Tiresome
Isn’t Obama’s flailing about the BP spill becoming tiresome? It is for me. He’s “furious” and looking for an “ass to kick” and whatever. Here’s the latest story.
“He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements,” Obama told TODAY.
The president also defended not having spoken to Hayward since the disaster began 50 days ago.
“I have not spoken to him directly,” he told Lauer. “Here’s the reason. Because my experience is, when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he’s gonna say all the right things to me. I’m not interested in words. I’m interested in actions.”
Strange statement from someone who gave us the famous “just words” speech.
Obama has told us that he’s been running the show since day one yet blames everyone else for everything that goes wrong. It’s immature and looking rather pathetic at this point.
He’d probably be embarrassed by him - since Obama’s business experience was running his lemonade stand when he was 6.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0758 hrs
It appears the oil companies are letting Obama know he doesn’t rule the world and Obama is throwing a temper tantrum because he thinks he does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0800 hrs
It’s a classic example of precisely how ineffectual this administration has been. Throwing parties for himself as the Gulf becomes a ecological disaster just reinforces my belief that he’s only concerned with the perks of the office, not the job of being President. I’d say he should be impeached, but what do we stand to gain with Biden as President?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0824 hrs
I’d say he should be impeached, but what do we stand to gain with Biden as President?
My guess is that there’s a real possibility he will be impeached after the 2010 political bloodbath. With the Republicans running the House who’s to say they don’t investigate some of the Chicago politics that went on during the recent primary elections. Remember, both Nixon and Clinton were impeached and neither was removed from office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0843 hrs
Ooops, sorry - Nixon quit just before he was to be impeached. My bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0844 hrs
If he is serious about looking for an ass to kick, he should start with his own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 0915 hrs
You know what’s really tiresome is watching thousands of barrels of oil gush out every day into the Gulf, with no end in sight. But maybe after a couple of months that’s just boring to talk about. Just part of daily life now, right?
Posted by xoff on June 08, 2010 at 1024 hrs
The president doesn’t stand a chance in hell with you guys. If he does X, he’s whatever. if he does Y, he’s something else. That man could walk on the Gulf like Jesus and the response here would be “let’s impeach him.”
Seriously, impeach him? For what?
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 1107 hrs
Bush got hammered after 3 days.
B. Hussin has done nothing in 50 + days
No, he won’t get a pass.But you are right, he doesn’t stand a chance because he’s proven himself an inept dolt, masquerading as a leader.
And no scott, he’s not the messiah you guys tried to make him out to be.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1124 hrs
I don’t see him being impeached either, except if he did bribe people with government jobs in exchange for their dropping out of races.
He has, though, shown himself to be a narcissistic, incompetent, thin-skinned and bumbling leader who finds lot of room for fun time.
Even the progressives are frustrated with him!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127545645
Posted by hsgbdmama on June 08, 2010 at 1212 hrs
You know what’s really tiresome is watching thousands of barrels of oil gush out every day into the Gulf, with no end in sight. But maybe after a couple of months that’s just boring to talk about. Just part of daily life now, right?
Everyone with any say and the President have been looking for answers, got one? It is damn tiresome. It is unbelievable that there were not contingencies already in place for this kind of catastrophe. BP sucks for not having workable solutions to this sort of problem.
The joke on the President is that he believes that the Government should have say (The say in his opinion)in a privately caused disaster such as this. Since he believes this and postures about exclaiming this, but he has no workable plans to fix the problem either, he looks like an idiot. It does not diminish the disaster to blog about this aspect of the situation.
If you think the Government does have the job of fixing this, the President still could have/should have said something like this: “I am immediately putting together a team of experts to examine the problem and propose a solution. They will not include things like cost in their evaluation. If you do not have the situation under control by the time my experts have proposed their solution, I will have our solution instituted and bill you.”
Running around like a chicken with no head screaming incompetency when he has a Govenment full of it is both ridiculous and monumentally hypocritical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1222 hrs
I don’t think you can impeach someone for being incompetent, and I don’t think the “jobs for Senate candidates” flap rises to impeachment level - not even close.
Hey we elected a totally incompetent person - who had never done anything, and he brought in a bunch of his friends - who still think they are in Chicago. Why such a surprise? Jimmy Carter is going to look good next to O.
It’s funny how we don’t hear much press about how BP wanted to do what they finally ended up doing (cutting the pipe and putting this “siphon” thing on top of it (which appears to at least be partially working) and guess who stopped them - yep Mr. O - I - Know - Better.
Amateur hour continues…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1223 hrs
At his inauguration: “The people will remember…......this as….......the day the Seas….....began to heal”, indeed say one thing get something completely opposite.
What he should have said was: “Don’t bother me, it’s time to party like it’s 1999…..2000…..2001…..2002, hooooweeee!!! pass that doobie this way.
He may not be fiddling, but Rome “is” surely burning.
Great job party boy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1231 hrs
Scott, I will say this about President Obama: I think it’s incredibly cool that he spoke at a high school commencement. Sure, he did West Point, but he’s their boss and he should go there. But he didn’t have to go to a high school. I hope that his being there made a difference in the lives of those kids.
See? I can be nice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1235 hrs
Everyone with any say and the President have been looking for answers, got one? It is damn tiresome. It is unbelievable that there were not contingencies already in place for this kind of catastrophe. BP sucks for not having workable solutions to this sort of problem.
The joke on the President is that he believes that the Government should have say (The say in his opinion)in a privately caused disaster such as this. Since he believes this and postures about exclaiming this, but he has no workable plans to fix the problem either, he looks like an idiot. It does not diminish the disaster to blog about this aspect of the situation.
Yes, BP sucks. There should have been a contingency for this situation, while I hope their total liability doesn’t sink the company, I think it is pretty fair to say that it might happen.
Yes, it became the government’s responsibility (state, local, and federal) when it was clear that BP had no way to stop this…. 45 DAYS AGO. Obama has had his nose in this from moment one, and the policies he supports are THE reason that we are drilling in 5000+ feet of water to begin with. There is no room for criticism from Obama, we shouldn’t be drilling in deep water yet anyway, with all of the land-borne deposits, and continental shelf deposits that have been taken off the table by statist-leftists, and progressive neo-cons over the years.
Obama deserves to be beaten about the head and shoulders for this, leftists certainly had no problem pointing out how inept Bush was when Katrina happened, something he certainly deserved, but the total implications of this disaster could be far longer lasting and more devastating than Katrina ever had the potential to be. Fisheries are being wiped out, the Gulf coast of Florida (one of the largest tourist destinations in the country) is being destroyed, Oyster beds, shrimp populations, the oil industry, delicate marshland, and migratory bird populations are being or are going to be obliterated…....
That man could walk on the Gulf like Jesus
How convenient that a lefty would drop the “messiah” talk now that Obama has proven himself to be quite mediocre. We were promised unification, and brilliant leadership….. 50 DAYS SCOTT. FIFTY… Katrina lasted a few hours, the cleanup began within three days… Oil has been spewing out of that well, at a STILL UNDETERMINED RATE for 50 DAYS, and you are defending this clown…. He can run around and turn on the Bush talk, you know dropping g’s and using words like “kick ass” and “folds”, but we all see him for what he is…. Another Harvard weenie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1258 hrs
Should’ve been “folks” in that last sentence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1300 hrs
A Harvard educated weenie schooled on the tax payer’s dime no less. An entitlement born and bred elitist with the leadership capabilities of a bolder. He’s there, but his presence is a hindrance to the seeds of progress being planted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1316 hrs
It’s funny how we don’t hear much press about how BP wanted to do what they finally ended up doing (cutting the pipe and putting this “siphon” thing on top of it (which appears to at least be partially working) and guess who stopped them - yep Mr. O - I - Know - Better.
-Bill
He’s there, but his presence is a hindrance to the seeds of progress being planted.
-Scott (I)
Please go on with this narrative. I want to hear more, with links to your claims please. -Thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1324 hrs
A Harvard educated weenie schooled on the tax payer’s dime no less.
Who gets schooled on the taxpayers’ dime at Harvard?
leadership capabilities of a bolder.
Bolder what?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1345 hrs
Both Obamas paid for their schooling with student loans and scholarships:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/money.asp
Posted by hsgbdmama on June 08, 2010 at 1356 hrs
Boulder: any large rock worn smooth and round by weather and water.
A large rounded mass of rock lying on the surface of the ground or embedded in the soil.Please forgive me my previous spelling error, I understand how it throws some off.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1406 hrs
with links to your claims please.
Whatever role the President has played in this calamity, it certainly hasn’t been positive. Again, 50 DAYS…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1420 hrs
Sorry 3rd Way, I provide links at my discretion, If you’re incapable of seeing the obvious that would just be a waste of my time anyway, as well as a futile attempt at educating you. Try being honest with yourself, and admit you made a mistake when you voted for him, it will go a long way in your recovery.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1433 hrs
I too am displeased with a whole lot of what Obama has done / is doing. His response to this unprecedented disaster included. But I certainly feel confident that he was the better choice when I voted in November. Do you honestly think a candidate from the party that prides itself in being more hands off when dealing with private industry and is tied at the hip to the oil industry would have performed better?
Try being honest with yourself, and admit you made a mistake when you voted for the “Drill Baby Drill” candidate, it will go a long way in your recovery.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1545 hrs
Blaming the previous administration, at every oppotunity, for every problem—while telling high school students that finger pointing is bad—is the better choice?
Being cooly detached from what is going on with the average American is the better choice?
Punishing certain industries/companies while leaving others who are also a part of the problem (Fannie, Freddie) alone is the better choice?
Posted by hsgbdmama on June 08, 2010 at 1640 hrs
But, third way, you are ok with the fact that BO recieved greater campaign contributions from BP than the candidate “tied to the hip” of the oil companies? Could that have anything to do with his “hands off approach”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1650 hrs
If he has a “hands off approach,” it’s likely due to the fact that he knows politically that if he’s a hardass to BP you guys will be all over him for it. Credible people are suggesting that BP be put into temporary receivership so that the feds really can be in charge of their clean up efforts. Of course this is impossible in a climate where every time the government wants to exert any power or authority you guys call it a “take over” and “socialism,” etc.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 1752 hrs
3rd way just made me snort diet coke all over my laptop.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1824 hrs
You are snorting the wrong kind of coke Terry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1828 hrs
If he has a “hands off approach,” it’s likely due to the fact that he knows politically that if he’s a hardass to BP you guys will be all over him for it.
absolutely not true. No one is suggesting BP is handling this well…
Credible people are suggesting that BP be put into temporary receivership so that the feds really can be in charge of their clean up efforts. Of course this is impossible in a climate where every time the government wants to exert any power or authority you guys call it a “take over” and “socialism,” etc.
absolutely not true. No one credible is saying it and gov’t can exert plenty of power w/o socializing BP.
Who is the largest receiver of campaign contributions ever from BP? Oh that’s right, Barack Hussein Obama…
Caribbean wildlife blood for oil?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 1847 hrs
absolutely not true. No one is suggesting BP is handling this well…
Nice dodge. Whether BP is handling it well isn’t relevant and you know that. The issue is whether the right will attack the president or not. Can you say “he’s taking over the energy industry! That’s X% of the economy! Socialism!” I knew you could.
absolutely not true. No one credible is saying
I suppose the doge on this will be that Robert Reich isn’t credible. Disagree with him all you want (even I don’t know if I agree with him on this), but you can’t say he’s just some schmuck.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 1946 hrs
How do you propose that the United States put a British company into receivership?
Posted by Owen on June 08, 2010 at 2008 hrs
From your article…
Robert is Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He has written twelve books, including The Work of Nations, Locked in the Cabinet, and his most recent book, Supercapitalism….
From Amazon’s description of Supercapitalism…
In this compelling and important analysis of the triumph of capitalism and the decline of democracy, former labor secretary Reich urges us to rebalance the roles of business and government.
We’ll let each one make up their own mind on whether or not Professor is credible…
If he has a “hands off approach,” it’s likely due to the fact that he knows politically that if he’s a hardass to BP you guys will be all over him for it.
....
absolutely not true. No one is suggesting BP is handling this well…
...
Nice dodge. Whether BP is handling it well isn’t relevant and you know that. The issue is whether the right will attack the president or not.
I’m not trying to dodge your statements. He can be harder on BP and I won’t knock him for it. Other than my mocking of ‘big oil’ and ‘blood for oil’ which you didn’t comprehend the last time I mocked, I haven’t really criticized BHO for his leadership in this crisis (and it is a crisis).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2016 hrs
I guess a Harvard/Brandeis/Berkeley professor and former secretary of labor just never thought of that!
In truth, I don’t know. But doesn’t BP have US subsidiary? I’m pretty sure your question isn’t a show stopper.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2018 hrs
I guess a Harvard/Brandeis/Berkeley professor and former secretary of labor just never thought of that!
Looks like my nephew with his paper route has more real world experience…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2026 hrs
Yeah, this guy is totally unbiased….
Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America by Robert Reich
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2028 hrs
We’ll let each one make up their own mind on whether or not Professor is credible…
Yes, I guess we will. (Dot, dot, dot) o_O
Seriously, you seem to think you’re making some kind of point, but it must be a conservative dog whistle of some kind, because I have zero idea what you’re getting at.
He can be harder on BP and I won’t knock him for it.
So the temporary receivership thing sits ok with you then. Good to know.
Looks like my nephew with his paper route has more real world experience..
So there we have it: the conservative credibility bar on matters of public policy and economics. If you’re an actual expert with real governing experience, you’re out. Paper route? IN!
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2029 hrs
Scott, I do enjoy how you take one plus one and make it three and a half. It serves your purpose well….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2031 hrs
you take one plus one and
What is this mathematical formula you’re throwing at us? Probably learned it from a teacher, some kind of math expert; some kind of pointy-headed, liberal nerd with no experience of actual apples and oranges—like a fruit seller. That’s the kind of expert we need in this case.
Seriously, guys. I don’t know why you have to viciously embattle me on the definition of the word “credible.” The points I was making really aren’t that controversial, after all. Do we have to argue every. single. word. every time I comment? Robert Reich is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
Wait, this is where SoL reminds us that he has a Nobel prize. (He’s about due for another name change anyway.)
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2040 hrs
By your definition Adolf Hitler was credible…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2042 hrs
Godwin’s law in 40 comments. Not a record breaker by any means, but impressive nonetheless.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2045 hrs
... and yet uncontested…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2046 hrs
Oh for fuck’s sake. Really? Are there no saner conservatives here willing to help steer the discussion back to reality?
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2051 hrs
God damn, it…. I was just about to type…
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2052 hrs
Let’s challenge your idiotic statement instead:
Ted Kazcynski is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2055 hrs
Are there no saner conservatives here willing to help steer the discussion back to reality?
Going once… going twice….?
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2056 hrs
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2056 hrs
Vladimir Lenin is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2059 hrs
Doctor Seuss is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2101 hrs
So this is where ye olde boots & kittens leaves us. I mention a former secretary of labor, and what I get in return is Hitler, the unabomber, Lenin and a paper boy.
And somehow to you nutters I’m the one being unreasonable.
Carry on! You’re representing American conservatism at its finest.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2102 hrs
Hunter S. Thompson is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
I figured you’d like this one (light one up dude!!!)
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2106 hrs
Bill Clinton wrote a book, didn’t he,...?
Bill Clinton is a credible person, even if you disagree with him. Even if he’s dead wrong on this issue. He’s got a resume as long as your arm and he’s widely read by people everywhere. He’s credible. Pretty simple.
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2108 hrs
Scott, you will love this one…
Sarah Palin is a credible person, even if you disagree with her. Even if she’s dead wrong on this issue. She’s got a resume as long as your arm and she’s widely read by people everywhere. She’s credible. Pretty simple.
oh for fuck’s sake
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2118 hrs
Reich is wrong. The government has no authority to place BP, or any of its American subsidiaries, into receivorship. By all indications, they are well (no pun intended) insured nor have they sought protection from creditors in the courts. They are financially sound.
Under receivorship, whatever stock value there is would be decimated and taking with it 401(k)s, public pension funds, and myriad other investment vehicles.
One oil spill does not a bankrupt company make.
Gas prices would likely skyrocket as a predictor of investor confidence in the American government to adequately safeguard investors and maintain production levels. The resultant energy price spike would touch off a round of dollar sell-offs and make the current recession look like a walk in the park as manufacturing worldwide grinds to halt except in China and Russia.
So, Reich is wrong. Receivorship is not the answer. However, I understand where he is coming from; the idea of nationalizing the energy sector isn’t that farfetched or even extreme (anymore). It’s bad policy, but not something that when proposed by someone like Reich with centralized government proclivities proposes it surprises me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2118 hrs
Wait, this is where SoL reminds us that he has a Nobel prize. (He’s about due for another name change anyway.)
Why bring me into it? Aren’t you supposed to be just a nice liberal who is misunderstood by all the mean conservatives who hate you? And yet you feel some need to drag me into your argument. You were making an idiot of yourself quite nicely without my help.
I believe we already had the discussion about how stupid it is to assume that winning a Nobel Prize for 30 year old work in international economics somehow makes Robert Reiiiicchhhh omnipotent on all subjects. Lots of dim folks have won that prize… Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter, even our current bumbler in chief. He is hardly an expert on anything.
In explanation, on his own blog (blogs are dying though….right?) Scott explained his belief in the super human thought processes of Mr. Reich…. and exclaimed that he was credible because he had won the Nobel. I informed him that I was part of a team that had won the Nobel Prize too… The United Nations Protective Forces (along with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other soldiers). Apparently, that was not enough to deify my opinions for him though. It only applies if you are liberal.
Since I was dragged into this…. Only a redistributionist liberal (or Hugo Chavez) would think that you need to nationalize BP in order to address the leak. The federal government could have declared it a disaster and moved to stem the leak themselves. They could have gotten together top oil executives and engineers and developed a strategy… implemented it to stem the disaster… and worried about who was at fault afterward. Or, Barack could have ignored the issue for 3 weeks, gone on vacation, golfed, gave out basketball awards, stamped his feet and then screamed “heads will roll” like the queen of hearts during PMS. Yeah, that was the best way to go about it…. I’m sure Robert Reich would agree.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2158 hrs
That was supposed to be signed: The former Nobel Prize winning Family Guy, aka: A Son of Liberty who also won the Nobel Prize.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2201 hrs
I believe we already had the discussion about how stupid it is to assume that winning a Nobel Prize for 30 year old work in international economics somehow makes Robert Reiiiicchhhh omnipotent on all subjects.
In the first place, you’re hardly in a position to be mocking someone’s German-sounding name. In the second place, we weren’t discussing him, we were discussing Paul Krugman. Reich hasn’t won a Nobel.
And finally, a Nobel in academics is a far, far different thing than one awarded for “peace.”
And by the way, you haven’t won either of them.
Posted by scott on June 08, 2010 at 2236 hrs
I was actually mocking Robert’s speech, and perhaps his concept of governance (mostly that)... not his ethnicity…. though I believe he was born in the US. You are right though, I recall that we were discussing your omnipotent guru Paul Krugman then, not your omnipotent guru Robert Reich. My bad. Different guy…. same bad ideas and liberal Utopianism.
And by the way, you haven’t won either of them.
From the ridiculous Nobel Prize department: UN PEACE-KEEPERS WIN NOBEL PRIZE http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/1988a.html (click on Boston globe link… it’s black listed on Band S)
or get it from the source… the goofs at Nobel Prize committee themselves: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1988/un-history.html and http://www.skanhandel.dk/English/FP-Diplom-stor-UK.htm
Not that it makes a lick of difference. Nobel prizes and resumes packed with liberal adornments (or any adornments) do not make one profound, correct, experienced, or credible. Widely read by the faithful perhaps, but so is the Pope… and I hardly think that you believe the Pope to be credible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2010 at 2332 hrs
One difference in Katrina and the BP issue is one happened -and one continues to happen for 10 x the number of days of the Hurricane
The industry claimed to know how to stop a problem-and didn"t know how. Since no one else knew how, it took some time to realize these captains of industry lied about their expertise.
No one has the answer-even today.Not conservatives or liberals
No oneOnce we agree on that, the rest of these post’s are verbal diarrhea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0031 hrs
One difference in Katrina and the BP issue is one happened -and one continues to happen for 10 x the number of days of the Hurricane
I pointed this out 44 posts ago. What you are failing to point out is the level of hypocrisy from the left and the media… Obama is receiving very little criticism for what is a catastrophe of STILL UNKNOWN proportions, that he has done nothing but huff and puff (his signature move) about. I don’t know if he is waiting for the go ahead from the other end of the Blackberry, or the people inside the teleprompter or if he just has absolutely no clue what to do in a crisis situation, but if textbook-ese is the only language he understands, he better find one on “oil disaster mitigation and remediation” pretty quick.
The industry claimed to know how to stop a problem-and didn"t know how. Since no one else knew how, it took some time to realize these captains of industry lied about their expertise.
Lets be realistic, there appears to be evidence that BP itself behaved in a potentially negligent manner with regard to its operation. This problem cannot be generalized to “the industry”, although I know that is a typical tactic of the left, especially when it is a bogeyman like “big oil”. BP deserves its share of the blame, but the policies of “progressives” are what have gotten us into this. Again I ask, why are we even drilling so far offshore, in such deep water? If a blowout like this had occurred in ANWR it would have taken a day or two to address, and no caribou or snow fox would have been harmed in the process. Instead we are drilling for oil beneath 5,000 feet of water, and because we clearly weren’t prepared to deal with the ramifications of a disaster like this, we are likely to see the obliteration of fisheries, tourism, and thousands or millions of individual plants and animals.
No one has the answer-even today.Not conservatives or liberals
No oneYou may be right, but that is beside the point. The administration has had 51 Days, and Obama hasn’t even picked up the phone with BP. Now, we have insiders saying that the best way to deal with the issue is to nationalize BP’s U.S. operations? Gee, I wonder how that will work out…
Once we agree on that, the rest of these post’s are verbal diarrhea.
Well, since it has been so deemed, by you, it must be true. I guess all discourse must then also be “verbal diarrhea”, once we agree that conservatives nor liberals have the answer…. I guess government is nothing but Verbal Diarrhea…
I suppose the doge on this will be that Robert Reich isn’t credible. Disagree with him all you want (even I don’t know if I agree with him on this), but you can’t say he’s just some schmuck.
Not just some schmuck, a very famous, very liberal schmuck. Seriously though Scott, you wouldn’t give any credibility to anyone as partisan as Reich from the other side… Furthermore, the idea of using a situation like this to expand government power to the nth degree in itself defies credibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0637 hrs
Well said djmamayek. I liked the whole thing, but this was my favorite:
Seriously though Scott, you wouldn’t give any credibility to anyone as partisan as Reich from the other side…
It is so true Scott. Really, you dig your own holes on this blog. In general, you often don’t answer the sensible comments(because it is harder?), but you always try to win arguments with the Smeetys and the (old) Jasons of this blog when they make a far out or insulting comment. Then your signature move is to generalize their comments as the conservative norm. It is not my job smack down an insult to you or follow you out on a tangent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0800 hrs
Come on Tuerqas, I’m calming down a little bit…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0828 hrs
The federal government could have declared it a disaster and moved to stem the leak themselves. They could have gotten together top oil executives and engineers and developed a strategy… implemented it to stem the disaster… and worried about who was at fault afterward.
Yeah, I like that… maybe the federal government could have plugged the leak with some old WWII munitions.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ipu9BfrkcNVfAW_wtkfqmLOHi7gAD9G7C1I80
scott’s government working hard to protect us!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 0845 hrs
Come on Tuerqas, I’m calming down a little bit…
I know, I know, and Scott’s tail is just so much fun to pull…
Yeah, I like that… maybe the federal government could have plugged the leak with some old WWII munitions.
Mustard gas just won’t cut it, I’m thinkin’ nuke.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1512 hrs
you wouldn’t give any credibility to anyone as partisan as Reich from the other side
The hell I wouldn’t. I’m not saying I’d agree with them. But I’d readily admit that they weren’t sandwich-board-wearing street protesters, but instead legitimate, grown up voices of the other side.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 1521 hrs
legitimate, grown up voices of the other side.
These don’t exist on either side when it comes to politics. Just cheer for your team in November and then bitch/celebrate the outcome from the popularity contests.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on June 09, 2010 at 1605 hrs
legitimate, grown up voices of the other side.
Please offer some examples of people that YOU consider to be legitimate conservative voices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1759 hrs
Let’s see if I can find a decent comparison… someone who has academic cred and who has served in a Republican administration, has influence on the thinking of policy makers and who is widely read by a lot of people…. No names are coming to mind who fill all those criteria, but I’m sure there are many. How about Condoleezza Rice? She’s a law professor and has a lot of top government experience. If she wrote an editorial in the newspaper suggesting that a Republican president should do X, I think it’s fair to say that it would kind of be the same thing. Wouldn’t you?
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 1808 hrs
I wonder if Condy’s editorial would suggest doing something unconstitutional and unprecedented also? I guess, when you live in a world where the speaker of the house believes that “if congress does something it is constitutional” those sorts of things don’t really matter…
Reich’s comments were crackpottery, deserve to be labeled as such, and completely decimate whatever credibility you believe he deserves. When you are espousing the same spittle that gathers in the corner of the mouth of Rosie O’donnel, you have no credibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1845 hrs
if Condy’s editorial would suggest doing something unconstitutional and unprecedente
Then I would disagree with it, be, you know… against it. But it doesn’t change the point I"m trying to make: She’s a for-real big girl, someone who knows something about government, someone important people are going to hear out. This as opposed to, say, the head honcho of a group nobody ever heard of and which wields little or no influence on public policy; someone who’s flamboyantly protesting in the street precisely because he/she knows nobody listens to them and it’s an attempt to get at least some ink. She’s somebody. A mover and a shaker.
You don’t like the terminology I used? What did I say “credible”? Fine. You don’t like “legitimate”? Ok. Pick your term. Find a word that means “somebody important and well-known in politics and public policy who also has worked in government or otherwise known as a prominent political thinker”... and someone who is just some schmuck in an unknown interest group or someone protesting on the street or some obscure blogger. Got that word? Ok. Now insert it in the relevant place.
Notice I didn’t say a single thing about who is right or wrong in that little comparison. Even if you believe the “credible” person is the wrongest person in the history of wrongness on whatever it is he/she said, that’s not the point.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 1855 hrs
Obama has authority to take control of BP’s North American operations under the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The fact that the corporation’s shareholders are British has no bearing on the legality.
I suppose if it were a nuclear reactor melting down you would think that he would still have no authority, right?
rubes…
————
When I read the comments on blogs like this one, occasionally, I will just absorb them dispassionately, releasing all attachment to my own personal ideology. When I read your comments like that, objectively, it’s so easy to see that the conservatives here are just engaging in tribalistic mud flinging, and really have no desire to elevate the level of discourse, find common ground or even refine their own beliefs. They know what they know, and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.John Stewart phrased it so hilariously when he pwned (yet again) the truly insane glen beck
This can only one of two things:
Mr. Beck lives in a cloistered world of paranoid delusion that is impervious to a priori evidence that contradicts his worldview or ... Glen Beck has become so powerful that his wise words can now be acted upon retroactively.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1929 hrs
How about Condoleezza Rice?
One example instead of some? Ok, well, I can believe that you’ve not been exposed to much opinion from the other side to conflict with your own. Fine, We’ll work with Secretary Rice. Am I to compare her to Robert Reich and the Krugmeister? Ok, while I find that a big stretch, at least I know where you are coming from.
While I would give her credibility in the area of national security or foreign policy… if she wrote an article about the tea party movement, i would not put more faith in it simply because I believe she excels in other areas of knowledge. I think that is where you make your errors… offering Paulie and Bob too much credit for being omnipotent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 1954 hrs
I can believe that you’ve not been exposed to much opinion from the other side to conflict with your own.
I read this crazy blog every day. Which liberal ones are you so active on?
While I would give her credibility in the area of national security or foreign policy…
Reich is a professor of public policy and is the former secretary of labor. I think he’s probably within the limits of his expertise to have an opinion on whether the government can or should put BPs north american operations in temporary receivership. It’s not like it’s an article on middle-east foreign policy.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 2005 hrs
I do love how the far left wing of America is so obsessed with Beck. To bring him up completely off-topic… stellar.
- - - - -
When I read the comments on blogs like this one, occasionally, I will just absorb them dispassionately, releasing all attachment to my own personal ideology.What ideology? Dude, when you start hammering on Obama about Iraq or oil or Gitmo I may start thinking you are credible...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2118 hrs
I read this crazy blog every day. Which liberal ones are you so active on?
I read the NY Times and I listen to what small bit of liberal talk radio remains (Ed Schultz might be the only man alive who makes Keith Olbermann sound sane). I visit 538 when I can too. That’s about as much direct contact with the dark side as i can stomach.
For most folks though, it takes nothing more than to watch the nightly network news to get a fill of that days DNC talking points.
I love to watch what the enemy is doing… it’s like watching a train wreck over and over and over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2127 hrs
Oh, and I visit Salon.com to read what Camille Paglia has to say… though she seems to have gone into hiding since January.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2131 hrs
That’s about as much direct contact with the dark side as i can stomach.
So in other words, your accusation that I probably don’t get exposed much to the other side rings pretty hollow considering your own level of exposure.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 2132 hrs
Scott,
How many days into the oil spill (total) until BHO is held responsible and roasted over the coals?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2135 hrs
When you say “responsible,” you mean what exactly? Surely not that he’s responsible for the explosion itself. So… responsible for the fixing of it and the cleanup? I think he’s already said that he takes responsibility for that. And, yes, I’d like to see him kick some more ass, as it were. I don’t trust BP one tiny bit. Which is why the temporary receivership idea wasn’t so crazy sounding to me.
But I think what you really are asking is “when is Obama going to suffer political fallout from the disaster which will benefit our side?” On that front, I could care less. I only hope whatever fallout occurs simply compels him to take a more hands-on approach—whatever form that takes. In truth, I don’t know what I want him to do. I just know I want every resource available to the federal government applied to the problem post haste.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 2140 hrs
So… responsible for the fixing of it and the cleanup? I think he’s already said that he takes responsibility for that.
So…. you are disgusted with his lack of results?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2144 hrs
you are disgusted with his lack of results?
Isn’t everyone? But to blame the president one might need to have some idea of what he should be doing differently. Do you? Frankly, I don’t.
Posted by scott on June 09, 2010 at 2150 hrs
I understand BHO got caught off guard, and for that I don’t fault him, but his sense of urgency hasn’t been present. He and his staff clearly don’t know how to manage a huge project that doesn’t include speaking to large liberal crowds. I believe there are are probably thousands of engineers and scientists out there in the world with knowledge and leadership to have stopped this spill weeks ago. I believe we will find out about these people and their ideas in the coming weeks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2200 hrs
So in other words, your accusation that I probably don’t get exposed much to the other side rings pretty hollow considering your own level of exposure.
Well, I apparently read a whole lot more of the political spectrum than you do. Of course, that’s usually pretty clear from some of your arguments. Not too many views outside of the Democrat norm. I have seen you discuss buying a gun (no idea if you actually pulled the trigger though), but that is not necessarily outside the Democrat norm. The rest of your opinions are mostly cookie cutter.
I suspect I could have the same arguments by simply quoting from the DNC daily soundbites and then arguing with them…. though it would lack the particular flair that you lend to the discussions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2010 at 2227 hrs
Obama has authority to take control of BP’s North American operations under the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
You’re dreaming. There’s nothing in that law that even remotely allows what you’re claiming. [URL=“http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=33USCC40”]Read it for yourself.[/URL]
Instead of pretending to be more intelligent than the rest of us, maybe you could do a little research.
Okay, I’ve followed this thread mostly because I enjoy scott’s machinations. In that regard, I’d like to point out he claimed “(c)redible people are suggesting…” Doesn’t that imply more than one? Maybe, in his mind, Reich is so far beyond “credible” that he now equals “people”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 0935 hrs
So now we’ve moved on from the definition of “credible” and we’re now on to the whether or not the noun modified by it should be plural. Not a bad achievement for 57 comments.
But before we begin, I’d like to know what you mean by “followed.” Do you mean to say that you’ve read it all? Or maybe that you’ve understood it? if we can get that wrapped up in under 50 comments, I’d really like to unpack the word “machinations” with you. Now there’s a word.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2010 at 0942 hrs
So now we’ve moved on from the definition of “credible” and we’re now on to the whether or not the noun modified by it should be plural. Not a bad achievement for 57 comments.
Just trying to stir the pot. You should probably try to take yourself less seriously, though. It’s just a blog.
For the record, I concede Reich is “credible”. I happen to disagree with him, but that’s not the point, is it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 0953 hrs
But before we begin, I’d like to know what you mean by “followed.” Do you mean to say that you’ve read it all? Or maybe that you’ve understood it? if we can get that wrapped up in under 50 comments, I’d really like to unpack the word “machinations” with you. Now there’s a word.
Is English your second language? well, my apologies for not realizing that after all this time.
I’m guessing that followed and machinations imply that he has been amused by watching you spin and twist facts and opinions to support your rather “incredible” opinions on the subject matter at hand…. or lack of it, at this point. that is what I meant when I referred to ““the particular flair that you lend to the discussions.”“
I still can’t call Reich credible though. Educated… well read… an economic guru? Yeah, those I could agree on. Wrong almost all the time with a dismal record when it comes to predictions? Yeah, I can agree there too. Credible…. not so much.
To continue, at this point, to believe that bankrupting a nation and possibly driving it to insolvency will somehow improve it’s economy is just blatantly ignorant. With the number 20 trillion looming as our future debt (perhaps as soon as the end of Barack’s failed presidency), even a robust economy as has never been seen in the US would be unable to pay down or even control that amount of debt. Spending to the point of collapse should be obviously stupid… though for some reason, Riech and Feldstein do not find it so, even as one European domino after another topples and our Canadian friends work desperately to save the very health care system we aspire to. That is not credible opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1011 hrs
I don’t trust BP one tiny bit. Which is why the temporary receivership idea wasn’t so crazy sounding to me.
Our President does… he accepted TONS of campaign cash from them, and allowed them to assist in the writing of the Kerry Liebermann bill. So, you trust BHO, but not his buddies, whom he allows to sit in on “America changing” legislation?
The evidence of crony capitalism piling up against BHO makes Bush look like an amateur, and you are still on the “he walks on water” meme… C’mon Scott, open your eyes.
Isn’t everyone? But to blame the president one might need to have some idea of what he should be doing differently. Do you? Frankly, I don’t.
Really? ..... Really? You cannot think of a single thing that he could have done differently? ARE YOU F’ING KIDDING ME!!!!???
How about this for starters:
1.) CALL THE CEO OF BP, and find out what their contingency is.
2.) Accept the offers of Dutch boomships.
3.) Immediately start assembling a commission of experts from the industry, and the university crowd.
4.) DIVERT UNSPENT STIMULUS DOLLARS!!!!!
5.) Start buying hay, hair clippings, rags, t-shirts, paper towels, dawn, sponges, garbage bags, and anything else that anyone can think of that might absorb oil
6.) contact EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH about buying oil booms.
7.) Hire civilians to get the hell out there and clean up tar balls
I can think of dozens more…. and you can’t think of ONE FRICKING THING!!!? Jesus, you are lost.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1657 hrs
Oh, #8.) Don’t wait 52 DAYS and counting to DO ANYTHING AT ALL!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1658 hrs
9.) find a company that can produce oil booms and place a HUGE ORDER, and make it worth their while to produce your order FIRST.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1700 hrs
10.) Procure the raw materials needed to produce the booms. How many do you think a fully staffed manufacturing facility could produce in 52 days, Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1701 hrs
I find it interesting how you can believe in manbearpig, and believe that it is going to destroy the planet, but when something that genuinely has MASSIVE implications for the environment… You yawn, and say something as stupid as… “I don’t know what he could have done differently.”
I am astounded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1721 hrs
Aaaand, my guess is scott will disappear from this thread, or throw out a quick one liner to djmamayek’s posts, and then disappear.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1752 hrs
I don’t want government to clean up this mess, I want business to clean up their own mess. It is not the responsibility of the federal government, and tax payers, to come to the aid of a business. I was against the bank bailouts and I’m against any federal tax dollars spent on a mess created by a business.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1753 hrs
I don’t have any real means of assessing whether those are useful ideas or not. Some of them sound ok. Let’s go for it. Why don’t you call the white house?
Pat, I agree with you. I don’t want ANY taxpayer money going into the cleanup. I want BP to be on the hook for every last dime. But I DO want the government in charge. Leaving BP in charge and also paying the bill would be like crashing your car into someone’s house, having to pay for the repairs, but also being the person who decides what needs fixing, when, with what materials, and when “good enough” has been achieved. No thanks. I want BP to pay (and to do as much of the work as they possibly can) and I want US to be in charge.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2010 at 1757 hrs
I would agree with you Pat, and Scott… Had BP proven that they had the ability to contain or stop this mess about, oh, 45 days ago. At this point, the damage to the US economy, and ecosystem of the gulf could justify a small expenditure of the already spent stimulus dollars… What did the democrats call it? ........ “Found dollars” ?
I agree Scott, I want BP to do the work, and the US to be in charge. We can bill them for the damages on all the booms and sponges, and dawn dish detergent we send the unemployed out to the beaches with.
I am all in on the libertarianism (funny that Scott would maneuver to the “right” of me on this one), but this is one situation that the government has gotten us into (bans on shallow water drilling, and on shore drilling) that they should be partially on the hook for getting us out of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1817 hrs
I don’t have any real means of assessing whether those are useful ideas or not.
Cop out.
Let’s go for it. Why don’t you call the white house?
You’re the one who gets Rahms daily talking point faxes, right?
Seriously though, these criticisms have been out there on the right for weeks…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 1822 hrs
Why don’t you call the white house?
Perhaps you can call James Cameron… I hear that he has some influence with Barack…heh.
How about this for starters:
1.) CALL THE CEO OF BP, and find out what their contingency is.
2.) Accept the offers of Dutch boomships.
3.) Immediately start assembling a commission of experts from the industry, and the university crowd.That’s not the way it’s done in community organization school.
1) Express your deep regret about the disaster and make vague comments about blaming industry.
2) Imply that the problem is one that you inherited and could not have done anything to prevent
3) Wait for someone to fix the problem. Take credit when it seems near resolution
4) Not fixed yet? Blame industry and deny that you were in control of the fix.Wait some more while asking Rahm to find a way to use the disaster to political benefit
5) There is a new fix? take credit. Wait…Still not fixed? Deny culpability. Blame industry. Go on vacation.
6) What? they expected me to do something? Ok, I’ll stop by and pose for holy pictures on the beach while showing my brilliant command of the clean-up… unless it fails in which case I had nothing to do with it.
7) Release the lawyers and shout out loud like the Queen of Hearts “Heads will roll”! Mock the CEO of BP…. who you have never met.
8) Still not fixed? Damn. I’m going to kick somebody’s ass for not fixing this… who is at fault?
9) Bend over and kick your own ass (My thanks to John Stewart)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 2003 hrs
the government has gotten us into (bans on shallow water drilling, and on shore drilling) that they should be partially on the hook for getting us out of.
I know you didn’t just say you wanted taxpayers to pay for this. You did not just say that. Really? How long are you going to suck BP’s dick? Jesus! There’s almost certain to be criminal prosecutions for this shit. And all you can think to say is that some ban on some other kind of drilling forced them to do it—oh, they didn’t want to, we forced them!—and now we have to pay for their criminally negligent fuck up?
You know what? I hope you and your candidates go to your fellow Americans with that shit this fall. Please, oh, please do.
Posted by scott on June 10, 2010 at 2125 hrs
I suspect that will play better than the idea of ending off shore drilling. That’s a lot like deciding to end air travel, or put a moratorium on new air routes, because of an airplane crash.
Has anyone ever noticed that the more defensive liberals get, the more they swear? The worse their position, the worse their language. I really should invite a few liberals to my next poker game. Easy pickings.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 2157 hrs
DJ mamelek
The government should pay nothing, will pay nothing and apologists for BP like yourselves are delusional .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2010 at 2340 hrs
If anyone thinks because big oil is a big contributor to politicians it makes a difference in accountability, I’d think twice. If it did make a difference there would be drilling all over the place including shallow water and on shore. This is strictly a problem of BPs making and a problem for BP to solve. They do not want this to last one day longer then it needs to. Their stock has tanked, which by the way, now is the time to buy as it will come back and a very good return can be made.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 0603 hrs
You did not just say that. Really? How long are you going to suck BP’s dick?
1.) I said PARTIALLY. There are still unspent stimulus dollars waiting to be shoveled into the coal furnace in Nancy Pelosi’s winery. Use them for this.
2.) I am saying that this is a disaster. BP clearly cannot handle it. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING! I never knew you hated the environment so much.
3.) We should go after BP for every penny we spend (as I have already said).
4.) BHO is the one sucking BP’s dick, the evidence is there… (To use your cute colloquialism)
You know what? I hope you and your candidates go to your fellow Americans with that shit this fall. Please, oh, please do.
You are much more dense than I have ever given you credit for, Scott. Your candidate went to the voters with a litany of things that he wanted the tax payers to vote for… You and your batshit crazy friends got his neophyte ass elected, and now that the blinders of “the second coming” are off, you guys are scared shitless about the apparent MORON of epic proportions you elected. If Barack could take his eyes off the Blago trial for 5 seconds it would be pretty clear that something needs to be done here.
Scott, I wonder, did you criticize Bush Sr. for being slow to respond to the Valdez, I bet you did….
DJ mamelek
The government should pay nothing, will pay nothing and apologists for BP like yourselves are delusional .
First of all Mr. Maley. No need to be disrespectful with the misspelling of names.
I am not apologizing for BP, I have said SEVERAL TIMES here that they should be held fully responsible. I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the government start getting some money down there, and actively try to retrieve it when this calamity is over.
You liberals and your selective treatment of environmentalism is disgusting…. MANBEARPIG, oh GOD, we need carbon caps and taxes on industry to stop the dreaded MANBEARPIG, we need to put billions in Al Gores pockets, because he is going to save the world….. BUT, now that there is actually a genuine environmental catastrophe (again, of still unknown proportions) you guys just wanna watch the oil flow right out into the ocean… It’s not even my mantle to take up, and I am more pissed about what BP has done than you guys are….There’s almost certain to be criminal prosecutions for this shit.
Do you honestly think that our ethically challenged President has the integrity to go after a major campaign contributor? One that he has allowed to help write Cap and Trade? Really?
And all you can think to say is that some ban on some other kind of drilling forced them to do it—oh, they didn’t want to, we forced them!—
We did force them to do it… You don’t think they’r rather be drilling in shallow water, or ANWR? Are you that stupid?
and now we have to pay for their criminally negligent fuck up?
Here is what I posted, just 5 posts ago, before you lost your mind and went off the cuss-word deep end.
I agree Scott, I want BP to do the work, and the US to be in charge. We can bill them for the damages on all the booms and sponges, and dawn dish detergent we send the unemployed out to the beaches with.
So stop with your moronic “sucking dick” B.S…. You know I don’t want to have to spend tax dollars on this. I don’t want to have to spend tax dollars mowing lawns in the Milwaukee County Parks for God’s sake. I am saying, in all caps so maybe you can understand, and you may want to use the “pinch to zoom” feature on your IPAD to make sure you understand what I am saying.
I WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DIVERT UNSPENT STIMULUS DOLLARS TO THE GULF. WHEN THE LEAK IS PLUGGED, AND THE OCEAN IS CLEAN… I WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO SUE BP FOR THE SPENT DOLLARS. BY YOUR OWN F-ED UP THINKING, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE STEPPING IN AND CREATING DEMAND IN AN INDUSTRY, SPURRING ECONOMIC GROWTH, RIGHT? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF THE STIMULUS DOLLARS GO TO MAKING BOOMS, OR TO LYING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF STIMULUS WORKERS HIRED, OR “SAVING” TEACHERS JOBS BY GIVING THEM A 5% RAISE?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 0724 hrs
I know you didn’t just say you wanted taxpayers to pay for this.
DJ mamelek
The government should pay nothing, will pay nothing and apologists for BP like yourselves are delusional .
Mark and Scott, wouldn’t it be cool if people actually read the comments they mock before they mock it? In comment 96, the one you both are referring to, there is no mention from Dj that the Government should pay for anything, but there is a comment that the Government should bill BP for everything.
How do your comments make any sense? Partially on the hook means be partially responsible for. Everyone including Scott thinks they should be, or does ‘Government should be in charge of the clean up because BP is untrustworthy’ mean something entirely different than ‘on the hook’? You’ll have to explain that difference to me and then perhaps it will show how Dj is a BP apologist.
Every partisan liberal thinks that Government should be bigger, control more. Y’know, if an incorruptible elite group of people were running it, it would not be a bad place to live. Enlightened despotisms have been the most effective Governments in history (not good, effective). The partisan liberal position has to be getting pretty damn uncomfortable about now. All sides (except BP and perhaps the purest of capitalist idealists) think Government should have taken control long before now with the only question seeming to be should it be a constitutional or unconstitutional takeover.
A perfect liberal situation. A need and public desire has arisen that will give Government more control. The only problem is: No one in Government knows how.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 0759 hrs
the government has gotten us into (bans on shallow water drilling, and on shore drilling) that they should be partially on the hook for getting us out of.
Well if that doesn’t mean you want the government to pay for some of this, then I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. If you mean “spend money and bill them later” then ok. I get that, and I’ll apologize for going off about it. But it sure as hell seems like you’re suggesting that taxpayer dollars go into fixing the problem because the government caused it.
All sides (except BP and perhaps the purest of capitalist idealists) think Government should have taken control long before now
I don’t believe that for a minute. If Obama had moved to put BP in receivership, for example, every Republican in the country would be in front of a mic using the phrase “government takeover of the energy sector.” I can hear it now: First it was the banks, then it was the auto industry, then it was health care, now it’s engery!
Glenn Beck would pull another Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the energy companies…” as he wiped a fake tear from his eye.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 0851 hrs
If you mean “spend money and bill them later” then ok. I get that, and I’ll apologize for going off about it.
Based on the middle paragraph:
I agree Scott, I want BP to do the work, and the US to be in charge. We can bill them for the damages on all the booms and sponges, and dawn dish detergent we send the unemployed out to the beaches with.
I think it was pretty clear how it was meant.
I don’t believe that for a minute. If Obama had moved to put BP in receivership, for example, every Republican in the country would be in front of a mic using the phrase “government takeover of the energy sector.”
And they should get an earful for taking over in an unconstitutionally dictatorial fashion when there are constitutional options available, but if they had taken over, then they are taking responsibility for it. It is clear Obama does not want to do that at any point or to any capacity. He wants to blame big oil and twist it in to political capital for Democrats. Instead of talking to specialists on the problem, he has been talking to his spin doctors.
That stratgem has failed epically because 1) It is known that he received more campaign money from BP than Republicans and 2) If he steps in now it will be admitting that the Government should be responsible for supervising the clean up and why the HELL didn’t they do it a lot sooner? So he sits on the outside yelling in, praying that BP handles this so he can pull a minute amount of political capital out of it all: ‘See? I do not believe Government should have taken the situation over, it was BP’s mess and they are taking care of it. All I needed to do was yell. I am looking over their shoulder too. Oh yeah, you betcha. I kicked their ass!’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 0937 hrs
If Obama had moved to put BP in receivership, for example, every Republican in the country would be in front of a mic using the phrase “government takeover of the energy sector.” I can hear it now: First it was the banks, then it was the auto industry, then it was health care, now it’s engery!
... and they would be wrong how?
If they are going to seize things, they better do it fast. It seems that with the lack of effective reaction to the oil spill, frightening debt and spending, the likely double dip coming at the beginning of 2011, and the continued jobless mess, people might be quite tired of hopey-changey propaganda.
Keep ignoring the oil and the states begging for help… the oil will make excellent grease for the skids to run the carpet baggers out of town in the fall.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 0951 hrs
lack of effective reaction to the oil spill
It’s not the federal governments responsibility to have to react to a problem that is created by a business. It is the responsibility of that business to react to what they’ve done.
I don’t want stimulus money spent on this.
I don’t want the federal government spending any money on this hoping they can bill, and get the money paid back, from BP. BP has deap pockets and can afford to pay for this without government help.It seems like there’s a number of people who don’t like governement involvement in business issues unless they like government involvement in business issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1024 hrs
No, there’s a number of people who don’t like government involvement unless it provides an opportunity to damage their political opponents.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1027 hrs
It’s not the federal governments responsibility to have to react to a problem that is created by a business.
Like Citi? Like AIG? Like Fannie/Freddie? Like GM?
Consistency please, fellas…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1045 hrs
I don’t want the federal government spending any money on this hoping they can bill, and get the money paid back, from BP. BP has deap pockets and can afford to pay for this without government help.
Exactly the approach your president has taken. Do little or nothing to help the people that are being harmed by the spill. Do little or nothing to assist the states in mitigating the damage. Do little or nothing to help with clean up and organization. Well, most of those states are red states anyway.
Blame BP and hope for a big political payoff from the spill.
You must be thrilled with the response then, Pat. Looks like you have your finger on the pulse (or lack thereof) of the administration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1047 hrs
Hey Pat the broken record, we all got your opinion, it was already a given. You can quit telling us that 2+2=4. It never was a question of whether anyone wants the Government to pay for anything. No one does except liberal politicrats who see this as a way to nationalize energy and put more control in Government hands.
Most everyone agrees that BP can afford to pay for it too. The question is should BP be responsible for overseeing its own fix and clean up. If you think so, say that, it would be new. If you agree with the rest of us that the legitimate overseer here would be Government, the common way to render service (and oversight is a service) is to render the service and then bill the receiver. What is it that you are actually suggesting?
Even most hard core market capitalists believe that some regulation of businesses is necessary and I will bet money that requiring a contingency to fix a problem like this is one such regulation already on the books. BP has failed safety regulations both on the original rig and in their contingency plans. The enforcer of those regulations is the Government. They also have failed twice in approving the faulty contingency plans and, in a case such as this that affects probably millions of people, in not stepping to halt the destruction before this.
Fiscal responsibility is still solely BPs. Disaster responsibility is split between BP and our Government, not in equal shares perhaps, but it definitely falls on both. Personally, I would say that day 1 through 7 the disaster responsibility was 100% BP. Once it became clear that BP contingencies were not working (by day 14 at the latest) it should have become 100% Government responsibility with BP falling to advisor and bill payer.
What you have been saying, Pat, is equivalent to a farmer who starts a fire to burn off his field. He has acceptable fire breaks, but the fire jumps to the field next to his anyway. According to you, the farmer should put out the fire by himself. Can’t do it? Well don’t use the Government resource of a fire department, he started it on purpose. Let the farmer stop the fire and pay for any damages. Details on how that works out for everyone on the news at ten.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1114 hrs
Stimulus money?!?! What did that money stimulate other than Democratic corruption? Money stolen from the tax payers to reward flunkies
Are there more jobs ? No!
Is the economy recovering? NO! We may be heading toward a deeper recession because of obama’s rescinding of the Bush tax cuts.
There is NOTHING you frikking Liberals do that is worth a tinker’s damn.
The best thing obama could do for this country is to resign as President and let no clue Biden take a whack at it.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1117 hrs
What did that money stimulate other than Democratic corruption? Money stolen from the tax payers to reward flunkies
Are there more jobs ? No!Welcome to bizarro-world, where facts are created and discarded at will.
Carry on.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1118 hrs
How right you are. That’s exactly what your boy and his stooges have been doing, to the detriment of all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1122 hrs
Welcome to bizarro-world
I couldn’t have made a better comparison.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1125 hrs
Like Citi? Like AIG? Like Fannie/Freddie? Like GM?
Consistency please, fellas…
I was totaly against the bail out. Alway consistent.
You must be thrilled with the response then, Pat. Looks like you have your finger on the pulse (or lack thereof) of the administration.
I’m a conservative, unlike some conservatives in name only, and believe that government is best kept out of a businesses problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1144 hrs
So, TUERQAS, I guess what you’re saying is that government should involve itself when the a problem effects alot of people. The government should then use all available resources and monies to necessary to stablize and resolve the problem at hand. Kind of like if there were a financial crisis and bank bailouts were called for, and the banks were expected to pay the money back.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1217 hrs
Kind of like if there were a financial crisis and bank bailouts were called for, and the banks were expected to pay the money back.
Oh, I forgot…...Details on how that works out for everyone on the news at ten.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1221 hrs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575300502253092016.html
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1234 hrs
Welcome to bizarro-world, where facts are created and discarded at will.
Yes, of course there are more jobs. Jobs were created to hand out the stimulus money. New secretaries and staffers were added to the ACORN and community organization payrolls… and let’s not forget the long term well paying Census jobs. There were some jobs created on the governments credit card… mostly jobs that add little value to the economy and are not sustainable under our long term Great Recession.
If guys like Scott are happy with that, then let them crow about it… all the way to the next election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1238 hrs
I’m a conservative, unlike some conservatives in name only, and believe that government is best kept out of a businesses problem.
If the spill had stayed contained in a BP facility, that would be fine. It has grown into a national disaster though. That’s one of those times that we created government for…. unfortunately, when they had a real chance to act in our best interest, the boss took a vacation.
Your call is important to us… please stay on the line…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1241 hrs
I recall vividly how upset you were about Bush’s record-setting vacation schedule during all manner of crises. It was like looking into a blast furnace!
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1258 hrs
So, TUERQAS, I guess what you’re saying is that government should involve itself when the a problem effects alot of people.
See, I only used your words. The assumption above is a very poor interpretation of what I said, not to mention inaccurate. Though upon reflection of my comment, not wildly so. Was any part of my interpretation of your words incorrect?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1331 hrs
I’m waiting to see how Pat likes the link I Provided above. Or must we wait for the 10 o’clock news for that?
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1335 hrs
I only used your words
I don’t recall saying anything about a farmer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1345 hrs
I’m waiting to see how Pat likes the link I Provided above. Or must we wait for the 10 o’clock news for that?
It’s a beautiful link you provided Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1347 hrs
Well that seems to have shut you up, I guess. Just making sure you saw it.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1350 hrs
Well that seems to have shut you up, I guess. Just making sure you saw it.
What did you want me to say about it?? Say it’s inaccurate, toss out an insult, find a different link??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1355 hrs
All three is what I expected! But the other option would be to admit that some of that TARP money seems to have “worked out” ok for us after all. I won’t hold my breath, though.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1357 hrs
It’s accurate, TARP money seems to have worked out, I’m happy about that. And your point is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1407 hrs
Only that you were wrong in your snarky comment #119. The end.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1409 hrs
Go back and read #118 directed at TUERQAS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1413 hrs
If you have a point to make, brother, bring it on home.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1423 hrs
TUERQAS and others are against government getting involved with taxpayer money when it comes to bank bailouts when the banks are expected, and have, paid them back. But are for government getting involved with taxpayer money when it comes to this oil well disaster of BPs.
My point, or question, would be; why is it good for government to be involved in one but not the other. How are disasters being defined as to when government should and should not get involved. Financial disaster: no, Oil well disaster: yes
Or in the case of a farmer starting a fire that gets out of control: yes
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1441 hrs
That’s a great question but I don’t know why you’re asking me that. I’m not arguing with you about that. I only was responding to your insinuation that the TARP bailout was not going to be paid back.
Posted by scott on June 11, 2010 at 1447 hrs
I wasn’t/hadn’t directed any question or statement you prior to you making reference to #119.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1458 hrs
No, there’s a number of people who don’t like government involvement unless it provides an opportunity to damage their political opponents.
Don’t know if this garbage was directed at me, or conservatives in general, but it makes no sense at all… I am not running against obama in 2012, in fact I am seeking no office at all in 2012. Therefore, I have no “political opponents”... I have people I disagree with. This isn’t just semantics Scott, you seem to honestly believe that we are engaged in some sort of campaign here.
Well if that doesn’t mean you want the government to pay for some of this, then I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. If you mean “spend money and bill them later” then ok. I get that, and I’ll apologize for going off about it.
Good God, did you finally put your glasses on or something? I know I put a couple wrong words in there, when I was pissed, but I am pretty sure the message was coming through… TUERQAS seemed to get it.
TUERQAS and others are against government getting involved with taxpayer money when it comes to bank bailouts when the banks are expected, and have, paid them back. But are for government getting involved with taxpayer money when it comes to this oil well disaster of BPs.
My point, or question, would be; why is it good for government to be involved in one but not the other. How are disasters being defined as to when government should and should not get involved. Financial disaster: no, Oil well disaster: yes
Or in the case of a farmer starting a fire that gets out of control: yes
So are you saying that a farmer should have to chase down and put out his own grass fire when it is threatening his neighbors property? Because that is what we are talking about with the oil spill. I expect the government to play the part of the fire department, then seek reimbursement from BP… We are talking about the destruction of whole industries here.
I only was responding to your insinuation that the TARP bailout was not going to be paid back.
You honestly believe it will? Lets see the audit…... Bet it never happens.
Better yet, lets see an audit of the Fed, that’ll happen too…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1601 hrs
But are for government getting involved with taxpayer money when it comes to this oil well disaster of BPs.
Huh? Sorry, I can only conclude that you are an imbecile. No one (at least, certainly not me)has said that taxpayer money should be used to clean up the Gulf without giving the bill to BP. If you think that last phrase of the statement is somehow unimportant…imbecile.
I will gladly define the clear differences between the banking and auto industry troubles and the oil spill disaster if you need that. May I use words larger than five letters?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 1604 hrs
I will gladly define the clear differences between the banking and auto industry troubles and the oil spill disaster if you need that. May I use words larger than five letters?
No, you don’t need to. You’d just be wasting both your time and mine with your patronizing retort. You’ve proven yourself to be quite the sanctimonious asshole.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 11, 2010 at 2230 hrs
@cynical
You’re dreaming. There’s nothing in that law that even remotely allows what you’re claiming. Read it for yourself.Instead of pretending to be more intelligent than the rest of us, maybe you could do a little research.
Section 2716a
In addition to, or in lieu of, assessing a penalty under subsection
(a) of this section, the President may request the Attorney General to
secure such relief as necessary to compel compliance with this
section 2716 of this title, including a judicial order terminating
operations. The district courts of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to grant ANY relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.Fucking idiot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2010 at 1234 hrs
So from post #141 dj, in his expert legal opinion, gets:
Obama has authority to take control of BP’s North American operations under the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The fact that the corporation’s shareholders are British has no bearing on the legality.
Maybe in Venezuela….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 12, 2010 at 1810 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134055
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:03 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:15 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).