jump to last post 1-45 of 45 discussions (214 posts)

Obama's attacks on BP not going down well in the UK

  1. CMHypno profile image88
    CMHypnoposted 6 years ago

    Obama's attacks on BP are increasingly being viewed in the UK as signs of his anti-British stance.  Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … itain.html

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I heard somewhere (though I have not been able to confirm it) that Britain could get tarballs washing up on its shores from the spill within a couple months. I wonder how ya'll like BP then?

      Anyway, it's the Daily Fail. Does anybody really take them seriously?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What anti-British stance?

      1. CMHypno profile image88
        CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well he seems to have riled up enough people over his supposed anti-British rhetoric

        http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100610/tuk … dbed5.html

        This isn't a time to play politics, point fingers or try and shrug off the blame.  The only important thing is to achieve the best possible solution to the problem by all parties involved co-operating, and then ensuring that it can't happen again in any part of the world.

        1. premierkj profile image78
          premierkjposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          one insurance company executive does not speak for the whole of Britain. I think you should also look at his background and the perspective he is coming from, including links to bp.

          1. Friendlyword profile image61
            Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            AN OPEN LETTER TO: John Napier, chairman of insurance company RSA.

            Hello Mr. Napier
            What have you contributed to the people of the Gulf Coast of the United States of America since this disaster hit them, and Our President, and the rest of the people of this Country? The President of My Country is also a citizen of My Country, he is just as scared and hurt and outraged by this disaster as any other citizen of the US.

            I'm truly sorry about your BP stock. I truly hope it will go back up.  The people of the Gulf Coast has an interest in BP doing well. But, to give our President; who is in the middle of the same crisis the rest of us are in, lesson on appropriate behavior, is quite tasteless at this time.  Maybe next week. Maybe next year. But for you to speak to any citizen of this country about anything other than concern for our wellfare and your amount of aide to the Gulf Coast is itself inappropriate behavior.

            Please give some thought to the next comments you make to a leader of a Country in the middle of a disaster. This time, you came off as quite an Ass. At this time.

            Friendlyword
            United States Citizen

        2. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If you think BP is cooperating, you didn't see the CNN special the other night with Anderson Cooper. They (BP) have been trying to spin the mess from the first day - low-balling the estimates of the size - controlling access to the physical evidence. And you toss out 'all parties involved co-operating' either in ignorance of the game BP is playing - or a deliberate deception.

          1. CMHypno profile image88
            CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't say that I thought that BP was co-operating, I said that every party involved and any that can help should be co-operating.

            This mess needs to be cleared up and the politics, blame throwing and rhetoric from all and every side needs to be left to one side until it is sorted.

        3. Conflagrant profile image59
          Conflagrantposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          @CMHypno

          Well said and good sense.

        4. profile image0
          ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting, because Yahoo is of course an American source!

        5. Pearldiver profile image87
          Pearldiverposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          And in the dreams of the 'little people' there were:
          no wars
          no polluted seas
          or lands
          or ruined lifestyles
          or livelihoods
          no dishonest representatives
          or negative change.

          In the dreams of US owned petroleum coys there was a unanimous
          Thought that said:
          "Thank God that it wasn't one of ours!"

          In the dreams of UK owners; the words of Churchill defensively state:
          "Oh Shit.. not again... But We will fight them on the oceans, on the land, on the beaches, in the media, in culpability and in truth!"
          Stiff upper lips aside.....

          As red herring arguments are offered to soothe the dreams of the little people throughout the world....
          Our earth bleeds with the blood of oil and lost profits!!

          Fix the damn thing now.... blame later!
          Before all our oceans are destroyed by the greed of bigger people with smaller consciences.

          1. Bacall profile image60
            Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What was that about? I saw this guy on the news say something about little people, twice. I was dosing and did'nt really get it. Was it some kind of joke about the BP CEO?

      2. thisisoli profile image55
        thisisoliposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        search on google for Obama anti-britain, he is the first US president to ever cause the britain/US special relationship to be annulled.

        It made my immigration much more difficult.

        1. profile image0
          woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe Britain should join us and help with this catastrophic problem that was created by a company based in your country. What if it was your shores, you would be yelling those “Damn Yanks” and looking for us to clean up the mess, and every day that went by you would get angry, but I don't see your shores being destroyed by a company who cares more about profit over environment

          1. Ohma profile image80
            Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I have read that there have been many offers to help by other nations and our government has turned them down

          2. profile image0
            woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I am talking Britain

          3. alternate poet profile image77
            alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As I understand it BP is the owner of this mess, but it is a US Company who did the drilling, and caused the problem - there seems to be a deafening silence concerning this Haliburton associated company and its culpability.  Also I am sure that Exxon is a US Company, and the EWxxon Valdez was a major spill of similar magnitude and effect on other waters ?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The EXXON Valez spill was a catastrophe but nowhere near the current one in terms of the amount of oil and the effect on the environment and the economic effect on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. And EXXON experienced a tremendous amount of adverse publicity as is the case with BP.

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't believe the so-called "special relationship has been annulled." And it's not dependent on BP or Obama referring to the company as British Petroleum. What does BP stand for "Big Polluter?"

          1. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph, the company changed its name in 2001 as a result of a 1998 merger between BP and Amoco. At this point it became an Anglo-American company. There are no prizes for guessing what 'Amoco' stands for (American Oil Company if you have any doubts).

            If the British media and politicians were blaming the 'American Oil Company' for the oil spill in the gulf then they would be sure to cause at least a little diplomatic friction.

            I will point out that, to his credit, Obama has now stopped referring to the company as 'British Petroleum' following a polite request from the British prime minister to stop doing so.

            His aides and fellow party members have not however.

            1. livelonger profile image89
              livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              They have to remind the right-wing that BP was British, because otherwise they'd be apoplectic, spreading propaganda that BP was a socialist, communist, racist, fascist creation of the Obama administration.

              No, I'm serious.

              It's because anti-British sentiment is virtually nonexistent in the US that saying a company that created an environmental disaster is British, and not American, will calm people down.

          2. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, it stands for 'Bamas Petrol

          3. profile image59
            C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Barack Petroleum

    3. nifty@50 profile image80
      nifty@50posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      At the risk of sounding like I support Obama, if the United States had Exon off the coast of England dumping oil in the same amounts I think their people and Prime minister would be raising all manners of heck too!

      1. manlypoetryman profile image71
        manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You called it perfectly!

    4. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      According to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) from the Environmental Protection Agency, the party responsible for the spill (BP et al) are responsible for meeting the cost of remedial action, but the remedial action in this case should be co-ordinated by the lead Federal agency.

      (my emphasis)

      On Site Coordinators should already be designated in each region by the EPA and the USCG.

      Cost Recovery


      So the Government is right (or at least accurate) to say the full cost of remedial action can be recovered from the responsible party/parties. But the government was wrong not to coordinate that remedial action in the first instance. This discharge clearly meets the criteria set out in the NCP. As that plan is administered by the EPA, the government has failed (or was slow) to act according to the contingency plan of one of its own agencies.

      The initial lack of ownership on this was politically motivated in my opinion. The true cost of that political manouvering is yet to be seen, but indications suggest it might be high. I think the administration dropped the ball on this one.

    5. profile image59
      jg156301posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      we should be creative. maybe use the bp executives to plug the leak...

    6. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Is this some kind of really really sick sick joke? There is oil 20 miles inside the golf marshlands. People are losing their lively hood and possibly their lives. I dont give a Good GD how OFFENDED the British People feel about the comments made by any American Citizen. Until a part of your Country is killed by us; keep your feelings to yourself.

      Where's your good sense, show some compassion.

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Friendlyword Says: "Until a part of your Country is killed by us; keep your feelings to yourself."

        Where's the good sense in that atrocious comment to a Brit?  Is that a "really really sick sick joke? " to quote Friendlyword. 

        "Or is he just trying to pull attention away from his own administration's failures?" to quote his cordial victim, CMHypno.

      2. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The British are not the slightest bit offended by Obama.

        The Daily Mail is the British tabloid alternative to Fox News. e.g. non-stories with a constant politicial agenda.

        Seeing as 40% of BP is owned by UK institutions and individuals, and 39% of BP is owned by US institutions and individuals, not to mention that the company officially dropped the name 'British Petroleum' in favour of 'BP Plc'.... I can see no reason why an attack on BP would constitute an attack on Britain, seeing as BP Plc is no more British than it is American.

        I hope that clears things up a little from a British perspective. I don't think that many people would bat an eyelid if we gave America the spare 1% and they renamed it 'Bama Petrol

        1. Friendlyword profile image61
          Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you Rankett.
          What's is so hurtful about this whole affair is the silence. WHERE ARE THE FLOTILLAS, WHERE ARE THE CONCERTS, WHERE ARE THE TELETHONS. Where is the concern for the American People from the rest of the world?

          1. Mrvoodoo profile image60
            Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            'What's is so hurtful about this whole affair is the silence. WHERE ARE THE FLOTILLAS, WHERE ARE THE CONCERTS, WHERE ARE THE TELETHONS. Where is the concern for the American People from the rest of the world?'

            I suspect that nothing would do more damage to our 'special relationship' than the UK throwing a charity concert for the U.S.

            http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss110/MrVoodoo123/feedhungryAmericans.jpg

            It would most likely be taken as an insult.

      3. CMHypno profile image88
        CMHypnoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The post is not about a lack of compassion from the British people, as we are all horrified about what has happened in the Gulf, but is about how some people in the British administration are getting riled about some of the rhetoric and the tone of it coming from the White House.

        Being British, I know exactly how it feels to live through this type of ecological disaster, as I was a child on the south west coast of the UK at the time of the Torrey Canyon (American tanker) disaster.  The beaches were covered with tar balls, the sand and sea water had huge slicks of oil on it, and there were images of seabirds covered in oil and stories of fishermen losing their livelihoods on the local news every night.

        Everyone in Britain can undestand that Obama is angry and frustrated, but maybe he needs to be a bit more statesman-like in the way he is expressing certain things.  Everyone needs to get involved in helping to sort this mess out, and the inquest and blame throwing can be done when it's sorted

        1. Friendlyword profile image61
          Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Hi CMHypno
          I'm sorry about what happened to the UK. This is a completely selfish question. How is that area doing now? Did it recover completely? Is there a particular town or beach that was affected? I'm scared, and I would like to know what kind of outcome we can expect. Thank you for any information you have about that spill.

    7. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who cares.  BP is angeling towards a bankruptcy at this time anyway.

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Which would have a massive effect on the US economy.

        1. rhamson profile image74
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Who do you think would buy up all of BP's assetts and who would be in charge of the fall out?

          The company is already floundering on the commitment to the claims being made by the other industries being affected by the ecological debacle.  The standard payment being made to the displaced industries is $5,000 US a month until all the "paperwork" is filed.  Most businesses can't make their bills with this and when the lawyers get their share with all the resulting lawsuits the BP bones won't have any meat left to feed anyone on.

          It will be better to sell off BP and use the proceeds to right the situation.

          1. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The reason that the collapse of BP would not benefit the US is that 39% of the business is owned by American individuals and institutions.

            It does not take a genius to work out that this would have a huge impact on your markets.

            1. rhamson profile image74
              rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              While I don't agree with many that capitalism is natures way of cleaning out the weak there is a silver lining to it sometimes.

              BP's assetts would be easily absorbed into someone like Exxon/Mobile or Sun Oil.  Besides the fines and penalties that BP is looking at is astronomical now that their flagrant disregard for the environment has been seen in other areas as well.

              It is not like the whole industry is going to fail. 

              Besides who owns the 39%? The American taxpayer?  Joe Schmo?  No, the very wealthy and with 2% of the wealthy in charge of 95% of the wealth it will just be a hiccup in the economy.

              Capitalism profits from disasters.  Learn it, remember it and live it.

              1. profile image0
                ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                What makes you think that American businesses would take over the operations? There are large European busineses who are equally as well placed should there be a bidding war, including our very own Shell.

                Quite how anybody believes that BP is genuinely at risk of bankruptcy is beyond me. They are paying a $15bn dividend to shareholders and want to spend $10bn on a marketing campaign.

                Please do not think that markets only effect the wealthy, that is twisted economics. They would have much less real impacts on the wealthy, and a much more real impact on everyday people with pension funds.

                Could America afford to lose another 22000 skilled jobs? Could America afford to have a further $100bn wiped off of their assets? I doubt it.

                BP is not close to bankruptcy, they have said themselves that they have enough money to clean up 1 oil tanker spill each day for an entire year.

                1. rhamson profile image74
                  rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The fact is that their stock has plummeted in half in the last 60 days.  They have a very disfavorable image and the vultures are beginning to circle even as we speak.

                  I did not say that the American companies would be the ones buying up the pieces but only as an example.  The 22,000 skilled jobs that would be lost is a plus for the purchasing companies wanting to capitalize on BP's misfortune and very favorable to a would be capitalist.  I did not say that it would be good for the American worker but it would be a windfall for the purchasers.  BP would loose the litigation head aches, sell out and move on with a new board of directors.  It is a good move on their part if they recognize it soon enough which I think they have.

                  The question is not if BP is at risk of going into bankruptcy but is it smart enough to do it sooner than later.  The legal quagmire awaits a pricipled response on their part if they wish it but a more profitable and smarter move is to get out while they can and preserve some of their their individual wealth.

                  1. profile image0
                    ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    That would require a complete loss of investor confidence. You would have to genuinely believe that a business was on route to a collapse to sell your stake for less than half of purchase price.

                    Most existing shareholders will appreciate BP for what it is, which is the worlds 4th largest company with a ridiculously high amount of cash assets and revenues which have constantly outstripped the companies value.

                    Exxon would have to give up a significant stake in their own business to appease the current big players at BP.

                    I'm suprised that you mentioned Sunoco as a potential buyer/merger. That business is tiny in comparison with BP, an absolute minnow. You are suggesting that the worlds 171st biggest company, with annual revenues of $41.8bn, attempts a takeover of the worlds 4th largest corporation.

                    Even Chevron would struggle. Exxon Mobil or Royal Dutch Shell are probably the only businesses capable. I'm not so sure that such a big would even be allowed, that would create an overwhelming monopoly and would do more damage to US oil industries than good.... Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero.... that would be disasterous for any of those.

                    The chances of the worlds 4th largest company going bankrupt as a result of an oil spill is incredibly slim. The idea that Obama would genuinely advocate this is ludicrious also, it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for western financial systems.

            2. KFlippin profile image61
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Posted earlier on another similar topic, but more pertinent to this discussion of BP's assets:

              There has been a movement in the works since at least early May to actually Seize BP's assets in the USA.  It has been nagging at me ever since I threw that idea on the table here as an absurdity a few days back, albeit a plausible one given the past couple of years of bailouts and takeovers, etc...and the constant alarms always ringing about the socialistic nature of this administration's policies.

              I was so surprised by one hubbers very specific ideas about BP's assets and their hope to see them cut off at the knees financially, the words had a quality of .... informed truth? to them.  And another hubber was really wanting to know just how much value there was to BP's American assets [See yahoo.com, click on Finance, and put in their stock symbol, or visit Nasdaq.com, etc... for those of you who'd like to see their balance sheet and historical revenue, etc...smile such a simple thing]. Seemed odd to me, nagged at me, so I did some looking around this morning, and I was absolutely shocked at the litany of discussions about this very thing. So now I know why some hubbers are keenly interested in the issue of BP's assets, and that seizure of those assets is in no way an 'absurdity' anymore.  Even that great and respected herald of the liberal media, Rosie O'Donnell, is on board with the idea!

              Given that BP has no doubt been aware of this ANSWER petition to seize their assets for quite some time, and given that the administration certainly has, I'm surprised they are even bothering to hang around and clean up 'their' mess, if the ultimate goal in the handling of this 'mess' is to cripple BP and make them state-owned assets with a money flow.  Under those conditions, futuristically, with a government seizure, not 'their mess' to clean up.


              May 8, 2010:  ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), which is mounting a campaign to have the U.S. government seize BP’s assets.

              http://www.politico.com/news/stories/06 … z0qezoIP2k

              ____

              June 6th: America tells Barack Obama to take control of Deepwater – and seize BP:

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 … obama-told

              1. Friendlyword profile image61
                Friendlywordposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Duh...Did you notice the amount of oil spilling out to one of BPs wells.  They have more money than GOD. They have no need to claim backruptcy or do they have to worry about the US taking them over. The American investment in BP is too high. We want BP to prosper more than anyone anywhere.

    8. kevintuga profile image59
      kevintugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am hearing that obama was president , because the chefs of a secret organization wanted it!
      Do know about it?

    9. John B Badd profile image61
      John B Baddposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think maybe he was attacking them because they cut corners and now there is a crap load of oil in the ocean.  But that is just my opinion.

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Obama didn't have a clue there might be corner cutting by BP in the beginning -- that's plainly a bogus defense.  Not to mention we won't know for some weeks and months the validity of this Q&D investigation of BP and their actions in regard to this well.  If they cut corners, that is so bad.  But, it had nothing to do with Obama's two month wait to play the tough guy.

  2. Mark Knowles profile image59
    Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago

    The Daily Mail is not fit to use as toilet paper. Pretty sure the oil companies now own all the press.

    Shell managed to get an Amnesty International ad pulled from the Financial Times the other day.

    http://markpknowles.com/wp-content/uploads/shell.jpg

    http://markpknowles.com/hubpages-rocks- … times-sux/

    You think the Gulf is bad - you should see what Shell are doing in Africa. sad

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Or Texaco/Chevron in Ecuador. sad

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And what Chevron-Texaco did in Ecuador.

  3. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    Wall Stree Journal Editorial Excerpts from today, and should be read in its entirety, see link below:

    "The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban. . ."

    "One of the seven, University of California at Berkeley engineering professor Bob Bea, further explained in an email cited in the New Orleans Times-Picayune: “Moratorium was not a part” of the “report we consulted-advised-reviewed. Word from [the Department of Interior] was it was a [White House] request.” In other words, the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies. . ."

    http://www.luxlibertas.com/wsj-editoria … f-fiction/

    P.S.  As I don't have a WSJ subscription I had to find the full article elsewhere, and it happened to show up on a google on this web site - I'm thoroughly unfamiiar with the site, could be it's considered as disgusting as the Daily Mail. smile  But -- it is quoting the full text of the WSJ editorial.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      from Wall Street Journal ... "ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium"
      and in the same article... "the drilling ban is a West Wing political invention designed to make the boss look tough on oil companies"

      Maybe this is news to the WSJ but we are day FIFTY-TWO of an uncontrolled deep-water gusher. It may be AUGUST before they can turn it off with a relief well. We hope.

      The WSJ and the GOP may be led around by the nose by Big Oil, but the President of the United States and a lot of the people of this country believe they were lied to by Big Oil about the safety of deep-water drilling and the capability of the industry to prevent a disaster and mitigate the damage. The long-term effects of the toxic dispersant have never been studied and the ecological effects may just be starting.

      How can ANY sane person allow deep-water drilling now that we KNOW for a FACT how powerless the oil companies are at dealing with unanticipated events. Bottom line - this isn't politics - it's prudence.

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No doubt it would be news to Bob Bea of UC Berkeley and the 6 others who had convenient lies put in their mouths -- that's it is okay for the West Wing to lie, just not anybody else.  But, gee, if Big Oil lied to Obama and others in the administration about the safety of deep-water drilling....well, that is interesting, they should jump all over that with criminal charges!  BP deliberately lied and actually intended to have a gigantic oil spill!  It was a plot! 

        The Brits look to be stepping up, so the US gov't should continue to not give a fig of a constructive thought, or God forbid a significant nickel of tax dollars, about/for the residents of the Gulf Coast and their polluted waters and their increased unemployment with the orchestrated demise of BP. How stupid.  The market cap lost in this idiotic and childish stunt of taking pot shots at BP management has already cost more money than the Gulf Coast has seen in quite a long time - how pathetic.

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Let me get this straight - you think we should be more sympathetic to BP management and concerned aboutt he financial harm we might cause BP for insisting they pay for the damage they created- AND you are critical that not enough tax dollars are beind spent????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          For those who aren't following the details, the USCG and other gov't resources ARE in the gulf and the US just sent BP the first bill for the costs. Re damages to people on the Gulf - the Obama administration decided yesterday that BP is liable for the full lost wages of oil workers idled by the spill - not 50% of lost wages covered by unemployment - which we would foot the bill for.

          I don't care WHAT party you vote - can you endorse the cause of saving BP's profits and having the taxpayer foot the bill for cleanup and damages? Puhleeeeese tell me conservatives aren't all that crazy!

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Can you say "pay off by the oil companies"?

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yup, it's a struggle, but my enunciation and pronunciation skills have improved with age.  smile Anyway, so you think the 'seven' were paid off by the oil companies to claim they never said this or that and that the White House doctored their conclusions?

        Well, that may be, the level of corruption in our government and in our private industry never ceases to amaze me.  I personally think we shouldn't be drilling a mile down in the ocean, should have never been allowed without absolute surety that any 'spill' could be either contained or cleaned up in short order.  That said, heaping incompetence and lies and insults on top of the original incompetence and lies -- is not helping anyone.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, quit doing it then!

        2. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "drilling a mile down in the ocean, should have never been allowed without absolute surety that any 'spill' could be either contained or cleaned up in short order."

          Seldom do I find a point of agreement with Captain America - but extend the reasoning a bit further. If you were president or a senator and you wanted 'surety'' about the plans and reports generated by the oil companies which promised a) a spill won't happen and b) the oil companies can contain and manage any spil that did happen .. you would take those reports for analysis to outside experts like the ones  the WSJ says are so pissed.

          It took this disaster and this editorial to show that the experts are biased FOR drilling. Eveni n the face of this tragedy they don't want any letup in offfshore drilling. That the 'exprts' are saying the White House is completely to blame for a hold on new drilling is a HUGE compliment and lavish praise.  The government is doing the right thing in the face of opposition from Big Oil and 'experts'. BRAVO!

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think you should read the article before you accuse those 'seven' as saying the 'White House is completely to blame for a hold on new drilling'.

            And the issue of drilling so far off shore is by no means black and white, and sadly it is the environmentalists who are more to blame than anyone else I can think of, besides our own government for going along with this far offshore drilling solution without known effective containment and clean-up measures.  A sad and sorry twist of fate, they fought for this to protect our shores, and their political appeasement created the nexus for a great tragedy for our environment -- in my opinion.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The well was dug in 2001... are you accusing President Bush and Haliburton of appeasing environmentalists?

              I believe most environmentalists were very vocally against deep offshore drilling.

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                UW - Is she seriously suggesting that environmentalists WANTED deep-water drilling? My GOD - there is life from another planet visiting Earth and posting on hubpages - too bad it's not intelligent life;

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you really surprised at what she posts anymore, Doug?  It does make one understand why Palin was chosen to run for VP, though!

                2. KFlippin profile image61
                  KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, it's too bad, rampant lack of intelligence and analytical and reading skills, just rampant! Right here on this earth and posting on hubpages -- and all over the news.

                  1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    OK Flipper - IF it's all over the news that environmentalists are to blame for supproting/causing deep-water drilling - DO  give us one reliable media post to support that. Beck and Limbaugh class themselves as entertainers so they can't be held to journalistic standards for their tripe. YOU said - 'all over the news'.
                    I say BS  - Provede a media source for your claim.

              2. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                smile  LOL.  Considering how long the planning must take to drill that far offshore and that deep, I would imagine if it was drilled in 2001, then it was approved and planned and well in the works during the Clinton Administration!

              3. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Based on what I can dig up online -
                BP purchased at auction the rights in March 2008 -
                Began drilling in Feb. 2010.

          2. JON EWALL profile image48
            JON EWALLposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Doug Hughes
            Check this out , WHO DOES THE FAULT LIE THIS TIME ?

            President Barak Obama’s  tough remarks on solving off shore drilling legislation needs to start in Washington first.. The government is not the solution  but part of the problems to what has happened with the BP  accident and oil spill that has created a disaster on the gulf states.
            The government's PERMIT APPROVALS needs  to consider the safety as to where oil companies are allowed to drill. 5,000 FEET DEEP?
            BP, prior to the accident was to receive a safety award for  their operation performance One must ask a question as to why BP was forced to drill in waters SO DEEP THAT DIVERS ARE ABLE TO MAKE REPAIRS if  an accident should occur under the water.
            Safety factors ( government regulations ) were disregarded in the location of the drilling rig. The drill was drilling in 5,000 feet of water, far deeper  than any diver could go, should there be a problem. The accident happened when safety equipment failed  causing the disaster. Congress’s  repeated failure to allow permits in shallower  waters must assume some blame when blame will be established. Divers could have made the necessary repairs in days if they were drilling at shallower depths.
            Take Note
            1994 Dan Manion sets current record for a deep dive on air at 509 FEET (155 m). Manion reports he was almost completely incapacitated by narcosis and has no recollection of time at depth.

            In Alaska oil can be drilled for at depths of 100 to 200 feet if Congress would release the permits. Picture the floor of a 2 car garage, drop a quarter on the floor. The size of the quarter is the area in Anwar that can be drilled to provide the oil we need. Obama setting a moratorium to stop oil drilling will cause the loss of 30,000 jobs and cause a gas shortage.Obama and Congress need to reconsider their positions first before any actions are taken. The politicians say '' we must get us off the need for foreign oil '' they lie!

            Our government's stupidity and political issues are equally to blame for the catastrophe.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago
  5. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The GOP is coming to BP's rescue against Obama's attacks:

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010 … hp?ref=fpa

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    I heard criminal charges are pending.... Hopefully it won't take 26 years like the Bopal disaster. Thankfully, not as many people dies.

    Maybe you should get down there and help with the clean up too since you obviously know how to solve it.

    1. earnestshub profile image88
      earnestshubposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So did I. smile

  7. manlypoetryman profile image71
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

    Gee...I sure hope no one is getting their panties in a wad because of a "he said-she said"...

    http://l.yimg.com/go/news/picture/2010/g1/20100604/20100604050719315g1_050727_0.jpg

    Maybe a nice long gooey oil bath will help them calm their nerves. Geez...So unreal!

    1. rebekahELLE profile image90
      rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      no, this is not about obama and the brits.

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I hate it when a picture of a pelican outclasses all the facts an educated person can muster. Sorry about that, Pete the Pelican.  We will try to make it right - hang in there.

      1. Me, Steve Walters profile image77
        Me, Steve Waltersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "???" He is hanging there...for the first, second, third, and fourth waves of oil coming at him...Poor guy...What'd he ever do to deserve this? How much stronger will this bird have to be to endure the rest of the onslaught?

      2. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, this awesome Pelican in such a dire condition speaks volumes.  And all this administration can do is bluster and penny pinch and look for who to blame. That should have come later, after a few billion were spent of our tax dollars to kick butt containing and cleaning up, which includes the tax dollars of those directly impacted by this tragedy as well - their money.

        Then the West Wing could have just appropriated BP's American assets as pay back and gone into the oil business. Maybe they shorted BP's stock instead.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How much will it cost to clean up and how much in assets does BP have in the US?

          Or are you guessing again?

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ? I didn't hazard a guess about anything.

            And your inference is that BP doesn't have the asset value in the USA adequate to fund clean-up and pay restitution?  If not, then trashing the company is rather futile, and we are passing the buck at the expense of our country's oceans and shores and the citizens of the Gulf Coast of this country, and at the expense of shorelines all the way up the East coast.


            I don't care how much it costs to clean it up, and can't think of any better use of federal funds and effort.  And I don't doubt for one minute that BP would pay the money back or that the UK would step in to assist.  If this had happened off the coast of England, or any exotic locale of political interest, by now we'd have sent a big bundle of money and manpower their way to help.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "? I didn't hazard a guess about anything."

              So, give us the numbers if you weren't guessing!

        2. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you are confused.  As I said, and as you can now see yet again, I didn't 'guess' about any 'numbers'. 

          I have no idea how much money could flow into the fed coffers year to year from operating an oil business, but clearly its a pretty profitable avenue of business. And I certainly don't know how much the clean up costs will be.  Nor did I infer, or 'guess', in either regard.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "after a few billion were spent of our tax dollars to kick butt containing and cleaning up, which includes the tax dollars of those directly impacted by this tragedy as well - their money.

            Then the West Wing could have just appropriated BP's American assets as pay back and gone into the oil business. Maybe they shorted BP's stock instead."

            A few billion?  Appropriated BP's American assets as Payback?

            No guesses or inferences?  Concise as usual!



            Why do you do this madame?  You have no idea how much it will cost or even if BP assets here can come close to paying for the cleanup.  Criticism without any critical thinking is your forte it seems!

            1. KFlippin profile image61
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "And all this administration can do is --bluster and penny pinch-- and look for who to blame."

              This excerpt from the same post sounds more about what you're after - just 'guessing'.  When one takes excerpts of narrative out of a context that is intended to be illustrative of the ridiculous nature of a topic of conversation and deliberately attempts to detract/distract the speaker -- then one can be said to be blustering and employing evasive strategy -- an effective political tool.

              If you truly want to know how much it may cost to clean up this loathsome spill, then perhaps you should employ some estimates based on our governments clean up expenditures to date, the size of the area they've cleaned up, and extrapolate that to an estimate of total costs. Sounds good, but no doubt they have no data.

              You might also use the $4300 fine per barrell that another hubber mentioned as the potential fine assessable to BP, and extrapolate that to all the known millions of barrells that have escaped to the sea, and continue to escape and pollute daily.  Then you would have a nice tidy budget from fine revenue alone for the federal government to work with in planning and budgeting for clean up.

              I hope you've found these suggestions helpful. smile 

              And CMHypno really summed up very well the attitude that all Americans, and the West Wing, should have :

              "I didn't say that I thought that BP was co-operating, I said that every party involved and any that can help should be co-operating.

              This mess needs to be cleared up and the politics, blame throwing and rhetoric from all and every side needs to be left to one side until it is sorted."

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "This mess needs to be cleared up and the politics, blame throwing and rhetoric from all and every side needs to be left to one side until it is sorted."





                As long as you follow this advice you will hear nothing else from me.  But you cannot, it seems!

                1. KFlippin profile image61
                  KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  smile LOL.  That would be our POTUS who needs to follow CMHypno's well stated 'advice'.  But, he cannot, it seems.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks for reaffirming my point!  LOL!

  8. premierkj profile image78
    premierkjposted 6 years ago

    this is not a war between britain and the US so lets not turn it into one by starting these misinformed threads.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good point -  but American wingnuts specialize in misinformation.

  9. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    Under the Clean Water Act, the company could owe fines of as much as $4,300 for every barrel spilled, besides any other fines that may be discovered with criminal investigation. we know we're not hearing the truth.

    here's about the most sobering analysis I've read anywhere of everyone involved. it's worth the read.
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … how_page=0

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for sharing that article!

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        you're welcome kerry. it's a pretty thorough analysis, more than I've read in any newspaper. excellent journalism, imo.

  10. MikeNV profile image73
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    PBS had an investigative reporter on tonight talking about the numerous safety violations by BP over the past 10 years.  Explosions in Texas, Numerous spills in Alaska, continued fines for not being in compliance...Just appealing.

    Then they listed the $49.5 Million paid out to 49 lobbyist (35 of Whom held former Federal Government positions).

    If not for BP fuel contracts with the Military they probably would have been bounced out of American Waters years ago.

    Oil companies by and large care only about profits.  For people to think that BP cares about the United States or the UK is a pretty big stretch.

    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So, Obama's employees and appointees should have been well aware of BP's failings, and still the administration, our federal Daddy, kept it's distance for weeks from BP's fiasco -- it hardly computes with the past or current rhetoric of this administration.

    2. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      MikeNV, you continually prove to be misguided and show yourself to lack any real knowledge of international business.

      Quite why the US would care to "bounce BP out of American Waters" when they own 39% of the business is beyond me.

  11. Friendlyword profile image61
    Friendlywordposted 6 years ago

    Everyone's free to co-sign this letter!

  12. bigbellyfat profile image60
    bigbellyfatposted 6 years ago

    The blame game never ends.  At the end of the day this needs to get fixed and fully investigated so it never happens again.  I am supposed to go to Miami next month, but now that may be in danger which really sucks. I hope for Florida's sake and its entire ecosystem and animals that they come out of it ok.

  13. profile image0
    chasingcarsposted 6 years ago

    You don't get it about capitalism at all, do you?  Capitalists may have a home base, usually as tax free as possible, but they never feel any loyalty to a country.  Their main purpose for existence is to make a profit, even if they have to step on their mothers' faces--you know--like Wall Street and big banks did to old people's pensions and life savings and families' homes?
    Britain has no responsibility for BP; if they think they do, then screw them, too, if they don't like being held accountable for screwing up the lives and the economy of every state along the Gulf.
    Why is the right wing protecting them?  I have this one:  because the right wing is not on the side of the American consumer and tax payer--they owe everything to their corporate overlords.  Blame?  Hell yes blame should be assigned, criminals arrested, and rigid controls placed on these buccaneers who have destroyed our environment to save a few dollars.  Where is the compassion for all the small businesses and the wildlife which habe been decimated by these thugs?

    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Boy Howdy, lucky us, people from all walks of life in America are 'capitalists', and their main purpose in life is to make a living that brings in profits -- what a sin of monumental proportions -- that has enriched the United States government and allowed the fed to play babysitter to millions of Americans -- what a sin.   

      Capitalists are found in all walks of life in this great country, the youngster that mows yards, or once did when it was not considered criminal for a kid to actually work and sweat to help themself, better than any other in the summers of yesterday, is a grand example of capitalism.  I'd much rather have very successful taxpaying capitalists than a successful drug dealing, tax sucking capitalist that actually does step on their mother's face if the need arises, all the while their babes are supported on the taxpayers dime.

      The so-called 'right' is not protecting BP, and I've no doubt the 'right' has put in more dollars and muscle to clean up this spill than bleeding wingding liberals who best know how to whine rather than work or pay for much of anything. And no, I don't have hard data on that, and if any of you wish to request such, I'd suggest instead you find something to rebut it.  Perhaps Al Gore could lend you a hand or a capitalistic dollar.

      Attacking capitalism and the right is a farce in my opinion, and not a surprising one given the current retarded political climate.  And the American consumer would not exist as 'it' is known today without Capitalism flourishing -- nor would the existing and prospective endless social programs.  Attack capitalism -- attack the social program teet.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The so-called 'right' is not protecting BP, and I've no doubt the 'right' has put in more dollars and muscle to clean up this spill than bleeding wingding liberals who best know how to whine rather than work or pay for much of anything. And no, I don't have hard data on that, and if any of you wish to request such, I'd suggest instead you find something to rebut it."

        Why should this statement not surprise me?  But it's good that you go ahead and admit you are just making things up before you get called on it.  Not that we didn't know this already by your past statements.

    2. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      While I don't argue that way too many in the GOP are "owned" by big business. I must make this point,   the big wigs on wall street forced no one to invest in the speculative cesspool they call the "Market"

  14. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    exactly who is whining all through these forums? hmm

    here's some perspective.
    http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/0 … exico.html

  15. kephrira profile image60
    kephriraposted 6 years ago

    Personally, as a Brit, I don't have a problem with Obama 'kicking butt', but his choosing to keep calling the company 'British Petroleum' - a name they haven't used for years - and the fact that he seems to be doing everything he can to focus all the anger and blame onto BP, despite the fact that it was another (American) company who were actually responsible for the operation where the accident occured and a third (again American) company who manufactured and supplied the equipment which failed does seem to me like he is trying to create a foreign scapegoat, and many of us already felt that he is anti-British anyway. So I don't like his attitude, but then I'm hardly losing sleep over it either.

  16. Jodi Hoeksel profile image60
    Jodi Hoekselposted 6 years ago

    I don't think it fair to point any fingers due to the US having stock in BP. However, who ever neglected to take care of the major faulty issues should be held accountable..
    This is an eye opening interview.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic … ?aid=CD945

  17. profile image0
    chasingcarsposted 6 years ago

    As usual, you have you head in a place with a bad atmosphere or haven't you right wingers noticed that the GOP consistently votes to protect big business over the consumer.  I'm not a liberal, but if I were one, I would be proud.
    We are taxpayers and workers and we are not whining; we are mad as hell and sick to death of your sneering a being called on you blatant lies and manipulation.  It is fair to point fingers at the idiots who brought this down on this country--anyone who benefitted from this oil well and protects its right to rape.  As a matter of fact, blaming the taxpayer and consumer is like blaming the rape victim.  Telling us we ought to pay for the mess is like making the rape victim pay the court cost for the rapist.  It is the right wing who is whining and tut tutting about "poor little BP."  The hell with that, and to hell with your usual blah, blah, blah.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Good... you can start by being pissed at Obama and his administration, it was they that fast-tracked this well up to produce.

      And the UK better get ready... Obama and the dems ought to be siezing all the BP asssets in this country and pullling a hugo chevez anytime now.

      And the leftists seem to not be able to grasp that alternative fuels are more than 50 years out till they reach anywhere near feasability.

      Oil is the power we need and will continue to use... if people don't like the spills in the ocean... open up Anwar and other inland reserves.

      Also... lets keep the leak in perspective....

      How many oil rigs are in the gulf?... And how many leaks have we suffered... I think the facts speak against the idiocy that drilliing is sooo bad. Relative to the amount of wells dug... the amount of leaks, is minimal.

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        TMMason.

        BP operates in 140 countries.

        1 of those countries is the US.

        Americans own 39% of the business.

        That action would be a small drop in the ocean. His continued verbal attacks have done much more damage to this ANGLO-AMERICAN company than any minor and trivial asset seizing would.

      2. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Relative to the amount of wells dug... the amount of leaks, is minimal."

        Tell that to the fisherman and shrimpers who can't work. One-third of the Gulf is closed. Tell that to the sea life that's being poisoned by this spill. Tons and tons of toxic chemical dispersants have been dumped in the Gulf. All the promises by BP about how they could drill the well safely and manage any contingency have turned out to be fiction.  Hype. Balogna. BS. LIES!!!!!    "MINIMAL????????????????"

        That's like saying a drunk driver who runs a red light and rams a school bus loaded with kids was prudent if he only killed 3 children."

        Puhleeeese spare us your defense of BP and the Oil Industry - They only polluted one ocean this year - that's pretty good. There's a LIMITED number of OCEANS!!!!!!

        Where you got your nose is affecting your brain.

        1. WizardOfOz profile image60
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I concur with Doug.  Wipe your brown.

          1. WizardOfOz profile image60
            WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            *Brow

            1. Doug Hughes profile image60
              Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              When you said 'brown' I thought you were referring to the nose.
              (See TMMason avitar in full size.)

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Brain? What brain?

  18. Ohma profile image80
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    I understand that but are we really in a position to be picky about where the help comes from?

    1. profile image0
      woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not a question of picky, and yes anyone willing to help would be awesome, but hey Britain stop whinning and help "PLEASE"

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You really don't get it do you woolman60?

        BP is an American company. At least it is as American as it is British. In other words, it is Anglo-American.

        And with 24000 US employees, and 10000 UK employees, I would call it more American than British.

        Let me put this into terms that even the most stupidist of Americans can understand.

        Currently BP is paying for the clean up, has taken responsibility for the clean up, and says it will meet all costs of the clean up - whether this comes as annual repayments or in one go.

        The money that the American taxpayer may have to fork out will be repaid by BP, just so long as BP is operational and profitable.

        If Obama hammers the final nails into the coffin of BP, and BP goes bankrupt as a result, then there is no BP to repay the costs of the clean up. Who fits the bill? The American taxpayer.

        So, go ahead and condone the collapse of BP. It will actually effect YOU, an American taxpayer, more than ME, a British taxpayer with no friends or relatives who work for BP.

        Please do not moan if Obama bankrupts BP and then announces a $100bn clean up bill.

        Can the American taxpayer afford to shell out another $100bn with its levels of national debt? No it cannot.

        Can BP afford to repay $100bn plus interest in 10 years if it still exists? Yes it can. It has revenues of around $250bn per year.

        Go figure. The collapse of BP will effect the US more than any other country, I suggest that Obama tries to be a bit more diplomatic and helpful to the process.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There's no evidence Obama is trying to put BP out of business. He's just responding to the emergency and the understandably concern among American voters and doing his best to make sure that BP does what it should do to stop the leak and repair the damage. Not a small task. Killing BP would not help achieve this goal.

          1. Doug Hughes profile image60
            Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            IMO - the speech last night was not directed primarily at the US public. It was directed at BP executives. Obama made the PUBLIC policy declaration that he wants the compensation of victims of the spill to begin SOON - and not as the result of drawn out court battles in three states. Obama wanted (and got) 20 billion which will be administered by a 3rd party out of the control of BP lawyers.

            Again this is my opinion- but I don't thik BP had an ongoing commitment to compensate victims to the tune of 20 billion+. They were going through the motions while the spotlight was on them, knowing full well that it would only last a few months at most. Now, because of Obama's speech and commitment,, BP is publicly on the hook with no way to change course and  force claims into slow and expensive law suits.

            A lot of the response has been slow and badly coordinated. This last move by Obama was leadership for the benefit of the little guy. I only hope we see more of it.

            1. Bacall profile image60
              Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Everyone has to admit the President really came through for us this time. I bet, even BP executives are glad Obama step in. Now they don't have to look at their asses flapping in the wind. Plus they got off cheap for now.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Not everyone, I bet!  KFC will be along shortly to screech and wail!  LOL!

              2. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                amusing........

                1. Bacall profile image60
                  Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Come on!!! You know you want to give the President a sloppy kiss on the Cheek!

  19. profile image0
    woolman60posted 6 years ago
  20. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    When asked about his performance on closing the oil spill.  The president commented  "Present".

    http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/obama-satire/obama-golf.jpg

    Here he is spending every waking hour comcerned with the Gulf.

    "Daddy?  Daddy?  Have you done a damn thing to try and stop the OIL spill?"

    1. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Give the man a break.  The constant barrage of cynicism is really counter productive.  I think this President has at least the ability to multi task but the last one couldn't even deduce a train of thought without misconstruing the gist of the conversation.

      http://www.cagle.com/news/BushLevees/images/wasserman.gif

  21. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/wilber83/obama-crying-1.jpg

    1. rhamson profile image74
      rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What is so funny about your critisism of Obama is that you and others want him to stay out of the way of big business. But when it goes horribly wrong as this whole BP mess you want immediate answers and solutions that you will disapprove of anyway.

      Honestly the man can't win either direction for many who just plain hate him.

      Your feelings are running your reactions and leaving your objectivity in the wake.

      "A conservative is a man who sits and thinks, mostly sits".
      Woodrow Wilson (1856 - 1924)

      1. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, old Woodrow was big on action, calculated and sly action, with no worries about a few ships as bait and lives put at risk, the ends justified his goals, what's a little sly setup, lying, and playing dumb compared to his vision of the day for the USA....interesting choice of personages, out of so many from which to choose.......


        How about this one: 

        "Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail." Benito Mussolini

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          If Mussolini said it, that's good enough for me.

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            LOL.  Woodrow and Mussolini would have been quite a pair working together -- a dictator and a dud with great PR skills to fool the masses.

        2. rhamson profile image74
          rhamsonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The funny thing is that you have to have the words justified by the personage of who made them.  Words have meaning and it is up to the individual to discern their truth and meaning as applied to the circumstance.

          If it were not that way, words would be subjective in all instances.  The reader would be paralyzed if he had to take into consideration the value of the composer and not the gist of the statement.  Come to think of it the Wilsons' statement has an even more validation than I thought.

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this


        That does not mean I do not want everything done to take care of the Gulf even if, (OMG NO don't say it) Fark it I am going to say it.  Even if we receive international help in solving the problem.



        Yeah I want The administration to take lawsuits against BP so they can determine exactly how much compensation each effected peasant gets.(SARCASM)   Why can't each person who has been hurt by the spill file an individual lawsuit against BP.  You want to know why, because Obama is a wannabe dictator with total control over the entire nation and if BP settles with the U.S. Obama can dole out checks like a charitable tyrant..



        Oh you have to be able to find a better quote then from the first aspiring dictator.  Woodrow Wilson give me a break, the man who destroyed the country? 

        <image snipped>

  22. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    All liberal wingdings should just order the album collection 'Flower Power', listen carefully and joyfully, and get back to your real make your own way roots...............best for the whole of the country.

  23. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    BP started in 1909 As the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as a subsidiary of the Burmah Oil Company to exploit oil discovered in Persia in 1908. In 1935 it became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). After WWII in 1951 Mossadegh was elected prime minister of Iran who nationalized the oil industry, displacing AIOC with the National Iranian Oil Company. In 1953 President Eisenhower authorized the CIA to organize a coup against Mossadegh with the cooperation of Great Britain and the Shah of Iran. Mossadegh was ousted and after the coup Mossadegh's National Iranian Oil Company became part of an international oil consortium which agreed to share profits 50-50 with Iran, and AIOC resumed operations there. The consortium's share of Iran's oil was divvied up among British (AIOC)(40%), Dutch and French (20%) and five American companies (40%).

    The AIOC became British Petroleum in 1954, and extended its operations outside the Middle East to Alaska and went on to acquire Amoco, Standard of Ohio, and Arco. It renamed itself BP Amoco plc in 1998 and BP plc in 2001. BP terminated its operations in Iran as a result of the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    Maybe Obama should quit calling BP British Petroleum and go back to BP's roots calling it the Iranian National Oil Company??
    Our relationship with Iran has been "special" also, but not as special as with the UK. And don't ever let anyone tell you that oil doesn't influence international power politics!

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am pleased that Obama has today confirmed that he has no intention of causing the break up BP. I am also pleased that our Prime Minister has begun to defend BP following public pressure in order to protect the interests of the everyday people in UK who have pensions and savings to protect. And that is all I really have to say about the topic.

      I agree with everything that this article says http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news … ct-BP.html

      Hopefully some investor confidence can return and BP can stop worrying about its share price and start worrying about how it is going to mop up more of that damn oil.

  24. lovemychris profile image79
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Sounds like Bush/Cheney!
    Cheney being the dictator of course, and Bush the dud.

    "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." --- George W. Bush

    My favorite: "What a waste it is to lose ones' mind."--V.P. Quayle

  25. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    See what I mean?  LOLOLOL!

    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What a duo!  Good job! How very ... Bacall........

    2. Bacall profile image60
      Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not psychic, Bacall!  It's just her routine!  HA!  Beat her by 1 second! LOL!

      2. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Glad to see you have a real clearly aligned buddy, amazing, and you just dropped in to be a hubber!  Mega Kudos to you, Bacall, a really literate and intelligent voice for us all to watch for with great interest. wink

        1. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, KFC, Bacall and I set you up and you fell for it!  Actually, we did nothing of the sort.  You are just too predictable, a broken record of sorts.  A bad record at that.  Now, screech on! HAHA!

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Give it up, only your own credibility and your new and blooming buds are heartily laughed at.  smile  You are a real hoot!  So nice to have such a joyful dude on board! smile

            1. Randy Godwin profile image92
              Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Ha! Ha!  If you liked me I would hate myself!  Please don't ever change!  As if.....!  Ha! Ha!  Screeech!  You are no challenge anymore, KFC!  Way too predictable!  Typical neo-con!

              1. KFlippin profile image61
                KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                At least I know when it's time to sleep.  Are you on the other side of the world, oh so charming and amusing, yet ineffective, snakey dude. smile  Or are your obligatory apprentice dudes on the night shift?  smile

                1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Just when I think you can't be more wrong, you surprise me, KFC!  This is my sole account and I always post under my real name.  I live in Georgia so it's time for me to crash.  So screech to your hearts content.  We're just a couple of owls, I suppose.  You, a screech, me a hoot!  HAHAHA!  Enjoy your ranting!  Nite nite!

                  1. Bacall profile image60
                    Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Nite Randy!
                    rebekahELLE, why are you the first person I heard say that. Obviously the people we're counting on to make the right decisions for us in a crisis is still in shock along with the rest of us. And K is right. It should have been done Yesterday or last week or the day after the spill.

        2. Bacall profile image60
          Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          From what I've read, you don't like this President. How do people like you, feel about how he worked that magic yesterday?

        3. Bacall profile image60
          Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for saying that. But, you won,t agree with alot of my comments.

  26. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    we'll see what tomorrow brings.
    http://www.aolnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/a … l/19519473

    the clean-up response must improve or move the military in to do a concerted effort to get it done asap. if it's an assualt on our waters and coastal shores, which it is, then treat it like one.

    1. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Like Yesterday, treat it like one.......

      1. rebekahELLE profile image90
        rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know what you refer to and I'm too tired to find out, but at least say something that makes sense.

        1. KFlippin profile image61
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I meant 'like yesterday' in reference to your comment:

          ". . .the clean-up response must improve or move the military in to do a concerted effort to get it done asap. if it's an assualt on our waters and coastal shores, which it is, then treat it like one."

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Get real Rebecca, all of us have been waiting for her to make sense for a long time!

  27. CYBERSUPE profile image59
    CYBERSUPEposted 6 years ago

    This Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill has caused an economic disaster in the United States and will soon be felt in other areas of the world, so do not blow this disaster off as localized only in the United States. Beware, this Oil Spill is far from being over.

  28. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

      how do you know they can't? the agreement [negotiations] to make the fund does not pre-empt individuals from using the courts to settle disputes with BP. most of these people can't afford the courts. the fund insures they receive compensation that otherwise may not have happened with individual lawsuits.

    you know, I've seen parents and grandparents who actually reflect the little child in the photo. too bad they're not teaching their child the important characters that will enable them to make their own decisions and judgments.

  29. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    "Yeah I want The administration to take lawsuits against BP so they can determine exactly how much compensation each effected peasant gets.(SARCASM)   Why can't each person who has been hurt by the spill file an individual lawsuit against BP.  "

    There is still to possibility that every one who is effected can file lawsuits against BP. No one is stopping them.

    And besides, do you not want BP to repay the money that it will cost tax payers to clean this up? You want the government to do something about it then complain when they do something.

    1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
      Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I want the systems that are set up within our country to be utilized.  I do not want a tyrannical leader circumventing our justice system.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's right, we don't want another Dubya running things!

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I know, better to have a tyrannical corporation circumventing our justice system with their vast financial and legal resources than to have the President convince them to set aside money for the people whose lives they ruined.

        Got it.

      3. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How interesting that both respondents clearly don't wish to acknowledge that federal entities and regulations are well in place -- just not functioning.  How more governmental entities, more money down the rabbit hole of federal employment, can be found to solve anything is quite remarkable.

        As for BP, I'm surprised there is not a whale of a lot of outcry about the so-called third party who will be in charge of this $20 Billion.  A more correct and independent third party would have been one of the big accounting firms, then all would know that the monies hadn't been federalized down the rabbit hole.

  30. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago
  31. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago

    Now here's a great idea from the conservatives side!




          http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archiv … _dutch.php

  32. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago

    I can't imagine anyone not wanting the clean up done as quickly and efficiently as possible. it took a while for the oil to reach the shore and there is still oil gushing into the waters. I think when we're fighting a giant, we need the right equipment and people to get in there and get it done right. hiring people to play catch with wildlife eggs and taking long breaks hardly sounds efficient to me. we've been promised that everything possible is being done. hmm
    maybe because I live 7 miles from the gulf .. we're very concerned and angry of what might happen.

    1. Bacall profile image60
      Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I wish I knew what to tell you. You have better ideas than the people that are suppose to be taking care of you and protecting the gulf shore from this spill. I wish you the best down there.

  33. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I am ashamed that my president would strong arm a company to do what the constitution says the Govt. cannot. What has happened to Due Process.

    But as I said.

    I cannot wait to sieze BP's American assets.

    It will all be funny then... you want a socailist country. Fist we nationalize all private industry... lets starts with BP.

    Or should I say, lets continue the process with BP

    1. profile image0
      woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      TM are you an American or what, I just want to know, I have not once ever seen you say anything good about this country, or it's people, so I just want to know are you AMERICAN

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I am.

        I have said many great things about my country both on this forum and off.

        My dis-like is for progressives and the leant leftist liberal agenda to destroy this country and it's constitution.

        Where in my post did I attack America?...

        I did not... I attacked the president's actions.

        He, is not America.

        1. profile image0
          woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes he is America whether you like it or not. How would you describe yourself politically?

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Just because you think liberals are trying to destroy our constitution and country doesn't make it true.  What possible reason would we have for doing this?  We could say the same for those of your party.  But it would not be true in either case because we all have to live here.

          Thank goodness you were in the minority in the last election the same as we were when you put Dubya in.  We lived through the horrors of his terms, including thousands of deaths associated with his stupid Iraq war, the downfall of our economy and the shame associated with torture, Abu Garib, Haliburton, the corruption of the Justice Department, and so much more!

          You voted for him didn't you?  If so, I don't know how you have the nerve to criticize this president at all!  LOL!

  34. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    NO... he is not America.

    You can wish it all you want but it doesn't cxhange the facts. He, Obama, does not in any way embody America or our values and beliefs.

    Unless you think America "is" a Socailist country?... Or that we are the largest Islamic Nation in the world? lol

    Yes, truly American.

    And I am an Independent with conservative leanings.


    Here is a good article on the chasm between the pres and real America.

    The Alien in the White House
    The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.

    A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.

    One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.

    Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 18728.html

    1. profile image0
      woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for your reply, but I still believe in our President and our country and what we have will never die, for we the people of this great nation will not accept anything less than the freedom and our Constitution that our fore fathers gave us, and we will fight to keep it, that is why  I love this country and I have never disliked or hated any of our Presidents, however I will say this I may not agree with you, on the political scope, but I do respect your thoughts and that will never change, thanks again for your reply, and hope to meet again.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I hope that is not apathy I hear, Wool.

        The old... "oh it cannot happen to us"... those are the famous final words of many a fallen nation. That is that attitude which I believe has propelled the left to power and allowed them to impliment much of thier agenda already.

        Please don't just rely on the belief that it could never happen here, bro.

        Because it already is...

        And it is nice to speak with you also, woolman.

        1. profile image0
          woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This is not apathy this is coming from a Marine Corp family, I will die to defend this nation,people and it's Constitution. I don't kiss anyone butt. Once again thanks

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you for your service.

            I am ex Airborne myself and would give the same. But that doesn't mean it cannot happen.

            I doubt it would be through armed force, the left will use our political system against us as they have been doing for decades. They use the court to create law then move from there. It is called legistlative judicail activism, it will be the death of America.

            1. profile image0
              woolman60posted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I hope not,
              and thank you for yours as well.

  35. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 6 years ago

    I wish CMHypno, the hubber starting this topic, would let us know what the British think about the events of today on the floor of our laughable Congress........

    1. Bacall profile image60
      Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You're talking about the clown act performed by Sen Joe Barton?
      "I APOLIGIZE BP, I'M SOOOOOOO SORRY!!!"

    2. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Again --- I wish CMHypno, the - respectable-  hubber starting this topic, would let us know what the British think about the events of today on the floor of our laughable Congress........

      1. Bacall profile image60
        Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh well, I guess you missed my response to this comment. (I'm sure you're not ignoring me)

        Anyway, if you missed the clown act in congress today; here he is in all his glory!

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#37768045

  36. GeneriqueMedia profile image60
    GeneriqueMediaposted 6 years ago

    Obama's attack on BP, not doing well in the UK?!

    That's it, revolution! We shall paint ourselves as native americans, board BP ships and dump their oil into the ocean!

    Oh...wait ...nevermind.

    http://lh6.ggpht.com/_BRMr2D3unLI/TBrWGP8nHrI/AAAAAAAAAPo/yOKT56VzfmE/s800/bp.gif

  37. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Obama is not worried about the Gulf, or the people of the Gulf, or the wioldlife and preserves.

    No...

    He is worried about one thing only.

    Getting his grubby Socailist hands on the money from BP before someone else does.

    God forbid he doesn't spend all that money also, before he is thrown out of office.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This coming from someone who can't distinguish the Constitution from the Declaration of Independence!  LOL!

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I mixed my thoughts up... wow.

        Imagine that...

        I bet you have never mis-spoke... please.

        Amazing... I guess we just dis-regard all things spoken by anyone who has ever mis-spoke.

        The fact is BP, Obama and all the other greedy lil thugs are joined at the hip in this.

        BP stands to make alot of money from cap and trade as does Obama and his crooks.

        Yup everyone pay attention to the oil in the water and the oily birds... watch the 20 billion.

        I mean... when has a Co. that is only liable for 75million dollars under the law, ponied up 20 billion voluntarilly and with such ease.

        Not one bit of fuss.

        Yeah... right. Never!

        And Obama gets to look like the nationalizing Socailist he is, all the while he continues to destroy capitolism and private industry. We as a country do not subvert, ignore or set aside the Constitution simply because the ends justifies the means.

        I am ashamed of my president. Even more so then when I see him groveling and apologizing to every freedom hating, civilan killing, fatical dictator and muslim in the world.

        I mean... where are all the Alex jones freaks on this one?

        WTH am I missing..

        Where are you Randy?...

        You can really sit there with a straight face and your stunning Constitutional brilliance, and state that his, Obama's, actions, were really within the Constitutional limits set upon his office.

        Then you need to re-think what you have read in the Constitution.

        Because that is just not even close to correct..

        1. Doug Hughes profile image60
          Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Obama's acrions were entirely within the Constitution!

          There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President  can't make a suggestion in a crises. (Like - Let's handle claims through 3rd -party arbitration.)  BP could have declined to put up 20BN.  They could have demanded every claim go thorough litigation - Joe Fisherman against BP's high-priced shysters. The tide of public opinion has turned against BP. It's not smart business to stand your legal ground and screw the 'small people' in court when the TV cameras are running.

          The POTUS was within his rights to make a suggestion - and BP decided not to  decline. I suspect Obama made BP an offer they couldn't refuse.  Had there been a GOP president in the Oval Office, the 'small people'  would have been cheated - all legally by BP.  That seems to be what TMMason is advocating - the Constitutional rape of small victims by Big Oil.  Now the victims of the Gulf will get some money and quickly. They need it.

          If you are not wearing conservative blinders - it's obvious whose side Obama is on - and it's not Big Oil. We have months and months ahead before we can evaluate the long-term damage. Bad as it is, just think what it would be like if Bush was running things...

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Doug says:
            "Obama's acrions were entirely within the Constitution!  There is nothing in the Constitution that says the President  can't make a suggestion in a crises."

            How funny, what awesome Constitutional legal talk, it is inspiring..... smile and the mis-spellings -- indicate great passion for the topic. Try as I have, can't conceive of such passionate blind allegiance to any creed, color, party, or duty in such a time as we Americans find ourselves today -- independent thought, seems an alien far left liberal concept.

        2. Randy Godwin profile image92
          Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I can sit here with a straight face and a real name and state the president didn't violate the Constitution.  You just don't like it.  Because you and KFC don't like it I am assured it is a good thing.  You guys are my barometer for knowing when he does something good. 

          How about me using one of the neo-cons favorite sayings to liberals.  "if you don't like the way things are being done here, then take your America-hating butts somewhere else!  LOLOLOL!


          Are you from Texas?

    2. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have severe Bipolar? Or split personality disorder?

      Two days ago you were advocating the seizure of BP's assets, and now that a prominent Republican has come out and defending BP.... you suddently choose to sit on the other side of the fence?

      Some would call it fickle. I would call it 'thick'.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My comment... "I can't wait to sieze Bp's assets" the other day was sarcasism. If you had read my earlier posts in the other threads, (and i believe this one), about BP, you would know that.

        Of course then due to, should I say, "techinical" difficulties I could not return to finish the conversation. I have never advocated siezing, bailing out, or other-wise interjecting the Govt. into any private industry. I believe the banks and all others should have been allowed to fail.

        Pissin in the ballon to keep it inflated, is not a sound economic policy for anyone.

        1. profile image0
          ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Fair enough

  38. profile image59
    C.J. Wrightposted 6 years ago

    No one likes being told their baby is ugly. I think the President should be asking questions. I also think some of those tough questions should be targeted to the MMS of the DOI.

    The best question BP could ask, is this: Where is the money Oil companies have been pre-paying to the FED for disaster contigencies since the 20's? If the money was there, why are they wanting to up the 75 million cap? Shouldn't claims have to go through the government first? BP caved. Its because they have a concious. They could have played hard ball and said "SCREW YOU GUYS, I'M GOING HOME!"

    This is simply another case of the politicians jumping in bed with big business. Its like jumping in bed with a woman of easy virtue and then calling her a whore in the morning.

  39. profile image59
    kejoboposted 6 years ago

    before obama starts slagging us in the uk off about bp,hasnt amoco got a finger in the pie?perhaps he should ask the relatives of the union carbide disaster in india what he should do.

    1. profile image0
      ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Amoco no longer exist. Since the major controversy was Obama's use of the words 'British Petroleum', you have shot yourself in the foot immediately.

      British Petroleum and Amoco merged and created the business now known as 'BP Plc'.

    2. Bacall profile image60
      Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why are you attacking a Citizen of the US. No US Citizen is attacking British Citizens. BP just happens to be a British Company. By the way, Americans are investors in BP and we can say what we want to about a company we invest in. The People of Britain have no right to be upset with any United States Citizen that is in the middle of a very serious and ongoing crisis. Show some compassion please.

      1. profile image0
        ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Bacall, whilst kejebo's comments were wide of the mark, yours are too. There have been at least 6 comments on this thread which place blame on the British, I know this because I have quoted each of them in this hubpage http://hubpages.com/hub/British-Petrole … ho-Owns-BP

        I suggest reading a thread thoroughly before making assumptions.

        1. Bacall profile image60
          Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Very slippery of you. Every single comment you site in your hub is a RESPONSE to an attack on the President or people of this country. It may sound childish but, they started it!

          Is it more important for you to write a hub attacking your fellow countrymen than it is for you to support us? I dont know about you, but I'm not sure how bad this is going to get. I'm scared for the people of the gulf states and the rest of us. Maybe you should read this entire forum.

          1. KFlippin profile image61
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            A big harrumph and haha to that load of slippery rhetoric......

          2. profile image0
            ryankettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Britain has done nothing but support America for the past century. Now Obama does not support us.

            The Anglo-American relationship is coming to an end for that very reason, Obama is anti-British.

            If 250+ young British men coming home in coffins for YOUR war 'on terror' is not enough support, then what is?

            I advocate a breaking of ties with America politically and economically until Obama is out of office <snipped link>

            Any lack of support coming from the British is as a result of a lack of support from your new administration. Not vice versa.

            1. Bacall profile image60
              Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              There are some really cruel opportunistic creeps in this world. They certainly do not represent any country on this planet. The American and British people know their history. And we know our present situation.  Were fighting and dying together for the sake of both our people. The oil spill is a disaster caused by a company. How dare some people be so cruel as to bring the death of British soldiers into this subject to make a cheap attack.

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Good post

            2. livelonger profile image89
              livelongerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Do you really believe this?

              I don't know where British people get the idea that Obama or Americans are bashing the British unless they perceive the world through some crap tabloid like the Daily Mail.

              1. rebekahELLE profile image90
                rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I have to agree LL.  I think the media rags are causing all of this rancid apathy. this thread was destined to end up with these kind of remarks. very sad.

                it's late, I'm going to bed.

            3. Sab Oh profile image60
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Britain has done nothing but support America for the past century. Now Obama does not support us.

              The Anglo-American relationship is coming to an end for that very reason, Obama is anti-British.

              YOUR war 'on terror' "

              obama has pursued a 'foreign policy' of apologizing to those who might not like us and  p*ssing on our allies. This, combined with a general sense of the weakness of this white house (unless it involves disregarding the will of the AMERICAN people) is unrolling a ****-load of danger and instability on the world.

              obama is essentially anti-anything in the traditional, rational, or common-sense interests of America.

              It's not "our" War on Terror. Is your memory really so short?

  40. profile image0
    woolman60posted 6 years ago

    1. President Barack Obama

    "It is as enraging as it is heartbreaking, and we will not relent until this leak is contained, until waters and shores are cleaned up, and until the people unjustly victimised by this man-made disaster are made whole. BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill."

    2. Tony Hayward, BP chief executive

    "We will stop the leak and return the Gulf Coast to the position it was in prior to this event."

    3. Admiral Thad Allen, national incident commander of the Gulf oil spill

    "BP will be graded on the things that I established early on that were the goals of this operation. The ability to stop the leak at its source; the ability to attack the oil at sea; to protect the resources ashore; and to recover and mitigate the impacted areas."

    4. Melanie Driscoll, bird conservation director, National Audubon Society

    "For birds, the timing could not be worse; they are breeding, nesting and especially vulnerable in many of the places where the oil could come ashore. We have to hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, including a true catastrophe for birds."

    5. Steve Scalise, Republican Representative for Louisiana

    "We've got experience from 30 years of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that those safety mechanisms work when they're used properly. What happened in this explosion is something that should not have happened."

    6. Keith Jones, father of Gordon, an oil worker who died on the rig, responding to Tony Hayward's remark that the BP chief wants his 'life back':

    "My son died aboard the Transocean Deepwater Horizon. That's whose life Tony Hayward ought to want back."

    Timeline of the US oil spill disaster

    20 April: Explosion on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig off the Louisiana coast: 11 workers killed. Two days later the rig sinks creating a five-mile slick. A week later the US Coast Guard estimates 5,000 barrels a day leaking

    2 May: US President Barack Obama visits the affected areas vowing BP will pay. BP chief Tony Hayward says company will pay for the clean-up. Work begins on drilling a relief well

    7 May: First attempt to plug the leaking well with a 100-ton concrete cap fails. Two days later it attempts a “junk shot” – rubbish including golf balls, tyres and mud – to stem the leak

    11 May: Congressional hearing told explosion is the result of a “cascade of errors”. Shortly afterwards Mr Obama criticises “ridiculous spectacle” of oil industry officials blaming each other

    20 May: First heavy oil from the rig reaches Louisiana. Experts begin to express concern that ocean currents could bring a slick the size of Luxembourg on to the coastline. The government triples the size of the area of the Gulf of Mexico that is off limits to fishing boats

    26 May: BP starts Operation Top Kill to choke off the leak. It fails three days later. The next day President Obama extends the deepwater drilling ban for a further six months

    1 June: BP shares fall 17 per cent as US announces criminal and civil investigations. Not long afterwards Mr Obama criticises BP again for failing to move fast enough

    4-7 June: BP engineers place a cap on the well. Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, announces that he is to visit the site of the spill, increasing speculation that a criminal investigation is in prospect

    8 June: President Obama says of BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward: “If he worked for me I’d sack him.” The comment and others from the US administration prompt concern in the UK about increasingly vehement attacks on the company

    11 June: Admiral Thad Allen writes to BP’s chairman for first face-to-face summit as concern mounts about “anti-British sentiment” in attacks on BP. By this time the estimate on the leak has soared to some 40,000 barrels (1.7m gallons)a day

    12 June: In a transatlantic phone call, David Cameron warns Mr Obama not to undermine BP’s economic value. Downing Street issues a statement stressing that the special relationship has not been undermined by the catastrophe

    Make sure you read again and again "Downing Street issues a statement stressing that the special relationship has not been undermined by the catastrophe

  41. rebekahELLE profile image90
    rebekahELLEposted 6 years ago
    1. Bacall profile image60
      Bacallposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh yea! Yes yes! This is the man for the job! I know he really cares about us...what was it? the little people...

      Is that the guy?

  42. profile image59
    kejoboposted 6 years ago

    i have noticed that nobody has mentioned about the carbide disaster being cleaned up.but when something happens on your doorstep its all hell broke loose.when the pipeline was laid i beleive it was mostly american labour that did it could it have been shoddy workmanship or some one cutting corners? given time i beleive that all govenments will kill this earth in the name of progress and greed!

  43. aguasilver profile image87
    aguasilverposted 6 years ago

    So lets all stop driving our cars.... that'll show them!

  44. Aiden Roberts profile image87
    Aiden Robertsposted 6 years ago

    I have come to this thread late and there has been some very interesting points raised.

    Greed, profit and power is causing this disaster not the UK.

    A company is not a country, it does not make sense BP was touted as Britain by Obama. It reminds me of the obesity campaign recently, Mcdonalds played it's part but we didn't blame USA; that would be silly.

    It is clear alternative fuel sources need to be developed but in the meantime it is silly to try and sour a very important relationship between our two nations.

    Stop the silliness and concentrate on the solution, pray for those who need help and support them trying to help.

  45. profile image59
    kejoboposted 6 years ago

    i did not shoot myself in the foot as such.what i was pointing out was that it is a joint venture.but we in the uk seem to be getting most of the flak over this when the american side has more than double the uk work force involved with the oil company.

 
working