Ban on offshore drilling lifted...

[Zachstar]

Then there should be no more drilling at that depth until it can be made safe and secure through technology.

Pick that or pick so much gov red tape that they will never make a profit because one way or another easy drilling is history. If they had spent the money and got the shutoffs and safety systems they would not be paying 20billion+ many more. On top of giving environmentalists the political ammo needed to put a serious dent in land drilling as well.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Obama wanted to build more oil rigs in the gulf and off the state of Florida and Virginia just before this crisis happened! Obama didn't seem too worried about it then and only now is he concerned about the safety and security of building any more. You're desperately looking for an excuse to blame GWB for this.

Well, isn't it then natural that he changed his mind after such a disaster instead of keeping going as if nothing had happened?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by thorn69

You're desperately looking for an excuse to blame GWB for this. Go ahead and admit that and make yourself look even more foolish.

I've just quoted the first mention of President Bush in this thread.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Then there should be no more drilling at that depth until it can be made safe and secure through technology.

Pick that or pick so much gov red tape that they will never make a profit because one way or another easy drilling is history. If they had spent the money and got the shutoffs and safety systems they would not be paying 20billion+ many more. On top of giving environmentalists the political ammo needed to put a serious dent in land drilling as well.

Why are we drilling way the hell out there in the first place?

[CaptainHaplo]

First off - the BP notified the MMS about problems at the rig in FEBRUARY... the 13th to be exact. Obama's hand picked people ran that office. They had MONTHS to act - and now there are 11 people dead and Millions of gallons of crude going into the ocean. According to Obama, the buck stops with him - but funny when he posed for the photo op with the families of the dead, I doubt he mentioned that it was his people that failed just as much as BP/Transocean did. Those deaths and the ecological disaster fall on his shoulders too, but because he is the "Chosen One", I guess he is supposed to get a pass on it. I doubt the family members of the dead would think he should.

Secondly, the appeal will fail for 2 seperate reasons. There was no conflict of interest - note it says he "OWNED" - past tense - instead of owns which would be current. There is no conflict if his interest was terminated prior to his hearing this matter, because he can not profit from a decision either way any longer. So yes - this was "digging stuff up" instead of actually raising an legitimate legal issue. Secondly, the decision will stand because the decision was based in law - the ban had no legal authority on which to reside.

Just because tree huggers don't like the decision doesn't mean it wasn't right. In fact, one reason we SHOULD be drilling is so that Obama can show how he has acted to resolve the issues in the MMS to promote responsible management of our natural resources...... or was that all a bunch of hot air from him too????

What's wrong lib's - don't you trust your own guy when he says he is fixing the problems?????

Guess it says something when the answer is no! And then they want to argue that he isn't a one term-er!

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Why are we drilling way the hell out there in the first place?

Because the tree huggers say if we drill close to shore there might be an accident and it might kill some sea animals and birds and the reefs and the coral and make the coast look like crap and stuff.... oh wait a sec..........

And we can't drill on land because that might disturb the natural habitat of some bird or frog or other animal no one has ever heard of.

Does it make sense now?

Hugging tree's is .

[SteamWake]

Sorry had to

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And we can't drill on land because that might disturb the natural habitat of some bird or frog or other animal no one has ever heard of.

If CH hasn't heard of it, then it ain't worth caring about.

[Zachstar]

I dont consider Obama a lib or even a progressive. Coward is more like it.

Better than a repub but not by a whole lot in my opinion.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

If CH hasn't heard of it, then it ain't worth caring about.

Tchocky, I believe in environmental conservatism. That means using the resources we have responsibly. This can be done without disturbing habitats generally. But, just like the border patrol, environmental issues such as "the noise of a truck might disturb the bird in its natural habitat" are keeping us from doing what needs to be done. Or "the emissions of fossil fuel vehicles might harm the habitat". Give me a break. Driving a SUV down a road 4 or 5 times a day to keep illegals out is going to be the death of all the animals and trees? Bull! Especially considering the trees absorb CO2 (which they need) and give off oxygen. Remember - we are talking a national FOREST! A few trucks once in a while are good for em. Its when its in EXCESS that it becomes a problem.

Its not that if I haven't heard of it that its not worth caring about. But environmentalism has gotten out of hand. There are places you can go in texas and see idle oil wells, the towers still sitting there. Nothing around em for miles - but oh - they can't be used because somewhere something might be adversely affected. Well not using them is adversly affecting not just me and my family, but just about every family in America.

Why do you think oil from shale was shut down so quickly? There is more American oil in shale under the soil of this nation than is under the Middle East oil fields combined. But environmentalists (who by the way are often funded by ME oil cartels) are against us using it. Well the question is this, should a frog get woken up occasionally in the middle of the night so a barrel of domestic oil could sell for $16 dollars, or should we continue to pay $70+ (not counting shipping charges) to import it from South America (where don'tcha know they are just taking every step THEY can to save the environment while they get all that black gold!) and the ME which creates a drag on the economy of this country.

Hmmmm.
Sleepless Frog vs US Economy

For me, that's not really a hard choice.

The fact of the matter is that most (but not all) environmental objections are politically based. Sure there are things that need to be done to insure the ecological health of an area. But there is a big difference between doing things responsibly and not doing them at all.

You want to know how to set it up to insure private businesses are responsible. Its a valid question, because they cannot be trusted blindly. Simply put, they are on the hook for every dime of damage they cause, AND they will be barred from business going forward in the US for a minimum of 10 years should a major industrial accident occur.

Yes, that would apply to folks like BP. Simply put, you make it more economically attractive to be responsible - and then stick to it. Same thing as the law that pertains to hiring illegals. We do need a couple of new laws regarding immigration, but we don't need one regarding hiring them - its already on the books. The government needs to simply enforce it broadly. If companies (domestic or foriegn) were looking at a closed market for 10 years, as well as damages, then it is in their best interest to be responsible. Yes, some regulation can help assure it - but its time we started acting responsibly instead of basically throwing up our hands and saying "well we might screw it up so we better not do it."

Being so afraid of failure that you don't try is a failure unto itself.

Also - I see no one wanted to touch the fact that the rig that is at the heart of this was a known problem months prior and that the people this administration put over the relevant offices did nothing. I guess the buck only stops with Obama when he can't find anyone else to blame for his administration's incompetence.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But environmentalists (who by the way are often funded by ME oil cartels) are against us using it.

I would really like to see a credible citation that says that environmentalists are often funded by Middle East cartels.

[Zachstar]

Actually it ended abruptly when and the oil market crashed after the housing bubble popped. Getting oil from shale at current tech is only feasable at 100 USD a barrel or more new tech MIGHT be able to cut that in half but its a maybe at this point and I prefer the idea of laser drilling better.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by thorn69

Obama is filling the Supreme court up with liberal women who Obama can easily manipulate into overriding any lower level judge. Obama got them the job (unethically since he used "gender" and "race" as a requirement for the job) and now all they have to do is get down on their knees and kiss his butt for it. Remember, chicks love black guys with big... ears!

Wow, you concluded all that based on a sample size of...one? That's impressive.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Wow, you concluded all that based on a sample size of...one? That's impressive.

He's selected two so far and both have been women - fat women to be more precise. One of them is a minority Latino woman who made a racist as well as sexist comment about white males awhile back. The other one hasn't taken her (very large) seat yet. There are rumors that she may have been in, or is currently in, a lesbian relationship and there are some questions if she will be fair and impartial towards heterosexuals who frown on homosexuality. Meanwhile they're probably making sure they get her a big enough chair to put her fat behind in. She's quite a heffer from my understanding. Cows must envy her!

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by thorn69

He's selected two so far and both have been women - fat women to be more precise. One of them is a minority Latino woman who made a racist as well as sexist comment about white males awhile back. The other one hasn't taken her (very large) seat yet. There are rumors that she may have been in, or is currently in, a lesbian relationship and there are some questions if she will be fair and impartial towards heterosexuals who frown on homosexuality. Meanwhile they're probably making sure they get her a big enough chair to put her fat behind in. She's quite a heffer from my understanding. Cows must envy her!

That's right, forgot about Sotomayor.

Who cares about Kagan's relationships?

Who cares if they're fat?

IIRC Thomas and Scalia aren't exactly Mr. Universe contenders.