If you all note:
The ad on this page "BP Spill -Blame Obama?" This is an ad from "Newsmax Magazine" and website that is unabashedly right-wing bias and for people that love Russ Limbaughs, etc. I don't think it should be on this site, particularly on this thread. It offends me. This is a BP screwup, period! I wish you would take it off Chris. Thank you.
That's right, no opinion that differs from your liberal ideology, "it's offensive" bawling: So we can have and support your left wing ideology, but not right wing dissenting viewpoints? :rofl: excellent idea comrade, President Wilson and Joseph Goebbels and many other progressive socialists would be proud of your "my view is correct regardless of the facts and all others need censored" viewpoint.
This is not a Bush problem. It was supervisors retained and intentionally not replaced by the Obama administration who approved the permit to drill, not the Bush administration. And to head off the inevitable whine, I dislike former President Bush's actions as president. The Kenyan has stated HE takes responsibility for it as he should considering that his employees approved the drilling which started more than a year after he took office in Feb 2010, 17 months after he was elected to put a stop to it but he didn't, clearly Bush's fault
. BP hired drillers and have taken responsibility for the bad results from the actions of their employees whom they approved, Obama is responsible for the actions of his employees who he's had 16 months to replace but has chosen not to, he is top dog responsible for his employees actions. He has taken full responsibility in statement since Day 1 for how the spill is being handled approving or denying attempts and ideas to stop it, it's success or failure has been in President Obama's hands. Now he's inviting movie producers in as experts to stop the leak, what a joke of successful leadership.
And some other people have talked about the damage to the economy from the fishermen being able to in only 66% of the gulf of Mexico not 100% . Reconsider your stance. Which will damage the economy more; the collapse of fishermen who were already overfishing the gulf to the point of non sustainability at the edge of poverty during a GOOD fishing season
in your words (
Mumbles... (as an example but the following remarks are not meant as an attack on you)), who are taking more tax money through collecting on social programs than they are generating before this happened; or roughnecks making $50k+ a year, the guys not working at poverty level in the refineries, the shipping industries transporting the oil by land or sea making 50k-120k+ a year, the people who run and work at the support industries, the food, the barges, the tugboats, the ironworkers making the platforms the guys who make and deliver the pipe used to drill miles under the surface, these guys and their families who have money and who are the ones paying the taxes from oil money that keep the schools open, pave the roads, fund the local govt., provide the money the state uses for welfare collected by the fishermen that feeds their children, and provided the money the government was supposed to have used to purchase emergency response supplies but didn't. Who's money buys the shrimp and fish the fishermen catch, fishermen at the edge of poverty or the people making a good living in the oil industry and it's associated industry's? How much better off will the fishing industry be when the price of the fuel for their boats goes up due to more demand than supply? If you want to see the economy truly collapse and see hardships by the people of that region, do more to eliminate these oil jobs and their tax money and let the out of work fishermen on the verge of poverty support themselves and the rest of the economy while out of work, brilliant idea :thumb: Take a look at Cuba's EEZ map for the Gulf of Mexico, China and Russia are negotiating for rights to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, and us stopping drilling only makes it a more lucrative investment to them, who will have better ecological and safety regulation, us or the people sending our children toys with lead paint?
The fish will be/have been affected, but I hope we can both agree that with the media's desire to in general regardless of political side or the particular subject of a story to sensationalize stories to generate more readership for their column and money for their employer. With that in mind the question should be arising in all our minds, where are the pictures of dead fish washing up on shore? Where are the images of dead fish floating in the water? This was all over the news for the Exxon Valdez spill and this one is wayyyy bigger than that now. The fishing was not closed because of dead fish.
Someone I know of who works in the oil industry posted on another forum i frequent (not an oil industry forum but he was the RKI for our questions) that with most new wells and even existing wells that are shut down for maintenance there is so much sand and aggregate that comes through the pipe on start-up that it's not uncommon to see internal erosion through the pipe wall, and that any valve on a new well that had been running wide fucking open for the last 40 days would be eroded away to the point of being non functional.