Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 651496)

I thought you had compared Bush's reaction of 9/11 to Obama's of Day 35 of the BP spill?

There are two different arguements happening here...If you want to say that by now the US Govt should be more involved?..Sure..I can't argue that. But to say that situation is comparable to Katrina or 9/11 or to say it's Obama's Spill is crazy I think. It's just Republican's looking for an edge.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 651499)

Or it's Independents and Libertarians sick of Mr. Talkie-Talkie and want him to actually do something other than Talkie-Talkie.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 651489)

:zz:

Sorry, you'll have to clarify. I do not have a clue what fight you are trying to start, over what :D

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 651501)

Big clue...

forget it

OK

google france nuclear energy

Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 651496)

I thought you had compared Bush's reaction of 9/11 to Obama's of Day 35 of the BP spill?

There are two different arguements happening here...If you want to say that by now the US Govt should be more involved?..Sure..I can't argue that. But to say that situation is comparable to Katrina or 9/11 or to say it's Obama's Spill is crazy I think. It's just Republican's looking for an edge.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 651505)

:zz: France is France (good for them), this is America. I have already said, ".

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 651517)

:zz: WTF are you talking about? Shouldn't good for them be better for us or are you really ignorant to the U.S.A. v. World in say economics? How about a world health care plan paid by us (U.S.A.)

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 651518)

No, I don't think that good nuclear for France means good (better) nuclear for the USA. Said that twice already.

Originally Posted by dellinger63 (Post 651524)

I get it now, the same as child sex for Muhamad?

Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 651479)

That's exactly the point...less dependancy on oil makes this all unnecessary

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 651527)

Less dependence on oil is a pipedream. Pardon the pun

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 651527)

Less dependence on oil is a pipedream. Pardon the pun

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 651537)

I can (in Florida...not sure how this would work in other parts) convert my residence to complete solar for 150K... AND store enough energy to SELL energy BACK to Progress Energy (our local electric company).... yet I PAY my electric company to cool my house BY AN OIL FIRED ENERGY PLANT... You hear nothing about this... From the same people in charge getting their pockets lined by big oil....

Originally Posted by GBBob (Post 651541)

Disagree

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 651546)

Wouldnt 150k be considerd a little pricey for the avg American?

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 651566)

40 inch Plasma TV's were 8K 10 years ago... Of course Solar has been around for decades and Big Oil has squelched any advancements so 150K to run AND sell energy is where we are now....

Of course amortized over 15 years ( given the typical 30 year mortgage) along with the (Obama GREEN) feeble tax incentives, you still would not only be living energy independent, but would actually be making money from your residence...

The last thing they need to hear.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 651568)

All very true but doesnt change the fact that our dependence on oil is not ever going to be significantly decreased in our lifetimes without some unforseen technical advance. The fact that the oil barons have the most money isnt going to change.

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 651575)

I would contend that global development (India, China, Vietnam, etc) is the source of strain on global oil resources that we are experiencing relative to our past.
And perhaps it is all relative; we are using less, but the world is using more. In the 70's and 80's we were sucking it down like water. But then again "Made in the USA" meant something and now it means nothing.... In the face of this, I really think we have definitely made drastic improvements relative to the rest of the planet. Hydrogen fuel cells, solar, wind... it is the only answer - and it MUST occur in our time. The only reason it won't is because it has become a multi-billion dollar cottage to discourage it's development.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 651430)

I agree completely with, "why the heck is this still going on, why has nothing been done" - I'm furious over that.

But the trouble is, regarding "the government taking over": what is the government supposed to do after they "take over"? Serious question. They've been "supervising" BP - the government doesn't have the equipment, or the manpower, or the technology (not that BP specifically does, they are winging it at this depth). I suppose one could scream at BP louder? It's obvious BP could care less about the environmental damage in any sense other than PR and fines. I think the only thing that could have been done by the government was get on BP faster, more quickly, about their covering up the amount of spilled oil; bring in independent scientists sooner as government agents? I thought that happened after two weeks, I could be wrong.

I heard that there are oil company tankers (sitting full of oil) that Obama could command to the area to take up spilled oil from the surface (they can separate out the water/oil), but what do they do with the thousands of gallons of oil already on board (they would have to empty out somewhere, somehow, first), and can the President commandeer private property? (I assume he could in a national disaster, don't know)