• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

Boo Radley said:
I don't remember the buck ever stopping at Bush. However, once again you don't see the differences. When Katrina happened, Bush was there, we ahve video of him in meetings (even though he later said he had no idea). We also had him saying Brownie was doing a hell of a job. This was Bush showing himself to be part of the problem. You have not a single thing like that here.
Click to expand...


Yeah? How many tar balls are washing up on the gulf coast shores today, while Obama continues to say nothing to look at here? Instead he strangles off the oil industry, and outsources it to Brazil for his buddy Soros.....Obama is a cheap little crook that can't get the hell out fast enough.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yeah? How many tar balls are washing up on the gulf coast shores today, while Obama continues to say nothing to look at here? Instead he strangles off the oil industry, and outsources it to Brazil for his buddy Soros.....Obama is a cheap little crook that can't get the hell out fast enough.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Seems to me he was involved. He acted. Bush, not so much.

But, keep trying. Like I said, I've never seen the Buck stop at Bush's desk. Ever. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Seems to me he was involved. He acted. Bush, not so much.

But, keep trying. Like I said, I've never seen the Buck stop at Bush's desk. Ever. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

How about we go on record and say did overall did a lousy job. Now can we look at the guy currently in the job?
 
Boo Radley said:
Seems to me he was involved. He acted.
Click to expand...


Yeah, he acted all right.....

The government recently used red tape to force Louisiana to stop using 16 barges that were cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico by sucking thousands of gallons of oil out of Louisiana's oil-soaked waters.

Earlier, Obama delayed the clean-up of the Gulf of Mexico by months, by blocking foreign crews from operating sophisticated clean-up vessels. The Jones Act bans foreign vessels and crews from working in U.S. waters, but it gives the President the authority to completely waive that ban if he wishes. Obama refused to lift the ban, even though American shippers who generally support the ban said they wouldn't object to lifting it to fight the spill. The U.S. has refused a lot of foreign aid from counties with expertise in fighting oil spills, and accepted only a small amount of foreign equipment to fight the spill.

Obama blocks clean-up of oil spill by Louisiana and our foreign allies, through pointless red tape - Washington DC SCOTUS | Examiner.com
Click to expand...

Bravo...Now that is action that we all wanted....:roll:

j-mac
 
washunut said:
How about we go on record and say did overall did a lousy job. Now can we look at the guy currently in the job?
Click to expand...

I didn't bring Bush up. Perhaps you should direct this at j.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, he acted all right.....



Bravo...Now that is action that we all wanted....:roll:

j-mac
Click to expand...
So. you think Obama likes oil in the gulf?
 
Boo Radley said:
Seems to me he was involved. He acted. Bush, not so much.

But, keep trying. Like I said, I've never seen the Buck stop at Bush's desk. Ever. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
It's hard to see it from underneath, isn't it?
 
Boo Radley said:
So. you think Obama likes oil in the gulf?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, if your meaning crud floating around in the gulf waters, it supports his failed green agenda. He also wants gas prices to go higher for the exact same reason.
 
Born Free said:
Yes I do, if your meaning crud floating around in the gulf waters, it supports his failed green agenda. He also wants gas prices to go higher for the exact same reason.
Click to expand...

That's laughable. Please provide some support.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's laughable. Please provide some support.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Radley
"So. you think Obama likes oil in the gulf"?

You asked what I think, (not me specifically) and I gave you my answer. Further I'm not laughing, Obama has poured billions into green that has not saved one drop of oil. In fact he just lost 535 million of tax payer money on yet another failed green project.
 
Born Free said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boo Radley
"So. you think Obama likes oil in the gulf"?

You asked what I think, (not me specifically) and I gave you my answer. Further I'm not laughing, Obama has poured billions into green that has not saved one drop of oil. In fact he just lost 535 million of tax payer money on yet another failed green project.
Click to expand...

Into green is where money should be spent. Oil, at best, is a limited resource. But that has little to nothing to do with the gulf clean up. If you're into green, you want the gulf cleaned up.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's laughable. Please provide some support.
Click to expand...

"God Bless America? No, God Damn America!"

Repeat that line over and over for 20 years and the listener will behave in the same manner BHO is behaving now. Think Manchurian Candidate.
 
Grant said:
"God Bless America? No, God Damn America!"

Repeat that line over and over for 20 years and the listener will behave in the same manner BHO is behaving now. Think Manchurian Candidate.
Click to expand...

In context, within the tradition, you really misunderstand the comment. But do we really want to do that education here?
 
Boo Radley said:
So. you think Obama likes oil in the gulf?
Click to expand...

I think he used the situation as a way to strangle off production there, which was what he wanted to do anyway, one way or another. I do know this, when he couldn't use the "crisis
" factor anymore how much did you hear about it?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I think he used the situation as a way to strangle off production there, which was what he wanted to do anyway, one way or another. I do know this, when he couldn't use the "crisis
" factor anymore how much did you hear about it?

j-mac
Click to expand...

You give too much credit, and this is what being paranoid will do for you. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Into green is where money should be spent.
Click to expand...

So you are perfectly fine with funneling millions into the pocket of a big Obama donor, as long as they can title it the right way eh? Even when their own people pinpointed the date that it would fail?

This is the problem ladies and gentlemen. If this exact situation were a repub doing the same thing, Boo would have many problems with it, but since it isn't he prefers to ignore the whole thing.

j-mac
 
Boo Radley said:
In context, within the tradition, you really misunderstand the comment. But do we really want to do that education here?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with the "It's all part of a rich tradition" argument but when someone from the group who is God-damming America appears intent on destroying the US economy then the comparisons are bound to surface. If you think trillions of dollars of debt, growing at a rate of $3.92 billion per day, will not have long term effect on the United States then you are blind to the world around you. You have carried your devotion to a political party to such an extreme that you are willing to watch your country's destruction unfold rather than change course.

I doubt most Americans feel the same way, but the question remains as to whether the next President will even be able to undo the damage that has already been done by this administration..
 
Grant said:
Yes, I'm familiar with the "It's all part of a rich tradition" argument but when someone from the group who is God-damming America appears intent on destroying the US economy then the comparisons are bound to surface. If you think trillions of dollars of debt, growing at a rate of $3.92 billion per day, will not have long term effect on the United States then you are blind to the world around you. You have carried your devotion to a political party to such an extreme that you are willing to watch your country's destruction unfold rather than change course.

I doubt most Americans feel the same way, but the question remains as to whether the next President will even be able to undo the damage that has already been done by this administration..
Click to expand...

You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments. Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim. Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful, but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now, and 2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support. Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.
 
j-mac said:
So you are perfectly fine with funneling millions into the pocket of a big Obama donor, as long as they can title it the right way eh? Even when their own people pinpointed the date that it would fail?

This is the problem ladies and gentlemen. If this exact situation were a repub doing the same thing, Boo would have many problems with it, but since it isn't he prefers to ignore the whole thing.

j-mac
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. You might read back in the thread when I addressed Obama's action and this specific company. What I said was simple: If we're going to spend money on energy, it should be green energy as oil is limited at best.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're interpretation of Obama's actions is as skewed as your reading of the Reverands comments. Frankly, Obama simply hasn't been what you guys claim. Oh, he hasn't set the world on fire, and he has been slow and has allowed Republicans to derail efforts when he should have been more foceful, but the economy 1) has been a problem for a long, long time and Obama hasn't had the power to do the damage we're seeing now, and 2) the kind of change we would need to fix this sinking ship would be change your side would never, ever support. Your side is as much a part of the problem as Obama and democrats are. Like most partisans, your side and mine have trouble looking in the mirror.
Click to expand...

What you fail to note is that when Obama had a veto proof senate and a large house majority Republicans could stop nothing. Obama focused on health care instead of the economy, with the exception of the stimulus bill. That 18 months when Obama and the Democrats had full control is what Obama will have to explain when he runs for a second term.
 
Gill said:
That's the problem...........you don't have a clue how it "actually" works other than what you've read on a left wing web site.
Click to expand...

You are saying that it's working right here? That getting caught screwing the taxpayers over and over is something we just have to accept?
 
Boo Radley said:
I didn't say that. You might read back in the thread when I addressed Obama's action and this specific company. What I said was simple: If we're going to spend money on energy, it should be green energy as oil is limited at best.
Click to expand...

We do not need to invest in oil. We could quit putting roadblocks in the way though.
 
washunut said:
What you fail to note is that when Obama had a veto proof senate and a large house majority Republicans could stop nothing. Obama focused on health care instead of the economy, with the exception of the stimulus bill. That 18 months when Obama and the Democrats had full control is what Obama will have to explain when he runs for a second term.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that. I would argue, however, that had he actually tackled healthcare reform properly, it would have helped the economy more than anything else he could have done. He could remove health care benefits from the work place. The public option would have gone a ways toward that. This would help business much more than taxes.

And the stimulus bill was something, and in line with what little government can do. He could have made it larger, but I doubt that would have pleased his opponents. But, government is limited in what it can do to move the economy. Even more limited when it comes to jobs. Outside of hiring people, spending tax dollars to do so, government has few options.

And yes, he will have to explain why he let republicans derail him. Why he wasn't stronger. But no president has the power to fix the economy. They have to get lucky, and this whole will be a long time coming out of no matter who we elect.
 
1Perry said:
We do not need to invest in oil. We could quit putting roadblocks in the way though.
Click to expand...

Depends on the roadblock. If the roadblock is to limit risky behavior and protect the environment, I'm for the road blaock. The best answer in the gulf is for it to not have happened in the first place, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom