Limbaugh on BP: "the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. "

[edthecynic]

Stuttering LimpTard always claims victory before all the facts are in, and he certainly won't give Obama and the Coast Guard any credit for their removing and burning any of the oil.

Time will tell what the real long term damage will be from the oil spill.

Oil Spills Pollute Indefinitely and Invisibly, Study Says
Oil Spills Pollute Indefinitely and Invisibly, Study Says
John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
November 22, 2002

A report published earlier this month shows that in sensitive near-shore environments, the effects of an oil spill can be seen even decades later.

The findings come from a study of the aftermath of an accident that occurred in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, on a foggy morning in September 1969. A Boston-bound barge entering the Cape Cod Canal ran aground on rocks, spilling 175,000 gallons (700,000 liters) of diesel fuel into the bay.

The Prestige sank in waters that are more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) deep, about 150 miles (241 kilometers) off shore. Still, so far, more than 150 miles (241 kilometers) of beaches and coves have been fouled...

At the time of the accident, researchers assumed that oil would be naturally dispersed within a few months or years, said Reddy. However, surveys during the 1970s and in 1989 detected oil in marsh sediments providing strong evidence that this isn't always the case.

The original study carried out by Woods Hole researchers in the early 1970s, is "one of the classic oil spill studies, that informed public policy about how to consider the fate and effects of spilled oil," said John Farrington, a Woods Hole researcher who studied Buzzards Bay in the late 1980s.

That study was the first to show that "an oil slick might disappear as far as visual sighting on the surface of the water, but petroleum hydrocarbons could still persist...in sediments," he said.

The current study uses chemical testing techniques that were not available in earlier studies.

Reddy's team, working with colleagues from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, collected a 14-inch-deep (36-centimeter-deep) sediment core from the marshes impacted by the spill. The core was divided into small sections—less than an inch (2 centimeters)—and tested for the presence of oil.

Hidden Danger

The results confirmed that despite the otherwise pristine appearance of the marsh, oil residues remained. The team found no contamination in the first 2 inches (6 centimeters) of the sand and earth sample. However, the central section of the core, retrieved from 2 to 11 inches (6 to 28 centimeters) below the surface, contained diesel oil compounds.

Oil that has decomposed in the environment should show a different mixture of petroleum compounds to fresh oil, said Reddy. However, many typical diesel oil compounds were observed in the core sample. This suggests that the oil degraded very little over time.

"Bacteria and Mother Nature have not significantly weathered the oil," said Reddy.

In addition, some of the chemicals in the sample core were at the same high concentrations found directly following the 1969 accident, he said.

"At the time of the spill, I doubt many people would have been able to predict the oil was still present after 30 years," said Reddy. "This study shows that oil can last for a long time, and is important when assessing the fate and clean-up of future spills."

 

[edthecynic]

I'm posting this thread for my good buddy, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...
he loves Rush Limbaugh threads...

Mr. Limbaugh predicted that the BP leak hype was one of those 'constant crisis' tactics...
and that the ocean, nature itself would take care of the leak:

"RUSH LIMBAUGH: There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now. You do survive these things. I'm not advocating don't care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."] Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf


You're not gonna believe this, from Time Magazine:
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana....the spill killed birds - but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins - but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes - a real slow-motion ecological calamity - but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. [...]"there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. .... "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it." ...the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he says.
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME
(emphasis mine)

A tip of the hat from Time, for Rush Limbaugh?

Quick...intervention for CrackedEggs!

OMG!

Twenty posts and nothing from the Egg Man???

This must mean that Paul is dead...kook-koo-ka-chooo

A typically stupid "logical" conclusion from you.
What it really means is I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board!!!

 

[martybegan]

Stuttering LimpTard always claims victory before all the facts are in, and he certainly won't give Obama and the Coast Guard any credit for their removing and burning any of the oil.

Time will tell what the real long term damage will be from the oil spill.

Oil Spills Pollute Indefinitely and Invisibly, Study Says
Oil Spills Pollute Indefinitely and Invisibly, Study Says
John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
November 22, 2002

A report published earlier this month shows that in sensitive near-shore environments, the effects of an oil spill can be seen even decades later.

The findings come from a study of the aftermath of an accident that occurred in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, on a foggy morning in September 1969. A Boston-bound barge entering the Cape Cod Canal ran aground on rocks, spilling 175,000 gallons (700,000 liters) of diesel fuel into the bay.

The Prestige sank in waters that are more than 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) deep, about 150 miles (241 kilometers) off shore. Still, so far, more than 150 miles (241 kilometers) of beaches and coves have been fouled...

At the time of the accident, researchers assumed that oil would be naturally dispersed within a few months or years, said Reddy. However, surveys during the 1970s and in 1989 detected oil in marsh sediments providing strong evidence that this isn't always the case.

The original study carried out by Woods Hole researchers in the early 1970s, is "one of the classic oil spill studies, that informed public policy about how to consider the fate and effects of spilled oil," said John Farrington, a Woods Hole researcher who studied Buzzards Bay in the late 1980s.

That study was the first to show that "an oil slick might disappear as far as visual sighting on the surface of the water, but petroleum hydrocarbons could still persist...in sediments," he said.

The current study uses chemical testing techniques that were not available in earlier studies.

Reddy's team, working with colleagues from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, collected a 14-inch-deep (36-centimeter-deep) sediment core from the marshes impacted by the spill. The core was divided into small sections—less than an inch (2 centimeters)—and tested for the presence of oil.

Hidden Danger

The results confirmed that despite the otherwise pristine appearance of the marsh, oil residues remained. The team found no contamination in the first 2 inches (6 centimeters) of the sand and earth sample. However, the central section of the core, retrieved from 2 to 11 inches (6 to 28 centimeters) below the surface, contained diesel oil compounds.

Oil that has decomposed in the environment should show a different mixture of petroleum compounds to fresh oil, said Reddy. However, many typical diesel oil compounds were observed in the core sample. This suggests that the oil degraded very little over time.

"Bacteria and Mother Nature have not significantly weathered the oil," said Reddy.

In addition, some of the chemicals in the sample core were at the same high concentrations found directly following the 1969 accident, he said.

"At the time of the spill, I doubt many people would have been able to predict the oil was still present after 30 years," said Reddy. "This study shows that oil can last for a long time, and is important when assessing the fate and clean-up of future spills."

yes, it can remain around for a while, but does it have an actual impact. The oil in question is at a depth where there is not bacterial activity, hence the lack of degradation. mix it up to the surface and it would probably dissipate rather rapidly.

Hell most of the soil in NYC is considered contaminated, non hazardous, for petroleum based compounds. what matters is the actual concentration, not the ratio of substances.

 

[editec]

I'm posting this thread for my good buddy, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...
he loves Rush Limbaugh threads...

Mr. Limbaugh predicted that the BP leak hype was one of those 'constant crisis' tactics...
and that the ocean, nature itself would take care of the leak:

"RUSH LIMBAUGH: There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now. You do survive these things. I'm not advocating don't care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."] Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf


You're not gonna believe this, from Time Magazine:
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana....the spill killed birds - but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins - but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes - a real slow-motion ecological calamity - but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. [...]"there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. .... "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it." ...the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he says.
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME
(emphasis mine)

A tip of the hat from Time, for Rush Limbaugh?

Quick...intervention for CrackedEggs!

Somebody needs to remind Rush that there's no free lunch.

Not in economics, and not in the environment, either.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm posting this thread for my good buddy, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...
he loves Rush Limbaugh threads...

Mr. Limbaugh predicted that the BP leak hype was one of those 'constant crisis' tactics...
and that the ocean, nature itself would take care of the leak:

"RUSH LIMBAUGH: There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now. You do survive these things. I'm not advocating don't care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."] Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf


You're not gonna believe this, from Time Magazine:
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana....the spill killed birds - but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins - but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes - a real slow-motion ecological calamity - but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. [...]"there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. .... "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it." ...the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he says.
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME
(emphasis mine)

A tip of the hat from Time, for Rush Limbaugh?

Quick...intervention for CrackedEggs!

OMG!

Twenty posts and nothing from the Egg Man???

This must mean that Paul is dead...kook-koo-ka-chooo

A typically stupid "logical" conclusion from you.
What it really means is I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board!!!

But..but ...but ..Don't you realize it means I miss you?

But, heck, it's good to see you back! After all, what good would this thread be without the human piñata!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And people like you and Limpbaugh are naturally stupid.

Oil is an organic compound, and the process of biological processing of it will create an even greater area of hypoxia and anoxic waters in the Gulf.



SCIENCE FOCUS: DEAD ZONES — GES DISC: Goddard Earth Sciences, Data & Information Services Center

This is not the title of a sequel to a Stephen King novel. "Dead zones" in this context are areas where the bottom water (the water at the sea floor) is anoxic — meaning that it has very low (or completely zero) concentrations of dissolved oxygen. These dead zones are occurring in many areas along the coasts of major continents, and they are spreading over larger areas of the sea floor. Because very few organisms can tolerate the lack of oxygen in these areas, they can destroy the habitat in which numerous organisms make their home.

The cause of anoxic bottom waters is fairly simple: the organic matter produced by phytoplankton at the surface of the ocean (in the euphotic zone) sinks to the bottom (the benthic zone), where it is subject to breakdown by the action of bacteria, a process known as bacterial respiration. The problem is, while phytoplankton use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during photosynthesis, bacteria use oxygen and give off carbon dioxide during respiration. The oxygen used by bacteria is the oxygen dissolved in the water, and that’s the same oxygen that all of the other oxygen-respiring animals on the bottom (crabs, clams, shrimp, and a host of mud-loving creatures) and swimming in the water (zooplankton, fish) require for life to continue.

The "creeping dead zones" are areas in the ocean where it appears that phytoplankton productivity has been enhanced, or natural water flow has been restricted, leading to increasing bottom water anoxia. If phytoplankton productivity is enhanced, more organic matter is produced, more organic matter sinks to the bottom and is respired by bacteria, and thus more oxygen is consumed. If water flow is restricted, the natural refreshing flow of oxic waters (water with normal dissolved oxygen concentrations) is reduced, so that the remaining oxygen is depleted faster.

Dead zones are caused by nitrate run offs, not oil.

Oil can cause them too. anything that depletes oxygen can cause hypoxia. Its a question of how much oxygen the bacteria are using to eat the oil, as well as the excessive growth of any other organisms that would eat the now abundant oil eating bacteria.

Dead zones are a result of organic processes and a continuing supply of nitrates to feed the phytoplankton. Any dead zone that results from oil spills is not sustaining because it is not continually fed by nitrate runoff. I don't think any spill has ever resulted in a sustained dead zone once it has been removed, as the organisms that displace oxygen do not have a continuous supply of food.

 

[edthecynic]

OMG!

Twenty posts and nothing from the Egg Man???

This must mean that Paul is dead...kook-koo-ka-chooo

A typically stupid "logical" conclusion from you.
What it really means is I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board!!!

But..but ...but ..Don't you realize it means I miss you?

But, heck, it's good to see you back! After all, what good would this thread be without the human piñata!

I know I live rent free in your mind.

But you have to pay to play. Still waiting for you to put some money behind the false claim of the entire CON$ervative media elite that Gore could not ID the bust of Franklin. Until you are willing to put money where your mouth is YOU are the human piñata!

 

[westwall]

A typically stupid "logical" conclusion from you.
What it really means is I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board!!!

But..but ...but ..Don't you realize it means I miss you?

But, heck, it's good to see you back! After all, what good would this thread be without the human piñata!

I know I live rent free in your mind.

But you have to pay to play. Still waiting for you to put some money behind the false claim of the entire CON$ervative media elite that Gore could not ID the bust of Franklin. Until you are willing to put money where your mouth is YOU are the human piñata!

I don't know if Al Gore could identify Franklin or not but when he visited Monticello he couldn't identify George Washington. That good enough for ya ? Oh yeah his particular bit is at around the 1:20 mark of the video...enjoy!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfigbWbAB0]YouTube - American News media bias[/ame]

 

[geauxtohell]

And people like you and Limpbaugh are naturally stupid.

Oil is an organic compound, and the process of biological processing of it will create an even greater area of hypoxia and anoxic waters in the Gulf.

Why is it that you immediatley call the OP stupid?

Get back to us when there are "dead zones" in The Gulf of Mexico.

There is a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico and it's been around a lot longer than the oil spill.

The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone

As for Limbaugh: anyone whose scientific innumeracy is so vast that they compare a glass of ice water to glaciers in the ocean is too idiotic to give any credence too.

 

[dilloduck]

Stop killing the world with fertilizer

 

[martybegan]

Dead zones are caused by nitrate run offs, not oil.

Oil can cause them too. anything that depletes oxygen can cause hypoxia. Its a question of how much oxygen the bacteria are using to eat the oil, as well as the excessive growth of any other organisms that would eat the now abundant oil eating bacteria.

Dead zones are a result of organic processes and a continuing supply of nitrates to feed the phytoplankton. Any dead zone that results from oil spills is not sustaining because it is not continually fed by nitrate runoff. I don't think any spill has ever resulted in a sustained dead zone once it has been removed, as the organisms that displace oxygen do not have a continuous supply of food.

For a sustained dead zone I agree with you. They can also be caused by phospates from runoff.

 

[Annie]

Shocking:

BP Oil Spill: Has Environmental Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME

Thursday, Jul. 29, 2010
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?
By Michael Grunwald / Port Fourchon, La.

President Obama has called the BP oil spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced," and so has just about everyone else. Green groups are sounding alarms about the "catastrophe along the Gulf Coast," while CBS, Fox and MSNBC are all slapping "Disaster in the Gulf" chyrons on their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted that the spill was an "environmental catastrophe." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill — he calls it "the leak" — is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype.

Well, Limbaugh has a point...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oil can cause them too. anything that depletes oxygen can cause hypoxia. Its a question of how much oxygen the bacteria are using to eat the oil, as well as the excessive growth of any other organisms that would eat the now abundant oil eating bacteria.

Dead zones are a result of organic processes and a continuing supply of nitrates to feed the phytoplankton. Any dead zone that results from oil spills is not sustaining because it is not continually fed by nitrate runoff. I don't think any spill has ever resulted in a sustained dead zone once it has been removed, as the organisms that displace oxygen do not have a continuous supply of food.

For a sustained dead zone I agree with you. They can also be caused by phospates from runoff.

I did forget about phosphates, thanks for reminding me.

 

[The T]

I'm posting this thread for my good buddy, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...
he loves Rush Limbaugh threads...

Mr. Limbaugh predicted that the BP leak hype was one of those 'constant crisis' tactics...
and that the ocean, nature itself would take care of the leak:

"RUSH LIMBAUGH: There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now. You do survive these things. I'm not advocating don't care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."] Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf


You're not gonna believe this, from Time Magazine:
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana....the spill killed birds - but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins - but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes - a real slow-motion ecological calamity - but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. [...]"there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. .... "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it." ...the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he says.
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME
(emphasis mine)

A tip of the hat from Time, for Rush Limbaugh?

Quick...intervention for CrackedEggs!

• ABC News: BP Oil Spill: Clean-Up Crews Can't Find Crude in the Gulf

 

[martybegan]

Dead zones are a result of organic processes and a continuing supply of nitrates to feed the phytoplankton. Any dead zone that results from oil spills is not sustaining because it is not continually fed by nitrate runoff. I don't think any spill has ever resulted in a sustained dead zone once it has been removed, as the organisms that displace oxygen do not have a continuous supply of food.

For a sustained dead zone I agree with you. They can also be caused by phospates from runoff.

I did forget about phosphates, thanks for reminding me.

No worries, this stuff is the reason for my employment. I work in upgrading wastewater treatment plants for Nutrient Removal.

 

[edthecynic]

But..but ...but ..Don't you realize it means I miss you?

But, heck, it's good to see you back! After all, what good would this thread be without the human piñata!

I know I live rent free in your mind.

But you have to pay to play. Still waiting for you to put some money behind the false claim of the entire CON$ervative media elite that Gore could not ID the bust of Franklin. Until you are willing to put money where your mouth is YOU are the human piñata!

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington, and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really. Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams.



I don't know if Al Gore could identify Franklin or not but when he visited Monticello he couldn't identify George Washington. That good enough for ya ? Oh yeah his particular bit is at around the 1:20 mark of the video...enjoy!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfigbWbAB0]YouTube - American News media bias[/ame]

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington (he stopped himself from actually saying it), and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really.

Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams. The liar edited them out because anyone who has visited Monticello would know there are only four (4) wall sconces.

Washington was not even among the group of busts Gore pointed to. If you had paid attention you would have heard the curator say Washington was on the EXTREME RIGHT. So if we note the positions as described by the curator we have: 1. Franklin-left, 2. Lafayette-left center, 3. Jones-right center, 4. Adams-right and 5. Washington in another part of the room to the EXTREME RIGHT of the group of busts Gore pointed to.

So the honest media didn't report the GOP scripted lie the CON$ervative media elite parroted the lie for years and years and years.

May 5, 2005
RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin." In fact, we have that sound bite from our archives. Here's how that went.

GORE: Who are these people?

CURATOR: This is George Washington on the extreme right, and Benjamin Franklin on the left, and then we have Lafayette and John Paul Jones. And John Adams... (unintelligible) Well, let's head briefly into the guest bedroom.

RUSH: Now, you should have seen Clinton when Gore asked the question. The beauty is the video. Clinton just kind of turns away, "Oh, my. I can't believe he asked that."

 

[westwall]

I know I live rent free in your mind.

But you have to pay to play. Still waiting for you to put some money behind the false claim of the entire CON$ervative media elite that Gore could not ID the bust of Franklin. Until you are willing to put money where your mouth is YOU are the human piñata!

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington, and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really. Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams.



I don't know if Al Gore could identify Franklin or not but when he visited Monticello he couldn't identify George Washington. That good enough for ya ? Oh yeah his particular bit is at around the 1:20 mark of the video...enjoy!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJfigbWbAB0]YouTube - American News media bias[/ame]

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington (he stopped himself from actually saying it), and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really.

Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams. The liar edited them out because anyone who has visited Monticello would know there are only four (4) wall sconces.

Washington was not even among the group of busts Gore pointed to. If you had paid attention you would have heard the curator say Washington was on the EXTREME RIGHT. So if we note the positions as described by the curator we have: 1. Franklin-left, 2. Lafayette-left center, 3. Jones-right center, 4. Adams-right and 5. Washington in another part of the room to the EXTREME RIGHT of the group of busts Gore pointed to.

So the honest media didn't report the GOP scripted lie the CON$ervative media elite parroted the lie for years and years and years.

May 5, 2005
RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin." In fact, we have that sound bite from our archives. Here's how that went.

GORE: Who are these people?

CURATOR: This is George Washington on the extreme right, and Benjamin Franklin on the left, and then we have Lafayette and John Paul Jones. And John Adams... (unintelligible) Well, let's head briefly into the guest bedroom.

RUSH: Now, you should have seen Clinton when Gore asked the question. The beauty is the video. Clinton just kind of turns away, "Oh, my. I can't believe he asked that."

Well ed, I am CERTAIN you know ALL ABOUT editing

 

[Charles_Main]

I'm posting this thread for my good buddy, CrackedEggsInTheAttic...
he loves Rush Limbaugh threads...

Mr. Limbaugh predicted that the BP leak hype was one of those 'constant crisis' tactics...
and that the ocean, nature itself would take care of the leak:

"RUSH LIMBAUGH: There's natural seepage into oceans all over the world from the ocean floor of oil -- and the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up. Dr. Spencer looked into this. You know the seepage from the floor of the Gulf is exactly 5,000 barrels a day, throughout the whole Gulf of Mexico now. It doesn't seep out all in one giant blob like this thing has, but the bottom line here is: Even places that have been devastated by oil slicks like... What was that place up in Alaska where the guy was drunk, ran a boat aground? (interruption) Prince William Sound. They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now. You do survive these things. I'm not advocating don't care about it hitting the shore or coast and whatever you can do to keep it out of there is fine and dandy, but the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and was left out there. It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."] Regime SWAT Teams Sent to Gulf


You're not gonna believe this, from Time Magazine:
"..it does not seem to be inflicting severe environmental damage. "The impacts have been much, much less than everyone feared," says geochemist Jacqueline Michel, a federal contractor who is coordinating shoreline assessments in Louisiana....the spill killed birds - but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins - but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes - a real slow-motion ecological calamity - but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year. [...]"there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. .... "There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it." ...the BP spill will be a comparative blip; he predicts that the oil will destroy fewer marshes than the airboats deployed to clean up the oil. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he says.
The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- Printout -- TIME
(emphasis mine)

A tip of the hat from Time, for Rush Limbaugh?

Quick...intervention for CrackedEggs!

Oil Both Evaporates and Disperses Naturally.

Rush was basically RIGHT!!

Even with the size of this leak, it was still like dumping a thimble of oil into a bath tub in relation to the size of the ocean. Oil that does not reach shore will disperse and Evaporate which is why they are finding it hard to even find the oil now.

The problem and Focus should have always been stopping oil from getting to shore that is where the real hard to deal with Damage is done.

 

[edthecynic]

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington, and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really. Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams.



I don't know if Al Gore could identify Franklin or not but when he visited Monticello he couldn't identify George Washington. That good enough for ya ? Oh yeah his particular bit is at around the 1:20 mark of the video...enjoy!


YouTube - American News media bias

A very professionally edited lie but a lie non the less.

Now the liar SUGGESTED to you that Gore pointed to the bust of Washington (he stopped himself from actually saying it), and through the power of suggestion, you obviously think you saw Gore point to Washington. But you didn't really.

Gore pointed to Lafayette and John Paul Jones when he asked, "Who are these people." The liar edited out the part where the curator named Lafayette, Jones and Adams. The liar edited them out because anyone who has visited Monticello would know there are only four (4) wall sconces.

Washington was not even among the group of busts Gore pointed to. If you had paid attention you would have heard the curator say Washington was on the EXTREME RIGHT. So if we note the positions as described by the curator we have: 1. Franklin-left, 2. Lafayette-left center, 3. Jones-right center, 4. Adams-right and 5. Washington in another part of the room to the EXTREME RIGHT of the group of busts Gore pointed to.

So the honest media didn't report the GOP scripted lie the CON$ervative media elite parroted the lie for years and years and years.

May 5, 2005
RUSH: ... It's kind of like the moment when Al Gore walked into Thomas Jefferson's place Monticello. There were all these busts up there. Gore is out there walking around with Clinton with the curator of the place, and Gore is looking thoughtfully, like he's in this great vast museum, and he has one hand on his (imitating for Ditto-camers) like this and his finger is on his chin, and he points to, "Who is that?" and the curator says, "That's George Washington." "Who is that?" "That's Benjamin Franklin." In fact, we have that sound bite from our archives. Here's how that went.

GORE: Who are these people?

CURATOR: This is George Washington on the extreme right, and Benjamin Franklin on the left, and then we have Lafayette and John Paul Jones. And John Adams... (unintelligible) Well, let's head briefly into the guest bedroom.

RUSH: Now, you should have seen Clinton when Gore asked the question. The beauty is the video. Clinton just kind of turns away, "Oh, my. I can't believe he asked that."

Well ed, I am CERTAIN you know ALL ABOUT editing

I will take that non answer as an admission that you swallowed the lie whole, but in typical CON$ervative fashion you are not HONEST enough to admit it.

For the record, the bust of Washington was set in a small semi-circular niche set into the wall to the right of the group of busts on wall sconces at the time of Gore's visit. The niche is at a much lower level than the wall sconces, so for Gore to have pointed to Washington he would have had to start his pointing waist high and then raise his arm to point to the busts about 8 feet high on the wall sconces, which clearly he did not do. Plus Clinton's body would have blocked Gore's view of the niche.

The niche is just above the small table at the far right in this picture.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A typically stupid "logical" conclusion from you.
What it really means is I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board!!!

But..but ...but ..Don't you realize it means I miss you?

But, heck, it's good to see you back! After all, what good would this thread be without the human piñata!

I know I live rent free in your mind.

But you have to pay to play. Still waiting for you to put some money behind the false claim of the entire CON$ervative media elite that Gore could not ID the bust of Franklin. Until you are willing to put money where your mouth is YOU are the human piñata!

Now, now, AlwaysTheCritic, you are at the least obfuscating, and at best hiding behind Gore's skirts...

1. The charge was that Gore looked at busts of famous American heros and famously said "Who are those people.'

2. And, of course, he did: I proved it with a vid showing him do so...

3. And he failed to recognize a guy that even you would recognize...George Washington. Ring a bell?

4. I don't know why you keep bringing up Franklin, and begging for money, except that youi must be soooooo embarrassed that the father of both the internet and global governance is, like yourself, a Mensa-reject....
is that the reason?

5. Now, I know you said that "I have a life and don't spend all my time on this board"...but it is so hard to believe that you were able to find work after folks saw that on your resume...you, know, that you were the lookout at Pearl Harbor...