Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperyou better check your pod's input lines. they might be wired to something you wouldn't especially like.
Gee.. Um... let's see.
The well in question had actually began being tapped September of 2008, proving this incident has absolutely NOTHING to do President Obama - also proving the article you posted was a crock of shaat.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gulf_oil_spill_threatens_the_f.html
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?catego ...[text shortened]... Holy smokes! Utterly destroying this thread was soooo scary. Thank God I was such a brave soul.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhttp://tinyurl.com/5ffn4l
Gee.. Um... let's see.
The well in question had actually began being tapped September of 2009, proving this incident has absolutely NOTHING to do President Obama - also proving the article you posted was a crock of shaat.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gulf_oil_spill_threatens_the_f.html
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?catego ...[text shortened]... Holy smokes! Utterly destroying this thread was soooo scary. Thank God I was such a brave soul.
Originally posted by zeeblebotIt was a typo. When did Obama announce a mere proposal that could in the future expand off shore drilling again? EXACTLY.
r u high?
these two links both reference Sept. 2009, not 2008.
the first link has a date of 2010 and refers to September of last year, and the second article, a press release by BP, has a date of Sept. 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
Unlike the Bush plan, however, Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangered whales, off limits to oil rigs.
Actual drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years.
Originally posted by USArmyParatroopersomeone unfamiliar with President Obama's inauguration date has dastardly changed your post to read 2009!!! 😠😠😠
Gee.. Um... let's see.
The well in question had actually began being tapped September of 2009, proving this incident has absolutely NOTHING to do President Obama - also proving the article you posted was a crock of shaat.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/gulf_oil_spill_threatens_the_f.html
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?catego ...[text shortened]... Holy smokes! Utterly destroying this thread was soooo scary. Thank God I was such a brave soul.
u should complain to the mods! 😠😠😠
Originally posted by zeeblebotI already stated it was a typo. And the typo doesn't change a dam thing substantively.
someone unfamiliar with President Obama's inauguration date has dastardly changed your post to read 2009!!! 😠😠😠
u should complain to the mods! 😠😠😠
Unless you're claiming that drilling last September was the result of Obama's recent proposal to expand drilling in the future. Do you believe in time machines?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperoh ho! YOU changed it!
It was a typo. When did Obama announce a mere proposal that could in the future expand off shore drilling again? EXACTLY.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html
Unlike the Bush plan, however, Mr. Obama’s proposal would put Bristol Bay, home to major Alaskan commercial fisheries and populations of endangere ...[text shortened]... l drilling in much of the newly opened areas, if it takes place, would not begin for years. [/b]
the link in the OP clearly references two events:
1. drilling of a huge well under the auspices of Pres. Obama and the failure of that well, and
2. Pres. Obama's proposal to permit drilling in new areas and his withdrawal of the proposal after the failure noted in event 1.
Originally posted by zeeblebotI already stated it was a typo. And the typo doesn't change a dam thing substantively.
oh ho! YOU changed it!
the link in the OP clearly references two events:
1. drilling of a huge well under the auspices of Pres. Obama and the failure of that well, and
2. Pres. Obama's proposal to permit drilling in new areas and his withdrawal of the proposal after the failure noted in event 1.
Unless you're claiming that drilling last September was the result of Obama's recent proposal to expand drilling in the future. Do you believe in time machines?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"already" but i was "already" typing my reply and hit enter just after you entered yours.
I already stated it was a typo. And the typo doesn't change a dam thing substantively.
Unless you're claiming that drilling last September was the result of Obama's recent proposal to expand drilling in the future. Do you believe in time machines?
the drilling was clearly under Pres. Obama's watch. by an oil company who was a major contributor to his campaign.
comprende "double standard"?
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe drilling was under current law that predates President Obama. It was NOT the result of Obama as your article suggests.
"already" but i was "already" typing my reply and hit enter just after you entered yours.
the drilling was clearly under Pres. Obama's watch. by an oil company who was a major contributor to his campaign.
comprende "double standard"?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodey
Well, at least we have one brave soul to jump in the water.
Where to begin? I know, lets take a little test, shall we? What would have been the difference between a Republican in the White House and a Democrat in the White House in regards to both Katrina and the BP disaster?...
The extent of the disaster has not been reached. There's very little any administration could be doing right now, regardless of party. As usual, a large company has had their little adventure go awry without a plan for the worst case scenario.
You could have chosen to start here. Predictably, you did not. Predictably, you ignored what does not lock into your goose-step zealousy and went merrily on your way.
1 edit
Originally posted by BadwaterI am not suggesting that the administration could be doing any better. What I am suggesting, however, is that Obama is in the pockets of big oil. Whether this disaster had anything to do with this is beside the point. What I think you will now see is Obama talking as if he is going to get ruff and tuff with BP, much like GS. Obama is in the pockets of GS as well. Then after all the rhetoric they will be treated with kid gloves in the end. Of course, there may be some token penalty that these corporations may have to pay that will then be passed on to the average Joe.The extent of the disaster has not been reached. There's very little any administration could be doing right now, regardless of party. As usual, a large company has had their little adventure go awry without a plan for the worst case scenario.
You could have chosen to start here. Predictably, you did not. Predictably, you ignored what does not lock into your goose-step zealousy and went merrily on your way.
Now getting back to your comment about nuclear power. What do you suggest? Should the US continue to rely on foriegn oil or go back to the horse and buggy? Of course, you probably know from threads I have posted about the Amish I am some what partial to the horse and buggy idea, but I know that liberals have no interest in living within their means and would never go for it. In fact, they are all a religious as well. That simply would not do for the liberal elites.
What I will also say is that Obama will not head in the direction of nuclear power so long as he is in the pockets of Big Oil. So you can rest easy knowing that there will be no 3 mile islands that will be threatening you any time soon. For now, only the fishies will die.
Originally posted by whodeyYou predict, in all seriousness, that BP will pay only a token penalty for the Louisiana spill because they contributed money to Obama's election campaing?
I am not suggesting that the administration could be doing any better. What I am suggesting, however, is that Obama is in the pockets of big oil. Whether this disaster had anything to do with this is beside the point. What I think you will now see is Obama talking as if he is going to get ruff and tuff with BP, much like GS. Obama is in the pockets of GS ...[text shortened]... penalty that these corporations may have to pay that will then be passed on to the average Joe.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFNo, I meant to say in addition to paying for the clean up.
You predict, in all seriousness, that BP will pay only a token penalty for the Louisiana spill because they contributed money to Obama's election campaing?
Having said that, they are all probably in a dark room some where trying to come up with a plan to have the tax payers pay for the clean up and still make it look like BP is paying for it. You know, kinda like GM took TARP money to pay off their government loans as they advertise to the public that they have paid back all the tax payers money. LOL.
Originally posted by whodeyIf that gets the politicians who hatch the deal re-elected, that'll mean that the compromise will have been the product of a democratic process. So I suppose that's a saving grace. And as long as the slick gets cleaned up. The success of the clean up is far more important than whether or not some of the money to do it comes from taxpayers. On that, at least, I think we can agree.
Having said that, they are all probably in a dark room some where trying to come up with a plan to have the tax payers pay for the clean up and still make it look like BP is paying for it.