• 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!

Gulf of Mexico spill may hit coast this weekend

Gill said:
yeah.. .and there's also a "small chance" the oil could drift upstream through the Miss. River and foul the beaches in Memphis too....:roll:
Click to expand...

Oh, be nice. He's 21 and passionate. I bet you were, too, about a hundred years ago. ;)
 
If you've ever had any experience along the Gulf Coast you already know why the beaches and water along the upper Texas coast aren't as clear as the beaches and water along the coast east of the Mississippi. The further east of the Mississippi you go the more clear the beach water is. The same is true in that the further south along the Texas coast and on in to Mexico the clearer the beach water gets. This is due to the silt from the Mississippi River flowing counterclockwise along the coast.

When you get a few miles offshore along the upper Texas coast the water is as crystal clear as it is along the Florida gulf coast, because you are free from the close in shore current and the 'mud' from the Mississippi River.

Yes the winds and offshore current now favors the bulk of the spill's eastward movement, because the bulk of the spill is offshore. The parts of spill that gets close to the shore, that part of the spill will favor a westward movement towards the upper Texas coast due to the natural current. How much will depend on several factors, such as, how much of the spill will flow close to the shore and how much will be absorbed by the Louisiana coast.



loop-current-AMJ.gif



The Loop Current
 
is it possible to change the title of this thread
the gulf of mexico is now being referred to as lake palin

drill baby, drill
 
justabubba said:
is it possible to change the title of this thread
the gulf of mexico is now being referred to as lake palin

drill baby, drill
Click to expand...
Well that was constructive.:roll:
 
justabubba said:
is it possible to change the title of this thread
the gulf of mexico is now being referred to as lake palin

drill baby, drill
Click to expand...


We must stop the politics of derision....Yeah ok. :roll:


j-mac
 
justabubba said:
thanks!

and similarly, i truly appreciate your illustration of irony
Click to expand...
Well, when everyone else has been discussing protocol, solutions, damage estimates, wind/water currents, and what needs to be done you've come in with a completely irrelevant attack on Sarah Palin. Considering she isn't the Louisiana governor, an officer of BP, or any other way related to this particular problem I don't see why you would bring her up except to take yet another hackish political swipe at a time when it is really not the classiest or best time to do so. Remember, 11 people lost their lives and the coast is facing a threat..........so maybe you'd like to examine your tact.
 
I still want to know what, or who, blew this platform up? Oil spill catastrophe aside, this just doesn't feel like an accident.
 
SgtRock said:
You really don't give a damn about the enviorment do you. Its people like you that give conservatives a bad name. What a ****ing jerk!
Click to expand...

Want to know who one of America's biggest environmentalists was?

Barry Goldwater. He saw the earth as something that God placed in our trust, and that we were to take care of. Unfortunately, today, many would call him a tree hugging Liberal in order to further their own political ends.
 
danarhea said:
Want to know who one of America's biggest environmentalists was?

Barry Goldwater. He saw the earth as something that God placed in our trust, and that we were to take care of. Unfortunately, today, many would call him a tree hugging Liberal in order to further their own political ends.
Click to expand...
The misnomer is that conservatives don't care about the environment, this isn't true in the least. It breaks my heart that this is affecting the coast, much as the Valdez did in '89, I don't like the idea of waste for the sake of overconsumption and most conservatives are right there with me.

What we don't like are draconian rules that are arbitrary in nature with no quantifiable gains.......but provable negative effects on liberty and the economy.
 
LaMidRighter said:
The misnomer is that conservatives don't care about the environment, this isn't true in the least. It breaks my heart that this is affecting the coast, much as the Valdez did in '89, I don't like the idea of waste for the sake of overconsumption and most conservatives are right there with me.

What we don't like are draconian rules that are arbitrary in nature with no quantifiable gains.......but provable negative effects on liberty and the economy.
Click to expand...

Yet conservatives often reject rules to protect the environment that are not arbitrary or draconian, and even have positive long-term effects on the economy and liberty.
 
danarhea said:
Want to know who one of America's biggest environmentalists was?

Barry Goldwater. He saw the earth as something that God placed in our trust, and that we were to take care of. Unfortunately, today, many would call him a tree hugging Liberal in order to further their own political ends.
Click to expand...

Barry? Really? You're supposed to say Teddy Roosevelt.
 
Gill said:
yeah.. .and there's also a "small chance" the oil could drift upstream through the Miss. River and foul the beaches in Memphis too....:roll:
Click to expand...

How are them ducks doing?
 
misterman said:
Yet conservatives often reject rules to protect the environment that are not arbitrary or draconian, and even have positive long-term effects on the economy and liberty.
Click to expand...
That is false, when you look at actual safety law such as anti-blowout devices on rigs you will find bi-partisan support, obviously wells blowing up is not good, and preventing that is necessary, proper, and of great quantifiable benefit. We don't like CAFE regulations which are set on a whim and don't consider current technological limitations, we do not support as a rule the cap and trade regulations which are arbitrary, expensive, draconian, and economy killers. We do not support that which does not have a completely logical utility. Thanks for playing.
 
misterman said:
Spill baby spill!
Click to expand...

You know, that is a horrible thing to say. Not long ago, there was someone on the right (we all know who he is) that used our dead troops with glee to make a point. What you have just said is just as bad, which is using a catastrophe like this with glee, in order to argue a political point.

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you that your post is absolutely disgusting.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Yet conservatives often reject rules to protect the environment that are not arbitrary or draconian, and even have positive long-term effects on the economy and liberty.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Prove it.;)
 
danarhea said:
You know, that is a horrible thing to say. Not long ago, where was someone on the right (we all know who he is) that used our dead troops with glee to make a point. What you have just said is just as bad, which is using a catastrophe like this with glee, in order to argue a political point.

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you that your post is absolutely disgusting.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I completely agree with you.:(
 
LaMidRighter said:
That is false, when you look at actual safety law such as anti-blowout devices on rigs you will find bi-partisan support,
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that there's a long list of environmental regulations that conservatives opposed that we would both agree were reasonable and not arbitrary.

obviously wells blowing up is not good, and preventing that is necessary, proper, and of great quantifiable benefit. We don't like CAFE regulations which are set on a whim and don't consider current technological limitations, we do not support as a rule the cap and trade regulations which are arbitrary, expensive, draconian, and economy killers. We do not support that which does not have a completely logical utility. Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

Right, two regulations is all you oppose. Sure.
 
misterman said:
You know as well as I do that there's a long list of environmental regulations that conservatives opposed that we would both agree were reasonable and not arbitrary.
Click to expand...
If there is disagreement then they just might be arbitrary. Again, wells blowing up = bad, there is no room for argument on that. Oil slicks kill wildlife = true and bad, so there is no argument that we must minimize that. Industrial solvents in the river = very bad, we must stop that. Those are all solid examples of provable negatives that put the eco-system in immediate danger, so there is nothing arbitrary about telling companies they must prevent that. Most of the environmental policy that I've disagreed with did not fall under the criteria of necessary, proper, or showing "clear and present danger".


Right, two regulations is all you oppose. Sure.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you don't follow the concept of "as an example" very well. Either that or you are being intentionally difficult.
 
Obama talks as oil laps at Gulf of Mexico shore

* From: AFP
* May 04, 2010 12:00AM

VENICE, Louisiana: US authorities raced last night to stem the tide of a disastrous oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico, as US President Barack Obama fiercely defended his response and promised federal help for as long as needed.

In drizzling rain and winds in front of Venice harbour, Mr Obama described the unfolding nightmare offshore as "a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster".

He flew to Louisiana to head off mounting criticism that his government's response to the Gulf Coast disaster had been too little and too late, and to neutralise a potentially devastating soundbite, that this is "his Katrina".
Click to expand...

Obama talks as oil laps at Gulf of Mexico shore | The Australian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom