The Obama Administration thread

[freedom78]

What government agency exists to clean up oil spills, exactly? 

Special Protection from Oil and Nasty Goop Emissions

or

S.P.O.N.G.E.

(actually, I looked this up, and apparently SPONGE was an acronym from the 60s for "Society for the Prevention of Negros Getting Everything "...once again, the right has beat me in the free marketplace of ideas!)

Nice try Freedom, but if that group existed in the 60s, it would have been a Democratic organization.  You know, how the Demoocrats voted against the Civil Rights Act three times before Kennedy won them over and how Robert Byrd fillibustered the whole thing.  Democrats have always wanted the law to treat people different based on their skin color or gender.  Now, they just try to use a different line of reasoning to justify their prejudice.

I didn't say "Republicans"...I said "the right".  At one point, the Democratic Party was the more conservative of the two.  As the Democratic party became more supportive of Civil Rights, the old guard, racist Dems (i.e. Strom Thurmond and many Southern voters) became Republicans.  But the party doesn't matter at all, here.  It was conservatism that wrongly defied civil rights.  If it was done by Dems, such as Byrd, or Reps.  As I wasn't alive in the 60s, I could care less what the PARTY stood for, since the parties have dramatically shifted since then.  Conservatism, on the other hand, is generally anti-change and at one time that meant anti-civil rights (i.e. big change).

As for SPONGE...it's what popped up when I Googled "sponge acronym"...no idea if it really existed or who its members might have been.   

[Axl4Prez2004]

What government agency exists to clean up oil spills, exactly? 

Special Protection from Oil and Nasty Goop Emissions

or

S.P.O.N.G.E.

(actually, I looked this up, and apparently SPONGE was an acronym from the 60s for "Society for the Prevention of Negros Getting Everything "...once again, the right has beat me in the free marketplace of ideas!)

Nice try Freedom, but if that group existed in the 60s, it would have been a Democratic organization.  You know, how the Demoocrats voted against the Civil Rights Act three times before Kennedy won them over and how Robert Byrd fillibustered the whole thing.  Democrats have always wanted the law to treat people different based on their skin color or gender.  Now, they just try to use a different line of reasoning to justify their prejudice.

I didn't say "Republicans"...I said "the right".  At one point, the Democratic Party was the more conservative of the two.  As the Democratic party became more supportive of Civil Rights, the old guard, racist Dems (i.e. Strom Thurmond and many Southern voters) became Republicans.  But the party doesn't matter at all, here.  It was conservatism that wrongly defied civil rights.  If it was done by Dems, such as Byrd, or Reps.  As I wasn't alive in the 60s, I could care less what the PARTY stood for, since the parties have dramatically shifted since then.  Conservatism, on the other hand, is generally anti-change and at one time that meant anti-civil rights (i.e. big change).

As for SPONGE...it's what popped up when I Googled "sponge acronym"...no idea if it really existed or who its members might have been.   

As usual, Freedom and Pilferk provide the voices of reason around here. 
On the evolution of conservatism, most folks nowadays don't realize old-time conservatives weren't pro-life.  It wasn't until the conservatives got all chummy chummy with the bible thumpers that pro-life nonsense was thrown into the political fray. 
The evolution of parties and ideologies is really quite interesting.

...maybe we can bring back the Whigs!   

[TheWalkinDude]

As usual Axl4Prez is here to contribute nothing of his own and champion the comments of others.  This whole party reversal line is garbage.  Democrats have always been pro-union and worker's rights, big government and collectivist.  Nothing has changed.  Your failure to understand the basic philosophic differences between classical liberalism (what you call conservative) and modern progressives is what hinders your ability to understand what is going on.  Republicans have traditionally always argued people are equal under the law and deserve no special treatment.  Democrats have consistently believed that women and minorities are inferior to white males and require special provisions in the law to help them cope.  Whether that be prevent them from voting or forcing people to hire them, the remaining constant is that progressives believe certain people are incapable of governing their own actions.  You need to look no further than the eugenics movement that created and ultimately still defines the modern progressive movement. 

I'm not claiming the Republicans are the end all be all of correctness; far from it.  I am however saying that when it comes to civil rights, the so called "conservatives" have always advocated that all people be viewed equally, while the so called "liberals" have always believed race and gender necessitate special consideration.

On a final note, I find it hilarious you reference Strom Thurmond.  Thurmond moved to the Republican party after he denounced his racist views, not before.  Byrd has remained in the Democratic party while he was a member of the KKK and after.

[Axl4Prez2004]

As usual Axl4Prez is here to contribute nothing of his own and champion the comments of others.  This whole party reversal line is garbage.  Democrats have always been pro-union and worker's rights, big government and collectivist.  Nothing has changed.  Your failure to understand the basic philosophic differences between classical liberalism (what you call conservative) and modern progressives is what hinders your ability to understand what is going on.  Republicans have traditionally always argued people are equal under the law and deserve no special treatment.  Democrats have consistently believed that women and minorities are inferior to white males and require special provisions in the law to help them cope.  Whether that be prevent them from voting or forcing people to hire them, the remaining constant is that progressives believe certain people are incapable of governing their own actions.  You need to look no further than the eugenics movement that created and ultimately still defines the modern progressive movement. 

I'm not claiming the Republicans are the end all be all of correctness; far from it.  I am however saying that when it comes to civil rights, the so called "conservatives" have always advocated that all people be viewed equally, while the so called "liberals" have always believed race and gender necessitate special consideration.

On a final note, I find it hilarious you reference Strom Thurmond.  Thurmond moved to the Republican party after he denounced his racist views, not before.  Byrd has remained in the Democratic party while he was a member of the KKK and after.

As usual walk-in dude, you're just regurgitating tired Hannity/Limbaugh talking points. 
I'm contributing nothing of my own?  Take a look in the mirror.
I give credit where credit is due.  Freedom, Pilferk, and Timothy...amongst others, bring some great info. to the table.  You bring me the same tired lines of Sean Hannity...yawn.

[TheWalkinDude]

I actually don't listen to or watch either of those individuals.  Though your claim that I am parroting their comments insinuates that you in fact do, otherwise you wouldn't know what they say.  Then again, you're more than likely just grouping me with them because it's easier to discredit my opinions by lumping me in with what many would consider fringe or out of touch political commentators.  The key difference between us is that I'm willing to look at this with as much objectivity as possible.  There is also a key philosophical distinction between our view points.  However, admitting to such a distinction would be viewed "objectively" in a negative light.

You made no effort to disprove my claims, simply dismissed them because you allege they came from someone else and are not based on my own meditations.  Who looks like they're reciting talking points again?

[Axl4Prez2004]

I actually don't listen to or watch either of those individuals.  Though your claim that I am parroting their comments insinuates that you in fact do, otherwise you wouldn't know what they say.  Then again, you're more than likely just grouping me with them because it's easier to discredit my opinions by lumping me in with what many would consider fringe or out of touch political commentators.  The key difference between us is that I'm willing to look at this with as much objectivity as possible.  There is also a key philosophical distinction between our view points.  However, admitting to such a distinction would be viewed "objectively" in a negative light.

You made no effort to disprove my claims, simply dismissed them because you allege they came from someone else and are not based on my own meditations.  Who looks like they're reciting talking points again?

Well, let's see...how could I possibly dismiss a gem like, "Democrats have consistently believed that women and minorities are inferior to white males." 

"Whether that be prevent them from voting or forcing people to hire them, the remaining constant is that progressives believe certain people are incapable of governing their own actions.  You need to look no further than the eugenics movement that created and ultimately still defines the modern progressive movement."

Seriously?  Nah, that's not "fringe" or "out of touch."    
Progressives are attempting to prevent women and minorities from voting?  Please explain that, I'm all ears.

[freedom78]

As usual Axl4Prez is here to contribute nothing of his own and champion the comments of others.  This whole party reversal line is garbage.  Democrats have always been pro-union and worker's rights, big government and collectivist.  Nothing has changed.  Your failure to understand the basic philosophic differences between classical liberalism (what you call conservative) and modern progressives is what hinders your ability to understand what is going on.  Republicans have traditionally always argued people are equal under the law and deserve no special treatment.  Democrats have consistently believed that women and minorities are inferior to white males and require special provisions in the law to help them cope.  Whether that be prevent them from voting or forcing people to hire them, the remaining constant is that progressives believe certain people are incapable of governing their own actions.  You need to look no further than the eugenics movement that created and ultimately still defines the modern progressive movement. 

I'm not claiming the Republicans are the end all be all of correctness; far from it.  I am however saying that when it comes to civil rights, the so called "conservatives" have always advocated that all people be viewed equally, while the so called "liberals" have always believed race and gender necessitate special consideration.

On a final note, I find it hilarious you reference Strom Thurmond.  Thurmond moved to the Republican party after he denounced his racist views, not before.  Byrd has remained in the Democratic party while he was a member of the KKK and after.

Umm...no.  The Democratic-Republican party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, among others, which has evolved into today's Democratic Party was once the most classically liberal party in existence.  The Federalists were both more conservative, in that they included aspects of morality and anti-populism in their policies, and ALSO big government (in that the Federalists won the Constitutional fight and the Democratic Republicans, who evolved out of the anti-Federalists and took the anti-large government approach, lost said fight). 

Classic liberalism is NOT (repeat N. O. Motherfucking T.) the same as conservatism.  Classic liberalism is libertarianism, in its pure form.  That's why it's still called "liberal" in the UK.  Liberal in the US means "left"...liberal in the UK roughly means "libertarian" in our terminology (I make this point since classic liberalism comes from Locke and Smith, among others...both Brits [well, English and Scottish, respectively] .  Now, conservatism certainly has its libertarian wing, which has been shouted down in recent decades, either by its subjugation to the social conservative (i.e. "moral") wing of the ideology or simply by Republican (i.e. the "conservative" party) policies, which have increased our federal debt in every year they held the Presidency, since the Eisenhower administration.  Of course, since our conservative party is dominated by social conservatism (which, ironically, is for expansion of government to rule over our respective penises and vaginas), it's also fair to say that the Democratic (i.e. "liberal" in the American sense) also has its own classic liberal elements, dealing primarily with social issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc.).  In truth, with the exception of socialism or a non-democratic approach, all American ideologies are classically liberal, in their roots. 

RE: Thurmond and Byrd...they're both racist long ago; both renounced it.  Assuming they were both honest in their renunciations, then good for them for being better men than they once were.  But the South was the most strongly against ending segregation and moved from a Democratic to a Republican stronghold when the Democratic party backed civil rights reform.  This story isn't told in one person (i.e. Strom or others), nor would I ever make the claim that this applies to any or all Republicans or conservatives, simply because of that label they've attached themselves to.  But the South certainly moved from solidly Democratic, during the antebellum period through LBJ, with both Strom Thurmond and George Wallace winning not just votes but ELECTORAL votes in ONLY Southern states.  In '64, with the CRA in the mirror, the Deep South voted Republican for the first time, then for Wallace, then for Nixon twice, and then for Carter after Republicans left office deeply distrusted.  There was a clear shift and while it has broken down in recent years, with both Clinton and Obama able to carry some Southern states, it has still been a Republican stronghold.

[Smoking Guns]

I don't give a fuck who is incharge, its a fucking debacle in the gulf......  I have had 15 fucking cancellations to my damn condo in Orange Beach Alabama......  This shit is costing ME money out the fucking asss.  We put people on the damn moon, we invent the atom bomb, yet, we can't stop a fucking hole in the ground?  Fuck that shit!!!!  We are being bullshitted around by everyone on this.  From orange beach, AL, to Panama City Florida, they are losing millions in revenue already.  This is an epic disaster MUCH bigger than Katrina.  Period. 

[pilferk]

I don't give a fuck who is incharge, its a fucking debacle in the gulf......  I have had 15 fucking cancellations to my damn condo in Orange Beach Alabama......  This shit is costing ME money out the fucking asss.  We put people on the damn moon

Via NASA, a government agency dedicated to air and space exploration (and the associated science behind it)

, we invent the atom bomb,

Via the Department of defense, a government agency at least partially dedicated to advancements in the science and technology of warfare.

yet, we can't stop a fucking hole in the ground?

Because, as yet, there is no government agency related to oil drilling or cleaning up oil spills.

If you think there should be.....tell your local Congressman.  But realize you are going to fight an uphill battle with the conservatives/Republicans who will argue that it's the government invading the private sector.  Especially when the government proposes levying an additional tax on oil companies revenues to PAY for the agency in question.

  Fuck that shit!!!!  We are being bullshitted around by everyone on this.  From orange beach, AL, to Panama City Florida, they are losing millions in revenue already.  This is an epic disaster MUCH bigger than Katrina.  Period. 

I know you're hurting, but I'm not sure the economy, in the effected areas, has lost $200 billion, yet.  And that was just through the first year after Katrina....(and doesn't include the cleanup costs, etc...JUST the lost money in the New Orleans Economy).  None of that is going to help your frustration over losing money.....I know.  And it stinks that there really isn't anyone to turn to to "rightly" vent your frustration at...unless you think a big oil company is going to pay any attention.  But that's where we are.  And it really shouldn't be a surprise, unfortunately.  Environmentalists have been talking about this type of "worst case scenario", in relation to off shore drilling, for years.  And nobody (not even Obama) really wanted to listen.

Now, we're all going to pay for it...one way or another.

[Smoking Guns]

Its so sad to see all this.  The beaches will be easy to clean up, but the wetlands won't recover for a very long time.  I will just remember the good times of deep sea fishing, running on the beach, chasing ass at the bars, because all of that will be almost non existant as long as oil is on the beach. 

[Smoking Guns]

Has anyone here ever been to Gulf Shores, Orange Beach, Destin, Panama City?  The beaches down there are so beautiful.  Gorgeous sand and water, the sand is white, no sea shells, its awesome. Much different than the atlantic coast beaches.  And unlike California, the water is warm.  You should make a trip once the oil is cleaned up.

[freedom78]

Has anyone here ever been to Gulf Shores, Orange Beach, Destin, Panama City?  The beaches down there are so beautiful.  Gorgeous sand and water, the sand is white, no sea shells, its awesome. Much different than the atlantic coast beaches.  And unlike California, the water is warm.  You should make a trip once the oil is cleaned up.

Actually, I'm visiting Sanibel in about a week.  Didn't even consider canceling...I don't think the oil is there and, if it was, it still wouldn't spoil my time (too much). 

I haven't been to a US Gulf beach in a long time, so I'm looking forward to it.   

[Skeba]

A take on what's been happening...

http://www.wimp.com/clarkedawe/

[Smoking Guns]

A take on what's been happening...

http://www.wimp.com/clarkedawe/

That was great!

[D]

Would love to read this thread if Bush were still Pres. it would be a lynch mob in here crucifying Bush

[Axl4Prez2004]

Would love to read this thread if Bush were still Pres. it would be a lynch mob in here crucifying Bush

Nah, I'm sure you'd be there to protect him. 

Actually, I do believe there's be a greater outcry simply based on Bush and Cheney's close ties to big oil...not just close ties, but refusals on their part to push for properly taxing the big oil companies (like Pres. Obama has repeatedly advocated).

I just wonder if this disaster has caused some on the right to think twice about their fantasy of unfettered private industry...small government without regulation may sound nice in theory, BUT this is the dark side of that fantasy.  Very sad. 
 

[D]

I dont protect Bush, I don't even like Bush, I just love seeing how ridiculous politics and the whole left and right wing shit is.

Left wing hates Bush and bash everything about him, Right stands up for Bush, become apologist, can't admit he was terrible

Right wing hates Obama, bashes everything about him.. Left stands up for Obama, become apologist, can't admit when he is terrible.


that basically summarizes the entire  7 years Ive been on this forum in a nutshell.

if this were on Bush's watch, we'd be hearing something about his relationship with oil companies and how he let them get away with this and that etc

Obama's administration waived the EPA protocols and restrictions.. so lets don't act like he is some innocent poor guy in this that happened to have some uncontrollable thing happen on his watch.

if this were Bush and he waived that shit... man, u guys would be going ape shit and don't deny it.


i am proudly neither a democrat or a republican, i think both parties are why the country is in the toilet. I just call shit how i see it.

[Skeba]

Would love to read this thread if Bush were still Pres. it would be a lynch mob in here crucifying Bush

Okay, now this sort of thing needs to stop..

I'm pretty patient when it comes to this thread since politic discussions can get pretty heated from time to time. But here, people have said time, and time again that they don't agree on how Obama handled the situation. No one is 100% satisfied on the right nor the left. In your previous posts you compared Obama's handling of the oil crisis to Bush actions when Katrina hit New Orleans. People explained why, and how this is a completely different situation, and now you simply evaid the whole topic and say something like that. A vague statement that sure, raises some pulses, but adds little to no value to the conversation, because a) this topic has been dealt with, and b) doesn't look so good on your part if you never acknowledge the replies to these questions but only carry on to the next "well what about this thing Obama did???" post.

If there is someone who thinks Obama has done a magnificent job prior and after the spill, I'd like to hear why? I think he's done a good job of getting BP to come and clean the mess they caused, but sure he could've taken something preemptive measures, but based on the information he had, he didn't. So there is room for improvement. But what I've seen happen here is that Obama supporters don't agree when people claim this whole thing is his fault. When people actually imply that he's the cause of this whole thing.

[D]

i was pointing out how Bush can't control the levees or the weather

same situation here

obama can't snorkel down and fix the pipe

Bush couldn't go to NO and hold the levees in place with his 24inch pythons while help arrived to repair it.
. I am comparing the exact same thing.
Obama's admin dropped the ball Bush's people dropped the ball
sure people aren't on their roofs but tons of sea creatures are completely fucked and God knows what else this does to our ecosystem.. but u are right.. Humans and other living things totally different. fuck those dolphins and fish. they don't deserve to live anyway.

also, its a rule on HTGTH that every single time someone quotes your post u have to keep talking even if they state their side and it really requires no rebuttal? Pilferk mentioned the gas prices which is irrelevant cause they can't up them now but u wait down the road after this shit is over and cleaned up.

2nd he said is there a govt agency in charge of cleaning up oil spills... i took that as a rhetorical question but if u want me to quote em back and say "No, u right"  there is no agency that cleans up oil spills but that isn't the point i was trying to make.

for 7 years it was a bash fest left and right over Bush... so now the board have their chosen one as President, the tone of the board has changed dramatically even when mistakes are made they are just brushed off cause "that guy is so damn charismatic"


Im still looking.. i don't see anything that was either asked of me or wasn't answered by someone else but if u want me to repeat what someone else already stated.. fine, we will make this shit even more redundant.

i guess censorship is moving to the Jungle now  yippie!


lookin back

i wanted to make it clear that i am not some right wing zealot attacking Obama over the police thing. I was emotionally and directly involved and i could care less who it was.. seeing a sports team over a police memorial is bullshit i don't care if it were Bush,Regan, or whatever Republican u want to pull out. I posted again about it just to clarify why it affected me so strongly.
I apologize that it upsets me oh lord obama that u deeming a pro sports team with a rapist as a QB is more important than my dead dad and hundreds of others that gave their lives ridding the streets of pieces of shit for shit pay and lousy benefits for the most part.

when i first mentioned that.. God Damn u wouldn't believe the apologist and the bullshit i heard.. instead of these lefties admitting, yeah dude, thats pretty fucked up.. nooooooo it was this and that and this and that. oh our lord would never do anything wrong. its just ridiculous. I even had a poster, try and tell me some bullshit how he came one of the days.. when i was fucking there.. so u are gonna tell me they somehow slipped the president of the United States past all of us?

so that is a big reason i keep bringing the shit up about how Bush would be absolutely crucified on here if the same shit were happening on his watch.

Freedom i apologize for not telling u that yes u are right about not being happy with the govt past 2 years

i agree gas hasn't went up YET

Timothy i don't subscribe to 9/11 theories.. Blame Bush or Blame the administration before.. its a moot point now. both probably equally at fault

rest of the stuff they either made a point that didn't require a reply or i have already made my point and really don't feel the need to go around and around.

I dont see why u are so up in arms over my line when its the truth.

if Bush were President right now and this shit happened, holy fuck it would be insane on here.. u would have to have 5 moderators for this thread alone. instead u get a couple admitting it is somewhat bad and the others totally sweeping it under the rug.

also u are gonna play the "Based on the information" card he had?

Bush acted on "information" he had and we have a War in Iraq.. WMD's anybody

oh shit now i am comparing War with an oil spill.... how dare I! Obama would never allow us to fight two wars simultaneously, well god damn it, if he were president, those wars would be over!

[Skeba]

also, its a rule on HTGTH that every single time someone quotes your post u have to keep talking even if they state their side and it really requires no rebuttal?

I'm not talking about a rebuttal.. I only believe, for both sides of course, that it is in good manner to state in some way that you've read the other person's response, and not just dismissed everything you said. There are two reasons for this as well. The other I stated above, and the other is that it actually helps the conversation when people can say that okay, you're right about that, or just agree to disagree.. It noticeably brings down the level of hostility in the conversation,when people actually seem to be having a conversation instead of just shouting at one another accusing the other side of something. And this goes for evreyone.

i guess censorship is moving to the Jungle now  yippie!

Not censorship. Just make the conversation a bit more civil. Address the questions and the posts instead of just moving on. Sure there are exceptions, but way too many times it seems that valid responses are just passed, and people just move on to the next argument. Sure, this brings down the pace of the thread, but it can't hurt if people actually stop to think about the opposition's view for a sec.

As for the rest of the post, I don't see much wrong with it. I'm going to leave the whole police thing alone, since I don't know all the facts, and like you said, it's a very personal matter to you. But the rest. I think is pretty much okay. Even the cute sarcasm bit at the end.