PDA

View Full Version : Rush weighs in on the oil spill



wolfdancer
06-08-2010, 08:40 PM
THE OCEAN CAN HANDLE IT

Who said it: Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume

Money quote: "More oil [is] spilled every year in Africa, in Nigeria, than so far in the Gulf. So it's not unique; it is not exceptional; it's not the largest. Mexico had a spill that's larger than this. Nobody talks about it except, apparently, me."- Rush Limbaugh

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 05:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THE OCEAN CAN HANDLE IT

Who said it: Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume

Money quote: "More oil [is] spilled every year in Africa, in Nigeria, than so far in the Gulf. So it's not unique; it is not exceptional; it's not the largest. Mexico had a spill that's larger than this. Nobody talks about it except, apparently, me."- Rush Limbaugh

<span style="color: #000066">When is this A.H. leaving the country? He said he would if Obama won, so what the hell is he doing here?

Just his looks are offensive enough. Between him, Cheney, and Beck, that's some Fugly men right there. </span>

</div></div> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW
06-09-2010, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THE OCEAN CAN HANDLE IT

Who said it: Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume

Money quote: "More oil [is] spilled every year in Africa, in Nigeria, than so far in the Gulf. So it's not unique; it is not exceptional; it's not the largest. Mexico had a spill that's larger than this. Nobody talks about it except, apparently, me."- Rush Limbaugh

</div></div>

What part of it do you wish to dispute with a cogent fact based analysis?

What's that?

You don't do cogent fact based analyses?

You only repeat what you are told that believe?

I already knew that.

LWW

eg8r
06-09-2010, 09:54 AM
What is the point that he is getting at? Maybe he is fine with beaches closing down and the mass murder of all our wildlife. I don't know, pointing out stuff like this does not make any sense, what point is he driving at?

eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 10:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of it do you wish to dispute with a cogent fact based analysis?
</div></div>Maybe because it is a strawman argument? Who is arguing to the contrary? Do you think this "fact" is going to help clean our beaches or maybe resurrect all the dead wildlife caused by it? Will this "fact" help small business owners pay the bills when they have gone bankrupt as a result of the leak?


eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When is this A.H. leaving the country? He said he would if Obama won, so what the hell is he doing here?</div></div>Probably directly after you force out all the Dems that made the same promise back when W won.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just his looks are offensive enough. </div></div>Some people find a scratchy smoker's voice offensive also but those types of attacks have nothing to do with the subject.

I would just like to know what point he was trying to make because I personally have not heard anyone arguing that the ocean could not handle the leak? It seems Rush was throwing out a strawman to fill air time.


eg8r

LWW
06-09-2010, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of it do you wish to dispute with a cogent fact based analysis?
</div></div>Maybe because it is a strawman argument? Who is arguing to the contrary? Do you think this "fact" is going to help clean our beaches or maybe resurrect all the dead wildlife caused by it? Will this "fact" help small business owners pay the bills when they have gone bankrupt as a result of the leak?


eg8r </div></div>

Wolfie won't know because he is only allow spoon fed, filtered, and truncated snippets.

My guess is that his point is similar to mine ... it isn't apocalyptic, gubmint regs drove the drillers that far out, gubmint inefficiency halted attempts to save the shoreline, and the anti capitalists will use this as a prop in their agenda to choke out the US economy by depriving it of yet another energy source.

In the meantime, China and Cuba will continue where we left from.

LWW

LWW
06-09-2010, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What part of it do you wish to dispute with a cogent fact based analysis?
</div></div>Maybe because it is a strawman argument? Who is arguing to the contrary?

eg8r </div></div>\

Are you claiming wolfie isn't arguing against what he said?

If wolfie agree with RL he should simply say so.

LWW

Qtec
06-09-2010, 10:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">THE OCEAN CAN HANDLE IT

Who said it: Rush Limbaugh, Brit Hume

Money quote: "More oil [is] spilled every year in Africa, <u>in Nigeria</u>, Rush Limbaugh

</div></div>

"How did that work out for the Nigerians then Rush?"

link (http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&client=firefox-a&hs=ly3&rls=org.mozilla%3Anl%3Aofficial&q=Nigeria+oil+polution&btnG=Zoeken&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=)

Disaster.

Q

Qtec
06-09-2010, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you claiming wolfie isn't arguing against what he said? </div></div>

You just don't get it do you. Your Q is ANOTHER strawman!
eg8r isn't claiming anything of the sort.



Q

Qtec
06-09-2010, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gubmint regs drove the drillers that far out, </div></div>

Another strawman. ie not the cause of the blowout.

Q

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When is this A.H. leaving the country? He said he would if Obama won, so what the hell is he doing here?</div></div>Probably directly after you force out all the Dems that made the same promise back when W won.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif Like who?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just his looks are offensive enough. </div></div>Some people find a scratchy smoker's voice offensive also but those types of attacks have nothing to do with the subject.

Yet you launch one of youor own...

I would just like to know what point he was trying to make because I personally have not heard anyone arguing that the ocean could not handle the leak? It seems Rush was throwing out a strawman to fill air time.


eg8r </div></div>

FYI, I dont smoke!

And If: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would just like to know what point he was trying to make </div></div>

Then why the personal insults. Just for the hellovit?


You need another "Men's meeting"

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you claiming wolfie isn't arguing against what he said?

</div></div>All he did was post a quote. Why do you consider that an argument?

Who cares if he agrees or not, the fact is that Rush is offering a strawman to try and sound intelligent. Him making that statement is about as dumb as the graph that you posted. Again, who really cares whether this is the worst in history or not? No one is arguing that. Again, even if this was just a pulled toenail (or whatever you called it) what does that matter to the wildlife being killed as a result? Or the tourism industry going in the crapper as a result? Or the small businesses going under as a result?

Instead of arguing BS strawmen, why not debate about the real issues?

eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wolfie won't know because he is only allow spoon fed, filtered, and truncated snippets.
</div></div>I don't think you know either which is why you are ignoring the real issues and arguing strawmen about whether the ocean can handle the leak.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the meantime, China and Cuba will continue where we left from.</div></div>Just another strawman.

eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like who?</div></div>LOL you are the only person left in lala land that did not know Limbaugh was sarcastically mocking the statements made by the left when W was running for office. The Baldwins and I believe Streisand were some of the big names.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you launch one of youor own... </div></div>Yep. What is the saying, "good for the goose..." You got me. As far as you smoking, I have no idea, all I had to go on was the voice and that is what it sounded like. Good for you though as smoking is a nasty habit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why the personal insults. Just for the hellovit?</div></div>A little touchy are you. This question is coming from the one person who actually had zero intent on commenting on the subject. I was just trying to get us back on topic since you veer off so often.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like who?</div></div>LOL you are the only person left in lala land that did not know Limbaugh was sarcastically mocking the statements made by the left when W was running for office. The Baldwins and I believe Streisand were some of the big names.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet you launch one of youor own... </div></div>Yep. What is the saying, "good for the goose..." You got me. As far as you smoking, I have no idea, all I had to go on was the voice and that is what it sounded like. Good for you though as smoking is a nasty habit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why the personal insults. Just for the hellovit?</div></div>A little touchy are you. This question is coming from the one person who actually had zero intent on commenting on the subject. I was just trying to get us back on topic since you veer off so often.

eg8r </div></div>

I veer off, LOL...go back and read the title of my thread about wind farms, and tell me you didn't completely change the subject of the thread, with your lies about "The Kennedy's"

G.

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I veer off, LOL</div></div>Well yes. Just look at this thread and then read your response about Limbaugh.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I veer off, LOL</div></div>Well yes. Just look at this thread and then read your response about Limbaugh.

eg8r </div></div>

Don't change the subject. You do the same damn thing, more often, in fact, most often. The Post Police shouldn't be so hypocritical.

Stop lying about the Kennedy's.

G.

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:29 AM
The subject is you veering off topic. Heck I even quoted it for you hoping you would not get lost.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject is you veering off topic. Heck I even quoted it for you hoping you would not get lost.

eg8r </div></div>

The subject was you veering off topic, and being hypocritical about that fact. I wasn't veering off the topic anyway, Rush was the topic...

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stop lying about the Kennedy's.</div></div>Maybe you don't like the plural use of the Kennedy name but RFK Jr, and the murderous (or should it have been manslaughterish) Uncle Ted force me to use the "'s".
RFK Jr blocking wind farm to save his beautiful view of the ocean... (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Uncle Ted backing bill to kill wind farm... (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/)

Well darn, there you go again getting me off topic. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:38 AM
LOL, Rush wasn't the topic but this clearly explains why you suffer in most of these discussions. The topic was the statement Rush made, not Rush the person.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stop lying about the Kennedy's.</div></div>Maybe you don't like the plural use of the Kennedy name but RFK Jr, and the murderous (or should it have been manslaughterish) Uncle Ted force me to use the "'s".
RFK Jr blocking wind farm to save his beautiful view of the ocean... (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html?ex=1292389200&en=58e5dd67e381fd58&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Uncle Ted backing bill to kill wind farm... (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/)

Well darn, there you go again getting me off topic. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

My thread was wind farms, Not about Ted Kennedy, and not about Robert Kennedy Jr. about whom you lied.

G.

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:44 AM
Yep, your thread was on wind farms and I happened to enlighten you that the Kennedy's were getting in the way. Don't worry though they failed.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yep, your thread was on wind farms and I happened to enlighten you that the Kennedy's were getting in the way. Don't worry though they failed.

eg8r </div></div>

Pointless. My thread wan't about the Kennedy's. You change the subject of thread all the time.

Then you criticize others for changing the subject.

It's your entire posting style. More often than not, you do not address the subject of any thread.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, Rush wasn't the topic but this clearly explains why you suffer in most of these discussions. The topic was the statement Rush made, not Rush the person.

eg8r </div></div>

You're impossible. You really should be in politics, with all of your fact twisting, you'd be a natural.

G.

LWW
06-09-2010, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gubmint regs drove the drillers that far out, </div></div>

Another strawman. ie not the cause of the blowout.

Q </div></div>

Every time I think you can't be any dumber you prove me wrong.

So now we are to believe that had BP and others been allowed to drill in 100 feet of water they would have decided to drill in a mile of water anyway?

LWW

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pointless. My thread wan't about the Kennedy's. You change the subject of thread all the time.</div></div>I agree, I find it always pointless to enlighten you. You only believe what you read in a book written by an author that you are already know you agree with. You take what they have said as golden and as your SNL snafu proves that is not always the best idea.

eg8r

LWW
06-09-2010, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you claiming wolfie isn't arguing against what he said?

</div></div>All he did was post a quote. Why do you consider that an argument?

Who cares if he agrees or not, the fact is that Rush is offering a strawman to try and sound intelligent. Him making that statement is about as dumb as the graph that you posted. Again, who really cares whether this is the worst in history or not? No one is arguing that. Again, even if this was just a pulled toenail (or whatever you called it) what does that matter to the wildlife being killed as a result? Or the tourism industry going in the crapper as a result? Or the small businesses going under as a result?

Instead of arguing BS strawmen, why not debate about the real issues?

eg8r </div></div>

Being an intelligent and educated man I base my assessment on the body of a person's prior work.

D'UH!

LWW

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:54 AM
What fact was I twisting? The thread was about Limbaugh's statement and you commented on his looks and the looks of other Reps.

Please tell me which fact am I twisting?

eg8r

eg8r
06-09-2010, 11:55 AM
Your comment about drilling that far out IS a strawman. No one is debating the depth being an issue.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pointless. My thread wan't about the Kennedy's. You change the subject of thread all the time.</div></div>I agree, I find it always pointless to enlighten you. You only believe what you read in a book written by an author that you are already know you agree with. You take what they have said as golden and as your SNL snafu proves that is not always the best idea.

eg8r </div></div>

And you sop up anything bad you can find about the Kennedy's, yet your post about them and the wind farms, was a huge lie, which you refuse to admit.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pointless. My thread wan't about the Kennedy's. You change the subject of thread all the time.</div></div>I agree, I find it always pointless to enlighten you. You only believe what you read in a book written by an author that you are already know you agree with. You take what they have said as golden and as your SNL snafu proves that is not always the best idea.

eg8r </div></div>


Ed, you're truly a waste of time....

G.

eg8r
06-09-2010, 12:03 PM
LOL, I love reading about the bad the kennedy's do. Their wind farm ban was beat and I love it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
06-09-2010, 03:39 PM
Ed, all I did was post the item about Rush. I don't like Rush and obviously don't agree with his statements. lww's post is way out of line, as I believe you have pointed that out to him.

LWW
06-09-2010, 04:44 PM
Even though you just confirmed I was right.

How prescient was that.

LWW

eg8r
06-09-2010, 06:01 PM
I just don't understand the point that Rush was trying to make. Not sure if I disagree with it yet since I don't understand why he would even mention it. To me it does not matter if this was the biggest leak every or if the ocean would make it through, I care about what I can physically see that is damaging. It is so awful to see those pictures and to think how bad it might become. I spend A LOT of time at the beaches in Florida and I cringe to think our west coast beaches might be harmed.

eg8r

Sev
06-09-2010, 07:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I just don't understand the point that Rush was trying to make. Not sure if I disagree with it yet since I don't understand why he would even mention it. To me it does not matter if this was the biggest leak every or if the ocean would make it through, I care about what I can physically see that is damaging. It is so awful to see those pictures and to think how bad it might become. I spend A LOT of time at the beaches in Florida and I cringe to think our west coast beaches might be harmed.

eg8r </div></div>

I did not hear the the broadcast. However Rush may be indicating that natures natural processes will breakdown the oil.

The fact of the matter is that the ocean basin continually bleeds oil on a global basis and it is naturally absorbed or broken down.
There has always been a certain amount of oil in the ocean. However its concentration is spread out planet wide.
You have to take into consideration that 3/4 of the planet is covered with water. The volume is vast. There are mountain chains taller than the Himalayas covered by it.

wolfdancer
06-09-2010, 08:10 PM
This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg

Sev
06-09-2010, 08:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

Please try to interpret what you are reading properly. I was giving an opinion of what Rush was getting at. I was not being cavalier at all.

And far as the worst ecological disaster. I had not noticed that a large asteroid had crashed into the earth recently.
You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you??

Gayle in MD
06-09-2010, 08:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

Please try to interpret what you are reading properly. I was giving an opinion of what Rush was getting at. I was not being cavalier at all.

And far as the worst ecological disaster. I had not noticed that a large asteroid had crashed into the earth recently.
You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">
Yeah, we know, but we call them knuckle dragging Neanderthal Repiglicans </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
06-09-2010, 09:22 PM
only a fool would try to trivialize this disaster, by comparing it to events in the Mesozoic Era. Far as I know back then, there weren't large numbers of people deriving there livlihood from the bounty of the sea, nor were there multitudes with their life savings tied up in coastal r.e., or that have business ventures that depended on tourism.
A complete lack of concern for the people affected.
I can see where Rush gets his audience from......and let's just say there ain't no doctoral candidates amongst them

LWW
06-10-2010, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

And thanks for helping Eg get RL's point ... and thanks for proving mine.

This isn't apocalyptic as the nattering nabobs of negativism are pimping it as.

This isn't the worst oil spill in history .. or even close.

This also isn't anything close to the Earth's worst man made eco disaster eever.

That won't keep the anti capitalists from screaming from the rooftops that it is.

What we need to concentrate on is how to fix it and how to stop it from recurring.

That requires a grounding in reality ... a trait the far left is sorely lacking in.

LWW

LWW
06-10-2010, 03:45 AM
<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: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

Please try to interpret what you are reading properly. I was giving an opinion of what Rush was getting at. I was not being cavalier at all.

And far as the worst ecological disaster. I had not noticed that a large asteroid had crashed into the earth recently.
You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">
Yeah, we know, but we call them knuckle dragging Neanderthal Repiglicans </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Do you know what the worst man made eco disaster was?

LWW

Qtec
06-10-2010, 04:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</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: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

Please try to interpret what you are reading properly. I was giving an opinion of what Rush was getting at. I was not being cavalier at all.

And far as the worst ecological disaster. I had not noticed that a large asteroid had crashed into the earth recently.
You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">
Yeah, we know, but we call them knuckle dragging Neanderthal Repiglicans </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Do you know what the worst man made eco disaster was?

LWW </div></div>

Bush?

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
06-10-2010, 05:07 AM
Nobody thought you would know.

LWW

Qtec
06-10-2010, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And thanks for helping Eg get RL's point ... and thanks for proving mine.

This isn't apocalyptic as the nattering nabobs of negativism are pimping it as.

<u>This isn't the worst oil spill in history .. or even close. </u></div></div>

Not yet, but have they plugged the hole or is it still spewing oil?



ALSO,

Do you understand the word 'our'?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called <u>our greatest ecological catastrophe </u></div></div>

What has Nigeria oil spills got to do with the blowout that is polluting the Gulf?.


Rush is a moron. He mentions Nigeria as if the spills over there are harmless. Look up 'Nigeria oil spills' in Google and see what oil spills do.

link (http://www.google.nl/search?q=Nigeria+oil+spills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a)

The reason you have an oil spill is because the oil industry put profit before responsibility. For a few million dollars this blowout could have been prevented.

Q

LWW
06-10-2010, 05:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The reason you have an oil spill is because the <s>oil industry put profit before responsibility</s> moonbat left pursued a legal agenda which pushed drilling off the continental shelf and into deep water.

Q

</div></div>

I fixed that for you.

LWW

Sev
06-10-2010, 05:17 AM
<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: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is being called our greatest ecological catastrophe ...ever, and you have this cavalier attitude....that
'Así es la vida" ...colloquially "sh*t happens"
and your reply then is:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/What-me-worry-715605.jpg </div></div>

Please try to interpret what you are reading properly. I was giving an opinion of what Rush was getting at. I was not being cavalier at all.

And far as the worst ecological disaster. I had not noticed that a large asteroid had crashed into the earth recently.
You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You do know what Dinosaurs were dont you?? </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">
Yeah, we know, but we call them knuckle dragging Neanderthal Repiglicans </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

Funny girl. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

Sev
06-10-2010, 05:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">only a fool would try to trivialize this disaster, by comparing it to events in the Mesozoic Era. Far as I know back then, there weren't large numbers of people deriving there livlihood from the bounty of the sea, nor were there multitudes with their life savings tied up in coastal r.e., or that have business ventures that depended on tourism.
A complete lack of concern for the people affected.
I can see where Rush gets his audience from......and let's just say there ain't no doctoral candidates amongst them </div></div>

Again read what you wrote.
greatest ecological disaster ever.
Try man made disaster next time.

The only one trivializing is you. As you are the one that popped up and began making snarky comments.

Qtec
06-10-2010, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The reason you have an oil spill is because the <s>oil industry put profit before responsibility</s> moonbat left pursued a legal agenda which pushed drilling off the continental shelf and into deep water.

Q

</div></div>

I fixed that for you.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Valves can be closed or "actuated" either manually or by hydraulics. The control can come from an automatic control system which is part of the blow out preventer assembly or remotely. Normally, the remote control is provided by an electrical cable that runs from the blow out preventer to the drilling rig on the surface.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>For a mere half million dollars more, one could add a control that uses sound pulses transmitted through the water to control a valve. This mechanism is not required by the US government for blow out preventers in the Gulf of Mexico, but is required by other countries</span>.

A modern blow out preventer for an undersea well consists of a series or "stack" of several different valves, with different methods of actuation, and a control system. Stacks can have 4 to 10 or more valves of different types (ram or annular), with different control mechanisms. The idea is to provide redundancy: if one valve or control mechanism fails, another should be able to take over to close the well.

Finally, a BOP stack can include a top-kill or choke mechanism. As we have learned, the idea of a top-kill mechanism is to allow the drillers to pump heavy "drilling mud" into the well to counter the natural pressure. When enough weight of drilling mud is in the well, the flow stops, and the well can be closed. Later, the well can be re-opened and the drilling mud pumped out to get the well flowing for production.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Thus, it takes several things going wrong for a blow out preventer to fail to prevent a gusher. It should be, and is, a very rare event. Since 1980, we drilled over 3,800 wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which account for one-third of US domestic oil production. Deepwater Horizon is the second failure in that period. The other one was some thirty years ago.</span>

And that appears to be the story. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>BP, Transocean, and Halliburton avoided standard tests and inspections on the blow out preventer stack. </span>The stack apparently does not have a top-kill mechanism, forcing the crews to improvise on the battered BOP stack on the sea floor. We also learned that three days before the disaster, the crews took an economic short cut by pumping free seawater instead of expensive, man-made drilling mud into the well to try to close it. The crews apparently knew, or should have known, that the seawater was not countering the pressure in the well. The crew knew for at least an hour before the explosion that the blow out preventer was failing. This much we know, even before the formal investigation ordered by the White House gets going. </div></div>

This was a man made disaster, not an act of God.

Q

Sev
06-10-2010, 05:43 AM
You would think that they would not need to be prodded to install what is basically a pretty inexpensive device that would in the end substantially decrease their liability.

The device would not have effected their bottom line in the least. And they have lost far more in shareholders stocks than than than the cost of the device.

Gayle in MD
06-10-2010, 10:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The reason you have an oil spill is because the <s>oil industry put profit before responsibility</s> moonbat left pursued a legal agenda which pushed drilling off the continental shelf and into deep water.

Q

</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Cheney agreed to allow them to skip the measly $500,000.00 safety kill equipment.

The Republican mantra of deregulation, and the general overall mood among agency heads, had been one of "Do as you please, corporate America!" from oil, to coal, to banks, for eight years, and every agency was contaminated by Bush/Cheney appointees, with cronies from the very industries supposedly under scrutiny of regulation. Hence, there has been no oversight throughout, and not enough time to reform a broken government., after eight years of a broken Executive branch.

The deep water drilling, according to Pickens, has come about because the oil companies have had to go deeper to fid the oil, shallow wells having already been drilled long enough to provide less oil for the trouble.

It had nothing to do with anything other then resource volumm VS. costs.

I cannot believe the BS this troll comes up with, truly incredible!

G.</span>
I fixed that for you.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Valves can be closed or "actuated" either manually or by hydraulics. The control can come from an automatic control system which is part of the blow out preventer assembly or remotely. Normally, the remote control is provided by an electrical cable that runs from the blow out preventer to the drilling rig on the surface.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>For a mere half million dollars more, one could add a control that uses sound pulses transmitted through the water to control a valve. This mechanism is not required by the US government for blow out preventers in the Gulf of Mexico, but is required by other countries</span>.

A modern blow out preventer for an undersea well consists of a series or "stack" of several different valves, with different methods of actuation, and a control system. Stacks can have 4 to 10 or more valves of different types (ram or annular), with different control mechanisms. The idea is to provide redundancy: if one valve or control mechanism fails, another should be able to take over to close the well.

Finally, a BOP stack can include a top-kill or choke mechanism. As we have learned, the idea of a top-kill mechanism is to allow the drillers to pump heavy "drilling mud" into the well to counter the natural pressure. When enough weight of drilling mud is in the well, the flow stops, and the well can be closed. Later, the well can be re-opened and the drilling mud pumped out to get the well flowing for production.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Thus, it takes several things going wrong for a blow out preventer to fail to prevent a gusher. It should be, and is, a very rare event. Since 1980, we drilled over 3,800 wells in the Gulf of Mexico, which account for one-third of US domestic oil production. Deepwater Horizon is the second failure in that period. The other one was some thirty years ago.</span>

And that appears to be the story. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>BP, Transocean, and Halliburton avoided standard tests and inspections on the blow out preventer stack. </span>The stack apparently does not have a top-kill mechanism, forcing the crews to improvise on the battered BOP stack on the sea floor. We also learned that three days before the disaster, the crews took an economic short cut by pumping free seawater instead of expensive, man-made drilling mud into the well to try to close it. The crews apparently knew, or should have known, that the seawater was not countering the pressure in the well. The crew knew for at least an hour before the explosion that the blow out preventer was failing. This much we know, even before the formal investigation ordered by the White House gets going. </div></div>

This was a man made disaster, not an act of God.

Q </div></div>

eg8r
06-10-2010, 12:25 PM
lww you keep trying to push this issue of the depths of water they were drilling and that is not the root cause. I am with qtip on this one. Had the oil company been doing what it was supposed to do we would not have had the leak in the first place. It is what it is, they had to drill farther out and further down, but they were doing it safely all the way up till a month ago. The actual depth of the drilling is not what caused the leak.

eg8r

eg8r
06-10-2010, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cheney agreed to allow them to skip the measly $500,000.00 safety kill equipment.</div></div>Oh quit your stupid partisan blame game. Obama had plenty of time in the past year to force them to add in the additional equipment. Everything with you is partisan crap, W did this W did that. When are you going to grow up and act your age. Thanks to qtip for keeping on subject and blaming BP for being greedy and taking shortcuts.

eg8r

eg8r
06-10-2010, 12:28 PM
Yep, it was definitely an insanely bad decision that was made that is going to impact all of us.

eg8r

wolfdancer
06-10-2010, 12:46 PM
I think you are posting on the wrong site with that idiotic ass-essmant. A twit like you, should be posting on Twitter, instead.

LWW
06-10-2010, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This was a man made disaster, not an act of God.

Q </div></div>

Who said that it wasn't?

LWW

LWW
06-10-2010, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lww you keep trying to push this issue of the depths of water they were drilling and that is not the root cause. I am with qtip on this one. Had the oil company been doing what it was supposed to do we would not have had the leak in the first place. It is what it is, they had to drill farther out and further down, but they were doing it safely all the way up till a month ago. The actual depth of the drilling is not what caused the leak.

eg8r </div></div>

I understand the point ... it is simply irrelevant.

An accident was bound to happen.

Now ... why did it happen in a mile of water?

The mile of water is what makes this so difficult to deal with. The only way it can be reached is via robots.

There are numerous places on land and on the shelf that are far safer to drill at and much easier to deal with than where we are now drilling.

To argue otherwise is like arguing that driving 100 MPH and having a tire blow out is no different than driving 10 MPH and having a tire blow out.

LWW

wolfdancer
06-10-2010, 01:43 PM
my comments were a quote...however I happen to agree with them, so you know what you can do iffen you don't like that, lww jr.
Me Trivializing ...get real....it's a couple of you numbskulls, thinking this has something to do with politics, that are trying to make it look small by comparing it to dinasaurs, WTF.....and then there is your story about "a big ocean", ( tell that one to the coastal inhabitants) etc.....now who is trivializing it....???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????
(try what.... man made disaster???) WTF do you think caused it,
Elohim ??
"Snarky"? That's disappointing,as I was hoping for something that was more irritating then that...however..even if I sugar coated my comments so as not to offend you and lww...the gist of the post would remain the same....it's a f*****g disaster....and it doesn't have a GD thing to do with dinasours, or politics you are just too close minded to figure that out

Sev
06-10-2010, 08:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">my comments were a quote...however I happen to agree with them, so you know what you can do iffen you don't like that, lww jr.
Me Trivializing ...get real....it's a couple of you numbskulls, thinking this has something to do with politics, that are trying to make it look small by comparing it to dinasaurs, WTF.....and then there is your story about "a big ocean", ( tell that one to the coastal inhabitants) etc.....now who is trivializing it....???????????????????????????????????????????? ?????
(try what.... man made disaster???) WTF do you think caused it,
Elohim ??
"Snarky"? That's disappointing,as I was hoping for something that was more irritating then that...however..even if I sugar coated my comments so as not to offend you and lww...the gist of the post would remain the same....it's a f*****g disaster....and it doesn't have a GD thing to do with dinasours, or politics you are just too close minded to figure that out </div></div>

Your loosing your mind.
Please try to stay focused and concentrate on what your reading and responding to.

wolfdancer
06-10-2010, 10:18 PM
this is the second time today, you have used loosing, instead of losing. Your spelling seems to be as bad as your comprehension.....
It might be just a little ole spill to you, and as Rush told you and yer pal...it's nothing to worry about.
Maybe if you didn't let lww do your thinking for you....( score one for the old guy)...
Seriously, you may think it to be not important....but I don't believe scientists, environmentalists, and the people who are now, or will be in the near future...directly harmed financially, and perhaps healthwise?...not to mention what the long term effects on the eco system will be...I doubt they will share your making light of the situation.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2010, 06:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cheney agreed to allow them to skip the measly $500,000.00 safety kill equipment.</div></div>Oh quit your stupid partisan blame game. Obama had plenty of time in the past year to force them to add in the additional equipment. Everything with you is partisan crap, W did this W did that. When are you going to grow up and act your age. Thanks to qtip for keeping on subject and blaming BP for being greedy and taking shortcuts.

eg8r </div></div>

FYI, the depth of the drilling is the cause of the vast difficulty in closing it. The pressure involved in water that deep, is the root cause of the impossibililty of closing the well in a timely fashion.

They are drilling in thata deep water because that's where they WANT to drill, not because of anything other than more oil for less costs, period.

Secondly, Cheney and Bush created a vast network of corporate friendly overseers who were on the take from the oil industry, that's a proven fact. hence, during the time when they were pusing for all of this deep water drilling, the Bush administraion was giving them whatever they wanted, in secret, of course, and during the Bush administration, the corruption of the oversight agencies went nuclear! Nothing was under scrutiny, not even our drinking water! Not even our parklands, or mountain tops.

Bush and Cheney, appointed oil friendly directors of the agencies charged with oversight.

BP lied about their ability to handle these deep wells.

Cheney had secret deals behind closed doors with oil, and Ken Lay selected those from the oil industry who were poil firendly cohearts, and they were put in place to defend and allow everything the oil industry wanted.

If you think a president could inherit the disaster laden country Bush left to him, and still should have plenty of time to completely reform a totally corrupted Federal Government, which was so obviously dysfunctional for eight years, then don't come out blowing your stack and accusing others of partisanship.
You prove your own partisanship by giving the Bush Administration a bye for everything they did, from spying to torture to losing nine billion dollars in Iraq while also allowoing halliburton to steal all they wanted from the American Tasxpayers.

This oil disaster is the result of Cheney's secret oil deals...that's a fact. This president was in the process of reforming the corrupted agencies left to him by Bush.

Ultimately, BP, Halliburton, and Transoceans, were all operating inefficiently and haphazardly, with money being their main goal, and safety at the bottom of their lists of things to do.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2010, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cheney agreed to allow them to skip the measly $500,000.00 safety kill equipment.</div></div>Oh quit your stupid partisan blame game. Obama had plenty of time in the past year to force them to add in the additional equipment. Everything with you is partisan crap, W did this W did that. When are you going to grow up and act your age. Thanks to qtip for keeping on subject and blaming BP for being greedy and taking shortcuts.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. </span>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.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>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." </span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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]


Bush approves offshore drilling to spur on Congress
by Chris Shunk (RSS feed) on Jul 15th 2008 at 8:07AM

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."

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]


</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Drive up price of oil, destroy public resistance in the interest of the environment. </span> </span>
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.
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>
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. </span>
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.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>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. </span>
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.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>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. </span>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

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republicans on Wednesday pressured congressional Democrats for a vote to lift a ban on offshore drilling before Congress begins its summer recess.


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.

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.

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 »

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.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said the president was perpetrating a "hoax" by pushing for more offshore oil drilling.

"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,' " 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."

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.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 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?

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.

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.

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
The Bush Administration has called the Democratic initiative a “sham” and a “hoax,” news agencies said.

"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.

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.

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

</div></div>

Gayle in MD
06-11-2010, 07:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Search Bush Record Go


Bad Science and the Bush Record
How the Bush administration has systematically distorted science to weaken regulations and serve political ends.



The Record: Examples of the Bush administration's systematic distortion of science to serve political ends.


Words of Concern: Scientists, newspapers and policy experts speak out.


The Junk Science of George W. Bush by Robert Kennedy Jr.


Hard Job of Blowing the Whistle Gets Harder, from the Christian Science Monitor



No matter how strong the nation's environmental protections, our laws and regulations can be effective only if they are as protective as possible and are properly implemented and enforced. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been criticized –- and justifiably -– for distorting science to weaken regulations so as to serve its political objectives.

The White House's favored tactics include misinterpreting information, ignoring scientific evidence, muzzling government scientists, censoring government studies, removing independent experts from federal advisory panels or stacking those panels with industry consultants. These tactics not only override basic environmental protections in favor of industry, but also undermines the authority of science itself.

It's no wonder the administration's mantra of "sound science" amounts to little more than a policy whereby decisions are based on whatever science sounds good to the White House.

What follows are specific examples compiled from NRDC's Web site -- "The Bush Record" -- illustrating how this administration's reliance on bad science threatens public health and the environment.

Toxics and Health


2/3/05 -- The Environmental Protection Agency manipulated science in developing industry-favored power plant pollution rules, according to the agency's own inspector general.
1/10/05 -- A report by the National Academy of Science, ordered by the Bush administration, concludes that it is safe for people to drink water with as much as 20 parts per billion of perchlorate –- that level is 20 times the standard recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency two years ago.
11/15/04 -- The EPA accepts the recommendation of an industry-funded scientific review to downgrade the chemical captan from a "probable" human carcinogen to "not likely."
8/31/04 -- Bush administration proposes relaxing safety standards on the toxic metal selenium, which causes mass deformities and death in waterfowl.
8/15/04 -- Bush administration turns down a petition by health advocates to strengthen health standards for beryllium, a metal that OSHA concluded causes cancer and lung disease.
8/13/04 -- EPA criticized by Congress for issuing a rule that allows industry to treat toxin-laden towels as laundry, rather than as hazardous waste.
5/21/04 -- EPA recalculates the "safe" level of formaldehyde used in plywood manufacture to 10,000 times below the previous level -- after relying on a on a risk assessment provided by the chemical industry. A month later, the World Health Organization finds that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans, with sufficient evidence of nasopharyngeal cancer in humans and strong evidence of leukemia in humans. The pertinent studies were all in the published scientific literature before EPA took its action.
4/23/04 -- Federal court reprimands EPA for relying on an industry study in deciding that fertilizers can safely contain higher levels of toxic residue.
4/7/04 -- Evidence surfaces that the Bush administration downplayed the effects of mercury while working with EPA officials to write regulations for coal-fired power plants.
4/6/04 -- EPA allows pesticide industry to block regulatory initiatives that would protect children and wildlife from unintentionally ingesting rat poison
4/1/04 -- Bush administration, in cooperation with the U.S. chemical industry, weakens a European Union plan that would have required chemical manufacturers to test their products and disclose any potential health effects before selling them in Europe.
3/11/04 -- EPA's inspector general reports that agency officials repeatedly made misleading statements about purported improvements in national drinking water quality.
10/31/03 -- EPA decides not to restrict the use of the pesticide atrazine, which is known to cause cancer, and reduces its monitoring to only a small number of contaminated watersheds.
9/9/03 -- EPA inspector general reveals that Bush administration officials instructed the agency to downplay the dangers of air pollution in the aftermath of the World Trade Center collapse on September 11, 2001.
4/28/03 -- Bush administration imposes a gag order on EPA officials from publicly discussing perchlorate, a rocket fuel ingredient found in drinking water.
1/21/03 -- EPA declares that drinking water 12 times more contaminated with the herbicide atrazine than allowed by law does not pose a health problem.
10/8/02 -- Bush administration rejects renowned scientists for service on a Centers for Disease Control federal advisory committee, replacing them with individuals who have ties to the lead industry.
9/17/02 -- Bush administration replaces officials and committees from the Department of Health and Services with members who have strong ties to regulated industries.
9/02 -- Industry-funded group removes critical information on the dangers of perchlorate from a government scientific journal.
7/19/02 -- EPA determines that organophosphorous pesticides pose no danger to children. Instead of using the typical 10-fold safety standard for tests, however, EPA uses only a 3-fold safety margin.
7/8/02 -- EPA allows Louisiana rice growers to use Carbofuran, one of the most toxic pesticides in existence. The pesticide, banned since 1998, has killed tens of thousands of birds.



Water, Air and Global Warming


11/8/04 -- Bush administration continues to resist regulating greenhouse gas pollution despite two newly released studies that confirm global warming is already drastically affecting conditions in the United States.
9/22/04 -- EPA records reveal, for the third time, that the agency's proposal for regulating mercury pollution from power plants copied passages -- in some cases word for word -- from memos written by a law firm representing the utility industry. It just so happens that the head of EPA's air program and his chief counsel were both partners at the firm before President Bush installed them at the agency.
2/4/04 -- Former EPA employee reveals that the agency knowingly used unreliable data when denying a petition to stop the use of sewage sludge as farm fertilizer.
1/30/04 -- EPA proposes extremely weak mercury emission regulations, much of which is transposed -- sometimes verbatim -- from memos submitted from a law firm representing the utility industry.
10/17/03 -- EPA announces it will not regulate dioxins from land applied sewage sludge, despite findings that dioxin exposure poses a threat to human health.
6/23/03 -- Bush administration forces EPA to remove a clause on the harmful effects of climate change, from the first-ever comprehensive report on environmental problems facing the United States.
11/9/02 -- Top Bush administration political appointee at Interior reverses earlier findings that air pollution from a proposed coal power plant in Kentucky would significantly hamper visibility at the nearby Mammoth Cave National Park.



Public Lands, Parks and Forests


1/28/05 -- BLM approves construction of 50,000 new natural gas wells in southeastern Montana and northeastern Wyoming, despite the threat to national parks and local air quality.
11/26/04 -- Records reveal that EPA deleted comments that referred in a negative manner to the Bush's proposed rollback of the roadless rule.
11/15/04 -- Evidence surfaces that Bush administration quietly changed rules, allowing oil companies to skip environmental requirements when drilling in National Parks.
11/10/04 -- Former BLM employee sues the bureau for wrongfully firing him when he refused to comply with orders to downplay toxic and radioactive dangers at a Nevada copper mine.
10/27/04 -- BLM overestimates the potential amount of natural gas underneath Colorado's Roan Plateau, stating that the gas reserves could power the country for nine months. A USGS report concludes that the tapped gas supplies could actually power the country for only 6 days.
4/29/04 -- EPA experts accuse Bush administration of altering science on poor air quality over National Parks.
2/24/04 -- Mine Safety and Health Administration demotes and relocates a top official for accusing the agency of covering up facts during the investigation of a massive coal slurry spill in West Virginia.
4/7/03 -- Bush administration deletes key information in letter urging the United Nations to remove Yellowstone from a list of endangered World Heritage Sites.
1/17/03 -- Bush administration claims that environmental laws restrict energy development in the West despite government findings that the vast majority of public lands are open for oil and gas drilling.
1/17/02 -- Interior Department claims that polar bears can be adequately protected from oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge despite government studies showing the opposite to be true.
1/3/04 -- Bush administration grants a Kentucky coal company a reprieve from obeying federal law, allowing mining to continue without a permit.



Wildlife


2/9/05 -- Hundreds of government wildlife scientists report political pressure, scientific distortion
12/18/04 -- Court records reveal that a Bush administration political appointee in the Interior Department conspired with industry lobbyists to support the California Farm Bureau's lawsuit against her own agency. After a series of emails and telephone calls Deputy Assistant Interior Secretary Julie MacDonald tried to scuttle scientific recommendations that favored protecting endangered fish and wildlife habitat by limiting the amount of water diverted for irrigation.
10/2/04 -- NOAA orders federal biologists to rewrite a report that had concluded harmful effects on endangered salmon from a federal plan to divert millions of gallons of water from rivers in Northern California to the southern part of the state.
7/20/04 -- USFWS fires Florida scientist who publicly criticized the agency for using faulty science when approving eight development projects in the critical habitat of the endangered Florida panther.
5/21/04 -- Government biologist resigns after accusing the Bush administration of politicizing science, and illegally disregarding his advice leading to the massive fish kill in the Klamath River.
5/3/04 -- Evidence surfaces that USFWS employed false data to conclude that the Florida panther's survival is not in jeopardy -- when in fact the panther population is severely dwindling.
4/15/04 -- Federal officials deleted information used in a cost-benefit analysis of its recovery of the endangered bull trout, falsely concluding that protecting the species would cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
11/1/02 -- Bush administration admits to hiding three reports regarding Klamath River policies, which suggest that protecting water levels would benefit both wildlife and the economy through recreation. However, the administration later chooses to divert water for agriculture, leading to a massive fish kill.
10/28/02 -- NMFS whistleblower accuses the Bush administration of forcing his agency to violate the Endangered Species Act by overruling concerns that diverting water from the Klamath River for irrigation would harm fish. Subsequently, a massive fish kill resulted that later was linked to the administration's decision.
8/22/02 -- Industry lobbyists convince the Mineral Management Service to weaken sperm whale protections, which they complained hindered the oil and gas industry.
1/17/02 -- Interior Department abruptly reverses its decision that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would harm polar bears.



http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp

Top
</div></div>

pooltchr
06-11-2010, 07:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They are drilling in thata deep water because that's where they WANT to drill, not because of anything other than more oil for less costs, period.


G. </div></div>

I would love to see the data to back up this claim. How can you think it is easier and cheaper to drill a well a mile under the ocean, where everything must be done by robots, than it would be to drill in more shallow water, or on land???????

I doubt they WANT to be drilling out there, when they could be working in shallow water and still tapping the same reserves, if only they could get permission from the government to do so.

Oil companies do not drill where they want to....they drill where they are given permission to drill.

Steve

Sev
06-11-2010, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">this is the second time today, you have used loosing, instead of losing. Your spelling seems to be as bad as your comprehension.....
It might be just a little ole spill to you, and as Rush told you and yer pal...it's nothing to worry about.
Maybe if you didn't let lww do your thinking for you....( score one for the old guy)...
Seriously, you may think it to be not important....but I don't believe scientists, environmentalists, and the people who are now, or will be in the near future...directly harmed financially, and perhaps healthwise?...not to mention what the long term effects on the eco system will be...I doubt they will share your making light of the situation.

</div></div>

I am fully cognizant of the economic and ecological impact that this is going to have.

Again you misinterpreted the nature of the original post which seems to have put your knickers in a not.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2010, 07:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They are drilling in thata deep water because that's where they WANT to drill, not because of anything other than more oil for less costs, period.


G. </div></div>

I would love to see the data to back up this claim. How can you think it is easier and cheaper to drill a well a mile under the ocean, where everything must be done by robots, than it would be to drill in more shallow water, or on land???????

I doubt they WANT to be drilling out there, when they could be working in shallow water and still tapping the same reserves, if only they could get permission from the government to do so.

Oil companies do not drill where they want to....they drill where they are given permission to drill.

Steve </div></div>

I am really sick and tired of your stupid posts based on nothing at all but your stupid assumptions. Are you really that dumb ? You think there is the same available oil in shallow water, as there is in deep water?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>HA HA HA HA, this is one for the books! </span>

They are drilling deeper because that is where the vast resources of oil are left. That is the ONLY reason why they have been pusing for deeper drilling for over a decade, while lying about their ability to handle this kind of disaster in deep water.

If they drill deeper, they get far more oil for their trouble, than they can get in shallow waters.

Is this what you like to call common sense, both you and LWW writing your sheer stupidity on here, when neither of you knows a damned thing, apparently, about the oil industry.

Go on along and converse with someone else with your stunning ignorance, and stop posting it to me.

Now that your ignorance has been throoughly exposeed, you can move on to some stupid comments about...I knew she was reading my posts, lol, and change the subject from yet another of your illogical, uninformed, stupid opinions. Just stop posting them to me.

G.

LWW
06-11-2010, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gubmint regs drove the drillers that far out, </div></div>

Another strawman. ie not the cause of the blowout.

Q </div></div>

Pay attention.

LWW

LWW
06-11-2010, 08:04 AM
<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: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
They are drilling in thata deep water because that's where they WANT to drill, not because of anything other than more oil for less costs, period.


G. </div></div>

I would love to see the data to back up this claim. How can you think it is easier and cheaper to drill a well a mile under the ocean, where everything must be done by robots, than it would be to drill in more shallow water, or on land???????

I doubt they WANT to be drilling out there, when they could be working in shallow water and still tapping the same reserves, if only they could get permission from the government to do so.

Oil companies do not drill where they want to....they drill where they are given permission to drill.

Steve </div></div>

I am really sick and tired of your stupid posts based on nothing at all but your stupid assumptions. Are you really that dumb ? You think there is the same available oil in shallow water, as there is in deep water?

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>HA HA HA HA, this is one for the books! </span>

They are drilling deeper because that is where the vast resources of oil are left. That is the ONLY reason why they have been pusing for deeper drilling for over a decade, while lying about their ability to handle this kind of disaster in deep water.

If they drill deeper, they get far more oil for their trouble, than they can get in shallow waters.

Is this what you like to call common sense, both you and LWW writing your sheer stupidity on here, when neither of you knows a damned thing, apparently, about the oil industry.

Go on along and converse with someone else with your stunning ignorance, and stop posting it to me.

Now that your ignorance has been throoughly exposeed, you can move on to some stupid comments about...I knew she was reading my posts, lol, and change the subject from yet another of your illogical, uninformed, stupid opinions. Just stop posting them to me.

G. </div></div>

IOW you don't have any data to back up your ridiculous claims ... but, we already knew that.

If there is no oil to be drilled for on land and in shallower waters ... why does the moonbat left get their shorts in a knot over it?

LWW

LWW
06-11-2010, 08:16 AM
From the New York Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/washington/18drill.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the federal Energy Information Administration estimates that roughly 75 billion barrels of oil in the United States are off-limits for development </div></div>

We import 160,000,000 barrels per year from Saudi Arabia. (http://www.quoteoil.com/oil-imports.html)

IOW ... the bans which the moonbat left has pushed for have placed enough oil off limits, that if we actually developed those fields, would replace all of the Saudi oil imported for the next four hundred sixty eight years and nine months at our current rates of use!

Put another way ... the only reason that the US is dependent on foreign is that our energy policy has been ran by anti capitalist leftists. They oppose us using US oil ... they oppose clean coal ... they oppose nuclear ... they oppose hydro ... they oppose solar ... they oppose wind ... but they ignore facts quite well.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>TRUTH VERSUS TRUTHINESS</u></span>

LWW

pooltchr
06-11-2010, 08:39 AM
So, I ask you to provide documentation to back up your claim, and you immediately go on the attack, while failing to provide any documentation to back up your claim.

Typical!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

eg8r
06-11-2010, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. </div></div>Just great...What is the first thing you do when asked to stop being a partisan wuss...You go looking for an excuse to give Obama a break for being ineffective. The problem here was with BP. Even if deregulation is put in process that still does not detract from the real root cause which is BP thought they could get away with saving half a million bucks and now it is costing us all dearly.

eg8r

eg8r
06-11-2010, 09:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, the depth of the drilling is the cause of the vast difficulty in closing it. </div></div>Great then you are just proving lww's strawman argument that you should be pretty darned pissed off at your partisan little self for approving (without a vote of course) legislation that pushed them that far out.

I guess lww is right, if he throws a strawman out there sooner or later you will prove him right.

eg8r

LWW
06-11-2010, 09:43 AM
Of course she will ... but. it waasn't a strawman.

Pay attention. BP will most likely be found to be at fault in this instance.

That doesn't change the fact that deep water drilling is only happening because that's the only are the feds allow it to happen here.

That doesn't change the fact that in deep water drilling such as this an accident was inevitable.

That doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of oil in places where it is far safer to extract.

That doesn't change the fact that if this spill wouldn't have happened, another in deep water would have sooner or later.

That doesn't change the fact that this would spill wouldn't have happened had BP and others been allowed to develop safer oil fields.

The root cause is that we are getting our energy from extremely dangerous places ... such as deep water drilling and terror sponsoring states ... because the moonbat left has fought to stop us from developing safe oil fields.

Meanwhile the Brits, the Canadians, Brazil, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, and many other nations are laughing all the way to the bank over our insanity.

LWW

eg8r
06-11-2010, 10:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That doesn't change the fact that deep water drilling is only happening because that's the only are the feds allow it to happen here.
</div></div>What legislation proves this?

eg8r

LWW
06-11-2010, 04:41 PM
This is common knowledge and was taught in schools ... at least in the 1970's ... that our congress was protecting us from the <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>EEEVILLL BIG OIL</u></span> by forcing them away from our coastline.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Offshore Drilling Ban History</span></u>


<u>Offshore Drilling Ban History</u>

Since the late 1960s, the United States has debated the pros and cons of offshore oil drilling. Because of a number of legislative actions throughout history, the federal government has rights to control the actions of companies in most maritime waters. Following a series of accidents that resulted in oil spills, a nearly full ban on offshore drilling was put into place at different times by both Congress and the president. However, confrontation continued for years because of the actions of the island nation of Cuba and the rising prices of oil to Americans, culminating in a number of political actions during the early 21st century.

<u>Legal Aspects</u>
According to the United States Constitution, the federal government has power over the navigable waters surrounding the nation. This has been upheld both legislatively and judiciously on several occasions. In 1953, the Submerged Lands Act and Continental Shelf Lands Act both reiterated Commerce Clause that gave the power to the federal government. This was followed by a Supreme Court decision of 1960, which established ownership of the bordering waters out to 3.5 miles as belonging to the states, with the federal government controlling the rest. The exceptions are Texas and Florida with 10.5 miles. These laws have given the federal government authority to control oil drilling facilities operating outside these states.

<u>Early Events</u>
The backlash against offshore oil drilling was heavily sparked by a major oil spill from a Unocal platform off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., in 1969. While the initial oil leak was contained, a backlash from the public prompted the state to remove the company's state charter. This was followed in 1981 with a congressional ban on drilling on the outer-continental shelf. The situation grew worse due to a oil spill from the Exxon Valdez tanker in Prince William Sound, Alaska, in 1989. This spill dumped 10.8 million gallons of oil into the ocean, the largest environmental disaster caused by humans in history. The public attention of the event and subsequent backlash from environmentalists pointing out the dangers of offshore drilling prompted President George H.W. Bush to sign a moratorium on the activity in 1990.

<u>Significance</u>
Since the beginning of the offshore drilling ban, a debate has existed within the political framework of the United States. Opponents of the offshore ban believe that opening up oil wells in the oceans off the coast of the country would help drive down fuel prices for consumers as well as make America safe against economic threats from oil-trading countries. However, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, the five-year time frame between leasing the areas for oil drills and the actual production time would mean little impact on fuel prices. Between 2012 and 2030, oil production would increase 1.6 percent.

<u>Considerations</u>
One challenge made by proponents of offshore drilling is the fact that the country of Cuba, located within U.S. federal waters, started drilling off of its own coast. In addition, according to Time magazine, the country is prepared to begin drilling between Florida and Cuba. This deal was further announced on Oct. 31, 2008, by a joint conference between Brazil and Cuba in a deal with the Petrobras oil company to supply foreign sources with the oil.

<u>Bush Administration</u>
During the second Bush administration, the debate about oil drilling became a central political issue. Although Texas and Louisiana have continued to drill for oil within the 10.5 mile area around the state, a 2006 compromise opened up a 8.3 million acre area in the Gulf of Mexico to offshore drilling. Two years later, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order signed by the elder Bush, opening up the possibility of offshore drilling. <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>However, with the 1981 ban still in place</u></span>, companies cannot bid on leases until 2012.


Read more: Offshore Drilling Ban History | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5382366_offshore-drilling-ban-history.html#ixzz0qaRHzFlM] </div></div>

HERE YOU GO. (http://www.ehow.com/about_5382366_offshore-drilling-ban-history.html)

LWW

Gayle in MD
06-11-2010, 06:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FYI, the depth of the drilling is the cause of the vast difficulty in closing it. </div></div>Great then you are just proving lww's strawman argument that you should be pretty darned pissed off at your partisan little self for approving (without a vote of course) legislation that pushed them that far out.

I guess lww is right, if he throws a strawman out there soone is r or later you will prove him right.

eg8r </div></div>

That is ridiculous. You didn't read anything in the post or you couldn't write such an absurd statement. They are drilling in deep water because that's where the oil is most plentiful.

What you're seeing is exactly what Republican policies look like, B P, allowed to drill without worrying, where ever and however they wish, with no patern for eight years of Bush, who has a slew of deregulaory sins to account for.

Read the list.

G.

eg8r
06-11-2010, 07:23 PM
LOL, it is obvious that you are once again cherry picking what you want to read and ignoring everything else.

eg8r

LWW
06-12-2010, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are drilling in deep water because that's where the oil is most plentiful.

G. </div></div>

That explains why Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar,UAE, and Kuwait are sitting atop all of those massive oil fields.

Get an education.

LWW

LWW
06-12-2010, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it is obvious that you are once again cherry picking what you want to read and ignoring everything else.

eg8r </div></div>

That's not quite correct. "ONCE AGAIN" implies that she ever stopped and then restarted.

She is simply parroting the party line.

LWW

LWW
06-12-2010, 07:45 AM
Well ... I was listening to the radio this Am with some retired oil guru.

His prediction, assuming the regime enforces the offshore ban, is that the wells:

- Half of them will simply move into even deeper water increasing the risks of a greater disaster exponentially.

- The other half will, taking the jobs with them, move to the continental shelf off of Cuba where they can drill in shallower water like they wish they could here.

- ANWR and other on land sites will still be blocked.

- Pump prices in the US will rise to the $6.00-$8.00 a gallon range until the wells get restarted.

- US dependency on foreign oil will skyrocket.

- This last recession will look like prosperity in comparison with what this all causes.

LWW

wolfdancer
06-13-2010, 12:43 PM
it's "knot", not, "not". Get yerself a spell check
Just a stupid "CYA" reply......
On one hand you think the spill is nothing, on the other hand it's Obama's fault....it's nothing to worry about, but Obama is delaying cleaning it up.....get together with your hero and come up with a single set of statements, if you want to continue to vie with lww, and the other guy here, as the leader of the pack
You seem to adjust the facts to fit yours and l's theories.
You have zero credability with me, not that you would be concerned about that...as to your perv comment....how ******* perverse is it for the freedom fighter and the great white hunter, to be drooling....getting their nuts?, over the idea of using a stun gun to torture a 62 yr old woman?
I sent my cousin, a life long outdoorsman, your hunting post....he's still laughing about it....but don't know if he took my suggestion and posted it on the wall at the Rod and Gun club, where has been a 50 + yr member.
He didn't actually say the line...but I'm guessing that he thought:
"that dog don't hunt"

Sev
06-13-2010, 05:41 PM
Poor wolfi.
Gets called on a perverted comment best made by a juvenile rather and a mature individual and is upset about it.

You may want to consult your doctor. I'm starting to worry about you.

Gayle in MD
06-14-2010, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, it is obvious that you are once again cherry picking what you want to read and ignoring everything else.

eg8r </div></div>

No, it's obvious you didn't read the posted documentation, as usual.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">which is BP thought they could get away with saving half a million bucks and now it is costing us all dearly.
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">BP didn't think it, they knew it, after Cheney held his secret meeting with them.
Do you know of the changes this administration had already put into place in their quest to clean up the regulatory agencies?

I didn't think so.

Why did Obama open up drilling, except to placate Republicans, and try to get them on line to end their obstructionism, and agree to get serious about movoing toward renewables.

Any way you slice this mess, Republicans cannot deny that Bush removed more safety regulatory fail safe legislation than any administration since REagan! AGain, Republican Policies always fail, or at worst, make everything worse.

There is no denying their historical actions to deregulate. No denying that Bush did so in a way which made it very hard for a new president to correct his disastrous non regulatory legacy, which you would understand had you read my posted material.

Don't bother responding. There is more than enough partisan RW BS in this thread already.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


</span>

pooltchr
06-14-2010, 09:34 AM
It would have made no difference what safety regulations were in place if BP was going to ignore them. Which is what happened. They were using shortcuts and ignoring safety regulations.
The oil spill is not the fault of the government. The failure to expedite the clean up is most definitely the fault of the government.

Now, how are you going to blame Bush for the failure of the government to act quickly and responsibly to address a problem that happened a year and a half after he was out of office?

Remember, Obama said he was in charge from the very beginning.
Steve

Gayle in MD
06-14-2010, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it's "knot", not, "not". Get yerself a spell check
Just a stupid "CYA" reply......
On one hand you think the spill is nothing, on the other hand it's Obama's fault....it's nothing to worry about, but Obama is delaying cleaning it up.....get together with your hero and come up with a single set of statements, if you want to continue to vie with lww, and the other guy here, as the leader of the pack
You seem to adjust the facts to fit yours and l's theories.
You have zero credability with me, not that you would be concerned about that...as to your perv comment....how ******* perverse is it for the freedom fighter and the great white hunter, to be drooling....getting their nuts?, over the idea of using a stun gun to torture a 62 yr old woman?
I sent my cousin, a life long outdoorsman, your hunting post....he's still laughing about it....but don't know if he took my suggestion and posted it on the wall at the Rod and Gun club, where has been a 50 + yr member.
He didn't actually say the line...but I'm guessing that he thought:
"that dog don't hunt" </div></div>

The Republicans should be apologizing for allowing Bush Jr.'s "fast-track" of oil drilling and exploration in 2003, where his administration - and they - eased regulations.

We wouldn't be trying to clean it up in the first place, without the Repuboican deregulatory (failed) policies, as I always like to say, corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. From greenspan, to the uneducated right, they all spew deregulation, and think the free market solves everything.

Hard to build that case now with the Gulf full of ooil, and the banks having very nearly burried the country in their corruption and pure greed.


Thank the Republicans for allowing the oil companies to MONITOR themselves. And thank all of those voters who put GW back in office for a second term because in 2008, after he proposed to Congress a lift on the OCS drilling ban and they didn't approve (primarily Democratic Congress by then), he lifted the OCS ban by executive order. What was the Republican campaign platform for the last presidential election? Let's see - oh yeh. It was DRILL BABY DRILL. Before the comeback about Obama, get real!!!

In an attempt to move the stalled climate change bill - stalled by Republicans - Obama signaled he would allow drilling to miles off Virginia provided coastlines are protected which would include conducting studies of the mid-atlantic outer continental shelf and determining not only the quantity of potential oil and gas resources but seismic exploration. He also said tht drilling off Virginia's coast would be delayed past the proposed 2011 drilling date.

That's hardly the green light Bush gave when he lifted the OCS ban in 2008 by executive order when the Democrats in Congress did not pass his proposal to lift the ban or a "fast-track" measure.

Every disaster we face now, can be traced right straight back to Republican policies. ALL of them.

Jindel is down there trying to exploit this disaster, while he has failed to spend the money he was given, millions, to prevent the oil from reaching his own stat'es shores.

I wouldn't be surprised if all of those Republican Governors are holding back using the money they've been given, just so they cann use this disaster for re-election.

WTF have THEY been doing? Not much, as far as I can tell!

G.

eg8r
06-14-2010, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't bother responding. There is more than enough partisan RW BS in this thread already. </div></div>So insted of doing the right thing you opted to defer to your normal left-wing partisan posts.

eg8r

Qtec
06-15-2010, 12:23 AM
Here YOU go.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/oil-rig.jpg

You act like there are no rigs close to shore. The above map proves otherwise. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are more than 3,800 rigs in that area alone and its obvious why the oil companies are drilling further from shore - there is no more room. LOL </span>
The only place to find new oil is further out to sea and when you look at the map of the sea floor, that means drilling a lot deeper.

map (http://www.cccarto.com/mc252/)
Q

wolfdancer
06-15-2010, 01:29 AM
There was more news on the spill and containment tonight....seems that the have a couple of messages that show that BP tried to save a few million on the drilling safety, and their own engineers were concerned.

Gayle in MD
06-15-2010, 02:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lww you keep trying to push this issue of the depths of water they were drilling and that is not the root cause. I am with qtip on this one. Had the oil company been doing what it was supposed to do we would not have had the leak in the first place. It is what it is, they had to drill farther out and further down, but they were doing it safely all the way up till a month ago. The actual depth of the drilling is not what caused the leak.

eg8r </div></div>
BP's incompetence and greed is behind the blowout, deregulatory Republican policies, laid the groundwork, as well.


The depth of the drilling plays a role in the difficulty in closing it.

Depth and resulting pressure from the depth, complicates solving the problem.

The oil companies would prefer to drill deeper, because there is more oil, the deeper they go.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-15-2010, 02:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There was more news on the spill and containment tonight....seems that the have a couple of messages that show that BP tried to save a few million on the drilling safety, and their own engineers were concerned.
</div></div>

Same thing as when the greedy corporate pigs on Wall Street, bilked the public, with their own brand of F**k the publilc's interests, and bottom line only concerns, even to the point of nearly destroying this country.

BP has been lying all along, and now some experts are saying that the entire wellbox is leaking, and leaking even more oil, as a result of their containment attempts.

According to information that has been out there for weeks, this well was a disaster from the start.

Legally, once someone else touches that well, BP will have a case to deny some of their responsibility.

Since none of the scientists have faith in any of the known methods for jamming it shut, many of them sayiing those very attempts blew out more of the containment box, it looks to me like that thing will be spewing oil until relief wells are drilled.

Protecting the environment when drilling in the ocean, is a myth. Chemical poisoning is taking a toll on animals and people. BP is sending people out in the dark of night to pick up carcuses of animals, to try to hide the devastation on animals. In some cases they are chopping off the head of fish and turtles, to complicate autopsey results.

People in all of the neighboring states, are having the same respiratory and eye and sinus health complaints. Surfers have blisters and skin rashes. The filthy oil, is making people sick.

BP is only interested in stop gag methods to dilute and hide proof of the wide spread carnage.

For decades, Republicans have been on line with oil to hide and deny the devastation it causes to our environment.

This time, thankfully, we don't have a Republican President, nor a Republican majority. IOW, we have a shot at holding BP to account for all of it.

As time goes on, IMO, the president's careful approach will be much more appreciated. Just think about all the people whose lives were ruined after 9/11, when they were told it was safe to go into the rubble to clean it up.

I'm glad I don't live in that region! Pregnant women, especially, should get the hell out of there! Young children should be kept away from those beaches. I fear there will be many more unanticipated illnesses, caused by the massive amount of toxins, as time goes by.

This is all heartbreaking to me. I hope Bush and Cheney are satisfied. When in history have two men created so many disasters for mankind?

G.

Gayle in MD
06-15-2010, 02:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't bother responding. There is more than enough partisan RW BS in this thread already. </div></div>So insted of doing the right thing you opted to defer to your normal left-wing partisan posts.

eg8r </div></div>

I always do the right thing, Ed, and part of that is all about giving responsibility to those who contributed to or created every disaster we face, all of them resulting from Republican Policies.

G.

Sev
06-15-2010, 06:22 AM
CNN has been discussing the nuclear option.

Hey if its good for the Russians... .

Sev
06-15-2010, 06:28 AM
Actually there is still plenty of room for more rigs. The map does not give an accurate representation of the spacial distribution.

However if I am not mistaken,one of the things that has not been approved is horizontal drilling in the Gulf or onshore. If that drilling technology were in place they would be able to reach the deep horizon oil cache from a safer and more controllable location.

eg8r
06-15-2010, 08:58 AM
LOL, so instead of doing the right thing you continue with your bs partisan views.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-15-2010, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, so instead of doing the right thing you continue with your bs partisan views.

eg8r </div></div>



Hey Ed,

LOL, so instead of doing the right thing you continue with your bs partisan views.


G.

eg8r
06-15-2010, 09:25 AM
Actually for the most part with respect to the bp situation I have tried to focus all blame on BP. You have your head in the sand screaming Rep this Rep that.

eg8r &lt;~~~loves to see gayle wet her panties every time her partisan actions are called out for all to see

LWW
06-15-2010, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here YOU go.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/oil-rig.jpg

You act like there are no rigs close to shore. The above map proves otherwise. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are more than 3,800 rigs in that area alone and its obvious why the oil companies are drilling further from shore - there is no more room. LOL </span>
The only place to find new oil is further out to sea and when you look at the map of the sea floor, that means drilling a lot deeper.

map (http://www.cccarto.com/mc252/)
Q


</div></div>

Every time I think you can't possibly be more wrong ... you go the extra mile.

See the white line close to shore?

That's the area within the "NEAR" range of shallow water.

See the no wells in that area?

That's because of the ban I Iinked to.

See that thing buzzing way over your head?

That's reality.

But ... thanks for graphically proving my point.

LWW

Sid_Vicious
06-15-2010, 11:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">CNN has been discussing the nuclear option.

Hey if its good for the Russians... . </div></div>

Should have happened with this well a long time ago. The general viewpoint against sealing the well shaft with an explosive will inevitably come back to haunt us big time. It's a shame we have to be so ignorant NOT to use a tool like a small, low yield nuke, or hydrogen bomb to end this bullshit. Like I said, it's sad we haven't already done it IMO. Screw BP for wanting to keep their hole! BUUUUUT, it will remain the same until the relief wells are in place, stupid! Wait until oil gets thick in Florida's shores. Big money will squawk then. sid

Gayle in MD
06-15-2010, 12:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually for the most part with respect to the bp situation I have tried to focus all blame on BP. You have your head in the sand screaming Rep this Rep that.

eg8r &lt;~~~loves to see gayle wet her panties every time her partisan actions are called out for all to see </div></div>

That's it for you Ed. I don't accept vulgar statements from a little whippersnapper like you.

Republicans ARE the Party of deregulatory policies for the oil industry. You simply refuse to accept te truth. I posted the facts, but you simply refused to read the entire list of deregulatory actions taken by Bush/Cheney which led to thhis disaster.

Totally unreasonable to think that given the disastrous legacy this president inherited, from W., the chimp, that he would have been able to completely finish making allthe changes needed, after Bush corrupted oversight agencies for eight years, and left a dysfunctional government behind him...

You don't even know all of the changes President Obama had laready made to the agencies.

Besides, Republicans have obstructed the entire process throughout!


YOU are the blind partisan, not I. You can thank George Bush for the state of the Gulf.

eg8r
06-15-2010, 12:18 PM
There you go again, partisan bs. You just can't help yourself.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-15-2010, 12:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Totally unreasonable to think that given the disastrous legacy this president inherited, from W., the chimp, that he would have been able to completely finish making allthe changes needed, </div></div>

Perhaps had he spent more time looking after the important things, rather than pushing a healthcare bill that nobody wanted, he might have been able to accomplish more. Unemployment is as bad as it was when he got elected, even considering the so-called stimulus bill. Homes are still being foreclosed at a record pace. We are still fighting two wars that he indicated would be finished in 16 months.

We have the most clueless POTUS I can ever remember calling the shots on a problem about which he knows absolutely nothing. I dare say that the evil, most hated Sarah Palin probably knows more about oil drilling operations than Obama!!!

Face it. You elected a loser, and your ego won't allow you to admit it.

Steve

Sev
06-15-2010, 01:32 PM
Hey golf is important to man.

pooltchr
06-15-2010, 01:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey golf is important to man. </div></div>

If anyone were to forget, Obama will be out there reminding us on a regular basis!

Steve

Qtec
06-16-2010, 01:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here YOU go.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/oil-rig.jpg

You act like there are no rigs close to shore. The above map proves otherwise. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>There are more than 3,800 rigs in that area alone and its obvious why the oil companies are drilling further from shore - there is no more room. LOL </span>
The only place to find new oil is further out to sea and when you look at the map of the sea floor, that means drilling a lot deeper.

map (http://www.cccarto.com/mc252/)
Q


</div></div>

Every time I think you can't possibly be more wrong ... you go the extra mile.

See the white line close to shore?

That's the area within the "NEAR" range of shallow water.

See the no wells in that area?

That's because of the ban I Iinked to.

See that thing buzzing way over your head?

That's reality.

But ... thanks for graphically proving my point.

LWW </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is that his point is similar to mine ... it isn't apocalyptic, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>gubmint regs drove the drillers that far out </span>



So now we are to believe that had BP and others been allowed to drill in 100 feet of water they would have decided to drill in a mile of water anyway?

LWW</div></div>

They drill where the oil is. 99% of the rigs are drilling in shallow water and have been doing so for years.

Yes there are limits. Miami Beach would not be the same with an oil rig 500 yards offshore. There is always spillage and the closer to shore the more chance of pollution to the coast. Imagine if the present disaster happened close to shore? Beaches would be knee deep in oil.

The present fields have been drilled to death. Nobody forced BP to drill deep, the map proves that. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Nobody forced them to cut corners and take chances. That's the reason why there is an ecological and financial disaster heading the South's way.</span>


Q

LWW
06-16-2010, 05:09 AM
Do you have a fifth grader who can explain the map to you?

LWW

Sev
06-16-2010, 06:26 AM
They should be allowed to use horizontal drilling. The technology is proven.