• 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!

Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill

If U.S. officials had followed up on a 1994 response plan for a major Gulf oil spill, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land.

The problem: The federal government did not have a single fire boom on hand.

Despite plan, not a single fire boom on hand on Gulf Coast at time of oil spill | al.com





Do we hear ghosts of Katrina? :ssst:


Why wasn't these fire booms on hand like the federal government had planned?


What is the potential damage from this failure?
 
Quick answer: The government has a "response plan" for everything. They rarely actually follow the plan, however.

I even experienced it here. We had a terrorist attack response plan. How much did we actually implement? 0%.

And if anyone should have a fire boom on hand it should be BP. After all, it could have saved them tens of billions. Either that or parts that work.
 
Uh, and that actually matters why?

They haven't engaged in burns due to the weather. Having a fire boom when the weather doesn't permit a burn isn't helpful. So not having a fire boom when you can't use is pretty much a moot point.

If anything, BP should have had emergency response equipment in place. Too bad they did the same **** Exxon did. Save money, don't do it.
 
Uh, and that actually matters why?

They haven't engaged in burns due to the weather. Having a fire boom when the weather doesn't permit a burn isn't helpful. So not having a fire boom when you can't use is pretty much a moot point.


Funny, I never heard that... Besides with no fire booms available, The Obama Administration has failed at least as much as the Bush administration has failed with Katrina.


If anything, BP should have had emergency response equipment in place. Too bad they did the same **** Exxon did. Save money, don't do it.



They should, but unlike you, I am not willing to destroy thousands of miles of gulf coast and entire fishing industries to punish "big oil". :shrug:
 
Funny, I never heard that... Besides with no fire booms available, The Obama Administration has failed at least as much as the Bush administration has failed with Katrina.

If Shepard Smith, Anderson Cooper, and other media were there with fire booms you might have a point. ;)
 
maybe it's too early, but I don't get it. :confused:

My point is that Bush said they couldn't get into NOLA while the media managed to do so. That was their excuse for the slow response.
 
I'm less interested in this because the government should've been involved in this and much more interested in the media response. Katrina was greatly laid on Bush in the media with far less attention given to the Mayor and Governor outside of conservative channels, yet here all you keep hearing is "BP should've done this". Where are the sensationalized stories about what Obama was doing while this disaster was happening like the ones we got with Bush on the Ranch.
 
My point is that Bush said they couldn't get into NOLA while the media managed to do so. That was their excuse for the slow response.




Here is my thing regarding visiting either sites. As I said in one of these threads, I don't fault Obama for not visiting the area any more than I fault bush.


Landing AF1 in the middle of the Katrina disaster would have leeched a significant amount of first responders to the rescue effort.


And the media are like cockroaches, they can get into everything.
 
I'm less interested in this because the government should've been involved in this and much more interested in the media response. Katrina was greatly laid on Bush in the media with far less attention given to the Mayor and Governor outside of conservative channels, yet here all you keep hearing is "BP should've done this". Where are the sensationalized stories about what Obama was doing while this disaster was happening like the ones we got with Bush on the Ranch.




Or Bush, 3 mins reading to childeren.
 
Don't even get me started on the 3 minutes reading to children thing. There's no criticism of Bush that infuriates me more than that one.
 
I'm less interested in this because the government should've been involved in this and much more interested in the media response. Katrina was greatly laid on Bush in the media with far less attention given to the Mayor and Governor outside of conservative channels, yet here all you keep hearing is "BP should've done this". Where are the sensationalized stories about what Obama was doing while this disaster was happening like the ones we got with Bush on the Ranch.

Comparing Katrina to this is ridiculous. There was no warning that an oil spill was coming. One was a natural occurrence and the other was a man-made occurrence.

The better comparison is the Exxon Valdez.
 
Don't even get me started on the 3 minutes reading to children thing. There's no criticism of Bush that infuriates me more than that one.





I am actually shocked at the lack of response to this disaster for this fire boom failure from some of our left wing friends. This is a monumental disaster and they are more concerned with making excuses for this administration than being fired up to get everyone and everything we have to contain it.


As a libertarian, I am more than happy to let my tax dollars go to saving the gulf coast from this disaster...


What I don't like though is the misinformation from Obama that BP will have to pay us back. It's only partially true, BP will be capped at 75 million....


That said, I don't care right now. Get it contained before we destroy the coast.
 
Comparing Katrina to this is ridiculous. There was no warning that an oil spill was coming. One was a natural occurrence and the other was a man-made occurrence.

The better comparison is the Exxon Valdez.




Actually, it spilled, and what did we have? 12 days before this whole fire boom thing came up?


That's about the same as we know about when a hurricane is coming.
 
Comparing Katrina to this is ridiculous. There was no warning that an oil spill was coming. One was a natural occurrence and the other was a man-made occurrence.

The better comparison is the Exxon Valdez.

I don't think its ridiculous, I do however think you can't make a direct comparison. Absolutely there are differences in the situations but there are some generalized comparisons, including the simple large national impact and disaster aspect of it.

I'm in no way saying it should be identical to the coverage of Katrina, but the chasm between the way Katrina and this is covered in the media in regards to the President's response is far wider in my mind than the differences between the two situations.
 
Actually, it spilled, and what did we have? 12 days before this whole fire boom thing came up?


That's about the same as we know about when a hurricane is coming.

Bush couldn't act until the state and local government requested assistance, but Obama isn't using this as an excuse, since from Day 1, they had contingency plans in place, that's at least according to the hype I kept hearing from the Obama lie machine. You be the judge on that one.
 
Do we hear ghosts of Katrina? :ssst:


Why wasn't these fire booms on hand like the federal government had planned?

Maybe they listened to all of Bush's defenders who said disasters are a state problem.

We can both play this "hypocrisy" game.
 
Maybe they listened to all of Bush's defenders who said disasters are a state problem.

We can both play this "hypocrisy" game.





It was as state and local problem. FEMA should have been there to assist, they did drop the ball however, but the state and the city did far far worse....



Sorry your attempt to lower the Good Reverend to your level, has FAILED
 
Actually, it spilled, and what did we have? 12 days before this whole fire boom thing came up?


That's about the same as we know about when a hurricane is coming.

Well, like most people, I haven't heard of fire booms until now. I would have to agree that they should have obviously been near the Gulf of Mexico. Why the Coast Guard didn't have them hasn't been explained. That's probably because there isn't a good explanation. Maybe it took the experts 12 days to debate on how to handle this. This is an unprecedented disaster for us.

There is room for criticism here, but trying to compare this to Katrina rings hollow to me. We have floods and hurricanes every year. Oil spills we don't have as much experience with.
 
I am actually shocked at the lack of response to this disaster for this fire boom failure from some of our left wing friends. This is a monumental disaster and they are more concerned with making excuses for this administration than being fired up to get everyone and everything we have to contain it.

Could you be more transparent in your desperate attempts to score cheap political points to get revenge for Bush's Katrina problems?
 
It was as state and local problem. FEMA should have been there to assist, they did drop the ball however, but the state and the city did far far worse....



Sorry your attempt to lower the Good Reverend to your level, has FAILED

Well, no, it's succeeded completely.

You said: It was as state and local problem.

So my reply to you about this boom thing is: It is a state and local problem.

If I believed you genuinely gave a damn about this oil, I'd have a discussion about it. But your only purpose here is to bash Obama any way you can, and everyone can see it.
 
Well, like most people, I haven't heard of fire booms until now. I would have to agree that they should have obviously been near the Gulf of Mexico. Why the Coast Guard didn't have them hasn't been explained. That's probably because there isn't a good explanation. Maybe it took the experts 12 days to debate on how to handle this. This is an unprecedented disaster for us.

There is room for criticism here, but trying to compare this to Katrina rings hollow to me. We have floods and hurricanes every year. Oil spills we don't have as much experience with.




But we had a plan, and that plan was not implemented.


The response from Katrina was a first for us as well....


Now do I think if this had happened under Bush it would have been handled better? I would suggest probably not. That said, the buck here needs to stop with this Administration and they need to make the correct choices to fix this problem... Some of your cohorts here at DP are actually more concerned with attacking those on the right and libertarians for suggesting the "all hands on deck" approach moreso than critisizing the Obama Administration for 12 days of delay in responding to this disaster....

they dropped the ball on this, and the hypocrisy of those who screamed at bush over Katrina is large enough on its own to contain this spill, It's only a bit smaller than the Good Reverend's ego. :ssst:
 
Well, no, it's succeeded completely.

You said: It was as state and local problem.

So my reply to you about this boom thing is: It is a state and local problem.

If I believed you genuinely gave a damn about this oil, I'd have a discussion about it. But your only purpose here is to bash Obama any way you can, and everyone can see it.

The only thing I care about regarding the oil is it belongs in my truck, not on the coastline, and if Obama had got off the stick, it would be in my truck.
 
I don't think its ridiculous, I do however think you can't make a direct comparison. Absolutely there are differences in the situations but there are some generalized comparisons, including the simple large national impact and disaster aspect of it.

I'm in no way saying it should be identical to the coverage of Katrina, but the chasm between the way Katrina and this is covered in the media in regards to the President's response is far wider in my mind than the differences between the two situations.

Are you saying that you would like the media to be more critical of Obama's handling of this? My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I think the media is handling this in a similar fashion to the way they handled the Exxon Valdez and Bush 41. They blamed the oil company for the slow response.
 
Well, no, it's succeeded completely.

You said: It was as state and local problem.

So my reply to you about this boom thing is: It is a state and local problem.



Actually it's in US waters, and it is going to affect interstate coastlines. By definition its a federal issue.







If I believed you genuinely gave a damn about this oil, I'd have a discussion about it. But your only purpose here is to bash Obama any way you can, and everyone can see it.



Really? Is that what I am doing? As one who loves gulf coast seafood, This is a travesty to me. As one who has ties to folks in pensecola, biloxi, and New Orleans, this hits rather personally...


But you can't make a post in response to me with out your mouth foaming bull****, so you just keep your dishonest nonsense and we'll just shake our heads and laugh at you. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom