are a branch of the military. So if the Coast Guard isn't responding as you think they should, that one falls squarly on ObamA'S desk.

Actually, they wanted to build sand berms weeks ago, but can't get the necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers. Once again, I think Obama is the ultimate authority there.

As for plugging the leak, Obama said this week that BP can do nothing without government approval, and is obligated to abide by any orders the government gives them. That means Obama is in charge of stopping the leak. He as much as said he is in charge! That makes him responsible.

BP is responsible for the accident, but the government is responsible for the slow or non-existant response to minimize the impact of the disaster.

Steve

Gayle in MD
05-28-2010, 06:06 PM
BTW, friend, here's what we should all be mad about, IMO.


A Last Push To Deregulate
White House to Ease Many Rules
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2008

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."


White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.


Page 2 of 2 &lt; Back

A Last Push To Deregulate

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.' "

Clinton's appointees wound up paying a heavy price for procrastination. Bush's team was able to withdraw 254 regulations that covered such matters as drug and airline safety, immigration and indoor air pollutants. After further review, many of the proposals were modified to reflect Republican policy ideals or scrapped altogether.

Seeking to avoid falling victim to such partisan tactics, White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten in May imposed a Nov. 1 government-wide deadline to finish major new regulations, "except in extraordinary circumstances."

That gives officials just a few more weeks to meet an effective Nov. 20 deadline for the publication of economically significant rules, which take legal effect only after a 60-day congressional comment period. Less important rules take effect after a 30-day period, creating a second deadline of Dec. 20.

OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said that Bolten's memo was meant to emphasize the importance of "due diligence" in ensuring that late-term regulations are sound. "We will continue to embrace the thorough and high standards of the regulatory review process," she said.

As the deadlines near, the administration has begun to issue regulations of great interest to industry, including, in recent days, a rule that allows natural gas pipelines to operate at higher pressures and new Homeland Security rules that shift passenger security screening responsibilities from airlines to the federal government. The OMB also approved a new limit on airborne emissions of lead this month, acting under a court-imposed deadline.

Many of the rules that could be issued over the next few weeks would ease environmental regulations, according to sources familiar with administration deliberations.

A rule put forward by the National Marine Fisheries Service and now under final review by the OMB would lift a requirement that environmental impact statements be prepared for certain fisheries-management decisions and would give review authority to regional councils dominated by commercial and recreational fishing interests.

An Alaska commercial fishing source, granted anonymity so he could speak candidly about private conversations, said that senior administration officials promised to "get the rule done by the end of this month" and that the outcome would be a big improvement.

Lee Crockett of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group said the administration has received 194,000 public comments on the rule and protests from 80 members of Congress as well as 160 conservation groups. "This thing is fatally flawed" as well as "wildly unpopular," Crockett said.

Two other rules nearing completion would ease limits on pollution from power plants, a major energy industry goal for the past eight years that is strenuously opposed by Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups.

One rule, being pursued over some opposition within the Environmental Protection Agency, would allow current emissions at a power plant to match the highest levels produced by that plant, overturning a rule that more strictly limits such emission increases. According to the EPA's estimate, it would allow millions of tons of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, worsening global warming.

A related regulation would ease limits on emissions from coal-fired power plants near national parks.

A third rule would allow increased emissions from oil refineries, chemical factories and other industrial plants with complex manufacturing operations.

These rules "will force Americans to choke on dirtier air for years to come, unless Congress or the new administration reverses these eleventh-hour abuses," said lawyer John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

But Scott H. Segal, a Washington lawyer and chief spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said that "bringing common sense to the Clean Air Act is the best way to enhance energy efficiency and pollution control." He said he is optimistic that the new rule will help keep citizens' lawsuits from obstructing new technologies.

Jonathan Shradar, an EPA spokesman, said that he could not discuss specifics but added that "we strive to protect human health and the environment." Any rule the agency completes, he said, "is more stringent than the previous one."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004749_2.html




Some Interesting facts:

Alternative Energy Sources are Slowly Becoming More Attractive
Everything from renewable sources such as solar and wind to newer technologies such as cleaner-burning coal and hybrid and fuel cells are expected to steal some of oil's share of the worldwide energy market in the future.[5] The only question is by how much. As concern over global warming and energy independence fuels investment into alternative energies, and as that investment makes alternative energy cheaper and more efficient, deepwater will be hurt. At the same time, deepwater E&P is a growing field where economies of scale and increasing technological innovation have the potential to bring down the cost of finding reserves, and of manufacturing and operating rigs.

One of the largest disruptors in the renewable energy industry is the government. Legislative support for clean energy investment in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and energy mandates has driven growth in the sector over the past few years. Because most renewables aren't as cost-efficient as traditional fossil fuels, such government support is necessary to make clean energy appealing.

In January 2009, President-elect Barack Obama called for the U.S. to double its use of renewable energy by 2012, as part of his plan to stimulate the economy and pull the country out of recession. His plan, which is expected to include up to $800 billion over two years in subsidies and tax cuts for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and electric grid modernization projects, has the potential to pull the industry out of the slump caused by the 2008 Financial Crisis.[77]




#307904 - Yesterday at 10:26 AM Re: Some History On Deregulation [Re: Gayle in MD]
Gayle in MD Gayle in MD
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 10861
Loc: Maryland Quote:Bush approves offshore drilling to spur on Congress
by Chris Shunk (RSS feed) on Jul 15th 2008 at 8:07AM

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>There has been a US ban on offshore oil drilling for the past 27 years, and George Bush Sr. signed off on an executive order echoing the ban in 1990. Originally, the ban was agreed upon to protect the beaches and tourism economies of coastal towns, and now global warming has been added into the mix.

With one stroke of the mighty pen, George Jr. has undone his father's order by lifting the ban on offshore drilling, but the move means nothing unless Congress also lifts its separate ban. The Bush Administration is trying to put pressure on Congress to throw out its ban, but so far the Democrat-controlled Congress isn't budging. Sen. Barbara Boxer called the move "something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States." </span>
President Bush has made no bones about his desire to drill for the billions of barrels of oil believed to be hidden beneath our coastlines, and with gas prices at $4.25 per gallon, much of America is on his side. The price of gas is now right up there with the war in Iraq and the economy as the top concern of Americans, so the Congress could be in a similar spot as the Republican controlled Congress was when it backed the Iraq war back in 2006. Many non-coastal Americans are more concerned about being able to afford fuel than they are about terrific views off the coast of Maine or beaches in south Florida. Instead our environment will have to be the rationale for Congress to uphold the ban. Will the Congress bow to public and political pressure and allow drilling, or will they risk re-election and do the right thing for the environment? Only time will tell.

[Source: Detroit News]




http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/se...n&ct=clnk&gl=us







WASHINGTON (CNN) -- <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Republicans on Wednesday pressured congressional Democrats for a vote to lift a ban on offshore drilling before Congress begins its summer recess.</span>
Americans "are counting on Congress to lift the ban" on offshore drilling, President Bush says.


The partisan fight over offshore drilling has stalled efforts to pass legislation meant to lower high gas prices before Congress adjourns for its monthlong break at the end of the week.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Most Republicans want to lift a 1981 ban on offshore drilling, saying it will increase domestic oil supplies. But the Democratic leadership wants to keep the ban in place, arguing that more offshore drilling will have little effect on prices and could threaten the environment.</span>
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
Republicans also want to legalize drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and allow the processing of oil shale on public lands in the West -- two actions Democrats also oppose. Oil shale is sedimentary rock with oil in it that has historically been considered too expensive to process. Several environmental risks are associated with extracting oil shale. Follow the dueling positions on energy policy »</span>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Democrats must allow Republicans to offer amendments that would increase domestic oil production.

"Senate Republicans feel that we both need to find more and use less, and that in order to have ... a piece of legislation that actually passes the Senate, we need to have an open process," McConnell said.

After meeting with his Cabinet on Wednesday, President Bush also called on Democrats to schedule a vote before Congress begins its summer recess. Watch Bush pressure Congress for a vote »

Don't Miss
CNN/Money: Solving the energy crisis: You decide
iReport.com: Is more drilling the answer?
CNN/Money: Energy fix: What can be done?
Senate Democrats offer deal to break energy bill standstill
"American drivers are counting on Congress to lift the ban, and so are American workers," he said.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the president was perpetrating a "hoax" by pushing for more offshore oil drilling.</span>"The president has failed in his economic policy, and now he wants to say, 'but for drilling in protected areas offshore, our economy would be thriving and the price of gas would be lower,' <span style='font-size: 17pt'>" Pelosi said. "That hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to relieve the pain of consumers at the pump and to promote energy independence."</span>
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Bush accused Democrats of blocking a vote on offshore drilling, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had offered a proposal to Republicans that would allow a vote on a measure that would lift the drilling ban. Watch how the partisan fight has gridlocked Congress »

However, McConnell said Wednesday that Reid had rescinded that offer, which would have allowed Republicans to add up to four amendments to the energy bill being debated.

"In that case, we are going to have a hard time legislating on the No. 1 issue in country," McConnell said.</span>
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp.<span style='font-size: 17pt'> poll conducted this week suggests the public backs the Republican position on offshore oil drilling. But the poll also shows that the public is split over whether offshore drilling would result in lower gas prices in the next year.

More than two-thirds of Americans say they favor increasing drilling efforts off America's coasts, and 30 percent disapprove of such action. Meanwhile, 51 percent think increased drilling offshore would reduce gas prices, while 49 percent believe it wouldn't. The poll was conducted Sunday through Tuesday and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. How should Americans deal with the energy crisis?</span>
Congressional Democrats said they have offered Republicans multiple opportunities to help lower gas prices, including a measure they brought to the Senate floor Wednesday that would extend tax credits to producers of solar, wind and other sources of renewable energy.

"We have heard Republicans expend a tremendous amount of words and energy talking about our national energy crisis. Today, Democrats offer them yet another chance to stop the talking and actually do something to solve the problem," Reid said.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
The partisan fight in the Senate has also stalled debate on a bill that would attempt to curb increasing speculation in the oil futures market. Democrats say oil speculation is responsible for 20 to 50 percent of the spike in fuel prices.</span>
House Democrats were unable to pass an oil speculation bill on Wednesday. The bill received a majority vote of 276-151, but the measure failed because it did not get the two-thirds majority required by House rules.

The White House said Wednesday the president would veto the oil speculation bill if it reached his desk. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission already has enough power to stop speculation, the White House said, and the bill would do nothing "to address the fundamentals of supply and demand that bear the primary responsibility for current high energy prices."

Congressional Democrats, including Pelosi, have also called for releasing a small amount of oil from U.S. reserves and putting more pressure on foreign oil cartels.


But Bush opposes releasing oil from reserves and said if Democrats want to tap into the reserves, they should also support measures that lift the drilling ban.

"If you agree that we need more oil, it makes no sense to say you're for draining our nation's limited strategic reserve but against tapping into the vast resources of the outer continental shelf," Bush said, arguing that offshore drilling could produce up to 18 million barrels of oil.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/energy.bill/index.html







Democrats in US Congress vote to lift moratorium on offshore drilling in election year political shift
Part of: Oil

An offshore oil platform off the United States’ Gulf of Mexico coast. A recent and ironic Democratic election year push for offshore drilling could see a proliferation of such platforms off the country’s east and west coasts.
wikimedia commons
Related articles
Obama ramps up involvement in what observers say could be oil spill worse than Valdez
‘Hybrid’ US climate legislation likely to back track on some environmental promise to throw big bones to industry
US Energy Secretary says climate bill best bet for US climate leadership – but changes to legislation may come
Obama’ energy and environmental team departs from Bush policies, but prompts more conservative expectations
Obama presidential victory an historic occasion for the environment and human rights leadership
Election 2008 Special: Environmental figure heavy in East Coast voters minds as they cast ballots for Obama on election day
Booed in Bali, US chief climate negotiator to meet Bellona staff to prep for December’s UN climate conference
US presidential election: The environment at stake
Alaska Experiences Worst Oil Pipeline Leak In Its History, Final Damage Still Not Tallied
Alternative visions for a US climate policy
Lugar Introduces Flexible Fuel Vehicles Legislation to ease US demand on oil
US Senate approves drilling in Alaska´s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, House to vote this week
US Bipartisan forces set sights on changing Bush Administration climate change policies
US Republicans set to turn Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into oilfield
Bellona calls on petroleum industry to invest in future of CO2 capture and storage
The US House of Representatives passed Democratic-sponsored legislation Tuesday that would lift a longstanding ban long cherished by environmentalists within Democratic party on offshore oil drilling, opening most of the US coastline to exploration. Charles Digges, 17/09-2008 The House of Representatives, Congresses lower chamber, voted 236 to 189 in favor of the package, but the Democratic initiative may face a veto from the White House, news agencies reported.

The package proposed by Democrats would give states the option to allow drilling between 80 and 160 kilometers off their shores. Areas more than 160 kilometers from the coast would be completely open to oil exploration and drilling, Reuters reported.

The flip-flop represents a swift change in policy for the Democratic Party, which has routinely opposed lifting the offshore drilling moratorium for environmental reasons.

For their part, the Republicans pushed in this election season for offshore drilling, and much of the current presidential race has featured salvos from Republican hopeful John McCain’s camp that Democratic contender Barack Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling neglects the US need for energy independence.

In July 2008, President George Bush lifted the ban on offshore drilling that was put in place by the presidency of his father, George Herbert Walker Bush. The ban was imposed by the elder Bush in exchange for drilling rights for big oil in he oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

As of today, the 1981 ban on offshore drilling in the US still remains in effect, making Bush the Junior’s unilateral lifting of the ban purely symbolic. But house Democrats have beat Bush to the punch to craft legislation fulfilling his wish.

The Democratic majority in Congress, therefore, seems to be taking the heat for the decision to keep or lift the ban off their candidate by bowing to the Realpolitik of eschewing environmental concerns in favor of gaining better footing on the road to the White House that ends in November.

Environmentalists, however, can still find solace in the Obama ticket for Obama’s personal opposition to offshore drilling, as well as his prospective administration’s staunch opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, its general opposition to more nuclear power in the United States, and its open embrace of joining the world community in supporting technological and legislative initiatives aimed at curbing climate change.

Senate still to approve offshore drilling
Later this week, the Senate, Congress’s upper chamber, is expected to take up energy legislation that would expand offshore drilling, but not as much as the House, Reuters said.

Both chambers would have to reconcile differences between their bills before a final energy package could be sent to the White House to be signed into law. Time is running out for lawmakers to pass legislation as Congress is scheduled to adjourn on September 26th.

Democrats and Republicans change election year stripes
Until recently, Democratic leaders in Congress strongly opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling, saying drilling would have only a small impact on gasoline prices in the immediate future.

But as gasoline prices shot to levels above $4 a gallon this summer, public opinion shifted in favor of offshore drilling. Republicans made removing offshore drilling moratorium a key campaign issue for their party in this election year – but Republican President George Bush may flush the initiative for partisan reasons amid a tight battle for the White House.

Bush administration derides its own long-cherished goals
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Bush Administration has called the Democratic initiative a “sham” and a “hoax,” news agencies said. </span>
"At a time when American families are in need of genuine relief from the effects of high fuel prices, this bill purports to open access to American energy sources while in reality taking actions to stifle development," the White House said in a statement.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>With the moratorium against offshore drilling facing expiration on September 30th, and voter sentiment changing, Democrats supported repealing the ban as part of a larger energy package, said Reuters.

Pork may put oil drilling over a barrel
Republican opponents of the bill complain the bill does not include a revenue sharing plan, and states will not have financial incentive to open their coasts to exploration. The Republican Party, which usually steers clear of states’ affairs, is clearly seeking more pork for, and trying to curry the favor, for Republican governors of many coastal states with oil rich shelves. </span>Another Republican complaint is that the requirement that drilling occur at least 80 kilometers away from the US coast closes a great deal of the outer continental shelf where oil may be located, said Rueters.

Democrats countered that their package would open 319 million acres to 404 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling.

"This legislation is a result of reasonable compromise that will put us on a path to energy independence by expanding domestic supply," Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was quoted by Reuters as saying.
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2008/USoilban_lifted



After this, Democratics should have learned, never compromise with Republicans On Their F-ed UP Policies!

Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post


#307905 - Yesterday at 10:38 AM Re: Some History On Deregulation [Re: Gayle in MD]
Gayle in MD Gayle in MD
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 10861
Loc: Maryland I would say that it should be clear, and unprotested, that the Republican Party, since W. Invaded the White House, has pushed for deep water, drilling, AND more offshores drilling.

In fact, W. Bush pushed through loads of attacks on environement laws, removing a great deal of protection of the environment, and our citizens.
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
McCain's campaign consistantly was critical of this president's policies, often sighting higher costs for consumers if we did not elect the oil friendly, mavericks, Palin and McCain....

That anyoone would suggest that Republicans have not been right in the pockets of Big Oil for over a decade, is truly folly.</span>Palin's lies, recently about President Obama, were too absurd for words.

I can only hope, that the idiot Govenor in Virginia wakes up about drilling offshore of Virginia.


I am greatly relieved that this President, has taken any new contracts for offshore drilling, off the table, for further review.

Obviously, if we had Republicans in there right now, we'd be lucky to be getting any information about this disaster, at all.

G.
G.

Top






I pasted my whole other thread for you.....

Gayle in MD
05-28-2010, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">With the Deepwater Horizon oil spill shaping up to be a calamity of historic proportions, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) on Tuesday slammed the Interior Department division responsible for regulating domestic oil development, calling for an investigation into the infamously problem-plagued Minerals Management Service—and asking what the Obama administration is doing to clean it up.

"In the Bush administration, these were the guys that were having sex orgies and pot parties and weren't showing up for work," Nelson told reporters, referring to the 2008 scandal in a Colorado regional MMS office in which it came to light that agency employees had been partying with industry execs rather than collecting millions of dollars in royalties for lease deals. Nelson has asked the agency's inspector general to investigate, among other things, the extent to which the oil industry has influenced the agency’s rulemaking process.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The disaster in the Gulf has once again cast a spotlight on MMS, a troubled division with a long history of regulatory negligence. Conservatives have dubbed the spill "Obama's Katrina." But the roots of the disaster, which could potentially have been prevented by enhanced safety measures, stretch back to the George W. Bush years. During that era, Interior became a revolving door haven for industry lobbyists. MMS developed a hands-off approach to regulation and was known for its deference to the companies it was supposed to be policing.

For instance, take its 2003 decision not to require offshore rigs to install what's known as an acoustic switch, a remote-controlled backup system that seals off an underwater well even if the rig above is destroyed. Both Norway and Brazil mandate this precaution for rigs off their coasts, and MMS considered doing the same. But oil companies complained bitterly that the $500,000 devices were too expensive and not effective enough, and MMS ultimately made installing the switches voluntary. Not surprisingly, the Deepwater rig wasn't equipped with one.

Documents also surfaced this week indicating that as far back as 2004, MMS knew that a key piece of oil-drilling safety equipment used on the Deepwater Horizon did not function adequately in deep waters, like those in the Gulf. Yet the agency issued no new regulations to address the problem. Additionally, one possible cause of the Deepwater disaster was inadequate cementing in the well—and MMS has long been aware of concerns about the cement used in Gulf wells. In a 2007 report, it noted that "blowouts" caused by poorly constructed well casings had increased in recent years. (MMS has been working with the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry lobby, to develop new standards for "best cementing practices," but has yet to issue new rules.)

Last year, MMS signed off on BP's exploration plan and environmental impact statement for the Deepwater site, which analyzed worst-case scenarios should an accident occur on the rig. The 52-page plan, filed with MMS in February 2009, noted that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities." MMS even certified that the company had "the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge." It has recently become clear that BP and MMS woefully underestimated both the magnitude of a worst-case spill and the company's ability to respond. (BP has blamed the spill on a failure of the rig's "blowout preventer," a valve that was supposed to seal the well in the event of a blast. The company's CEO, Tony Hayward, says that this kind of failure was "unprecedented," yet MMS has for years documented substantial problems with blowout preventers.)

"What you see in this current disaster is that MMS was an agency that was cozy with industry and trusted their assurances that they could contain this kind of disaster, but because they didn't verify industry's claims, we've seen that neither of them were adequately prepared," says Mandy Smithberger, an investigator with the Project on Government Oversight.

Environmental advocates say the Obama administration has made significant strides in improving MMS, including by appointing Elizabeth Birnbaum, a former official with the conservation group American Rivers, to run the division. Friends of the Earth president Erich Pica says he has "a lot of respect" for Birnbaum, but notes that MMS still has a long way to go. "This agency is one that requires a transformational makeover," he says.

The industry, for instance, still seems to hold significant sway over the division's decision-making. Last year, when the MMS proposed new mandatory environmental planning procedures, BP and other oil companies pushed back hard. The new regulations would force rig operators to implement a "Safety and Environmental Management System"; in a September 2009 letter to the MMS, Richard Morrison, the head of BP's Gulf of Mexico operations, strongly criticized the proposed measures. "We believe the industry's current safety and environmental statistics demonstrate that the voluntary programs...have been and continue to be very successful," he wrote. Nearly 11 months after proposing the rule, the agency has yet to finalize it. (MMS did not return calls for comment on the status of the regulations.)

MMS, says Pica, "needs to develop a backbone to stand up against big oil companies."

A litany of other problems at MMS have been documented by government investigators over the years, including repeated failures in inspecting federal leases and collecting royalties, as a recent Government Accountability Office report documented, which may have caused the loss of tens of millions in federal revenues. The GAO last month concluded that the MMS office in Alaska failed to complete an adequate environmental analysis on new drilling sites at the behest of an industry group. Questions have also been raised since the explosion about MMS' oversight of other BP operations in the Gulf and enforcement when safety violations have been identified. When the Houston Chronicle reviewed accident inspection and enforcement records, it found that inspectors reported potential safety violations in five out of 20 accident investigations involving BP operations since 2005—yet only one of those violations resulted in a fine.

The recent disaster has prompted closer scrutiny of BP (the rig's operator), Transocean (its owner), and Halliburton, which poured the cement for the Deepwater well. Executives from the companies have been called to testify before a congressional panel next week. But now lawmakers are also demanding a closer examination of the MMS and its role in the Deepwater accident. In addition to Nelson's call for an investigation, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House oversight committee, has requested a probe into whether proper safety regulations were in place. He also wants to know whether MMS "improperly awarded safety certifications to BP, Transocean, and the Deepwater Horizon rig."

Scheduled for Monday, the division's annual SAFE awards ceremony, honoring the safety achievements of offshore drilling companies, arrived at a particularly inopportune time for the MMS. Ultimately, Interior officials opted to postpone it. That was probably wise. After all, one of its 2009 award recipients was Deepwater Horizon-owner Transocean. BP, meanwhile, was in the running for a 2010 safety commendation.

Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here.

</div></div>

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/bp-bill-nelson-oil-spill

Sid_Vicious
05-28-2010, 06:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama gets my wrath again. He stood up there yesterday, and said that he and the govt were in charge of the spill, AND at that moment he said that, the mud had stopped flowing for hours without him knowing about it!!! Obama is a wuss, his foot surely won't dislodge from his mouth any more, this situation is so sick and sad for our gulf. First you have a lying bunch with BP. NOW you have a president bullshitting about KNOWING what's going on. Obama is pit-E-full, as Grany Clampet would say. If that man(Obama) does not relentlessly address these falsehoods he keeps spewing out, and kicks BP's butts, then the Democrats can accept the losses they have coming.

This oil leak: First we were told this top kill would be the first step, THEN if that failed(FAILED) they'd go to planB, the junk shot. Well, BP nor Obama has said that the top kill failed, BUT we are now told that the junk shot has actually begun. Somebody is lying their asses off, and it may just be our own president joining in on the lie-fest now. I haven't heard one thing which has been truth, from BP or the Administration. I still say that we bomb the crap out of the sub surface of that BOP, and kill all chances of that well being viable anymore. BP is apparently working to save that hole, and our own president is allowing all these lies to continue, pandering to BP. Obama needs to borrow Hillary's balls, because his pair are "innies."

"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one!" Obama, you best get intensely on top of this thing. You will pay, if you don't. sid </div></div>

What do you think he should do, Martin? He has sent thousands of people down there. He has called all of the experts together, trying to find solutions. He admits, that BP has to be in the lead on stopping the leaking oil. I heard T. Boone Pickens on Larry King's show last night, saying that both the top fill, and the junk shot, are long shots.

Here's what he told King, "We'll likely be sitting right here in another thirty eight days, watching the same picture of oil flowing from the bottom of the ocean.

Pickens said, the fact is, the only reliable method, is drilling other relief wells. That takes three months. The nuke idea, has been called too riskey, and most likely to cause bad, unintended consequences, such as multiple leaks, possibly worse than this one.

To some degree, the president is at the mercy of BP, because we don't have the experience, expertise, nor the equipment, to close the hole. And if we took that over, legal obligations for BP would be compromised, which, really we can''t take it over anyway.

Just tell me what you think the President should do. The fact is, he's been doing everything he can do, and since the government does not have the technology, equipment, nor experise, to take charge of this disaster, BP is our main shot at closing this thing up.

I can't understand why there are not loads of skimmers, skimming up that oil. I also can't understand why it takes the Coast Guard so long to approve building those burns????????

This tragedy is a result of deregulatory policies. The oil companies have been allowed to write their own regulations since Bush removed all of the previous regulations.

I don't think that this President has <span style='font-size: 11pt'>enough</span> bull**** with him. That seems to me to be his main problem.

People get anxious, understandably, over such a heart breaking disaster, but the fact is, everyone is afraid of setting the bar too high, when they all know, there are very few options beyond drilling relief drills, which takes three months. This is the worst oil disaster in our history, unprecedented. BP doesn't jump on the phone to tell the President every time they have to stop the top fill, to check the pressure, intermittantly. I don't think that means that President Obama is lying, at all.

Just my 2C.

G. </div></div>

I will tell you exactly what Obama should do. By executive order, enact a daily monetary penalty(HUGE) upon BP, AND double that penalty like they do school zone speeders, WHEN THE MFers do not PROMPTLY give information about the mud insertions being shut off for 16 hours. If Obama can't be in charge enough to know that the top kill is shut off for 16 hours!!!!!! then he ain't in charge of a GD'd thing. He looks like a fool when he does not pounce on those blatant facts told to the American public.

As bad as I hate to say this, "At least Bush would have exploded all over this, as stupid as Bush is!" Obama's a pussy.

Now, lastly and first priority is this. Put a customer representative in that control room they have on the water to get all this information as it happens. I did oil exploration, and they ALWAYS had a representative on those jobs. Obama should have PEOPLE of his own in that damn instrument room, minute by minute. Obama sucks in this moment, and he WILL pay dearly for it. He has many things he is not doing Gayle. His head is up his butt on the truths from BP and he should give'em hell at the precise moment he realizes those lies.

Make BP pay 200 mil or more a day, then 500mil extra when they break the honesty to him. Is that asking very much? Btw, I'd still lace a mountain of bombs, including nukes if I had to, and blow that sucker up. The dangers would merit it over letting BP and Obama's naive(or being in bed with BP) nature. The sooner BP knows they will go poor...they'll kill that leak and leave without the well to be used for profits later on. Til then, BP will milk all efforts to save that drilled well. Doesn't that make any sense at all to you Gayle, above all of the rest here? BP's arrogance is only equal to Obama's cooperations with that arrogance. Pound your fist Obama. Plant a rep there on the boats. Give bigger monetary penalties. Mainly though Obama, quit looking like a dummy when you know you have been lied to. Be Teddy Roosevelt, charge this hill. sid

LWW
05-28-2010, 06:27 PM
And the off shore ban has ultimately been the root cause of all of this.

Had we been allowed to drill where it wasn't under a mile or more of water this wouldn't be what it is now.

LWW

LWW
05-28-2010, 06:28 PM
You need to face it that Obama is bought and paid for by BP.

LWW

LWW
05-28-2010, 06:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As bad as I hate to say this, "At least Bush would have exploded all over this, as stupid as Bush is!" Obama's a pussy.

</div></div>

And the reason is the media would have skinned him alive from day #1 ... with Obama they roll over and make excuses, much like some mebers of this august forum.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-28-2010, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama gets my wrath again. He stood up there yesterday, and said that he and the govt were in charge of the spill, AND at that moment he said that, the mud had stopped flowing for hours without him knowing about it!!! Obama is a wuss, his foot surely won't dislodge from his mouth any more, this situation is so sick and sad for our gulf. First you have a lying bunch with BP. NOW you have a president bullshitting about KNOWING what's going on. Obama is pit-E-full, as Grany Clampet would say. If that man(Obama) does not relentlessly address these falsehoods he keeps spewing out, and kicks BP's butts, then the Democrats can accept the losses they have coming.

This oil leak: First we were told this top kill would be the first step, THEN if that failed(FAILED) they'd go to planB, the junk shot. Well, BP nor Obama has said that the top kill failed, BUT we are now told that the junk shot has actually begun. Somebody is lying their asses off, and it may just be our own president joining in on the lie-fest now. I haven't heard one thing which has been truth, from BP or the Administration. I still say that we bomb the crap out of the sub surface of that BOP, and kill all chances of that well being viable anymore. BP is apparently working to save that hole, and our own president is allowing all these lies to continue, pandering to BP. Obama needs to borrow Hillary's balls, because his pair are "innies."

"I'd rather see a sermon than hear one!" Obama, you best get intensely on top of this thing. You will pay, if you don't. sid </div></div>

What do you think he should do, Martin? He has sent thousands of people down there. He has called all of the experts together, trying to find solutions. He admits, that BP has to be in the lead on stopping the leaking oil. I heard T. Boone Pickens on Larry King's show last night, saying that both the top fill, and the junk shot, are long shots.

Here's what he told King, "We'll likely be sitting right here in another thirty eight days, watching the same picture of oil flowing from the bottom of the ocean.

Pickens said, the fact is, the only reliable method, is drilling other relief wells. That takes three months. The nuke idea, has been called too riskey, and most likely to cause bad, unintended consequences, such as multiple leaks, possibly worse than this one.

To some degree, the president is at the mercy of BP, because we don't have the experience, expertise, nor the equipment, to close the hole. And if we took that over, legal obligations for BP would be compromised, which, really we can''t take it over anyway.

Just tell me what you think the President should do. The fact is, he's been doing everything he can do, and since the government does not have the technology, equipment, nor experise, to take charge of this disaster, BP is our main shot at closing this thing up.

I can't understand why there are not loads of skimmers, skimming up that oil. I also can't understand why it takes the Coast Guard so long to approve building those burns????????

This tragedy is a result of deregulatory policies. The oil companies have been allowed to write their own regulations since Bush removed all of the previous regulations.

I don't think that this President has <span style='font-size: 11pt'>enough</span> bull**** with him. That seems to me to be his main problem.

People get anxious, understandably, over such a heart breaking disaster, but the fact is, everyone is afraid of setting the bar too high, when they all know, there are very few options beyond drilling relief drills, which takes three months. This is the worst oil disaster in our history, unprecedented. BP doesn't jump on the phone to tell the President every time they have to stop the top fill, to check the pressure, intermittantly. I don't think that means that President Obama is lying, at all.

Just my 2C.

G. </div></div>

I will tell you exactly what Obama should do. By executuve order, enact a daily monetary penalty upom BP, AND dounle that penalty like they do school zone speeders, WHEN THE MFers do not give information about the mud insertions being shut off for 16 hours. If Obama can't be in charge enough to know that the top kill is shutintermittently, to relieve pressure. They are forcing mud down into off for 16 hours!!!!!! then he ain't in charge of a GD'd thing. He looks like a fool when he does not pounce on those blatant facts told to the American public.


<span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Well, you're acting as though shuting off the top fill, is some sort of irresponsible action. I'm sure the president understands, if a dummie like me does, that they have to do that, to check the pressure build up.</span> </span>

As bad as I hate to say this, "At least Bush would have exploded all over this, as stupid as Bush is!" Obama's a pussy.

<span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Well, IIRC, Bush didn't explode at all, he was back slapping everyone who was F-ing up, telling them they were doing a great job.

I see this differently than you do. I admire someone who keeps their kool when they are faced with a disaster. I prefer that, to a bunch of bombastic Cowboy talk, and empty promises.

I'd say that Obama probably already knows, that this damn hole is likely going to keep spilling oil for another two months. The most important thing to do, IMO, is to accumulate plenty of those skimmers, because from everything I've been reading about this, no amount of yelling or screaming is going to change a damned thing.</span> </span>

Now, lastly and first priority is this. Put a customer representative in that control room they have on the water to get all this information as it happens. I did oil exploration, and they ALWAYS had a representative on those jobs. Obama should have PEOPLE of his own in that damn instrument room, minute by minute.

Have I answered your question? sid

</div></div>


G. [/color] <span style="color: #000066"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>We have people there, Martin. We've had them there all along.</span>.</span>

Sid_Vicious
05-28-2010, 07:01 PM
"We have people there, Martin. We've had them there all along.."

well, are those people not reporting what's going on, to the man in charge, Obama, when the mud shut down for 16 hours!? That admiral or whatever he is...is he not reported to by these people you talk about being there on the spot Gayle. Don't be so naive. Hell, they shut off the camera from us, ironically about the same time they quit pumping mud yesterday, claiming a dirty lens. You think that was the truth? Doesn't that anger you at all, while you say at the same time that we have had people out there watching and reporting back to "the men in charge" all along? Would it make a difference to you if this leak was on the northern Atlantic and right now pasting oil upon all the boats in your marina? Listen to this before you answer.

http://www.breitbart.tv/lousiana-congressman-breaks-down-during-hearing-about-oil-spill/

Wake up. What continued non-truths we keep getting from BP wouldn't have you in this man's position today, breaking down,,,you can feel his pain even before it took place. There comes a time that you simply must get mad as hell, and Obama isn't giving us any true, heart felt responses as a normal person would when they get raped and lied to. Our Gulf has and is being raped.

Oh but I forgot, BP said this tiny leak wasn't serious. If our military can't implode that pipe to the pool of oil beneath, with our conventional weaponry, then we need to get an R&D team on that quick. I still vote for a nuke, it has to be in the safest usage zone for a good purpose as nukes have ever had, except that it will lose that pipe for BP's usage later on. What a shame. martin

pooltchr
05-28-2010, 08:53 PM
Sid,
I'm with you almost all the way on this, but a nuclear bomb is not the answer. Think about it for a minute. The oil spilling into the gulf is quickly spreading to the coast, and will probably hit 3 or 4 states before all is said and done. And we can see the oil.

What we wouldn't be able to see as it traveled with the currents would be the radioactive water. Do you really want to replace contamination by oil with contamination by radiation???

Steve

LWW
05-29-2010, 05:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We have people there, Martin. We've had them there all along.</div></div>

Why didn't they follow the emergency plan that was in place?

They seem more concerned with stopping Louisiana from protecting it's shoreline.

The regime, I agree, is micromanaging the effort. I'm just unconvinced that their goal is the same as the American people.

LWW

eg8r
05-29-2010, 06:41 AM
Wow, Sid posts about the lies of Obama and gayle googles looking for something referring Bush. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Hilarious.

eg8r

eg8r
05-29-2010, 06:43 AM
So you should not be mad at Obama's lies, just be mad at Bush in general.

eg8r

LWW
05-29-2010, 06:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wow, Sid posts about the lies of Obama and gayle googles looking for something referring Bush. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Hilarious.

eg8r </div></div>

And this surprises you why?

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-29-2010, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sid_Vicious</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We have people there, Martin. We've had them there all along.."

well, are those people not reporting what's going on, to the man in charge, Obama, when the mud shut down for 16 hours!? That admiral or whatever he is...is he not reported to by these people you talk about being there on the spot Gayle. Don't be so naive.

<span style="color: #000066">Hey, I think that anyone who watched the tetimony in front of the Senate, of those three CEO SOB's from Transocean, BP and etc., could easily see that they were all passing the buck, and lying their asses off.

I guess I don't understand the importance of a blow by blow, minute by minute account, ie., when they shut off the top fill, and when it has resumed, coming from the President, or the Admiral, when we were all told that it would be an operation that was going to include that on/off process, in order to measure the pressure, and keep it from blowing up even more...

Also, I hope you aren't suggesting to me that I am not upset about all of this, just because it's going on down there, instead of up here. I'm not that stupid, nor that heartless. This disaster, very likely, could have devastating consequences to all of us, on the east coast, believe me. We're expecting one of the worst hurrican seasons in history, BTW, so where the hell do you think that oil is going to end up?????

I simply don't think that we are privey to everything, not by design, but because no one actually know anything about how to best deal with this disaster, other than drilling new relief wells. Atleast, that's what I have gotten out of all of this.

If you think Obama is so stupid that he doesn't already know that, well, believe me, he does. He has brilliant scientists, and engineers, and drilling experts, all of themm in contact with him. Just because he isn't jumping up and down acting like an idiot, doesn't mean he isn't just as concerned and upset over this, as both you and I, and everyone else, is.

I've never been that kind of person, myself, so maybe I can relate to the human realities that are involved with certain kinds of personalities that automatically zero in on the solutions, instead of blowing up and making a big political rhetoriccal show out of whatever the disaster at hand may be.

At me age, I've faced more than a few disasters of my own, and I'd rather have a reasonable, calm, intelligent person next too me in a disaster, than some fly off the handle, lunatic, who goes off half cocked, blowing up and spouting off a bunch of dramatic threats and alienating the very people on the scene who have plenty to loose, themselvesw, if the hole isn't plugged, and who have the expertise amd equipment on hand, to work at it.

You don't spend as much time on a boat in the ocean, as I have, without loving it, and everything in it. And you also don't want some fly off the handle type along, when you're out there over water miles deep, in the midst of an unpredictable, dangerous event. I've been through a few of them.

Give me a kool headed man with some brains, anyday....I've seen more than one man loose it, in the midst of a sudden, unpredictable dangerous event. One of them was lucky I didn't push his ass overboard...

So, I don't attach all of the assumptions about President Obama's inner feelings and intentions about this thing, like others seem to be doing, at all. Staying calm and keeping one's head, is the most effective way to get through things, IMO. People just don't want to face the facts, and they want to blame someone. Giving in to one's automatic emotional responses, in a time of crises, is a total waste.

Obama knows they're liars, I'm sure, as we all do. It's only been during the last three or four days that BP has admitted the scope of this disaster....But as far as I can tell, there isn't a quick solution for stopping this spewing well.

The oil industry, with the help of a corrupt MMS, and DOI, have been ignoring safe gaurds, and lying for years about the safety of deep water drilling. It's never safe. There are no quick solutions. That's why, IMO, it should be outlawed, everywhere in the world.

And I am more mad about these idiots out there trying to tell people that Oh, oil is a natural substance, and the ocean can handle it. BULLSH**! Our Oceans are trashed, thanks to the greedy corporate pigs all over the world! That's who trashed them for decades....

And F. all the Free Market zealot, Republican bottom line only politics, that's what you whould be mad about, because it's been going on for decades. That's why the banks got away with all their stealing, cheating lies, and it's the same damn thing with the oil industry.

Corporations have bought the world, and believe me, they don't give a good **** about our oceans, Or the Gulf Coast, or anything else, except for filling their pockets with money.

We are where we are right now because of corporate corruption, political corruption, human greed, and the F-ing fascist RW Supreme Court, on all fo the fronts, from the wars, to the oceans, to the collapsed economy, to Bush getting off after committing one treasonist act after another......

Human Greed is the enemy. Conservatives without conscience, The Grand OIL Party, and their supporters, who laugh their asses off about global warming, and pollution, and conservation, after their propaganda stations fill their stupid heads with BS twenty-four hours a day, while the corporate powers paying for the face time, are laughing all the way to the bank, and then they go out and vote against their own best interests, and all of the rest of us pay for it, annd stuff it down while they call us all Tree Huggers....

The only good thing about this disaster is that SOME people in this country, who don't watch Fox, or listen to a pos like Beck, or Limpballs, are going to now learn a hellovalot about the facts of what corporate pigs are doing to this planet....

G.

</span>



Hell, they shut off the camera from us, ironically about the same time they quit pumping mud yesterday, claiming a dirty lens. You think that was the truth? Doesn't that anger you at all, while you say at the same time that we have had people out there watching and reporting back to "the men in charge" all along? Would it make a difference to you if this leak was on the northern Atlantic and right now pasting oil upon all the boats in your marina? Listen to this before you answer.

http://www.breitbart.tv/lousiana-congressman-breaks-down-during-hearing-about-oil-spill/

Wake up. What continued non-truths we keep getting from BP wouldn't have you in this man's position today, breaking down,,,you can feel his pain even before it took place. There comes a time that you simply must get mad as hell, and Obama isn't giving us any true, heart felt responses as a normal person would when they get raped and lied to. Our Gulf has and is being raped.

Oh but I forgot, BP said this tiny leak wasn't serious. If our military can't implode that pipe to the pool of oil beneath, with our conventional weaponry, then we need to get an R&D team on that quick. I still vote for a nuke, it has to be in the safest usage zone for a good purpose as nukes have ever had, except that it will lose that pipe for BP's usage later on. What a shame. martin </div></div>