Trust us...We'll be safe....

Looks like we each have our fetishes. Mine is because I care about the county I live in.

Yours seems to be because you have fantasies of ME!!!

Only in your dreams... rofllol

Nmysys wrote: Looks like we each have our fetishes. Mine is because I care about the county I live in.

Yours seems to be because you have fantasies of ME!!!

You have bush? That's Looney Jerks fantasy....

You have bush? That's Looney Jerks fantasy....

As often as I can. I'm not as good as I once was, you know the rest.

Yes...We've heard about "the rest"...

We'll pause here so that Beevis & Butthead can pass 5-6 messages between them trying to put together one coherent personal insult to me... :gleeful: ...(which I won't be reading because I keep RetardedTrash, the homophobic, racist, white-supremacist slime on ignore)... rofllol

jf1acai wrote: I must have missed something in this report from The Times-Picayune. Are we really getting all upset over a 'spill' of 3.72 gallons of crude oil, and requesting massive inspections based upon that?

My understanding of it is that it is 3.72 mile spread of oil on the water. trying to find info on it, not having much luck, most likely not wording it right. It is alot more than 3.72 gals though.

archer wrote:

jf1acai wrote: I have no idea how much area 3.72 gallons of crude oil would cover as a film on top of water. That could of course be calculated if one knew the thickness of the film.

My point is that I think it is a bit early to be demanding additional inspections etc. of the oil industry until we have some idea of the scope of what we are talking about, and where it really came from.

huh? Actually I didn't see anyone, even me, "demanding" inspections because of this incident, just asking if we already have inspections....or should we have them.....and if so who does it. The last spill was enough to convince me that some oversight is necessary......have we instituted any? Or, do you think that the companies should police their own safety standards? I don't see why we need to wait for another disaster to start asking these questions.....what is that old saying?.....something about closing the barn door after the horse has escaped? Why must we only react to a disaster, but not be proactive in preventing one?

Nope that was me. We have an agency in our Government that is suppose to do this already. All I would like to see is them to start doing thier job, give no leadway on the laws. Maybe we can (not saying it will happen) but try to stop some of this.

jf1acai wrote: I have no idea how much area 3.72 gallons of crude oil would cover as a film on top of water. That could of course be calculated if one knew the thickness of the film.

My point is that I think it is a bit early to be demanding additional inspections etc. of the oil industry until we have some idea of the scope of what we are talking about, and where it really came from.

Here is something that might help in what is going on.


http://www.examiner.com/environmental-n ... n-reported

Nmysys wrote: jf1aCAI:

Yes, they are getting upset over the small spill because it deflects from the REAL ISSUES that are going on, like our firing over 100 Tomahawk Missiles because there war hating President started us into another war in the Middle East, picking and choosing which one to. They have had absolutely no defense for any of it, so they picked this to be outraged over. It looks like they have even enlisted the Infamous NavyCPO7 to assist them to tell me to shut the hell up. He doesn't get it though so as he loves to pick on me, he joins in.

Gee, since I wasn't in the Navy, I didn't have to take orders then from a Chief Petty Officer, I don't have to now.

They want to debate because Archer says so, but won't debate any of the important issues, because there isn't any defense of them.

Another spew from the one with oral diaherra of the mouth. Making statements, without proof or anything to back it up. And then you want to bring my military background into this. My military background has nothing to do with nothing. Now your sorry ass attempt to throw Archer into this,because of your inability to have a decent debate. That is what this site is all about. I am just tired, along with some other folks that we know, that is tired of your BS and lies. Now if you want the proof I can put it on 285 bound. What you don't get is I am indedependent of everyone. On my own. Heres what you dont get, the president followed the UN resolution. I don't believe for a minute we should be there and he should have gotten congressional approval. What he did do is within the War Powers Resolution of 1973. I don't like Obama one bit. What I will not do, is try to make something it is not. Far as I am concerned we should also pull out of Iraq, and Afganistan, bring our troops home, That alone will save the lives of our men and women serving and help reduce the deficit. Karsi runs his mouth, let him see how far he gets without us there. We can put troops on the border. Unfortunately we can't do that. The United States is much on hit and run. Iraq (Bagdad) wants to sue the US for billions of dollars for what we supposedly did to thier city. Lets see how they do when we are not around. We need to start letting this other UN Countries do the dirty work of the UN, and NATO. Lets cut funding to alot of countries. Let them see how things go without our help. Government needs to be downsized. This includes the military (which Gates just started doing). And yes I just read the story on that. We need less Government involvement in our lives. I also believe we should support Israel, So I get it, it is you that is clueless. Things are not the way you think they should be, then everyone else is wrong. Sorry folks I apologize for doing what I did, did not take my happy pills today.

Thanks, navycpo7 for the information. It certainly seems that there is a problem there, which I agree should be handled by the agency, or agencies already in place. It appears to me that they are trying to do so - that may be just a smoke screen, I don't know.

What I disagree with is jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions about the extent and responsibility for the problem.

IF it is the fault of an oil company, or companies, I believe they should be held responsible for the costs of remediation. IF government oversight, or lack thereof, contributed to the problem, I think that should also be taken into consideration.

IMO, it is too early to make any judgements.