Deja VIEW

View this and see if it doesn't look and sound familiar.

Maybe I should call it oil spil redux?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmhxpQEGPo

I detest the anchor gal, but if you can get past her the content is quite interesting? scary? familiar? spooky? I don't know what to call it, you decide.

BTW it's about the oil spill.

Wow. How did I not hear that earlier?

I don't know what to call it either. I just hope Tony Hayward can get his life back soon.

carguy123 wrote: I detest the anchor gal, but if you can get past her the content........

That's a GIRL?!?!!?

I thought it looked like a guy in drag too.

I thought it was John Stewart. You mean it really wasn't John Stewart?

Maddow wants to crucify the oil industry for using the same technologies as 31yrs ago, as if she knows nothing has evolved in that time. Hmmm, isn't that akin to criticizing the aerospace industry for using the same principles as the Wright brothers?

Interesting, too, that she notes the Mexican spill occurred at a 200ft depth and that DPH occurred at 5000ft, but won't offer a single hint at "why".

Anyone know the specifically-determined long term/permanent environmental damage caused by the Mexican spill? If there was permanent damage, wouldn't Maddow have exposed and exploited that reality? It would seem the righteous Ms. Maddow either did no homework or ignored facts to further an agenda.

I'm really looking forward to more such in-depth research and reporting from luminary lame-asses.

There are so many things that annoy me about all the people complaining about the oil spill. The one in mexico was not for the same reason as the current one, although of course the same thing happened. From everything i can find about to do with the cause of the current one, it was mostly due to the fact that higher ranked people in the company were pushing to get things done faster than was safe so they could move the platform elsewhere rather than paying for it sitting there any longer. All of the unsuccessful things they have tried to stop it i think were just for the image of the company rather than for any thought that they would work, becasue would anyone have really let someone from BP say sorry, we were trying to have money and screwed up, we will do the best we can to clean it up, but it could be up to a year before we can get it stopped? I doubt it.

It seems to me the whole oil spill thing comes down to the fact that the government groups responsibly for the regulation were in bed with oil companies sometimes literally and no matter what the liberals say it is both parties.

oldsaw wrote: Maddow wants to crucify the oil industry for using the same technologies as 31yrs ago, as if she knows nothing has evolved in that time. Hmmm, isn't that akin to criticizing the aerospace industry for using the same principles as the Wright brothers? Interesting, too, that she notes the Mexican spill occurred at a 200ft depth and that DPH occurred at 5000ft, but won't offer a single hint at "why". Anyone know the specifically-determined long term/permanent environmental damage caused by the Mexican spill? If there was permanent damage, wouldn't Maddow have exposed and exploited that reality? It would seem the righteous Ms. Maddow either did no homework or ignored facts to further an agenda. I'm really looking forward to more such in-depth research and reporting from luminary lame-asses.

Are you really trying to tell us that oil spills aren't bad for the environment?

thatsnowinnebago wrote: Are you really trying to tell us that oil spills aren't bad for the environment?

Not in any stretch!

But, I will tell you that you're a maroon for even posing that question.

On the subject of being bad for the environment, we had oil seeps for thousands of years. That's how some of the drilling sites were found. Seeps, both large and small, were how we found out many of the uses of oil. Oil is organic and the environment will/can handle it. It won't permanently damage the environment, it's the sudden change that affects the animals within the change area. The oil will disappear on it's own.

Now would we like to minimize it's impact, sure!

Would we like to shorten it's impact since it cuts across our fishing territories, sure!

Is it the end of the world for those areas, NO!

You hadn't even heard of the Mexican oil spill so it's impact must not have lasted all that long.

oldsaw wrote:

thatsnowinnebago wrote: Are you really trying to tell us that oil spills aren't bad for the environment?

Not in any stretch! But, I will tell you that you're a maroon for even posing that question.

Haha, I was just clarifying.