Metal Sludge Gossip Board

But to be fair I'm disappointed that Romney didn't come out right away and demanded actions when we first heard about the oil spill.

But anyway Obama is not a good leader.


"How in the world can you leave to BP the responsiblity for cleaning up the oil spill when they're the ones who created it in the first place? We need a leader. We need a leader in this country," Romney said.

Mitt Romney, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, criticized President Barack Obama on Thursday for not taking a stronger roll in handling the Gulf oil spill disaster."
http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/Romney.faul ... 43192.html

Listen.. if it was a Republican President that this was happening under, the leading Democrats would be saying the same shit to him. So let's not pretend Romney is doing anything crazy here.

All that said, Obama's response to this mess has been less than ideal.

Mitt Romney wrote: How in the world can you leave to BP the responsiblity for cleaning up the oil spill when they're the ones who created it in the first place?

Mr. Romney does not understand why British Petroleum should be made to clean up the mess they created? I guess he would rather that the US government shoulder the burden instead. Apparently, the magic underwear shield against irony and hypocrisy too.

Romney's wildly popular in Utah. If that isn't reason enough to not take anything he says seriously, I don't know what is.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Mitt Romney wrote: How in the world can you leave to BP the responsiblity for cleaning up the oil spill when they're the ones who created it in the first place?

Mr. Romney does not understand why British Petroleum should be made to clean up the mess they created? I guess he would rather that the US government shoulder the burden instead.

The US government? You mean the US taxpayer. They, in the end will pay for it anyway.

Nevermind wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Mitt Romney wrote: How in the world can you leave to BP the responsiblity for cleaning up the oil spill when they're the ones who created it in the first place?

Mr. Romney does not understand why British Petroleum should be made to clean up the mess they created? I guess he would rather that the US government shoulder the burden instead.

The US government? You mean the US taxpayer.

Yes, the US government is funded by the US taxpayers. I didn't see the need to state the obvious.

Nevermind wrote:They, in the end will pay for it anyway.

Minus the arm and leg BP will pay out.

I wonder if Mitt Romney owns stock in BP? For that matter, how many others from both parties own BP stock? I would guess there are quite a few.

Just curious as BP merged with Amoco back in 98 and also acquired Arco shortly after. There's probably a bunch more UK & US acquisitions too.

I looked at BP share ownership and it is practically split evenly between US and UK investors.
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongeneri ... Id=7019612

On another note, I found it surprising that Obama was using the name British Petroleum when that has not been the official name for over 10 years, a long while after the British Govt sold their significant holding. Someone should have told him he was wrong a little earlier as now he's trying to back track the anti-Brit tone with the UK govt. But then again, the US mid terms are coming up and he initially needed to do a bit of tubthumping I guess.

Supersonic wrote:I wonder if Mitt Romney owns stock in BP? For that matter, how many others from both parties own BP stock? I would guess there are quite a few.

Just curious as BP merged with Amoco back in 98 and also acquired Arco shortly after. There's probably a bunch more UK & US acquisitions too.

I looked at BP share ownership and it is practically split evenly between US and UK investors.
http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongeneri ... Id=7019612

On another note, I found it surprising that Obama was using the name British Petroleum when that has not been the official name for over 10 years, a long while after the British Govt sold their significant holding. Someone should have told him he was wrong a little earlier as now he's trying to back track the anti-Brit tone with the UK govt. But then again, the US mid terms are coming up and he initially needed to do a bit of tubthumping I guess.

Meh, it's like I said a long time ago - he's as dumb as the guy he replaced. Since the "corpse-men" fiasco, people are actually starting to notice.

JakeYonkel wrote:Listen.. if it was a Republican President that this was happening under, the leading Democrats would be saying the same shit to him. So let's not pretend Romney is doing anything crazy here.

All that said, Obama's response to this mess has been less than ideal.

Thats true, but anybody calling this Obama's Katrina (a hurricane which killed 2000 people) is fucking stupid.

thejuggernaut wrote:Meh, it's like I said a long time ago - he's as dumb as the guy he replaced. Since the "corpse-men" fiasco, people are actually starting to notice.

Awesome, we've got batshit crazy conspiracy theorist Juggernaut calling Harvard-educated Obama dumb. No one listened to you "a long time ago" when you said that, because no one takes you seriously, you tinfoil-hat wearing mongoloid.

Of course everyone here knew that British Petroleum is no longer the official name, right? That is, before they read in in the press over the past couple of days?

Ugmo wrote:Of course everyone here knew that British Petroleum is no longer the official name, right? That is, before they read in in the press over the past couple of days?

Well I knew it is BP but then I'm a Brit anyway.

Ugmo wrote:

thejuggernaut wrote:Meh, it's like I said a long time ago - he's as dumb as the guy he replaced. Since the "corpse-men" fiasco, people are actually starting to notice.

Awesome, we've got batshit crazy conspiracy theorist Juggernaut calling Harvard-educated Obama dumb. No one listened to you "a long time ago" when you said that, because no one takes you seriously, you tinfoil-hat wearing mongoloid.

Of course everyone here knew that British Petroleum is no longer the official name, right? That is, before they read in in the press over the past couple of days?

Thank god Mattie The Astute, the man in denial, showed up to lend his brilliance to the thread.

Hey, is it the leopard pants or the eye liner you wear to distract people from the fact that you're rocking long curly hair on a receding hairline with a double chin ?

MadmanShepherd wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:Listen.. if it was a Republican President that this was happening under, the leading Democrats would be saying the same shit to him. So let's not pretend Romney is doing anything crazy here.

All that said, Obama's response to this mess has been less than ideal.

Thats true, but anybody calling this Obama's Katrina (a hurricane which killed 2000 people) is fucking stupid.

Apples and oranges IMO.

President Bush delegated the responsibility to coordinate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Those people who were in charge fucked up but at least Bush did something

With the oil spill, Obama did nothing. Zero point zero. So far he has accomplished nothing more than saying "I'm going to fire someone".

FullDJacket wrote:

MadmanShepherd wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:Listen.. if it was a Republican President that this was happening under, the leading Democrats would be saying the same shit to him. So let's not pretend Romney is doing anything crazy here.

All that said, Obama's response to this mess has been less than ideal.

Thats true, but anybody calling this Obama's Katrina (a hurricane which killed 2000 people) is fucking stupid.

Apples and oranges IMO.

President Bush delegated the responsibility to coordinate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Those people who were in charge fucked up but at least Bush did something

With the oil spill, Obama did nothing. Zero point zero. So far he has accomplished nothing more than saying "I'm going to fire someone".

Obama hates white people, particularly the rednecks who didn't vote for him in the gulf coast states.

thejuggernaut wrote:

FullDJacket wrote:

MadmanShepherd wrote: Thats true, but anybody calling this Obama's Katrina (a hurricane which killed 2000 people) is fucking stupid.

Apples and oranges IMO.

President Bush delegated the responsibility to coordinate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Those people who were in charge fucked up but at least Bush did something

With the oil spill, Obama did nothing. Zero point zero. So far he has accomplished nothing more than saying "I'm going to fire someone".

Obama hates white people, particularly the rednecks who didn't vote for him in the gulf coast states.

I'll go as far as saying that Obama has a weird mindset when it comes to racial issues. However, I don't think that comes into play on this issue. When it comes to the oil spill it's about bad leadership.

FullDJacket wrote:

thejuggernaut wrote:

FullDJacket wrote:
Apples and oranges IMO.

President Bush delegated the responsibility to coordinate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. Those people who were in charge fucked up but at least Bush did something

With the oil spill, Obama did nothing. Zero point zero. So far he has accomplished nothing more than saying "I'm going to fire someone".

Obama hates white people, particularly the rednecks who didn't vote for him in the gulf coast states.

I'll go as far as saying that Obama has a weird mindset when it comes to racial issues. However, I don't think that comes into play on this issue. When it comes to the oil spill it's about bad leadership.

Nope, he hates white people, especially the rednecks.

I mean, let's remember - Bush hates blacks, hence his actions with Katrina, so the only "reasonable" conclusion for Obama's actions must be because he hates white people.

Obama can't do much about this spill. He can pressure BP and he can go after the money once it's over, but that's about it. What he should do is lift the moratorium that is beginning to make a bad situation worse and he can push to legislate new regulations that will help prevent another one of these. His moratorium, in the middle of a recession, is going to really fuck over the region. The fisherman are out of work, lets make sure the oil guys are too, you know, since they're evil and all. It's not as if offshore drilling has any economic impact or anything. If he does need to fire somebody so he can appear proactive, I'd start with the advisor that told him a knee jerk drilling freeze was a good idea.

bane wrote:Obama can't do much about this spill. He can pressure BP and he can go after the money once it's over, but that's about it. What he should do is lift the moratorium that is beginning to make a bad situation worse and he can push to legislate new regulations that will help prevent another one of these. His moratorium, in the middle of a recession, is going to really fuck over the region. The fisherman are out of work, lets make sure the oil guys are too, you know, since they're evil and all. It's not as if offshore drilling has any economic impact or anything. If he does need to fire somebody so he can appear proactive, I'd start with the advisor that told him a knee jerk drilling freeze was a good idea.

Fact is that if BP had not circumvented safety procedures all along the way, this would not have happened. Fire the regulators who were literally in bed with them, that's the first step. And I agree the moratorium should be lifted.

However, BP is NOT concerned with the ecological damage, at all, and the clock is ticking on survival of the Gulf's ecosystem, maybe the entire Atlantic Ocean's. I think it's time for Obama to either pull BPO back and nuke that fucking hole, or acquire their equipment and assets, temporarily or permanently, and have the military utilize them with a mind to sealing the leaks ASAP rather than preserving access to the oil, which is apparently BP's goal.

People are worried about BP's stock value more than the life of the Gulf, the ocean, maybe the fucking planet. We need to home in on what is really important here and do something while there's time for it to matter.

And BP may be a multinational, but it is still basically a British-based and controlled company. The name was changed for PR reasons but control is still based in Britain.

It does appear that BP circumvented saftey protocals that would have prevented this, and they will pay for it, through the nose, but that doesn't necessarily prevent it from happening again. Accidents happen. What the feds can, and should be doing is looking into ways to make sure that any accident like this one has a minimal impact in the future. I think we should be looking into requiring relief wells in place alongside any well. Expensive yes, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I have no comment on a potential military operation to clean up this mess other than to say that the military isn't trained or equipped to do it. The people with the skills and the know how to do it are already on the ground. Let them do their jobs and deal with the financial ramifications after the emergency is over. The federal government should be doing everything they can to HELP BP right now. They should rescind the Jones act temporarily and allow the Dutch to help us etc. All this tough talk about seizing BP assets etc is just that. It's nothing more than political posturing. As to a nuke, I'm not all that crazy about detonating a nuclear bomb a 100 miles off the Louisianna coast. Particularly when we have no idea whether it will work or not.

bane wrote:It does appear that BP circumvented saftey protocals that would have prevented this, and they will pay for it, through the nose, but that doesn't necessarily prevent it from happening again. Accidents happen. What the feds can, and should be doing is looking into ways to make sure that any accident like this one has a minimal impact in the future. I think we should be looking into requiring relief wells in place alongside any well. Expensive yes, but if that's what it takes, then that's what it takes. I have no comment on a potential military operation to clean up this mess other than to say that the military isn't trained or equipped to do it. The people with the skills and the know how to do it are already on the ground. Let them do their jobs and deal with the financial ramifications after the emergency is over. The federal government should be doing everything they can to HELP BP right now. They should rescind the Jones act temporarily and allow the Dutch to help us etc. All this tough talk about seizing BP assets etc is just that. It's nothing more than political posturing. As to a nuke, I'm not all that crazy about detonating a nuclear bomb a 100 miles off the Louisianna coast. Particularly when we have no idea whether it will work or not.

I'm a lot closer to that potential bomb than you are and I';m not thrilled either, but it seems that NOBODY has another answer that will work.

What I feel is that this shows that the government NEEDS the ability to step in and handle a problem like this, and what agancy of the government other than the military would be geared upo to cut the crap and get in fast? It might not be much help for this time, frankly, but I think we need the capability. It's obvious that BP is more concerned about its stock value than saving the Gulf from eco-death.

As for seizing BP assets, yes it's talk - because ALL of our pols are in their pocket via campaign contributioins. I think Congress and Obama need to grow a pair as an object lesson to ALL multinationals that there ARE times when the life of the region or the planet are gonna supercede profits.

TYhat would be the best motivation for other companies of all kinds to keep a balance between profit and safety in mind. If they could stand to lose it all, or even the chunk in US hands, that's the best motive to do it right and not take shortcuts for profit's sake. Which they've blown to shit this time anyway.

I'll add that in 2 or 4 months, whatever, we could WELL have BP saying, "Oops, we missd! Trying for a 22" target in miles of drilling, well sorry, they both missed".

What then?

lerxstcat wrote:I'll add that in 2 or 4 months, whatever, we could WELL have BP saying, "Oops, we missd! Trying for a 22" target in miles of drilling, well sorry, they both missed".

What then?

Good question. I hope we never have to try to answer it. At that point, if a nuke is the best option, then it's the best option, but when the experts say this is our best shot, I think we should take it before we resort to detonating nukes. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that there might be just a tad bit of risk in detonating a bomb in a gigantic resevoir of oil.

bane wrote:

lerxstcat wrote:I'll add that in 2 or 4 months, whatever, we could WELL have BP saying, "Oops, we missd! Trying for a 22" target in miles of drilling, well sorry, they both missed".

What then?

Good question. I hope we never have to try to answer it. At that point, if a nuke is the best option, then it's the best option, but when the experts say this is our best shot, I think we should take it before we resort to detonating nukes. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that there might be just a tad bit of risk in detonating a bomb in a gigantic resevoir of oil.

We don't detonate it IN the reservoir. We detonate it near the top of the bedrock layer, a couple miles up from the reservoir. Besides it'd take oxygen to make that oil burn and explode, and the oil in the whole surrounding area has already deptleted the oxygen content to nil.

The idea is to seal it with a nuke BEFORE it has killed all life in the Gulf. 2 or 4 months from now, it will be too late for that. That is kind of the point of doing it sooner rather than later. They could always continue with the relief wells if it didn't work.

We're not talking an ICBM nuke. We're talking tactical nuke of about the strength designed for tank artillery or jet fighters. Relatively low yield, radiation dissapates rapidly, effects would be somewhat contained by it going off a mile underwater.