Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To be honest, all I've watched today is Nickelodeon. Have I missed something ? As far as I know Obama is still reluctant to allow anything new to be done to stop and or clean up the leak. What his reasoning is is beyond me, but no one can deny he is moving slow.
Hey Lonestar, you're starting to come across as a loon my man , dial it down a little, Maggie is in my estimation a fair minded person and there is no reason to keep treating her with the same contempt one shows loons like Biker and his ilk.
Hey fuck you!
wow dude, that was kinda an over reaction wasn't it? No problem for me, I'll just concede that you are in fact a loon and move on.
Don't call this disaster Obama's Katrina. Obama says it's like 9/11.
Sorry Mr. President, but I don't think that a terrorist act that killed over 3,000 innocent people can be compared to an accidental oil spill.
But he's not going to miss the chance to make this political. He's going to turn it into a bill that will kill the energy industry.
Obama Compares Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill to 9/11 - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Rick D.
And, you, my friend, Lonestar_Logic, are a loon.
No one is comparing the two events? Did you not read the headline?
Wise up!
That's the problem with dumb shits: They read a headline and assume it tells the whole story, especially if said headline is arranged so that it criticizes Obama.
It's dumbshits like you that obviously can't follow a thread. He stated that no one was making comparisons, yet the title and the article does just that, you stupid bitch.
So you're saying the oil spill was an unavoidable natural disaster that hit and had a known end point? Yeah I'm still thinking it's closer to 9/11.To bad it compares better to kartina than 9/11
I don't think it's a good idea to shoot towards the massive sea of oil.Of course t here is that possibility which is why you lift the ban and park a US Navy warship somewhere in the vicinity , then you screen ships before you let them in the zone and warn them that if it appears they are doing anything other than helping clean up this mess they will be blown out of the water.
OK I'll bite: do you?You obviously have no experience with oil rig blowouts.
It's ALMOST as if you understand I'm mocking you. I mean you figured out what I said was completely unrealistic and had nothing to do with what you said, and yet you couldn't quite make the connection to blatant sarcasm. Maybe next time?He stated "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11 . . . I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come". Do you find this comparison true or false?Don't call this disaster Obama's Katrina. Obama says it's like 9/11.
Sorry Mr. President, but I don't think that a terrorist act that killed over 3,000 innocent people can be compared to an accidental oil spill.
Do you think he was saying planes crashed into the BP rig? Are you that stupid, really?
Do you really not know how to read? Where exactly did I even come anywhere close to saying what you're implying.
Oh I see. You didn't say he'd kill energy, you said he'd kill the energy industry. Do tell: when the entirety of the energy industry is killed, who will be delivering our energy? Go on I'm totally interested in your believable ideas.Really now? He's going to kill all energy for the entirety of the United State of America? You actually believe we will have no energy? What grade are you in?He's going to turn it into a bill that will kill the energy industry.
As for the claim that he's only using the comparison for political support: YOU were the one who believes anything related to 9/11 automatically gets political support. I'll put that gem of an idea right next to killing energy.
Wow, you sure do read a lot into one sentence. Please point out for me exactly where I said "He's going to kill all energy for the entirety of the United States of America." Here's a little hint. I didn't say that. What I said is he's going to use this to push a bill that will kill the ENERGY INDUSTRY. I know you're not bright enough to see a difference between the two, but anyone with half a brain will. So you might want to just move along to a thread where your lack of intelligence is a little more suited.
Actually you did very clearly implicitly state it. You acknowledge Obama's quote with regards to 9/11, and came to the conclusion that he did for political gain. Well for any mention of 9/11 to equal political gain, it would mean morons such as yourself actually saw it as political gain. If you didn't, why would you even bring that point up in the first place?And I'll also wait for you to point out where "I was the one who believes anything related to 9/11 automatically gets political support." Because once again I have NEVER said any such thing.
I don't think it's a good idea to shoot towards the massive sea of oil.Of course t here is that possibility which is why you lift the ban and park a US Navy warship somewhere in the vicinity , then you screen ships before you let them in the zone and warn them that if it appears they are doing anything other than helping clean up this mess they will be blown out of the water.
Oil isn't flammable goober. If you sink a ship, it sinks it doesn't necessarily explode.
To be honest, all I've watched today is Nickelodeon. Have I missed something ? As far as I know Obama is still reluctant to allow anything new to be done to stop and or clean up the leak. What his reasoning is is beyond me, but no one can deny he is moving slow.
Hey Lonestar, you're starting to come across as a loon my man , dial it down a little, Maggie is in my estimation a fair minded person and there is no reason to keep treating her with the same contempt one shows loons like Biker and his ilk.
While I thank you for your kind words, I don't see where you're getting that he is "reluctant" to clean up the spill. The more this lingers, the worse it is for him, politically, as is evidenced just by this thread alone.
Frankly, what I think we're faced with is a situation where NOBODY knows what to do that will result in a quick fix. Should Obama say that? Of course not. But I'll bet it's what is frustrating him to no end.
I should make it clear that I'm not specifically defending OBAMA on this tragic situation because of my political leanings. I think this whole situation would be extremely tough on any sitting president, even one I might despise (for political reasons). I would still be able to recognize that in these circumstances where there is no precedent, to simply make up crap does no good in solving the situation. I would trust the experts, including government experts and the president, to be much more on top of what's going on, what can and can't be done, more than I would trust the talking heads who continually try to weave political presumptions into it.
Oh, I don't think he's reluctant to take certain steps because he doesn't give a shit about the ecology, or because he doesn't understand that politically this is killing him. I think he's reluctant to act because he is NOT a leader. He just doesn't know how to respond quickly to an emergency. I was no fan of Bush's , but he DID know how to lead. Leading doesn't mean you always make the right decision, but it does mean you make A decision. That is the FIRST thing they teach you in Officer Candidacy School, that making the wrong decision might get someone killed , but making NO decision almost invariably will get someone killed.
Obama just doesn't have that within him to be a leader.
Hey fuck you!
wow dude, that was kinda an over reaction wasn't it? No problem for me, I'll just concede that you are in fact a loon and move on.
I don't give a shit what you think. Who the fuck do you think you are telling me what to do?!? I could care less if you think Maggiedipshit is the woman of your dreams, she's still a koolaid drinking Obama ass kisser in my opinion.
While I thank you for your kind words, I don't see where you're getting that he is "reluctant" to clean up the spill. The more this lingers, the worse it is for him, politically, as is evidenced just by this thread alone.
Frankly, what I think we're faced with is a situation where NOBODY knows what to do that will result in a quick fix. Should Obama say that? Of course not. But I'll bet it's what is frustrating him to no end.
I should make it clear that I'm not specifically defending OBAMA on this tragic situation because of my political leanings. I think this whole situation would be extremely tough on any sitting president, even one I might despise (for political reasons). I would still be able to recognize that in these circumstances where there is no precedent, to simply make up crap does no good in solving the situation. I would trust the experts, including government experts and the president, to be much more on top of what's going on, what can and can't be done, more than I would trust the talking heads who continually try to weave political presumptions into it.
Oh, I don't think he's reluctant to take certain steps because he doesn't give a shit about the ecology, or because he doesn't understand that politically this is killing him. I think he's reluctant to act because he is NOT a leader. He just doesn't know how to respond quickly to an emergency. I was no fan of Bush's , but he DID know how to lead. Leading doesn't mean you always make the right decision, but it does mean you make A decision. That is the FIRST thing they teach you in Officer Candidacy School, that making the wrong decision might get someone killed , but making NO decision almost invariably will get someone killed.
Obama just doesn't have that within him to be a leader.
I think what people are expecting is a similar Bush-With-Bullhorn rah rah rah speech. When you think about it, Bush Co. didn't really "DO" much that he could actually tell the American people about for several months. If feel-good pep rallies with photo ops are what makes one a "good leader," then no, I guess Obama isn't.
To bad it compares better to kartina than 9/11
I mean the government responded Fast to 9/11 unlike this spill in which the response has been Horribly slow and inept.
To bad it compares better to kartina than 9/11
I mean the government responded Fast to 9/11 unlike this spill in which the response has been Horribly slow and inept.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were considered an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001; the Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001; the Department of Homeland Security was formed on November 25, 2002.
The Gulf oil spill is a domestic accident. The two are incomparable as far as appropriate responses.
I don't think it's a good idea to shoot towards the massive sea of oil.Of course t here is that possibility which is why you lift the ban and park a US Navy warship somewhere in the vicinity , then you screen ships before you let them in the zone and warn them that if it appears they are doing anything other than helping clean up this mess they will be blown out of the water.
Oil isn't flammable goober. If you sink a ship, it sinks it doesn't necessarily explode.
But there's natural gas mixing with that oil coming up from the seawell. Remember they couldn't get the cement down in the pipe because of the natural gas seeping up the sides? In any event, I'd hate to be the one to have to test whether it's flammable or not.
Oh, I don't think he's reluctant to take certain steps because he doesn't give a shit about the ecology, or because he doesn't understand that politically this is killing him. I think he's reluctant to act because he is NOT a leader. He just doesn't know how to respond quickly to an emergency. I was no fan of Bush's , but he DID know how to lead. Leading doesn't mean you always make the right decision, but it does mean you make A decision. That is the FIRST thing they teach you in Officer Candidacy School, that making the wrong decision might get someone killed , but making NO decision almost invariably will get someone killed.
Obama just doesn't have that within him to be a leader.
I think what people are expecting is a similar Bush-With-Bullhorn rah rah rah speech. When you think about it, Bush Co. didn't really "DO" much that he could actually tell the American people about for several months. If feel-good pep rallies with photo ops are what makes one a "good leader," then no, I guess Obama isn't.
oh no ma'am, that isn't correct. Bush had already decided by 9/12/2001 that someone was going to pay for that attack. It just took awhile to figure out who and what the appropriate response would be. Three weeks is actually an incredibly short time to take an operation the size of Enduring Freedom from conception to engagement.
To bad it compares better to kartina than 9/11
I mean the government responded Fast to 9/11 unlike this spill in which the response has been Horribly slow and inept.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were considered an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001; the Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001; the Department of Homeland Security was formed on November 25, 2002.
The Gulf oil spill is a domestic accident. The two are incomparable as far as appropriate responses.
Yes they are, so why is Obama trying to compare them? Holy shit, I truly think he would send the military in to seize BP if they were in some ME nation instead of being in England, Yes, I am serious.
I think what people are expecting is a similar Bush-With-Bullhorn rah rah rah speech. When you think about it, Bush Co. didn't really "DO" much that he could actually tell the American people about for several months. If feel-good pep rallies with photo ops are what makes one a "good leader," then no, I guess Obama isn't.
oh no ma'am, that isn't correct. Bush had already decided by 9/12/2001 that someone was going to pay for that attack. It just took awhile to figure out who and what the appropriate response would be. Three weeks is actually an incredibly short time to take an operation the size of Enduring Freedom from conception to engagement.
I'm not disputing that; only that they are two incredibly different scenarios calling for different solutions. As far as "someone" paying for the oil spill, I think Obama has made that abundantly clear that it will be BP. It's the reason he wants an escrow set up NOW so that if in the future BP goes bankrupt, we'll already have some in the bank to help the victims who will suffer economically.
The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were considered an act of war. The invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001; the Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001; the Department of Homeland Security was formed on November 25, 2002.
The Gulf oil spill is a domestic accident. The two are incomparable as far as appropriate responses.
Yes they are, so why is Obama trying to compare them? Holy shit, I truly think he would send the military in to seize BP if they were in some ME nation instead of being in England, Yes, I am serious.
Once and for all, the only "comparison" (which is really wasn't) is that this disaster will have long-range repercussions leading to serious policy decisions, just as the attacks of 911 did. He is not comparing tragedy-to-tragedy. ("My disaster's bigger'n your disaster" nonsense. OF COURSE he didn't mean anything of the sort.)
I'm outta here. If people don't get this by now, you all have my condolences for the demise of your brains.
