GULF OIL SPILL: A Sign of the end? Or Political Mess?

[Guest]

http://wonwitness.blogspot.com/2010/05/ ... spill.html


Rev. 16:3: "The second angel poured out his bowl into the sea, and it became blood like that of a dead man; and every living thing in the sea died."

Did you notice that the oil spill is reddish brown? We have had volcanos and earthquakes and now the sea is turning brown like old blood--or the blood of "a dead man". I'm not saying this is the same as what we read in Rev. 16:3..., but I'm hoping everything doesn't die in the sea from this spill.





Someone sent this to me. I am neither pro nor con on it, but thought it might be worthy of interest. Question: GULF OIL SPILL: A Sign of the end? Or just a political and bureaucratic mess?

[WinePusher]

They "voted" George Bush in twice, a demented mental midget next to Obama.

Compared to this liberty despising, socialist, marxist, Islamic extremist sympathizer, promise breaking, foul mouthed, anti-american president, Bush is an angel.

Comments like this are not only ridiculous, they suggest the poster is incapable of being objective. Granting there is some amount of subjectivity in such rhetoric, several of these adjectives are really indefensible by any reasonable arguments. To say Obama is "liberty despising" or "anti-American" is to suggest motives on his part that are nowhere in evidence.

I hope you noticed that I was responding to comments that were equally outragous.

You just have to look at Bush and Sarah Palin to get an idea of what the Tea Party, I mean GOP, thinks are worthy candidates.

Yes, the tea party and the GOP nominate people who stand up for small government, and mean what they say and say what they mean. Apparently the nation of Islam and the democrat party wanted a terrorist associating president, tells us much about where they alligences lie.

Again, more ridiculous rhetoric. If Obama is a "terrorist associating President" than Bush is even more so and so is McCain. So was Reagan.

Again, I was responding to to outlandish comments.

[WinePusher]

Immoral would be bailing out corporations after they stole and lost grandma's money which was what Bush left us with.

I agree.

How do you even qualify Obama as immoral spending?

The bailout certainly did begin with Bush but the policy was continued with Obama. Not to mention the "recovery package" of 2009 that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, but did not.

Bush left this country bankrupt and I figure it was to make sure there wasn't enough money left to let what Obama was elected to do.

Obama is doind everything he planned to do, he has no regard for the deficit even with the warnings of european nations.

[DeBunkem]

The bailout certainly did begin with Bush but the policy was continued with Obama. Not to mention the "recovery package" of 2009 that was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, but did not.

Actually, in addition to inheriting the mountain of debt from 8 years of Bush credit-card spending, Obama insisted that the Bush wars budget be put on the books and not spent off the budget to hide it as the Republicants practiced. this added another mountain to the grand canyon of Bush deficit.
As for jobs, the Banksters are not lending to small business, but lending to each other. It's time to call out Wall Street on their treasonous refusal to invest in US infrastructure and workers. People have to have money to spend it. I think Obama must start another CCC, but how likely that the obstructionist GOP will go for that?

[micatala]

They "voted" George Bush in twice, a demented mental midget next to Obama.

Compared to this liberty despising, socialist, marxist, Islamic extremist sympathizer, promise breaking, foul mouthed, anti-american president, Bush is an angel.

Comments like this are not only ridiculous, they suggest the poster is incapable of being objective. Granting there is some amount of subjectivity in such rhetoric, several of these adjectives are really indefensible by any reasonable arguments. To say Obama is "liberty despising" or "anti-American" is to suggest motives on his part that are nowhere in evidence.

I hope you noticed that I was responding to comments that were equally outragous.

Well, I would agree there are other ridiculous comments and rhetoric one could point to. Feel free to list examples. Still, two ridiculousses ( pardon my word coinage) don't make a sensible statement.

You just have to look at Bush and Sarah Palin to get an idea of what the Tea Party, I mean GOP, thinks are worthy candidates.

Yes, the tea party and the GOP nominate people who stand up for small government, and mean what they say and say what they mean. Apparently the nation of Islam and the democrat party wanted a terrorist associating president, tells us much about where they alligences lie.

Again, more ridiculous rhetoric. If Obama is a "terrorist associating President" than Bush is even more so and so is McCain. So was Reagan.

Again, I was responding to to outlandish comments.

My own opinion is Sarah Palin would be a very poor potential President. I also was not impressed with Bush, either when he was a candidate, nor after his Presidency. On the other hand, I was quite unimpressed with Clinton during the 1992 primary season and did not vote for him either then or in 1996.

I would say this one comment of DeBunkem's is much less outlandish than your response. It is incorrect to equate the tea party with the GOP, especially as many in the GOP have worked against tea party candidates through the primaries (e.g. Mitch McConnell vs. Rand Paul).



If you want me to point out a ridiculous statement from another poster, here is one.

It's time to call out Wall Street on their treasonous refusal to invest in US infrastructure and workers.

Now, I am certainly critical of some on Wall Street, but I am not sure how there actions amount to treason. Perhaps DeBunkem can share an appropriate and well-used definition of treason and indicate how Wall Street fits this.

In my view, Wall Street acted in what they felt was there own self-interest under the rules in place at the time. To the extent they broke any laws, they should be held to account, but I doubt the laws that were broken amounted to treason.

To the extent they operated within the law in creating the mess we have, I put the responsibility for that on the federal government, especially the executive branch, the SEC, etc. Some of the responsibility also goes to congress to the extent the rules and regulatory mechanisms they enacted were not well thought out enough to prevent such a crisis.




Back to the topic, I do think some of the responsbility for the Gulf Spill also goes to the MMM under Bush. Bush eviscerated the agency, allowing the Foxes to run rampant in the chicken coop. Energy companies have responded as one would expect, maximimze profits, especially in the short term, cut corners on safety if you can get away with it. Ignore research on safety and containment.



One has to ask how a disaster plan for the Gulf of Mexico features mention of walruses and why such a plan was not flagged by regulators years ago.