• 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!

Coast Guard bans reporters from oil cleanup sites

I too think a president can't do two things at the same time.

Id certainly be happy with ONE...especially if it had to do with stopping the oil flow, adequately prosecuting the 'war' on terror in Afghanistan, combating unemployment, actually doing something to stop illegal immigration other than make baseless claims about state legislation he hasnt read, reducing the deficit, etc etc etc...
 
I too think a president can't do two things at the same time.

Well, we know that the current CIC (clown in charge) can't do his job and play golf, at the same time.
 
Well...Im thinking if those foreclosed homes were spewing 1 barrel of oil a second, then yes...the government would by damn step in and resolve the crisis, then worry about who paid for it. Sort of like...you know...they DID...with the banks...so...ummmmmmmmm...yeah...

So you are some sort of socialist who thinks big daddy government should come in and save people/companies from their own mistakes
 
So you are some sort of socialist who thinks big daddy government should come in and save people/companies from their own mistakes

I guess you MISSED the part where i said FIX THE DISASTER FIRST, THEN make the responsible parties pay for it...

No...of COURSE you didnt miss it but it wouldnt fit with your pithy, snippy comment.

And then of course you compeltely ignored the 'spewing a barrel of oil a second' thing which obviously the housing crisis didnt do.
 
Last edited:
So you are some sort of socialist who thinks big daddy government should come in and save people/companies from their own mistakes

So...I will take your asenine response and follow it to YOUR logical conclusion. George Bush should have told all those people to **** Off...hey...its the CITY's fault they didnt plan for their disaster. its the CITIZENS faults that they stayed there in the first damn place. Its Chocolate Ray's fault that he squandered the 12 million dollars in disaster planning funds and all he got out of it was a few cases of undistributed pamphlets. Its the La's governor and Nagins fault they didnt take proactive measures...so drown you pathetic bitches.
 
I guess you MISSED the part where i said FIX THE DISASTER FIRST, THEN make the responsible parties pay for it...

No...of COURSE you didnt miss it but it wouldnt fit with your pithy, snippy comment.

And then of course you compeltely ignored the 'spewing a barrel of oil a second' thing which obviously the housing crisis didnt do.

So should Obama plug the leak personally or should he have engineers and stuff working on it and trying things?
 
So should Obama plug the leak personally or should he have engineers and stuff working on it and trying things?

Personally...of course not. But since 'trying stuff' has equated to 4 attempts, NONE of which were designed to flat out stop the leak...then yes, I'd say they have not tried nearly enough.

You GET of course that they lowered a 'collection' boom...attempted to clean cut and and install a new collection point, attempted a cap that would allow them to collect new oil, and now are drilling a relief well to collect the oil. 4 attempts...none of which were designed to bury that sonofabitch and call it a loss.

Lets put this another way...are YOU satisified with the efforts they have made to stop the oil spill? a barrel of oil a second is pouring into the gulf. Its been 80+ days...are YOU satisfied with what BP has done to stop the leak? What BP has done to collect the oil? To stop it from spreading? And all under the direct orders of the One...since...you know...day one...he's been in charge.
 
I guess you MISSED the part where i said FIX THE DISASTER FIRST, THEN make the responsible parties pay for it...

No...of COURSE you didnt miss it but it wouldnt fit with your pithy, snippy comment.

And then of course you compeltely ignored the 'spewing a barrel of oil a second' thing which obviously the housing crisis didnt do.

Like the government has the technical knowledge to drill 5000 feet under the ocean. Like I said you are somesort of socialist who things the government should do everything
 
So...I will take your asenine response and follow it to YOUR logical conclusion. George Bush should have told all those people to **** Off...hey...its the CITY's fault they didnt plan for their disaster. its the CITIZENS faults that they stayed there in the first damn place. Its Chocolate Ray's fault that he squandered the 12 million dollars in disaster planning funds and all he got out of it was a few cases of undistributed pamphlets. Its the La's governor and Nagins fault they didnt take proactive measures...so drown you pathetic bitches.

Right on brother

No one told those people to live in New Orleans, they knew that a hurricane was a possiblity, that a big one would flood the city, that they should have gotten their buts out of NO, BEFORE the storm hit.

Everyone knew that a blowout was a possibility for drilling, it occurs on land, and it occurs at sea. BP should have been prepared so should have everyone on the coast. The government should say/should have said you wanted drilling you live with the consequences, you wanted to live in NO, you live with the consequences.

This sissy response of expecting the government to save people for their own choices is the going to be the downfall of the US. BP drilled, the people on the coast wanted BP to drill, why on earth should some one from Montana have to pay for the decisions people on the gulf coast's decisions
 
Right on brother

No one told those people to live in New Orleans, they knew that a hurricane was a possiblity, that a big one would flood the city, that they should have gotten their buts out of NO, BEFORE the storm hit.

Everyone knew that a blowout was a possibility for drilling, it occurs on land, and it occurs at sea. BP should have been prepared so should have everyone on the coast. The government should say/should have said you wanted drilling you live with the consequences, you wanted to live in NO, you live with the consequences.

This sissy response of expecting the government to save people for their own choices is the going to be the downfall of the US. BP drilled, the people on the coast wanted BP to drill, why on earth should some one from Montana have to pay for the decisions people on the gulf coast's decisions

You are kind of all over the place on this, arent you...

The fed insisted that BP drill for oil at 5000 feet. Frankly, I think BP would rather drill closer to the coast...or for the huge deposits in Utah and Colorado, or Alaska, then at 5000 feet. Regardless...Ive NEVER...not once...suggested BP shouldnt pay for it. What I HAVE said is that instead of allowing 1 barrel of oil...86,400 barrels a day, and a total of 7 MILLION 344 THOUSAND barrels of oil to spill into the gulf coast, polluting Texas, La, Alabama, Florida, into the Key's, now up the Atlantic, and into lake Ponchetran...the priority should have been sealing the leak...get the **** out of the way, stop trying to save a well or collect the oil, and seal the leak. Period. We'll deal with putting BP into bankruptcy later...but first and foremost...stop the leak.

And it isnt the people in Louisiana that want/need the oil. Unless Im mistaken, those people in Montana are also using fossil fuels...we all do. We all need it. and one way or another we are ALL going to pay for it. But first...you stop the oil flow. Then you go after BP. I dont care if you dump 300,000,000 cinder blocks on it, pipe in liquid glass, put the worlds biggest cork on a submarine and drive it straight into it or put Michelles fat ass in there (oh yes...dont think we have forgotten the boob belts...)...but you stop the leak. 4 tries in 85 days to find a way to recapture the oil and contain the flow isnt the same as trying any and every viable option to STOP the flow.
 
Last edited:
You are kind of all over the place on this, arent you...

The fed insisted that BP drill for oil at 5000 feet. Frankly, I think BP would rather drill closer to the coast...or for the huge deposits in Utah and Colorado, or Alaska, then at 5000 feet.
Really the fed forced BP to drill at 5000 feet. The government said drill here or we will shut you down, throw you in jail and otherwise torture all the employees of BP for the sheer pleasure of hurting people?

Or did BP choose to drill there over a lack of better choices avaliable

Regardless...Ive NEVER...not once...suggested BP shouldnt pay for it. What I HAVE said is that instead of allowing 1 barrel of oil...86,400 barrels a day, and a total of 7 MILLION 344 THOUSAND barrels of oil to spill into the gulf coast, polluting Texas, La, Alabama, Florida, into the Key's, now up the Atlantic, and into lake Ponchetran...the priority should have been sealing the leak...get the **** out of the way, stop trying to save a well or collect the oil, and seal the leak. Period. We'll deal with putting BP into bankruptcy later...but first and foremost...stop the leak.
Right,

But since when did the government have the technical knowledge on how to stop oil well blowouts at 5000 feet? The government is not used to stop blowouts on land, because it does not have the technical expertise to do so. It certainly does not have the knowledge to do so at 5000 ft. The best choice the government could come up with would be to nuke it like the Russian's did a few times. The only organizations that have the expertise to plug the well without nukes are not part of the US government. Meaning BP could hire them and use them to plug the thing,

And it isnt the people in Louisiana that want/need the oil. Unless Im mistaken, those people in Montana are also using fossil fuels...we all do. We all need it. and one way or another we are ALL going to pay for it. But first...you stop the oil flow. Then you go after BP. I dont care if you dump 300,000,000 cinder blocks on it, pipe in liquid glass, put the worlds biggest cork on a submarine and drive it straight into it or put Michelles fat ass in there (oh yes...dont think we have forgotten the boob belts...)...but you stop the leak. 4 tries in 85 days to find a way to recapture the oil and contain the flow isnt the same as trying any and every viable option to STOP the flow.

The people of Louisiana are/were profiting from it, heck they want the deepwater drilling to continue right now, in the midst of this blowout (they went to court to overturn the temp ban on deepwater drilling) As they wanted the drilling, profited from it, and want it to continue let them pay for the clean up that BP does not pay for. Stop expecting uninvolved people to pay for bad decisions made by others. That is socialism,
 
Oh, sure; piece-a-cake. That's just boat crews. That doesn't count pipe yards, tool companies, service hands, truck drivers, catering companies. Not to mention all the non-oilfield related companies where these people spend their income, such as car dealerships, resturants, grocery store, house mortgages, etc.

And, yes, they're all American, because to work offshore and leave out of an American dock facility, a person has to possess a TWIC (transportation worker's identification card) and foreiners can't get a TWIC.





Does that mean you would support a government bailout of the oil and gas industry?

no i would not.. nor any other industry.
but you seem to imply that more should be done to save the oil and gas industry who has jeopardized the entire gulf fishing and tourism industry, which IMO is a far more critical and larger economic part of the area than a few deep water wells or their support.
nobody goes to the gulf of mexico to see the oil platforms(except those that are reaping the benefits of said platforms) or the results of their complacency.

IMO you seem blinded by "rage against the machine" and cant get beyond your apparent distain to be objective to whats happened here..

the oil industry, in the midst of their greed, made obvioulsy unfounded claims to be capable of managing the feat of drilling safely at 5000ft, even though there was not any means to stop the "worst case scenario".
the "worst case scenario" happened and nobody had a plan to stop it, although others had their chance to come up with something and did nothing on their watch, for fear of being the bad guy and biting the hand that pays them in one way or another.
now the entire gulf region's mainstay is corrupted for years, perhaps decades.
so up steps the first democratic president to attempt enforcement of a temporary offshore restriction until a more capable plan could be developed(as opposed to the prior republican presidents who outright banned drilling in critical areas) and you cant see any reason for the moratorium?!?
even in light of the overwhelming numbers of people who are affected outside of the oil industry..?!? those alleged 20K oil workers is a tiny number when compared to the amount of people affected otherwise an yet you still defend the oil industry and their recklessness like its someone elses fault they screwed up.
 
no i would not.. nor any other industry.
but you seem to imply that more should be done to save the oil and gas industry who has jeopardized the entire gulf fishing and tourism industry, which IMO is a far more critical and larger economic part of the area than a few deep water wells or their support.
nobody goes to the gulf of mexico to see the oil platforms(except those that are reaping the benefits of said platforms) or the results of their complacency.

IMO you seem blinded by "rage against the machine" and cant get beyond your apparent distain to be objective to whats happened here..

the oil industry, in the midst of their greed, made obvioulsy unfounded claims to be capable of managing the feat of drilling safely at 5000ft, even though there was not any means to stop the "worst case scenario".
the "worst case scenario" happened and nobody had a plan to stop it, although others had their chance to come up with something and did nothing on their watch, for fear of being the bad guy and biting the hand that pays them in one way or another.
now the entire gulf region's mainstay is corrupted for years, perhaps decades.
so up steps the first democratic president to attempt enforcement of a temporary offshore restriction until a more capable plan could be developed(as opposed to the prior republican presidents who outright banned drilling in critical areas) and you cant see any reason for the moratorium?!?
even in light of the overwhelming numbers of people who are affected outside of the oil industry..?!? those alleged 20K oil workers is a tiny number when compared to the amount of people affected otherwise an yet you still defend the oil industry and their recklessness like its someone elses fault they screwed up.

So, the solution to fix the fishing and tourism, is to put an entire industry out of business, destroy the economy of an entire region, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and cut off six billion dollars of annual revenue to the government; the government's single largest source of non-tax revenue?

And, how is that supposed to help things, again? Care to explain that one?
 
So, the solution to fix the fishing and tourism, is to put an entire industry out of business, destroy the economy of an entire region, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and cut off six billion dollars of annual revenue to the government; the government's single largest source of non-tax revenue?

And, how is that supposed to help things, again? Care to explain that one?

Nobody has advocated a total, permanent shut down of oil drilling.
 
So, the solution to fix the fishing and tourism, is to put an entire industry out of business, destroy the economy of an entire region, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and cut off six billion dollars of annual revenue to the government; the government's single largest source of non-tax revenue?

And, how is that supposed to help things, again? Care to explain that one?
The moratorium stops experimental drilling on less than 35 rigs out of the 1,300 already in the Gulf, this is not going to cripple the Gulf Coast region.
 
Really the fed forced BP to drill at 5000 feet. The government said drill here or we will shut you down, throw you in jail and otherwise torture all the employees of BP for the sheer pleasure of hurting people?

Or did BP choose to drill there over a lack of better choices avaliable

Right,

But since when did the government have the technical knowledge on how to stop oil well blowouts at 5000 feet? The government is not used to stop blowouts on land, because it does not have the technical expertise to do so. It certainly does not have the knowledge to do so at 5000 ft. The best choice the government could come up with would be to nuke it like the Russian's did a few times. The only organizations that have the expertise to plug the well without nukes are not part of the US government. Meaning BP could hire them and use them to plug the thing,



The people of Louisiana are/were profiting from it, heck they want the deepwater drilling to continue right now, in the midst of this blowout (they went to court to overturn the temp ban on deepwater drilling) As they wanted the drilling, profited from it, and want it to continue let them pay for the clean up that BP does not pay for. Stop expecting uninvolved people to pay for bad decisions made by others. That is socialism,

Actually...yes...the fed said you cant drill here and forced them into deepwater drilling. Of COURSE an oil company is going to drill...because they SELL oil and you BUY and NEED oil.
 
Actually...yes...the fed said you cant drill here and forced them into deepwater drilling. Of COURSE an oil company is going to drill...because they SELL oil and you BUY and NEED oil.

They were not forced to drill there, they could have said no, we dont want to and the big bad governmernt couldnt have done anything to force them to. America is not a totalitarian state, where the government says jump and everyone says how high

BP made the decision to drill there, because guess what there was oil there, and buy the looks of it a fair bit
 
If oil companies were allowed to drill in shallow water they'd be drilling in shallow AND deep water.
 
If oil companies were allowed to drill in shallow water they'd be drilling in shallow AND deep water.




Thanks for your speculation. The fact you made it bold has convinced the Goood Reverend of it accuracy. :ssst:
 
Drilling in shallow water: Profitable.
Drilling in deep water: Profitable.

Drilling Both: More Profit! Underlined Italic Bold and RED! UNDENIABLE!
 
Last edited:
The government didn't spill this oil. The free market did. It's their responsibility to repair and clean it up.

I still think it was a bomb, not natural gas charged oil pressure, but we'll never know for sure because the evidence is at the bottom of the gulf, a mile down.

The floating platform is only a service station for oil tankers with a shut off valve designed to contain high pressure, usually 5 times stronger that it has to be, so I don't buy the blow out story.

ricksfolly
 
Drilling in shallow water: Profitable.
Drilling in deep water: Profitable.

Drilling Both: More Profit! Underlined Italic Bold and RED! UNDENIABLE!

This is America darn it, companies are not interested in profit
 
Drilling in shallow water: Profitable.
Drilling in deep water: Profitable.

Drilling Both: More Profit! Underlined Italic Bold and RED! UNDENIABLE!

oh my.. the truthiness is almost overwhelming.
 
Back
Top Bottom