How would president Ron Paul handle the gulf oil spill?
What Would Ron Paul Do?
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
just a couple quick responses.
1) the governors in the Gulf states should've been allowed to protect their coastlines.
2) If a nation offers help, you accept it. The Netherlands offered to send skimmers 3 days after the explosion
3)
so true!
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSiTIOqTl9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSiTIOqTl9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
1) the governors in the Gulf states should've been allowed to protect their coastlines.
2) If a nation offers help, you accept it. The Netherlands offered to send skimmers 3 days after the explosion
3)
so true!
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSiTIOqTl9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZSiTIOqTl9M&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
- Do you know whether those governors had performed any analysis to determine whether the various protective measures being randomly suggested were actually sound ideas, all ???
- Is it at all significant that the governors are all republicans ??? If not, do you feel comfortable that the "suggestions" were not at all politically related/motivated ???
So that you'll know, I'm for every good suggestion no matter who advances it.
QueEx
before my response, I'll say that I value your opinions more than others because you are actually in the immediate area. I'd really like to hear your synopsis up to this point. And for the record, the Pres. is getting a disproportionate share of the blame, however, we must move forward
If I can borrow a line from the Pres. "The one approach I will not accept is inaction."
The more I'm looking at this question, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is the "legalese" the public is absolutely fed up with.
All I know is Jindal asked for skimmers, vacuum hoses, boom, etc to protect his coastline and was met with opposition. Now, oil's on the beaches, killing animals etc.
I was always taught: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
If I can borrow a line from the Pres. "The one approach I will not accept is inaction."
The more I'm looking at this question, I'm coming to the conclusion that this is the "legalese" the public is absolutely fed up with.
All I know is Jindal asked for skimmers, vacuum hoses, boom, etc to protect his coastline and was met with opposition. Now, oil's on the beaches, killing animals etc.
I was always taught: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
In this instance, it's not significant at all because ultimately it's the people of these areas who have the most to lose. Sometimes, you must put partisanship aside and realize the greater goal of the mission.
Last edited:
I appreciate what you've said; and I'm not concerned so much about any disproportionate share of blame the President may be taking. I am, however, deeply concerned that we are, and have been for a long time, losing our national focus -- which seems to have been replaced by: the blame game. We can't seem to get shit done, no matter which side is in power, because each side is constantly on the look-out for a way to politically annihilate the other for its actions or inactions, even if the those actions or even inactions are approximately whats called for, under the circumstances.
But even inaction, under certain circumstances, might be the better course.
I really believe that Jindal is as much a part of the problem as he is the solution. I'm not mad at his "get his hands dirty" approach. His call for skimmers, vacs and boom is correct -- though, I suspect that the same are being delivered reasonably promptly. There is a lot of coastline, however, to cover. One has to consider that a mile of coastline, when you start to consider its shape and the many inlets, etc., along the way, can actually be much longer. Hence, deploying all of that boom, etc., isn't as easy as some make it sound.
On the other hand, Jindal's and the fishermen's "berms" do require some thought before they just dredge and build huge expanse of berms. They could be extremely damaging to the estuaries, etc., and may not be the better way to go. But, he's yelling and screaming like its a save-all -- when in fact, it would be better to have those with knowledge consider the consequences, first.
Generally, but life isn't always so cut and dried.
The point I was trying to make is that everyone is playing politics, especially the governors. I've watched them say all kinds of things, at lot of which has been contradictory, all in the name of trying to act like they are "on top of shit" and, unfortunately, to portray the President as "on the bottom of shit." In my honest opinion, most of what I see coming out of the governors is an attempt to "look politically right" in front of those who they deem their constituents to be.
On the other hand, I too might have done or called for the doing of some things differently than has the President. I wouldn't give him an "A" but the "F" that some are desperately trying to hang around is neck is, "W" = Wrong.
If they would all back-down off of the partisanship shit for a second or two ("Congressman Idiot Barton of Texas), we might just find some damn solutions.
QueEx
I'm not ashamed to state that my premise for this thread was purely political. Are people that as soon as President Obama took the oath, who were so eager to play the political straw dog as to label him a socialist and a fascist (to this day I would have to question their level of education of people that try to claim the two political philosophies are mutually exclusive), are now looking toward the federal government to solve the problem?
Lamarr posted something from the Clean Water Act. Weird. Ron Paul and libertarians want to abolish the EPA. Now Lamarr is quoting from the federal government for help he claims shouldn't be there in the first place!
Yes, the immediate concern is to "plug the damn hole." Next is to clean the mess up. Now I think BP needs to foot the bill for restitution of those effect by their negligence. Of course capitalist corporatists are saying President Obama is too hard on BP. Again weird. When a person is negligent and someone is harmed or property is damaged they either pay fines or go to jail or both. I have yet to read any outrage from the so called Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians about the lack of regulation during the Bush years which lead to this disaster. GW's Interior Secretary Gale Norton is currently under investigation for corruption. What a coincidence.
Lamarr posted something from the Clean Water Act. Weird. Ron Paul and libertarians want to abolish the EPA. Now Lamarr is quoting from the federal government for help he claims shouldn't be there in the first place!
Yes, the immediate concern is to "plug the damn hole." Next is to clean the mess up. Now I think BP needs to foot the bill for restitution of those effect by their negligence. Of course capitalist corporatists are saying President Obama is too hard on BP. Again weird. When a person is negligent and someone is harmed or property is damaged they either pay fines or go to jail or both. I have yet to read any outrage from the so called Conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians about the lack of regulation during the Bush years which lead to this disaster. GW's Interior Secretary Gale Norton is currently under investigation for corruption. What a coincidence.
ok, a lot of what we see, read, or hear about is positive in regards to Jindal's efforts & negative towards the federal efforts. I know someone is spinnin the story somewhere! Trust me, I'd rather get my news from the "citizen on the street" because then I'll know there is no agenda. So anytime you wanna do a "QueBlog" feel free. I really feel terrible for the people in that area
True, never let a good crisis go to waste, right? It's times like this where people's "true" character is on display. I guess its just wishful thinking to assume our leaders would put the well-being of their immediate communities before partisan politics.
To answer this thread directly, nothing!
Wrong!
I listed 2 items at the beginning. Regardless of political posturing by the Govs, the people would be reassured that something was being done to prevent oil from reaching the shore.
I think he would've accepted help from any nation in the world
If you wanted to take the "politics" out of the equation, Ron would, no doubt, be a better leader to provide common sense solutions. And if an idea didn't work, it would be better than what we have now.
IMO, all the people got was a drilling moratorium & a pledge to build more windmills
I stand by what I said. Paul would not have any regulations on oil drilling and would not have any federal agency to come to the aide of this disaster. Now if he did then his mantra of sticking to the Constitution as he sees it of government not intruding on private business would be just another politician's lie!
Wouldn't it?
I stand by what I said. Paul would not have any regulations on oil drilling and would not have any federal agency to come to the aide of this disaster. Now if he did then his mantra of sticking to the Constitution as he sees it of government not intruding on private business would be just another politician's lie!
Wouldn't it?
I posted this as a reminder of the powers of the President in 2010. Paul would've acted in a way that would protect the citizens & allowed the states to protect their coastlines
I sense you want to blame this incident on the "free market" and not acknowledge that the reason BP was 40 miles off the coast was because of govt regulations.
Let me ask you this: Do you accept any failure of the govt to protect it's citizens and coastline?
I don't care how many times you try to rephrase the same thing. If Paul claims to free 'us' from the tyranny of government which he has stated repeatedly he would not have the mechanisms in place to protect us. You continually speak in generalities, which means you have no real answers. How would Paul act in a way that would protect the citizens & allowed the states to protect their coastlines?
I sense the reason why BP was 40 miles off of the coast is because of the relaxation of regulations and every time a President wants to establish an energy policy and wean us off of oil dependency the libertarians scream let the free market decided it.Thus our current debacle.
Let me remind you and remember when he made this statement libertarians and conservatives belittled him as more government take overs. Who's right now?
<EMBED height=385 type=application/x-shockwave-flash width=480 src=http://www.youtube.com/v/-tPePpMxJaA&hl=en_US&fs=1& allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></EMBED>
Last edited:
LIE!
source: Washington Post
After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill
Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.
"We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments."
That time has come.
In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations.
In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.
"As we understand what we need and identify domestic and foreign sources, we will act," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who said the United States has received 21 aid offers from 17 countries and four international groups. "We are maintaining contact with these countries, we are grateful for the offers, and we will take them up on these offers."
But some lawmakers and outside experts are questioning whether the administration has been too slow to capitalize on these offers, lulled by BP's estimates on the oil flow rate and on its capacity to cope with the aftermath of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.
"We're clearly behind the curve because BP did not have the game plan to deal with this spill," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who visited Louisiana on Friday. "I don't know if the federal government has the capacity it needs at this point."
Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security and energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration has been hampered because the spill is "a rare case" where the traditional emergency response routine does not apply.
"Most emergency relief is based on proven technology and precedence," he said. "We are now confronted by something that doesn't match any of the models."
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]A slippery slope
<!-- BREAK -->[/FONT]
The State Department sent letters to some U.S. allies two weeks after the accident, and the Coast Guard initially sought to assess what supplies might be available overseas, but the administration's public posture on aid has been inconsistent. On May 5, Crowley announced that 13 international offers had been received and that decisions on what to accept would be made "in the next day or two." Two weeks later, the State Department said the government saw no reason to accept any of the offers.
Crowley said the Obama administration is well aware of what happened after Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. government failed to capitalize on an unprecedented amount of foreign aid offers. Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil meant to be sold for cash. In the end, only $126 million in cash from 40 donors was received.
"This is different," Crowley said of the oil spill. "We are and will be drawing on the foreign assistance."
In many cases, this equipment is being provided by private companies -- at BP's expense. And like other elements of the joint response, decision-making has been complicated because federal officials must consult with the oil giant before signing off on any offer.
"The coordination on this side of the ocean was not completely clear," said Floris van Hovell, press counselor for the Dutch Embassy in Washington, adding that when a Dutch official was seeking to broker an aid agreement last month, "it was for a long time unclear on where he should go to and who should take the decision."
According to government sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appealed to the White House several weeks ago, suggesting that it needed some foreign aid for practical and diplomatic reasons.
BP declined to comment.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]'We want to help'
<!-- BREAK -->[/FONT]
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Christopher T. O'Neil wrote in an e-mail that decisions on foreign assistance are made between the top federal official on the scene, BP and "other represented agencies including state and local governments." The Coast Guard has a 51 percent "overriding vote in cases where consensus is not possible," he wrote. "All qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted."
In some cases, the administration rejected offers because they failed to meet U.S. specifications: The private consortium that serves as Norway's spill-response team uses a chemical dispersant that the Environmental Protection Agency has not approved.
In other cases, domestic politics are at play. Dutch authorities have worked in Louisiana since Katrina hit and were among the first to offer to help. After some hesitation, BP has obtained the state-of-the-art Dutch skimmers, two of which are in operation. Meanwhile, a massive sand-dredging operation is moving slowly.
A plan by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) to create sand berms to keep oil from reaching the coastline originally came from the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares, both in the Netherlands. BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies -- which have less than one-fifth of the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- have objected to foreign companies' participation.
Garret Graves, who chairs Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, wrote in an e-mail that state officials "have made it clear to our contractors from the beginning that we want to use American dredges to complete this sand berm as quickly as possible . . . Ultimately, any effort to expedite these berms will be fully considered, but we remain committed to our American companies."
In the meantime, governments around the world are mobilizing help. In addition to boom, Canada has dispatched an aircraft for surveillance flights as well as several technical experts. Japan is still offering to send boom; the Swedish Coast Guard said it can send three ships that can each collect 370 barrels of oil an hour, but it is waiting to hear from the U.S. government or BP.
The Norwegian Coastal Authority has approved sending nearly a third of the nation's spill response equipment to the gulf if asked.
"We want to help the U.S. with whatever they need," said Espen Myhra, energy counselor at the Norwegian Embassy. "But of course, it's up to the U.S. and BP to decide what they need, and we will respond to that."
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/oil-spill-foreign-help-and-the-jones-act/">link</A>
</IFRAME>
<a title="View Political Report October 1992 on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/76245577" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">Political Report October 1992</a><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/76245577/content?start_page=1&view_mode=list" data-auto-height="true" data-aspect-ratio="" scrolling="no" id="doc_18052" width="70%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Why don't the Republicans come out and call themselves the White Nationalist Party?
They have this other element about them that is genocidal, racist, anti-immigrant. If they were about small government why are they passing anti-immigrant laws that empower/expand the government, require citizens to carry documents to prove citizenship, big military, Expanding Government Surveillance, Voter ID, and drug wars that target minorities for prison...
Dehumanize, Deprive, Separate, Destroy
Why don't the Republicans come out and call themselves the White Nationalist Party?
They have this other element about them that is genocidal, racist, anti-immigrant. If they were about small government why are they passing anti-immigrant laws that empower/expand the government, require citizens to carry documents to prove citizenship, big military, Expanding Government Surveillance, Voter ID, and drug wars that target minorities for prison...
Dehumanize, Deprive, Separate, Destroy
Last edited:
Similar threads
