Republican Joe Barton Defends BP Oil

[bustr]

Obama has obviously cut some deal whereby halliburton gets the cleanup contract. Using the Dutch companies would have cut into halliburton's profits. This nonsense about the jones act and unions having that much pull with the government is just disinfomation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=19655

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0618/hal...ney-oil-spill/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-b..._b_558774.html

[Hardwork108]

Obama has obviously cut some deal whereby halliburton gets the cleanup contract. Using the Dutch companies would have cut into halliburton's profits. This nonsense about the jones act and unions having that much pull with the government is just disinfomation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=19655

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0618/hal...ney-oil-spill/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-b..._b_558774.html

The same Halliburton to which the "Republican" Bush family, starting with Prescott Bush, seem so connected to.....

Not for nothing, but people have to look beyond the smoke screen of political parties to even to begin to grasp the real power structure in American (and European politics).

By the way, great links.

[1bad65]

You want me to stop? How about you stop being a hypocrite and using a tragedy to berate a president who you don't agree with. It's SICK.

But using a diasaster to further your political goals is so admirable.

And again, Obama is partially responsible for the tragedy itself. He granted BP a waiver after they failed safety inspections.

You know if Bush was President, and he had granted BP a waiver after taking tons of campaign cash, you guys would be roasting him.

[1bad65]

That is an easy one to answers- Obama will not let this disaster go to waste and will milk it for all he can so as to impose more regulations and controls, thus increasing the size and influence of the government.

It seems that as far as Obama (and his handlers) are concerned, it is business as usual, as regards the agenda of government centralization, within a dictatorial socialistic context.

They openly admit to doing this! But I bet the liberals will find a way to give them a pass, or blame Bush for it.

Here is Rahm Emanuel admitting they do this!

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." -Rahm Emanuel

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

[1bad65]

The same Halliburton to which the "Republican" Bush family, starting with Prescott Bush, seem so connected to.....

The guy has been gone almost 2 years now. He isn't running for office ever again. It's Obama's time now, success or failure is on him, not Bush.

And you guys who keep parrotting the "but Bush did it too" bs over and over, you seem to forget we were promised "Change".

[notanexit]

The guy has been gone almost 2 years now. He isn't running for office ever again. It's Obama's time now, success or failure is on him, not Bush.

And you guys who keep parrotting the "but Bush did it too" bs over and over, you seem to forget we were promised "Change".

HW108 said that because the republican/democrat parties are the same.Don't fall for the left/right paradigm.Obama has continued bush's garbage,then when Obama is gone the next guy will continue what he and bush has done.The purpose of the two parties is to keep the nation divided and make you think you have a choice.If McCain had been elected the same would be happening right now.

[SanHeChuan]

A)The Jones act applies to shipping cargo, not Oil skimmers, so in this case it is a political red herring.

B)The foreign aid offered is not for free. They are charging cold hard cash. Do you think the US government has the power to force BP to purchase foreign aid in order to clean up the spill faster if BP thinks they can do it for cheaper over a longer time frame?

Cleanup Aid From Overseas Comes With A Price Tag

[1bad65]

If McCain had been elected the same would be happening right now.

No way. Look, McCain is far from perfect, but would he have signed that disaterous healthcare bill? No way. There are similarities, yes. But you guys who say they are the same never talk about the differences, and some of those differences are big ones.

[1bad65]

B)The foreign aid offered is not for free. They are charging cold hard cash. Do you think the US government has the power to force BP to purchase foreign aid in order to clean up the spill faster if BP thinks they can do it for cheaper over a longer time frame?

Of course they have that power. They already said that BP is paying for all the costs, and you saw that Obama shook them down for billions, as well as all the campaign cash he got before the spill.

[Reality_Check]

Of course they have that power.

But, they shouldn't be doing anything, right?

1Bad what do you think Obama should be doing specifically?

Nothing.

Since you can't read and/or comprehend my posts, I'm forced once again to decipher written English for you.

Here is what I posted: "See, I'm consistent. I think Bush owed the Katrina victims nothing. It's not the Federal Government's responsibility, it's the States."

Do you understand it now?

[Reality_Check]

But using a diasaster to further your political goals is so admirable.

I know. What kind of monster would do that?

Oh...

You gotta love this one!

"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they’ve taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

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.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.

In Congress, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who last week cautioned that the incident should “not be used inappropriately” to halt Obama’s push for expansion of offshore drilling, has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of BP’s largesse. Her comments created some blowback, with critics complaining that she is too blasé about the impact of the disaster, even though she was among the first lawmakers to call for a federal investigation into the spill.

As the top congressional recipient in the last cycle and one of the top BP cash recipients of the past two decades, Landrieu banked almost $17,000 from the oil giant in 2008 alone and has lined her war chest with more than $28,000 in BP cash overall.

Several BP executives have given directly to Landrieu’s campaign, including current and previous U.S. operation Presidents Lamar McKay and Robert Malone. Other donors include Margaret Hudson, BP’s America vice president, and Benjamin Cannon, federal affairs director for the U.S. branch. Donations ranged from $1,000 to $2,300 during the past campaign cycle.

Environmentalists complain that Landrieu has played down the impact of oil spills.

“They own Mary Landrieu and the rest of the Louisiana delegation,” said Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies. “They have more money, disposable income and a fleet of dispensable lobbyists to beat the band.”"

Source:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

I wondered why Obama just came out and said he supported offshore drilling. Now I know why!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

You gotta love it when the shoe is on the other foot!

I'm not alone, you are correct. Just today, Spike Lee and Dick Morris chimed in as well.

Spike Lee article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/...ex.html?hpt=T2

Dick Morris article: (link will only work if you replace the **** with the letters 'dick')
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnist...nt-have-a-clue

Morris had some real zingers:
"And the truth begins to dawn on all of us: Obama has no more idea how to work his way out of the economic mess into which his policies have plunged us than he does about how to clean up the oil spill that is destroying our southern coastline."

"America is getting the point that its president doesn’t have a clue."

"Some presidents have failed because of their stubbornness (Johnson and Bush-43). Others because of their character flaws (Clinton and Nixon). Still others because of their insensitivity to domestic problems (Bush-41). But now we have a president who is failing because he is incompetent. It is Jimmy Carter all over again.

Who would have thought that this president, so anxious to lead us and so focused on his specific agenda and ideas, would turn out not to know what he is doing?"

Obama's Oval Office speech brought back memories. Let's see what he said, and what Carter said.

"Energy will be the immediate test of our ability to unite this nation, and it can also be the standard around which we rally. On the battlefield of energy we can win for our nation a new confidence, and we can seize control again of our common destiny." -Jimmy Carter, 1979

"Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America's innovation and seize control of our own destiny." -Obama, 2010


"Just as a similar Synthetic Rubber Corporation helped us one World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. I will urge Congress to create an Energy Mobilization Board which, like the war production board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the red tape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects." Jimmy Carter, 1979

"One answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and to difficult to meet. You know, the -- the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. There are some who believe that we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater." Obama, 2010

Actually Obama is making it worse. Several European companies offered to help, but Obama said "No". He said "no" because it would have involved him waiving the Jones Act, which requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. The Jones Act is union backed, of course.

"Crucial offers to help clean up BP’s oil spill came “from Belgian, Dutch, and Norwegian firms that . . . possess some of the world’s most advanced oil skimming ships.” But the Obama administration didn’t accept their help, because doing so would require it to do something past presidents have routinely done: waive rules imposed by the Jones Act, a law backed by unions.

“The BP clean-up effort in the Gulf of Mexico is hampered by the Jones Act. This is a piece of 1920s protectionist legislation, that requires all vessels working in U.S. waters to be American-built, and American-crewed. So" the U.S. Coast Guard "can’t accept, and therefore don’t ask for, the assistance of high-tech European vessels specifically designed for the task in hand.”

The law itself permits the president to waive these requirements, and such waivers were “granted, promptly, by the Bush administration,” in the aftermath of hurricanes and other emergencies. But Obama refused to do so after the spill, notes David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen. Instead, Obama rejected a Dutch offer to help clean up the spill, noted Voice of America News:

"The Obama administration declined the Dutch offer partly because of the Jones Act, which restricts foreign ships from certain activities in U.S. waters. During the Hurricane Katrina crisis five years ago, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act in order to facilitate some foreign assistance, but such a waiver was not given in this case.""

Source:
http://www.examiner.com/x-7812-DC-SC...nes-Act-waiver

Notice the evil, stupid, racist Bush accepted foreign help, but the compassionate, intelligent, liberal Obama said no to international help. So, who cares more about the victims?

Ask yourselves this: Why would an American President decline international help to ease the suffering of American citizens he is SWORN to protect?

[1bad65]

But, they shouldn't be doing anything, right?

Look moron, I've explained this at least twice to you, and yet you still are lost.

I don't think it's the Federal Government's responsibility. Nor did I think Katrina was the Federal Government's responsibility.

But since Obama did CHOOSE to inject the Federal Government into this issue, I can **** sure crititcise the bad decisions he has made in this issue.

Do you get it now?

[1bad65]

RC, you really are clueless.

When I said "But using a diasaster to further your political goals is so admirable.", I was being sarcastic, not dead serious.

Are you really this dense?

[Drake]

RC, you really are clueless.

When I said "But using a diasaster to further your political goals is so admirable.", I was being sarcastic, not dead serious.

Are you really this dense?

In all fairness, you are using big oil's negligence and the ensuing disaster to blast President Obama, who, last I checked, is only responsible for getting BP to pay for their mess. In the end, you defend BP and slam the President, who is trying to ensure everyone is compensated and rally our assets to clean up the mess? W...t...f? He's doing that. And insulting people on the forum isn't making your argument appear any more legitimate. Grown up rules, thx.

You only have one guy in congress who is in agreement with you, and his political future just got shot to hell.

[Reality_Check]

Look moron, I've explained this at least twice to you, and yet you still are lost.

I don't think it's the Federal Government's responsibility. Nor did I think Katrina was the Federal Government's responsibility.

But since Obama did CHOOSE to inject the Federal Government into this issue, I can **** sure crititcise the bad decisions he has made in this issue.

Do you get it now?

Ah, the old ad hominem.

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...&postcount=931

But I'm not just gonna ride a one-way street with you and get called names. That's pointless.

Since you don't like me pointing out your hypocrisy, you resort to insults. You are criticizing him for not doing enough, which is in direct conflict with your stated desire for him to do nothing.

1. If President Obama does anything, you criticize him because he should be doing nothing.

2. If he doesn't do enough, you criticize him for not doing enough.

To be intellectually consistent, you can criticize him for doing something, but if that something is insufficient, you can't criticize the insufficiency.