• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
No, the regulations are still the same. They just aren't being enforced.

Surely you aren't suggesting that under the Bush administration, MMS was full of diligent employees who watched the oil companies like hawks, but then Obama came into town and spread the word to go easy on big oil? You can't possibly be suggesting that, can you?
 
Katrina was even less Bush's fault, yet democrats were quick to assign him all the blame and even call for his impeachment over it.

Which is why it's entirely appropriate to label this Obama's Katrina.

What is absolutely unforgivable about the response to Katrina is that it occurred four years after 9/11. Why so? If the Bush administration, and HS/FEMA in particular, had been doing their job regarding preparation for future attacks using WMD or similar, the resources, logistics, planning, coordination, and hierarchy of local, state and federal response teams for speedily treating, evacuating, feeding, and housing large urban populations would have been put in place. What we witnessed instead was woefully inadequate.

In simple terms, if the levies had been blown by a terrorist during a storm instead of simply giving way, what we would have seen clearly is that there was no one "on first" ready to roll for an attack/catastrophe of this magnitude. The "preparations" the Bush team did make were to place ineffectual cronies in positions of responsibility, and zilch else. This is ineptitude at its finest.

To compare the Katrina response to the BP oil situation is simply a faux news talking point that appeals to the feeble minded and those whose analytical skills rival those of a peanut.

If an when there is a similar attack/natural event that involves a major population center, we may then gauge what this administration has done to actually prepare. Until then, it's all empty rhetoric. As for the Gulf, the onus is on those responsible: BP and its contractors.
 
Last edited:
No, the regulations are still the same. They just aren't being enforced.

The same way the previous administration worked. I'm glad that you're seeing the importance of regulating big business though. Welcome to the Dark Side.;)
 
To compare the Katrina response to the BP oil situation is simply a faux news talking point that appeals to the feeble minded and those whose analytical skills rival those of a peanut.

:rolleyes:

Let me guess. You're a hardcore democrat and Obama supporter. :D
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061602666_pf.html

Obama volunteers face anger in gulf in wake of oil spill

… snip …

"I can't tell you how much anger there is out there," he said. "I have people ready to spit in my face."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20
 
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...ation-decides-to-accept-dutch-offer-for-help/

Three days after the Gulf oil rig explosion, the Netherlands offered to send in oil skimmers to pump oil off of the surface of the ocean. The Obama Administration turned them down because they were not 100% efficient and small amounts of oil would be pumped back into the Gulf with the excess water. EPA regulations do not allow for residue water to contain any oil. So rather than use equipment that was not 100% efficient the Obama Administration chose to let all of the oil run into the Gulf.

That's why this is Obama's Katrina.

Oh and don't forget this from the above link too:

The Obama Administration turned down offers to help clean up the spill from The Netherlands and the British Government just days after the explosion. They didn’t accept the British help because they didn’t have the proper paperwork. The administration still has not given the OK to allow emergency workers to use a Maine company’s oil boom even though they were made aware of the warehouse full of containment boom back on May 21.

And you folks want the government to run our health care system and manage the economy too? :rolleyes:
 
http://www.atr.org/top-six-obama-mistruths-national-energy-a5085#

Top Six Obama Mistruths From National Energy Address

“We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got…we will go whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.”

FACT: The President has not waived the Jones Act which prevents foreign ships from getting involved because of the federal Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which mandates that all goods shipped between U.S. ports be transported in U.S.-built, U.S.-owned and U.S. -manned ships. President George W. Bush waived the Jones Act to allow assistance from foreign countries during the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita almost immediately. The President is preventing European companies from Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian firms with such advanced environmental technology to further his political gain.

“I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs.”

FACT: The potential loss of 120,000 jobs and as many as 46,200 supporting jobs becoming idled by the moratorium, during the worst recession our country has experienced, creates a bit more than “difficulty” for the men and women whom these rigs employ.

“Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America."

FACT: We completely agree. But apparently the President forgot 80 percent of the first $1 billion spent on grants to wind energy companies went to foreign firms and jobs to build turbines overseas. In the second round of government grants, 79 percent of the $2.1 billion in grants went to companies based overseas; of this money, $2.9 billion goes to wind facilities.

“Old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines…small businesses are making solar panels.”

FACT: These are not market-created jobs – these are jobs artificially created by injecting taxpayer dollars into a certain sector stimulating artificial supply with no market demand. In Florida, the DeSoto Solar Center was supposed to be the “largest solar power plant in the United States,” according to President Obama. The Center received $150 million from the Recovery Act. After using 400 construction workers to build the site, the Solar Center now employs only two people. These jobs are not sustainable.

“People are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows…”

FACT: The President is referring to a program in the stimulus called “weatherization” which many argue is the most failed attempt to artificially create jobs in the market where they wouldn’t typically exist. With $5 billion appropriated for this project, less than 10,000 homes have been weatherized nationwide out of 593,000. Only $522 million - less than 10 percent of the money available - has been spent on weatherization. The Inspector General found the jobs impact “has not materialized” and the Government Accountability Office found the application of costly Davis-Bacon wage requirements equates to over $57,000 per home nationwide.

“Now, there are costs associated with this transition [in reference to the House passed cap-and-trade bill]. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to…”

FACT: Below are just a few of the costs the President claims American “can’t afford not to” pay if his “vision” for America’s energy future is passed:

- Gasoline prices will rise 58 percent (or $1.38)
- Natural gas prices will rise 55 percent
- Heating oil prices will rise 56 percent
- Electricity prices will rise 90 percent
- A family of four can expect its per-year energy costs to rise by $1,241
- Including taxes, a family of four will pay an additional $4,609 per year
- Aggregate GDP losses will be $9.4 trillion
- Aggregate cap-and-trade energy taxes will be $5.7 trillion
- Job losses will be nearly 2.5 million
- The national debt will rise an additional $12,803 per person ($51,212 per family of four).
- Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion
- Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035.
- Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/16/fact-check-obama-left-blanks-in-oil-spill-speech/

A look at some of his statements and how they compare with those facts:

OBAMA: "We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused and we will do whatever's necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. ... Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party."

THE FACTS: An independent arbiter is no more bound to the government's wishes than an oil company's. In that sense, there is no certainty BP will be forced to make the Gulf economy whole again or that taxpayers are off the hook for the myriad costs associated with the spill or cleanup. The government can certainly press for that, using legislative and legal tools. But there are no guarantees and the past is not reassuring. (BAC - and by the way, the third party Obama named can hardly be described as "independent".)

… snip …

OBAMA: "In the coming days and weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well."

THE FACTS: BP and the administration contend that if all goes as planned, they should be able to contain nearly 90 percent of the worst-case oil flow. But that's a big "if." So far, little has gone as planned in the various remedies attempted to shut off or contain the flow. Possibly as much as 60,000 barrels a day is escaping. BP would need to nearly triple its recovery rate to reach the target.

OBAMA: Temporary measures will capture leaking oil "until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that is expected to stop the leak completely."

THE FACTS: That's the hope, but experts say the relief well runs the same risks that caused the original well to blow out. It potentially could create a worse spill if engineers were to accidentally damage the existing well or tear a hole in the undersea oil reservoir.

OBAMA: "From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation's history."

THE FACTS: Early on, the government established a command center and put Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen in charge of coordinating the overall spill response. But officials also repeatedly have emphasized that BP was "responsible" and they have relied heavily on BP in making decisions from hiring cleanup workers to what oil dispersing chemicals to use. Local officials in the Gulf region have complained that often they don't know who's in charge - the government or BP.

OBAMA: "We have approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore."

THE FACTS: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and local officials pleaded for weeks with the Army Corps of Engineers and the spill response command for permission to build about 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands. State officials applied for an emergency permit to build the berms May 11, but as days went by Jindal became increasingly angry at federal inaction. The White House finally agreed to a portion of the berm plan on June 2. … snip …

And you know what was the #1 lie in Obama's speech? This ...

part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean -- because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.

Here's the truth:

http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/20...tting-bull-is-just-obamas-oval-office-speech/

Mr President you are lying. A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) dated October 2009 proves Obama is lying. The report shows the amount of recoverable oil in the U.S. to be 167 billion barrels of oil, not the 21 billion figure pushed by the Democrats. If exploited that 167 billion barrels could replace America’s imports from OPEC countries for more than 75 years.

That same report shows that America’s combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal supply is the largest on Earth. America’s recoverable resources are far larger than those of Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th), and Canada (6th) combined. Those estimates don’t include America’s *immense oil shale deposits.


He's using this to push Cap And Trade ... and lying to do it. :mad:

When are you liberals/democrats/socialists/communists going to get tired of the lies streaming from the mouth of this President nearly every time he opens his mouth? When will you bring yourself to admit this is Obama's Katrina and his lies are only making matters worse? Or are you like him? Do you put your ideology and agenda ahead of the truth?
 

Wrong. The Dutch equipment might not have been what was needed. They might also have had plans that involved near-slave labor. The plan also involved dredging which may be a bad idea if yyou do it wrong. I think Piyush was using that partly to get a pet project around the Army Corps of Engineers.

And why does BP need Obmam's permission to use another oil company's booms?
 
Last edited:
And you folks want the government to run our health care system and manage the economy too? :rolleyes:

You've made a convincing argument that this is a result of a lack of government management. You are merely contradicting yourself now.
Remember, this was BPs fault. The fact that there was poor government oversight simply pushes the blame squarely onto the free market.
 
You've made a convincing argument that this is a result of a lack of government management. You are merely contradicting yourself now.
Remember, this was BPs fault. The fact that there was poor government oversight simply pushes the blame squarely onto the free market.

Just curious, why is this solely BP's fault when the current administration waived regulations?

If those regs had not been waived we may not even be talking about this.
 
Just curious, why is this solely BP's fault when the current administration waived regulations?

If those regs had not been waived we may not even be talking about this.
I DO believe that those who granted the waivers are also responsible for the spill. I believe this because companies are amoral entities who sole function is to generate profits. It is one of the reasons why I agree with BAC that proper regulation would have prevented BP from causing this mess.


That said, I am not certain who actually granted the waivers. The waivers came out of MMS and were an extension of existing waiver rules that were established in 2004-2007. Now, if the waivers fell out of the oval office, than certainly the president is damnably responsible. We will need to see if this is the case.


With that said, judging by your question, Can I assume that you believe companies should not be held accountable for environmental disasters they create?
 
I DO believe that those who granted the waivers are also responsible for the spill. I believe this because companies are amoral entities who sole function is to generate profits. It is one of the reasons why I agree with BAC that proper regulation would have prevented BP from causing this mess.


That said, I am not certain who actually granted the waivers. The waivers came out of MMS and were an extension of existing waiver rules that were established in 2004-2007. Now, if the waivers fell out of the oval office, than certainly the president is damnably responsible. We will need to see if this is the case.


With that said, judging by your question, Can I assume that you believe companies should not be held accountable for environmental disasters they create?

No, they should be held responsible. However, as I stated earlier the priority right now should be to stop the leak/oil from contaminating more.

Accept the offers of foriegn oil skimmers. Accept any and all help offered to stop it then deal with the fines,penalties later.
 
BAC,

You are deluding yourself if you think environmentalists forced us to go to deepwater for oil. I know that is the conservative talking point of the day so am not surprised in the slightest to see you repeating it.

All around the world deepwater assets are being developed, in many places that environmentalists have no sway. The reason we are there is technology has enabled us to go there and that is where the oil is.

Even if oil were more plentiful on land (and I would say that your source is probably lumping in many types of oil developments, all of which have various price points for profitability eg tight gas, shale oil, oil sands) we would still be going to deepwater plays. We go wherever the economic extraction of hydrocarbons is possible. Land, shallow water, deepwater. With oil currently over $70/bbl deepwater is attractive. Even if we were to exploit all reserves in the US the price of oil would not drop precipitously as US oil is a very small part of world oil - price being set by the world market.
 
BAC,

You are deluding yourself if you think environmentalists forced us to go to deepwater for oil. I know that is the conservative talking point of the day so am not surprised in the slightest to see you repeating it.

LOL! Where in post #248 (or anywhere in this thread) did I claim that even once? I haven't once made the claim that environmentalist forced us to go to deepwater for oil. So if anyone is delusional here, it must you, Lurker.

Now are you going to go on also deluding yourself into thinking Obama was correct when he claimed any of his statements identified in post #248? Hmmmmmm? :D
 
LOL! Where in post #248 (or anywhere in this thread) did I claim that even once? I haven't once made the claim that environmentalist forced us to go to deepwater for oil. So if anyone is delusional here, it must you, Lurker.
My humblest apologies. I had no idea you hold the environmentalists blameless in this matter. Good to know you and I agree that the environmentalists are blameless. Cool. I had conflated your arguments about rich US hydrocarbon deposits with the untrue argument that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservatives are making that environmentalists are partly to blame for the spill. I am overjoyed that you totally disagree with Limbaugh, Hannity and their conservative ilk on this matter.

So let me make sure I got this straight, you admit that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly and a host of other conservative talkers are completely wrong about environmentalists being at fault for the spill.
 
My humblest apologies. I had no idea you hold the environmentalists blameless in this matter.

And yet, there you go, trying to create another strawman for me to defend. :rolleyes:

Here, Lurker ... here's something for you to try and defend:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Stev...expands,_so_does_presidential_power?page=full

The other day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked what will happen if the people running BP decline to go along with everything the administration demands of it. "The president," he replied with chilly menace, "has the legal authority to compel them to do so, and if they don't, he will."

So tell me, oh JREF *skeptic*, does the President really have such authority or was Gibbs talking out the side of his mouth (as usual)?

Is the Rule of Obama to replace the Rule of Law?

:D
 
No, they should be held responsible. However, as I stated earlier the priority right now should be to stop the leak/oil from contaminating more.

Accept the offers of foriegn oil skimmers. Accept any and all help offered to stop it then deal with the fines,penalties later.
I have no problem with this. However, I do think the idea of accept and and all help is a bit debatable.
 

Back
Top Bottom