Obama's Oil Spill

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The majority of people that died were beyond helping. The blame falls on Nagin and the clueless fat broad who was Governor at the time. The evacuation was a clusterf.uck of epic proportions.

Multiple administrations are to blame for the levees not being up to par.

Don't disagree entirely, take that up with Kanye, but not at all germane to joey's original ridiculous question.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Don't disagree entirely, take that up with Kanye, but not at all germane to joey's original ridiculous question.

It wasn't a ridiculous question -- it wasn't a serious one. But it does highlight the ridiculous double standard used by the media, since there are similarities in the scale of the two disasters, and the fact that both were not acted on immediately.

Three days is a lot closer to immediate than 37 days is though.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

It wasn't a ridiculous question -- it wasn't a serious one. But it does highlight the ridiculous double standard used by the media, since there are similarities in the scale of the two disasters, and the fact that both were not acted on immediately.

Three days is a lot closer to immediate than 37 days is though.

If that's meant to highlight a double standard for the media, then it also highlights a complete inability on your part to discern whether dying is the same as losing your livelihood. If you think that those two things are on equal footing to try to "highlight" anything, then we may simply have entirely different worldviews.

I mean, we may as well ask while we're at it -- unemployment is high in the country, and there are more white folks in America than anyone else, and Obama's in charge, so that would almost certainly make him a racist too, right? Same thing as people dying, completely, I see no difference whatsoever.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If that's meant to highlight a double standard for the media, then it also highlights a complete inability on your part to discern whether dying is the same as losing your livelihood. If you think that those two things are on equal footing to try to "highlight" anything, then we may simply have entirely different worldviews.

I mean, we may as well ask while we're at it -- unemployment is high in the country, and there are more white folks in America than anyone else, and Obama's in charge, so that would almost certainly make him a racist too, right? Same thing as people dying, completely, I see no difference whatsoever.

You're missing the point -- can we agree that race did not belong in either assessment of the response to the respective crises?

In otherwords, will the left admit, now that their guy can be viewed the same way, that Bush was not in fact a racist as a result of his handling of the Katrina aftermath?

Of course, I'd also expect all the public figures who said that Bush had special forces people detonating the levees to also retract their statements and issue an apology to Bush and his family.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You're missing the point -- can we agree that race did not belong in either assessment of the response to the respective crises?

In otherwords, will the left admit, now that their guy can be viewed the same way, that Bush was not in fact a racist as a result of his handling of the Katrina aftermath?

Of course, I'd also expect all the public figures who said that Bush had special forces people detonating the levees to also retract their statements and issue an apology to Bush and his family.

I was not aware that "Bush is a racist" was the left's party line on the handling on Katrina. For some, sure, but not as a whole I don't believe. So unfortunately, I'm not able to answer this question the way you've framed because I reject it out of hand.

Race shouldn't be involved in any discussion of the response to these disasters -- that I can agree on, but the whole apology from the left, retractions, etc, I can't get behind because like I said, you've framed it in a way that I don't believe is accurate to begin with.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I was not aware that "Bush is a racist" was the left's party line on the handling on Katrina. For some, sure, but not as a whole I don't believe. So unfortunately, I'm not able to answer this question the way you've framed because I reject it out of hand.

Race shouldn't be involved in any discussion of the response to these disasters -- that I can agree on, but the whole apology from the left, retractions, etc, I can't get behind because like I said, you've framed it in a way that I don't believe is accurate to begin with.

From our conversations on these boards, I can detect that you are a more rational guy, and I respect you.

There was a lot of coverage when all the Katrina stuff first broke to the effect of a racial component, and it was brought up again leading up to the election in the Louisiana area.

There actually were conspiracy theories put forward saying Bush blew up the levees, probably believed by the same nutjobs who watched "Fahrenheit 911" and think that the twin towers were brought down by "controlled demolition" -- like Rosie O'Donnell.

Those are the people I'd like to verbally tear apart.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by joeydb

There actually were conspiracy theories put forward saying Bush blew up the levees, probably believed by the same nutjobs who watched "Fahrenheit 911" and think that the twin towers were brought down by "controlled demolition" -- like Rosie O'Donnell.

Well, those people were lunatics before the oil spill. They haven't been exposed as any crazier than they already were just because Obama is f*cking up the response. They were out of their minds to begin with and not exactly the kind of people that I by and large think represent the left, but they may be for all I know....just not the people on the left that I personally know.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by joeydb

From our conversations on these boards, I can detect that you are a more rational guy, and I respect you.

There was a lot of coverage when all the Katrina stuff first broke to the effect of a racial component, and it was brought up again leading up to the election in the Louisiana area.

There actually were conspiracy theories put forward saying Bush blew up the levees, probably believed by the same nutjobs who watched "Fahrenheit 911" and think that the twin towers were brought down by "controlled demolition" -- like Rosie O'Donnell.

Those are the people I'd like to verbally tear apart.

Who the hell cares? What on earth does this have to do with the BP spill? Congrats, you've established that the left has out of touch conspiracy theorists. Jesus Christ, you take a stance that even I can agree with (Obama is sitting on his hands w/the spill) and manage to screw that up by grinding some five-year-old axe about some nonsense said by people who no one listens to anyway. Get a grip.

It wasn't a horrible comparison...maybe not the best one, however.

The fishing industry is kapoot in the Gulf. The people who are affected by this might as well be dead. It's not like the majority of them are highly educated. How are they going to provide for their families now? The settlement checks some of them are taking now will prevent them from suing BP in the future and the ones who wait it out for the lawsuit will be waiting for years.

This disaster was preventable and only happened because of the powerful oil lobby and corrupt government employees who took bribes and turned a blind eye to the safety violations.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The fishing industry is kapoot in the Gulf. The people who are affected by this might as well be dead. It's not like the majority of them are highly educated. How are they going to provide for their families now?

Wow.

I see no reasonable way to compare dying to losing a job. Not even if you're uneducated, not even if you lose your livelihood, not for anything, since you know, you're still NOT DEAD.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Wow.

I see no reasonable way to compare dying to losing a job. Not even if you're uneducated, not even if you lose your livelihood, not for anything, since you know, you're still NOT DEAD.

An instant death by disaster is no different than a slow one. Do you not agree that lives will be destroyed due to this disaster? How about suicides?

It is a family tradition to some of these fishermen. Generations of work lost due to incompetence and greed by the government.

Rebuilding will be an impossible obstacle for some of them to overcome.

And remember that most of these fishermen and their families dealt with Katrina as well. It's a double whammy of bad luck.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

An instant death by disaster is no different than a slow one. Do you not agree that lives will be destroyed due to this disaster? How about suicides?

It is a family tradition to some of these fishermen. Generations of work lost due to incompetence and greed by the government.

Rebuilding will be an impossible obstacle for some of them to overcome.

Lives destroyed. People lose jobs all the time. Generations of work or not, it's a lost job. A decreased standard of living or a need to learn to do something else is still not dying. I'm not saying for a second that this isn't a catastrophic life event for lots of people -- but it's not the same as dying, because there is a chance to do something else and a chance to still live a life....just because it's not the one you're used to or because it's not the one you want doesn't make it equal in any way to literally DYING.

And suicide is almost universally an elective decision, so again, not the same thing at all. Unfortunate, yes, but still a choice so I'm not willing to take people drowning in a disaster they had no control over on equal footing with someone who puts a bullet into their head because their life isn't what it used to be. Maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Lives destroyed. People lose jobs all the time. Generations of work or not, it's a lost job. A decreased standard of living or a need to learn to do something else is still not dying. I'm not saying for a second that this isn't a catastrophic life event for lots of people -- but it's not the same as dying, because there is a chance to do something else and a chance to still live a life....just because it's not the one you're used to or because it's not the one you want doesn't make it equal in any way to literally DYING.

And suicide is almost universally an elective decision, so again, not the same thing at all. Unfortunate, yes, but still a choice so I'm not willing to take people drowning in a disaster they had no control over on equal footing with someone who puts a bullet into their head because their life isn't what it used to be. Maybe that's just me.

Why? Most of the people who decided to stay in New Orleans for Katrina were suicidal. Or at the very least had suicidal tendencies. This excludes those without means to get out and the mentally retarded.

Any rational person could see that Katrina was going to wreak havoc at least 4 days before it hit land. They had time to get out.

The fishing industry was stuck like Chuck.

[Danzig]

who to blame, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2254979/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

who to blame, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2254979/

Pretty much sums it up.

I have doubts the top-fill is going to work. I hope I'm wrong.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

who to blame, from slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2254979/

Excellent..brought up parties I didn't even know were involved

[Thunder Gulch]

In 5 + weeks since this deal started, our President has barely commented on the situation other than to appoint some special commission to affix blame 6 months from now. Meanwhile, there is no coordination and little help from the feds while fishermen organize themselves to wage an impossible battle against an approaching oil slick. Obama was more concerned with the primary elections, the semantics of a state immigration bill he hasn't read, and the campaign for his Supreme Court appointee, while the Gulf of Mexico has been ruined for a generation.

If he really had his "boot on the throat of BP" he would have taken this deal over very early on. This isn't about policy, point of view, party lines, or vision for the future, this is about taking charge in a crisis to demand action and limit the damage, and this is a miserable failure. The question about his leadership in a crisis has been answered, and it leaves this country with a scary outlook for his term his President.