American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Do you drive a car? Ride in taxis or airplanes? Consume merchandise that was transported in trucks? Use natural gas in your home? Have air conditioning or heating or electric lights? Use computers? Television? Assuming you live in the US were you one of the ones bitching when gasoline hit $4.00/ gallon or when your monthly electricity / heating bill hit $500?

Hypocrite.[/QUOTE]I think we could all meet our energy needs if we would just work together to harness the power of rainbows and unicorns.

You quote billions as though you are skeptical this whole mess won't end up costing our economy billions?

[QUOTE=Tiny12]The "billions" you mention are going to be paid by BP, Halliburton and Transocean. Based on what happened with the Exxon Valdez, the total amount they will pay, to plaintiffs' attorneys, the government, and victims, will exceed the damage.[/QUOTE]Maybe you missed the point of my statement there. I was simply pointing out the stupidity of that dumb broads uneducated blanket statement that her followers repeat as a mantra. I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. No one said petrol wasn't integral to our economy. Deregulation of the oil industry is pure lunacy and we are seeing a clear example why right now.

THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT IN MY POST.

Nice try though.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]Do you drive a car? Ride in taxis or airplanes? Consume merchandise that was transported in trucks? Use natural gas in your home? Have air conditioning or heating or electric lights? Use computers? Television? Assuming you live in the US were you one of the ones bitching when gasoline hit $4.00/ gallon or when your monthly electricity / heating bill hit $500?

Hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Jackson]I think we could all meet our energy needs if we would just work together to harness the power of rainbows and unicorns.[/QUOTE]Will be solved by PMC technologies (personal-methane-reclamation)

I am currently trying to harness bean-power with an experimental, tiny wind turbine implanted in my ass.

[QUOTE=BadMan] I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. [/QUOTE]Eleven men are missing and presumed dead on that oil rig and countless other people will be adversely affected by this tragedy, emotionally and financially, and it will have an impact on the entire country, but what the hell, we'll have "no off shore drilling in California."

Gloating over gains achieved from the loss of life and misfortune of others, is very low class and reveals an extreme deficiency of character! IMHO

[Quote= Ben Raines environmental reporter for the Mobile Press Register]

May 03, 2010, 12:09PM.

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.

The "In-Situ Burn" plan produced by federal agencies in 1994 calls for responding to a major oil spill in the Gulf with the immediate use of fire booms.

But in order to conduct a successful test burn eight days after the Deepwater Horizon well began releasing massive amounts of oil into the Gulf, officials had to purchase one from a company in Illinois.

When federal officials called, Elastec / American Marine, shipped the only boom it had in stock, Jeff Bohleber, chief financial officer for Elastec, said today.

At federal officials' behest, the company began calling customers in other countries and asking if the U. S. Government could borrow their fire booms for a few days, he said.

A single fire boom being towed by two boats can burn up to 1,800 barrels of oil an hour, Bohleber said. That translates to 75,000 gallons an hour, raising the possibility that the spill could have been contained at the accident scene 100 miles from shore. [/QUOTE]Full story,

[url]http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html[/url]

Three Presidents failed to prepare for this type oil spill. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all failed to prepare for this type of a problem, unfortunately for Mr. Obama this happened on his watch.

Not only did the Obama administration fail to prepare in advance they also waited eight days before they even tried to find a fire boom.

That's just the facts!

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Full story,

[url]http://blog.al.com/live/2010/05/fire_boom_oil_spill_raines.html[/url]

Three Presidents failed to prepare for this type oil spill. Clinton, Bush, and Obama all failed to prepare for this type of a problem, unfortunately for Mr. Obama this happened on his watch.

Not only did the Obama administration fail to prepare in advance they also waited eight days before they even tried to find a fire boom.

That's just the facts![/QUOTE]Is the fact that the existing procedure mandates burning the spill as quickly as possible (I believe the intent is 24-48 hrs from detection to ignition) and that further authority is not needed (I. E. They don't have to get permission to light it up) Waiting 8 days to start shopping on eBay for a fire boom, is beyond incompetence.

I suspect that Obama had operatives sabotage the rig and intentionally delayed the response in order to destroy the livelihoods of all the white people who depend on the either the oil industry or the gulf to make a living (see footnote below)

Footnote: If someone in the mainstream press wrote the above passage or a notable American pol proclaimed it, there would be a horrific backlash and he would be blackballed and / or permanently barred from holding office. However, after hurricane Katrina, the very same thing was widely stated about George Bush and accepted by the media as a reasonable point of view.

I for one don't think that the oil rig explosion was Obama's fault. However - as he likes to keep reminding the GOP he won they lost - he must bear the responsibility for the delayed / failed response. That said, it is unreasonable to expect the POTUS to personally check on every detail of every government or civilian risk mitigation program and ensure that the proper procedures and equipment are in place. What we 'should' be able to expect is that the people responsible for making sure those things were in place are dealt with severely. I would be shocked if some of the responsibility doesn't rest squarely on Congress. If that is the case, we should expect that blame will be shifted to some innocent private enterprise and that the very individuals who are responsible for the disaster will appoint themselves to be the stewards of the process for correcting the problem.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]I would be shocked if some of the responsibility doesn't rest squarely on Congress. If that is the case, we should expect that blame will be shifted to some innocent private enterprise and that the very individuals who are responsible for the disaster will appoint themselves to be the stewards of the process for correcting the problem.[/QUOTE]That's exactly what always happens. The recent financial mess was largely Congress's fault and caused by misguided, well-meaning, wooly-headed social legislation to promote home ownership among those who can't afford to own a home. That's the simplest way to put it. But, what happens after the mess is laid bare? Congress sets up subcommittees and subpoenas executives from private companies for various high tech lynchings.

Who holds Congress accountable? Well, that's supposed to be the public, but with Congress members' ability to entrench themselves through the two-party system, franking privileges, generous travel budgets, and the fact that its generally a millionaires' club, it just doesn't happen. This election will be a little different. After it's over, however, it will quickly be back to business as usual.

Congress already is starting to try to "cover" itself. As I understand it, there is legislation limiting oil companies' clean-up responsibility to $75 million. That may not be accurate. I just heard a quick news report about it yesterday, coupled with a story about how Congress is hastily attempting to amend this (although they may have an ex post facto problem as to BP) Still, if true, why would such a provision exist after Exon Valdez?

The real culprit here, as you point out, is the Fourth Branch. The media is supposed to be holding our elected representatives accountable. Yet the mainstream media is so utterly left leaning that it functions as little more than a de facto wing of the Democrats. Sure, there are right wing media outlets as well -- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a few magazines here and there. But the vast majority of the news media is left leaning. Their failure to hold Democrats' feet to the fire for their opposition to reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is just the latest example of the failure to fulfill their self-professed mandate (fair, balanced reporting)

This will be no different. While George Bush was President, you had the mainstream media manufacturing stories to try to smear the administration. Dan Rather is one example, but there are many others. Don't get me wrong, Bush and the Republicans gave them plenty of ammo. But, had something like the Acorn mess happened on the Republican side, there would have been a hue and cry from all facets of the mainstream media. Instead, they attempted to brush the story aside as best they could. The same thing will happen here. This administration will get a pass from ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, the New York Times, and others who masquerade as fair and balanced news outlets. Instead, they'll focus their rapt attention on those upon whom Congress attempts to shift the blame.

[QUOTE=Stan Da Man]The recent financial mess was largely Congress's fault and caused by misguided, well-meaning, wooly-headed social legislation to promote home ownership among those who can't afford to own a home...

...but the vast majority of the news media is left leaning. Their failure to hold Democrats' feet to the fire for their opposition to reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is just the latest example of the failure to fulfill their self-professed mandate (fair, balanced reporting)[/QUOTE]Stan,

You are completely accurate and your observations are overwhelming supported by the facts, and yet I've meet dozens of leftist liberal Democrat s who will argue vehemently that none of this is true and that in fact the mortgage debacle that precipitated the current recession was entirely [size=3][b]George Bush's fault![/b][/size]

Unfortunately, as we all know, sometimes talking to liberals is like talking to a wall.

Thanks,

Jackson

I didn't start this Obama hate fest thread and I didn't use this tragedy as an excuse to try and blame it on Obama, that was you. But I guess thats just high class morality at it's best on your part (yeah fucking right) I simply illustrated the ills of deregulation and yes I'm happy this tragedy won't be repeated in my home state.

You can try to spin this however you want to. You continue to fail miserably. I am very happy that California will not have any off shore oil drilling after this disaster. Deal with it.

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Eleven men are missing and presumed dead on that oil rig and countless other people will be adversely affected by this tragedy, emotionally and financially, and it will have an impact on the entire country, but what the hell, we'll have "no off shore drilling in California."

Gloating over gains achieved from the loss of life and misfortune of others, is very low class and reveals an extreme deficiency of character! IMHO[/QUOTE]

If you are hurting for entertainment: Gulf oil spill. Kind of sounds like it was one of those "shit happens" deals.

[url]http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92765[/url]
[url]http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92823[/url]
[url]http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=92780[/url]

When the gas lines start like they did back in the seventies, Congress will issue a permit for drilling on the White House lawn. Deep water drilling is risky, but it is the only game in town anymore for reserves.

Facts are BP had a blowout. The blow out preventer failed, rig burned and sunk.

Where was BP's disaster plan? Oh wait I forgot, they said it could not happen.

Why did BP not have burn booms? They said they did not need it.

Why did BP not have an austic switch? They lobbied for them being too expensive.

BP hedged there bets that there would never be a blowout in deep water. There bet was wrong and they failed. Time to pay. Oh wait wall street did this too and they were bailed out.

This is not really political at this point. Its going to need an engineering marvel. Working at that depth (5000 feet) is more hostile than the moon.

This box they want to lower over the leaks is a joke also. If you can do math and load paths you will realize that the pressures involved are out of this world. I don't think there is a flex hose in the world that could handle the salt water and those pressures for long. It will need a big ass steel pipe holding it to the barge above.

Also BP was supposed to have another cutoff valve 200 feet under the seabed that was not cost effective either and was descoped.

We all have seen how much Exxon was on the hook for Valdez, oh wait they did not have to pay the settlement after 20 years.

I'm sorry but Oil is not the future.

This is not about Bush or Obama this is just common sense. Oh wait I can piss farther than you!

[QUOTE=Jackson]I've meet dozens of leftist liberal Democrat s who will argue vehemently that none of this is true and that in fact the mortgage debacle that precipitated the current recession was entirely [size=3][b]George Bush's fault![/b][/size][/QUOTE]I find that very hard to believe! Where do you encounter so many of these liberal Democrats?

Although I lean Democratic I don't believe it was all Bush's fault. There were many players involved. Bush himself probably had very little to do with it, though it did happen under his watch.

[QUOTE=BadMan]Maybe you missed the point of my statement there. I was simply pointing out the stupidity of that dumb broads uneducated blanket statement that her followers repeat as a mantra. I'm pretty happy this means no off shore drilling in California. You guys can keep your oil slicks in Florida. No one said petrol wasn't integral to our economy. Deregulation of the oil industry is pure lunacy and we are seeing a clear example why right now.

THAT WAS THE MAIN POINT IN MY POST.

Nice try though.[/QUOTE]As someone who has worked in the oil industry, I got your point. You called me and about half my friends and co-workers "retards".

I get annoyed by the "not in my backyard" mentality a lot of people have. There should be no offshore drilling in California. There should be no windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. Etc.

There's risk and environmental hazard associated with production and use of coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear. I've had friends lose fingers and thumbs on oil rigs. And suffer 3rd degree burns in a gas plant and spend weeks in ICU. It's OK for people in Wyoming or West Texas or Louisiana or Nigeria or the North Sea or Russia to risk their lives and their backyards so you can drive your car and heat your home. But you shouldn't have to bear any risk whatsoever. That attitude has gotten California where it is today. A place that sucks resources from other places, produces less than it consumes, and exists on the edge of bankruptcy.

The oil and gas industry is highly regulated in the U.S. It was never de-regulated. Until two years ago I would have argued the level of regulation was about right. Now, though, there's a good chance future natural gas production is going to be cut way back from what it could be as a result of over-regulation of hydraulic fracturing. And after the BP incident, most of the U.S. offshore and a good percentage of onshore acreage will continue to be off limits to the industry. I don't know of any country in the world that restricts where companies can drill offshore to the extent that the U.S. does. Certainly Australia, the United Kingdom and Norway are much more industry friendly in that way.

This is not a critique, I just want to add a few things to what you said and continue to stir the pot.

[QUOTE=Gato Hunter]Facts are BP had a blowout. The blow out preventer failed, rig burned and sunk.[/QUOTE]Yep. That is what happens when the shit hits the fan on a rig. Tough business.

[quote=]Where was BP's disaster plan? Oh wait I forgot, they said it could not happen.[/QUOTE]All rig owners and operators have disaster plans, drills, etc. The question is did their disaster plan include a blast of this magnitude?

[quote=]Why did BP not have burn booms? They said they did not need it.[/QUOTE]They weren't required to have them. There are over 4000 rigs in the Gulf, why don't any of the rest of them have fire booms? The maker that supplied the one fire boom last week only had one on hand and then contacted a number of foreign customers to see if the US Govt could borrow theirs.

[quote=]Why did BP not have an austic switch? They lobbied for them being too expensive.[/QUOTE]Even if the rig had an AS, as I understand it, an AS wouldn't have worked in this case. The power of the blast was too great, damaging the 'valve' that would have been shut off. The AS is a redundancy of the transmitter to the "closing" mechanism (a really expensive remote control) not an actual redundancy of shut off valves. The AS would send the same signal sent by the rig when it went up in flames to the same damaged or destroyed valve that failed after the initial blast.

The rig in question cost more than US$700 million. The AS is about $500k. They didn't have it because it wasn't required, not because it cost too much.

[quote=]BP hedged there bets that there would never be a blowout in deep water. There bet was wrong and they failed. Time to pay. Oh wait wall street did this too and they were bailed out.[/QUOTE]Yep. That is the nature of the game. Their exposure for the spill is supposedly capped at $75 million by US law, anything above that BP would have to volunteer to pay or lose in court. Wall St. Didn't have a $75 million stop order in place.

[quote=]This is not really political at this point. Its going to need an engineering marvel. Working at that depth (5000 feet) is more hostile than the moon.

This box they want to lower over the leaks is a joke also. If you can do math and load paths you will realize that the pressures involved are out of this world. I don't think there is a flex hose in the world that could handle the salt water and those pressures for long. It will need a big ass steel pipe holding it to the barge above.[/QUOTE]When we meet for a beer, I will draw you a picture of the solution and tell you how it works (really, it is proprietary)

[quote=]We all have seen how much Exxon was on the hook for Valdez, oh wait they did not have to pay the settlement after 20 years.[/QUOTE]Yes and yes.

[quote=]I'm sorry but Oil is not the future.[/QUOTE]Reality says otherwise.

[quote=]This is not about Bush or Obama this is just common sense.[/QUOTE]Now those are two names not normally mentioned in the same sentence with that concept.

[quote=] Oh wait I can piss farther than you![/QUOTE]I didn't think you were watching. If I knew you were, I would have made sure I was aiming down wind, breathed rhythmically and pushed harder! I like to make a good first impression.

Alternate answer to this one "longer device doesn't need to shoot as far to hit the target."

8 minutes of clips from 2004 hearing on Regulation of Freddie & Fannie Mae.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4A0RuXhnQA[/url]

Don't stop there. You investigate further and decide who is innocent.

Don't blindly cling to stereotypes you are feed daily.

Best wishes to all.

Nuevo