What's new
By:
Filters

The oil spill...

The Thriller said:
I'm not an expert on this issue, but since when is it the President's responsibility to keep us Americans informed with the facts on deep sea oil tragedies?

If you want to stay informed, maybe you could try the BBC, CNN, or BP's website.

Hopefully, most conservatives don't think your way. I mean, now all of a sudden they're concerned with the President informing our populace on this issue? This coming from the side that has argued over everything from Health Care reform to the validity of his birth certificate? I mean, seriously, even if he had spent two hours rattling off facts and "informing" us, think anyone from one political side would have listened or believed in anything he said

Personally, I see this as an exaggeration from the right, trying to score political points once again. Never let a crisis pass. they're blaming the government for "not doing enough" but were only months ago blaming the government for being "too involved" in the private sector.

Which is it?

As Americans we need to understand that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot demand that government stay out of the private sector when things are "going good" with hopes of creating a free market. And then demand that the government come in and "bail out" a failed company or a company that has an accident.

In other words, we cannot act like a spoiled brat. We cannot demand that our parents stay away when things go well then cry and ask for their help when we screw up. We need to grow up and decide what kind of society and economic philosophy we want to adopt.

Many on the right are also acting out of anger but really have no idea where to direct it. Yes, we're all angry about it happening, but some of us react differently. Some, direct their anger towards those responsible, like BP and those who were in charge of regulating this thing. While others get mad at the President of the US.

I cannot see any similarity to this incident and Katrina, a natural disaster. None at all, as much as Hannity and Beck may want to compare the two.

Even if Obama had turned the oil into wine, think those looking to score political points at his expense would have finally accepted him as the "Messiah?"

Listen, I'm not a big Obama guy, but I truly am offended at the anger directed towards our Federal Government and especially our new President. I find it predictable... Yet no les repulsing that Foxnews, radio, and politicians are using us lemmings to deflect attention from those truly responsible for this horrible disaster just in order to score some political points.

Direct your anger towards BP (a company with a long history of making cuts to save money), it was their damn rig that blew up in the first place. It's their fault that 12 people are dead, families changed forever, and thousands if not millions of Americans are feeling the effects of this horrible accident that could have been prevented had BP done their job.
Click to expand...

And therein lies his and your problem. If the American people feel he is being upfront with them and keeping them up to date on the situation then they are more than likely going to be more positive about him in general. This of course was an argument by Matthews and Olbermann(not really a fan of either). I think it is a solid point though. You tell the people what is happening. You also don't get photos taken of you golfing etc. It just looks bad.
 
Gameface said:
My work used to play only FOX news in the cafeteria. After much complaining they switched one TV to CNN and left the other on FOX. I have to say that my opinion of FOX has declined. Their actual news coverage is passable, but 90% of what they show is opinion. Right after Obama made his last speech they went to a split screen of two pundits, while CNN had their anchor reporting the story. Now, the CNN anchor did editorialize a lot, but at least it wasn't two chicken heads pecking at one another over issues they certainly know are not real.
Click to expand...

The Clinton News Network? Seriously???? Next you will be saying MSNBC is balanced. Face it, Fox panders to Conservatives, and Liberals watch it just so they can see what they will say next. CNN is the channel for Reagan Democrats and MSNBC is the channel for FAR left members of society. Fox keeps its ratings high because everyone watches it, while CNN and MSNBC are a joke in the ratings department.
 
The Thriller said:
Why are we apologizing to BP? Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...

Because the government is strong arming them into setting up a political slush fund? Because the government has been blocking clean up ships? Because the government denied foreign countries that have the technology to fix it from coming in? Because the government is trying to use this crisis for political gain and push their cap and trade agenda? Because Government Sachs is all knowing and dumped 44% of their shares before the crisis hit? Because the government is not allowing the media to do their jobs?
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Because the government is strong arming them into setting up a political slush fund? Because the government has been blocking clean up ships? Because the government denied foreign countries that have the technology to fix it from coming in? Because the government is trying to use this crisis for political gain and push their cap and trade agenda? Because Government Sachs is all knowing and dumped 44% of their shares before the crisis hit? Because the government is not allowing the media to do their jobs?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Not dropping the Jones act was beyond dumb. This is obviously a mess that could have been handled a lot better early on. As for Cap and Tax(I mean trade), we all know global warming is a political farce concocted up to get money. Cap and Tax will raise gas prices to about 7 dollars a gallon according to economists. Not to mention that it will kill a lot of jobs and we will see businesses running to different countries in order to avoid the kind of hardships it would cause. We have one of the highest taxes levied on business in the world, 35%. Forget Cap and Trade, drop the business tax to 25%, get rid of the capital gains tax altogether(gives incentive for the individual to actually invest), and actually crack down on government spending. This is why we need real conservatives elected to office and not these fake posers. Bush obviously falls under the fake poser title as well as many current GOP member ho claim to be conservative. I don't care where they stand on the social issues. I only care that they are fiscally responsible.
 
TheMulletMutilator said:
The Clinton News Network? Seriously???? Next you will be saying MSNBC is balanced. Face it, Fox panders to Conservatives, and Liberals watch it just so they can see what they will say next. CNN is the channel for Reagan Democrats and MSNBC is the channel for FAR left members of society. Fox keeps its ratings high because everyone watches it, while CNN and MSNBC are a joke in the ratings department.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that CNN was balanced or even a very good news network. What I did say is that by wtching CNN and FOX side-by-side my opinion of FOX has declined.

There is a lot of yelling and cross-talk on FOX. I think upwards of 80% of their programming falls into the opinion/entertainment category while very little of what they do is report the news.

Yeah FOX has higher ratings than CNN because FOX focuses on opinion and entertainment, throwing a couple of people on who disagree with each other on a split-screen and watching them claw at one another while never actually addressing anything with any validity.
 
Gameface said:
I didn't say that CNN was balanced or even a very good news network. What I did say is that by wtching CNN and FOX side-by-side my opinion of FOX has declined.

There is a lot of yelling and cross-talk on FOX. I think upwards of 80% of their programming falls into the opinion/entertainment category while very little of what they do is report the news.

Yeah FOX has higher ratings than CNN because FOX focuses on opinion and entertainment, throwing a couple of people on who disagree with each other on a split-screen and watching them claw at one another while never actually addressing anything with any validity.
Click to expand...

And CNN has low ratings because they RARELY throw on a view that opposes the left's view of things. When a different view actually does come on or is on a show like Lou Dobbs, they pretty much force them out. CNN is terrible. Not as bad as MSNBC but they are atrocious too.
 
MulletMutilator, in order for FOX to be a quality news network doesn't require other news networks to be high quality first. If CNN sucks, let them suck and say openly that they suck. If FOX sucks, let them suck and say openly that they suck. If any one of them were high quality I'd say so.

I will say for a third time that when watching the two side-by-side I was dissapointed in how bad FOX was. I only mentioned it because on the old site I defended FOX on several occasions, saying that they weren't as bad as people made them out to be. I think their morning news show is pretty good. I also notice that they certinaly talk about issues you would never even know existed if you only watched CNN. Sometimes they're even meaningful and important issues that CNN ignores. But even on that point FOX is no better.
 
the BP spill is now 167 times bigger than the city of LA

it would cover 37 million football fields

The atomic explosion over Nagasaki spread across something like 43 square miles. This spill could have 1,820 Nagasaki bombs.

It's not as big as Cali yet. Just half of Cali.
 
TheMulletMutilator said:
Pretty much. Not dropping the Jones act was beyond dumb. This is obviously a mess that could have been handled a lot better early on. As for Cap and Tax(I mean trade), we all know global warming is a political farce concocted up to get money. Cap and Tax will raise gas prices to about 7 dollars a gallon according to economists. Not to mention that it will kill a lot of jobs and we will see businesses running to different countries in order to avoid the kind of hardships it would cause. We have one of the highest taxes levied on business in the world, 35%. Forget Cap and Trade, drop the business tax to 25%, get rid of the capital gains tax altogether(gives incentive for the individual to actually invest), and actually crack down on government spending. This is why we need real conservatives elected to office and not these fake posers. Bush obviously falls under the fake poser title as well as many current GOP member ho claim to be conservative. I don't care where they stand on the social issues. I only care that they are fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...

Ok. Now I know this persona is satire.
 
Many posting in this thread are in for a rude awakening. If we are going to learn anything from this accident it will be the need to address our dependency on fossil fuels. America is already late to the party, and it's going to hurt. Core countries all over the world are starting to switch to alternative energy plans, we are not. We account for 4% of the population of the earth, we own 3% of the worlds oil reserves and we consume 35% of the worlds energy. If you think this kind of consumption is economically and environmentally sustainable you're kidding yourselves.

Oil is going to go up in price regardless. Some say we have already passed the oil peak (see Hubbert peak theory) and prices are going to rise due to cost of extraction alone. Once gas is $6 - $7 a gallon the proverbial **** will hit the fan and America will flounder. Oil will only be available to the wealthy, the poor will get shafted, angry, and violent. Our entire infrastructure is oil dependent, this will have to change whether we like it or not. Who will have access to this technology required once oil is too expensive. Yes, the wealthy. Leaving the poor still shafted, angry, and violent. Change doesn't look likely either. Exxon Mobile has a death grip on our government and economy and they are going to just give that up anytime soon. We are taking steps towards sustainability, but it's slow going.

The fact that the longest war in U.S. history is a resource war says a lot about where we are right now. America's demand for cheap and abundant energy is so great it will require force to secure future energy sources. The discovery of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan just guaranteed the continuation of this war, we not going anywhere. We will continue to see these types of conflicts. China has jumped us as the largest consumer of energy in the world, and they will demand these resources as well. China has domesticated their economy, while we have outsourced ours, in fact China is making all our stuff. Who do think is going to end up on top here?

My guess is most Americans and our federal government will continue to bow to oil interests and once this spill is no longer on the cable new channels it will be forgotten, or dismissed as no longer an immediate threat. We won't see the storm hit for another 10-20 years, but if we don't take huge steps in the meantime we're screwed.

I'm only concerned because this also means no more Utah Jazz basketball, and I don't think I can handle that.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Many posting in this thread are in for a rude awakening. If we are going to learn anything from this accident it will be the need to address our dependency on fossil fuels. America is already late to the party, and it's going to hurt. Core countries all over the world are starting to switch to alternative energy plans, we are not. We account for 4% of the population of the earth, we own 3% of the worlds oil reserves and we consume 35% of the worlds energy. If you think this kind of consumption is economically and environmentally sustainable you're kidding yourselves.

Oil is going to go up in price regardless. Some say we have already passed the oil peak (see Hubbert peak theory) and prices are going to rise due to cost of extraction alone. Once gas is $6 - $7 a gallon the proverbial **** will hit the fan and America will flounder. Oil will only be available to the wealthy, the poor will get shafted, angry, and violent. Our entire infrastructure is oil dependent, this will have to change whether we like it or not. Who will have access to this technology required once oil is too expensive. Yes, the wealthy. Leaving the poor still shafted, angry, and violent. Change doesn't look likely either. Exxon Mobile has a death grip on our government and economy and they are going to just give that up anytime soon. We are taking steps towards sustainability, but it's slow going.

The fact that the longest war in U.S. history is a resource war says a lot about where we are right now. America's demand for cheap and abundant energy is so great it will require force to secure future energy sources. The discovery of vast mineral deposits in Afghanistan just guaranteed the continuation of this war, we not going anywhere. We will continue to see these types of conflicts. China has jumped us as the largest consumer of energy in the world, and they will demand these resources as well. China has domesticated their economy, while we have outsourced ours, in fact China is making all our stuff. Who do think is going to end up on top here?

My guess is most Americans and our federal government will continue to bow to oil interests and once this spill is no longer on the cable new channels it will be forgotten, or dismissed as no longer an immediate threat. We won't see the storm hit for another 10-20 years, but if we don't take huge steps in the meantime we're screwed.

I'm only concerned because this also means no more Utah Jazz basketball, and I don't think I can handle that.
Click to expand...

The longest war in American history was the Vietnam War. The Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars combined still aren't as long as the Vietnam War.

The rest of your post I agree with.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
What countries are you under the impression have great alternative energy plans?
Click to expand...

Many countries are making the switch to nuclear, hydro and natural gas plans, while developing solar and wind. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Costa Rica just to name a few. While I don't think that nuke, hydro, natural gas are solutions, they are steps in the right direction. Moving to fully renewable energy sources will be the money maker and the most sustainable option.

I misspoke when I mentioned these being "core countries", more like semi-core countries. The super powers are definitely in the unsustainable boat.

Here is a great example of what we should be working towards. I don't mean to paint such a dismal picture, but stories like these can give you hope.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127985314
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Now you can agree with my entire post.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afghan-war-now-longest-war-us-history/story?id=10849303
Click to expand...

From the use of combat troops, perhaps. But the Vietnam War wasn't just a, "Boom, ok, you fired upon the Maddox now we're going to really get involved by sending in the troops." The very fact that a US destroyer was so close to North Vietnam and performing DESOTO patrols proves that we were indeed at war without ever actually declaring war. In fact, even after the Gulf of Tonkin war wasn't declared. It wasn't the Pearl Harbor that some may want to make it out to be.

"By 1954, the U.S. had supplied 300,000 small arms and spent US$1 billion in support of the French military effort and was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war"

This was 10 years before the Gulf of Tonkin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

The Vietnam War was the longest "involvement" in US History since Congress never officially declared war on Vietnam. It was 20 years from 1955-1975. Much longer than the Afghanistian nation building experiment.

I guess the definition of war can vary. Is it from the point that Congress actually declares war? Like on Dec 8, 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Or is it from the time that we become involved in any capacity?
 
Last edited:
BabyPeterzz said:
Many countries are making the switch to nuclear, hydro and natural gas plans, while developing solar and wind. The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Costa Rica just to name a few. While I don't think that nuke, hydro, natural gas are solutions, they are steps in the right direction. Moving to fully renewable energy sources will be the money maker and the most sustainable option.

I misspoke when I mentioned these being "core countries", more like semi-core countries. The super powers are definitely in the unsustainable boat.

Here is a great example of what we should be working towards. I don't mean to paint such a dismal picture, but stories like these can give you hope.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127985314
Click to expand...

Brazil gets nearly 50% of their energy from altnerative sources.

Amazing.

We could be developing more hydroelectric, nuclear, and bio-diesel sources right now. However, big oil who has bought off Congress will have none of that.

They would have us argue who's a true american.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top