or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez - Page 14

post #521 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Listen! We're experiencing the effects still of that strong economy. Jesus those blinders get larger every day!

The one thing you can't spin is the fact that Bush was in charge as the largest downturn since the Great Depression started. Get a grip!

My friend at work ( a local university ) doesn't have to have anything to do with this. Bush's lack of leadership is almost legendary. Some call it the lost decade. Give me an extra big break.



He did mostly nothing and spent money like hot cakes.

Honestly SDW I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you. That's all you do. Try to wear people down by getting them to repeat themsleves " I don't understand " " I don't rememeber " ( I know where you got that one! ) " or you just want someone to answer the same question over and over again. Sheesh! You could at least come up with a new act.



Then you already know.

This is just twaddle! Look for your self! Everyone has seen it. Why should I have to recount it? But as I said you get people to waste time by going over old material.

What crap.

Here's a reminder : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMoQYbRV9NQ

I'll bet she's for World Peace!

Ok here's a bit of a real interview about what media she reads!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWe...eature=related

About the supreme court!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rXmuhWrlj4&NR=1 Now what did she say again?

Some of it actually sound like the Shatner parody. Come to think of it she kind of sounds like Shatner when he does Kirk. She kind of starts and stops the same way.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #522 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I believe that's what they will end up calling the period starting in about 2008.




Good God! You just described almost exactly the Obama administration! Weird part is you don't even see it. Must be blinders or something.




Well it's about time you started to feel like what some of the rest of feel like in dealing with you.




As could you.




Straight from "jimmac: The Greatest Hits" album.



Well MJ if all you can do is throw insults my way and not stay on topic there's no point in trying to take you seriously.

But hey! The both of you! The topic is is the oil spill! Not if you can get one in on ol' jimmac!

Jesus! It's the only thing in this thread I'm going to respond to now. So suck it up up and stay on topic.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #523 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Well MJ if all you can do is throw insults my way and not stay on topic there's no point in trying to take you seriously.

Yes, that's all I can do. Oh, you can stop pretending that you ever took me seriously.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But hey! The both of you! The topic is is the oil spill! Not wether or not you can get one in on ol' jimmac!

Jesus! It's the only thing in this thread I'm going to respond to now. So suck it up up and stay on topic.

Good.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #524 of 700
DEFINITION OF HYPOCRISY =>

White House mocks BP CEO's yacht race, defends Obama golf...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...q_rUMpzykNDtkQ
post #525 of 700
It is now being reported that the federal government was apprised by BP on February 13 that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was leaking oil and natural gas into the ocean floor =>


Resign... or Change, Mr. President
Kevin McCullough
Published June 21, 2010
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...resign-change/
1. It appears, Mr. President, that you were informed by BP about problems on Deepwater Horizon on February 13 and the company wanted your help. What did you say?

2. Given this new revelation, Mr. President, how can you can sleep at night knowing that your inaction cost the lives of eleven men in Louisiana?
post #526 of 700
Bravo!!!

Judge blocks Obama's offshore drilling moratorium...
AP NewsAlert
Jun 22 01:43 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Judge blocks offshore drilling moratorium imposed by Obama administration after Gulf spill.
post #527 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Listen! We're experiencing the effects still of that strong economy. Jesus those blinders get larger every day!

Wait...you're now openly denying that the economy was strong for most of the Bush years? I can't wait to see the explanation on this one.

Quote:

The one thing you can't spin is the fact that Bush was in charge as the largest downturn since the Great Depression started. Get a grip!

I have a very good grip, thank you. I don't deny that Bush was in charge when the economic crisis began. What I do deny is that Bush policies caused it. You have stated you disagree, and I asked you which policies contributed. But you can't or won't answer, except with the vague notion that Bush didn't do enough (or anything) to stop it. Of course, this is objectively false. You also cannot identify what he should have done.

Quote:

My friend at work ( a local university ) doesn't have to have anything to do with this. Bush's lack of leadership is almost legendary. Some call it the lost decade. Give me an extra big break.

Who calls it that? On what criteria are you judging Bush's leadership? How does he compare to Obama in this regard?

Quote:

He did mostly nothing

False. The administration warned on Fannie and Freddie, enacted TARP I and II, and attempted a tax rebate stimulus.
Again, what should have been done?

Quote:
and spent money like hot cakes.

Yes, but that didn't cause the collapse. That point is irrelevant to this discussion, true as it may be.

Quote:

Honestly SDW I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you. That's all you do. Try to wear people down by getting them to repeat themsleves " I don't understand " " I don't rememeber " ( I know where you got that one! ) " or you just want someone to answer the same question over and over again. Sheesh! You could at least come up with a new act.

I repeat questions because you don't fucking answer them.

Quote:



Then you already know.

This is just twaddle! Look for your self! Everyone has seen it. Why should I have to recount it? But as I said you get people to waste time by going over old material.

What crap.

Well, I guess that is sort of an answer. You are judging Palin's capacity based on one interview.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #528 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

It is now being reported that the federal government was apprised by BP on February 13 that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig was leaking oil and natural gas into the ocean floor =>


Resign... or Change, Mr. President
Kevin McCullough
Published June 21, 2010
FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...resign-change/
1. It appears, Mr. President, that you were informed by BP about problems on Deepwater Horizon on February 13 and the company wanted your help. What did you say?

2. Given this new revelation, Mr. President, how can you can sleep at night knowing that your inaction cost the lives of eleven men in Louisiana?

Wow. That is...unreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Bravo!!!

Judge blocks Obama's offshore drilling moratorium...
AP NewsAlert
Jun 22 01:43 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Judge blocks offshore drilling moratorium imposed by Obama administration after Gulf spill.

Bravo, indeed. Sanity prevails.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #529 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Bravo!!!

Judge blocks Obama's offshore drilling moratorium...
AP NewsAlert
Jun 22 01:43 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Judge blocks offshore drilling moratorium imposed by Obama administration after Gulf spill.

However. A small sample of what people ( voters ) think.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_ques...gulf-of-mexico

Also : About that Judge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...62335#37862335
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #530 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

However. A small sample of what people ( voters ) think.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_ques...gulf-of-mexico

So half think the moratorium is fine and half don't. And? In this country we don't just do what every wants or thinks we ought to do at a given moment, we follow the law. That's what the "rule of law" is about. We have written laws so everyone knows how to conduct themselves and no one person or group (including the President) is allowed to make shit up as they go along. That's the way it is supposed to work anyway. The judge, in this case, made an interpretation that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority as a matter of the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also : About that Judge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...62335#37862335

Oh dear God. Keith Olbermann?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #531 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So half think the moratorium is fine and half don't. And? In this country we don't just do what every wants or thinks we ought to do at a given moment, we follow the law. That's what the "rule of law" is about. We have written laws so everyone knows how to conduct themselves and no one person or group (including the President) is allowed to make shit up as they go along. That's the way it is supposed to work anyway. The judge, in this case, made an interpretation that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority as a matter of the law.




Oh dear God. Keith Olbermann?

This is exactly what we can expect from jimmac. Please try not to be surprised....

1. He ignored my post above. He doesn't answer questions. He just obfuscates, attacks, dodges.

2. He posted a link to an internet poll and tried to claim it was indicative of "public opinion."

3. He posted a link to a hyper-partisan MORON and claimed it was "information about the judge."

Typical jimmac. Notice he also didn't even take a position himself. He just attacked the judge's credibility and tried to present what other people thought.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #532 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is exactly what we can expect from jimmac. Please try not to be surprised....

1. He ignored my post above. He doesn't answer questions. He just obfuscates, attacks, dodges.

2. He posted a link to an internet poll and tried to claim it was indicative of "public opinion."

3. He posted a link to a hyper-partisan MORON and claimed it was "information about the judge."

Typical jimmac. Notice he also didn't even take a position himself. He just attacked the judge's credibility and tried to present what other people thought.

I know. But it's really so much fun. It's like throwing the tennis ball for my dog. Repetitive? Sure. Mundane? A bit. Somewhat fun? Absolutely.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #533 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Also : About that Judge.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/...62335#37862335

Don't cite MSNBC for anything except White House propaganda; they ceased being a believable news outlet the day Obama was inaugurated. Moreover, the honorable judge stopped a tremendous overreach by Salazar and Company that seriously impacts Gulf citizens. While the oil spill has yielded tremendous economic damage to citizens in our southern states, the Government need not compound this damage by closing down the oil industry!
post #534 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Don't cite MSNBC for anything except White House propaganda; they ceased being a believable news outlet the day Obama was inaugurated. Moreover, the honorable judge stopped a tremendous overreach by Salazar and Company that seriously impacts Gulf citizens. While the oil spill has yielded tremendous economic damage to citizens in our southern states, the Government need not compound this damage by closing down the oil industry!

Don't believe it because it's reported by MSNBC?

How about NPR?

Quote:
Judge Blocking Obama Drilling Halt Hit On Oil Investments

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman has come under scrutiny after he granted the oil industry's request for a preliminary injunction against the Obama Administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater oil and gas drilling, a response to the BP oil spill.

Many critics of the decision have accused the judge of being predisposed to the energy industry because of investments he's had in oil and gas stocks.

For instance, his 2008 financial disclosure form indicated he had shares in Transocean, the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon rig involved in the BP disaster.

Judge Feldman gave the oil industry everything it wanted in its lawsuit.

He slapped down and ridiculed the Obama administration arguments.

He argued that an accident on one rig, the Deepwater Horizon, did not mean that all rigs are dangerous.

What Feldman didn't mention in court was that as recently as 2008, he held stock in the company that owned the Deepwater Horizon.

Feldman had between one and $15,000 dollars in Transocean Ltd.

But some environmental groups say no matter how little the amount, the judge should have stepped aside.

Or thestreet.com?

Or The Guardian?

Or Forbes magazine?


Oh, and....


Quote:
the Government need not compound this damage by closing down the oil industry!

.



The Government has not "closed down the oil industry". They have not even come close. They're not even remotely close to shutting down the oil industry in the Gulf Of Mexico.

The temporary ban applies only to deepwater exploratory wells. That's a grand total of 33 wells - or less than 1% of the wells in the Gulf of Mexico.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #535 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

The Government has not "closed down the oil industry". They have not even come close. They're not even remotely close to shutting down the oil industry in the Gulf Of Mexico.

The point I made was so clear but you missed it. Surprising! Here let me try an elementary and direct tact... While we are aware MSNBC, and all the other lefty links you cited, try to demonize the judge by citing his apparent ties to big oil, none of the links you cited, nor MSNBC, pay attention to the law the judge cited; i.e., that the White House overreached by closing down deep water rigs for no apparent reason... Moreover, the temporary ban, when combined with the loss of seafood income due to oil spill, would drastically hit the Gulf Coast and render unemployment to a sizable portion of Gulf Coast population!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

The temporary ban applies only to deepwater exploratory wells.

And all of their support staff, and the region which depends on this income! Idiotic Salazar, with White House backing, overreached. The Judge made the right decision by stopping it. The White House appeal is equally idiotic....
post #536 of 700
I don't understand.

The U.S. federal government is halting the building of sand berms off Louisiana because the sand is being drawn in part from a "sensitive section of the Chandeleur Islands". According to Wikipedia, these islands have already been compromised by the oil spill.

What exactly is the administration protecting here, and why wouldn't it be acceptable to use the sand around the islands to save the Louisiana coast? Wouldn't it make more sense to protect the fishing, farming and coastal environments instead of a bunch of uninhabited islands?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #537 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

The point I made was so clear but you missed it. Surprising!

My mistake... when you typed "closing down the oil industry", I thought you meant......

"closing down the oil industry".




Oh, and last I heard, they were going to modify the ban to comply with the cited law, rather than appeal the ruling.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #538 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Oh, and last I heard, they were going to modify the ban to comply with the cited law, rather than appeal the ruling.

The administration is more incompetent than you give credit....

Justice Department Says It Will Appeal Ruling That Overturned Gulf Drilling Moratorium
Jun. 24, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...3A+CBSNews.com)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

What exactly is the administration protecting here, and why wouldn't it be acceptable to use the sand around the islands to save the Louisiana coast? Wouldn't it make more sense to protect the fishing, farming and coastal environments instead of a bunch of uninhabited islands?

The administration never misses an opportunity to damage the nation and put people out of work. In the instance you cite, it is actually going further, prohibiting a good idea of sand berms in the Gulf. By halting their dredging and construction, oil will not be stopped before it reaches the shore. Louisiana and Mississippi politicians favored the berm approach immediately after the leak as a solid way of protecting the coastal environment; only the incompetent administration objects to their use.
post #539 of 700
Camp David, do you believe that the Obama administration has closed down the oil industry or that it is actually trying to close down the oil industry?
post #540 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So half think the moratorium is fine and half don't. And? In this country we don't just do what every wants or thinks we ought to do at a given moment, we follow the law. That's what the "rule of law" is about. We have written laws so everyone knows how to conduct themselves and no one person or group (including the President) is allowed to make shit up as they go along. That's the way it is supposed to work anyway. The judge, in this case, made an interpretation that the Obama administration had exceeded its authority as a matter of the law.




Oh dear God. Keith Olbermann?

Quote:
Oh dear God. Keith Olbermann

What does it matter MJ? It's all over the news that big oil has this guy in their back pocket.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #541 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is exactly what we can expect from jimmac. Please try not to be surprised....

1. He ignored my post above. He doesn't answer questions. He just obfuscates, attacks, dodges.

2. He posted a link to an internet poll and tried to claim it was indicative of "public opinion."

3. He posted a link to a hyper-partisan MORON and claimed it was "information about the judge."

Typical jimmac. Notice he also didn't even take a position himself. He just attacked the judge's credibility and tried to present what other people thought.

Typical SDW. Notice he didn't comment on the fact that it's true that big oil has this judge in their back pocket. And SDW thinks he just a nice guy.

He's like you all to just gloss over that part.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #542 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Don't cite MSNBC for anything except White House propaganda; they ceased being a believable news outlet the day Obama was inaugurated. Moreover, the honorable judge stopped a tremendous overreach by Salazar and Company that seriously impacts Gulf citizens. While the oil spill has yielded tremendous economic damage to citizens in our southern states, the Government need not compound this damage by closing down the oil industry!

And as for you it's not just MSNBC that's talking about this. Really lame return argument.

Really you guys are priceless!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #543 of 700
Let me see if I have this straight. We have a president who, shortly after becoming president, used all of his power to secure a bailout for his union buddies who helped get him elected to the most powerful position on the planet, and has consistently used his political power to help out and protect his various union political allies (including during this oil crisis), but now we're supposed to be upset that that a judge who appears to have a conflict of interest has made a decision on the basis of the law and the president's authority with respect to the law?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #544 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Typical SDW. Notice he didn't comment on the fact that it's true that big oil has this judge in their back pocket. And SDW thinks he just a nice guy.

He's like you all to just gloss over that part.

Right...in his back pocket.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #545 of 700
Well this is interesting:

Quote:
President Obama and Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were informed that BP would drill an unprecedented 35,000 feet well bore at the Macondo site off the coast of Louisiana. In September 2009, the Deepwater Horizon successfully sunk a well bore at a depth of 35,055 below sea level at the Tiber Prospect in the Keathley Canyon block 102 in the Gulf of Mexico, southeast of Houston.

During the September drilling operations, the Deepwater Horizon drill penetrated a massive undersea oil deposit but BP's priorities changed when the Macondo site in the Mississippi Canyon off the coast of Louisiana was found to contain some 3-4 billion barrels of oil in an underground cavern estimated to be about the size of Mount Everest. It was as a result of another 35,000 feet well bore sank by the Deepwater Horizon at the Macondo site that the catastrophic explosion occurred on April 20.

According to the Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) sources within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Pentagon and Interior and Energy Departments told the Obama Administration that the newly-discovered estimated 3-4 billion barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico would cover America's oil needs for up to eight months if there was a military attack on Iran that resulted in the bottling up of the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic, resulting in a cut-off of oil to the United States from the Persian Gulf.

Obama, Salazar, Chu, and Gates green-lighted the risky Macondo drilling operation from the outset, according to WMR's government sources.

WMR learned that BP was able to have several safety checks waved because of the high-level interest by the White House and Pentagon in tapping the Gulf of Mexico bonanza find in order to plan a military attack on Iran without having to be concerned about an oil and natural gas shortage from the Persian Gulf after an outbreak of hostilities with Iran.

BP still has an ongoing operation to drill down to 40,000 feet below sea level at the Liberty field off the north coast of Alaska.

Don't know if this is true or not. Would not be surprising.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #546 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right...in his back pocket.

Would you like a side of cole slaw with that foot?

Maybe we could get a doctor to perform an oral pedendectomy!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #547 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Justice Department Says It Will Appeal Ruling That Overturned Gulf Drilling Moratorium
Jun. 24, 2010
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...3A+CBSNews.com)

Upon further reflection, I believe what I saw stated that the Administration was going to concentrate more on the revised ban than on the appeal of the ruling, and not that they would not appeal at all.

I found a couple articles in today's news that confirm that:



Quote:
The Obama administrations efforts to suspend deepwater oil drilling were dealt another setback in court on Thursday when the federal judge who struck down the administrations six-month moratorium refused to delay the decisions effects.

The Interior Department petitioned Judge Martin L.C. Feldman of the United States District Court in New Orleans to grant a stay of his decision, which lifted a ban on new drilling projects and on work on the 33 rigs already in place in the Gulf.

Judge Feldman said on Thursday that the Interior Department now had 30 days to comply with his June 22 decision, a longer time than the 21 days he originally specified in his ruling. The governments appeal of the ruling will be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Meanwhile, Ken Salazar, the Interior secretary, plans to reintroduce the moratorium in another version in the next several days, emphasizing why the moratorium is necessary in answer to the judges criticism.

Does this mean companies are going to rush back to work? asked Andy Radford, the senior policy advisor for offshore issues with the American Petroleum Institute. There are probably too many unknowns to get a large-scale resumption of work at this point.

Mr. Radford said Mr. Salazar has been talking about a flexible moratorium that could be more beneficial than the original blanket ban. It could identify a framework where companies can meet safety requirements and have equipment inspected and get back to work while we figure what exactly is going on, Mr. Radford said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/us/25spill.html


Quote:
The Interior Department has said it will appeal the decision, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is also being forced to consider other means to salvage the moratorium, and experts suggest the fastest and perhaps simplest way would be to revise the moratorium itself.

Judge Martin Feldman said Thursday that he refused to delay his decision for the same reasons he overruled the moratorium it in the first place: The Interior Department did not explicitly justify the need for the temporary suspension in its report on the subject.

The moratorium, Judge Feldman said, was blanket, generic, indeed punitive.

In addition, the judge was troubled by the fact that the seven engineering experts who reviewed the report did not recommend a moratorium.

The Interior Department has 30 days to comply with the ruling. The Obama administration plans to appeal the ruling to the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals.

The faster way of salvaging the moratorium, however, would be rewrite it to address the judges concerns something the Interior Department is considering.

In a Senate hearing Wednesday, Secretary Salazar said he would be looking at how the ban "might be refined."

He suggested that a moratorium could distinguish between ventures that are exploratory in nature and those where more of the variables are known, such as the oil pressure pushing up from the reservoir.

Central to such a rewrite would be showing that the department seriously considered the suspensions impact on the local economy and that it was peer reviewed by experts who could support the findings in a courtroom, says Jack Beermann, a law professor at Boston University School of Law.

The government had some serious problems with how they presented the reasoning for the moratorium, says Mr. Beermann. It was a little bit misleading to say you have the experts views but once you get into the situation and dont have the experts behind you, the judge is going to raise an eyebrow.

Beermann says a new report reviewed by a new set of experts will give the government a second try, which would put the pressure back on the petroleum industry.

They would have to go in and get the thing thrown out, he says.

Others suggest that a revised moratorium would be more likely to succeed and more effective if it was based more on the public good than on science or engineering.

That would entail laying out more clearly why stepping back from drilling for six months is necessary to both safety and crucial regulatory reforms, says Peter Jacques, an expert in oceanic policy at the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

Prudent decisions have to be based on public interest, especially in the midst of an unprecedented catastrophe, Mr. Jacques says. At this point it gives us the opportunity to reconsider what our political values are as a community.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/06...ing-moratorium
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #548 of 700
Yesterday the Financial Post had a great article on the debacle that is the Obama Administration's response to the environmental crisis in the Gulf.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #549 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yesterday the Financial Post had a great article on the debacle that is the Obama Administration's response to the environmental crisis in the Gulf.

Thanks for the link... the mess in the Gulf is indeed a catastrophe and Obama's handling of it next to criminal neglect... Why is he off with G20 in Canada while the greatest environmental disaster in history is being ignored?
post #550 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Thanks for the link... the mess in the Gulf is indeed a catastrophe and Obama's handling of it next to criminal neglect... Why is he off with G20 in Canada while the greatest environmental disaster in history is being ignored?

Because the environment is not his top priority evidently.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #551 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Because the environment is not his top priority evidently.

There must be good golf courses near G20.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #552 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Because the environment is not his top priority evidently.

Demise of the USA seems to be #1 with him...
post #553 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Would you like a side of cole slaw with that foot?

Maybe we could get a doctor to perform an oral pedendectomy!

I'm taking issue with the characterization that the judge is "in the back pocket" of BP. That's an absurd allegation, no matter how much stock the judge owns.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #554 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm taking issue with the characterization that the judge is "in the back pocket" of BP. That's an absurd allegation, no matter how much stock the judge owns.

SDW it's ok. It's not the first time you've chosen to ignore mutiple references ( from multiple places ) in the news. Big oil even Applauded his lifting of the moratorium!.

There are many connections you can draw between the two and who would lifting the moratorium benifit?

Plus I'm not the only one saying this or drawing the obvious connections.

http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06...bbling-in-oil/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/ju...l-in/19527597/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ents_in_o.html

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spil...ments/19527477

http://www.noethics.net/News/index.p...rter&Itemid=58

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/2...iref=allsearch


I like this last one :

Quote:
But Feldman was remarkably selective in his criticism. He was willing to scrutinize the government harshly, but not the oil industry.



Quote:
Feldman's sensitivity to employees on the drilling rigs is appropriate, but myopic. A moratorium can force the oil companies operating in the Gulf to craft a realistic plan for addressing a deep water blowout. With a moratorium in place, oil companies have enormous incentives to identify a sound set of contingencies for the kind of accident we have seen that would reduce the flow of oil long before a relief well can be dug. Feldman's lifting of the moratorium is akin to allowing the passenger ships to cross the Atlantic without an adequate supply of lifeboats right after the Titanic sank.




There's a whole lot more if you'd like it. One doesn't have to look far for people who've drawn the same conclusion.

Sorry if it's not in line with they way you want to see things. That's denial for you.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #555 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW it's ok. It's not the first time you've chosen to ignore mutiple references ( from multiple places ) in the news. Big oil even Applauded his lifting of the moritorium!.

There are many connections you can draw between the two and who would lifting the moritorium benifit?

Plus I'm not the only one saying this or drawing the obvious connections.

You're missing the point. Mind you this isn't very surprising, but it's important to point out.

First, you (and many others) are assuming that:

1. Because "Big oil even Applauded his lifting of the moritorium [sic]", and
2. The man owns some stock in some oil companies, and
3. he might benefit financially from the decision, that...

He is "in 'Big Oil's' back pocket" and that he made the decision for that reason and that reason alone and that the decision has no legal merits at all.

There are a couple of fallacies in all of that. Certainly a circumstantial ad hominem, I'd say a red herring and, and possibly a non sequitur and likely a guilt by association.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #556 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're missing the point. Mind you this isn't very surprising, but it's important to point out.

First, you (and many others) are assuming that:

1. Because "Big oil even Applauded his lifting of the moritorium [sic]", and
2. The man owns some stock in some oil companies, and
3. he might benefit financially from the decision, that...

He is "in 'Big Oil's' back pocket" and that he made the decision for that reason and that reason alone and that the decision has no legal merits at all.

There are a couple of fallacies in all of that. Certainly a circumstantial ad hominem, I'd say a red herring and, and possibly a non sequitur and likely a guilt by association.

Sure.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #557 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Sure.

So you're outright denying that your claims in this matter contain any assumptions or fallacies and also that the decision has no legal merit whatsoever?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #558 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So you're outright denying that your claims in this matter contain any assumptions or fallacies and also that the decision has no legal merit whatsoever?

Now you're legal council as well?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #559 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now you're legal council as well?

Apparently you are. You (and others) are the ones making the claim (or at least the implication) that the decision has no legal merit whatsoever. What is your basis for this claim?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #560 of 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW it's ok. It's not the first time you've chosen to ignore mutiple references ( from multiple places ) in the news. Big oil even Applauded his lifting of the moratorium!.

There are many connections you can draw between the two and who would lifting the moratorium benifit?

Plus I'm not the only one saying this or drawing the obvious connections.

http://slabbed.wordpress.com/2010/06...bbling-in-oil/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/ju...l-in/19527597/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ents_in_o.html

http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spil...ments/19527477

http://www.noethics.net/News/index.p...rter&Itemid=58

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/2...iref=allsearch


I like this last one :


There's a whole lot more if you'd like it. One doesn't have to look far for people who've drawn the same conclusion.

Sorry if it's not in line with they way you want to see things. That's denial for you.


So, I'm in denial even though I'm not denying anything? The links you posted show one thing: The judge has had investments in oil. No one is denying that. What I'm taking issue with is the characterization and conclusions you draw. The judge having had oil investments does not mean his decision is invalid or based on faulty legal reasoning. Now, I agree that these stories add to an APPEARANCE of biased decision making being more POSSIBLE. But that doesn't mean the judge is "in the back pocket" of Big Oil. It doesn't mean he is doing Big Oil's bidding.

Your reasoning is along the same lines as your "common knowledge" statements. What you really mean is "commonly held belief or perception." That label fits this situation perfectly.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez