Drill, baby, drill,,oops!

Most of you misunderstood what I meant when I said Bush would be blamed, but Obama isn't being blamed.

In those examples you cited Obama is not being blamed here, he is merely being urged to take action. The double standard is that Bush would be immediately blamed for not stepping up, whereas Obama has had a 3-week leniency period.

Whether I'm coming from the left or right, you would be incredibly naive not to say that the media's portrayal of Obama over Bush is much more favorable, regarding many topics, such as the oil spill.

 

Bushe's approximate response to Katrina for a week was "so?"
He was, is, and forever will be an idiot, even before Iraq is mentioned.

Now, can we return to the pressing problem of the day, which is America's unwillingness to wean itself off oil ? Is destruction of the Gulf *really* not enough for people to get a clue ?!?

 

Actually Bush's response to Katrina was given when a reporter yelled out what he thought about Roe vs Wade...

He said that he hoped that everyone got out safely no matter what means they used.

There are a wealth of differences between Katrina and Horizen, some of which are:

• One was an act of God another was probable malfeasance on the part of men.
• No one has died as a result of lack of preparedness at stopping the leak.
• No one is dead floating in the streets of one of the great cities of the world due to lack of action.
• Louisiana and Texas have made their beds with the Devil. In their two states they have competing interests between fishermen, tourists and oil. They've chosen which to support.

The hell with States Rights now. Where's Uncle Sam?

 

Of course it is. After all, Obama is a much better president.

 

He may be better, but the media is no more supportive of him than Bush.

Left media hated Bush, loves Obama. Right media loved Bush, hates Obama.

Same hate, different sources.

 

I see they repeated the lie that the Acoustic BOP would somehow have prevented this tragedy.

The BOP is mechanically JAMMED. How would having an acoustic BOP make any difference??

Well, duh.

Let's not forget that in North America, our population can be "spatially distributed" to an extent simply not found in the EU.

Using the same scale, superimpose a map of the UK over any given region of Canada or the United States. Very startling and clear differences in population density and spatial distribution of those cohorts

 

I thought the answer was heavy drinking?

 

How about if you yelled at it really loudly?

Tom

 

I guess my big thing is that the biggest users of gas are not the American people but the US Military. The Army has over 20 different styles of tanks that get 3 gallons a mile. Right, 3 gallons a mile, not three miles a gallon.

I am morally against off-shore drilling, but do I want my husband running around in Afghan without a tank on his a$$? No, I really don't. Hell, I never left base while in Iraq, 2006, and I was glad for tanks. So I guess the off shore drilling thing is a lose-win-lose for us, huh?

Love the Warrior hate the War!!!!!

(I take no offence to the Bush hating or Iraq haggering. I didn't support that war even when I was deployed. But I did my job and did it well.)

 

interesting perspective armywife...3 gallons a mile seems archaic

 

I'd bet most all PC members feel your dilema/issues. All U.S. citizens want our county to be "safe" and have "freedom". But history repeats itself. All the great/powerful countries eventually seem to crumble from within. We go to great lengths to "make the world safe" ... nukes ... imperialism ... streatch our reach into other countries for their "fuel" resources, and what does it get if we oppose the ways of our leadership? "You are not on the side of freedom".

No one would want to be over in Iraq or Afghanistan without a 3 gallons per mile tank. The irony is, had the oilies and political power mongers not meddled in the middle east (ever since Brittan's Chamberlain back in the 1930's) ... they wouldn't want to kill us. Folks can only stand to hear about "the price of progress abroad" for so long, then folks just tune out. So now we get a teeny glimps of the price of progress on the domestic front. It's likely folks will do the same as the issue strikes here, in our own back yard.

:focus:
From ABC yesterday morning - a different look at our precious/toxic/goo comodity ... as seen from over 30 miles away from ground zero ... 25 feet below.

 

It's fun to have new viewpoints.

Perfect place for a really big Hybrid Synergy Drive. That would change the number to something like 1.5 gallons a mile. In military terms that would be a doubling of range, so it's not a joke.

It's only a losing situation if we don't use the gift of oil and transition to sustainable energy use while the transitioning is possible. Otherwise we inflict great pain on the following generations in multiple ways. What cannot be overlooked is that the standard of living of the entire world has gotten a big step up due to oil. There are a great many products (fertilizers, plastics, medicines, etc.) that justify drilling and extraction. It's just the uncontrolled burning of the stuff at the maximum possible rate that is the real problem.

Thanks!

 

Hybrid Synergy Drive- I think the reason this would not work with tanks is the personal needs. An Abrams has to fit a mass of soldiers, computers and ammo. Hybrid tech takes room... (I was not a Tank Mech so I could totally be wrong.) Although things like the Humvee and the FMTV on the other hand...

 

I was under the impression that the fuel requirements were one of the weaknesses seen in the agility of today's military (long supply chains reduce the ability to deploy and act decisively)? Therefore increasing fuel efficency confers both strategic and tactical advantages? Just speculating here...

FYI:
Hybrid Humvee coming up over the horizon | Planetary Gear - CNET News
Army unveils Humvee-like hybrid that gets 50 mpg - Apr. 21, 2005

 

latest guesstimate; 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day. total spill 18 million to 39 million gallons of oil. sure does put the Exxon Valdez incident into the "footnote" category doesnt it?

 

There are killer windmills
Father and son die in windmill accident - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
And solar energy causes cancer. Building these things also involve deaths.

But there is an incestuous relationship between the government regulating bodies and the industry. If the government had been doing their job, they would have required contingency plans and staged equipment in the unlikely event of fail safes failing as they did. Then we would have had some tragic deaths in the accident, but not the potentially huge environmental disaster that we have.

Let's face it, just living causes some huge negative environmental impact. The problem is government and industry conspired to hide risks and we are going to be feeling the negative impact.

 

Is it bad that the title of the windmill article made my laugh?
Was I the only one? I know its sad... And fell sorry for the family but it seems like something out of a cartoon.

 

Every possible contingency CANNOT be pre-planned and dealt with successfully. That is a pipe-dream.

It is *way* past time for people to realize that the oil economy and environmental destruction are two sides of the same coin.

 

A deep water leak is not a weird contingency. This is something that they should have been prepared for.

Oil and coal are the energy realities of today. Disasters like this one could have been prevented.