"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 1:21 pm, hk wrote:
In article 6fd85586-f52e-40e5-b2af-3af9a6c2b731
@o12g2000vba.googlegroups.com, says...





On May 27, 12:53 pm, "YukonBound" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

...

On 5/27/10 11:34 AM, YukonBound wrote:
Caught this item on CNN.
Those cleanup boat workers need to be told that the oil spill is
no big
deal.
Can you help out Froggy?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/gul...s/index.html?h...

He's probably selling paper towels to the cleanup workers.

My 1490 arrived. It is not as complicated as a Garmin chartplotter!

:)

That was fast....... up here it's three or four days if you're
lucky.

A few seasick bureaucrats who wanted to be seen as "doing something".
"YAWN"

You should abandon that clapped out old sailboat and get a 36' lobsta'
boat like mine!

What is really comical is that the solution to getting rid of the
floating oil is so simple that only the govt stands in the way of
accomplishing it.
Take bales of hay, spread em out and spray them with oil to make em
hydrophobic, bale em again and then spread em over the spill. The hay
soaks up the oil and not the water and then you use unemployed
fishermen with their nets to gather up the hay and you press the oil
from it.
Why this will not be done:

1. It would require an environmental impact statement which is costly
and impossible to do in any reasonable time.
2. It would open BP to medical liability issues from the fishermen
who might claim they were harmed by fumes.
3. It is not an "approved" spilled oil recovery method.
4. No way the govt will allow oily hay to be spread even though it
will help a lot.

If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're an
idiot.

"YukonBound" wrote in message
...
Caught this item on CNN.
Those cleanup boat workers need to be told that the oil spill is no big
deal.
Can you help out Froggy?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/27/gul....html?hpt=Sbin

Snerk.

I love to snerk at each others posts.


--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

"Frogwatch" wrote in message

If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

On May 27, 4:40*pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Hundreds of miles of booms are being deployed already. Do you think
hay costs more than booms? Spoiled hay is normally given away and
"Yes" there is that much readily available. MY city grows hay for use
on construction sites to prevent erosion. It is grown using treated
sewage so it is not normally used for animals.
NOW who is the idiot?

On May 27, 4:40*pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Nom's atitude is typical of Dems, they'd rather spout nonsense than do
anything constructive.

On 27/05/2010 6:23 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
On May 27, 4:40 pm, wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Nom's atitude is typical of Dems, they'd rather spout nonsense than do
anything constructive.

The most constructive things they could do is stay out of things and
spend less. Too bad dems didn't know bull**** is a cheap commodity.

--
I would rather be a paid up Conservative nut job than a Liberal with no
nuts, no job in debt and living off of other people like a leach.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 4:40 pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're
an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Hundreds of miles of booms are being deployed already. Do you think
hay costs more than booms? Spoiled hay is normally given away and
"Yes" there is that much readily available. MY city grows hay for use
on construction sites to prevent erosion. It is grown using treated
sewage so it is not normally used for animals.
NOW who is the idiot?

You are.. obviously.

"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 4:40 pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're
an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Nom's atitude is typical of Dems, they'd rather spout nonsense than do
anything constructive.

I guess you don't watch any of the news services. It's worse than the Valdez
spill and growing.

On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:34:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 4:40 pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're
an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Nom's atitude is typical of Dems, they'd rather spout nonsense than do
anything constructive.

I guess you don't watch any of the news services. It's worse than the Valdez
spill and growing.

Froggy is turning a blind eye. Any bumper sticker solution will do.

That's the way it works for "conservatives." The solutions are
always simple and most of the ideas are as stupid as the folks they
come from.

I didn't know the fisherman were unemployed!!!! You mean to say that
their livelihood and the food chain has been disrupted by this minor
oil spill?

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 May 2010 23:34:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Frogwatch" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 4:40 pm, Wiley wrote:
On 5/27/2010 5:32 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:



"Frogwatch" wrote in message
If this spill had been on private property, the cleanup would be
accomplished in a couple of weeks. When you involve the govt, it
simply will not happen.

Sure... 100 miles of coast line, bigger than the Valdez spill. You're
an
idiot.

Was the spill 100 miles wide after a couple of weeks?

Nom's atitude is typical of Dems, they'd rather spout nonsense than do
anything constructive.

I guess you don't watch any of the news services. It's worse than the
Valdez
spill and growing.

Froggy is turning a blind eye. Any bumper sticker solution will do.

That's the way it works for "conservatives." The solutions are
always simple and most of the ideas are as stupid as the folks they
come from.

I didn't know the fisherman were unemployed!!!! You mean to say that
their livelihood and the food chain has been disrupted by this minor
oil spill?

Just got an update from CNN:

BP's top official upgrades impact of Gulf oil spill from "very modest" to
"environmental catastrophe."