Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How many regulations would it have taken to prevent this from ever happening? Liberals believe gov regulation is the answer to all things, so how many would it have taken?
Again libs filled with hate continue to spread lies about conservatives. Never have conservatives said they believe in NO gov regulation. The lies are offensive, but from the party of intolerance little should be expected.
This is Obama's Katrina. Obama is responsible for this happening just like Bush caused Katrina - like many libs continue to believe. Ya think Obama should not have blown up the oil rig?
Yet Obama approved this well to continue operating. Why did Obama do that while skipping over regulations and cutting corners?Firstly, there is evidence showing that certain engineering and safety guidelines and skipped over. Enough to ensure that these corners could not have been cut should be enough I think...
Calling for smaller government and less regulation does not mean no government or no regulation. But this was the gist of the OP and often is by liberal liars...oops, I mean talking heads....on the cable news. Keith Olbermann even tried to blame the oil mess on Sarah Palin. The party of tolerance launching more sexist attacks. More like the party of hypocrisy.Second, nobody ever made the claim that conservatives believe in no regulation. My statement was based on lines and messages appearing in many republican speeches and signs.
Looks like you got my point with that one.Third, I'm slightly confused by your third point. Are you claiming that Obama decided to blow up the oil rig or are you just making the comparison that Obama is responsible for this in the same way that Bush is responsible for Katrina? I will assume the latter as the first is just crazy.
Sure, Bush can be criticized for the aftermath of Katrina - even though residents were warned to evacuate for days and decided to stay. Since they were warned of Katrina and had plenty of time to evacuate, I have little sympathy for most of the "victims" of Katrina.In that case nobody blames him for the actual hurricane, just his response. Do I think that more could have done soon in Katrina? Yes, for example why did he wait so long to send in the coast guard? However, is direct criticism of Bush for Katrina unfair? I think so, it not directly his responsibility for that type of situation, as is the case with Obama and the gulf. However, I have seen criticism from that right for the Government getting to involved with the situation, which I find to be ridiculous. For example there was a lot of criticism about the quote "we are going to keep our boot on the throat of BP."
Sure, Bush can be criticized for the aftermath of Katrina - even though residents were warned to evacuate for days and decided to stay. Since they were warned of Katrina and had plenty of time to evacuate, I have little sympathy for most of the "victims" of Katrina.
37 days after the oil rig exploded in the gulf and the oil leak, Obama has done almost nothing. MSM ignores this and any criticism of their messiah is attacked as racist and any other wacko term the party of tolerance chooses. Liberals are completely cut off from reality. Everyone should be screaming for Obama to get his a$$ down there (he continues to fail in doing that) and see the pain of the people, the marine life, and the gulf in general. But I'm sure Obama will have Napolitano declare this a victory and much ado about nothing the same way she claimed the system worked with the underwear bomber. Reality. Liberals. The two are foreign to each other.
As for keeping their boot on the throat of BP, I think the very poor choice of words had a lot to do with the criticize of Obama there. That and the fact that Obama is the weakest panty-waist there is made the statement laughable...except that Obama is so delusional and probably does see himself as some sort of tough jack-boot thug that has responded perfectly.
So your comments are above reproach and are to simply be accepted? Your comments are just musings and not to be taken seriously as points to debate? Good god, how are people supposed to know the difference?Once again... I was simply commentating on the general message by many conservatives/republican about "government always getting in the way" and "do you really want the government to be in charge of things," as this is one case where I would have liked to see more regulation, even if it cost the company a little more money to do things like they should have.
Specifically, where did I say that Bush was not to be blamed for the AFTERMATH of Katrina? You keep dropping that typical lib talk that says Bush is blamed for Katrina when you say you don't blame him. Which is it?So you made the statement that if Bush is to be blamed for Katrina, then Obama is to be blamed for the oil leak.
Here you are saying that Bush is not to be blamed for Katrina. Fair enough, I agreed with that beforehand.
No, you are putting words in my mouth. Like I said, show me exactly where I said Bush should not be blamed for anything. Come on, surely you can do that...or are you being less than truthful?And yet here you are saying that Obama is to be blamed for the current state of the oil spill. So your previous statement is either nullified or your being completely hypocritical. Reality. This point. They seem to be foreign to each other.
It is symbolic, it shows he might be human and care a small bit in his elitist tower. Bush was slammed for flying above New Orleans after Katrina instead of personally visiting (at first). No criticism of Obama, even 37 days later. I am seeing a pattern here with libs....how about you?What is Obama going to the site of the Oil Spill going to do?
Obama said he wanted to be held responsible (after elected) and promised a new and higher level of government. This is it? His regime made the remark. It is the typical elitist poor taste that always bubbles to the top.Also Obama never made the throat on neck statement...
Oh, so you are holding me responsible for every remark made by any conservative in the news? Fine by me, I will have a LOT of fun with this game as long as YOU agree to be held accountable right down the line with anything and everything made by ANY liberal in the news. Agreed?Even so, they seem to be criticized for it for exercising to much power. Then 5 minutes later they are blamed and criticized again for not having the problem solved.
You can't have it both ways.
Sure, Bush can be criticized for the aftermath of Katrina - even though residents were warned to evacuate for days and decided to stay. Since they were warned of Katrina and had plenty of time to evacuate, I have little sympathy for most of the "victims" of Katrina.
Actually residents were warned only a day before that it was going to hit hard, not "for days". More than a million residents of the Gulf Coast region were told to evacuate, of the remaining population, 26k were left in New Orleans. Also, they didn't expect the levees to actually break. The breaking of the levees is what caused the massive flooding damage, not the hurricane itself. That's why there were so many problems in the insurance industry with people who had hurricane insurance, but not flooding insurance.
Also keep in mind that New Orleans had a lot of warnings before, but just like the "big warning that a huge earthquake is due for the LA area", there were a lot of people that just didn't believe it... or they thought it wasn't going to be as hard.
Victims of Katrina include people who had their houses destroyed, even though they themselves escaped. I hope you have a lot of sympathy for them. Are you only talking about the people who decided to stay? Also keep in mind, tourists are considered to be victims of Katrina. If you were a tourist in New Orleans and realized that you had to evacuate, what would you actually do? From what I've read, they were told to be in the upper levels of their hotels.
ACTUALLY....the reports had been saying for years that the shorelines had been eroding and that the risk of a massive disaster was only a perfect storm away. I remember seeing a documentary on this with much more scientific lingo then little ole me can regurgitate on TV almost a year before it actually happened. I'm not saying they shouldn't have been helped though. I have had tornado AND water damage insurance on my house since I have been a home owner and I live 5 miles from the nearest creek, 20 miles from the nearest lake, 2 states away from the nearest great lake and 4 states away from the nearest ocean. It was at best gambling without taking the odds into consideration to own a home in New Orleans without the proper insurance.
Oh, so you are holding me responsible for every remark made by any conservative in the news? Fine by me, I will have a LOT of fun with this game as long as YOU agree to be held accountable right down the line with anything and everything made by ANY liberal in the news. Agreed?
Hell no. Personally I think that many liberal talking heads arguments are just as ******ed as those of their conservative counterparts. However, you keep mentioning liberal hypocrisy where you see it, I am simply doing the same.
It is very obvious that this is going to keep going in circles. We can keep going at it but it seems that neither of us are going to convince the other of anything.
Hey hey hey, lay off of Obama please, jeez, he's been so busy lately. Just two nights ago he was on an interview on TNT talking about the playoff's and basketball, how he watches most of the west coast games. Give the man a break about the whole oil spill and 37 days with no response crap, he's had more important things to do like watching the Suns vs. Lakers...
Yes, I'm sure the leveees would have just burst open even if it weren't for that pesky hurricane.Also, they didn't expect the levees to actually break. The breaking of the levees is what caused the massive flooding damage, not the hurricane itself.
Point out where I called you a name.By the way, name-calling doesn't do anything to help further your argument. When was name-calling actually effective in an argument? Elementary school.
You made your usual claim, now prove it. PROVE that "those whose forum "debate" skills were picked up by watching how Limbaugh and the Fox commentators behave" got their skills from Limbaugh or Fox commentators. Your claim and I'm calling you on your slander. Put up or shut up. I hope you have little feet.My advice, which you did not solicit, is to not pay much attention to those whose forum "debate" skills were picked up by watching how Limbaugh and the Fox commentators behave, or who engage in calling other posters here names.
Hey hey hey, lay off of Obama please, jeez, he's been so busy lately. Just two nights ago he was on an interview on TNT talking about the playoff's and basketball, how he watches most of the west coast games. Give the man a break about the whole oil spill and 37 days with no response crap, he's had more important things to do like watching the Suns vs. Lakers...
You made your usual claim, now prove it. PROVE that "those whose forum "debate" skills were picked up by watching how Limbaugh and the Fox commentators behave" got their skills from Limbaugh or Fox commentators. Your claim and I'm calling you on your slander. Put up or shut up. I hope you have little feet.
And your typical slander you delight in here is just as bad, or worse, than calling names.
So you have NO proof. Just your hate and hostility for those that disagree with you. Just your sniveling and worthless opinion filled with the vomit you spew. Thanks for making it so easy to expose you as someone with no credibility. You make a great poster boy for liberals!The proof is in the pudding. You can call all you like; it matters not to me.
Just your hate and hostility for those that disagree with you. Just your sniveling and worthless opinion filled with the vomit you spew.