Obama's Katrina

Shady · June 3, 2010

Not surprised.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Yep, George Bush placed a ban in the 90's. Yep. George W bush lifted the ban. What's your point? The lifting of the ban was mostly symbolic, as Congress would have to follow suit in order for anything to progress. I'm still not sure what issue you're trying to address.

GostHacked · June 3, 2010

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Yep, George Bush placed a ban in the 90's. Yep. George W bush lifted the ban. What's your point? The lifting of the ban was mostly symbolic, as Congress would have to follow suit in order for anything to progress. I'm still not sure what issue you're trying to address.

You remind me a lot of Shake on Aqua Teen Hunger Force.. when Shake was shown he did something wrong through video evidence Shake comments ... 'that's clearly not me!'.

Deny everything Shady. It's what you are good at.

Shady · June 3, 2010

You remind me a lot of Shake on Aqua Teen Hunger Force.. when Shake was shown he did something wrong through video evidence Shake comments ... 'that's clearly not me!'.

Deny everything Shady. It's what you are good at.

Um, you could just mention which earlier point you're addressing. :rolleyes:

GostHacked · June 3, 2010

Um, you could just mention which earlier point you're addressing.

Usually I refrain from calling someone a complete imbecile, and in this case I shall do the same.

Go back a couple pages and read. But I doubt you can even do that.

Shady · June 3, 2010

Usually I refrain from calling someone a complete imbecile, and in this case I shall do the same.

Go back a couple pages and read. But I doubt you can even do that.

I don't make people go back to re-read several pages of posts. If I have an outstanding issue, I just repost my earlier comment. I suggest you do the same. But I think you like to be purposely vague, so you can pretend to stand on your high horse, with a sense of pseduo-superiority. Extra emphasis on the pseduo part.

BubberMiley · June 3, 2010

Extra emphasis on the pseduo part.

Is the extra emphasis to point out what a bad speller you are?

Shady · June 3, 2010

Is the extra emphasis to point out what a bad speller you are?

Nope. Just typing too fast. You must be out of ammo if you've resorted to forum spelling issues. :rolleyes:

BubberMiley · June 3, 2010

You must be out of ammo if you've resorted to forum spelling issues.

Yep. By pretending your sources say what they don't say, and then pretending you don't know what anyone is talking about, the debate does kind of drift off to the irrelevant. Way to go. You can post in your status update how you're "owning" the forum again. :lol:

punked · June 3, 2010

Your Democrat written opinion piece doesn't assert even one Bush policy. Again, I'd love to see some proof of your accusation. But alas, nothing.

Yep. Because government workers never do anything wrong.

Shady you can't even read from the article

Consider, for example, the fiasco of the Royalty in Kind program. The saga starts back in 1997 when, under Bill Clinton, the government cared about doing things properly. At this point in time, MMS responded to evidence that energy interests were underpaying royalties to the federal government by proposing a more stringent rule to collect Royalties in Value (RIV), i.e., money from drillers and miners. Industry didn't like that and countered instead with a proposal to pay Royalties in Kind (RIK), i.e., oil or gas that they thought would be cheaper. The Clinton administration agreed to an RIK pilot program, but soon found itself out of office. Then along came the Bush administration and Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force, which was urged by the American Petroleum Institute to aggressively expand the program. Starting in 2003, the Government Accountability Office repeatedly issued criticisms of the RIK program on a nearly annual basis saying it lacked "clear strategic objectives linked to statutory requirements" and shouldn't be expanded

ALL THE ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT IS POLICY. Go back and read it. Or refute but don't pretend like you read it you clearly didnt

GostHacked · June 3, 2010

I don't make people go back to re-read several pages of posts. If I have an outstanding issue, I just repost my earlier comment. I suggest you do the same. But I think you like to be purposely vague, so you can pretend to stand on your high horse, with a sense of pseduo-superiority. Extra emphasis on the pseduo part.

Well, you should go back. It's not that hard. Besides it was only a couple pages ago that were posted today, so that should be fresh in your mind, unless you got a case of the ADHD.

It will also help you by actually re-reading some posts. I do and I end up getting more out of it. Sometimes I even find myself in the wrong. It would do you justice to do the same.

Again, I won't call you an imbecile here.

Shady · June 3, 2010

ALL THE ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT IS POLICY.

It talks about royalties. Nothing else.

Shady · June 3, 2010

Yep. By pretending your sources say what they don't say, and then pretending you don't know what anyone is talking about, the debate does kind of drift off to the irrelevant. Way to go. You can post in your status update how you're "owning" the forum again.

Nope. You're the one who posted links that included nothing of which you were asserting. Deepwater drilling isn't only going on because there's no more resources closer to shore. That's a complete lie. As I've already posted. There's been a coastal ban on drilling in shallow waters for decades. So your claim holds no water. Pun intended. :lol:

punked · June 3, 2010

Nope. You're the one who posted links that included nothing of which you were asserting. Deepwater drilling isn't only going on because there's no more resources closer to shore. That's a complete lie. As I've already posted. There's been a coastal ban on drilling in shallow waters for decades. So your claim holds no water. Pun intended.

How did regulators approve a new shallow water off shore drilling sight yesterday if there is ban on them? Oh it is cause you made that up.

Shady · June 3, 2010

How did regulators approve a new shallow water off shore drilling sight yesterday if there is ban on them? Oh it is cause you made that up.

Complete nonsense. As the map I posted earlier illustrates. 90% of the coastal waters are banned from drilling. Only about 10% is opened. They still approve shallow water drilling in the tiny bit of land left for coastal drilling.

punked · June 3, 2010

Complete nonsense. As the map I posted earlier illustrates. 90% of the coastal waters are banned from drilling. Only about 10% is opened. They still approve shallow water drilling in the tiny bit of land left for coastal drilling.

It is like you don't even read the news Shady. From yesterday.

Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hFN1oMLuSJhTfwARa-00bOTIlxIA

Maybe if you stopped reading the Obama is bad news and read some real news you wouldn't look so silly.

Shady · June 3, 2010

Maybe if you stopped reading the Obama is bad news and read some real news you wouldn't look so silly.

Despite Obama's lifting of some banned waters, the vast majority of coastal water is still off limits to drilling. That's a fact.

BubberMiley · June 3, 2010

Nope. You're the one who posted links that included nothing of which you were asserting. That's a complete lie.

Rather than calling people liars, you should learn to read:

A 2009 U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) report forecasting production (PDF) in the Gulf of Mexico shows that as shallow-water production levels have fallen, deepwater production has taken up the slack.
... Many older wells are experiencing production decline and new finds are often more expensive to extract and harder to refine, which some environmental and energy experts say heralds the end to cheap and easy oil (McClatchy).

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22204/us_deepwater_drillings_future.html

The simple fact is you still cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to back up the claim (which you and Sarah Palin parroted from Rush Limbaugh) that deepwater drilling only exists because of the off-shore ban. Rush should really provide you with sources, because your blind adherence to his word just makes you both look stupid.

Deepwater drilling exists because it is profitable---pure and simple.

daniel · June 3, 2010

Bottom line: A Republican President is the yardstick for all failures.

Shady · June 3, 2010

Rather than calling people liars, you should learn to read:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/22204/us_deepwater_drillings_future.html

The simple fact is you still cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to back up the claim (which you and Sarah Palin parroted from Rush Limbaugh) that deepwater drilling only exists because of the off-shore ban. Rush should really provide you with sources, because your blind adherence to his word just makes you both look stupid.

Deepwater drilling exists because it is profitable---pure and simple.

I didn't say deepwater drilling wasn't profitable. It is. But so is drilling in shallow water. The problem is that most of the coasts have been banned from allowing any drilling in shallow water. Even your link is only Gulf of Mexico specific. Again, I'll post the map. Perhaps you'll read it this time. The east and west coasts of the United States are almost competely banned from oil exploration. So don't try and spew your bullshit that there isn't any oil there. It ain't gonna fly my friend.

MAP<--- read it!

Any drilling allowed in shallow water takes place in the green portion of the map. Which you'll notice is a very very small area.

punked · June 4, 2010

I didn't say deepwater drilling wasn't profitable. It is. But so is drilling in shallow water. The problem is that most of the coasts have been banned from allowing any drilling in shallow water. Even your link is only Gulf of Mexico specific. Again, I'll post the map. Perhaps you'll read it this time. The east and west coasts of the United States are almost competely banned from oil exploration. So don't try and spew your bullshit that there isn't any oil there. It ain't gonna fly my friend.

MAP<--- read it!

Any drilling allowed in shallow water takes place in the green portion of the map. Which you'll notice is a very very small area.

Map is Dated Shady. It really shows you what was legal under Bush. Obama lifted most of those shallow water sanctions, not because he doesn't think they should be there but because he thinks the states should chose. All that off limits on the west coast and east coast, and off of Florida is the states choice. So go take it up with the state governments Shady.

bloodyminded · June 6, 2010

Bottom line: A Republican President is the yardstick for all failures.

By Republicans, yet.

Shady · June 7, 2010

Obama lifted most of those shallow water sanctions

No, he lifted some of those areas. I guess he must agree with "drill baby drill!" :lol:

But he only recently lifted those bans. It takes time to explore for oil and gas. You don't just start drilling a few weeks after an area is available for exploration. :rolleyes:

So once again, the vast majority of drilling is only allowed in deep water. Thanks to the left. If this leak had occured in shallow water, it would have been stopped weeks ago. With very little environmental impact. But because the left is so against drilling, they push such operations farther and farther out, in deeper water, more risky areas. The oil is on your hands leftists.

punked · June 7, 2010

No, he lifted some of those areas. I guess he must agree with "drill baby drill!"

But he only recently lifted those bans. It takes time to explore for oil and gas. You don't just start drilling a few weeks after an area is available for exploration.

So once again, the vast majority of drilling is only allowed in deep water. Thanks to the left. If this leak had occured in shallow water, it would have been stopped weeks ago. With very little environmental impact. But because the left is so against drilling, they push such operations farther and farther out, in deeper water, more risky areas. The oil is on your hands leftists.

Accept that is a lie. How about you go read a book Shady 1979 Ixtoc was a SHALLOW WATER leak just like the one we see now. Guess what they did to it? They did everything we see now, all that failed just like it is now, and the only solution was a relief well just like right now. It took 10 months to stop just like right now.

See it doesn't matter if the spill happens in 100 feet of water or 10,000 feet because the oil industry hasn't gotten better at containment in water. They have gotten better at drilling deeper. So spare me your LIES, I have actually picked up a book and know your lies aren't true. I have offered evidence and you have given nothing but some hazzy prediction. The only thing that would different if this happened in Shallow water is it would get to shore sooner and kill more things. NO THANK YOU SHADY. Drill baby Drill.

OR we could work on those alternatives you keep hating on.

punked · June 7, 2010

As Shady tells you evil environmentalist pushed all drilling off shore making "safe drilling" to hard. There has been a huge explosion in Pennsylvania of a gas well. Millions of gallons of gas and oil have already been split from it. Drill Baby Drill.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1259984&srvc=business&position=recent

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-07/eog-well-in-pennsylvania-had-blowout-state-says-correct-.html

Edited June 7, 2010 by punked

bush_cheney2004 · June 8, 2010

Poll: BP Oil Spill Response Rated Worse than (Obama's) Katrina

By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Americans support the pursuit of criminal charges in the nation's worst oil spill , with increasing numbers calling it a major environmental disaster. Eight in 10 criticize the way BP's handled it – and more people give the federal government's response a negative rating than did the response to Hurricane Katrina.

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473