There's nothing funny about the Gulf...

[bbrosen]

this is a spirited thread.....btw. I lived thru katrina. i can tell anyone anything they want to know about it, so just ask.

 

[DrScrubs]

I said it was symbolic myself earlier. On that visit, IIRC, Barry didn't see any oil (meaning damage to wildlife and the coast). That's like Bush showing up weeks before Katrina made landfall and saying everything was hunky-dory. But I'm glad the helicopter didn't make the push out to the actual oil spill due to high winds. Obama's safety is very important to all of us. (Barry should have just walked on the water, as I have heard he can do, to go to the actual site)

But on May 2nd the oil hadn't reached the coast line yet. Can't blame the man for that. And whatever your views on the President, all Americans should be worried about the President's safety. To have any other views is borderline treason.

Sarcasm and/or condescension towards the opposition (as in Barry, libs in general) is a part of not just my style. I won't name at least one other member here that does so as well, and I have yet to see you call them out.

Again, I don't understand the need for people to justify an act of negativity by pointing out that someone else does it too. Whatever happened to sticking to your principle, honor and all that stuff? Did it die with chivalry and being a gentleman?

 

[Fenga Papit]

But on May 2nd the oil hadn't reached the coast line yet. Can't blame the man for that. And whatever your views on the President, all Americans should be worried about the President's safety. To have any other views is borderline treason.

Did you read my comparison with Bush and Katrina? If Bush had visited before Katrina hit he would have had a much different view that might have set back plans further.

The remainder I will address below.

Again, I don't understand the need for people to justify an act of negativity by pointing out that someone else does it too. Whatever happened to sticking to your principle, honor and all that stuff? Did it die with chivalry and being a gentleman?

Perhaps you should attend to yourself first. You just accused me of borderline treason because you believe I am not concerned for Barry's safety. How you took that from my words of "But I'm glad the helicopter didn't make the push out to the actual oil spill due to high winds. Obama's safety is very important to all of us." is beyond me. But somehow you did, and you accuse me of "borderline treason." Dear god....

 

[DrScrubs]

I did read your comparison with Bush and Katrina. You compared Obama visiting the Gulf on May 2nd and not seeing any damage to the wildlife and coast to Bush visiting New Orleans before Katrina hit and because he doesn't see any damages (because Katrina hasn't hit yet) says everything is hunky-dory.

Obama visited on May 2nd the oil hadn't reached the coast so it wasn't possible to see damages to the coast from the oil spill and it is hard to see damages to wildlife out in the ocean. I suppose he could have hopped on a boat and motored out to the oil spill to see dead fish floating in the water.

If Bush really did visit New Orleans before Katrina made landfall and declaring everything is hunky-dory, then that is not very smart for obvious reasons. When Obama visited on May 2nd, although he did not see any damages to the coast, he didn't declare everything to be hunky-dory as noted by the transcript of the speech he gave. He clearly stated that even though the oil hasn't reached the coast the threat is serious.

"Now, I think the American people are now aware, certainly the folks down in the Gulf are aware, that we're dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster. The oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the environment of our Gulf states and it could extend for a long time. It could jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home. "

Then to follow that up, he visited the Gulf again May 28th and this time did see the damages on the coast because the oil spill has reached the coast now.

So comparing Obama's visit on May 2nd to a hypothetical scenario of Bush vsiiting New Orleans before Katrina made landfall and thinking everything is hunky-dory is a poor comparison.

 

[Fenga Papit]

I did read your comparison with Bush and Katrina. You compared Obama visiting the Gulf on May 2nd and not seeing any damage to the wildlife and coast to Bush visiting New Orleans before Katrina hit and because he doesn't see any damages (because Katrina hasn't hit yet) says everything is hunky-dory.

Obama visited on May 2nd the oil hadn't reached the coast so it wasn't possible to see damages to the coast from the oil spill and it is hard to see damages to wildlife out in the ocean. I suppose he could have hopped on a boat and motored out to the oil spill to see dead fish floating in the water.

If Bush really did visit New Orleans before Katrina made landfall and declaring everything is hunky-dory, then that is not very smart for obvious reasons. When Obama visited on May 2nd, although he did not see any damages to the coast, he didn't declare everything to be hunky-dory as noted by the transcript of the speech he gave. He clearly stated that even though the oil hasn't reached the coast the threat is serious.

"Now, I think the American people are now aware, certainly the folks down in the Gulf are aware, that we're dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster. The oil that is still leaking from the well could seriously damage the economy and the environment of our Gulf states and it could extend for a long time. It could jeopardize the livelihoods of thousands of Americans who call this place home. "

Then to follow that up, he visited the Gulf again May 28th and this time did see the damages on the coast because the oil spill has reached the coast now.

So comparing Obama's visit on May 2nd to a hypothetical scenario of Bush vsiiting New Orleans before Katrina made landfall and thinking everything is hunky-dory is a poor comparison.

That's the most words in a post I have ever seen just to say "poor comparison." But what I find most interesting is that you accused me of borderline treason earlier, and even after I responded to that you spent a huge amount of words to say "poor comparison." My comparison got you worked up, but you must be happy with accusing me of treason because you misread or whatever. Like I said, most interesting.

 

[hakr100]

OMG! You have found the magic bullet that defeats any argument by using only two letters with two periods!!!

Your comment that President Obama did nothing in re: the BP Gulf Disaster for 30 days is B.S. or something worse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by only referring to the remark as B.S. The White House has from the beginning been intimately involved in determining the causes and effects, and has been involved from the beginning in pushing B.P. and the other contractors in the right direction. It also has dispatched all manner of personnel and equipment to the the cleanup. I believe that last week, the Republican governor of Mississippi stated publicly that the federal government was doing all that could be done under the circumstances.

If you don't know that, you are ill-informed. You must be aware that the federal government does not have the equipment on hand to repair oil well damage a mile underwater. Apparently the oil industry does not, either. It would be useful to curtail that sort of oil drilling until the technology impacting the U.S. environment catches up with the ability to make an holy mess of our ocean environment, wetlands and shorelines.

 

[hakr100]

Sarcasm and/or condescension towards the opposition (as in Barry, libs in general) is a part of not just my style. I won't name at least one other member here that does so as well, and I have yet to see you call them out.

Why not take the advice of the moderator and tone it down some, eh?

 

[DrScrubs]

I said it was symbolic myself earlier. On that visit, IIRC, Barry didn't see any oil (meaning damage to wildlife and the coast). That's like Bush showing up weeks before Katrina made landfall and saying everything was hunky-dory. But I'm glad the helicopter didn't make the push out to the actual oil spill due to high winds. Obama's safety is very important to all of us. (Barry should have just walked on the water, as I have heard he can do, to go to the actual site)

Perhaps you should attend to yourself first. You just accused me of borderline treason because you believe I am not concerned for Barry's safety. How you took that from my words of "But I'm glad the helicopter didn't make the push out to the actual oil spill due to high winds. Obama's safety is very important to all of us." is beyond me. But somehow you did, and you accuse me of "borderline treason." Dear god....

My comments that you were responding to:

But on May 2nd the oil hadn't reached the coast line yet. Can't blame the man for that. And whatever your views on the President, all Americans should be worried about the President's safety. To have any other views is borderline treason.

Again, I don't understand the need for people to justify an act of negativity by pointing out that someone else does it too. Whatever happened to sticking to your principle, honor and all that stuff? Did it die with chivalry and being a gentleman?

First, I am not justifying a negativity by pointing out someone does it too. So what do you mean by I "should attend to myself first"?

Second, I did not accuse you of borderline treason. You are reaching to declare I am accusing you when I stated "to have any other views is borderline treason". I am stating to have "other views" other than to be concerned about the President's safety (any President of the U.S, not just Obama. i.e I was rather insulted when someone threw a shoe at Bush. Like it or not he was our President and that is a shoe thrown at all of us.) is borderline treason. I did not say you are the one to have those "other views". I think you are jumping to conclusions a little [edit from "to"]too defensively there. I can't speak to why you got so defensive so easily and made a reaching assumption. By doing so you inferred something that was not stated, and as you wrote yourself...am I to be responsible for your own inference that I cannot control?

Third, if someone were to read into your comments about Obama's safety and jump to a conclusion (which shouldn't be done) that you don't care about Obama's safety it would be only as far fetched as you inferring I accused you of borderline treason. The reason is because you followed your comment about Obama's safety with a sarcastic remark about Obama walking on water. (Sarcastic because any reasonable person would know he cannot walk on water whatever insane comments you may have heard.) A casual reader of the forum could easily take your remarks about Obama's safety as sounding sarcastic as well. As it is, it is not possible to determine sarcasm when something is typed. It is much easier to determine sarcasm through a person's tone in their voice.

 

[DrScrubs]

That's the most words in a post I have ever seen just to say "poor comparison." But what I find most interesting is that you accused me of borderline treason earlier, and even after I responded to that you spent a huge amount of words to say "poor comparison." My comparison got you worked up, but you must be happy with accusing me of treason because you misread or whatever. Like I said, most interesting.

Apologies, I was responding to you. I, apparently, do not type very fast.

 

[hakr100]

Just to get back on track, here's the latest:

BP's top kill effort fails to plug Gulf oil leak

By BEN NUCKOLS, Associated Press Writer Ben Nuckols, Associated Press Writer 6 mins ago

ROBERT, La. – BP has failed in its latest attempt to plug the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico with mud and cement, the company said Saturday.
BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said the company determined the "top kill" method had failed after studying it for three days. The method involved pumping heavy drilling mud into a crippled well 5,000 feet underwater.
"We have not been able to stop the flow," Suttles said. "We have made the decision to move onto the next option."
It was the latest setback for the company trying to stop the crude from further fouling waters, wildlife and marshland. Other attempts included a gigantic box placed over the leak and a tube inserted to siphon the oil away. The box failed after ice-like crystals clogged it, while the tube was removed to make way for the top kill after it sucked up more than 900,000 gallons of oil.
The spill is the worst in U.S. history and has dumped between 18 million and 40 million gallons into the Gulf, according to government estimates.
BP says it's already preparing for the next attempt to stop the leak. Under the new plan, BP would use robot submarines to cut off the damaged riser from which the oil is leaking, and then try to cap it with a containment valve. The new attempt would take four days to complete.
"We're confident the job will work but obviously we can't guarantee success," Suttles said of the new plan.


At some point, I hope to see serious criminal charges placed against B.P. execs at the highest levels.

 

[Fenga Papit]

Your comment that President Obama did nothing in re: the BP Gulf Disaster for 30 days is B.S. or something worse. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by only referring to the remark as B.S. The White House has from the beginning been intimately involved in determining the causes and effects, and has been involved from the beginning in pushing B.P. and the other contractors in the right direction. It also has dispatched all manner of personnel and equipment to the the cleanup. I believe that last week, the Republican governor of Mississippi stated publicly that the federal government was doing all that could be done under the circumstances.

If you don't know that, you are ill-informed. You must be aware that the federal government does not have the equipment on hand to repair oil well damage a mile underwater. Apparently the oil industry does not, either. It would be useful to curtail that sort of oil drilling until the technology impacting the U.S. environment catches up with the ability to make an holy mess of our ocean environment, wetlands and shorelines.

Citations, please. From credible sources.

Why not take the advice of the moderator and tone it down some, eh?

You say this after your personal attack above! ROFLMAO! I'll take up you with a mod.

 

[DrScrubs]

At some point, I hope to see serious criminal charges placed against B.P. execs at the highest levels.

Wishful thinking. I hope so, but I doubt it. Big money gets you out of a lot of blame.

 

[Fenga Papit]

My comments that you were responding to:





First, I am not justifying a negativity by pointing out someone does it too. So what do you mean by I "should attend to myself first"?

Second, I did not accuse you of borderline treason. You are reaching to declare I am accusing you when I stated "to have any other views is borderline treason". I am stating to have "other views" other than to be concerned about the President's safety (any President of the U.S, not just Obama. i.e I was rather insulted when someone threw a shoe at Bush. Like it or not he was our President and that is a shoe thrown at all of us.) is borderline treason. I did not say you are the one to have those "other views". I think you are jumping to conclusions a little [edit from "to"]too defensively there. I can't speak to why you got so defensive so easily and made a reaching assumption. By doing so you inferred something that was not stated, and as you wrote yourself...am I to be responsible for your own inference that I cannot control?

Third, if someone were to read into your comments about Obama's safety and jump to a conclusion (which shouldn't be done) that you don't care about Obama's safety it would be only as far fetched as you inferring I accused you of borderline treason. The reason is because you followed your comment about Obama's safety with a sarcastic remark about Obama walking on water. (Sarcastic because any reasonable person would know he cannot walk on water whatever insane comments you may have heard.) A casual reader of the forum could easily take your remarks about Obama's safety as sounding sarcastic as well. As it is, it is not possible to determine sarcasm when something is typed. It is much easier to determine sarcasm through a person's tone in their voice.

Let's cut to the chase without so many words, shall we?

I made a comment, "But I'm glad the helicopter didn't make the push out to the actual oil spill due to high winds. Obama's safety is very important to all of us." You must have taken specific issue with that, because you placed a fine point on it in your response by saying, "And whatever your views on the President, all Americans should be worried about the President's safety. To have any other views is borderline treason." Come on, if you were just making a general statement for the benefit of mankind then there would have been NO reason to make sure you drew special attention to what you assumed to be my views on the president, including his safety.

Now you're trying to play a game of semantics and declare I was too sensitive. Well damn skippy. I'm kinda funny like that. After serving in Afghanistan and Iraq I kind of take it personal when someone points a finger at me with their shaky assumption and warns me about "borderline treason" in response to my comment about Obama's safety. You don't know me, you only think you do.

 

[DrScrubs]

I don't make much of an assumption (if any) on your views about the President. I am rather aware you do not approve of [added]a number[added] of his work.

However, I was not accusing you being borderline treasonous. I drew special attention to your views about the President because I know you do not approve of his work and used that as a springboard to state that all Americans should still be worried about his safety whether or not they agree with the President or not. It nothing specific about you because I do not know whether you care about the President's safety or not.

I am not playing semantics, but am rather clearly stating what I wrote. To have been more accurate my statement should have stated: "And whatever one's view on the President etc..." or "And even if a person has a negative view of the President, etc...I apologize that you inferred something that was not implied.

I don't think I know you at all. I don't know anyone here. I do not comment on these forums about people's character, but rather on what was written. What a person writes may or may not be who they really are in person. It would be foolish to make assumptions about a person here.

 

[Fenga Papit]

I don't make much of an assumption (if any) on your views about the President. I am rather aware you do not approve of [added]a number[added] of his work.

However, I was not accusing you being borderline treasonous. I drew special attention to your views about the President because I know you do not approve of his work and used that as a springboard to state that all Americans should still be worried about his safety whether or not they agree with the President or not. It nothing specific about you because I do not know whether you care about the President's safety or not.

I am not playing semantics, but am rather clearly stating what I wrote. To have been more accurate my statement should have stated: "And whatever one's view on the President etc..." or "And even if a person has a negative view of the President, etc...I apologize that you inferred something that was not implied.

I don't think I know you at all. I don't know anyone here. I do not comment on these forums about people's character, but rather on what was written. What a person writes may or may not be who they really are in person. It would be foolish to make assumptions about a person here.

Right. So out of the blue you just happened to feel an uncontrollable urge to issue a warning to mankind in general about the president's safety and tie it up with "borderline treason." And somehow in that uncontrollable urge to issue your warning to mankind, you made sure you leveled it straight at me....but that's just happenstance, it could have happened to anyone, right? It had nothing at all to do with my statement, that's what you're claiming, right? It was all complete coincidence and a misunderstanding, right? If you really believe what you're selling then I have a bridge you might like. Some waterfront property too.

 

[DrScrubs]

Hmm????

It was not a coincidence. I made my comment about how all Americans should worry about the President's safety because you commented about his safety. My comment had everything to do with your comment. It was not out of the blue.

But I did not accuse you of being borderline treasonous. I used your comment as a way to state that everyone should be concerned about the President's safety.

If you must know my thought process, when I read your comment, I thought about a Facebook group that implies they are praying for Obama's death. And I disagree with such a sentiment if someone were to have it. But I did not say you had such a sentiment or was not concern about Obama's safety.

 

[IOWA]

Are we forgetting it was the dems/libs pushing for off shore drilling and it was gwb that stopped them during his era?

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

EDIT: oh? Treason you say? It is not treason to question/defy a man who refuses to prove he is even a citizen of this country.

 

[Fenga Papit]

Hmm????

It was not a coincidence. I made my comment about how all Americans should worry about the President's safety because you commented about his safety. My comment had everything to do with your comment. It was not out of the blue.

But I did not accuse you of being borderline treasonous. I used your comment as a way to state that everyone should be concerned about the President's safety.

If you must know my thought process, when I read your comment, I thought about a Facebook group that implies they are praying for Obama's death. And I disagree with such a sentiment if someone were to have it. But I did not say you had such a sentiment or was not concern about Obama's safety.

That's not how your statement reads. But hey, I'll let you have that bridge cheap.

Are we forgetting it was the dems/libs pushing for off shore drilling and it was gwb that stopped them during his era?

Tapatalk. Samsung Moment. Yep.

Take a look at the BP plan Obama and his regime approved. Walruses in the gulf? Bet ya never knew!

In its emergency plans in the event of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP made clear it knows how to save "seals, sea otters, and walruses" in the Gulf waters. The only problem is, no such animals live in the Gulf.

Indeed, it appears BP literally copied and pasted emergency response plans to apply to any spill in the world, regardless of the reality of the local ecosystems. While "seals, sea otters, and walruses" are a concern for oil spills in colder waters, there are none of those animals in the Gulf.

"BP​

 

[DrScrubs]

Are we forgetting it was the dems/libs pushing for off shore drilling and it was gwb that stopped them during his era?

Then I guess that is a +1 for Bush.

EDIT: oh? Treason you say? It is not treason to question/defy a man who refuses to prove he is even a citizen of this country.

Obama produced a Certificate of Live Birth. I know, I know. People still claim that is not good enough. Or rather it was forged or a fake.

My argument then is with people claiming the CLB is a fake or a forgery, the burden of proof then falls on them to prove that unequivocally. I mean, someone stole 3 VERY valuable painting from the National Museum in France. I am sure someone can break into Records in Hawaii to find evidence proving Obama was not born in the U.S.

Until there is proof that Obama was not born in the U.S, it remains illegal defy orders from the President (whether military orders or civilian laws signed by Obama). We still follow "Innocent until proven guilty" in the U.S. We can't simply choose to disobey simply because of suspicion. That could lead to widespread anarchy.

But anyone can question Obama all he/she wants. It is your right!! God Bless the U.S.A for that!

 

[DrScrubs]

That's not how your statement reads. But hey, I'll let you have that bridge cheap.

Again I apologize that you inferred that I accused you. I was not implying that.

Allow me to ask what you mean by selling me a bridge for cheap along with some waterfront property?

 

[hakr100]

EDIT: oh? Treason you say? It is not treason to question/defy a man who refuses to prove he is even a citizen of this country.

The State of Hawaii has posted an official copy of Obama's birth certificate. I've seen it. It is virtually the same as mine. Mine was good enough to get a United States passport.

You know, I never saw a copy of George W. Bush's birth certificate. Did he ever prove he was a citizen of the United States?

Where's Orly Taitz when you need her?

BTW, here's a sat photo from today showing some black, oily blotches (on the left) heading towards the shores of Texas.

http://img243.imageshack.us/f/oilofftxshore29may1o.png/

Will Texas be joining the impending lawsuits against BP?

 

[Fenga Papit]

Again I apologize that you inferred that I accused you. I was not implying that.

Thank you, accepted. I didn't see earlier if you apologized since you said "again."

Allow me to ask what you mean by selling me a bridge for cheap along with some waterfront property?

Have you not heard of selling someone the Brooklyn bridge before? Meaning that the person is gullible or will believe anything? Same with the waterfront property. At some point in the 70's or 80's people would get a mailer announcing they had won some drawing or some contest. The "prize" company usually got their names, addresses, phone number, etc. from one of those contest entry forms at product booths they have at county and state fairs, or even at industry shows like they still have today. But nowadays it is done by Internet marketing and contests to data mine the names and contact info. Then the "prize" company would follow up with phone calls and aggressive, boiler room sales people to get an appointment to meet with the couple in their home. That was the whole setup for the "closer" salesperson to show up and strong-arm sell the unwitting couple some "waterfront property" in some other state, usually Florida. Only problem was the land was usually in a swamp or even below water in a lake or reservoir. Again, it was for the gullible.

There was an excellent movie with an all-star cast that was based on this scam called "Glengarry Glen Ross" in 1992. Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin, Alan Arkin, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey, and more. It's a great drama that you can find if you have Netflix or a local movie store rental membership.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

 

[DrScrubs]

I apologized out of respect to your service for this nation. If it was anyone else, I would have left it as being overly sensitive, reaching too far in seeing an accusation that wasn't there and let that person deal with it him/herself.

Essentially similar to how you stated you can't control how people react to what you say and not apologize for your posts despite people being offended.

Regarding the bridge, are you implying I am gullible? How does that work considering I was making the statements that I was not accusing you but rather you saw something that wasn't there? What are you trying to sell me that makes me gullible?

Also, someone could take offense at being implied that they are gullible. That is what people here mean when they say you resort to personal attacks and sarcasm as your debating weapon of choice.

Sent Using Tapatalk

 

[IOWA]

Then you didn't understand. I'm talking about your posting style in general. The liberal use of sarcasm and condescention towards those with an opposing opinion, specifically. You conduct a more-than-adequate debate without them, and they serve only to undermine your arguments.

Sorry to throw this off-track, but just a note to the mod. People use sarcasm all across the board, even some mod's to. Why single out someone for using it in THIS thread? Sometimes, sarcasm has a unique way of pointing out the obvious clearer than "being nice"

 

[Vihzel]

Why is it that Obama is asked to prove his citizenship while no other president before him hasn't? Is it because he's African American? That seems to be the only logical explanation since the ONLY difference between him and the previous presidents is his skin color.