Oil spill conspiracy

Government has a purpose. I started this post, because I do realize the magnitude of the problem, and I feel as though our government does not. I feel a true sense of urgency about this, and it pisses me off too. I don't care how many ships it takes. If we can spend billions smart bombing sand niggers, we can clean up oil spills too. I've heard Obama's ties to BP are strong as well. Like I said, it's not about politics at this point.

I believe the plans were submitted to the relevant department. Plans that have recently emerged that include helping out the Walruses of the Gulf of Mexico. I believe they are now extinct... Neither do I - but that was the rationale for having them try and fix it.

Three days after he explosion, the Dutch, who have all the expertise and skimming ships to deal with this offered to come and help.The Obama administration rejected the offer rather than making an emergency exception, citing the 1920's Jones Act which requires that only US ships can operate in our waters. Seventeen nations with superior skimmers have offered to help and we rejected it. Why did Obama and Salazar not take immediate steps to apply this help? The answer is simple. The didn't want to waste a disaster opportunity to shut down off shore drilling, to placate the greenie environmentalist whackos and to dismantle America as it has been to change it into their Hugo Chavez kind of a totalitarian socialist state.An administration effort could have waived the Jones Act to avoid this disaster, so yes, Mr Obama, you were right when you said that the buck stops with you.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I cannot find anything definitive on this. It seems to be a bit more complicated than what you are presenting here. The only original mention of this at all is this site
http://www.rnw.nl/...l-response-team-standby-us-oil-disasterDo you know anything about these skimmers? Would they be a vast improvement? Should the US and BP be accepting every offer to help?I really think there needs to be more background on this issue than some obscure mention by a dutch site.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since we're talking about conspiracy theories here, Obama wants to eliminate socialism by smack talking BP and threatening significant legal ramifications. This means that BP lose significant share value as people sell out of a panic of unsureness.Which means the British pension's which rely on something like 1/6 of their growth due to BP will be massively damaged.And since pensions are simply stealth welfare benefits, it stands to reason that Obama is a stealth capitalist trying to make it look socialism look bad by watching the UK fold.

What are you basing your theory off of? Obama doesn't need any help in finding ways to extort people. But you shouldn't make shit up just because you don't like him. Obama has considerably downsized the already tiny Coast Guard, the premier government agency who handles oil clean-ups. What do you think people have been trying to do all this time? The government (for once) is being very transparent on the issue and even installed cameras for your edification.
I think the governments job is to serve and protect us, and right It is all hands on deck, notwithstanding your ignorance on the matter. My unit, for instance, has sent about 10 people (which we desperately need here) to New Orleans. Hundreds of other Coast Guard units are doing the same. As a consumer of oil, I don't see how I or you are to blame in the least. We are consumers, not manufacturers. That would be like blaming consumers of bananas for a recent infestation of insects, just because we eat bananas. The premise doesn't follow.BP is to blame, and they're going to clean up their mess A lot more difficult than you'd think. Nope, just BP's.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

If you'd bother listening to any of the press conferences, you'd know that ADM Thad Allen has already done just that. The CG has certified hundreds of boats to help corral the spill.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I prefer no wing nuts, whatsoever.Being that I'm a true liberal, a classical small "l" liberal, on social issues, I take strong offense towards modern-day big "L" Liberals who for all intents and purposes ARE communists.Also being a true fiscal conservative (a Barry Goldwater conservative), I take great offense towards Neo-Conservatives who have managed to spend taxes like communists, while maligning communists at the same time.They're all wing-nuts, and they can all fuck off.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

I also prefer no wing-nuts, but since that chances that neither right nor left will not have a wing-nut candidate for any office it becomes the lessor of 2 evils and that is the left wing nut.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This little sentence kinda stood out for me, riverrat: I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you're referring to campaign contributions or the supposed Emanuel/Greenberg connection then check this out:http://mediamatters.org/research/201006100021"CRP: Money donated to Obama in 2008 election was entirely from BP employees, not the corporation; employees donated about $70,000 -- not $750 million.""There is no evidence the rebranding work Greenberg did for BP has anything to do with the Obama administration's approach to the oil spill or regulations. Greenberg is chairman and CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a "premium research and strategic consulting firm," that does work for corporations, issue groups, and political campaigns."BP was not Obama's biggest supporter.

Read the site which you cited. It's not complicated at all. The problem is environment whackos in and out of government, the ones out demonstrating and causing a runkus about everything productive and the ones in government acquesing to the demands. The following, from your site. Note the phrases which I've emboldened. So it still beats what we have & haven't been doing. A little broken up residue's a lot better than the bulk of the oil. We dispersed chemicals to break it up but that leaves more toxins in the sea than just the oil.................But because of environmenalists we sent the Dutch packing when they tried to help. So again, the relative little missed by the skimmers is better than leaving it all ten years.........This is where the buck stops with Obama, who did not work to waive the whacko regs and get the job done quickly. Instead he went off to play and dilly dally for weeks, not even communicating directly with the BP man in charge.........We're still waiting for the president who's admin said way back that they didn't want to waste a disaster (for their revolutionizing America agenda).........I.e. the whacko environmentalists in and out of government caused them to be sent them packing. Instead of skimming 90%, leaving a residue of it, they left it all to do it's havoc for ten years.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

And last I checked, you believed that the government's purpose is to stay the hell out of our lives, our economy, and our society at large and let the private sector take care of itself.But now that we have a black man in office that's allowing the private sector to take care of itself, the government is now suppose to wipe our asses? No, you don't understand the scope of the problem. It's not just about the spill alone.Let's look at the following scenarios and my guess at your response to each of the scenario.Scenario A:
(1) Oil spills
(2) The Obama Administration allows bp to clean up their own mess.
(3) You criticize Obama for not doing enough.Scenario B:
(1) Oil spills
(2) The Obama Administration steps in and directly control the operations. In doing so, it spends billions of tax dollars in order to agressively cap the spill and deal with the clean up.
(3) You criticize Obama for this very communist action. You also criticize him for using your tax dollars to further Obama's socialist agenda of government take over of the private sector.Scenario C:
(1) Oil spills
(2) The Obama Administration presses bp to agressively deal with the problem but allow them to use their own methods and people.
(3) You criticize Obama for sleeping with the oil industry while ignoring the common man.Please tell me I'm wrong. Not that easy. Again, ships we have plenty of. Ships with the right equipment we have only a few.It's like nano technology. I remember hearing someone complain about the cost of nano technology when we're talking about something the size of a pin head. Your comment shows the same lack of understanding of what resources mean.Take a look at the ipod. It's about the size a hand held calculator, and yet it costs several hundred times more. It's not about the size or number. It's about the resources available. And right now, they simply don't have enough ships with the right equipment to scour the Gulf. Good lord. I suppose you also believe Obama is Osama's brother or perhaps even Osama himself?When I criticize Bush, I made every effort to justify what I thought he did wrong.So far, your complaints of Obama are about things you supposedly supported before Obama adopted them.Reminds me of those republican senators and congressmen who voted against their own bills and legislations just because Obama endorsed them. Even McCain started opposing his own ideas after Obama adopted them.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

You're taking the news out of context. When they say bp may go under, they mean bp may stop being the 5th largest oil coorporation in the world. Again, their stock fell by a thousand points in 20 minutes, a new world record. And like I said before, there is no other entity in the world that wants this fiasco to end more than bp. The bests and brightests are working on the problem as we speak. What more do you want? I beg to differ.Remember our discussion about the old testament and how god ordered the israelites to slaughter every man, woman, and child of the cities they conquered? It only took me like 10 pages to get you to finally admit that it's written in black and white that god really did order such an act. Or when we discussed about the son of David rebelled against him because of king david's sin of killing basheba's husband? It took me like 10 pages to get you to finally admit that god killed 40 thousand israelites to punish David for his sin.And then there was that time when you tried to solve physics problems with your common sense...I've discussed a wide variety of topics with you many times before. Don't take this the wrong way, but you tend to get carried away with your feelings about something and then absolutely refuse to see the facts even as they stare you right in the face.You have on multiple occasions accused Obama of being little better than bp's puppet. Another poster pointed out to you that bp's being Obama's biggest campaign contributer is a flat out lie (not necessarily your own lie). Do you or do you not agree that your bias against Obama has caused you to at least not able to see things clearly and thus believed blindly to such falsehood? Look back to my previous post about the scenarios I presented. Admit it, you were going to criticize him regardless of what actions he took. This oil rig was built in the 90's based on regulations that went back all the way to Reagan. The point I want to make is please don't put all the blame on the new guy just because he happens to be in charge when the pyramid finally came tumbling down.No doubt many heads will roll after this. But in the mean time, you can bet your money on bp doing everything they possibly can to end this fiasco. It's not about their public's image. It's not about their kind heartedness. It's not even about their concern for the environment.It's about money. In the private sector, money is the only thing that matters. And right now, the longer this continues, the more money they will lose. So, we can bet our asses that they are doing everything possible to end the disaster. I, too, have a suggestion. In fact, my suggestion is in line with what the Russians have suggested. We nuke the site. The blast will close off the leak.

If they were, then they could cut out the middle man. They could offer the reward themselves. Yesterday.The only advantage of your way is that it involves government intervention, the expenditure of taxpayers' money, and lot and lots of lawyers ...... oh, wait, I'll read that again. The only advantage of your way is that you can complain that Obama should be doing something that BP could perfectly well do for themselves if it would make them "extremely happy".

Does "taking responsibility for your fuck-ups" involve putting them right, or just saying how very sorry you are and letting the taxpayer pick up the bill? That's some nice spin you've got there. You want Obama to take our money and spend it on helping BP out of the mess they've made. This you frame as "protecting" us from them, rather than protecting them from the consequences of their actions. And having framed this as "protecting" us from BP, you then go on (based on a factoid that you made up) to hint that the reason he won't "protect" us --- i.e. save them money at our expense --- is that he's in their pocket.Don't you suppose they'd like us to foot the bill rather than them? If they'd somehow gotten to Obama, isn't that just what he'd be doing? Are you really imagining BP lobbyists sidling up to Obama and whispering: "If you clean up our mess for us and save us money, I swear we'll never give you another cent?"Do I wake or sleep? More to the point, how about you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.