Do You Think Obama's Slow Response To the Oil Spill Was On Purpose? (speech, military)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But I was listening to economist Larry Kudlow's radio show this morning and I was astonished at the number of people calling in claiming Obama was just following the Cloward/Piven and Saul Alinsky method for the destroying the economy.
I just think Obama is a terrible manager and has no one on his staff good enough to help him. Surround yourself with academics and you get a lot of pithy talking points, but these folks couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, much less a crisis the magnitude of this oil spill.
I think he didn't do it on purpose...IMO he did it because he was to busy with his Photo-Ops with the athletes, and because he has no experience!
I think he didn't do it on purpose...IMO he did it because he was to busy with his Photo-Ops with the athletes, and because he has no experience!
Nice try. I'm not sure any crisis response goes perfectly smoothly, but you'll have to find something else to hate Obama for today. Response by the federal government was fast and professional, all things considered:
Most "professional historians" are academics, and a quick look at today's universities will show you all the losers who couldn't make it in a capitalist society, so instead they moved into academia where they could belittle what they couldn't master.
Yeah... those people who spend many years of their lives working toward PhDs in history just stumbled over after failing in ... what field exactly? One could make that argument for film studies or business, but not history.
A- for effort though on your part. Might have duped someone not used to thinking for herself.
Nice try. I'm not sure any crisis response goes perfectly smoothly, but you'll have to find something else to hate Obama for today. Response by the federal government was fast and professional, all things considered:
Regarding your link..did you click on the "about us" tab.
BP and every government agency that could be called to task on this.
Of course they will achieve 110% of their stated goals.
Yet, I see no mention of "lack of fire booms" and what they had to do to get one. Where is that in the timeline ??
I'd try to find something a bit more objective of government response to this than a website run by the government. I'd label this as propaganda to calm the sheeple.
Regarding your link..did you click on the "about us" tab.
BP and every government agency that could be called to task on this.
Of course they will achieve 110% of their stated goals.
Yet, I see no mention of "lack of fire booms" and what they had to do to get one. Where is that in the timeline ??
I'd try to find something a bit more objective of government response to this than a website run by the government. I'd label this as propaganda to calm the sheeple.
The assetion was made that Obama did not respond quickly. There may well be aspects left out, but the timeline demonstrates quite clearly that the feds were on top of this from the very beginning and Obama was in on it.
That's the take home message. People are spreading lies on here and I just don't want them to face the wrath of God on judgment day over this. They'll thank me later.
But I was listening to economist Larry Kudlow's radio show this morning and I was astonished at the number of people calling in claiming Obama was just following the Cloward/Piven and Saul Alinsky method for the destroying the economy.
I just think Obama is a terrible manager and has no one on his staff good enough to help him. Surround yourself with academics and you get a lot of pithy talking points, but these folks couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag, much less a crisis the magnitude of this oil spill.
They are all acedemics, 0bama was trying to reassure us that matters were in the hands of the experts, even when "the experts" brainstroming how to cap the well and contain the oil were his staff and admin people like Steven Chu, the laser science guy.
I think like all the big problems, he hopes that someone will step up to play the role of the demon, so he can do all he knows how to do, which is his relive his community organizer roots, and get people angry at "the man".
Which is why he stayed away from the Tennessee flood, no one to blame or demonize, and the good people in Tennessee were not interested in his rabble-rouser politics.
They are all acedemics, 0bama was trying to reassure us that matters were in the hands of the experts, even when "the experts" brainstroming how to cap the well and contain the oil were his staff and admin people like Steven Chu, the laser science guy.
I think like all the big problems, he hopes that someone will step up to play the role of the demon, so he can do all he knows how to do, which is his relive his community organizer roots, and get people angry at "the man".
Which is why he stayed away from the Tennessee flood, no one to blame or demonize, and the good people in Tennessee were not interested in his rabble-rouser politics.
You really don't know what happened and are spreading completely false information. From the beginning, it was put on BP to cap the well because they were and are the only ones who had the means to stop it. Academics were not sitting around trying to figure it out. There were engineers working on it.
I just wish you folks who constantly bash Obama would at least use facts. It's getting tiresome correcting you all the time.
I think his nearly instantaneous response was intentional.
Hey, bob, how many days after the explosion and fire did Obama say one word about this one? I guess you and I don't use the same calendar but maybe you are right. Prove it, please.
First of all, I would not trust the random people calling in to Larry Kudlow's show to be reliable voices regarding Obama's motivations.
Based purely on common sense reasoning, I would suggest to you that while his response was deficient in certain ways, it was not done so on purpose.
Why would a president want to very visibly fail, lose voters' confidence, lose political power to push his/her agenda, and increase the probability of his/her defeat in the next election? That makes no earthly sense.
Maybe Rahm reminded him about not letting a good crisis get away and they miss-planned on this one. Yeah, I think that has possibilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.