Never let an oil leak go to waste?

izoneguy

http://www.lonestarproject.net/Permalink/2010-05-07.html

EVERYONE is going to have oil on their hands:

Obama top recipient of BP contributions last 20 yrs.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/05/obama-top-recipient-of-bp-contributions-last-20-yrs/#ixzz0pzdZNIcV

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company?s political action committees ? $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals…

Politico?s Lovely closes out with this quote from former Rep. Jim Turner, now a lobbyist for BP with Arnold & Porter:

?First, they are exceedingly competent. Second, they are [Democratic-centric]. I know the first will help enormously in the next few weeks. I am not so sure about the second,? said Republican energy lobbyist Mike McKen na of MWR Strategies, who predicted that Landrieu would quite likely get ?very wide latitude? on the oil issue. ?That may not be the case with BP, whose record is a bit more spotty.?

RedBeard

…that you think our president would ever play politics with a national emergency. What do you take him for, a thug from the Chicago political machine? Sheesh.

Brian_Roastbeef

One of those five men is a Democrat in everything but name only and considers himself a good friend to Obama. I’ll leave you to figure out which one, but its the dude that regularly walks around being orange.

Of course, Governor Orange-guy’s state hasn’t been dealing with oil washing up on the beaches until this week…

Bobby Jindal meanwhile stands as the example of a leader in government actually, well, leading – something the administration doesn’t seem to want to be bothered doing. In the end will Obama’s politics game work to harm his political rivals, or does it just make him look incompetent while Jindal is ready to take necessary action.

If only the administration were willing to take charge, this could have been contained much sooner, Obama could have looked good and all bi-partisan working alongside Jindal, and then he could have used that goodwill to start trying to destroy “drill, baby, drill.” Instead, President Incompetent decides to cut out the middle step in which something is actually accomplished and go straight to the playing politics… After 16 months, can any of us be surprised at this?

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

But BP has. That’s how The Marxist telegraphs his moves, by the scapegoat he makes.

He’s got not a care in the world, since he can blame BP, and by extension, big oil, oil itself, and the capitalist system.

Notice how The Marxist complains about BP spending money on PR. He wants them to shut up and take their beating.

While he golfs.

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog/loren_heal Socrates

But that’s not to say that if the Gulf South were a bunch of blue-state whiners he wouldn’t be running in with cape and tights and a spare $trillion to keep every last drop off shore.

http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

If this was true in April,

“Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, told Obama in late April that the blowout would likely lead to an unprecedented environmental disaster, a senior White House aide told The Daily Beast. Browner warned that capping a well at such depths had never been done before, and that they ought to expect an oil spill that would continue until a relief well was drilled in August.”

Then, all the ecological damage is on Obama.

YES, IT IS.

There were solutions of bring tankers in to suck the oil from the water, Gov. Jindal had ideas and requested the authority to use those ideas and to protect La. coastlines; the White House sat on its hands at best.

Conspiracy theories aside, Obama could have lessened the environmental damage with the full force of government resources and he did not; to assign all environmental blame on the executive branch is appropriate and deserved.

http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

I have mentioned that same thing to family members.

If Obama were on top of this from day 1 and saved the coastlines and fishing industries; he could have been pointing blame at oil+gas all the way to November and gotten cap+trade, more spending for green alternatives, gotten some southern people that were anti-obama in 2008 to line up behind him after Obama saved them while Bush made the gulf into one big mishap.

I don’t believe in some sort of Conspriracy against the GOP or oil for this, Obama just messed it all up as he’s done with practically everything and we still have 2 more years of this, great.

grandma

but this simple chart vividly and clearly enunciates it.

lineholder

that there are political reasons that might explain why he has acted as he has. Personally, where the rest of us who have at least some sense of patriotism to this country would respond with a certain amount of “my country, my nation, my home, my people” etc., and tend to become emotional about it when we see events of this sort take place, President Obama doesn’t have a shred of this in him.

Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero.

I think that could explain a lot of his apathy on more issues than just this oil spill.

redneck_hippie

determined by how a state votes. Residual capitalism is still okay, as long as the state is run by Democrats/Unions. Further, the democrat-ruled states (Illinois is one) can be counted on to lose their viabilitly one by one and become wards of the all-encompassing Kingdom of Obama. California, Illinois and New York will need increasing infusions of federal tax receipts from the other 47 to keep the lights on (barring a rapid turnaround via elections).

What is amazing about Obama is he is a bigger ditherer than Clinton, and I didn’t think that would be possible. Dithering seems to be Obama’s default position. What else could the voters have expected when a rookie present-voting congressman ran for president?

I want to scream when I read some pinhead’s musings on Obama’s aloofness. It’s not aloofness. It is acquiescence to and participation in the decline of America. As long as events adduce to the growth of government, Obama is satisfied to take no action. On the other hand, if events adduce to the furtherance of law, independence, freedom, then he spares no effort to squelch it. That this pandering jerk would use the powers of the presidency to try and bring about the downfall of our beautiful America is sickening.

So, what we are talking about is an alignment of planets. The scapegoating of big oil, the necessitation of further government control over energy and industry (even though this failed in the present case), a way to despoil the economies of regions under republican control, and the empowerment of the eco-nazi’s. Not to mention raping BP with lawsuits and bad PR in order to weaken markets and industry.

Yes, Obama is fairly satisfied with a good days’ work. All brought about by dithering. And the golfing continues apace, enhanced by the eclipse of his enemies.

realskinny

In Chicago, wards that do not support the machine don’t get their streets plowed in the winter or the broken sidewalks fixed. This is just normal Chicago Democrat corruption. Nothing to see here.

redneck_hippie

Agenda item: permanent Democrat majority control and economic ruin for America through increased illegal immigration.
Event: Governor Brewer chooses to enforce federal law despite all Obama can say or do..
Response by Obama: Not returning Gov Brewer’s phone calls.

Agenda item: Complete government control of all energy and industry.
Event: Oil spill known “from day one” to be catastrophic to region’s economy and environment.
Response: Dither. Sue. Ignore pleas for assistance from Governor Jindahl who is widely known as a potential presidential candidate.

There is a long-established pattern of ignoring (at best) his opposition. We should need no further evidence of this after the completely partisan development of the health care legislation.

So from all of these things we can easily predict Obama’s response to events. A creep in Honduras tries to create himself dictator. When Honduras tries to preserve its constitutional laws and freedoms, Obama swoops in to denounce freedom. And so on.

No non-Marxist ideas are even considered. This is not ending well for him or his party. Obama is petty and actively works against any glimmer of bi-partisanship. This jerk is a man in a hurry, a “strong man” who has limited time in which to accomplish the decline of America. He has lived in a bubble his whole life and has the pre-conceived notions to prove it. I won’t ever forget his deer-in-the-headlights look when his whole schtick was neatly refuted by Rep. Paul Ryan at the health care show. He had no inkling that any opponent had any ideas that he couldn’t demagogue.

Demagogue. Rabble-rouse. Golf. What a statesman.

realskinny

any intelligent person would have done was to have waived all environmental rules for the duration of the emergency so efforts to contain the damage would not be hampered. None of the accepted methods of containment, such as a burn off, were used because of EPA resistance. Secondly, the Feds should have worked with BP to set up offices to accept claims and the evidence of losses for compensation. Looks as though this is being left to individual lawyers—a bonanza for another Obama support group. There seems to be no overall authority in charge. Just a chinese firedrill of incompetence.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

izoneguy

That does not include Obama

Xasteius

Nixon minus class, Ford minus dignity, Carter minus patriotism.

redneck_hippie

Divine justice may be coming (at last!) into play.

Obama would be immediately competent if he would embrace Conservatism and, by implication, morality, and traditional American values.

He won’t. Therefore we all pray for his failure. An honest president would not be actively working against America’s best interests. I don’t see Obama as merely incompetent. Evil, yes. Anti-American, yes. Marxist, yes. Incompetent to me signifies merely unable to accomplish his aims. So far, his aims are to ruin our economy/industry and grow government/unions. Being a wrecking ball is the lazy, stuipid way to succeed. Accomplishing actual good is hard work and would cut into golf time.

He isn’t incompetent. He is, however, manifestly a failure and his presidency is a failed presidency which I have seen coming from the very first few months he was in office and turned over the keys to his kingdom to the likes of Axelrod, Emanuel, Jarret, czars, etc. etc. etc. Levin is 100% correct. I need to correct myself. Obama’s is a failed regime. It is not a presidency in any real sense of the term.

redneck_hippie

peacebone

come on now guy. I can’t believe you actually said all that.

First of all this statement is crazy:

“Obama would be immediately competent if he would embrace Conservatism and, by implication, morality, and traditional American values.”

Morality is something that each must figure out on his or her own–leave politics out of it. Also, I’m not sure what exactly you mean by traditional American values, so I’d welcome your clarification.

As for this:

“Therefore we all pray for his failure. An honest president would not be actively working against America?s best interests. I don?t see Obama as merely incompetent. Evil, yes. Anti-American, yes. Marxist, yes.”

I do not pray for his failure, if it means that we must endure tragedies like the Deepwater Horizon disaster. While we Republicans may score political points in this affair, it remains an environmental and humanitarian tragedy that will affect our nation for many years. 11 men lost their lives in this, and that should not be overlooked. As for President Obama being evil and anti-American, you’re joking me right. He is obviously not working to destroy the United States, nor is he the devil in disguise or whatever you may think. Statements like that, while understandably born of frustration, do nothing to help. President Obama and us Republicans both look out on our country and see that we have serious problems to solve. He believes they should be solved one way, we believe they should be solved another way. But all of us agree that they need to be solved. So yes, disagree with him, try and defeat his policies so that we may enact ours. But do not call him evil, or anti-American. He loves this country just as much as you and I, and he remains our president for the time being.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

lineholder

that President Obama is loyal to this country as a REPUBLIC and to the Constitution that was developed by our founding fathers? Do you believe that he is loyal to those things?

I don’t. I think that is why he totally ignores it when it his own people go against Constitutional law. I believe that is why he stated very plainly that he is not proud of this nation. I believe that is why he has adamantly refused to acknowledge any allegiance to this country by placing his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem.

The man has his loyalties, but protecting and preserving the sovereignty of our nation isn’t one of them.

redneck_hippie

I seem to be wordy today. Perhaps the Greek omelette for breakfast gave me indigestion. Or the Walt Whitman.

Redneck hippies who converse with chanticleers ought to come away with a healthy respect for America. Thanks for all your great diaries.

lineholder

that I haven’t seen before. Passionate in the best of sense…in a patriotic sense. It’s appreciated.

eastbaylarry

nt

eastbaylarry

nt

acat

You wrote: “He [Obama] loves this country just as much as you and I, and he remains our president for the time being.”

Cite, please.

Mew

rbdwiggins

as envisioned by our Founders, set forth in the US Constitution and paid-for with the blood of our greatest national treasure, why is his stated goal: “The fundamental transformation of America.”

His domestic and foreign policies are anti-American. That’s a statement of fact.

As for morality, the United States of America was founded on the Judeo-Christian principles of Life and Liberty. Those same conservative principles dictated the public discourse and the debate surrounding the constitutional convention, the US Constitution’s construction and its subsequent ratification.

Religion and our constitutional Republic are inseparable.

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ? John Adams, October 11, 1798

redneck_hippie

you know, RS is a marvelous place to visit and recognize the good in each other. Nice reminder for me especially, since I labor in a Marxist stronghold. I sow my little seeds there where I can, but the seeds I sow are on rocky ground. So I guess here is where I can unleash my inner Mark Levin and express my near-Biblical wrath.

lineholder

to people who understand exactly where that wrath comes from…and it feels really good, doesn’t it?
Don’t give up sowing the seed. It can take root in ways unforeseen, which is the most amazing gift.

redneck_hippie

You seem to equate morality with religion. Does one need to profess any particular religion in order to be considered moral in your opinion? To be moral is to be ethical, just, and law-abiding. Do you seriously mean to come to a political (Conservative/Republican) site and advocate that politics are always amoral?

Traditional American values. Read: Bible. Constitution.

If you’re an atheist, I suppose you could watch MSNBC and read Earth in the Balance instead.

As for your other points, I see you have been a member here for 2 days. While you are correct to post your rebuttal to my points, I feel others on the thread have adequately addressed the issues. Plus, sometimes these things take time to mature and in your case I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.

penguin2

where we need him to fail. We are “enduring” the tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon disaster because of his failure. He did not cause it, no one said he did, but to ameliorate the disaster was in his hands, and he has failed the American people on this.

His successes have been moves against the American People, our Constitution, and this includes his monstrous mismanagement of the monies of the American people – the rape of our economy for generations to come. Include in his “successes” the appointment of activists judges to help get the Leftist agenda completely in place, which is against the core foundation of this country. The Health Care travesty was in direct opposition to the wishes of the American people, and it took away the right of Americans to say ‘No.” (See Vassar’s diary on this.)

He has traveled the world over to apologize and insult not only America, but long term allies as well.

Nothing we have seen shows that he respects or appreciates America Exceptionalism. And yes, I consider it evil for any one man or group to try and destroy this country. This is not about simple differences of opinion of whether we take two different roads to get to the same destination. Obama and the Leftists destination is the opposite of the one the American people have a right to expect.

You may sympathize with Obama all you want, but he has done nothing to improve one thing since he took office. The American people are worse off and they know it, ask anyone, (unless it one of the temporary census workers). The natural confidence and optimism of the people has been shaken by Obama and his administration, so please don’t tell me the man loves America. One thing about people, they have an instinctive sense eventually, of when someone is not really on their side.

redneck_hippie

In appreciation for your remarks, here is something I was going to say to our 2 day member above, but I’d rather say it to you:

“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Have a blessed Saturday. I’m in a particularly happy frame of mind, as I just learned our family hero will be back stateside from Iraq as early as today (my daughter’s Marine brother-in-law).

msctex

1) That Obama would or could have the slightest idea what to do in this situation. Oil industry experience? Zero. Any relevant experience to the matter whatsoever? Zero. We could well be quite lucky he did not try to “help,” and only make matters worse — not that the press would have acknowledged the fact had it occurred. He had and has no interest whatsoever with surrounding himself with individuals who could have helped; his cabinet and administration is built upon appearance, not substance — perception, not reality.

2) That Obama should have the power to solve the problem to begin with. The Government does not exist to solve problems such as this spill, it exists to facilitate the solutions to these problems, via working to assist Private Industry. To assume Obama or any other President could have solved this matter is to embody the Office of the Presidency with Power it does not and should not ever possess, if we wish to remain a Constitutional Republic, as opposed to the Socialist Quasi-Democracy those currently in power envision.

3) That this is not the Government’s fault to begin with. Why were they drilling so deep? Insane regulations. Why do we not have scientific answers to the problem already developed? An “Environmental Protection Agency” steeped in the modern, near-religious dogma that calls for an end of the Petroleum Industry, by any means necessary — or at the least, Government control thereof. Thus, already envisioned and developed answers to the issue have been shot down before they could be tried, lest they actually work.

lineholder

That would be inspiring to anyone.

penguin2

happy and relieved.

You inspired my comment to our 2 day member, as well.

God Bless you and yours, redneck.

Obis_Sister

Obama ignoring the Nashville flood. He can’t be bothered with pesky Southerners that didn’t vote for him. He’d just as soon wish us down a Guatamalan sink-hole.

redneck_hippie

I am really so happy for the family. They will be celebrating the homecoming at Disney World in November. There are special accommodations for reunions, I hear.

When Pen writes “The natural confidence and optimism of the people has been shaken by Obama and his administration, so please don?t tell me the man loves America. One thing about people, they have an instinctive sense eventually, of when someone is not really on their side.”

Sad, but true. But as always, we pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and that good ole American feistiness comes to the rescue. Who would have really believed after Obama got elected that we would come roaring back as forcefully as we have?

Now, if we could just get some traction with key initiatives, SCHOOL CHOICE, for example, my optimism would be justifiably increased. Yesterday, the dunderhead chief of the Chicago teachers union called in to WLSam. Get this: She says that money is coming into the schools from the federal government. The talk host says. Yes, that is taxpayer money. The dunderhead teacher’s union chief says, “NO, that isn’t tax money. It’s federal grant money.”

And we wonder why there are still leftists in this country and our own president is trying to chain us into the bondage of socialism.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

baklava (spelling is the hobgoblin of puny minds…figure it out)

mriggio

To this point perhaps “he did not cause it”. If & when more details become to light, resident expert Vladimir can instruct us all, but even now there have been murmurings of questionable practices prior to the explosion, which may or may not be traceable to regime approval/agreement. Time may tell. In the meanwhile, thank you for your excellent response!

peacebone

Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with a great deal of the president’s policies. I just think it is disturbing that people here are congratulated for running around calling the president evil and anti-American.

Look, President Obama wants to see a United States where everyone can realize the American dream, where everyone enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He isn’t trying to destroy this country or turn it into a totalitarian state. He is trying to make this country a better place in which to live.

We want those very same things. Unlike us however, he feels that government is the best way to bring that about. We believe in free markets and free people, who will ultimately choose what is best for them. Its a fundamental philosophical disagreement, but it doesn’t make him evil. He says he wants to fundamentally change this country, but what he means is that he wants to change it for the better.

Think about what policies you would enact if you were president. Drastically reduce the welfare state, outlaw abortion, get rid of gun control laws–that is pretty fundamental change too no? And I know you are going to say that your changes are more in line with traditional American values, but let me suggest that American values have been constantly changing and adapting ever since this nation was founded. America is dynamic and its culture constantly reflects that.

Feel free to criticize President Obama all you want; such activity should be encouraged and promoted. But please, have some respect for the office and don’t call him evil and anti-American. He is no such thing. And as for not placing his hand over his heart–don’t you think there’s more to patriotism than merely placing your hand on your heart or wearing a pin? Would it be more patriotic to dedicate your life to the service of the country, regardless of your political persuasion?

peacebone

“His domestic and foreign policies are anti-American. That?s a statement of fact.”

That isn’t what a fact is! Facts have to be proven! Can you prove that?

peacebone

was that holding certain political beliefs does not make one moral. Just look at the vast number of politicians on both sides of the aisle who clearly have ethical shortcomings.

gekster

peacebone

I agree some of his successes have resulted in a mess that will take a long time to clean up (national debt, health care, ties with the British, etc.). But there are clearly places where we want him to succeed, and he hasn’t–but we shouldn’t pray for him to screw up in those areas.

peacebone

He’s the President of the United States! Everything he does is one long promotion for this country. What do you want him to do, tape advertisements urging tourists to visit like Arnold did in California?

redneck_hippie

Clearly we are never going to agree. You think conservative politicians are “crazies.” You think I make crazy statements.

Reading this comment by you: “You say you want our Senators to do something to stop bad legislation from passing. I wish we could do something too. But we have only 41 senators because independents and moderates were driven from the party or turned off of it by far-right crazies who believe that guns, gods, and no abortions are the only important things in this world.

You want them to be able to do something? Let?s start by getting more Republicans elected. How do we do that? Well certainly not by poisoning the electorate against sensible Republicans by nominating a bunch of super-crazies (Chuck DeVore, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, etc.).”

Yes, Peacebone, Sensible Republicans like Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. We wouldn’t want our party taken over by the crazies.

gekster

went on his apology tour, said we are not a Christian nation,
more recently letting a forieghn leader slam a state of this union,
allow a British punk to slam a former President,
his snub of longtime allies Britian and Isreal and others,
his assualt of capitalism in this country, his socialist agenda,
forcing healthcare down our throats,
among many other things.

gekster

I just want to spread the wealth around, “take from the hard workers and give to the not so hard workers,” is supporting American values.
I don’t think so.

penguin2

in areas where the country desperately needs him to succeed. That statement is not going to go unchallenged. It is an untruth.

Speaking for myself, I wish him to fail in his agenda as it is destructive to this country. If he reverses course, and initiates fiscally sound policies, gets Congress to repeal the HC travesty, appoints judges that will uphold the Constitution, stops apologizing for the uniqueness of the American people, and gets rid of his union thugs and the Chicago way, well then, he’ll have been a successful president.

With the course he and his administration has set for us, he is driving the nation right over the cliff. Seeing our beautiful American ship go down is heartbreaking and downright scary to those of us who believe differently than our Leftist Communist president.

peacebone

There are some fair points here. I don’t agree with him letting Calderon slam Arizona. Politics is supposed to end at the water’s edge (or southern border at least), and he should have stood up for his country as we are all Americans. I too disagree with his assault on capitalism and his promotion of his healthcare reform, but I don’t think that falls into the category of promoting or not promoting America.

As for the other complaints–the “apology tour” as you put it was an honest attempt to restore some of the goodwill lost during the Bush administration. Did it work? No, but he was trying to promote the positive aspects of America, not the negative ones that permeated much of President Bush’s foreign policy. Also, the United States is not a Christian nation, it is a secular nation with no official religion (and please don’t throw the statistic at me, I don’t care how many in the U.S. are Christians, it doesn’t change the point).

I am appalled at the way he has treated the United Kingdom and think they have every right to be questioning whether or not the special relationship is all that beneficial to them. Isn’t the “British punk” you are referring to Sir Paul McCartney? It was a joke, lighten up (you have to admit Bush wasn’t the brightest guy in the world, or at least didn’t come off that way).

peacebone

I’m pretty sure he never said that

streiff

his dislike and disdain for this country are palpable.

peacebone

I consider my self a moderate Republican (and yeah I’m prepared for the inevitable vitriol that’s going to accomplish that statement). But hey, there’s more than enough room in this party for both of us. Let’s each support our own candidates and let the voters decide. I’ll support Republicans in the general as I’m sure you will as well.

gekster

imo.
sorry, should have used brackets.

peacebone

trust me I hate those words more tan just about anything else.

streiff

couldn’t stay away, eh?

redneck_hippie

republicans for the candidates themselves. I don’t cotton to political correctness, moral relativism and Obama apologism.

I side with Reagan. Sharp primary colors, not washed out pastels. I’d rather a Rubio than a Crist any day. We had the moderate republican extraordinaire as our standard-bearer in ’08. That really worked out well

mbecker908

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

SteveLA

redneck_hippie

Well we did have a primary, and Johnny Mac came out on top.

Is there someone else that if we had nominated could have beat Obama? I don’t think so as the election was a change election with even within the R party a great deal of Bush fatigue. Maybe I’m reading things wrong, but that’s how I see it, tell me where or rather who could have done a better job? I would agree if you assert that Fred probably would have done a better job of taking on Obama, but he never seemed to want to run really and did not do much to capitalize on his initial surge after his announcement.

There’s also this trick that the R party plays, always nominating the next old guy in line, which was McCain. Reagan broke that pattern, but it took him a while engaged in trench warfare with the old bull Elephants.

gekster

I’m sorry to say but his forieghn policy,
wich started with his first overseas trip,
was basically that we would embrace those that vowed destruction
of the USA, and all that we believe in.
He’s catching up to if not already passed Jimmy Carter.

He did change the Bush policy of
if you’re going to kill us, and keep trying to kill us,
then we will try to kill you first,
to
if you’re going to kill us,
lets sit down and talk about it,
even though you have vowed that no matter what
we talk about,
you will keep trying to kill us just the same.
But first, your miranda rights,
and here is a lawyer who volonteered for you,
who hopes to work in my DoJ someday.

And in the fact that X% of the people
(we do know what it is)
in this nation are Christian,
more or less makes us a Christian nation.
It’s just like our good friend (?) Turkey.
It also is a secular nation,
but is deemed to be Muslim by the rest of the world.

6eorge Jetson

Don’t confuse stopping the leak with the best engineering team with limiting the damage through low tech, brute force, labor/resource intensive efforts.

The Professor^TM sat around in the White House lounge and dithered while imperfect but helpful efforts that would have ameliorated the situation went unexecuted.

How many jobs did The Professor^TM “save or create” by sitting around doing nothing where the government could have provided the brawn to help. We can spend trillions on the stimulus and the bailouts but we can’t bother to try to limit the damage to the coastline?

Please.

Jack_Savage

Because I think the burden of proof is on you, not us.

Take your apologist tour somewhere else. I ain’t buying what you’re selling.

redneck_hippie

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

don’t seem to mind it the new version has to rise from the ashes of a torn down version of its former self.

But yes, he is loyal to that leftist vision of America. He loves what COULD be.

redneck_hippie

I’m saying that we ended up nominating a squish, and people didn’t see any difference between our guy and their guy. That has to stop.

If I never see a so-called Republican sitting on the liberal “couch” again, I’ll die happy.

SteveLA

redneck_hippie

I’ve heard that tune here on RS a lot, but it’s funny that all those who hate on McCain really can’t point to who would have done a better job and or explain how their “better” guy would have beat Obama.

There was plenty of differences between Obama and McCain. One was old and grumpy, one was Hope Change and Unicorns. People were into Unicorns who weren’t Bush last election, pretty simple. I do tend to think that McCain knew going in that Obama was going to win and for his own reasons decided to run the sort of race he did, which wasn’t very aggressive at all.

State	Governor	Party	Election Year?	Note
Alabama	Bob Riley	Republican	Yes	Open race
Florida	Charlie Crist	Independent	Yes	Former GOP
Louisiana	Bobby Jindal	Republican	No	GOP leader
Mississippi	Haley Barbour	Republican	No	RGA head
Texas	Rick Perry	Republican	Yes	Re-election

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Never let an oil leak go to waste?

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL