Politics of the Gulf Oil Spill

Archive From The 'Tank
Locked
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Politics of the Gulf Oil Spill

Post by Zarathustra »

There are so many angles on this growing issue, I don't know exactly where to start. It's amazing that such a large disaster is getting as little conversation as it is.

An interesting take from the American Thinker addresses the ironic role of radical environmentalists in contributing to the likelihood of more devistating natural disasters. Their no compromise positions have indirectly shaped circumstances so that safer alternatives are often blocked.
As the policies of environmental groups were a factor in what we now see in the Gulf of Mexico, so they were in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster. When huge quantities of oil were discovered in Prudhoe Bay on the North Shore of Alaska in the mid-1960s, one issue among many was the transportation of this oil.

The safest approach was a pipeline from the North Shore directly to the northern border of the contiguous United States. As a member of the Sierra Club at that time, I remember well the relentless war that the Sierra Club waged against both the drilling and the pipeline. In what has now become a predictable strategy, the Sierra Club catastrophized the entire project and attacked the motives of those who sought merely to respond to the demand for oil by the American public.

The Sierra Club at that time published a "Battlebook," where readers were told that the drilling and pipeline "will despoil thousands of acres of virgin wilderness, change the ecology of huge tracts, pollute Alaska's rivers and harbors, and interrupt the migration patterns of the caribou herds."

Because of what he called this "mindless onslaught of technology," the author asserted that the caribou herds would be decimated as American buffalo were in the 19th century. His heated rhetoric, no doubt a contribution to global warming, took control as he wrote that this development was a "rape" in the name of "fat profits."

Fortunately for America, the environmentalists at that time did not have the political clout they do now. Prudhoe Bay was developed, and it now operates without all the dire consequences to the land so hysterically predicted by the Sierra Club. However, as a partial victory for the environmentalists, the pipeline was constructed only to Valdez, Alaska, rather than to the border of the lower forty-eight states. And so, on March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez ran aground, dumping 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. Exxon is certainly responsible for the blunders that occurred that day.

In the one instance where a Sierra Club predictions came true, the Sierra Club had a hand in that disaster. The blunders of the ship's captain likely would not have occurred had it not been for the obstruction of the pipeline that could have reached the contiguous United States. The longer pipeline would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced, the need for an Exxon Valdez. As with the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, the crisis today in the Gulf may not have occurred if the environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club had not obstructed so many of the safe alternatives to drilling in 5,000 feet of ocean.

The chronic obstruction of so many economic endeavors is a symptom of deeper problems in the environmental movement. Environmentalists tend to live in a fantasy world, where some unattainable perfection is always the enemy of the good. What was once reasonable conservation has become for many the pseudo-religion of environmentalism, where Luddite obstruction is the default position, and no environmental benefit, no matter how small, is ever too costly.
more here

Of course there are many other issues involved. How will this affect Obama's approval and legacy? How is this being handled in the media vs Bush's Katrina response? State vs federal government tensions as Gov. Jindal asks permission to try his solutions, and the federal government dithers while Obama takes his second vaction since the spill began.

Feel free to jump in wherever you want.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Well, waiting to see how effective this latest effort is. Apparently it seems to be working, but we're not sure yet. If it doesn't, there's comments that the pres/government will have to step in, but to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the hell people think he can do different?

--A
User avatar
Vraith
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 10621
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:03 pm
Location: everywhere, all the time

Post by Vraith »

A lot of these I'll avoid due to too much perhaps-ing [I don't mind going out on a limb...but I like to make sure it's at least not rotten first], and because it's nowhere near over yet.

A couple things though: There are some major differences with Katrina, the most important being that the Gov't had direct access or control over people/resources that could have helped more effectively and quickly, and it was a kind of disaster that had been handled before.

I'll allow a tiny trickle of blame to attach to some environmental groups...but, so far, it doesn't look like this thing was caused by the difficulty of the job, a lack of technological capability, it was caused by decisions not to use those capabilities as they were supposed to be used. It wasn't an unforseeable accident, any more than a bridge collapsing because low grade concrete was substituted, or Exxon-Valdez spill caused by a badly made ship. People intentionally gambled on risky/stupid decisions cuz they thought they'd get away with it, and make more money doing so...even after it happened they thought they could cover up most of the truth.

I'm not sure if there's any connection to the current admin. for fault or not [at very high levels]. If they already knew about the corruption of those charged with inspecting/overseeing, there is...if not, there isn't: but every one of those who didn't do their job should be fired, and a way found to send them to jail. [I actually think that most corrupt gov't people, gov't contractors etc. should, in most cases face charges of treason along with whatever else they face.]

And the article indicts environmentalists for lack of "safe nuclear power."
Both of the above problems with this rig/disaster show the environmentalists aren't completely wrong: nuclear power can only be safe if safe plants are built. [I think the problem of nuclear waste is the real killer, though].
[spoiler]Sig-man, Libtard, Stupid piece of shit. change your text color to brown. Mr. Reliable, bullshit-slinging liarFucker-user.[/spoiler]
the difference between evidence and sources: whether they come from the horse's mouth or a horse's ass.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
the hyperbole is a beauty...for we are then allowed to say a little more than the truth...and language is more efficient when it goes beyond reality than when it stops short of it.
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Holsety »

Exxon is certainly responsible for the blunders that occurred that day.

In the one instance where a Sierra Club predictions came true, the Sierra Club had a hand in that disaster.The blunders of the ship's captain likely would not have occurred had it not been for the obstruction of the pipeline that could have reached the contiguous United States. The longer pipeline would have eliminated, or at least significantly reduced, the need for an Exxon Valdez. As with the wreck of the Exxon Valdez, the crisis today in the Gulf may not have occurred if the environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club had not obstructed so many of the safe alternatives to drilling in 5,000 feet of ocean.
This seems like an attempt to divide responsibility between different parties. IMO if Exxon was "certainly responsible" for the crisis, then why is he bringing up whether the Sierra Club had a hand in it? If Exxon was responsible, leave it at that. If the crisis may not have occurred without the Sierra Club's intervention, why not blame the Sierra Club too? (which I don't think this article did a good job of doing)
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Av, there are several things that Obama could do differently. He could relax the environmental regulations which are preventing Jindal from trying out his proposed solutions. Apparently, regulations require bureaucratic "impact studies" before he can give the okay to go ahead. We're in the middle of a weeks-long disaster. This requires a bit of leadership, not dithering. Or vacationing.

No one is suggesting the Obama puts on a wetsuit and seals the well personally. :)

Obama has also just decided against exploratory drilling in much safer areas ... which will have exactly the results I revealed with my quote.

At the very least, it would have been nice if people had given Bush as much benefit of the doubt--or Obama the same level of accountability.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Well, on that last, I'd argue that plenty of people gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. And plenty of people hold Obama accountable. Probbaly the same people in each case. Just like the reverse is now occurring.

As for the first, that's a fair point. There isn't time for impact studies in this case...there should be no dithering. (In fact, I'd say there has already been too much because "BP is responsible.")

--A
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Holsety wrote:This seems like an attempt to divide responsibility between different parties. IMO if Exxon was "certainly responsible" for the crisis, then why is he bringing up whether the Sierra Club had a hand in it? If Exxon was responsible, leave it at that. If the crisis may not have occurred without the Sierra Club's intervention, why not blame the Sierra Club too? (which I don't think this article did a good job of doing)
I thought the article was blaming Sierra Club, at least indirectly. Perhaps that's what gives you the impression that it's not doing a very good job. The causal relationship is there, but lines of blame are tenuous. No one is talking about charging Sierra Club with a crime, for instance. But we can still point out the unintended consequences of their absolutist strategy. It's just a fact that you can't get oil spills in the ocean if the oil never crosses an ocean. It's a valid point to say that perhaps we should rethink our strategies so that they make more sense, even if you don't want to talk about blame at all.

Av, you're probably right about the people blaming/holding accountable in each case. Both sides have an opportunity to learn a lesson from this.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

There has to be a way to blame Obama somehow!

The environmental impact of building a pipeline exceeds the environmental impact of the Valdez spill. And pipelines have their own forms of disasters. Not to mention national security issues.

Blaming environmentalists for the Valdez spill would be like blaming airline companies for 9/11 - if they didn't fly passengers on big planes, it never would have happened. Heck, lets blame people who make boxcutters - if they didn't make them, the terrorists could not have succeeded.

In that sense, the whole idea of blaming environmentalists is ludicrous.

What are "Jindal's solutions?" Solutions to what? Do they serve any purpose other than creating an opportunity for finding a way to blame Obama for something?
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

wayfriend wrote:There has to be a way to blame Obama somehow!
Yes, there does have to be a way. Since he has some responsibility in managing a crisis facing our nation, he is subject to blame in as much as we feel he's not meeting that responsibility. You're free to argue that he's doing an exemplary job, if you want.
The environmental impact of building a pipeline exceeds the environmental impact of the Valdez spill. And pipelines have their own forms of disasters. Not to mention national security issues.
Good point on the national security issue. But I'd like to see evidence that pipelines have more environmental impact than oil spills. Compare the area around the pipeline to the gulf, for instance. Which is better, in your opinion?
Blaming environmentalists for the Valdez spill would be like blaming airline companies for 9/11 - if they didn't fly passengers on big planes, it never would have happened. Heck, lets blame people who make boxcutters - if they didn't make them, the terrorists could not have succeeded.
Do airlines prevent safer forms of travel from being legal? Terrorists will find ways to perform terrorism no matter what form of travel we have. But there are only so many ways that oil can get into the ocean.
What are "Jindal's solutions?" Solutions to what? Do they serve any purpose other than creating an opportunity for finding a way to blame Obama for something?
Yeah, I'm sure that building artificial barrier islands to absorb the oil so it doesn't reach wetlands and the coast is all a plot to blame Obama. Good call! :lol: [You could just Google first before making such implausible accusations.]
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Lord Mhoram
Lord
Posts: 9512
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am

Post by Lord Mhoram »

I don't think the President or the administration have owned this crisis enough. They ceded too much authority to BP to fix the problem themselves. The administration's response should have been more clearly stated, more vigorous, and more incisive. As I said in another thread, I also blame the President's idiotic attempt to placate the "drill, baby, drill" crowd with his endorsement of offshore policy. The BP crisis just solidifies for me and for much of the electorate the serious pitfalls of offshore drilling. The Democrats, in their effort to pass major energy reform and to discourage offshore drilling, should be exploiting this moment to make their case. Instead, because they're Democrats, they're not.
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

What implausible accusation did I make? Are they more implausible than accusing Obama is dithering about building barrier islands? It's too late to build them in time to do anything about this spill, isn't it?

Wouldn't it be apples and oranges to compare the gulf disaster to a functional successful pipeline?

Terrorists WILL find ways to perform terrorism no matter what form of travel we have. And accidents WILL find ways to happen no matter what form of oil transport we have. Ergo, blaming environmentalists for Valdez is like blaming airlines for terrorism.
.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

Lord Mhoram, excellent points.

Wayfriend, if you don't want to play the blame game, you don't have to. As I said to Holsety, there are reasonable points to make about the safety of our drilling/transportation strategies without talking about blame at all. I was trying to be open to all aspects of this discussion in the beginning by introducing the blame issue. I admitted that the connection is tenuous and indirect with the Sierra Club.

Your implausible accusation was the implication behind: What are "Jindal's solutions?" Solutions to what? Do they serve any purpose other than creating an opportunity for finding a way to blame Obama for something? Maybe "accusation" wasn't the right word, but in order to leave open the possibility that "no" could be a realistic answer to your question, we must assume the implausible scenario that Jindal has no wish to actually save the coast. Perhaps "excessive, petulant cynicism" would have been better than "implausible," given that you didn't even bother to check what the solution was before you made this implication.
Wouldn't it be apples and oranges to compare the gulf disaster to a functional successful pipeline?
Not if you agree that drilling in ANWAR and piping it down to the states would avoid the dangers of drilling in the gulf.
Are they more implausible than accusing Obama is dithering about building barrier islands?
Has he made a decision about that yet? If not, then it's plausible to say he's dithering.
It's too late to build them in time to do anything about this spill, isn't it?
I don't know. Jindal made the suggestion weeks ago. He now has a new solution about dredging. I don't know the details, but Obama is delaying his decision until after his Arlington-skipping vacation.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7385
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=acxMTPD ... d=20601087

"Twice that of the Exxon Valdez".
THAT'S IT?
After a month of a free flowing underwater oil volcano?
I expected it to be like a 100 times worse.
Weird.
Still horrible, don't get me wrong.
But I'm happy it's not worse.

There are many safety checks that should/could have prevented this.
These drilling platforms survive Cat5 hurricanes, or get tipped over in some storms and are pretty much beat to hell on a regular basis with no environmental impact.
Didn't several get damaged/smashed/dislodged in Katrina?
I remember hearing them being praised for being so well designed.
The problem is that ALL of the safety checks were ingored.
BP should be fined up the pooper.

Any suggestion that these companies need more regulation is just silly.

And it is a valid point though that if they weren't forced by EPA regulations to drill so far from shore that it would have been capped within days.
That's just reality.
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Holsety »

Zar,
I question whether the article gives any proof that the alternative ("contiguous pipeline to the US") was pursued as a result of the Sierra Club's "absolutist strategy". That being the case, it is not really fair to draw "indirect lines of blame" to an organization that may well be entirely ineffective.
User avatar
aliantha
blueberries on steroids
Posts: 17865
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2002 7:50 pm
Location: NOT opening up a restaurant in Santa Fe

Post by aliantha »

One of the more interesting aspects of this for me has been watching Bobby "Small Government is Better" Jindal complaining that the feds aren't moving fast enough to save his state. Funny how Big Government is a Bad Thing until you need it. ;)

Oh, and do I get to be the one to mention that Halliburton had a hand in building the failed rig?
Image
Image

EZ Board Survivor

"Dreaming isn't good for you unless you do the things it tells you to." -- Three Dog Night (via the GI)

https://www.hearth-myth.com/
User avatar
Lord Mhoram
Lord
Posts: 9512
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am

Post by Lord Mhoram »

ali, I noticed that too. Something about Jindal's hypocrisy makes him particularly unattractive to me.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61791
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post by Avatar »

Obama Takes Over Oil Spill Response

Washington - President Barack Obama took responsibility for the US response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on Thursday and extended for six months a moratorium on offshore drilling, dealing a potential setback to his own energy policy.

Obama, who has come under increased pressure to show leadership over the spill, suspended planned exploration off the coast of Alaska, and cancelled a pending lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico and a proposed lease sale off Virginia.

Addressing reporters at the White House, a worn-looking Obama said even his daughter had asked him when the oil would stop leaking.

"In case you're wondering who's responsible, I take responsibility," he said, leaning over his podium.

"It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down," he said.

'Fully engaged'

The president rejected criticism that he and the federal government had not taken charge as BP Plc struggles to stop the gushing deep-sea oil well.

"There shouldn't be any confusion here. The federal government is fully engaged, and I'm fully engaged," he said.

"From the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort."

Off-shore oil drilling is a key part of Obama's efforts to rejig the country's energy policy and a needed sweetener for gaining Republican support for a bill in the Senate.

But the spill has forced him and fellow Democrats to rethink their support for such an expansion, which many environmentalists oppose.

"Extraction is more expensive and it is going to be inherently more risky," Obama said. "That's part of the reason you never heard me say, 'drill, baby, drill,' because we can't drill our way out of the problem."

Drilling ban

The Obama administration ordered a halt in new drilling permits after BP's oil rig, owned by Transocean, exploded in the Gulf on April 20.

Some US lawmakers have called on the administration to lift the permit ban, at least for exploration in the shallow waters of the Gulf while keeping it in place in the deeper waters where BP was operating.

Mike Breard, an analyst at Hodges Capital Management, said the decision would force companies to move rigs to places such as Brazil, forcing the US to import more and increasing the possibility of tanker accidents.

"You're trading a risk of one type of spill for another type of spill," Breard said.

Obama has established a presidential commission to investigate the causes of the spill, which by government estimates is the country's largest ever.

His announcement on Thursday was meant to amplify his administration's response before that panel draws its own conclusions on what went wrong.

The moratorium on permits to drill new deepwater wells will continue for a period of six months while the commission does its work.

Scandalous

Political fallout has not been limited to legislation. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Liz Birnbaum, the head of Minerals Management Service (MMS), which oversees US offshore oil drilling, had resigned.

Obama said he had learned of the resignation on Thursday morning. He declared that reforms are needed in the government's process for approving oil drilling permits and said the MMS suffered from a relationship with the oil industry that was "scandalously close".

Obama has come under increasing pressure to stop the spill and halt its environmental and economic consequences for Gulf states. BP, which has been publicly scolded by the president, was working on Thursday to plug the leaking well in a procedure known as "top kill".

Obama promised to hold BP accountable in the catastrophic spill and said his administration would do everything necessary to protect and restore the coast.

"We're exploring any reasonable strategies to try and save the Gulf from a spill that may otherwise last until the relief wells are finished and that's a process that could take months," Obama said.

- Reuters
--A
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

aliantha wrote:One of the more interesting aspects of this for me has been watching Bobby "Small Government is Better" Jindal complaining that the feds aren't moving fast enough to save his state. Funny how Big Government is a Bad Thing until you need it. ;)
Lord Mhoram wrote:ali, I noticed that too. Something about Jindal's hypocrisy makes him particularly unattractive to me.
Save your winks and your distaste for a point that actually makes sense and is factually correct. Part of the problem with a big, bloated, inefficient bureaucracy is slow responses to emergencies. How is this inconsistent with Jindal's position? The well has been leakin for over a month with virtually no response from the federal government. It is environmental regulations which are hampering the response! Jindal is not asking for Big Government to solve his problem for him. He is asking for the federal goverment to get out of his way so he can take the necessary steps HIMSELF to save his state.

Get your facts straight before you start accusing people of hypocrisy.
Aliantha wrote:Oh, and do I get to be the one to mention that Halliburton had a hand in building the failed rig?
You mean the rig that the federal government inspected 10 days before this disaster but still won't release their findings (in the most "transparent government ever")? Yeah, it's Halliburton's fault. I guess that links back to Bush somehow, right?
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Lord Mhoram
Lord
Posts: 9512
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 1:07 am

Post by Lord Mhoram »

Zarathustra,
Jindal is not asking for Big Government to solve his problem for him. He is asking for the federal goverment to get out of his way so he can take the necessary steps HIMSELF to save his state.
I'm afraid you don't have any evidence of this.
[i]Washington Post[/i] wrote:Jindal, by contrast, has treated the spill as an existential threat, saying repeatedly that what's at stake "is a way of life for us."

To fight it, he has assigned himself a catchall role that includes spotting oil sheen from National Guard helicopters, badgering the federal government for money and supplies, and giving hyper-detailed news conferences.
You're right that he's asked the feds to get "out of the way," but only if they don't give him money as fast as he wants it:
ABC News wrote: As thick oil flows into the sensitive marshes of the Louisiana coast, Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the White House and BP today to either stop the oil spill or get out of his way.

Jindal is still waiting for the federal government to provide millions of feet in boom and to approve an emergency permit for a state plan to dredge and build new barrier islands to keep the oil from reaching the marshes and wetlands.
The overwhelming presence of federal money, federal supplies, and the National Guard (essentially a quasi-state federal defense force administered by the DOD) points to Jindal's reliance on the federal government. That's fine; I don't expect him to manage this crisis without Washington. He should just stop whining about the size of the government before he starts asking for their material assistance in doing his own job.
It is environmental regulations which are hampering the response!
Which environmental regulations? The ones that allowed BP the freedom to supervise the lion's share of shutting down the leak, which took a month allowing this to become the biggest oil spill in American history? Or the ones that erroneously and incorrectly gave BP a passing grade on inspections? Some regulations are harmful, but others would have helped this situation immensely. The regulations hampering the response the most are the ones ceding power from the federal government to corporations like BP. What could have perhaps prevented this entirely would have been keeping the moratorium on offshore drilling which Republicans and corporations opposed, to whom President Obama capitulated.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19644
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post by Zarathustra »

LM, fair points about the money. However, a smaller government could provide the money for natural disasters, too. Asking for money to address a multi-state disaster (or even a single state disaster) isn't the same as asking for the government to be bigger.

Unless you think "smaller government" means "no government," there will always be a role for the federal government with conservatives. You can't criticize them as being hypocritical merely because they insist upon a competant execution of that role during the rare times in which it's needed.

The "smaller government" mantra is primarily used to decry government intrusion into areas where it shouldn't belong--like our private lives, our private businesses, our religions, our speech, our freedoms, social engineering, etc. I'm not aware of any conservative who has ever said that the federal government should refrain from responding to natural or manmade disasters. For you and Ali to assert that this represents a contradiction in a "smaller government" philosophy is to radically misunderstand what is meant by "smaller government." I personally suspect that this misunderstanding has nothing to do with your inability to think critically or understand the facts, but an intentional simplification of a political philosophy in order to manufacture the appearance of contradiction. With political philosophies which aren't so diametrically oppposed to your own, you're usually a lot more thorough in your research and discussion of them.

And now this:
Whitehouse.gov wrote:President Obama will keep the broken promises to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. He and Vice President Biden will take steps to ensure that the federal government will never again allow such catastrophic failures in emergency planning and response to occur. Within weeks of his inauguration, he made a renewed commitment to partner with the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild now, stronger than ever.
www.whitehouse.gov/issues/additional-issues

And yet another broken promise ...

(But at least our health care premiums are going to skyrocket next year thanks to him keeping his health care pledge! Yeah!)
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”