View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
NW and Isobars. I know it is daunting looking at what Obama has accomplished and comparing it to the know-nothings in Congress and his predecessor. I know you have no factual response, so you devolve to insults. Carry on. I'll leave you with the line of Martin O'Malley, which fits you tea guys perfectly:
"We didn't move out of the Stone Age because we ran out of stones. Climate change is real."
https://www.facebook.com/MartinOMalley/videos/10156337294680393/
Throw those stones. Grunt and jump up and down. Knowledge is too scary to embrace. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If O'Malley believes global warming is real, who are we to doubt him? After all, he proved his "daunting" expertise and competence while Governor of Maryland. Here are another couple of quotes from the knowledge filled Governor O'Malley after he wasted $200 million of taxpayer money on MD's Obamacare website, which was thrown out when it didn't work.
"Our launch did not go as we had planned, our launch failed," Gov. Martin O'Malley said at a press conference after the vote. "We don't always succeed on our first try, but we don't give up. And we usually hit our goals."
Oh, that's OK then. The first $200M try didn't work. Let's put that behind us and move on to the next try! Dear taxpayers, please make the check payable to Complete Cock Up, Phase 2. However, he did show the same willingness to take responsibility for this debacle as the current President.
"We would like to be sitting here and saying 'Wow, Kentucky and Connecticut saw that Maryland worked well,' but our contractors let us down on that score and did not deliver that which they promised," O'Malley said. "And then when they said they could fix it, were incapable of fixing it. This is the real world, this is sometimes how things happen."
No, Mr. O'Malley, in the real world, managers don't get to lay the blame off on subordinates. In the real world you would have been fired immediately. So, with regard to your learned opinion on global warming, don't call us, we'll call you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess the message that the stone age is over went right over your head. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"...in the real world, managers don't get to lay the blame off on subordinates. In the real world you would have been fired immediately."
mrgybe, based on your opinion above, I guessing that you thought that Carly Fiorina got what she deserved. I have to ask though, do you think she should have gotten tens of millions in her exit from HP for her poor leadership? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's for the shareholders to decide. It's their money. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought you might the following interesting. It's from Wikipedia concerning Hayward's leadership of BP.
"On 20 April 2010, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, operated by BP. Eleven people were killed in the blast and oil began to leak from the ocean floor at a rate variously estimated to be between 5,000 barrels (790 m3) and 100,000 barrels (16,000 m3) per day. Hayward, and BP in general, initially downplayed the spill, stating on 17 May 2010 that the environmental impact of the Gulf spill would likely be "very very modest" and calling the spill "relatively tiny" in comparison with the size of the ocean.[21][22][23] By 27 May, Hayward changed his assessment, calling the spill an "environmental catastrophe" in an interview with CNN.[24]
On 12 May 2009, in a postgraduate lecture to Stanford Business School,[25] Hayward analysed the role and organisation of the company for which he acted as chief executive officer. During the lecture he stated to the business students that "...our primary purpose in life is to create value for our shareholders. In order to do that you have to take care of the world." Subsequent statements that focused only on the individual corporate remit have also been quoted outside the context of the full lecture.[26]
Hayward stated that his job might be at risk as a result of the spill, saying "we made a few little mistakes early on."[21] He received criticism for various statements he has made during the spill, including telling a camera man to "get out of there" during a photo-op on the shores of Louisiana.[27] On 30 May, he told a reporter "we're sorry for the massive disruption it's caused to their lives. There's no one who wants this thing over more than I do, I'd like my life back."[28] He was widely condemned for his comment which was perceived as selfish, and United States Representative Charlie Melancon (D-La.) called on Hayward to resign in the wake of this comment.[29][30] He later apologised for the comment on BP America's Facebook Page.[31][32] On 31 May, Hayward disputed claims of huge underwater plumes of oil suspended in the Gulf, as had been reported by scientists from three universities.[30][33] Hayward said there was "no evidence" that plumes of oil were suspended under the sea, and that because it is lighter than water any plumes seen are just in the process of rising to the surface. A chemist from Louisiana State University agreed with this assessment.[34] Still other scientists have suggested that the manner of expulsion of the oil from the well and the use of dispersants may have led to an emulsion situation in which the oil is suspended in water for some time.[35]
On 5 June the Daily Telegraph reported that Hayward sold approximately one third of his shares in BP a month before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded.[36] The shares subsequently fell in value by 30%, although the Telegraph stated: "There is no suggestion that he acted improperly or had prior knowledge that the company was to face the biggest setback in its history."[36]
In an interview on NBC on 8 June, US President Barack Obama said that Hayward "wouldn't be working for me after any of those statements",[37] referring to the remarks Hayward made following the spill.[38] The Obama administration had been public in their criticism of BP for the oil spill.[39]
Before a congressional hearing on the oil spill held on 17 June, subcommittee chairman Bart Stupak of Michigan said that he expected Hayward to be "spliced and diced" by both himself and other committee members.[40] Hayward's eleven-page document that he read to the committee included a passage in which he said he would "pledge as leader of BP that we will not stop until we stop this well ... and address economic claims in a responsible manner".[40] He continued, "This is a complex accident, caused by an unprecedented combination of failures. A number of companies are involved, including BP, and it is simply too early to understand the cause."[40]
On 18 June, the day after Hayward appeared before the congressional hearing, the chairman of BP said that Hayward would step away from daily involvement in the company's efforts in the Gulf.[41] On 19 June, the day before Father's Day, Hayward was in Cowes – having taken a "day off" – to see Bob,[42] his co-owned boat, participate in the JP Morgan Asset Management Round the Island yacht race off the Isle of Wight.[43] Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, said that Hayward had committed yet another in a "long line of PR gaffes" by attending the race while the Gulf oil spill continued. Obama was also criticised for playing four hours of golf at the same time as the yacht race.[44][45]
In June, BP put Mississippi native Bob Dudley in charge of handling the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Dudley was appointed president and chief executive of the newly created Gulf Coast Restoration Organization, reporting to Hayward.[46]
Departure from BP
Following the oil spill, there were rumours that Hayward would resign, but the company dismissed these. A BBC report said that a BP press release stated that Hayward "has the full confidence of the board of directors of BP."[47][48]
BP announced on 27 July 2010 that Hayward would be replaced by Bob Dudley as the company's chief executive effective as of 1 October 2010.[49]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Hayward |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999 Posts: 17747 Location: Berkeley, California
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would a company really re-use an arctic spill contingency plan without removing references to walruses? They would.
Quote: | The reason it took so long to stop the spill is that there was no capability in place to do so, despite the existence of contingency plans for that very purpose. The NCP requires that each offshore drilling facility have in place, prior to drilling, a facility-specific oil spill response plan. [51] That plan is supposed to be the principal tool for containing any spill. BP's response plan was wholly inadequate.
Much was made in Congressional hearings of the fact that the Gulf of Mexico deepwater contingency plans of all of the major oil companies were boilerplate copied from plans designed for use in the Arctic, including references to walruses as potentially affected species. [60] However, that was not the only problem with the plans. [61] While BP was required to identify a worst case spill from each specific rig and list the equipment and personnel that would be employed to contain such a spill, the response plan does not do that. Its focus is regional, and it is not specific for any particular rig or type of incident. BP's response plan claims that BP had the ability to respond to a blowout of 250,000 barrels per day, more than four times the reported maximum discharge from the Macondo blowout. [62] Yet nowhere does the plan specifically describe how it would handle such a spill. The plan refers generally to equipment available to BP, [63] and appends a list of equipment located in the region, but does not describe how specific equipment would be employed to meet a worst case spill from the Deepwater Horizon. BP's response plan claims to have contracts with Marine Spill Response Corporation and National Response Corporation (NRC) for spill response equipment, and that contractors would organize spill removal, [64] but details on specific types of spills are lacking. The plan states: | http://www.griggsandadler.com/bp-gulf-oil-spill.html
Those pesky regulations. Let's elect some Republicans who will get rid of them. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008 Posts: 6485 Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2015 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops. Sorry, you're still not king.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Judges use Obama’s own words to halt deportation amnesty
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 10, 2015
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.
In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
For the rest~
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Merkel re Paris/ISIS: "We will help you fight against terror."
Clinton: "As president, I will not go to war against ISIS."
Trump: "I would bomb the shit out of them."
Hollande: "We are at war!" followed immediately by bombing the shit out of them.
Obama, in today's press event, in multiple rambling 10-15-minute answers to direct and explicit media questions: "We aren't going to uh do anything different. Our strategy will not change. [Just what IS it, again?]. We will uh find them, arrest them, and try them in a court of law. [Like we did with the Benghazi planner who sat nearby slurping a strawberry shake and boasting about the attack?] I have um drawn a line in the uh sand and if they cross it I will er kick more sand in their face. ... for 45 excruciating and embarrassing minutes altogether. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999 Posts: 20935
|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In case anyone has implied that Obama is bombing ISIS, consider that in the Gulf War we launched 1,100 sorties a day, most of them delivering their ordinance. Now the rate is 7 sorties a day, with 3 of 4 returning to base with all their ordinance still on board, largely because if there's any indication of a civilian anywhere nearby, the rules of engagement prohibit delivery. That's 99.8% below our effective Gulf War bombing rate. Not one rational observer believes this administration (or Hillary, according to her Saturday night debate refusal to even consider going to war against ISIS, which has already declared war on us) has ANY desire to defeat ISIS. But, then, Obama doesn't say he wants to defeat them, only that he wants to prevent their expansion ... as long as it's not difficult.
How many NFL games, Statues of Liberty, Hoover Dams, and cities of 10M people must be destroyed before the DNC faces reality? We have seen an endless stream of 4-star generals, defense and intelligence agency chiefs, military historians, on-scene spooks, global economists, and think tanks present a huge array of scores of viable plans for crippling, then defeating ISIS, but the only ones to see the light of day in this administration have been very limited spook operations and drone strikes. Many such plans don't involve one single bullet or boot, but instead involve software, banking, cash flow, energy, etc.
But noooooo; they do not threaten the U.S. at least not until Nov 3, 2016, when it becomes the GOP's fault.
Look, we get it. Obama is a paralyzed coward with very limited capacity for rational thought and concern for little more than his own legacy. What I can't understand is why tens of millions of liberals, apparently including virtually every one in this forum, can't see that, and support his policies despite their OBVIOUS and GRAVE threats to themselves and their children. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|