Why isn't the Tea Party protesting BP?
in [Technical]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 12 Jul 2010 22:25 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:28:02 -0500, cuhulin wrote: > Bomb Explodes at Oil Executive's Home http://www.legitgov.org > > It is getting rough out there. > cuhulin Enviro-terrorists, probably. Yeah, killing people will resolve the issue. Idiots.
From: Tegger on 12 Jul 2010 22:44 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in news:54Q_n.30784$Ls1.17526(a)newsfe11.iad: > On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:51:34 +0000, Tegger wrote: > >> >> I was never a fan of G.W. Bush, but just imagine the bloodthirsty >> screaming that would have been aimed at him if he'd been president >> when this happened. Remember Katrina? This would have been /way/ >> worse. But Obama? Well, he gets a gentle pass. > > Exactly what I was going to say when Bob Cooper comes back at my last > response to his post. > > And, as far as Dutch skimmers making a difference in the early days? > Well, we'll never know, will we? They are not "skimmers". The use of the term "skimmers" confuses the superior Dutch technology with the far-inferior US technology. Did you even /bother/ to read the article I referenced? I'm not sure. PLEASE, actually do read it. Read it slowly and carefully. <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html> > > Yup. If Bush had dragged his heels over this the way Obungler has, > it'd be all we'd be hearing about. > It wouldn't have mattered what Bush did. He would have had his head on a gibbet no matter what. -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 12 Jul 2010 22:53 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in news:X3P_n.30463$3%3.27401(a)newsfe23.iad: > > > > From the Canadian Financial Times: The "Financial Post", you mean. The "Financial Times" is a UK paper. It's the world's only newspaper that's printed on pink stock. The publishers say pink is supposed to be easier on the eyes... > > "Three days after the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico began <snip> Here's the actual link, again: <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html> -- Tegger
From: Tegger on 12 Jul 2010 22:55 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in news:_6Q_n.30786$Ls1.25309(a)newsfe11.iad: > > I'm afraid that any effectiveness they may have been brought about by > deploying early is something we will never know. > > Hachi, try reading the article ALL THE WAY THROUGH, not just the first few sentences. <http://www.financialpost.com/Avertible+catastrophe/3203808/story.html> -- Tegger
From: jim on 13 Jul 2010 08:17
Bob Cooper wrote: > > --scott > > Military command coordination of all Gulf efforts. > General Honore would probably do as Command, but there are others. > Bring Schwartzkoff out of retirement to do it. > You get the idea. > Conscript all leading oil experts to work with and > advise the military command as to action in killing the well, > use or non-use of dispersants, skimming oil, and strategies to keep it > offshore. > It's their patriotic duty. > Local governments and their input go into the mix. > High visibility/transparency with press conferences, etc. > Over kill on all resources. > NOBODY would be able to slam the effort. > Then of course you bill BP for all of it. > What's the problem? There would be several problems, The biggest problem is it would be legal quagmire. There would be lawsuits everywhere and the Supreme Court would probably end up shutting you down. The second biggest problem would be the military is kinda busy at the moment and knows just about nothing about responding to an oil spill. Whether you like it or not the response to an oil spill is defined by law. Introducing an illegal process to replace the existing legal process right in the middle of a crisis would produce chaos. I'm sure there will be changes to the existing legal process when this crisis is over, but right now we are stuck with what we got. If you want to read about the legal process you might start here: http://www.nrt.org/Production/NRT/NRTWeb.nsf/AllPagesByTitle/P-AboutNRT?Opendocument http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl The very short version of the law is that the Coast Guard is in supreme command for spills in coastal waters (EPA would be in charge for inland spills). -jim |