The BP debacle (was: Need a job??)
in [Golf]
|
Prev: funny thing
Next: Bongo stampede at World Cup
From: MNMikeW on 15 Jun 2010 13:42 "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:flkd16da0mbdmm29d4qhbggcecgm77v7c0(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:42:19 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > wrote: > >>>>> Obama is careful not to appear angry - he knows what the reaction >>>>> would be if he were an angry black man. >>>>> >>>>Riiiight. More leftwing conspiracy theories >>> >>> Conspiracy? What conspiracy theories do you see in my statement >>> above? >>> >>All of it. > > Huh? The conspiracy theories are "All of it"? I've never heard of > those conspiracy theories. Who was theorized to be conspiring? What > was the supposed goal of the conspiracy? > So tell us Howard, what would the reaction be if Obama were to come across as an "angry black man"?
From: bknight on 15 Jun 2010 13:44 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:42:54 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >news:flkd16da0mbdmm29d4qhbggcecgm77v7c0(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:42:19 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> Obama is careful not to appear angry - he knows what the reaction >>>>>> would be if he were an angry black man. >>>>>> >>>>>Riiiight. More leftwing conspiracy theories >>>> >>>> Conspiracy? What conspiracy theories do you see in my statement >>>> above? >>>> >>>All of it. >> >> Huh? The conspiracy theories are "All of it"? I've never heard of >> those conspiracy theories. Who was theorized to be conspiring? What >> was the supposed goal of the conspiracy? >> >So tell us Howard, what would the reaction be if Obama were to come across >as an "angry black man"? > Ask British Petroleum. :-) He's damned sure pissed at them, as we all are. BK
From: Don Kirkman on 15 Jun 2010 14:03 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:42:39 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >In article <v8ld16l60nnv6in25j13l0giapjfup0m82(a)4ax.com>, >bknight(a)conramp.net says... >> >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:24:26 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >> >So you would prefer to have 100% of the oil in the "ocean" rather than >> >having only 50% of the oil in the "ocean?" >> They don't even know if it would get to that percentage....plus there >> are indications that oil on the ocean floor is more problematic than >> surface oil. >The oil itself floats. The oil combined with other materials would have >to overcome buoyancy to drop to the ocean floor. Even steel super- >tankers with millions of gallons oil in them float. You don't even understand the meaning of what you wrote. A lot of the oil *has already* been combined with other materials (dispersants) precisely to make it sink instead of floating and drifting . Whether oil in a container floats depends on the displacement of water by the container, not by any quality of the oil itself. IOW, it doesn't matter if a ship is filled with oil or with iron ore, it will only float if it displaces the right amount of water. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: Carbon on 15 Jun 2010 18:17 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:36:31 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:f8185e87-c716-4816-b9f6- > e866d734a15d(a)u26g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... >> On Jun 14, 5:53 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>> Sounds like an Obama screw up to me. >> >> If the earth were hit by a meteor, you'd call it an Obama screw-up, >> such is the depth of your hatred. > > And the left would blame Bush for the meteor. Talk about depth of > hatred. More bullshit. By that logic the left would be blaming Bush for BP's oilspill. Are they? No. Now why is that? Could it be because every sane person on the planet knows it was caused by Beyond Petroleum putting profits before safety?
From: Carbon on 15 Jun 2010 18:20
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:54:09 -0500, Moderate wrote: > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4c16aa54$0$15824$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... >> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:31:23 +0000, Moderate wrote: >>> "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 14, 2:08 pm, Moderate <nos...(a)nomail.comu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The White House should be in charge, not the coast guard. You >>>>> might want to read up on why foreign vessels aren't involved in >>>>> the clean up. >>>> >>>> The White House IS in charge. Who do you think the Coast Guard and >>>> DHS report to? Foreign vessels ARE involved, so I think it's you >>>> who needs to read up. >>> >>> Not acording to the statements I have heard the Administration make. >>> They were waiting on the coast guard to waive the Jones Act >> >> Which statements were those? > > White House Environmental Advisor, Carol Browner, said last Friday > that the White House has not received a request from the Coast Guard > to waive the Jones Act. > > Does anyone think that the Coast Guard should be making decisions on > changes to law? I don't follow AM talk radio, so could you explain what you think this statement proves? |