Obamas Big Speech the Gulf Oil Leak Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm
He's laying out a "battle plan" to fight the leak at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. He's "deploying" the military.
The fact that he had to make the speech is to prepare us for a very, very, bad situation.
It appears that the leak cannot be capped, as the below sea bed level drill hole is now disintegrating and the blow out protector is tipping over Web Link
This could mean a complete blow out, and it will take months to drill relief wells, that may not even work.
It is not clear what the military can do at this point. Using a nuke would collapse the sea bed and would release all the gas and oil at one time, then we would have a massive problem plus radioactive oil circulating the Gulf for a long, long time.
It would be helpful to know how much oil BP believes is down there, it must be in the multi billions of barrels---otherwise they would not bother.
The situation is like a major volcano or an asteroid hit-- potentially.
It is not Obamas fault, nor BPs but we have lots of oil in shallower waters that do not present such risk-- why do we not we drill there?----
Posted by spill baby spill, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Of course it is BP's fault. They made dozens of serious engineering mistakes in drilling the well, in their backup and safety systems, and in the cleanup effort.
And that shallow water argument is BS. Shallow water is closer to shore and spills would have a faster and more devastating effect on the coastline.
Just a couple of years ago, the drill baby drill idiots were promising safe and clean drilling in all kinds of difficult and ecologically sensitive terrain. Even under the polar ice cap. I am glad that they lost the election.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2010 at 5:09 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Hey, spill baby, ready to relegate energy to a luxury category? In 1900, there were 25 fatal boiler explosions A WEEK in the United States, but in my 55 year engineering career, there have been only 2 or 3 publicized. Irrespective of the loss in those early days, steam's cost-benefit ratio was a plus.
We know by Obama's admission that his energy plan will more than double the cost of all energy sources, reducing the choices available to the people. We now from past experience that the predictions of absolute ecological disaster are exaggerated.
Posted by Agree with Walter, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2010 at 5:27 am
Hey, Spill BS! And doncha remember all that safe, green energy hype with electric and hybrid cars? Guess what? Battery dumps pollute the ground water, and people die just as easily in a hybrid accident as in a non-hybrid accident.
Let's think a moment: How many people died in this last year from car accidents? 50,000...how many have died from oil rig accidents? 11..
gosh...better outlaw any transportation with wheels.
The scary part is Spill BS's line is precisely the line that will be used by the Dems/Obama to drill, baby, drill more regulation, taxes, loss of control to individual and businesses and fewer jobs down the American citizens throats..the even scarier part is the complete disconnect in logic and reason will go over a lot of peoples' heads and they will buy it.
Just a buck per day for most "families" to support new Cap and Trade legislation!! What a bargain, a buck per day to hand more power over to a few bureacrats based on bogus conclusions from faulty "science"!!
All using the oil spill as the emotional barge to pull the idea along.
Of course, no mention of the rest of the covert taxes, the increased cost of everything we use, along with the fact that there is STILL no increased drilling allowed anywhere in shallower waters or land, and STILL no nuclear plants.
All pie in the sky, govt picking winners and losers and doing a bad job of it with our money, while destroying our economy yet more, in the name of "helping us". Reagan's scariest sentence "I am from the government and I am here to help you" becomes smarter and smarter as the years go by.
Posted by Daniel, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2010 at 10:18 am
This spill didn't happen 2 months ago, it happened early in the Bush/Cheney administration when the lobbyists for oil and energy corporations wrote the energy bill. The "regulators" who were supposed to be the watch dogs were actually energy&oil sector people who were getting paid handsomely by the corporations they were supposed to regulate to turn a blind eye. This will keep happening until we create real regulations and enforce them
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2010 at 10:23 am
"Spill BS's line is precisely the line that will be used by the Dems/Obama to drill, baby, drill more regulation, taxes, loss of control to individual and businesses and fewer jobs down the American citizens throats"
Regulation is bad. The government's job is to stand back, let 'em make their mess, then clean up the mess and make everyone well. In other words, nanny socialism.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2010 at 1:38 pm
What is at the root cause of this accident?
The lack of a workable technology to manage these deep ocean wells?
The profit motive of private companies that is out of control depite the oil companies being some of the most profitable and politically powerful concerns on the planet?
The lack of involvement of the people, the government and outside experts or those concerned?
This accident is a horrible environmental catastrophe. I have walked on the clean pristine beaches of Pensacola Florida where the sand was so white and clean it would squeak under your feet as your walked over it.
Judgement goes out the window when there is huge sums of money at stake, and that judgement if further degraded when a larger and larger and growing fraction of that money is spent to exclude regulation, government and the people from any involvement, and more degraded when this process becomes a way of life, the standard way to do business, which we have seen from 2008 on is the rule rather than the exception in this country.
Our President is supposed to have access to the best information and is supposed to be ahead of the curve with expert advisers and reporters on these issues. Our President is supposed to be a leader synthesizing what he thinks is the best path to take in emergencies that require government involvement.
Why does this President, who I voted or, have to be pushed or pulled in order to do anything, and why is anything he does always reactive, except when he is talking? Talk is cheap. To be fair to President Obama, we have allowed money and influence to morph the government into a scape-goat of a punching bag, so it is not clear that even if he staked his Presidency on taking action that he could get anything done without massive resistance or retaliation to him and his party by corporations and the media.
Maybe the best most heroic thing he could do would be to explain what it is like to President to the American people, and explain how that reduces their input and rights to practically zero when even the President cannot get anything done for us unless it is even more profitable for some corporation and the elites who control them.
Posted by irony, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 17, 2010 at 4:30 am
What I am really impressed with is how out POTUS has twisted the arm of this BP company to withhold dividend payments out to stockholders...
Sounds good to the ignorant, doesn't it? Stiff those stockholders!!
But stockholders are mainly people who are older folks relying on dividends from many sources to live. Read somewhere a couple years ago that about 50% of all stockholders in Oil are over 65..this was one of the "low risk, stable" stocks
Gotta love that POTUS of ours. Destroys contracts with every breath ( remember overturning stockholders in favor of unions in the Auto industry? Remember overturning contracted Bonus programs in private companies? What country is he turning us into? We used to be a country of law and our word...). I am mortified.
And what is particularly ironic is that BP gave much more to Dems over the years and was one of the original companies to get in bed with the "Cap and Trade" crowd, cozying up to the very people who did nothing but obstruct any preventative efforts to limit the damage.
...........(Never forget turning down help from other countries and from businesses in Texas to suck up the oil and prevent it from reaching our shores).........
And now our POTUS/Dems are blackmailing it to "give" 20 Billion in clean up funds..
.........( per our POTUS, apparently he now has the power to promise that this is just the beginning! Wow! He now can nationalize international oil companies? He must have read the book Chavez gave him at that infamous meeting!)
Karma is a beautiful thing to watch.
Now, let's kick some &** and plug the &*)) hole!! (quoting our POTUS, you know)
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2010 at 3:09 am
Fair enough, when the private sector needs to step up to the plate,, they should. However, the hand of a heavy government shaking them down is a horrible sight in America.
When will those Government heads roll that signed every piece of paper that had to be signed every step of the way in building the rig and maintaining it? Never forget, every step of every choice is regulated by our government.
Of course, BP gave much more to Dems than Repubs, and were in bed with regulators all along the way ( that nice marriage between private and government), and were one of the first oil companies to jump onto the Cap and Trade so that they could try to influence the outcome, "game it"..at our expense. So, I have no love lost except pity for its innocent shareholders, being turned into victims to placate others.
When will this White House be brought up for a shakedown mock trial before Congress for obstructing every solution that would have prevented most of the consequences of this leak? The booms and berms and oil soaking rigs offered by countries and businesses everywhere? But the answers were "Thanks, but no thanks".
It is one thing to start the fire, as the rig explosion did, another to let it grow into a wildfire by obstructing defensive measure to protect our ocean, our coast, and the livelihood of how many thousands of people?
Why were all solutions rejected or put on a shelf for almost 2 months, while the oil continued to spew? Why didn't Obama allow over half the daily oil to be sucked up starting over a month ago? Why didn't Obama allow the berms to be built that would have protected the coastlines?
Good questions that need to be investigated, and while we are at it, threatened with criminal action, like he has done to BP.
Posted by Why?, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2010 at 7:55 am
Again,... nobody is defending cost-benefit decisions by BP that led to the "hole" opening, just like nobody is "defending" a murderer caught on tape when they still retain the right to a full legal process.
Again,... people who believe in the rule of law and our Constitution are appalled that our Executive branch has, yet again, thrown away all pretense of following our laws, and resorted to thuggery shakedown politics of private corporations, actions which have hurt and will hurt yet more, the little people, or if you speak British, the small people, both here and across the Atlantic in Britain.
And, again..no accountability in place by our own fox guarding our own hen house for answering the questions "how and why did all this damage happen?"
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2010 at 4:14 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
I have seen no evidence that BP was attempting to avoid blame or avoid responsibility for this blowout. The Obama edict that 20B of BP money be placed in an account not under the control of BP will reduce the available funds for abatement and give the administration a slush fund to buy votes with.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2010 at 7:50 pm
President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill:
That's a Harvard University study's estimate of the per-gallon price of the president's global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.
So what does global-warming legislation have to do with the oil spill?
Good question, because such measures wouldn't do a thing to clean up the oil or fix the problems that led to the leak. Web Link
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 18, 2010 at 8:24 pm
First, the scare-tactics of $7 per gallon of gas are due to the price fixing that is so common in the energy industry ... 7 billion ripped off from CA when Bush took office, then $100+/barrel gas with Bush.
Now, as typical, the idea is to yell really loud at Obama and blame him.
What do you think the price of gas is going to do left alone with a deregulated, untaxed energy industry ... yeah, sure it will go down to below $1/gallon ... dream on Republicans.
The political and media capital Limabaugh and others has built up dishonestly is nevertheless wearing down everyday as people cannot avoid seeing the truth no matter how hard they shout.
How many more disasters of deregulation do you people need to have shoved in your face anyway?
I thought thoughtful readers of this thread might be interested in what Thomas Sowell, a historian I have great respect for, has to say about the gestalt of this Presidency and his Admin.
It encompasses the "connecting of the dots" for those wise enough to se patterns that culminated in Joe of Texas apologizing to BP for the actions of this government. Most were quick to denounce him, but they missed his point, which Sowell does a great job of filling out in the context of the last 2 years.
Our fundamental respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is being undermined to the point of collapsing anyone's trust in any of our systems and government.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2010 at 8:41 am
From your article link:
Your article starts right in with invoking Adolph Hitler, talking about his utilization of "useful idiots". I wonder if that is useful idiots ... hmmm, like Joe The Plumber, maybe Sarah Palin. Or the simplistic approach to politics like say George Bush. The whole article is so wonderfully simplistic and exactly what it is complaining about.
Here is a historian who tells us that a democracy needs an informed citizenry if it is to thrive. But that has never been the theory behind America, and indeed the very comment is designed to draw in the useful idiots. What kind of historian is Sowell who apparently does not know the United States is a republic, and a very class conscious one.
I submit that Sowell is a useful idiot, a black man who supports the Republican philosophy of one dollar one vote, and does it for money, and does it simplistically, as in immediately invoking Adolph Hitler to make some hyperbolic point. Ugh.
As the problem of converging disasters begins to hit the world, population, global warming, fossil fuel shortages, collapse of food production we can kiss the Constitution good-bye if the President and the government does not have the power and authority to stand up to corporations. Bush II and his unitary executive theory and quest to increase the powers of the executive apparently if fine to conservatives, as long as he leaves corporations and the wealthy alone and focuses on removing rights from individual Americans.
As far as trust in the government, who has or had that? Even Reagan said, "Trust but Verify". We used to be able to trust government a little until it was completely taken over by money.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2010 at 11:47 am
"Our fundamental respect for the rule of law, not the rule of men, is being undermined to the point of collapsing anyone's trust in any of our systems and government."
That process began with Reagan proclaiming that the government is not the solution, it is the problem, and accelerated exponentially under the mind-boggling routine incompetence and mendacity of the Bush/Cheney administration.
Obama's biggest challenge is rooting out the inept hacks left over from that era that infest our government. It is really too bad Obama didn't take his clue from the Denver office of the Interior Department and gut the MMS sooner, but 16 years of Republican sabotage (I exempt Bush 41) cannot be undone in a few months.
As Perspective rightly indicates, the conservative agenda has been realized: citizens' trust in their government and society has been trashed. It will be very hard to rebuild it, and it could be impossible if the Republicans and their Tea Party stooges make a comeback.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2010 at 11:52 am
> Obama's biggest challenge is rooting out the inept hacks left over from that era that infest our government.
While that may be true, even before the President took office he had the same people lined up for his administration that we closest to those that brought about the financial collapse, and no one said a thing. I don't speak French, but can you say "fait accompli"?
It is not faith in government, it is the government itself that has been rotted from the inside, and the basic tenents of our way of life like the Constitution, are jokes in the hands of these sleazebags.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2010 at 3:25 pm
"even before the President took office he had the same people lined up for his administration that we[re] closest to those that brought about the financial collapse, and no one said a thing."
Lots of people have said lots of things about that, by far mostly on the left. However, having to start his administration in the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, I believe Obama warily followed Lincoln's advice to not change horses in the middle of the river. Or in more contemporary form: It takes a thief... .
"It is not faith in government, it is the government itself that has been rotted from the inside, and the basic tenents of our way of life like the Constitution, are jokes in the hands of these sleazebags."
Yup. But who can have faith in a corrupted government? Maybe the corrupters, who are getting rich at the moment, and their minions scrabbling for a trickle down from the torrent at the top.
The roots of the problem are in the mindless, serially discredited faith in unfettered capitalism that dooms every effort to prevent catastrophe. As we have seen again and again, but failed to learn its lesson, Wall Street makes the mess, Main Street cleans it up and pays the bills. The curious thing is how Main Street loves to watch Wall Street have its party.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 22, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Let me see if I have this straight.
The worst environmental disaster to hit the USA occurs on the Gulf Coast and the President takes weeks to respond.
A 3rd rate music magazine, one step above High Times, alleges that a General made comments on the lack of support that he is getting from the "wimps in the White House" and he is ordered home immediately?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 6:20 am
"Let me see if I have this straight."
Sorry, Sharon, in your anti-Obama zeal you have gotten it all mixed up again.
"The worst environmental disaster to hit the USA occurs on the Gulf Coast and the President takes weeks to respond."
The president responded immediately. As you may not be aware, the US government does not have the equipment or the expertise to handle an oil leak like that--they have to rely on BP to fix it.
Why do you think the President did not respond for weeks? The blow out happened on April 20th. Obama, by APril 30th, had banned further drilling and sent teams to check out other oil rigs--since at the time we did not know what caused the disaster. Also remember that BP initially downplayed the explosion and said that the spill was minor.
"A 3rd rate music magazine, one step above High Times, alleges that a General made comments on the lack of support that he is getting from the "wimps in the White House" and he is ordered home immediately?"
Why do you say the General "allegedly" made those comments?
"McChrystal, who publicly apologized Tuesday for using "poor judgment" in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, has been ordered to appear at the White House Wednesday, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly."
Remember how Gen Shinseki was thrown out of the military for criticizing the Bush policy in Iraq.
No general should publicly criticize his commander-in-chief. End of story.
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 11:55 am
"A 3rd rate music magazine, one step above High Times, alleges that a General made comments on the lack of support that he is getting from the "wimps in the White House" and he is ordered home immediately?"
Obama should have ordered this general and his staff home a lot sooner than immediately. Those people are over there to win the war, not to grouse to "3rd rate music magazines."
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Obama got our attention off BP for a day, and a bad day it was, as the spill regushed this morning in greater volume, so to speak.
His speech today was fine—if one ignores the usual serial evocation of “I”, “me”, and “my” that we’ve become accustomed to, as the President tries to radiate authority with first person pronouns rather than common sense reality.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 1:51 pm
"His speech today was fine—if one ignores the usual serial evocation of “I”, “me”, and “my” that we’ve become accustomed to, as the President tries to radiate authority with first person pronouns rather than common sense reality."
Which speech did you listen to Sharon??
""It is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country," ."
"Obama said McChrystal's remarks in Rolling Stone undermined the civilian control of the military "at the core of our democratic system." "
"I believe that it is the right decision for our national security."
He probably used the first person when he was referring to his job as COmmander-in-Chief.
Sorry, Sharon, you are once again stretching the truth
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 5:38 pm
The oil spill was a very low probability very high impact event, sort of like a 8.0 earthquake in Detroit--- there was a 4.0 one today.
It got worse today but Obama was able to change the topic and talk about himself--again
It was interesting that McChrystal said very positive things about Clinton in RS article.
Many are speculating that Obama is tired of being PresidentWeb Link as he is in way over his head, he could well retire early, like Nixon, and Hilary could serve out the rest of his term and the run against Petreaus in 2012.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Paul: Let me explain:
First: the re-leak was a result of the original leak, which happened as a result of a BP risk:cost analysis that err'd too much on the cost side and not enough on the risk side, combined with a government which ok'd every step made by BP ( and every other oil company), in turn which is careful to grease the wheels ( pun intended) of the Democrat majority EPA/Energy oversight committees with lots of bucks to Dems to keep 'em happy, and delighted to get in their good graces by jumping into the cap and trade game early.
Second: The extent of damage from the leak was caused by an incompetent government which turned down all intelligent, experienced offers of mitigating help from other countries and our own people, preferring to bash Arizona here and abroad for its new law, and then preferring to threaten lawsuits, oil drilling bans, and cap and trade to "solve" our dependence on oil, rather than helping to plug the "*&((" hole, suck up the oil that was being spilled, and prevent the oil from reaching our shores, destroying our coasts and all the jobs that go along with the coastal life.
To Anon: Be very careful to throw up your defensive shield to defend against what Sowell is saying, then quick, go on the attack. This would be useful.
I recommend watching the movie "Remains of the Day" for more understanding of history and how it relates to today. Recall, while watching it, that the first thing Obama did was insult England by sending back the Churchill statue that had been in the White House. What does that have to do with anything? Emotion...emotion drove Chamberlain and the left's decision making, not logic or law. Emotion is driving the left and Obama now, not logic, law or constitution.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Obama clearly has an emotional bias against the UK, sending back the Churchill statue, he insists on calling BP, British Petroleum, though it had changed its name to BP 10+ yrs ago, has as many US share holders as UK shareholders and twice as many US employees as UK employees-- Obamas narcissism has no limits -- it is all about me and my made up biography, written by Ayers.
Hillary Clinton is clearly positioning herself for the Presidency-- sooner rather than later. Obamas 30 + years of smoking will start taking a profound cognitive and physical health toll soon, there is no avoiding that, for anyone-- it is actuarial not emotional.
The chief of staff is leaving the ship, as are others -- in droves.
A president can blame the previous president for 9 months at most-- after that it back fires.
Now everyone is just bored and disillusioned.
Clinton will make her move and the Anglo Sphere -- Canada, NZ, Australia, UK, India etc will support her
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2010 at 6:07 am
"Many are speculating that Obama is tired of being PresidentWeb Link as he is in way over his head, he could well retire early, like Nixon, and Hilary could serve out the rest of his term and the run against Petreaus in 2012."
The many you refer to is a former screenwriter--possibly working on his new script and confusing fantasy with reality.
"Obama clearly has an emotional bias against the UK, sending back the Churchill statue, he insists on calling BP, British Petroleum,"
Anyone see any facts whatsoever in the above comment by Sharon?
"Obamas narcissism has no limits -- it is all about me and my made up biography, written by Ayers."
oooh--let's bring in Bill ayers again. What narcissism? You clearly have issues with Obama and never let the facts get in the way of belittling him.
The above few posts by SHaron are typical--no facts--just conjecture and fantasy
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2010 at 3:38 pm
As I said, Mr Favreau--anyone see any facts in the above comment bu Sharon? What you posted was a newspaper article from 18 months ago, which expresses opinions and conjecture
If you scroll down to the end of the story, you can read:
"A British Embassy spokesman said: "The bust of Sir Winston Churchill by Sir Jacob Epstein was uniquely lent to a foreign head of state, President George W Bush, from the Government Art Collection in the wake of 9/11 as a signal of the strong transatlantic relationship.
It was lent for the first term of office of President Bush. When the President was elected for his second and final term, the loan was extended until January 2009. "
This is a tempest in teapot, a non-issue that has been picked up by the Sharons and Favreaus of the world, who have nothing better to do then belittle the president. If these people the return of a statue that does not belong to you as an earth shattering event, then you have an issue with priorities.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Chris Mathews said that accepting General McChrystals retirement will help Obama with the oil spill ?
Mathews said last week that Obama speech about the oil leek was very weak.
He added yesterday that Obama is not seen as presidential and decisive ? that is very true, but firing a warrior General will not help the oil leak nor change his brand.
In fact the way Obama dealt with the General has weakened Obamas brand even more.
"The manner of President Obama's reaction to a few remarks quoted in Rolling Stone magazine is already being interpreted as showing the president's weakness, rather than his strength.
A stronger, more self-confident president would have given Gen McChrystal a public roasting, then told him in as many words to get on with the job and keep his mouth shut in future."Web Link
In fact, Obama should have had another "beer summit" and acknowledged that he has also done and said stupid things -- the warrior General goes back to work, the troops and our allies are happy and Obama appears to be a sentient human-- oh well never mind.
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 24, 2010 at 11:25 pm
What a bunch of nonsense. It is almost funny that whatever Obama does the Republicans try to criticize or attack it with some kind of spin. If it doesn't get traction, they revrese it and try again.
If we had a free press instead of the manipulative echoing media it would not be possible for a bunch of money to keep throwing lines in front over everyone to make them think everyone else is crazy so they might as well be as well.
McChrystal is the issue. He must have wanted out to say, and let his people say that careless, crude, pointless things they were reported to have said.
Yes, Obama is not able to get remedial action to fix the problems that he was left, and he will have to suffer for that, but the other side is that for the most part he has stopped digging the hole deeper.
I certainly like the Democrats having more ideas and get some buyin from the public, but as crititcal as I am of the Democrats, it does not push me back to the Republicans, or to the T-party crowds.
How long do Americans have to suffer with this lack of vision and leadership? With the oscillation between Dem & Rep this could go on for 20 more years and not get any better.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2010 at 8:49 pm
It looks like BP is back on track with the relief well and the capping-- tropical storms are on their way and BP needs 5 days to evacuate
"The current official forecast is for the storm to hit the Yucatan Peninsula and, if it survives, cross the Bay of Campeche and strike the coast again near the Mexico/Texas border.
Some of the more advanced computer models are showing that the system may make a more northward turn and become a strong tropical storm or hurricane after passing over Yucatan, potentially impacting the area of the Deepwater Horizon response. "Web Link
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2010 at 1:40 pm
The good of our country would be one where we have a strong President and Congress, shining out strength and support for
1) our troops and commanders in Afghanistan, with a clear plan and goal and full support to accomplish the goal
2) our border control
3) our economy, being strongly pro-business and contract law, rewarding hard work and not changing the "game rules" of every game in town, from health care to oil to coal to autos to financial markets.
Simple, really..but we are run by a far-left ideology right now, by an ideology that only about 20% of us believe is correct and good for us, but apparently most of the media and the Congress believe it in the face of every ideologue policy destroying yet more our security and our economy, and the consequences keep piling up.
And this trend is widening if you look at the last couple years of self-identification,...more and more conservatives, fewer liberals, as people understand what the modern, or "neo" liberal versus the modern, or "neo- conservative is..
No, anon, there is no disconnect between me and reality, the disconnect is between a far-left government that only 20-30% of the US citizens agree with and the other 70-80% of the people it is ignoring as it rams bad policy and bad laws down our throats as fast as they can before they lose power again.
Don't forget the very scary words of Obama himself, who stated he would rather be a "great" one term POTUS than a "mediocre" 2 term POTUS. Think about it, he KNOWS that he will be fired by an appalled electorate, but he simply doesn't care about the majority of Americans who disapprove of his and his party's politics/policies, only about forcing his ideology on us.
I used believe he simply was naively idealistic and ill-informed, and didn't understand the effects of what he and his party were doing to us, but I now believe differently.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Bill Clinton in his interview with Wolf Blitzer from CNN in SA today said he believes the US Navy should have a plan to blow up the well.
He recommends using conventional explosives rather than nuclear as the first option-- but his repeated theme is-- just blow it up.
Wait a minute-- that could risk collapsing the roof of the oil field and releasing vast quantities of gas and oil into the gulf in a few minutes-- that is a doomsday scenario-- as Clinton is seriously suggesting that option then the situation must be much more serious than we have been told so far.
At those depths conventional explosives are useless-- so he must mean the nuclear option
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Today, 70 days after the oil leak-- Obama accepts foreign help
70 days-- what took so long? the Dutch offered their advanced systems on day 1 but were rejected-- what is going on here?
The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that's been accepted.
The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement -- Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.
More than 30 countries and international organizations have offered to help with the spill.
The State Department hasn't indicated why some offers have been accepted and others have not.
Please tell us why, it is our money that pays you salary
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2010 at 5:59 am
"Today, 70 days after the oil leak-- Obama accepts foreign help
70 days-- what took so long? the Dutch offered their advanced systems on day 1 but were rejected-- what is going on here?"
Maybe because it was BPs oil leak and they assured the government that it was not a big deal and they could control it.
I can also imagine that if Obama had accepted foreign assistance back then, Sharon would have been yelling and screaming about how the president can not handle things and needs help from foreign powers.
How typical of Sharon---jump on something and twist it to suit your needs.
Also, sharon, aren;t you against government interference in the private sector--after all you are a republican, aren't you?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 3:04 pm
No, none of us would have been screaming at Obama if he and his admin had accepted whatever worked to prevent the horrific results on our coastline and our citizens.
If I believed in such things, I would almost wonder if Obama purposefully punished these States, purposefully destroyed much more in environment and employment by inaction and obstruction over 2 months than anyone can accuse Bush of doing by the (false accusation of) inaction for 3 days after Katrina.
Imagine if we could have been taking advantage of skimmming at least 1/2 the oil up every day since week 3, as we could have been. If we had built the berms to prevent the oil from reaching any of the shores...
and now, it is literally "crying over spilt oil"...unemployment soaring, peoples' livelihoods destroyed, bankruptcies abounding from ruined vacation, fishing and shrimping businesses, oil workers forced out of work as this admin threatens to shut down drilling..
well...trying not to be paranoid about this, hoping it wasn't purposeful, just stupid.
Posted by Truth squad, a resident of another community, on Jul 28, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Anyone ever follow up on the drivel posted by the regular dribblers?
How about this urban myth, or as normal people derisively call it - Fox noise.
# Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm - "Obama clearly has an emotional bias against the UK, sending back the Churchill statue...."
# Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 23, 2010 at 6:02 pm - "the first thing Obama did was insult England by sending back the Churchill statue that had been in the White House."
This must be where Jimmy got his lie from.
These folks just keep throwing (pasta) up against the wall to see what sticks. No regard for the truth.
The Churchill bust is still in the white House. Two, in fact.
England loves Obama. They laugh derisively at Romney, though...