May 29, 2010
— Ace At the current moment: Mission Not Accomplished. Damn hole not plugged.
BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday, a technician working on the project said, representing another setback in a series of unsuccessful procedures the company has tried to stem the flow spreading into the Gulf of Mexico.BP made a third attempt Friday night at what is termed the “junk shot,” a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope and golf balls into the blowout preventer, the five-story safety device atop the well. The maneuver is complementary to the heavily scrutinized effort known as a top kill, which began four days ago and involves pumping heavy mud into the well to counteract the push of the escaping oil. If the well is sealed, the company plans to then fill it with cement.
The technician working on the project said Saturday that the top kill procedure had been halted and that a review of the data was under way.
“Right now, I would not be optimistic,” said the technician, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the effort. But he added that if another attempt at the junk shot were to succeed, “that would turn things around.”
BP said Saturday that it would not comment on the technicianÂ’s assertions.
At a news conference on Saturday morning, Doug Suttles, BPÂ’s chief operating officer, said it was too soon to tell whether the procedure was working. He said it was a process of stopping, starting and re-evaluating.
“We are looking at this continuously,” he said. “If we believe it will work, we should stay with it as long as it takes,” he said. “If we think it won’t, we will go on to the next.”
It's not even slowing the spill:
"I don't think the amount of oil coming out has changed," Doug Suttles, the London-based oil giant's chief operating officer, acknowledged as oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for the 40th day....
The top kill maneuver started on Wednesday and involves pumping heavy fluids and other material into the well shaft to stifle the flow, then sealing it with cement. BP initially said it would take 24 to 48 hours to know if it would work, but Suttles sounded less than confident on Saturday.
There's an interesting and useful debate among conservatives about whether to maintain their own intellectual consistency or demagogue the hell out of this, as liberals have done and will continue doing until the end of time.
Should we note that the President is not all-powerful, and that sometimes things are simply beyond his control, and that it's a childish view of the world to believe the President can fix serious problems simply by thinking real hard about them, being smart, and barking out orders in a clipped and authoritative voice?
I don't think I need to remind anyone that this was the standard of presidential expectations during the Bush years, as far as Iraq and Katrina and every other damn thing too.
Or should we take a more adult and nuanced view, taking into consideration our own arguments through the Bush years that sometimes things just get bad and not everything is chargeable as a defect in presidential leadership?
And also, as a reader urges on me: That this is a primarily a problem for BP, not the federal government, and if we believe in free market capitalism, it's either up to BP to fix this thing or simply go bankrupt from liability?
I don't really buy that last bit at all, because the government is taxed with putting out fires and arresting criminals and defending our borders and rescuing those lost at sea and handling the aftermath of disasters. I reject this idea that the basic functions of any government are really the functions of private actors and private enterprise. That takes libertarianism to an anarchist extreme.
But the debate is being had, and is useful.
Anyone can probably guess my own reaction: I am in favor of the sort of intellectual consistency that says if the Democrats and media forced a certain rule on Bush (even against our objections), then they won that debate, and they established a precedent, and that precedent applies equally (if vindictively) to President Present.
I believe in a politics that abides by the judicial notion of precedent. If a court establishes a rule, then that is the rule to be followed in the future. It doesn't matter if we (the judges in the minority) argued for a different rule and objected to the rule that prevailed. We lost. A rule was established, and that rule should be followed.
We cannot and should not allow a vindictive rule to be pressed against our favorites, over our objections, and then, when our opponents are caught in the brutal operation of that rule, argue again against precedent to reassert the rule we wanted initially and let our opponent off the hook.
Nope, not for me. This is the rule you wanted; this is the rule you shall have.
Charles Krauthammer, I think, takes this position too:
In the end, speeches will make no difference. If BP can cap the well in time to prevent an absolute calamity in the Gulf, the president will escape politically. If it doesn't -- if the gusher isn't stopped before the relief wells are completed in August -- it will become Obama's Katrina.That will be unfair, because Obama is no more responsible for the damage caused by this than Bush was for the damage caused by Katrina. But that's the nature of American politics and its presidential cult of personality: We expect our presidents to play Superman. Helplessness, however undeniable, is no defense.
Moreover, Obama has never been overly modest about his own powers. Two years ago next week, he declared that history will mark his ascent to the presidency as the moment when "our planet began to heal" and "the rise of the oceans began to slow."
Well, when you anoint yourself King Canute, you mustnt be surprised when your subjects expect you to command the tides.
Lower that ocean, Mr. President. Lower that ocean by 5000 feet so you can walk on the ocean's surface, dry, and just plug that hole like you'd turn off a sink's water.
They say the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Neither is consistency a suicide pact. If Bush and Obama were competing in the Olympics in the high jump, and the liberals set the bar at 9 feet for Bush, we cannot permit them to set the bar at three feet for Obama.
Nine feet is the mark. I didn't argue for that high bar for success under Bush, but, the mark having been established, I'll be damned if I'm going to let it be lowered for King Obama.
"But That Makes Us Just as Guilty Of a Double-Standard As the Liberals!" A lot of conservatives say this sort of thing, and it annoys me.
That may be true in some situations -- but not all.
First of all, I wouldn't fetishize consistency as a virtue. Believe in it, yes. Fetishize it, no, because at the end of the day, we are all inconsistent and urge rules that act in our favor and different rules for our opponents, and to not accept this fundamental flaw in human nature, to believe oneself immune from it, is to indulge in a vanity.
I suppose one could and should fight this impulse, and at least keep it in check -- but one also has to keep in mind that this becomes a less important consideration when one's opponents aren't doing the same. That is, if one's opponents are engaging in staggering hypocrisy and double-standards, one is a sap to maintain such standards perfectly for oneself.
But there's a much more important and persuasive argument than "They do it too!" (which is, admittedly, a childish impulse).
And it gets to the idea of precedent again. The important thing in a courtroom as far as future rules and future behavior is not what principle you argued for, but rather what principle actually carried the day and is thus established as the rule-going-forward.
If I'm a lawyer in the year 1400, I might argue against the "excited utterance" exception to hearsay rule. I might be utterly unconvinced by my opponent's suggestion that if an utterance is "excited" it is vested with some intrinsic reassurance of its truthfulness -- excitement, after all, can be faked.
But if I lose on that point, and the exception is established (as it was), I'd be a fool to not take advantage of that exception to the rule when it benefited me. I would be a fool, and a sap, and a chump, to accept that rule, imposed on me by the judge, when it damaged me, and then self-impose the opposite rule on myself, and not take advantage of the precedent, when the judge's ruling could benefit me.
A lot of the times, when conservatives, attempting something like rigor of intellectual consistency, say "But then we'd be hypocrites!," they are utterly failing to consider which rule actually prevailed in court -- the court of public opinion and the court of media coverage and the court of political consequences.
Yes, we argued passionately for a different rule. But we lost, and a new rule was established. This is the rule, then, going forward for all parties, and we shouldn't permit Democrats alone to take advantage of the rule, or, if it's a vindictive rule, we shouldn't allow Republicans alone to suffer from it.
If a Republican president is caught lying under oath about an affair that occurred during his tenure in the Oval Office, that is not an impeachable offense.* Yes, I know damn well I argued the opposite in 1998. But so what? I argued the opposite proposition, but I lost in that fight; the rule I had to live with, along with everyone else, was that the president was permitted to do this and retain his office.
This isn't hypocrisy: This is simply accepting that as we fight and argue certain precedents for future conduct are established, certain rules-going-forward laid out.
We can't allow our opponents to endlessly establish one rule for themselves, loose and easy, and another rule, stringent and vindictive, for ourselves.
A rule for presidential conduct in disaster prevention and disaster containment has been established. Liberals urged this rule. They prevailed on it.
It now applies to them as well. Precedent is established, and a rule is in place.
I am not a hypocrite for noticing the historical fact that a rule was in fact established.
* Well, technically, the rule established is that it's impeachment-level but not conviction-and-removal-level.
However, given that the point of an impeachment is to conduct a trial, and we already know what the outcome of that trial should be (acquittal), there hardly seems any point in going through the motions of impeachment, either.
Posted by: Ace at
11:21 AM
| Comments (249)
Post contains 1865 words, total size 11 kb.
Posted by: Editor at May 29, 2010 11:27 AM (YX6i/)
Is not to worry, Kevin Costner is on the way with his patented "Smug Plug".
Posted by: gebrauchshund at May 29, 2010 11:27 AM (d7k0J)
Posted by: Vic at May 29, 2010 11:28 AM (6taRI)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 29, 2010 11:29 AM (jf5rK)
Or, as they call it in the Castro District, "Friday night"
Posted by: Zimriel at May 29, 2010 11:30 AM (xbjB9)
Last night on ABC Nightly News when they announced the 1,000th death in Afghan they called it a "Milestone of Sacrifice".
You shit me not?
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:31 AM (XBdMr)
Posted by: Ed Anger at May 29, 2010 11:31 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 29, 2010 11:33 AM (jf5rK)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 11:33 AM (kgGdn)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 29, 2010 03:33 PM (jf5rK)
Plus #84 on the other thread has something to say about it you might want to take into consideration.
Posted by: Editor at May 29, 2010 11:34 AM (YX6i/)
I would not shit you. You're my favorite...
Damn, I'm starting to really hate these people. It's getting harder and harder to be tolerant of their emotional and childish logic. I fear for the future, and it isn't entirely because I used to teach high school chemistry.
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:35 AM (XBdMr)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 11:35 AM (O3eFQ)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 11:36 AM (O3eFQ)
The last of which was only used to get Obama's attention.
Seriously, this whole thing seems lame. BP is lame. POTUS Obama is lame.
How is this not 100,000 times more absurd than drilling in ANWR?
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 11:36 AM (iKR5z)
BP engineers failed again to plug the gushing oil well on Saturday
No problem. I'm going to plug the damn thing while I'm in Chicago this weekend.
Posted by: Barack "Red Adair" Obama at May 29, 2010 11:37 AM (YVZlY)
As in, all this scat and piss talk has gone comment 84?
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:37 AM (XBdMr)
If engineers tell Obama that a nuke has a good chance of sealing the leak, I wonder if he'd go ahead with it?
Pres. Vote Present will have to commission a few public opinion polls before he makes such a tough decision.
Leading and Commanding is like hard and stuff.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 29, 2010 11:38 AM (MdsKU)
BP has said that the only other way to stop the leak is to dig a relief well.
Is Michelle's ass unavailable?
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:39 AM (XBdMr)
Last night on ABC Nightly News when they announced the 1,000th death in Afghan they called it a "Milestone of Sacrifice".
They also delayed reporting it until Memorial Day weekend. The 1,000th death actually happened at least a week ago.
And when Bush was president Stephanopoulis would end his show with the names and pics of every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not anymore.
Posted by: Ed Anger at May 29, 2010 11:39 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 11:39 AM (iKR5z)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 11:39 AM (kgGdn)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 11:40 AM (iKR5z)
Posted by: Zimriel at May 29, 2010 11:42 AM (xbjB9)
Posted by: Editor at May 29, 2010 11:42 AM (YX6i/)
That's fucking bullshit. Obama appointed the MMS slackers and allowed BP to skate on environmental regulations. Bush could never have prevented Katrina and responded quickly, especially in comparison to Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 29, 2010 11:42 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: I'm Not actually this guy at May 29, 2010 11:43 AM (tTj19)
Yeah, comment 84 is spot on. As hard as it is to admit, porn has totally left me behind. I find it so hard to watch sometimes, and I increasingly find myself only being able to tolerate it in short spurts.
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:43 AM (XBdMr)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 11:43 AM (O3eFQ)
Posted by: Zimriel at May 29, 2010 11:44 AM (xbjB9)
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 11:44 AM (fwSHf)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at May 29, 2010 11:45 AM (uKraB)
Posted by: damian at May 29, 2010 11:46 AM (4WbTI)
Have you not been watching Congress since the last...60 years?
Posted by: wherestherum at May 29, 2010 11:46 AM (gofDd)
In that case they should get Biden to tour the country to say the stuff that comes out his mouth, to relieve the pressure.
Posted by: Zimriel at May 29, 2010 11:46 AM (xbjB9)
They have other options to contain the flow, though. See here.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 29, 2010 11:47 AM (Q33Qb)
Posted by: wherestherum at May 29, 2010 03:46 PM (gofDd)
Damnit rum, I'm old but I am not that old.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 11:47 AM (fwSHf)
Posted by: SuperMag at May 29, 2010 11:48 AM (etv3T)
If America had an auto-pilot, the APA union would call OSHA and report it for unsafe working conditions.
We're being led by the pussiest of liberal men. Just....damn.
Posted by: Noticer of Things at May 29, 2010 11:49 AM (XBdMr)
Posted by: Dan at May 29, 2010 11:50 AM (1jzSs)
Posted by: Concerned Lifelong Democrat at May 29, 2010 11:51 AM (xMCGT)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 11:52 AM (O3eFQ)
Posted by: Cryogenically-Frozen Walt Disney at May 29, 2010 11:52 AM (Hhf5J)
Well said, Ace. The liberals own the board now. They won. So they make the rules. The only way to beat them is to beat them at their own game. We're smarter than they are so we know we can play their dirty game better than they can.
You know how I know we're smarter than them? The administration is running cover for Sestak-gate by using Bill Clinton. Allahpundit pointed out that Clinton was impeached for perjury. Pretty dumb, Obama. Drag out and accused perjurer and have him get the media to believe that "collaboration between the White House and Joe Sestak."
As for plugging the damn hole, shouldn't there be total focus on that now? Bush totally focused on the War on Terror even to the point where he took his eye off the economy. Yet, the biggest disaster was still handled first.
Posted by: ReaganTMan at May 29, 2010 11:52 AM (XDQ+H)
I'd bet a dollar on that, too.
Posted by: I'm Not actually this guy at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (tTj19)
But it's not so much pressure relief as a bypass. The thing is, for that to work, doesn't the new well(s) have to be sufficiently large as to provide an outlet for all of the oil/gas pressure? How on earth can that be achieved quickly?
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (iKR5z)
Posted by: Editor at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (YX6i/)
42 ParisParamus:
A directional well is drilled to meet the existing wellbore at some depth below the surface. The technology exists that they can intersect another 8" hole miles below the surface. Once the existing wellbore is reached, you can either divert the flow to the new hole, which has wellhead equipment to control the flow, or you can pump cement down the new hole into the old hole and plug the well.
Monty Burns Slanted Drilling Corporation.
Posted by: buzzion at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (oVQFe)
48 Er, sure, he's 100% culpable if you're a fruit loop who believe that he blew up the Horizon.
I think it's fair to point out his inaction and his inability to manage the situation. Paint it as part of a broader theme of incompetence with this Administration but don't go full retard on the situation.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (MdsKU)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 11:54 AM (kgGdn)
If anything, we can blame the government for not forcing companies that deep water drill to have a highly effective system and procedures in place in case something like this happens.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 29, 2010 11:55 AM (bEU6G)
Posted by: Zimriel at May 29, 2010 11:55 AM (xbjB9)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 03:52 PM (O3eFQ)
I am not buying that. The accident itself is pretty easy to predict. Wells have been blowing out since we started drilling wells. In the north sea they have redundent backup systems incase one fails and they also check to make sure the batteries are charged. If what you are saying is true then we had no business drilling there in the first place and I think that is wrong as well.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 11:55 AM (fwSHf)
-->Should we note that the President is not all-powerful, and that sometimes things are simply beyond his control, and that it's a childish view of the world to believe the President can fix serious problems simply by thinking real hard about them, being smart, and barking out orders in a clipped and authoritative voice?
No. We should note that The Precedent has done a shit job, once again, and his only actual moves on this have been to hamstring the efforts of state and local officials. This is in direct contrast to Katrina, which was a state/local problem that the federal governmetn had no business being involved with, unless the locals requested it (but the locals didn't). In this case, it's a federal responsibility (as the drilling is not in any state) and you have the federal government stopping the same state/locals (with deifferent leadership) from doing what they wanted to do.
-->I don't think I need to remind anyone that this was the standard of presidential expectations during the Bush years, as far as Iraq and Katrina and every other damn thing too.
We don't have to stoop to dem levels to argue this correctly. We should be forcing the idiot dems to admit that this situation is the opposite (in federalist terms) of Katrina and that the dems are nothing but despicable, lying scumbag traitors.
The arguments against this inept, America-hating, pathetic administration don't require anyone to stretch anything, since these assholes do everything incorrectly and are amazingly arrogant, anyway.
-->Or should we take a more adult and nuanced view, taking into consideration our own arguments through the Bush years that sometimes things just get bad and not everything is chargeable as a defect in presidential leadership?
No one is saying that the federal government could have stopped this spill. The point is that we'll never know, because the federal government didn't do any of its actual job on this.
We have a feral government that won't do its actual jobs but never stops lobbying (and passing legislation and executive orders) to gather more and more power over things they have no business in. That is the point.
The feral government is not merely incompetent, stupid and inept, but it is at the same time power hungry and wanting to dictate my whole life. Screw them. They won't get what they truly deserve, which are brazen bulls at low roast.
There is no need to compare these asswipes to anyone. They are inept, stupid, and traitorous in leagues all of their own.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 29, 2010 11:55 AM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at May 29, 2010 11:56 AM (jf5rK)
Posted by: Thesher at May 29, 2010 11:57 AM (GG/y2)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at May 29, 2010 11:58 AM (uKraB)
Posted by: DngrMse at May 29, 2010 11:59 AM (WgNrC)
62
Obama owns this free and clear. He's the One, after all.
He was slow and disinterested. Only when the spill threatens his Monarchy does he pretend to care.
Eff him.
Plus, even when he is supposedly actively trying to get this solved, we get fake photo-op crap.
Thanks, 52%!
As a part of this did he ever do anything about the Tenn. Floods? Declared a federal disaster zone or anything? I mean it was pretty well ignored and I don't recall any fanfare at all about him doing something. And it always seems to me that he gets fanfare for EVERYTHING he ever does. The MFM would photograph his bowel movements if they could.
Posted by: buzzion at May 29, 2010 11:59 AM (oVQFe)
I'm still wondering how in the hell three redundant fail-safes on Deepwater Horizon's blow-out preventer all failed.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 29, 2010 11:59 AM (Hhf5J)
I've tried to be reasonable about this whole thing, mainly because I suspect going overboard blaming government for not being supermen will result in drilling being shutdown for all eternity, but the above kind of shit makes me think "Fuck it - own it, you fuckheads".
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 29, 2010 11:59 AM (Q33Qb)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 12:01 PM (O3eFQ)
BOP's are notorious for not working correctly. I read somewhere that the odds are actually in favor of them not working when needed.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 29, 2010 12:02 PM (bEU6G)
Posted by: huh at May 29, 2010 12:02 PM (+ABdJ)
Posted by: jwpaine at May 29, 2010 12:02 PM (g4J4S)
Krauthammer is wrong. Bush was not to blame for a hurricane, of course. However, Obama is to blame for his gross negligence after the oil spill.
Fact #1: a hurricane is an act of God, i.e., a natural disaster.
Fact #2: The only thing Bush could've done to prevent loss of life, which would've been logistically impossible and impractical, was to evacuate New Orleans before the hurricanse. Bush could have nothing to prevent the property damage.
Fact #3: This oil spill is 40 days old and Obama has done nothing except use the accident to beat Big Oil over the head.
Obama did nothing to prepare for the inevitable oil slick that everyone knew was about to wash on shore. Nothing. For 40 days. Nothing. Obama admin has impeded the effort to control the spill, actually.
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 12:03 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 12:03 PM (kgGdn)
Makes you wonder if this was done on purpose.
Crisis going to waste and all that.
Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at May 29, 2010 12:04 PM (bEU6G)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 12:05 PM (iKR5z)
Posted by: Not My Fault at May 29, 2010 12:06 PM (Rs/u8)
Your guess is wrong.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 29, 2010 12:06 PM (Q33Qb)
Posted by: Another Obama Presidential Promise Broken at May 29, 2010 12:06 PM (uKraB)
Posted by: ParisParamus at May 29, 2010 12:07 PM (iKR5z)
Just ask yourself two questions:
#1 What could President Bush have done differently to prevent property damage and loss of life before, during and after Katrina?
#2 What could Obama have done afte the explosion to prevent or at least decrease the environmental and property damage?
Answer to #1 is 'not a whole heckuva lot.'
Answer to #2 is 'a lot.'
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 12:07 PM (uFokq)
Backups fail. Redundant systems fail. Some catastrophes are so large that they overwhelm the systems.
You're right that some problems are so large that they overwhelm systems. This isn't one of them though. If the BOP would have worked we wouldn't be having this discussion. If they had used the same systems that they use in the north sea and they all failed I wouldn't have brought it up.
Saying that the backups might have failed too so why use them got us here in the first place. More often than not backup systems do what they are supposed to do.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 12:08 PM (fwSHf)
Or, you know, allow the oil co's to drill inland.
But that makes too much sense for a leviathan like government to pull off.
Posted by: Garbonzo the Garrulous at May 29, 2010 12:08 PM (zgd5N)
Great point on consistency, Ace. Nicely put, too -- consistency is not a suicide pact.
Krauthammer's point on this is especially important -- you may not
want to make the argument "The government should be able to fix this,
therefore Obama is incompetent" but you can definitely make the
argument "This Obama guy campaigned on being able to fix things with
the power of gov't, and as we've been telling you for decades, gov't
sucks at fixing things. So don't vote for this idiot again."
Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2010 12:09 PM (+3aaV)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 12:09 PM (O3eFQ)
naaaahhhh........
Posted by: filbert at May 29, 2010 12:09 PM (smvTK)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 12:10 PM (kgGdn)
Rick/jack, I know Obama wants this disaster to be a catastrophe.
Just like how he wanted the Times Square bomber to be a white registered Republican.
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 12:10 PM (uFokq)
George W. Bush engaged with the Katrina crisis before the hurricane made its second and fatal landfall in Louisiana. He ensured that everything the Federal government could legally do was being done before and after Katrina hit.
Barack Canute Ethelred Obama did not engage with the oil spill until more than a week later -- and then spent more time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that he and the rest of his lackadaisical crew was engaged "from Day One."
It may be unfair to claim that Obama should be able to use his superpowers to plug the hole -- just as it was unfair for the Left to claim that Bush should have been able to use his superpowers to drain New Orleans and raise new buildings from the mud -- but it is not unfair in the least to demand that Obama live up to his own damn rhetoric about being in charge and deploying the full weight of the Federal government's resources in support of the disaster recovery effort. It's not demagoguery to blast him for his abject failure on that score.
Posted by: stuiec at May 29, 2010 12:10 PM (W+GYq)
Also, poll question I want to see:
"How much more would you be willing to pay per gallon of gasoline to avoid another spill like the one in the Gulf? $.50, $1, $2, $3"
I bet 90% come in under a buck.
Posted by: TallDave at May 29, 2010 12:11 PM (+3aaV)
Posted by: Cincinnatus at May 29, 2010 12:11 PM (r60xu)
sickinmass at May 27, 2010 10:08 PM (tamie)
Posted by: The Washinghis Penis at May 29, 2010 04:06 PM (/Oqxb)
I thought it was his hash. Just didn't have the energy to go look.
Shit, SiM.
Posted by: Editor at May 29, 2010 12:12 PM (YX6i/)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at May 29, 2010 12:13 PM (iKR5z)
Are you shitting me? Is Ace and/or Krauthammer saying we're in a dilemma if we cry for govt help to 'fix' this because it will make us look like hypocrites?
This is exactly one of the purposes of the govt. Kinda like going to war and enforcing laws. This is why we have government.
So being against govt banning salt is the same thing as being against govt intervention in a disaster?
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 12:15 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 12:15 PM (O3eFQ)
Posted by: wherestherum at May 29, 2010 12:15 PM (gofDd)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at May 29, 2010 12:16 PM (l2CML)
Obama did nothing to prepare for the inevitable oil slick that everyone knew was about to wash on shore. Nothing. For 40 days. Nothing. Obama admin has impeded the effort to control the spill, actually.
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 04:03 PM (uFokq)
Jindal was very clear that the feral government was using its legitimate authority (in this case, as offshore drilling is under the purview of the feral government, not the states) to harm the actual, on-the-ground efforts that the states wanted to do to protect their territory from the obvious consequences of the spill (just as in Arizona, BTW, which the feral government is also trying to impede and stop), while in Katrina it was exactly the opposite, with the federal government not being responsible and wanting the states/localities to request help. It's even more interesting that it is the same state at the center (with a different party in power) against a federal government, also with the other party in power.
This one event puts into clear relief the incredible ridiculousness of the Dems' bleeting about the federal government and Katrina, along with the absolutely inept and HARMFUL efforts of the feral government when run by retarded dem stooges. The dems were the problems on the state/local side when the legitimate responsibility was in the state/local hands and they are the problems on the federal side when the legitimate responsibility is in federal hands.
Anyone who can't look at these two events and see how dangerous dems are is a totally lost cause. It should just be obvious to everyone. And the fake photo-op is the cherry on top.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 29, 2010 12:16 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: eman at May 29, 2010 12:17 PM (kgGdn)
There's an interesting and useful debate among conservatives about whether to maintain their own intellectual consistency or demagogue the hell out of this, as liberals have done and will continue doing until the end of time.
Should we note that the President is not all-powerful, and that sometimes things are simply beyond his control, and that it's a childish view of the world to believe the President can fix serious problems simply by thinking real hard about them, being smart, and barking out orders in a clipped and authoritative voice?
All this nice analysis is worth a seperately headlined post.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 29, 2010 12:17 PM (8EPHU)
The two wise American farmers who presented their hay solution to dealing with the massive, burgeoning Gulf of Mexico oil slick are right on the money. It's doubtful they remember, but the same technique was used in the historic Santa Barbara Channel oil spill.
On January 28, 1969, there was a blowout at an offshore oil rig, Platform A, several miles off the coast of the city of Santa Barbara in the Santa Barbara Channel. The spill galvanized national and world attention to the potential nightmare and dangers of offshore drilling. Some of the efforts to contain small parts of the oil slick with booms kept it relatively confined. The loss of wildlife was considerable.
Some dispersants were used but the best technique turned out to be hay, endless of bales of it, were trucked into Santa Barbara and driven out onto the Stearns Wharf pier where it was loaded onto a small fleet of oil service boats, volunteer vessels and a few barges. The smaller boats cruised through the oil while men with pitchforks tossed hay from the decks of the boats down onto the oil-covered water. A couple of the larger oil boats had big blowers which were used to shoot streams of hay out over a much wider area of the water around the boat. However, because no one was prepared for the disaster, much of the work was done by hand.
The hay DID absorb and stick to the oil.. and as the gooey black masses floated ashore, volunteers of all ages scooped up the clumps from the surf and pulled and dragged them ashore. Scenes similar to these will likely be repeated in many areas of the Gulf Coast over the coming weeks and months...
On the beaches, the oil that had already washed ashore, and was coming in with each wave, was covered with hay by hundreds of workers. In the end, the oil-soaked hay was then scraped up by heavy equipment, piled up and finally hauled away in dump trucks.
So, I say 'Bravo!' to the two American farmers and let's get that hay moving to the Gulf NOW.
Posted by: sickinmass at May 29, 2010 12:18 PM (tamie)
Posted by: wherestherum at May 29, 2010 04:15 PM (gofDd)
Kids these days, now Get Off My Lawn!
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 12:19 PM (fwSHf)
When they make the argument Obama couldn't have done anything to stop this, point out that Obam is blaming Bush.
Obama couldn't have stopped it. Bush could have stopped it. Or something.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 29, 2010 12:20 PM (8EPHU)
Posted by: jdub at May 29, 2010 12:20 PM (xMCGT)
My first thoughts are that Obama was completely unable to move the clean-up by one minute. It's embarrassing how he doesn't seem to know that himself, but he has neither the power nor the responsibility. And what did Spiderman say ...
I'd like to hoist every BDS by his own petard, but I need consistancy within my own thoughts before I start playing political games.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at May 29, 2010 12:22 PM (r60xu)
If the Republicans were smart, which they're not, they'd be out there saying while the massive oil spill was getting closer and closer to our shores, Obama was throwing a huge taxpayer-funded party for Calderon and the Democrats were voting themselves another pay raise.
Posted by: Snagglepuss at May 29, 2010 12:22 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at May 29, 2010 12:22 PM (/Oqxb)
Anyone can probably guess my own reaction: I am in favor of the sort of intellectual consistency that says if the Democrats and media forced a certain rule on Bush (even against our objections), then they won that debate, and they established a precedent, and that precedent applies equally (if vindictively) to President Present.
Supreme Court nominees as well?
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 29, 2010 12:23 PM (8EPHU)
Why doesn't the Obama dictatorship just order the well to stop? I don't understand cause he's so much smarter than boooshitler who couldn't even call a hurricaine and give it an ambasadorship!
Posted by: Judith Miller Antoinetta at May 29, 2010 12:26 PM (9vQ7f)
My first thoughts are that Obama was completely unable to move the clean-up by one minute. It's embarrassing how he doesn't seem to know that himself, but he has neither the power nor the responsibility.
Posted by: Cincinnatus at May 29, 2010 04:22 PM (r60xu)
That's not true. The federal government is the controlling authority for this offshore well and the clean up. That's why Jindal was explaining that he had to request approval from Washington to implement what Louisianna wanted to do. Washington didn't even answer them, let alone give them an okay. The feral government has been an impediment to preventing the spilt oil from being kept away from land and cleaned up.
In the Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon was paying exhorbitants rental rates to get boats out to work on the clean-up. The feral government could have hired all the shrimpers and others to do something. BP would have to cover the costs, anyway. I haven't heard of any such mobilization to initially contain the spill. Again, the feral government's actual responsibility to oversee and direct.
Katrina - primarily state/local responsiibility. States/localities for Louisianna/NOLA screwed up royally.
Offshore oil spill - primarily federal responsibility. Feral government screws up, royally.
Both happened with Dems running them. What a shocker!
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 29, 2010 12:30 PM (Qp4DT)
The whole comparison of Bush and Katrina to this mess it ridiculous. The Governor of LA and the Mayor of New Orleans were responsible for taking charge of the immediate Katrina disaster. They were also in charge of putting an evacuation plan into effect and making sure it was carried out. They did neither.
If Bush was guilty of anything it was not firing both of them and sending in the full weight of the government with or without their approval. I am not even sure he could have done that legally though.
The press hung it all on Bush because they hated him.
The oil spill by federal law is the governments responsibility.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 12:31 PM (fwSHf)
Is Obama on vacation or out playing golf?
Or is there another big party tonight at the White House?
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 29, 2010 12:32 PM (0fzsA)
The fact is, Alinsky said it best: "Hold your enemy to his own standards."
To believe the sycophants of the left, Obama is a god walking the earth. Parents tutor their children to sing songs in his praise. They call him a Lightbearer, a Jedi Knight, The One. They shout hosanna when he promises to do what rational people know is beyond the power of mortal man.
So yes, we should hammer the hell out of Obama. But the hammering must always be framed the show the gulf between the hype and the reality - the gulf between hype of the god-man that the jock-sniffing press presents, and reality of the thuggish, arrogant, thin-skinned, unaccomplished, not-terribly-bright Cook County ward heeler who now occupies the Oval Office.
We have to do is recite what he's said he is and what he's said he'll do. And challenge him to put up or shut up.
Posted by: Brown Line at May 29, 2010 12:33 PM (b95i6)
If the Republicans were smart, which they're not, they'd be out there saying while the massive oil spill was getting closer and closer to our shores,
If a GOPer were president, Hollywood would be washing ducks and organizing be-ins. The competition for photo-ops would reach a dangerous level.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 29, 2010 12:34 PM (8EPHU)
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 04:15 PM (O3eFQ)
The blowout preventer at the Deepwater Horizon well was not in proper working order. That's the first-order problem: the specific system meant to control a catastrophic failure was not kept fully ready for a catastrophic failure.
The BP drilling crew was instructed by BP higher-ups to use non-standard drilling fluid (apparently including seawater) during the final stages of preparing the well for capping. That reduced their ability to control the bursts of pressure from the gas coming up with the oil.
The BP crew also had indications of aberrant pressure fluctuations in the drilling pipe, but decided that there wasn't sufficient danger to readjust their processes.
The problematic relationship between technology and luck was that BP became so blase about the technology that it decided it only really needed luck. You find the same pattern in most major technology-related disasters: the operators of the technology are so used to it working safely that they decide to overlook or work around the specific procedures that ensure the technology's safe operation.
Posted by: stuiec at May 29, 2010 12:37 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: lions at May 29, 2010 12:39 PM (7n5jP)
Posted by: Bugler at May 29, 2010 12:40 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Milwaukie Guy at May 29, 2010 12:43 PM (8VGb4)
I was watching CNN with Anderson Cooper the other night. He was reporting live
on the Louisiana coast. The oi is there and no one is doing a thing about it.
Anderson made sure to point out that when cameras are not rolling, clean up crews vanish.
I was amazed that CNN pointed it out.
At one point later in the segment, Anderson had James Carville on - and he
was not happy. The environmental damage is real, the oil is on shore, killing everything it touches.
They showed the oil lapping up against eh grassy marsh land. Zero life. All dead.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 29, 2010 12:43 PM (0fzsA)
Posted by: BO aka the Hairy Thunderer at May 29, 2010 12:44 PM (0K3p3)
You find the same pattern in most major technology-related disasters: the operators of the technology are so used to it working safely that they decide to overlook or work around the specific procedures that ensure the technology's safe operation.
And we've all seen that before.
Houston: Colombia, go with throttle up.
Colombia: Roger Houston, go with throttle up.
and the luck ran out...
Posted by: HH at May 29, 2010 12:46 PM (6oDXl)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at May 29, 2010 12:46 PM (l2CML)
Posted by: Ranba Ral at May 29, 2010 12:47 PM (l2CML)
the “junk shot,” a procedure that involves pumping odds and ends like plastic cubes, knotted rope and golf balls
I get junk shots every weekend
Posted by: Mary Landrieu's Fat Ass at May 29, 2010 12:48 PM (G9PIC)
Not only did they tee off on Bush but they had a field day making shit up. That delayed rescue efforts by groups like the Red Cross who were afraid to go in without escort.
To this day the assholes like Sheppard Smith have not owned up to their BS lies on Katrina.
Posted by: Vic at May 29, 2010 12:48 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: Vic at May 29, 2010 12:49 PM (6taRI)
and the luck ran out...
Posted by: HH at May 29, 2010 04:46 PM (6oDXl)
The luck ran out some hours before when the NASA staff in charge of the mission decided that there wasn't REALLY all that great a probability of the solid booster rocket O-rings malfunctioning in cold weather. With a little luck, they thought, everything would be fine.
Posted by: stuiec at May 29, 2010 12:51 PM (W+GYq)
Posted by: lions at May 29, 2010 12:54 PM (7n5jP)
Damn, you people are stupid.
Don't you remember me saying that gas should be $8-10/gallon?
How did you cracka-ass crackas think I was gonna pull that off? Cooking the books? Naw, we save that shit for the health care budget.
Posted by: Prezidizzle Obizzle at May 29, 2010 12:56 PM (8MuSQ)
Instead I give you Maoist rebels suspected of sabotaging rail lines and derailing trains in India link
and British Ballerina plotted to overthrow Panamanian Government link
Posted by: Ranba Ral at May 29, 2010 12:58 PM (l2CML)
Posted by: Vic at May 29, 2010 04:48 PM (6taRI)
Yeah Joe Scarborough was doing the same thing on MSNBC. I got into an email pissing match with him when he was bitching about Bush not sending in the National Guard. I reminded him that Bush had already authorized the Governors to use the NG and that it was up to them to do it now.
The prick called me out on National TV and said "I've got someone from Seattle now telling me about hurricanes" which I wasn't, I was telling him who had authority to use the NG.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 01:03 PM (fwSHf)
@124: "We have to do is recite what he's said he is and what he's said he'll do. And challenge him to put up or shut up."
Man, that's fuckin' racist, and you know it.
Posted by: Prezidizzle Obizzle at May 29, 2010 01:04 PM (8MuSQ)
Last night I spoke long distance to a sea captain friend about what he saw of the Gulf oil spill. He had just completed a voyage from Fort Lauderdale, around the Keys, up the Gulf coastline to the shipyards in Gulfport, Mississippi.
When I asked him what he saw of the Gulf oil spill after covering all those sea miles, he said, "Nothing." He saw no dead birds and turtles. No big pools of oil. None of the catastrophic 'end of the world' photos we see on the news.
He said the only catastrophe sighted was all the empty beach resorts and how much money the tourist industry is losing because the media has frightened off tourists. He reported the Gulf beaches are clean and ready for use, but the hotels and casinos and all, empty, empty, empty.
The local Gulf coast radio talk show hosts are all talking about how politicians are using the oil spill to create an atmosphere of total panic in an election year and how politicians are all vying for MORE federal bail out dollars to clean up oil from their beaches..... oil that is not there.
Do you wonder why BP refuses to stop using the chemical dispersants the EPA ordered BP to stop using? I'll tell you why:
BECAUSE THOSE DISPERSANTS KEEP THE OIL UNDERWATER - AWAY FROM THE NAKED EYE AND SATELLITE VIEW.
Says who? Scientists studying the massive underwater oil plumes. Some of the oil plumes are over 30 feet deep and 26 miles long. One scientists said about using dispersants on oil: "You don't want to put soap into a fish tank".
This discovery seems to confirm the fears of some scientists that -- because of the depth of the leak and the heavy use of chemical "dispersants" -- this spill was behaving differently than others. Instead of floating on top of the water, it may be moving beneath it.
That would be troubling because it could mean the oil would slip past coastal defenses such as "containment booms" designed to stop it on the surface. Already, scientists and officials in Louisiana have reported finding thick oil washing ashore despite the presence of floating booms.
It would also be a problem for hidden ecosystems deep under the gulf. There, the oil could be absorbed by tiny animals and enter a food chain that builds to large, beloved sport-fish like red snapper. It might also glom onto deep-water coral formations, and cover the small animals that make up each piece of coral.
It kills them because it prevents them from feeding. It could essentially starve them to death.
The University of South Florida vessel, the Weatherbird II, used sonar and other devices to sample the water below it. Other scientists have said they have little of the equipment necessary to find oil under the water -- leading to debates about whether the underwater plumes were even there.
Hence, the 'Sky is Falling' political scenario is going full tilt boogey for politicians once again draining Americans of tax dollars. Amen to the ongoing Global Warming cabal.
Libtards are to blame for forcing oil companies to drill in such deep waters. Their constant whining won't allow drilling in shallow water or on land... and King Libtard is occupying OUR White House. Fucked up.
Posted by: sickinmass at May 29, 2010 01:15 PM (tamie)
That's clearly impossible. I have it on the authority of none other than Grade A fuckknobs Anderson Cooper and James Carville, as well as hysterical shrieking ninny Shep Smith, that everything is dead, and what isn't dead is dying, and what isn't dying will die, because oil kills everything it touches, just like ebola.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 29, 2010 01:23 PM (4ucwG)
You keep saying that but I think you're wrong. You have no baseline for saying it. You're saying the North Sea rigs are good; I think they've just been lucky.
Posted by: Monty at May 29, 2010 04:15 PM (O3eFQ)
Well you are sure free to think I am wrong all you want to. You are also free to start a national movement to remove all redundent systems from everything in the US from Airliners to a soldier carrying a pistol as backup.
I happen to believe there is a lot more evidence of backup systems working when they are supposed to work than there is eveidence of them not.
Posted by: robtr at May 29, 2010 01:24 PM (fwSHf)
Posted by: Shep "Integrity" Smith at May 29, 2010 01:31 PM (VXBR1)
Posted by: Barack Obama at May 29, 2010 01:34 PM (2kVkH)
A lot of the times, when conservatives, attempting something like rigor of intellectual consistency, say "But then we'd be hypocrites!," they are utterly failing to consider which rule actually prevailed in court
I think of Alan Keyes. He said in 2000 that Hillary Clinton should not have been allowed to run for a New York senate seat. But she was. So in 2004, he moved to Illinois to run for a senate. He was called a hypocrite.
But he wasn't. It was considered hunky-dory to move to another state and run for a senate seat. He didn't make up the rule. He was given that rule against his wishes. Recognizing the rule, he embraced it.
Should we note that the President is not all-powerful, and that sometimes things are simply beyond his control, and that it's a childish view of the world to believe the President can fix serious problems simply by thinking real hard about them, being smart, and barking out orders in a clipped and authoritative voice?
So noted. But for the record, Obama hasn't done his best on this. If he has, then his best isn't very good.
Posted by: FireHorse at May 29, 2010 01:37 PM (cQyWA)
Posted by: Barack "Confirmed Heterosexual" Obama at May 29, 2010 01:39 PM (VXBR1)
I guess all that footage of the oil lapping up against the marsh land was faked. No oil to see here. Move along.
Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 29, 2010 01:45 PM (0fzsA)
Monty, #103: The history of deep-sea oil drilling is not long enough to draw any conclusions about the relative benefits and drawbacks of emergency procedures, or how people implement them.
But the history of doing difficult, dangerous things is plenty long to know that it's good at least to have an emergency procedure. My understanding was that BP did not.
(I may have misread that a month and a half ago, but it's ringing true with me.)
Posted by: FireHorse at May 29, 2010 01:50 PM (cQyWA)
I think they've just been lucky.
Why is it that bad luck seems to repeatedly single out BP?
(Sorry, Monty. I get a lot out of what you post, and your words on this thread are true to your usual good form. But I don't buy it either.)
Posted by: FireHorse at May 29, 2010 01:56 PM (cQyWA)
>>I guess all that footage of the oil lapping up against the marsh land was faked. No oil to see here. Move along.
Kitten,
No.. Not at all! I am surprised there is not more of it on the shores. My comment only raises the speculation of why there IS not more. Never let a crisis go to waste..
Were dealing with politicians. By far the worst criminals in history. Never forget that.
Posted by: sickinmass at May 29, 2010 01:59 PM (tamie)
DEAD BABIES! COVERED IN OIL!
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!
Posted by: Shep "Integrity" Smith at May 29, 2010 05:31 PM (VXBR1)
What's black and on the beach? A: A dead baby covered in oil.
Q: What's black and green and on the beach covered in sand crabs? A: Same baby, four days later.
Posted by: stuiec at May 29, 2010 02:07 PM (W+GYq)
Oy. This is incorrect in its assumptions and formulation. The impeachable offenses (and convictable) were perjury in court and suborning perjury. If you think that perjury wasn't enough (I wholeheartedly disagree) then you must admit that suborning perjury certainly is.
I am having some real problems with conservatives who are drawing incorrect equivalences between Katrina and the oil spill and misrepresenting the impeachment bases. This reminds me of the Honduran situation, when the administration and every media outlet (MFM and all others) were screaming about how the Honduran government (the supreme court and parliament) had pulled a coup. All too many conservative commentors paroted this, even though it was dead wrong. It was Zelaya who had attempted a coup and the rest of the government fended it off, legally and according to their Constitution. But, in the end, only a very few conservatives ever got that story straight.
There is no inconsistency in how conservatives should be addressing this oil spill versus Katrina. One was a state/local responisibility while the other is a federal responsibility. There was nothing wrong with the impeachment - and a conviction should have followed, especially after Clinton made a total mockery of our legal procedures by delving into the "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is", which, for anyone who actually read the transcripts, was an incorrectly directed observation, anyway, as the 'to be' form used by Bennett had been incorrect, to start.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 29, 2010 02:29 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: JadedByPolitics at May 29, 2010 02:49 PM (6Zf2J)
Posted by: Ken James at May 29, 2010 02:59 PM (w91MW)
Now can we impeach the bastard for Sestak-gate?
Posted by: Reiver at May 29, 2010 03:06 PM (zXBJ6)
Posted by: Reiver at May 29, 2010 03:08 PM (zXBJ6)
Posted by: CalGal at May 29, 2010 03:15 PM (ypk2e)
He deserves every ounce of bile he's going to get.
The things that are in his control are the staged photo ops and vacations. He fires someone without even owning up to it, but then claims he's on top of things. Why was she fired?
Principle, nothing. Eff him and the horse he rode in on.
Compared to Katrina, a natural disaster whose devastating consequences were largely due to a corrupt Democrat-controlled local government, this is much more the administration's fault.
Posted by: Y-not at May 29, 2010 03:18 PM (Kn9r7)
Posted by: sauropod at May 29, 2010 03:23 PM (GPm6P)
Just ask any of Ayn Rand's heroes, or Rorschach.
Posted by: ChristopherTaylor at May 29, 2010 03:42 PM (PQY7w)
Posted by: FUBAR at May 29, 2010 03:47 PM (1fanL)
It isn't that difficult.
While in the shit, you throw everything including the kitchen sink.
But you don't forget your long-term principles.
And you reopen past, lost battles whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Posted by: MlR at May 29, 2010 04:23 PM (568Ut)
Posted by: MlR at May 29, 2010 04:25 PM (568Ut)
Posted by: RarestRX at May 29, 2010 04:51 PM (rmNST)
Malia : Daddy, did you plug that hole yet?
Obama: I told you..I just don't feel like sleeping with your mother tonight!
Posted by: Huh? at May 29, 2010 04:57 PM (1kwr2)
I'm all in on the demagoguery. This is the standard they set. They thought it was great at the time, but didn't realize, didn't care, or didn't think that we would use their own rules against them.
They were wrong. We're not nice anymore, and it's because they made us that way.
There is too much on the line, now.
Posted by: blindside at May 29, 2010 05:29 PM (vT9Nl)
Also, you'se maroons are forgetting a couple things:
1) Bush allowed Karl Rove to steer that hurricane into New Orleans because he wanted oil prices to go up.
2) So clearly, by established precedent, Obama had Emmanuel conduct another Charlie Rose interview, but this time with feeling, right there on that oil rig. Buh-whaam!
I swear, he IQ on this site keeps going downhill.
Is that bad?
Posted by: K~Bob at May 29, 2010 05:49 PM (9b6FB)
Posted by: Jean at May 29, 2010 06:30 PM (CPefM)
Is the rule fair? No. Presidents aren't God.
Is the application of the rule fair? Yes. You use it on our guy, we use it on yours. Good or bad, they're playing by the same rules.
You only want to apply the rules when they benefit your side? Well, then, you don't believe in rules, only power, so we'll be sure to spike you in the leg every chance we get and tear you up. Because there are going to be rules, and if you won't live by the written ones, the unwritten ones will get enforced. And those are a lot dirtier.
Posted by: slarrow at May 29, 2010 06:55 PM (uXBuC)
Sweet Jeebus! If I knew who you are Ace, I'd buy you a beer. Since I don't I'll drink it.
No quarter for these jerks.
Posted by: Mr. Barky at May 29, 2010 07:34 PM (Zyla9)
Posted by: sexypig at May 29, 2010 11:28 PM (xuvJh)
Posted by: Tonawanda at May 30, 2010 05:03 AM (fgysf)
It's certainly not killing everything it touches, as you and your shithead friends Carville and Cooper claim.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 30, 2010 06:03 AM (4ucwG)
Or more technically: Why can they not fabricate a large and very heavy, hollow concrete structure, float it over the leak and sink straight down? They do it for laying seabed foundations all the time.
Posted by: Scott at May 30, 2010 11:17 PM (TqGYF)
Bush was not condemned merely because the disaster of Hurricane Katrina happened while he was president. He was condemned for how he handled it. He had appointed a FEMA director who was completely incompetent, because that guy was his buddy. When he proved his incompetence days into the crisis, Bush gave him a public vote of confidence. He wasn't fired until days later. Bush couldn't have prevented the hurricane or the flood. But he could have handled the disaster competently. He did not.
Obama is handling this crisis competently. Whilet's the federal government could go into New Orleans and deal with the aftermath of Katrina, it cannot cap that spewing well. BP is supposed to be expert in this (as well as responsible), so that is on them. The cleanup is on them as well.
See the difference here? Or do you just want to make political points? Clearly the latter carries the day. You pretend to make principled arguments. That's a joke. You have no principles. You just want to tear down Obama however you can. Good luck. You people haven't won a single battle against Obama. Don't expect that to change anytime soon.
Posted by: Sally Ann Cavanaugh at May 31, 2010 01:45 AM (FRErk)
The 1990 Oil Pollution Act was drafted in response to the Exxon-Valdez spill. It created new procedures for offshore cleanups, specifically putting the federal government in charge of such operations. The President should have used the authority granted by the OPA – immediately – to take control of the situation. That is a big part of what the OPA is for – to designate who is in charge so finger-pointing won’t disrupt efforts to just “plug the d#*! hole.” But instead of immediately engaging with this crisis, our President chose to spend precious time on political pet causes like haranguing the state of Arizona for doing what he himself was supposed to do – secure the nation’s border. He also spent much time fundraising and politicking for liberal candidates and causes while we waited for him to grasp the enormity of the Gulf spill.
Obama appointed MMS director Elizabeth Birnbaum, who gave BP a B+ in the recent inspection of the oil rig that took place a mere 10 days before the explosion. The incompetence of the Obama administration, from Birnbaum and Ken Salazar to Energy Commissioner Steven Chu who only set up an expert advisory panel three weeks after the disaster, has made this disaster worse than it should have been, if it couldn't have prevented it altogether. It was the Obama administration that allowed BP to bypass regulations, lying about safety standards and not having an emergency response in place. It was the Obama administration who was supposed to have their own plan, but instead failed and quite spectacularly choked.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 31, 2010 07:20 AM (mHQ7T)
Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. All Obama, like any politician, cares about is getting reelected. November will be a bloodbath.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at May 31, 2010 07:23 AM (mHQ7T)
http://bayouchild.wordpress.com/
Posted by: Texmom at May 31, 2010 09:13 AM (WzN8I)
Posted by: Wholesale accessories at July 23, 2010 05:16 PM (XAQ8U)
Posted by: jimmychoooutletstore at August 22, 2010 10:52 PM (sw/Q+)
Posted by: jimmychoooutletstore at August 22, 2010 10:53 PM (sw/Q+)
Juicy create a lot Fashion stuff for women, For Juicy couture handbags to Juicy Couture purse.
Twenty years ago you wouldnÂ’t be able to find a single designer item for pregnant women. Luckily times have changed and there are companies which are offering designer clothes for pregnant women, as well as designer accessories that are very useful when you are a new mother.
Juicy Couture offers some of the most fashionable accessories for a mother. One of their most popular items is the Juicy diaper bag because it is a must have for anyone with young children. Go with a diaper bag that is nice and roomy, and contains mesh holders for items such as bottles, formula, and anything else that your baby needs.
Long gone are the days that women were forced to carry around diaper bags that had cheesy animals printed all over them. Now you can get a Juicy Couture diaper bag that gets more compliments than your handbag! Juicy Couture handbags make the perfect gift for any mother who is expecting or has recently had a new child.
Posted by: juicy bags at September 07, 2010 11:21 PM (v6U3g)
This designer purse comes out in two colors, neutral desert and black. Personally I prefer the light color one for it goes well with my clothes in easy breezy spring summer days. Once again this
Posted by: SDgasdf3 at September 10, 2010 11:45 PM (ePFsE)
Posted by: TN Nike at September 14, 2010 01:02 AM (6ZIvF)
Posted by: jimmychooshoes1 at September 14, 2010 11:49 PM (3DXEw)
Posted by: jimmy choo outlets at September 14, 2010 11:53 PM (3DXEw)
Posted by: Online Pharmacy at September 15, 2010 08:28 PM (Blcpm)
Posted by: Allergy and Immunology in North Carolina at September 17, 2010 03:23 AM (knJNG)
Posted by: computer consultants at September 17, 2010 05:03 AM (Ax1Bi)
Posted by: Montana certified pilots at September 18, 2010 04:53 AM (QXvGr)
Posted by: Washington certified pilots at September 20, 2010 04:45 AM (ypDFv)
Posted by: florists at September 25, 2010 04:37 AM (wHIXu)
Posted by: Find antique watches at September 26, 2010 05:26 AM (04mzz)
Posted by: jewel contractors at September 29, 2010 06:31 AM (TpvnL)
Posted by: yoyoyu0923 at November 24, 2010 05:52 PM (xXq3v)
Posted by: big bang theor at November 28, 2010 10:48 PM (+0jJe)
Perhaps this is one of the most interesting blogs that I have ever seen. Interesting article, Funny comment. Keep it up!
Posted by: New Era Hats at January 10, 2011 10:15 PM (RJOjC)
Posted by: adrian.c at January 29, 2011 11:44 AM (r5Hnd)
Posted by: leeo at February 13, 2011 05:48 AM (wHfJJ)
Posted by: abercrombie uk sale at February 18, 2011 03:26 AM (jHg+1)
Posted by: five fingers at March 20, 2011 09:56 AM (Rdw9j)
Posted by: Cosplay Wigs at April 01, 2011 11:48 PM (h9WVl)
Posted by: supra shoes at April 03, 2011 01:42 AM (Tonq+)
Posted by: cash advance payday loans at April 27, 2011 07:44 AM (0WtsD)
Anime torrents
Posted by: cool videos at May 17, 2011 01:27 AM (s/Uuy)
Posted by: apotek dk at May 25, 2011 09:36 AM (Z6S5R)
Posted by: edhardyhai at June 12, 2011 12:31 AM (9dMLh)
Posted by: ragani at June 25, 2011 10:37 AM (GHkiI)
Posted by: LILY at July 01, 2011 02:33 AM (4Nmfn)
Posted by: VarioMert at July 01, 2011 03:12 AM (Efutw)
Posted by: RudolphAlpa at July 01, 2011 07:20 AM (1NNlt)
Posted by: ErinMoza at July 02, 2011 12:24 AM (OHjUD)
Posted by: JosepDems at July 03, 2011 10:31 PM (OHjUD)
Posted by: CarlaJoza at July 04, 2011 04:57 AM (OHjUD)
Posted by: FaniaBok at July 04, 2011 05:57 PM (d7fBX)
Posted by: BokinLam at July 04, 2011 06:01 PM (d7fBX)
Posted by: CubusDok at July 04, 2011 06:05 PM (d7fBX)
I really appreciate the kind of topics you post here. Thanks for sharing information that is actually helpful. Best Regards! <a href="http://www.villaxanthi.com" target="_blank"> Villa for rent in Paphos</a>
Posted by: Villa in Paphos at July 05, 2011 07:57 AM (moFMB)
Posted by: PolanaWerd at July 05, 2011 08:16 AM (OHjUD)
Posted by: SandraFerk at July 05, 2011 05:40 PM (OHjUD)
Posted by: cheap pandora jewelry at July 07, 2011 04:36 AM (y0HJS)
Posted by: ADVOGADOS RIO DE JANEIRO at July 07, 2011 05:27 AM (1NNlt)
Posted by: Insurance for Military at July 07, 2011 06:24 AM (1NNlt)
Posted by: Dedicated Internet Access at July 07, 2011 06:50 AM (1NNlt)
Posted by: JamalOpy at July 08, 2011 07:14 AM (S30/F)
Posted by: PlanoHerd at July 10, 2011 09:21 PM (OHjUD)
Posted by: KelasLop at July 10, 2011 11:33 PM (fydT7)
Posted by: JanasResk at July 12, 2011 10:31 AM (OHjUD)
Posted by: PerakSare at July 12, 2011 08:12 PM (+8Asa)
Posted by: PerakSare at July 12, 2011 09:18 PM (g+H4Q)
Posted by: aluminum case at July 13, 2011 01:42 AM (1NNlt)
Amethyst
Rings Shop
Peridot
Rings Shop
Pearl Rings
Shop
Turquoise
Rings Shop
Mini
Trucks for Sale
Posted by: Amethyst at July 13, 2011 03:35 AM (ySWCA)
Posted by: OnengDong at July 13, 2011 04:23 AM (OHjUD)
Posted by: AdamAbigail at July 13, 2011 07:22 PM (1NNlt)
I have read everything on the shortlist and I know its quality is incredible. Every writer has aspects of style I genuinely covet. They are extraordinary women and extraordinary writers.
yorii komasi
Posted by: jones at July 13, 2011 11:37 PM (syJ2o)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3307 seconds, 377 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Malia at May 29, 2010 11:25 AM (Updet)