Is it just me or do we have a personal injury attorney pretending to President?
No leadership. No accountability. Just blame, threats, bigger government, and more taxes.
He flat out lied when he said we are running out of places to drill. We have plenty of land and closer to shore (non deep) drilling left untapped.
This is what happens when you elect liberals, especially those unqualified for the job.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If we have "plenty" of safer places left to drill, why are oil companies drilling 5K (or deeper) under the ocean? If this is the case, then do you support a moratorium on deep-water drilling? After all, if we don't need it, why take the risk. Right?
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "No accountability," who would you like to be held accountable? The President? I didn't realize it was his fault that an oil rig exploded. The MMS? Because the President has appointed (too late, admittedly) Michael Bromwich to lead reforms and increase--you guessed it--accountability at the MMS (this, no doubt, qualifies as "bigger government" to you, but it is a strive for accountability nonetheless). BP? Because just today the President requested a $20 billion fund, overseen by a third party, to be set aside by BP to pay damages.
I don't understand, then, why you say "No accountability." As always, you have cited no facts to back up your opinions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe eco-nazi environmentalists are responsible for the necessity to drill 5K out. We have plenty of oil closer to shore that we aren't allow to tap. Oil that could be capped quickly if a similar disaster happened.
ReplyDeleteWe also have plenty of land available with oil and oil shale on land. We have enough oil and gas to supply America for the next 300 years, but we aren't allowed to get it.
All because of the enviro-Statists.
The $20 Billion strong armed from BP is un-Constitutional, not that it matters. Obama has wiped his ass with the Constitution since entering the White House.
He's judge, jury, and executioner. Closest thing to a dictator America's ever had.
I'm not necessarily a vehement defender of the current administration (which has escalated a war, allowed CIA drone attacks in Pakistan (arguably unconstitutional in its own right), and suppressed Supreme Court cases dealing with wrongful victims of U.S. torture), but Obama is about as much a dictator as any other President we've had. The previous administration allowed un-Constitutional wiretaps on innocent US citizens, incarcerated people without a trial (also un-Constitutional), and started a war under false pretenses. Was Bush a dictator? Pretty much every executive our government has ever had has engaged in abuses of power which could be considered dictatorial. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth... and a convenient one, for you, when there happens to be a Democrat in the White House.
ReplyDeleteAs for "eco-nazi environmentalists," I think they might be concerned about long-term environmental and health damage from careless, un-regulated extraction practices (a result of which is the current spill in the gulf). In upstate New York (where I live) there is currently a debate about drilling into the Marcellus shale. Many people are concerned because, in other places, the water tables have become contaminated from the chemicals used in the drilling. These are legitimate concerns, and even if you don't agree with the people you refer to (unfairly, I think) as "nazis," there is a reason for their logic.
And, even if we have enough oil for the next 300 years (which assumes that our rate of consumption will remain constant, which it will not)... then what? Is it okay to ignore a problem because it won't be our generation that has to deal with it? If that's your logic, why worry about our ballooning deficit? After all, it probably won't be you or I who has to deal with it, so what's the problem?
To recap-- if it comes down to your view (ignore harm to people and environment, continue our dependence on fossil fuels and assure our financial collapse at an indeterminate point in the future), or those "eco-nazis" who want to keep people healthy, our living spaces inhabitable, and solve a massive problem that could devastate us at any time in the future... sorry, but I'm with the "eco-nazis."
As for the $20 billion fund... do you have another solution? Should the taxpayers pay for the damage (which means more taxes, bigger federal government)? Should the people whose livelihoods were destroyed due to oversight in the name of the free market just be ignored? In other words, should they be punished for their own poor luck? I don't think so, and, aside from making BP pay for it, I don't see a reasonable option. Do you?
Thank you for responding to my comments. An open discourse benefits everyone, because it provides a more accurate glimpse at issues, with competing ideas and sound arguments, rather than the baseless name-calling and rhetoric that seems to prevail over most of the internet.
For the eco-Statist it is really about controlling people, not the environment. Global warming is a scam.
ReplyDeleteBush was not wiretapping regular Americans. NSA computers are looking for known terrorist communications, language, code words. Once found, the investigators still have to get a search warrant to wiretap and monitor particular suspects further.
It has worked, and it has caught terrorists before the act. It does not violate rights, because it skips over most of the communications in the US, focusing only on specifics.
I'm an all of the above as far as energy. Wind, solar, oil, coal, natural gas etc., What matters first is that we stop funding our enemies with oil money ASAP. We can do that right away with oil, coal, and natural gas right here. We have more energy than all the OPEC nations combined. Right now, "clean energy" is not capable of making us energy independent. It is only a supplement. Not ready for prime time. Someday it might be. Pursue it all, especially those energy sources we can use today.
BP is already on the hook for the disaster. The 20 billion dollar grab is unconstitutional. We already have system in place for redress called the judicial system. BP is already paying claims. They have over 600 people processing claims. The 20 billion will just become another boondoggle. The most important thing is to stop the leak.
There is no such thing as the free market when it comes to oil production. Can't do anything without govt permission. Obama's MMS approved the whole setup.
"For the eco-Statist it is really about controlling people, not the environment."
ReplyDeleteHow so? This just seems like baseless rhetoric to me. I don't see any benefit people get out of trying to control people through environmental action. I do, however, see an environmental benefit, and one that is essential to our continued survival.
"Bush was not wiretapping regular Americans."
Assuming this is true (which you have not proven, and I don't believe to be the case)... does that excuse the people wrongfully persecuted, detained and tortured under un-Constitutional means during the Bush administration? What about the case of Maher Arar, who was detained at JFK International Airport under suspicion of being an "Islamic Extremist?" He was deported to Syria, detained for ten months (in a six-foot-wide prison cell underground), and interrogated and tortured regularly. This was in 2002-- in 2006, a Canadian inquiry found him completely innocent of all charges. So then, that was okay? That was Constitutional? I think not.
If you're wondering what the verdict was in the US trial for Arar... it was thrown out by the Supreme Court. That's the judicial system you tout so highly as the "system in place for redress" in BP's case. Well, that didn't work so well in Arar's case... and it didn't work very well during the Exxon Valdez oil spill either; they ended up underpaying their settlement by millions of dollars, and the regional economy and environment is still suffering today. The judicial system in our country favors wealth, and it favors corporations. It does not, and will not ensure that people who are put out of work will be taken care of, which, I feel, they should be.
Also, I'm sorry... I didn't realize you had definitive proof that climate change isn't a reality, and is therefore a "scam." If I were you, I might go public with that information right away, because the global scientific consensus says otherwise, and you might be able to make a good chunk of change by proving or disproving the theory, which has yet to be accomplished. What is this proof you have that climate change "is a scam?" I'd love to hear it.
Also, it's not "Obama's MMS." It was under the Bush administration that the MMS did most of its research on deepwater drilling. In fact, here's an excerpt from a Bush-era MMS report: "The deepwater portion of Gulf of Mexico has shown a remarkable increase in oil and gas exploration, development and production. In part this is due to the development of new technologies reducing operational costs and risks, as well as the finding of reservoirs with high production wells."
That last part, in case you're still paying attention, explains that the reason we're drilling in the gulf is because it produces more than the average amount of oil; in other words, drilling in the gulf is profitable, and that's why they're doing it. Therefore, to say "The eco-nazi environmentalists are responsible for the necessity to drill 5K out" seems a bit too short-sighted to be accurate, don't you think? I do.