The house of reps votes 209-193 to bitchslap big oil and BP

B_New End

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
2,970
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
WA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

Why don't you say, "Hey, if this is true, that's great"?

After all the bullshit BP has served, I'll wait until I know it's chocolate before saying it's great.

It appears that it will be of shorter duration than we feared.

Yes, and I ma sure BP will be in court next year arguing that damage from the spill is over. :rolleyes:
 

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
well, IDK about anyone else, but theres no way in hell I'll be eating anything out of the gulf for at least a decade or more. I can't believe how stupid some posters on this thread are. If you think this disaster will be over with in a matter of months to a year, you need to put the crack pipe down. Hell, the effects of the Exxon-Valdez are still being felt today, so what makes you think the disaster in the gulf is going to be any different? Oh thats right...the conservative right and wonderful BP bought scientists are filling you up with bullshit. Lets all hold hands because everything is alright! fucktards
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Would it be any more relevant if he compared it to the Atlantic Ocean?

Obviously less relevant.


How do these scientists know? Were they given free access to the Gulf to study how much wildlife died? How are they able to determine how much wildlife died? who is providing them the numbers? What about all the animals that died already while out at sea? Has there been time to do a comprehensive study on how much wildlife is left? what about effects on their reproduction capabilities?

A planeload of journalists had to fly for more than an hour before finding any oil slick. This is good news. Bacteria is destroying the oil slicks rapidly, much more quickly than scientists had predicted.

Wildlife rescue teams have found only three dead dolphins covered by oil.

[FONT=&quot]The region's fish and shrimp, according to Time magazine, have not shown contamination, and restrictions on fishing are slowly being lifted.

Assessment teams, again according to Time, have found only 350 acres of oiled marshes in Louisiana ... far below the 15,000 acres of wetlands that the state loses each years.

[/FONT] Time quotes Louisiana State University coastal scientist Eugene Turner, who has studied how the oil industry has done great damage to the coastal area through construction of canals and pipelines. He says the damage from the BP spill is comparatively insignificant. "We don't want to deny that there's some damage, but nothing like the damage we've seen for years," he told Time.

To be sure, there are 600 miles of oiled beaches, but these are considered easy to clean up.

The reasons for the good news seems to be that the Deepwater oil was very light, that the warm waters of the Gulf encourage the bacterial action that is breaking the oil down, and Mississippi outflow kept the oil away from wetlands from the coast more effectively than had been predicted.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
It bothers me because you are swallowing the tales of corporate media without even questioning it with a critical mind.

I cannot help you with your paranoia.
These are not tales of corporate media.


I won't engage you again. I find it thankless.
Let's just wait for further reports.
If what I am saying is true, it will become a journalistic theme over the next few weeks.
(You, of course, will probably decry the decline of the American journalistic mind, hopelessly hijacked by BP's insidious evil machinations.)
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
well, IDK about anyone else, but theres no way in hell I'll be eating anything out of the gulf for at least a decade or more. I can't believe how stupid some posters on this thread are. If you think this disaster will be over with in a matter of months to a year, you need to put the crack pipe down. Hell, the effects of the Exxon-Valdez are still being felt today, so what makes you think the disaster in the gulf is going to be any different?
Because the Exxon-Valdez took place in frigid Alaskan waters, and the tanker held very thick oil.
The oil coming from the Deepwater Horizon well is 'sweet' crude, much thinner and more easily evaporated, and more easily destroyed by bacteria.
Moreover, the Gulf of Mexico, so much warmer than the waters of Prince William Sound, is host to far more oil-destroying bacteria.
So the comparison is not a good one.


Oh thats right...the conservative right and wonderful BP bought scientists are filling you up with bullshit. Lets all hold hands because everything is alright! fucktards
Everything is alright?
Find anyone saying that.
But the scale of damage appears only a very small portion of what we thought we were facing.
That's not the same as saying there has been no damage.
 

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Hhuck. I'm glad you have set the record straight. I'm glad you are all knowing and all being. I guess what the state government, scientists, ecoligists, etc are saying is utter bullshit. I happen to live in one of the effected states, and what I'm seeing and hearing is pretty much the opposite of what you are saying here. While it is true that some fishing areas, beaches, etc are opening back up, it is very uncertain that they will remain open.

As to the fact that the oil slick is becoming hard to see, its because so much of the oil is sinking to the ocean floor, and its killing everything its coming into contact with. Yes, it is easy to clean up the beaches. The point you're missing is every day, workers are going out and cleaning the same beaches over and over again, with no end in site. I think you are doing us all a great disservice by trying to minimize whats going on in the gulf.

As for the animals not dying en masse....well thats utter crap. Last week, our local news station's parent company, did a story from Orange Beach/Dauphin Island, on nesting sea turtles. What is happening is hundreds upon thousands of turtle eggs are being relocated to other areas of the gulf and to the Atlantic Coast of Florida. I'm sure that the turtles aren't the only species of animal being transplanted from their homes to new locations to ensure the survival of the species.
 

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Because the Exxon-Valdez took place in frigid Alaskan waters, and the tanker held very thick oil.
The oil coming from the Deepwater Horizon well is 'sweet' crude, much thinner and more easily evaporated, and more easily destroyed by bacteria.
Moreover, the Gulf of Mexico, so much warmer than the waters of Prince William Sound, is host to far more oil-destroying bacteria.
So the comparison is not a good one.


Everything is alright?
Find anyone saying that.
But the scale of damage appears only a very small portion of what we thought we were facing.
That's not the same as saying there has been no damage.

Why are you yet again minimizing the situation? Fact of the matter is time will only show us all what damage will happen. I'm 100% certain that 20 to 50 years down the road, you will be proven to be incorrect.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
Why are you yet again minimizing the situation? Fact of the matter is time will only show us all what damage will happen. I'm 100% certain that 20 to 50 years down the road, you will be proven to be incorrect.
'Minimizing'?
What does the word 'minimizing' mean here?
So far, there appears to be quite a lot of rather objective evidence that the Gulf oil spill won't be nearly as damaging as first thought.
Why should you wish not to hear that?
What's wrong with good news?
It is true that only time will show us all the damage that will occur.
But in the early going, the news is seeming surprisingly good.
If you're 100 percent certain, you're far more certain than I am ... and I congratulate you.
But it's never a good sign to be 100 percent certain.
 

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
'Minimizing'?
What does the word 'minimizing' mean here? Don't play stupid, you know what it means
So far, there appears to be quite a lot of rather objective evidence that the Gulf oil spill won't be nearly as damaging as first thought. Where's your evidence for this?
Why should you wish not to hear that? why do you think I don't want to hear that? I'm realistic, and until I'm shown ample evidence for your argument, I'm going to stick with what I know and see
What's wrong with good news? why are you trying to make me look bad? Perhaps it has to do with you lame ass argument?
It is true that only time will show us all the damage that will occur.
But in the early going, the news is seeming surprisingly good. again, where's your evidence?
If you're 100 percent certain, you're far more certain than I am ... and I congratulate you. wow! could you be any more condicending?
But it's never a good sign to be 100 percent certain.


The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that your arguement is weak, and you are trying to deflect you total lack of evidence by not so subtly trying to insult my intelligence.

 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
I guess what the state government, scientists, ecoligists, etc are saying is utter bullshit.

The articles I referred to are quoting scientists.

As to the fact that the oil slick is becoming hard to see, its because so much of the oil is sinking to the ocean floor, and its killing everything its coming into contact with. Yes, it is easy to clean up the beaches. The point you're missing is every day, workers are going out and cleaning the same beaches over and over again, with no end in site. I think you are doing us all a great disservice by trying to minimize whats going on in the gulf.

What I read is that oil does not sink ... it remains on the surface, in a thin slick. That's why the slick became so wide-spread.
You are failing to grasp what I am and am not saying.
I am not saying that a disaster of some scale did not occur.
I am saying that the scale of the disaster appears to be much smaller than what everyone was assuming in the early going.
These are very different things.


You keep using this term 'minimizing.'
If the notion was that degree X of damage would be done, and what is actually found is perhaps a tenth or even less of that total actually occurring, it's very odd to call mention of this fact 'minimization.'


As for the animals not dying en masse....well thats utter crap. Last week, our local news station's parent company, did a story from Orange Beach/Dauphin Island, on nesting sea turtles. What is happening is hundreds upon thousands of turtle eggs are being relocated to other areas of the gulf and to the Atlantic Coast of Florida. I'm sure that the turtles aren't the only species of animal being transplanted from their homes to new locations to ensure the survival of the species.

Reporting that people are moving turtle eggs is not the same thing as reporting mass deaths of turtles.
But wildlife response teams searching the waters and shores of the Gulf have found dead turtles, some 492 apparently.
They don't know how many of these were killed by oil. Only 17 were visibly oiled. Presumably some unknown number of dead turtles would have been found in so wide a search, even if there had not been an oil leak.
Supposedly, only one other dead reptile was found.
And the number of dead birds found totaled less than one percent of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez.
This is certainly better than one would have predicted.

I repeat: I am not claiming that no damage was done by the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.
What I am claiming is that it appears that the damage is only a fraction of what we were anticipating a few weeks ago.
And, repeating myself again, that is good news.
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
The only thing I'm 100% certain of is that your arguement is weak, and you are trying to deflect you total lack of evidence by not so subtly trying to insult my intelligence.

The evidence I gave, more than once, was that the amount of wildlife killed is far below what was predicted, fish stocks don't seem to be particularly contaminated, the dispersal of the oil is happening much more quickly than anticipated, and the damage to wetlands is much less severe than some had feared.
The observations are from journalists, some scientists (who you claim are 'bought' and I can't know what the truth is there ... perhaps you're right), and from wildlife rescue team members.
This is not a total lack of evidence.
Nature rebounds, and it appears to be doing so much faster in this situation than we believed could happen.
 
Last edited:

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
wow Hhuck. The one and only source you used was from a British newspaper. How many journalists do you think the UK has on the Gulf Coast? I'm calling your bullshit (and the bullshit of The Telegraph), as you can site 1 (one, Uno, Un) ONE source to back up your argument, and yet there are hundreds if not thousands of others who say the opposite. Your argument is pathetic at best. Now your going on ignore, because I don't want to listen to your bullshit lies any more. Buh Bye asshole
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
wow Hhuck. The one and only source you used was from a British newspaper. How many journalists do you think the UK has on the Gulf Coast? I'm calling your bullshit (and the bullshit of The Telegraph), as you can site 1 (one, Uno, Un) ONE source to back up your argument, and yet there are hundreds if not thousands of others who say the opposite. Your argument is pathetic at best. Now your going on ignore, because I don't want to listen to your bullshit lies any more. Buh Bye asshole

I also cited Time, mentioning the magazine more than once.
If I wished, I could easily find a number of British news outlets that are making the same reports.
There are also some blogs who are speaking in the sense I'm mentioning.
But what we need to do is wait to see what other news sources, especially in North America, make of these claims.
 
Last edited:

B_New End

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Posts
2,970
Media
0
Likes
20
Points
183
Location
WA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The articles I referred to are quoting scientists.



What I read is that oil does not sink ... it remains on the surface, in a thin slick. That's why the slick became so wide-spread.
You are failing to grasp what I am and am not saying.
I am not saying that a disaster of some scale did not occur.
I am saying that the scale of the disaster appears to be much smaller than what everyone was assuming in the early going.
These are very different things.


You keep using this term 'minimizing.'
If the notion was that degree X of damage would be done, and what is actually found is perhaps a tenth or even less of that total actually occurring, it's very odd to call mention of this fact 'minimization.'




Reporting that people are moving turtle eggs is not the same thing as reporting mass deaths of turtles.
But wildlife response teams searching the waters and shores of the Gulf have found dead turtles, some 492 apparently.
They don't know how many of these were killed by oil. Only 17 were visibly oiled. Presumably some unknown number of dead turtles would have been found in so wide a search, even if there had not been an oil leak.
Supposedly, only one other dead reptile was found.
And the number of dead birds found totaled less than one percent of the number killed by the Exxon Valdez.
This is certainly better than one would have predicted.

I repeat: I am not claiming that no damage was done by the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.
What I am claiming is that it appears that the damage is only a fraction of what we were anticipating a few weeks ago.
And, repeating myself again, that is good news.

All of this data is from people who have had limited, at best, access to the area for 3 months.

BP lied to your face. Now you trust them.

Perhaps you should read the counterpoint too:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/07/29/oil-spill-how-bad-is-the-damage/

Also these two I read yesterday:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-07-30-reports-of-bp-disasters-death-are-greatly-exaggerated/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...utraged-over-reports-of-oil-in-gulf-vanishing

Yeah, they are blogs, but then again, only a select few reporters/scientists are allowed into the disaster area.

also from:
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0710/to...osed-oilcorexit-mix-suffered-bleeding-rectum/

Dr. Shaw offered a stark analysis of Corexit 9500 in her piece for The New York Times.
"Though all dispersants are potentially dangerous when applied in such volumes, Corexit [9500] is particularly toxic," she wrote. "It contains petroleum solvents and a chemical that, when ingested, ruptures red blood cells and causes internal bleeding. It is also bioaccumulative, meaning its concentration intensifies as it moves up the food chain."
Bioaccumulative.... that means like PCB's, it never goes away.
 
Last edited:

unabear09

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Posts
6,763
Media
14
Likes
233
Points
283
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
hee hee hee! I have Hhuck on ignore, but I had to point one thing out in your quote from him New End....

I repeat: I am not claiming that no damage was done by the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.

he used a double negative in that sentence, therefore contridicting his own statement....which means he fully admits that he did claim there wasn't any damage. Muahahahahaha
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
hee hee hee! I have Hhuck on ignore, but I had to point one thing out in your quote from him New End....

I repeat: I am not claiming that no damage was done by the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.

he used a double negative in that sentence, therefore contridicting his own statement....which means he fully admits that he did claim there wasn't any damage. Muahahahahaha
You are very directly saying that 'not claiming that no damage was done' equals 'claiming that no damage was done.'
The mind boggles.
(I have quoted myself so my aggrieved reader can read me)
 
Last edited:

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
281
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Big oil does it all on purpose...

Course Obama didn't mind the money he got/gets from big oil. Granted he blew off the memorial to raise money for ma'am Boxer... so in some respect he does shit on big oil.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,283
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
71
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
i HAVE a car. it is a 2001 4 cylinder toyota tacoma. I dont buy gas from BP and havent for years. if i could afford to own a horse , I WOULD RIDE ONE. So dont tell me to get off one.
Facts are facts. oil companies have screwed the taxpayers out of billions of dollars for decades. the time has come to end, as Lady GAGA would put it, This BAD ROMANCE.
as to lost income, the oil companies have invested few dollars into good paying jobs for Americans, or ways to promote safety , clean up or alternative energy resources. PERIOD.
BIG OIL DOESNT DESERVE YOUR TEARS, YOUR SUPPORT OR TOO MANY OF YOUR DOLLARS. TRADE YOUR BIG , GAS GULPING 8 CYLINDER FOR A HYBRID, ELECTRIC OR 4 CYLINDER. DO THE PLANET , THE GULF OF MEXICO AND THE EARTH A FAVOR.
AND FUCK TONY HAYWARD!!!
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,997
Media
3
Likes
23,734
Points
643
Gender
Male
hee hee hee! I have Hhuck on ignore, but I had to point one thing out in your quote from him New End....

I repeat: I am not claiming "that no damage was done by the Deepwater Horizon oil leak".

he used a double negative in that sentence, therefore contridicting his own statement....which means he fully admits that he did claim there wasn't any damage. Muahahahahaha

The above higlighted text does not demonstrate a double negative or contradiction by Hhuck unabear.