On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:16:50 -0400, moose wrote:

On 5/24/2010 1:02 PM, hk wrote:
On 5/24/10 12:50 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 24/05/2010 8:46 AM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 24, 10:36 am, wrote:
Obviously, this oil spill has caused very little damage so far in
spite of being huge. IN relative terms, it's damage is far smaller
than a single weeks worth of tourism. So far, I am totally
unimpressed by any damage from the spill and I think this will
actually cause technology to be developed for spills that would be
problems.

Of course when you have a foreign oil company bribing the Obama admin
to ignore normal requirements, bad things can happen. You play by
Chicago rules and the Gulf Coast gets hurt. Obama does not care about
anybody in the south, he completely ignored the spill until the media
jumped on it and then ignored Nashville compeltely.

Didn't big mouth Obama say just a few weeks earlier to the start of the
spill that he wanted more oil drilling? Did he not open up new tracts
for that purpose?

After all, DC is hungry for $$$ and developing ones own oil has a
fantastic tax return for DC greedy overspending democrats.



It's comical how the mindless right keeps trying to shift the blame for
BP's screw-ups to the government.

Didn't the gubmint turn a blind eye to some safety violations on BP's
rigs? What's that all about? I smell a rat. A big greedy gubmint rat.

Absolutely. Obama's folks have been in bed with BP from the gitgo.

"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."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505

Of course, Reuters is just another right wing rag.
--
John H

"When I die, bury me at WalMart so Harry will visit me."