Barack Obama

"According to their bios, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd are 57 and 58 years old, respectively. You'd never guess it from their columns."

|

Gene Healy, on "the bipartisan conniption over President Obama's 'responsibility' for the Gulf oil spill."

This crisis (like every crisis before it) has provided more raw Kool-aid for our national Cult of the Presidency.

NEXT: The Berwick Battle Begins

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What exactly is Obama supposed to do, in their minds? I don’t get it. Well, I get it when I consider the fact that to them Teh Prezident is more of a deity than a person. Jeebus, they are pathetic.

    1. I think you can make a few legitimate criticisms. We pay billions of dollars for a Coast Guard and an EPA. And they both seem to have been caught completely by surprise. I don’t think it is too much to expect those two agencies to have had a plan for this. And of course the MMA seems to have been completely corrupt. Obama has been in office for a year and a half. He bears some responsibility for not appointing people to clean that up.

      Beyond that, all I can say is karma is a bitch. Obama has strutted around basking in the glow of his personality cult for two years. It was him that claimed his election was going to cause the “seas to stop rising”. Well if you are going to take credit for everything regardless of whether you are responsible for it, then you can’t really bitch when you get blamed for everything. Obama and his supporters have long forfeited the right to claim “he can’t do everything”, even if it is true.

      1. I think you can make a few legitimate criticisms. We pay billions of dollars for a Coast Guard and an EPA. And they both seem to have been caught completely by surprise.

        Even so, their failure is Obama’s fault only if you somehow believe those agencies used to have good solid contingency plans to handle situations like this, until Obama took office and dismantled them.

        I don’t like Obama one bit, but I keep my dislike focused on things actually his fault. The catastrophe in the Gulf isn’t one of them.

        1. Their failure is totally Obama’s responsibility at some point. If you can’t hold elected officials responsible for the failures of the bureaucracies they run, then who do you hold accountable? Bush was sure as hell accountable for the failures of FEMA during Katrina. Why isn’t Obama accountable for the failures of the Coast Guard and EPA now?

          1. Why was Bush accountable for FEMA’s failure during Katrina? The problem is we are expecting the government to do things they are not capable of efficently doing. I was not at all suprised by what happened during Katrina, but I seem to be the only one.

            1. No, you are not the only one.

            2. I was with you on that CDV. I was actually shocked that the Katrina operation went as well as it did. Obviously putting a horse trainer in charge of FEMA wasn’t too swift but cronyism is pretty much SOP in Washington. Not saying it was a model of effeciancy and tons of taxpayer money wasn’t wasn’t flushed down the toilet but I certainly expected it to be worse then it was. Kind of like this current situation where they haven’t done anything for six weeks.

          2. John you disingenuous bitch. You don’t think government can do anything right, then you bitch when they don’t perform miracles. I think you just want to bash Obama, that’s what I think.

            This IS a failure of government… in that it didn’t regulate enough. It IS a repudiation of everything you believe in.

            See, sometimes governments are necessary to do big things like respond to disasters. Better yet, step in before disasters happen and make sure they are prevented as much as possible. That’s not likely to happen with an industry that has been almost completely “self-regulating,” and the bureaucrats in charge of supposedly overseeing them being nothing but industry cronies.

            So good for you for realizing the importance of big government when it’s necessary. If only because it’s an excuse for you to bash Obama.

            1. This IS a failure of government… in that it didn’t regulate enough. It IS a repudiation of everything you believe in.

              Why Tony, would BP want to lose profits at the rate of millions of gallons an hour (or whatever the current rate of discharge is). What logical reason would BP literally want to piss away their assets and livelihood? They can be held accountable; The One can’t.

              1. They are attempting to plug instead of blowing the well. Everything they do is calculated.

            2. STFU Tony you troll. You can’t claim that government is the solution to everything and then refuse to hold those in charge of government responsible when government fails. If government is suppose to solve these problems, then why isn’t Obama, the person in charge right now, responsible for government’s failure to do so?

              Seriously Tony shut up. You bring nothing to the conversation. Obama could accidentally nuke New York and you would be on here defending him. Since you are incapable of criticizing anyone on your team, your defense is meaningless and ads nothing to the conversation.

              1. The only way Obama could have prevented this is to build a time machine and go back and require BP to drill emergency relief wells, which are required in other countries with better regulations.

                The cause of this disaster is industry cutting corners, lying to government about risk, and government not doing its oversight job. To the extent that Obama hadn’t reformed MMS and other agencies, he can be blamed. But the ultimate blame rests on the deregulatory philosophy YOU hold and that has been operating as the status quo in government for a long time.

                What the fuck are you even arguing here? Government can’t do anything, therefore this disaster proves you right, yet it’s still Obama’s fault for not doing what you claim is impossible in the first place?

                1. He could have had a plan to know how to respond. He could have given a shit about something besides blaming BP when the disaster happened. Instead he sat on his ass and played golf for a month while the disaster got worse and worse. And he could have actually kept his promise to clean up Washington and done something about the MMA corruption during his first year in office.

                  Tony you are just a fucking hack. If McCain were in office you would be calling for his impeachment. Instead, you are claiming Obama has no responsibility to respond to this. Just shut up and go away. We know your speal.

                  1. John, you raise the ire of spelling Nazis every time you post. But if you’re going to misspell “spiel,” do so in a creative way, like “spill.” You’re welcome.

                  2. John,

                    I shudder to think what would be going on if a Republican were in office. He’d be just as incapable of doing anything about this as Obama (what’s he supposed to do exactly? This is a bunch of emotionally needy children who want daddy to get angry. Let’s not have him don a wet suit shall we?), but probably wouldn’t do anything to clean up the regulatory environment of the oil industry, thus perpetuating the problem, and wouldn’t be doing an energy bill.

                2. That’s pretty close to the argument. Government tries to do way too much and can’t do anything they try to do very well. Obama’s accountable because he’s the one who claimed he could do it all so very well. So fuck him, and fuck you.

            3. “and the bureaucrats in charge of supposedly overseeing them being nothing but industry cronies.”

              Meditate on that for a few hours, Tony, and then tell us again how more regulation is the answer.

              1. EAP,

                Where is it written that industry hacks MUST regulate industry?

                That’s only the case because of “small government” administrations that came before don’t belief in strong oversight of industry.

                So what the fuck are you doing to help? Still bitching about big government, of course.

                1. Where is it written Tony? Your boyfriend Obama has been in power for over a year now, yet industry hacks are still regulating industry. Your side owns the government and it is still going on. Now are they responsible for not fixing it or is it impossible to fix and inherent in government?

                2. What small government administrations?

                3. “Where is it written that industry hacks MUST regulate industry?”

                  Usually the only way to get a good understanding of an industry is to actually work in the industry for some time. So you either get people with ties to the industry, or people whose knowledge of what they’re trying to regulate is, at best, of the academic variety. Corruption or ignorance, pick your poison.

            4. Shhhh!! The Mediocre One is speaking.

              1. “Mediocrity is now, as formerly, dangerous, commonly fatal, to the poet; but among even the successful writers of prose, those who rise sensibly above it are the very rarest exceptions”-William E Gladstone.

                1. Time to bust out my paperback of Fear and Loathing.

            5. Claiming the oil industry is almost completely self-regulating is the most ridiculous bullshit I’ve heard in years.

            6. “That’s not likely to happen with an industry that has been almost completely “self-regulating,”

              Tony you god dammned idiot. Get the fuck off this site. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about

              Offshore drilling is one of the most heavily regulated industries there is you dumbass.

              And it of course just goes to show….
              REGULATION DOESN’T WORK!!!

              The reason this happened is because the DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED CONGRESS capped damages for oil spills at $75 million in 1990. Moral hazard strikes again. Thanks a lot.

              How many times does your precious government have to fuck up till you give it up you worthless troll?

        2. I don’t like Obama one bit, but I keep my dislike focused on things actually his fault. The catastrophe in the Gulf isn’t one of them.

          Bullshit. He said, and I quote,”I take responsibility for this.” He said it, he owns it. It is his and the MMS was under his watch too. Not only did he have any qualms accepting special interest money at the behest of BP, he also had no qualms fellating the Enviro-Greens at the same time.

          May I remind you that you voted for this clod?

          1. He said he takes responsibility, but he only said that because it looked like the top-kill was going to work.

            It’s totally unfair to hold him to that now.

      2. It was him that claimed his election was going to cause the “seas to stop rising”.

        What? When?

        1. Read the text of his Berlin speech. He made that very claim.

          1. I’m lazy. Excerpt?

            1. “This was the moment the seas began to recede and the planet began to heal”

              http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..ceans.html

              1. Megalomaniacal? Hell yes. But John, the context is a touch different than you’re suggesting:

                Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal

                He’s looking (gazing, steadfastly?) into the future and hoping that he could tell his children that his election was the turning point that brought these good things about.

                It’s crazy self-absorbed, but not what you were saying.

                1. And it pains me to defend Obama, even in the backhanded way I did. I think I need to take a shower.

                2. “He’s looking (gazing, steadfastly?) into the future and hoping that he could tell his children that his election was the turning point that brought these good things about.”

                  He thinks his election is going to set in motion events that will cause all that to happen. That seems to be exactly what I claimed he said. That is some really crazy shit.

                  1. He “hopes” so, John. Yeah, it may be a small difference, but it means something. There’s plenty to hang on Obama and his administration in the chutzpah category. This is a weak example.

                    1. Timon19–

                      I think if any other human being besides Obama said with a straight face that if the members of the crowd did some specific action that they could hope “we will be able to look back and tell our children that…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” people would consider him jack-shit crazy.

                      If that action happened to be electing him to office and fixing those problems through the government, I would say he’s both jack-shit crazy and a narcissistic sociopath.

                3. you should have stopped with “…crazy and self-absorbed…”

        2. Don’t forget this beaut.

          1. We ended a war? You’d think Obama would try and get that message out more.

          2. It is brilliant, brilliant oratory, actually. Very few politicians these days could dream of pulling it off.

            Of course, a lot of the people who fell for it are feeling pretty silly now.

            1. I’m pretty sure his Republican opponent’s attack ads should just be all the ludicrous promises Obama was making. It wouldn’t so much get progressives to vote for you as to demoralize them into not voting at all, which is half as useful.

    2. I think that he is *personally* going to plug the leaks with new off-shore drilling regs. That plan might actually work. “We’ve almost got it! We should only need another 10 CFR volumes!”

      1. That’s it! Obama is Aquaman!

        1. That’s an insult to Aquaman.

          1. He’s more of a Mermaid Man.

            1. EVIL!

      2. I thought he was personally going to plug the leak. He dons a wetsuit, jumps in, and plugs it with…all the drafts of financial reform. He than surfaces, using his super suction to suck up all the oil, and than flies to the nearest refinery to super spit the oil into tanks there.
        The only legitimate criticism of the president is his dawdling over engaging his super suction, super spitting, and flying.
        Geez, you guys seem to think the president (PRESIDENT) can’t solve every problem…almost like he’s limited…by reality, or physics, or something.

    3. He should nuke the well to show it who’s boss.

      1. Nuke the leak? It’s less crazy than it sounds:

        It was September of 1966, and gas was gushing uncontrollably from the wells in the Bukhara province of the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. But the Reds, at the height of their industrial might, had a novel solution. They drilled nearly four miles into the sand and rock of the Kyzyl Kum Desert, and lowered a 30-kiloton nuclear warhead ? more than half-again as large as “Little Boy,” the crude uranium bomb dropped over Hiroshima ? to the depths beneath the wellhead. With the pull of a lever, a fistful of plutonium was introduced to itself under enormous pressure, setting off the chain reaction that starts with E = MC2 and ends in Kaboom! The ensuing blast collapsed the drill channel in on itself, sealing off the well.

        The Soviets repeated the trick four times between 1966 and 1979, using payloads as large as 60 kilotons to choke hydrocarbon leaks. Now, as the Obama administration stares into the abyss of the Deepwater Horizon spill, and a slicker of sweet, medium crude blankets the Gulf of Mexico, slouching its way toward American beaches and wetlands, Russia’s newspaper of record is calling on the president to consider this literal “nuclear option.”

        http://article.nationalreview……iel-foster

        1. And as practical as that might be, it would never fly with the Enviros, so Pres. Obama won’t do this.

          1. Even when its to fight fossil fuels, they still cant get behind nuclear power. *sigh*

        2. That’s a very interesting article. As I was typing that I wondered if that might actually work.

          1. There was someone talking about this (the “nuclear option”) on NPR the ather AM. He suggested that it might be possible to do it with conventional explosives. It seems conventional explosive have a long history in sealing blowouts on land but no one really knows what to do with one this deep.

            He also suggested that BP might be reluctant to do it because it would effectively stop them from ever getting any oil or gas from the well. But as I understand it they can’t use this wellhead now anyway and, besides, given how much this is damaging their reputation I’m fairly sure they,d do about anything if they thoughit would shut the thing down.

    4. I think they can definitely be maligned for not rushing more sandbags towards affected areas.

      Any contingency planning that was done prior was clearly not capable of handling this, but he’s had over a month to authorize more sandbags to contain oil seeping from federal waters. I emphasize the federal part because this is actually an issue where there is no other property owner except the federal government. (There has also been bureaucratic red tape from Obama administration officials preventing the states from handling some of these issues themselves.)

      Given that estimates are that cleanup will be around 40 billion dollars, some re-emphasized priority towards more sandbags/barriers would have saved us a lot of money.

      In the meantime, the guy has sat around pretending that the feds will be responsible for actually commandeering the BP rig and fixing the leak, instead of actually trying to do the most obvious, actually-legal thing and set up more barriers. I don’t think it’s really his fault, but I’m not exactly sad that he’s taking blame for it, given that he would have taken the success of BP as his own had it occurred.

    5. I highly recommend reading the transcripts of Robert Gibbs’ press briefings over the past couple weeks. The Spill dominates, with reporters asking endless variations of, “Why isn’t Obama doing more?”

      Gibbs’ response is invariably a variation of, “We have oversight, but this is BP’s mess, and they’re the ones with the equipment and expertise to solve this.”

      The reporters can’t seem to understand that the Great O and his Magical Governmental Powers can’t solve everything. But they reeeeeeealy want him to.

      1. Gibbs’ response is invariably a variation of, “We have oversight, but this is BP’s mess, and they’re the ones with the equipment and expertise to solve this.”

        Not that the press will call him on it, but his administration should take the same position when dealing with health care, auto companies, financial regulations, housing…(on and on and on)…fish pedicures, and interior design.

  2. I’ve got a feeling what Obama is really going to do is throw some people into prison.

  3. It’s “taking so doggone long,” Sarah Palin wailed, for Obama “to dive in there” (literally?).

    Guess what, quote-doctoring feigned-perplexity-at-your-own-fake-quote ain’t-dat-ho-dumb-yo? guy. The internet has words on it. These, for example:

    PALIN: I don’t know why the question isn’t asked by the mainstream media and by others if there’s any connection with the contributions made to President Obama [by BP] and his administration and the support by the oil companies to the administration — if there’s any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Literally.

    1. yeah, that’s a really disingenuous quote snip from the Cato folks. I would expect better from them.

    2. Typical. The people at CATO like the people at Reason are so culturally bound to Washington liberalism they just can’t help themselves. Saying dumb shit about Palin is there way of saying to Washington liberals “see guys we really are one of you”.

      1. Gosh, this is so accurate…You’re a fucking moron, John, if you think Reason and Cato want respect from Washington liberals. I make fun of that dumbfuck Palin all the time–believe me, it’s not so I can get respect from liberals, it’s because I think she’s a fucking idiot.

        1. No. It is your way of posing. Same for Cato and Reason.

        2. So today we’ve learned don’t criticize Sarah Palin or John’s feelings will be hurt and he’ll call you a liberal.

          1. It wasn’t criticism. It was misquoting. And I won’t call you a liberal. I will just laugh at you for being a poseur. Insulting Palin is the best way stupid people have to feel better about themselves.

        3. yeah, but what a babe…

      2. So, John, why exactly do you continue to hang out here, then? Please let me be the first to show you the door.

        And no, the departure of Lonewacko didn’t create a void which needed to be filled.

        1. Why leave? I didn’t say it made me angry. I think it is funny more than anything.

    3. And that quote makes her sound smart? How does the first part relate to the second part? I can’t figure out what she is trying to say. In exchange for campaign contributions, Obama is doing nothing to help with the problem and saying bad things about BP? What?

      1. It is not a fair statement by her. It is just typical political rhetoric. She is saying that Obama didn’t act very fast on this and maybe the reason is that he has taken so long to do anything is that he is too cozy with BP. Not a great piece of argument or a fair one to Obama. But that is what politicians do.

        Cato made it sound like she was criticizing him for actually not going to the Gulf and taking personal charge of everything, which is just not true.

  4. Can the President really do much to plug the leak? No.

    Should the President be bitch-slapped* for pretending there’s much he can do? Yes.

    Should the President be bitch-slapped for failing to live up to his own hype? Yes.

    *I use the term figuratively, of course, and would never advocate the usev of violence against the President, no matter how thuggish and incompetent he might be.

    1. this.

    2. Dude, don’t put the disclaimer in there. No need.

      1. Yeah, no need. Those Secret Service guys have a keen sense of humor.

  5. “According to their bios…

    They also boot from the 2nd disk and have all their builtin peripherals disabled.

    1. That joke was so bad I think it gave me cancer.

      1. Do you need me to call Radiohead, Epi?

        1. “As captain and head doctor of this ship hospital, I now pronounce you man and wife with six months to live.”

  6. What exactly is Obama supposed to do, in their minds? I don’t get it. Well, I get it when I consider the fact that to them Teh Prezident is more of a deity than a person. Jeebus, they are pathetic.

    Exactly.

    The guy probably couldn’t shovel his own driveway.

  7. I think the only real criticism that has any legs is that his party is part of the environmentalism that caused deep water drilling to be necessary rather than closer into the shoreline or on land (ANWAR). This spill could have been capped in hours or a few days at most if it were on land or at 1000 ft instead of 5000 ft. The fact that he is not pointing that out and is instead haulting all offshore drilling is his fault.

    1. This is a very precious gem. Enviros want to stop using fossil fuel energy. But I will say the rhetorical acrobatics employed by the Sarah Palins of the world to somehow blame enviros for this disaster is some impressive bullshitting.

      1. Do you agree that rigs closer to shore are easier to inspect and leaks easier to stop?

        1. Yes. Do you agree that environmentalists want to stop fucking drilling the ocean for a finite resource and direct our efforts to sustainability?

          1. No Tony. They want to make everyone poor and live in a complete fantasy world where we can somehow return to 19th Century technology and be better off.

          2. No. The ends aren’t important to them. It’s all about image, baby.

            That, and I think I’d prefer to not have the lesser lights of rational thought directing us *anywhere.*

          3. No. The word you are looking for is “boondoggle”, re: so-called “enviromentalists” and “sustainability” scams and make-work projects.

          4. These two are not incompatible:

            stop fucking drilling the ocean for a finite resource and direct our efforts to sustainability

            and

            make everyone poor and live in a complete fantasy world where we can somehow return to 19th Century technology and be better off

            See? John and Tony can both be right! Group hug, everyone!

            1. That was kind of the point RC. One leads to the other. Glad someone picked up on that.

      2. Is it any more impressive than blaming libertarians for big government authoritarian Republicans?

        1. I blame you for not speaking up when they were whoring your philosophy for their own purposes.

          1. The Spokesman for Mediocrity always speaks up… for mediocrity.

            1. “Mediocrity is not allowed to poets, either by the gods or man”-Horace.

          2. I blame you for not speaking up

            Reason.com
            http://www.cato-at-liberty.org

            Both sites have search functions and archives and both were highly critical of Bush and the republicans when they were in power.

            What libertarians do you think are you talking about?

      3. its not much different that you people blaming everyone wrong in the world on that mythical deregaulation that never happened.

      4. It’s a precious gem because it’s completely true you dumbass.

        The only reason BP was in 5000 feet of water is because they couldn’t permits to drill any closer inland.

        Even if we set arbitrarily set a deadline of 2025 to cease all offshore drilling on the American coastlines, this would STILL be true.

        1. You’re so right, BP is the victim here, and environmentalists are the perps. For the giant oil spill. Yep. This hackery isn’t even worthy of Frank Luntz.

          1. This is why you continually get mocked here at Reason. You never address the issue being presented, but instead construct a strawman that no one is arguing against. No one is saying BP is innocent, but the point is that they wouldn’t be drilling in 5000 feet in such dangerous conditions if there were more shallow water permits available.

            The worst part is I think that you realize this (like in many, many other debates that you constantly resort to strawman arguments to make your point) but you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong.

            It would be funnier if it wasn’t so pathetic.

            1. The argument is still dumb. People don’t want them drilling near the coasts for a reason. Environmentalists don’t want drilling anywhere. I fail to see the point of this bullshit argument.

              1. “People don’t want them drilling near the coasts for a reason.”

                And that reason -justified or not- is why BP was drilling with an approved permit from the government in 5000 feet of water.

                Environmentalists don’t want drilling anywhere.

                Speaking of stupidity.

                I fail to see the point of this bullshit argument.

                If had a nickel for every time you failed (either purposefully or not) to see the point of an argument I would buy you a clue.

                1. Tman,

                  One thing is quite clear. This line of attack originated with Rush Limbaugh, then went to Charles Krauthammer, then to Sarah Palin, then to you dolts. It exists for one reason and one reason only: to relieve conservatives of the burden of having to alter their preconceptions of the universe.

                  1. Actually, this was an issue prior to the spill, and many people had concerns about the dangers of deep sea drilling. But you didn’t hear anything from either administration in the last 20 years saying “hey, make sure we have a plan in case something goes wrong.” The bottom line is no one had a plan. And the main reason that companies like BP are drilling this deep is because they can’t get permits in shallower water.

                    But since you prefer ad hominems and strawmans to actual debate, I have no idea why I bother.

                    1. I agree with you. Massive fail all around and that includes government.

                      The question is what’s the principle cause? Is it too much government meddling? I don’t see how.

                    2. That’s because you’re an idiot and don’t know anything about the situation.

                    3. Failure to behave rationally.

                      I mean, shutting down all drilling would be, from a hardcore environmentalist perspective, great. Allowing all drilling would kick ass for business. Allowing drilling, but only the dangerous sort that might produce this sort of catastrophe — makes no sense for either.

          2. “Mediocrity inspires neither great love nor hate.”-Vanna Bonta

      5. Pure comic gold, Tony.

        Enviros want to stop using fossil fuel energy.

        Of course you do. But you disingenuously failed to mention that the enviros also fear and loath nuclear power. And of course the smaller group of enviros who like wind energy in principle, but always find a reason to oppose site choices when someone actually wants to build one.

        1. Christ, it’s like you people are living in the 70s. The anti-nuke element isn’t prominent anymore as there are more pressing matters. Many environmentalists, myself included, welcome nuclear energy.

          1. “There are certain things in which mediocrity is intolerable: poetry, music, painting, public eloquence. What torture it is to hear a frigid speech being pompously declaimed, or second-rate verse spoken with all a bad poet’s bombast!”-Jean de la Bruvere.

    2. Shallow water drilling is vibrant in the GOM and specifically exempted from the recent new deepwater ban. I own EXXI and MMR – two shallow water E&P companies who operate exclusively in the Gulf.

      Quit listening to Fat Rush – he is a full-time liar.

      1. So I guess you are angry at a panicked Obama administration banning such drilling?

        http://www.pbs.org/nbr/blog/20…..f_mex.html

        Are you going to start calling him Obamapig now Shrike?

        1. Once again, you use a shitty source. I suggest Bloomberg in the future.

          “The Obama administration’s plan to halt offshore drilling will exempt operations in waters less than 500 feet (152 meters) deep, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said today. Drilling in the Gulf’s shallow waters is often for natural gas and tends to involve reservoirs with lower pressure, said Roger Read, an analyst at Natixis Bleichroeder in Houston.

          http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..mFRKjheHq4

          Shallow water oil/gas production has continued unabated – and will unless the LOOP is closed down (offshore loading).

          Fat Rush has seeded this lie in your soft heads.

          1. Maybe you should listen to someone besides Rush. You seem to know more about what he says than anyone I know. Seriously, do you get your news from anyone else? More importantly, read the link I posted. It is from PBS. The ban will extend to wells over a 500 feet, which ones that are under a thousand are safe.

            And stop listening to Rush Limbaugh so much. Talk radio is okay I guess if you like that sort of thing. But listening to Rush and G Gorden Liddy and the rest of those people warps your perception.

        2. Shut it, you Dobson-fellating fuckstick!

          1. LOL. Who is Dobson? Another one of your imaginary friends? One of the CIA agents that has been following you for the last 20 years?

            1. that was my imposter – obviously incapable of originality and puerile to boot.

      2. Yes, but what about all the land bans?

        The Dems have created a lie saying that the oil companies won’t be given any new exploration leases on land because they’ve already been given “plenty.”

        The problem with this narrative is that after the exploration, a great deal of those leases are only profitable at much higher prices of oil. As they will not permit more exploration to determine viable rigs at current market prices, the companies have been forced into some of the more lucrative offshore sites.

        1. I should clarify this. They won’t issue new leases because they say that the existing ones have not already been used. Until the leases are used, new ones won’t be assigned.

          Given the realities of diminishing returns, it’s a de-facto ban on land-based domestic oil drilling.

        2. What land bans?

          We drill everywhere except in national parks. We have over 500,000 operating drill sites and the US is #3 in world crude production.

          The “drill baby drill” crowd is ignorant (see Newt and Sarah).

          1. No, we don’t.

            All BLM land is prohibited, and a lot of the ugly land that the BLM “conserves” is precisely because they already know there’s oil underneath it.

            That being said, the U.S. peaked its production a long time ago.

            1. Also, to see just how much of that land is owned by the Federal government (mainly BLM), see here.

              Like I said though, it’s not a “ban.” They just are very slow to approve new leases because of the aforementioned excuse.

              1. With one Dem administration from 1980-2009 I doubt you can put that on them.

                Mountains tend to be poor sources of crude.

                1. Ok dude. First of all, that land was appropriated through congressional order, not executive fiat.

                  Secondly, do you think that Republicans cut off access to almost half of the available oil supplies in this country through a federal zoning order?

                  I think you know the answer to that.

                  So who does that leave now?…..

                  P.S. Colorado and the entire mountain West have lots of oil. Also, look at that picture of the percentage of federally-owned land in Alaska in the previous picture and tell me if you think those are all mountains.

          2. The “drill baby drill” crowd

            Obama

    3. Actually the libertarian argument is that the government capped the liability of BP thereby creating the intensives for risky behavior which lead to the disaster. It would be interesting to look at the voting record of the 1992 bill which capped the liability.

      I wonder how Bidin and Gore voted. My guess is they voted yes.

  8. Semi-related, but you guys might like this explosion of retard:

    imagine if someone were to bring several cars into a BP or ARCO gas station and obstruct the view of the attendent or divert them. Undo the cap on the holding tanks and pour even a gallon or five gallons of pure water into the tanks. This would ruin the gasoline and cause considerable damage to the cars that use any of this adulterated gasoline (one could hardly call anyone that buys BP gas an ‘innocent’ since, by purchasing their products, they are endorsing their behavior).

    As I commented, I guess this guy doesn’t own any Chinese products, or products made with sugar, etc., the list could go on forever. And stations that say “BP” may not be owned by BP or even have gas made from BP oil. What a helmet.

    1. Yeah. Let’s bankrupt BP so there is no hope of them ever making amends. That makes sense.

      1. BP and lots of gas station owners who have nothing to do with this.

    2. imagine if someone were to bring several cars into a BP or ARCO gas station and obstruct the view of the attendent or divert them. Undo the cap on the holding tanks and pour even a gallon or five gallons of pure water into the tanks.

      You can always count on a greenie to go to vandalism when the chips are down.

      1. You rang? I got an itchy detonator thumb!

    3. (Dick Falkenbury): Longtime Seattle resident, monorail initiative writer and activist

      This guy is just a shill for Big Monorail.

      1. When Mr. Falkenbury’s flight has a layover in our town, we will be sure to give him the torches and clubs treatment.

        1. Seriously man, just open up an outlet shop filled with TVs from knock-off brands, slightly burnt Sears activewear that arrives every afternoon, and the occassional heavily marked-down Chanel suit and you’ll be set.

          1. This dadgum monorail bedder gits me to that there outlit shop in time to bys up alls them slighly burnt Sears activwear.

        2. Ah, a solar eclipse. The cosmic ballet…goes on.

          1. Does anyone want to change seats?

      2. Is there a chance the track could bend?

        1. Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

          1. What about us Brain-dead slobs?

      3. monorail initiative writer

        I’d stop after the first few initiatives that failed.

      4. Big monorail….I see a porn movie in the offing.

    4. Apparently, the author of that idea isn’t familiar with the concept of specific gravity.

  9. Do you agree that environmentalists want to stop fucking drilling the ocean for a finite resource and direct our efforts to sustainability?

    Stone Age Tony:

    You guys are crazy, plowing the ground and planting seeds. You should be praying to the gods to bring food.

    1. You should be praying to the gods to bring food.

      “It’s cool, we’re gonna pray for rain once we finish planting.”

    2. “Sustainable” has become as meaningless as “liberal”.

  10. In Sunday’s column, MoDo whines that Obama’s acting like “President Spock,” instead of our “Feeler in Chief.” How, she asks, can we possibly survive with a chief executive who “scorns the paternal aspect of the presidency”?

    Gosh, and it’s the exact opposite of what she said 9 months ago:

    Speaking of the Enterprise, Mr. Obama has a bit of Mr. Spock in him (and not just the funny ears). He has a Vulcan-like logic and detachment. Any mere mortal who had to tell liberals that our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from over and tell Republicans that he has a $3.6 trillion budget would probably have tears running down his face.

    1. So, Tony is Maureen O’Dowd in drag? I didn’t know you were Irish, Tony!

      1. I’m Irish where it counts.

  11. Kids get it. They ask: Why would we want to stay dependent on an energy source that could destroy so many birds, fish, beaches and ecosystems before the next generation has a chance to enjoy them? Why aren’t we doing more to create clean power and energy efficiency when so many others, even China, are doing so?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/opinion/30friedman.html

    1. This would be the same China that is wasting no time locking up fossil fuel resources all around the world as fast as the can.

      1. And this would be the same kids* who sit at home now instead of being out there enjoying all that wildlife.

        *or their children

  12. Deregulation is so unpopular among the left that it gets blamed for areas where no deregulation took place. The blowout and ensuing oil spill was and remains frowned up by most everybody. Likewise, I’m certain regulations on offshore oil to prevent such an occurance have existed for quite some time. If there is anything for the left to complain about it is NOT the removal of any regulation, but the lack of competence in enforcing them.

    The response to Katrina and this experience should show the left that government was and remains ill-equiped to handle the crisis regardless of how many pages they add to the Code of Federal Regulations.

    1. “If there is anything for the left to complain about it is NOT the removal of any regulation, but the lack of competence in enforcing them.”

      If only we had the right people in charge. The system is perfect and as long as we can get more aspiring Obamas to fill its ranks nothing bad will ever happen again. Ever.

      1. Oh they’ve already started to turn on him.

        http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kei…..-at-obama/

        Not even a community organizer straight from the Chicago political machine is sufficiently liberal for them. It goes well with the thinking that Blanche Lincoln is in trouble because she’s not liberal enough, and Obama needs a primary challenge from someone to his left to keep him honest.

        1. When paradise doesn’t arrive as promised, the liberals turn on each other first.

        2. J_L_B thanks for clearing Blanche’s sexual identity. Photos of her send off “It’s Pat” vibes and I’ve been too lazy to check her wikipedia entry.

          1. With the lack of hot women over on the left, they have no choice but to do anything to keep what they have. When Rachel Maddow is in your top ten you know you have a problem.

  13. “imagine if someone were to bring several cars into a BP or ARCO gas station and obstruct the view of the attendent or divert them. Undo the cap on the holding tanks and pour even a gallon or five gallons of pure water into the tanks. This would ruin the gasoline and cause considerable damage to the cars that use any of this adulterated gasoline (one could hardly call anyone that buys BP gas an ‘innocent’ since, by purchasing their products, they are endorsing their behavior).”

    imagine if some customers caught this clown doing it and (realizing that it would ruin their car engines) beat the everloving shit out of him right on the spot.

  14. “What can Obama do!?!?”

    Well he could authorize the detonation of a small nuclear devise which would crush the well and seal it.

    It is how the soviets did it.

    1. Not quite that simple, Josh. If they just set off a nuke on the bottom of the gulf the resulting tidal wave would be very, very bad. Of course, that would make everyone forget about the oil spill.

      The Soviets drilled a four-mile deep well. So even if they started drilling today it would take months to get such a well drilled. Don’t know if the relief well being drilled by BP could be repurposed for this.

      Also, as much as the enviros hate oil, they fear and loathe nuclear anything even more so.

      1. I am not saying it will work or even that it is a good idea to try it.

        Only that it is something Obama can do and plus big explosions are cool.

        Note: you are way over estimating the power of a nuke to create tidal waves. Even a big H-bomb would not make one bigger then a surfing wave. Plus I don’t think such a wave would be called a tidal wave. Tsunami is the correct term.

      2. I heard it wouldn’t take nukes to compress the pipe. Which might mean you don’t have to go so deep, and maybe don’t piss off the greens so much. Although I don’t know why they don’t have a giant pipe crimper. It could attach to that giant saw they’re wasting their time with right now

      3. Not quite that simple, Josh. If they just set off a nuke on the bottom of the gulf the resulting tidal wave would be very, very bad. Of course, that would make everyone forget about the oil spill.

        Jiminy Christmas! Lots of sub-surface nuclear blasts have been set off. They don’t cause tidal waves, they cause shock waves. We’re not talking about a 50 megaton device here either, something in the 5-10 kiloton range would probably suffice.

        The Soviets drilled a four-mile deep well. So even if they started drilling today it would take months to get such a well drilled. Don’t know if the relief well being drilled by BP could be repurposed for this.

        When Pemex had a similar problem in the gulf (Ixtoc I oil spill), relief wells solved the problem. No need to nuke, just drill the wells. This thing may gush for another 6 months.
        ————————————————————————————–
        And I think Obama has handled this clusterfuck about right. He’s president, not God. Idiots who don’t understand that have no business writing opinion pieces.

        1. For someone who’s not God, he sure has a lot of worshippers. 🙂

          My lifetime of presidents starts with HST and I don’t believe I have never seen the followers of any president form a cult of personality like they have around this around one.

          1. Damn you’re old. I only go back to Eisenhower.

            And I’ve never seen shiot like this either. It makes Reagan fans seem downright sedate.

            1. Hell, it makes the Camelot cult look tame, and that was probably the worst I’d seen up till now.

              I probably really shouldn’t count Truman, I was five years old when he left office; I don’t think I even knew what a president was then.

  15. I think the federal government should offer a prize (say a couple billion) to whoever can develop something that can quickly extract the oil from the water. I could envision something like this being built on a huge scale and pumping the collected waste into a waiting tanker. Oh yeah, and specify that whoever extracts the oil from the water can sell it and keep the money as well.

    1. Kevin Costner is already pitching a device that will do just that and apparently BP and others are interested.

      Say what you like about his shitty movies (I actually think he’s a good actor) but the guy has sunk something like 24 mill of his own semollians into the thing.

      Instead of bloviating about the environment like all the other Hollywood airheads Costner seems to have been willing to put his money on the line.

      1. Say what you like about his shitty movies

        I liked the first 30 min of water world….and like 15 or 20 min of it after he left the floating hippy village.

  16. Given the meager means BP has to deal with the problem, how the hell did they get complex pipe infrastructure down there in the first place?

  17. Undo the cap on the holding tanks and pour even a gallon or five gallons of pure water into the tanks.

    Ummm…1) I might be wrong, but I’m fairly sure that the underground gasoline tanks at service stations have caps that are kept locked when not being filled or dipped.

    But…2) Even if I am wrong on 1), a gallon of water in the several thousand gallons of gas in an UST would probably never be noticed and if any did get into car owners tanks it would likely not do much beyond causing some hesitation until it worked its way through the system. Actually the biggest threat to your car is if the water bubbles freeze in you gas lines.

    1. If you really want to mess shit up mix sugar into water then put that into the gasoline.

      But yeah water alone is not that big of deal. It does not mix anyway as it is more dense then gasoline and can be easily drained from a gas tank.

      1. Yeah, most of the water they poured into a starage tank would pretty quickly settle to the bottom. Water gets into tanks all the time, mostly from condensation. Most facilities have regular maintenance to get rid of it, IIANM. Some of it will go into solution with the ethanol addititve, I suppose, and those H2O molecules will largely go out the tailpipwe with no affect at all.

      2. Unfortunately, gas tanks are pumped from the bottom first. If there is water in the tank and the station owner doesn’t know it, people can end up with water in their engines.

        1. My main point was that it’s a good thing this guy is so fucking clueless. If he had a clue and a sabotage mentality he might do some damage, as it is, I’m not much worried.

          1. I don’t think anyone is too worried as to what a “monorail activist” is capable of.

    2. I know the lady who runs the local BP station during the day would be happy to knee cap anybody who tried cutting the locks to her oil tank hatch with bird shot from the 4-10 double barrel she keeps in the office next to those tanks.

        1. Ah, you are thinking of the shotgun.
          Her gun is a new one issued by BP to BP station managers that shoots out ten plugs of hardened 10w40.

  18. Five gallons in an 80000gal tank would be less than an inch deep in the bottom though.

    OTOH, I’ve heard that water bubbles in jet fuel can fatally fuck up a jet engine, while a few dispersed in gasoline will have virtually no affect at all on a car engine.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.