TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama and the spill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama and the spill - Page 2

post #31 of 43
6/20/10 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post

3. It is not hard to avoid placing blame on Barack for his initial, slow response to this huge disaster. It seems the Obama administration was working closely with BP on getting Cap & Trade passed in Congress so I have to wonder how much that had to do with Barack's hesitation.
Or perhaps the fact that every option is destructive to some form of life and livelihood, and all these options have to be weighed (at least, if done responsibly) before actions are taken.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I know what you are saying and any resasonable person would agree. If Barack had called a summit and they oil experts refused to come, it would be shouted from the roof tops by Barack, in the interest of transparency and all.
Hmm, one of those "what he would have done" statements. Pure speculation, and contradicting what's been posted before. It's been pointed out that Obama accepted campaign funds from the Oil Industry, so why would he "out" them in such a way. Pointing out that no one in the industry knows how to control a wild well a mile deep would mean possibly shutting down numerous wells. Is that how one earns their campaign dollars?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
If you REALLY think that is a possibility then I don't know what to tell you.
There's nothing TO tell. We don't know everyone he has talked to, and everyone he hasn't. Who did he talk to on the phone between 1pm and 3pm Friday? I don't know...does anyone else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
What we DO know for a fact is, Barack waited more than 50 days to even pick up a phone and call BP. That information was given by the BP CEO and has NOT been denied by Barack.
So did he "not call BP", or just "not call BP's CEO?"
Reply
post #32 of 43
6/20/10 at 4:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Exactly. And how long does it take to gather enough information to look at the WHOLE picture, when both options are destructive?

And yes, the Mississippi changes course, constantly, slowly, naturally, and the gulf life moves with it, constantly, slowly, naturally.

Diverting the river through man made canals in the course of a few hours though...that is a completely different story.
Less than 62 days! God help us if someone drops a bomb or poisons our drinking water or blows up another airplane.
Reply
post #33 of 43
6/20/10 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
Less than 62 days! God help us if someone drops a bomb or poisons our drinking water or blows up another airplane.
Well, if I may, I'd like to point out that a great many of the changes made and actions taken in haste after such notable disasters, were later discounted to have been "not so good".

Reversing security and civil actions made in the heat of the moment is one thing. Re-building an ecosystem destroyed by the wrong actions from hasty decisions would be something entirely different, if not impossible.
Reply
post #34 of 43
6/20/10 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Or perhaps the fact that every option is destructive to some form of life and livelihood, and all these options have to be weighed (at least, if done responsibly) before actions are taken.

And sometimes things call for action. If you feel that no reaction for 50+ days is fine and dandy, that's cool. I don't.


Hmm, one of those "what he would have done" statements. Pure speculation, and contradicting what's been posted before. It's been pointed out that Obama accepted campaign funds from the Oil Industry, so why would he "out" them in such a way. Pointing out that no one in the industry knows how to control a wild well a mile deep would mean possibly shutting down numerous wells. Is that how one earns their campaign dollars?

The tide has turned on BP and Barack bends which ever way the wind blows, IMO.




There's nothing TO tell. We don't know everyone he has talked to, and everyone he hasn't. Who did he talk to on the phone between 1pm and 3pm Friday? I don't know...does anyone else?

Again, if you think that Barack has been on this since day 1 and his reaction to this disaster is satisfactory, fine, I don't.



So did he "not call BP", or just "not call BP's CEO?"
One would THINK, in the interest of transparency we would have that knowledge, wouldn't one?

All we know for sure is BP's CEO and Barack did not speak until 50+ days after the disaster. As a matter of fact, they did not speak until after the CEO of BP made it public that he hadn't spoken to Barack. The White House has never disputed BP's CEO regarding this issue. As far as I know anyway.

FTR, I thought Barack's reaction time to the Haiti earthquake was excellent and I believe I said so at the time.

I think he dropped the ball on this one and seriously overestimated BP's ability to cap the well and underestimated the seriousness of the spill. Right or wrong people feel Barack has had a disconnect from this situation. His constant parties and golfing, etc does not help.

It is all about perception, Bush was trashed big time after Katrina for a delay of a few days that wasn't even his fault and was trashed for FEMA's failures which was his fault, the Buck stops with the POTUS, then it was W, now it is Barack.
Reply
post #35 of 43
6/20/10 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
One would THINK, in the interest of transparency we would have that knowledge, wouldn't one?

All we know for sure is BP's CEO and Barack did not speak until 50+ days after the disaster. As a matter of fact, they did not speak until after the CEO of BP made it public that he hadn't spoken to Barack. The White House has never disputed BP's CEO regarding this issue. As far as I know anyway.

FTR, I thought Barack's reaction time to the Haiti earthquake was excellent and I believe I said so at the time.

I think he dropped the ball on this one and seriously overestimated BP's ability to cap the well and underestimated the seriousness of the spill. Right or wrong people feel Barack has had a disconnect from this situation. His constant parties and golfing, etc does not help.

It is all about perception, Bush was trashed big time after Katrina for a delay of a few days that wasn't even his fault and was trashed for FEMA's failures which was his fault, the Buck stops with the POTUS, then it was W, now it is Barack.

There are many, many, many things that "call for action", that have been calling for action for decades and still have not been addressed. Such as, Peace in the Middle East, where to store nuclear waste, who is going to clean up the great Pacific garbage patch, etc. and so forth...

When the consulted experts disagree, what does one do, flip a coin? That would go down well in history.
Reply
post #36 of 43
6/20/10 at 9:20pm
YOu may think this spill is comparable to the things you just mentioned, I don't.

Quote:
Peace in the Middle East, where to store nuclear waste,
If the Arabs would lay down their arms, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel would lay down her arms, there would be no more Israel.

Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Reply
post #37 of 43
6/21/10 at 3:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
YOu may think this spill is comparable to the things you just mentioned, I don't.



If the Arabs would lay down their arms, there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel would lay down her arms, there would be no more Israel.

Yucca Mountain, Nevada
So why has none of that action be taken? Could it be because there is disagreement among the experts as to what to do?

You forgot the Great Pacific Garbage patch. It has killed far more marine life that this spill thus far, yet it's hardly ever mentioned.
Reply
post #38 of 43
6/21/10 at 8:42am
I don't know, why don't you ask the bad guys why they won't "lay down their arms".

As for Yucca Mtn, you know the answer to that one, why ask?

Our illustrious Senatory, Harry Reid, was totally fine with American taxpayers paying BIllions of dollars to hollow out an entire mountain in a remote region of Nevada, it was a huge boost to the economy of Nevada. But when the time got closer to it being completed and ready to accept nuclear waste, well then, Harry had it have it killed.

Such is Harry Reid and politicians in general
Reply
post #39 of 43
6/21/10 at 8:53am
Quote:
You forgot the Great Pacific Garbage patch. It has killed far more marine life that this spill thus far, yet it's hardly ever mentioned
I think you should make that your new cause.
That cause could employ many people for the clean up and the Cruise Ships can ante up some big bucks for it and so could the surrounding countries that have contributed to it.
Reply
post #40 of 43
6/21/10 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I don't know, why don't you ask the bad guys why they won't "lay down their arms".

As for Yucca Mtn, you know the answer to that one, why ask?

Our illustrious Senatory, Harry Reid, was totally fine with American taxpayers paying BIllions of dollars to hollow out an entire mountain in a remote region of Nevada, it was a huge boost to the economy of Nevada. But when the time got closer to it being completed and ready to accept nuclear waste, well then, Harry had it have it killed.

Such is Harry Reid and politicians in general
All of those instances can be narrowed down to a single thing...disagreement. There isn't even agreement on who "the bad guys" are.

Without consensus, meaningful action is nothing more than a "best guess". And when it comes to dealing with the environment, a wrong "best guess" could take decades to centuries to undo, if it can be undone at all.

Better safe than sorry.
Reply
post #41 of 43
6/21/10 at 12:51pm
Quote:
All of those instances can be narrowed down to a single thing...disagreement. There isn't even agreement on who "the bad guys" are.
Sure there is, the bad guys are the ones that refuse to put down their arms and make peace.
Reply
post #42 of 43
6/21/10 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Sure there is, the bad guys are the ones that refuse to put down their arms and make peace.
Perhaps...but there isn't agreement on which side that is. And it doesn't matter which side your on, it's still disagreement. That's the entire point. One person having to make decisions, with numerous (and different) opinions on what the action should be. And in this particular case, the person to make the decision is having to rely entirely on that input, because stopping oil leaks isn't on his Curriculum vitae.
Reply
post #43 of 43
6/21/10 at 3:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Perhaps...but there isn't agreement on which side that is . And it doesn't matter which side your on, it's still disagreement. That's the entire point. One person having to make decisions, with numerous (and different) opinions on what the action should be. And in this particular case, the person to make the decision is having to rely entirely on that input, because stopping oil leaks isn't on his Curriculum vitae.
Sure there is, Israel would put down her arms in a second if the bad guys wouldn't take that act as the go ahead to destroy her.

No, there isn't. You're simply ignoring the opinions you don't like. A President can't do that.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Obama and the spill