@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
But the panic was not the doing of the oil spill. It reminds me of Obama's panic in ordering oil drilling to stop for 6 months. Luckily, the courts did not panic, and stopped him. In fact, in reminds me a little of the panic of the government, the media, and the environmentalists. Lesson. Don't panic.
You have an opinion, but no facts to back it up. It seems more based in ideology than reality. I would suggest that you go spend some time in the regions which are going to be hard-hit by this spill and then come back and tell us that it's no big deal...
Cycloptichorn
You think that from the fact that there was one accident which caused an oil spill, that drilling is dangerous enough to justify closing down all oil drilling in the entire Gulf? Do you think that is also true of automobile accidents. So that if there is a bad auto accident in Mississippi, no driving should be allowed in Mississippi? And why then only in the Gulf. Unless there is something special about drilling in the Gulf, why not in the whole United States?
It is just blatant nonsense. Obama was, of course, not personally panicked. Presumably he saw it was nonsense. But he was politically panicked. His poll numbers were dropping, and he hope to slow it down by showing how much he cared. Indeed, why close down driving in Mississippi? Why not the whole United States?
That wasn't a panicky move, it was a smart one - for the gusher in the gulf revealed that
nobody actually had an adequate plan for dealing with deep-water spills. Why should we go forward with dangerous activities, that we know for a fact we don't have the capability to stop if something goes wrong?
In any case, how would seeing how the oil spill affected people have anything to do with assessing whether it was dangerous to continue drilling? Nothing at all, is the answer. More sentimental rubbish.
