Text 13477, 140 rader
Skriven 2010-05-26 21:02:32 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 13476 av Ross Sauer (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Co-President Cheney
===========================
On 05/26/2010 05:13 PM, Ross Sauer -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 RS> "Ed Hulett -> Dave Drum" <1:123/789.0> wrote in
 RS> news:30621$POL_INC@JamNNTPd:

 DD>>> "Almost immediately after taking office, Vice President Cheney
 EH>> began DD> meeting
 DD>>> with more than 100 oil executives, compiling a wish list of
 EH>> things they DD> wanted," Olbermann expounded. "One thing the
 EH>> industry did not want was DD> mandatory acoustic switches, which can
 EH>> shut wells remotely when blowout DD> preventers fail. The
 EH>> administration knew preventers fail because the MMS DD> [Materials
 EH>> Management Service] found hundreds of incidents in which they DD>
 EH>> did. DD> But it reversed a Clinton era decision requiring the
 EH>> essential acoustic DD> backups, calling them too costly, and those
 EH>> faulty blowout preventers a DD> fail
 DD>>> safe."

 DD>>> www.businessandmedia.org

 EH>> Kieth Olbermann? You think Olbermann is an authority on this issue?

 RS> Like Rachel Maddow, Olbermann does his research.

Here we go again... they agree with you so they are impeccable sources of the
"truth."

So, was he or his source in that "secret" meeting? How exactly did he research
this?

Did you read the rest of the article and see that it wasn't in support of
Olbermann's comments?

 RS> Unlike Beck, who pulls his conspiracy theories like yesterday's "New
 RS> World Order" out of his ass.

 RS> But Beck can do *NO* wrong! (sarcasm off)

Huh?

If you were intelligent, you'd not make such stupid commentary.

 DD>>> .. this disaster should rightly be determined Cheney’s "Katrina"
 EH>> if it DD> is to
 DD>>> be anyone’s "Katrina", though it’s distressing that both the
 EH>> media and the DD> Right are obsessed with finding another President
 EH>> to be as incompetent DD> as Bush
 DD>>> -- both for different reasons; one to grab eyeballs and one to
 EH>> make a DD> desperate
 DD>>> false equivalency in order to justify the scathingly horrific
 EH>> Bush/Cheney DD> administration. At the very least, the Bush
 EH>> regulators need to explain DD> how they
 DD>>> determined that the cost of the valves was not justified, in
 EH>> light
 EH>> of the 6
 DD>>> million dollar a day clean up cost of the Gulf Spill.

 DD>>> www.politicususa.com

 EH>> You'll have to do better than an obviously biased opinion followed by
 EH>> a broken url.

 DD>>> Bill Galston makes a very convincing case that the Bush
 EH>> Administration's DD> pro-oil disdain for environmental regulation,
 EH>> starring Dick Cheney, DD> prevented
 DD>>> the government from requiring a remote control backup device
 EH>> that would DD> have
 DD>>> prevented the spill. The device costs $500,000 per well. The
 EH>> spill will DD> cost
 DD>>> billions.

 EH>> Again, you give someone's opinion AFTER the fact and then cite a left
 EH>> leaning blog.

 RS> "Left-leaning blog," translation: They have facts.

No, they have an OPINION! There is not one fact there, just opinion. There is
absolutely no evidence that Bush or his administration had any "disdain" for
environmental regulations. There was no "prevent[ing] the government from
requiring a remote control backup device."

 DD>>> swampland.blogs.time.com

 DD>>> What we do know is that unfettered oil drilling was to Dick
 EH>> Cheney’s DD> domestic
 DD>>> concerns what the invasion of Iraq was to his foreign policy—a
 EH>> core DD> objective,
 DD>>> implacably pursued regardless of the risks. Is there a
 EH>> connection DD> between his
 DD>>> infamous secret energy task force and the corrupt mindset that
 EH>> came to DD> dominate
 DD>>> a key program within MMS? Would $500,000 per rig have been
 EH>> regarded as an DD> unacceptably expensive insurance policy if a
 EH>> drill-baby-drill DD> administration
 DD>>> hadn’t placed its thumb so heavily on the scale?

 DD>>> www.tnr.com

 EH>> And then you cite an opinion from someone at the left leaning New
 EH>> Republic.

 RS> "Left leaning." Translation: "How *DARE* they be critical of people I
 RS> follow slavishly!"

I don't follow Bush or Cheney. Bush and Cheney disappointed me on many
accounts.

The New Republic IS left leaning, it's a fact therefore they will obviously
critical of Bush and let Obama off the hook.

Explain why the Obama administration gave the very same well that is now
spilling millions of barrels of oil into the gulf a citation for safety? IOW,
they praised how safe BP, Halibuton, et al were in operating it.

 EH>> If that's all you can do to support your silly theory, there is no
 EH>> reason to believe a word you say.

 RS> Out "theories" have facts to back them up. not chalkboard lunatic fringe
 RS> conspracies.

You have no facts. None. All you have are silly theories based on partisan
political opinions and ignorance.

Ed

-- 
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious
call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." --Fisher Ames, speech in the
Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Blogs: http://edsramblings.wordpress.com | http://woodcaringnsuch.wordpress.com
http://edsscrollsawbits.blogspot.com | http://eds-omnium-gatherum.blogspot.com

Facebook: http://wwwfacebook.com/ed.hulett | Twitter:
http://www.twitter.com/yaesu

Linux User #416016
Linux Machine #385030

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100423 Thunderb
 * Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)