isadore;393292 wrote:According to my logic. We had this spill for 2 months and BP is not near stopping, let alone cleaning up. But of course Mr Paul, your worry is for BP.
2 months and no real relief. Mr. Cornyn they saw a chance for profit, they claimed they could drill safely, Ms. Bachman they claimed the site had all the necessary safety devises in operation to prevent a spill, Mr. Barton they claimed they had a cleanup plan to protect the enviroment. Mr sparks they claimed their workers were safe at that site. 11 dead because of their greed and incompetence. But of course who do you put your trust in to solve this situation after killing 11 of their employees, causing the worst environmental disaster in our history that continues to this day. So after these past two months who do you put your faith in mr. crew, Bp, of course.

I don't trust anyone to clean this spill up. Ultimately though, BP will be the one that finally gets the relief well in effect in August, the federal government has done and will do nothing. BP and the federal government are one in the same. One pollutes our ocean and environment, the other pollutes our country. I say get rid of them both and we'd be better off.

Where do you see me saying I trust BP to do anything? I'd like to know what your fantasy land is like. You see a lot of things that aren't really there.

dwccrew;393745 wrote:I don't trust anyone to clean this spill up. Ultimately though, BP will be the one that finally gets the relief well in effect in August, the federal government has done and will do nothing. BP and the federal government are one in the same. One pollutes our ocean and environment, the other pollutes our country. I say get rid of them both and we'd be better off.

Where do you see me saying I trust BP to do anything? I'd like to know what your fantasy land is like. You see a lot of things that aren't really there.

A fantasy world. Where would we find a fantasy world. Where someone is so sure that BP that BPs attempt to drill the relief well will solve the problem, because all their previous claims have been so truthful and efforts have been so successful. A fantasy world where forcing this criminal corporation to pony up 20 billion is nothing. A fantasy world where there is no difference between the government of the greatest democracy in the world and a predatory corporation. A world better off without the existence of a government of the United States, a world where predatory totalitarianism has nothing to stop it, a country where there is no curb on predatory interstate corporate power.

BoatShoes;393150 wrote:Oil and Gas Exploration companies have an avg. profit margin of 9.7%, the 23rd highest avg. profit margin of all industries (Health Insurers are only #86 and the libs demonized them). biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html.

It's also important to talk about the number of dollars being received because of economic notions of the marginal utility of dollars. BP took in a revenue of 246 billion dollars....enough to be th 34th richest nation in the world if it were a country. Say their profit marge was cut in half...they still made more than $100 billion.

FWIW, I'm not against BP getting rich and making billions...

23rd highest INDUSTRY, not company. THat means there are 22 other industries and 1000s of companies with much higher profit margins than "big oil".

Heck, I know that if the industries I've worked for over the years fell below 10% they'd be PISSED.

You can't use "revenue" as you are trying, you have to talk profits and profit margins.

BoatShoes;393135 wrote:Not according to Contemporary Conservative theories of Executive Power; Even in domestic affairs and not just foreign. See John Yoo who was a former member of the Bush Administration who recently wrote an op-ed in the NY times arguing against Elena Kagan for potentially having restrictive views on executive power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

Maybe you disagree personally....but these are the theories of executive power that have been advanced since even the Reagan Administration and Conservatives have endorsed them (this is one area where libertarians and contemporary conservatives divide).

They sure talk about Madison and Jefferson a lot but boy they prefer Hamilton's opinion on Article II.

Last I checked John Yoo has zero influence on what is and is not constitutional, I believe that is up to the courts.

Nothing in the constitution allows the executive branch to levy fines on a company well before any court has found said company guilty of criminal or civil neglegence. Its the courts that are supposed to handle these issues, not the executive branch.

KnightRyder;393709 wrote:fox news is only creditable with tose on the right. anyone with a trace of sense ranks fox news right along with the WWE

Actually by any independent ranking agency, the acutal news from Fox has been rated the most balanced/fair of any news agency, just beating out CNN.

Given, their TV show commentators/opinion people like Hannity/Beck are pretty far right, but that's no difference than the far left commentators like Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC.

Actual news however, Fox has been rated far better than MSNBC and ABC, and even or slightly better than CNN.

Yeah, I agree with the fact that people who discount FOX probably think of only Beck or Hannity, which are later in the day for editorial type of shows.
But, I've watched FOX early in the day and it was just nothing but news. In fact, just this morning while I was flipping through channels, they were talking about tornadoes in Wisconsin. Nothing political or opinionated in that. It was just news.

But anyway, those people who make fun or discount FOX news are the same ones that always say catch phrases like "tea-baggers", "git-r-done".

For the record, I make alot of fun with Beck, Olbermann, and Matthews. I never make fun of the actual news segments of their prospective stations - because there's nothing to make fun of, I don't think.
But, I don't tend to watch any of those shows on any sort of regular basis, so I might be wrong on all accounts! lol

jmog;393950 wrote:Last I checked John Yoo has zero influence on what is and is not constitutional, I believe that is up to the courts.

Nothing in the constitution allows the executive branch to levy fines on a company well before any court has found said company guilty of criminal or civil neglegence. Its the courts that are supposed to handle these issues, not the executive branch.

So you think a lawyer who writes a brief on a Constitutional issue attempting to influence the judge has zero influence on whether or not something is constitutional or not? So you think the Bush Administration justice apartment, all those times their solicitor general argued in front of the Supreme Court, that they had no influence on the ultimate decisions of what is constitutional? If that's true, why do we even have lawyers then? (although I'm sure many folks wouldn't care if they went by the wayside).

Perhaps you're speaking from a natural law perspective but you must agree that this kind of action being done by the Obama adminstration falls right in line with recent theories of Constitutionally justified executive power advanced by conservative legal scholars, judges and theorists. This is par for the course right here.

I hear what you're saying....but the declining marginal utility of dollars makes falling below a 10% profit margin seem less problematic when we're talking about billions of dollars.

For instance, say a Mom and Pop Hardware Store has a 10% profit margin and brings in 100k. If you cut that margin in half...they only make 50k; a significant decrease in marginal utility. If you make 200 billion at a 10% margin, and cut that in half to $100 billion, you haven't loss nearly as much marginal utility as the mom and pop shop.

The ultimate point is....you have a company like BP which had been cutting significant corners at least since the Texas City refinery explosion....in exchange for increases in profits that likely represent small increases in actual marginal utility. On the other hand, to each individual shareholder, those increases in share value have much more utility. So it's not a clear issue by any means....but suppose they'd done things a little more safely and only made $100 billion in profit (although their margin would be cut in half....seemingly bad), would their shareholders really have been that bad off? I'm not sure.

I'm not saying BP isn't at fault and they didn't cut corners, matter of fact I believe they did.

However, I'm just saying that the general "view" of the "greedy" oil companies is just plain retarded when you look at the numbers.

And no, to a share holder cutting profits is half is very detrimental you would see an oil companies stock fall big if their profits were cut in half.

jmog;393980 wrote:Actually by any independent ranking agency, the acutal news from Fox has been rated the most balanced/fair of any news agency, just beating out CNN.

Given, their TV show commentators/opinion people like Hannity/Beck are pretty far right, but that's no difference than the far left commentators like Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC.

Actual news however, Fox has been rated far better than MSNBC and ABC, and even or slightly better than CNN.

This is not true. The non-Partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University analyzed 3,589 news broadcasts on ABC, NBC and CBS plus the New York Times and Newsweek and found that 51% of coverage of BHO was negative and 49% positive. Overall, analysis of his policies was 63% negative

Fox News on the other hand only provided positive coverage of BHO 22% of the time.

Maybe the other networks are liberal. Ok fine....and I watch Fox a lot but....Fox fair and balanced? Baloney. And they didn't analyze Hannity or Beck, but Bret Baier and Brit Hume.

http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_q1_2010.pdf

Above is the actual report; Below is a piece in the Washington Times discussing the report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/26/obamas-honeymoon-with-media-is-history/?page=1

BoatShoes;394397 wrote:This is not true. The non-Partisan Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University analyzed 3,589 news broadcasts on ABC, NBC and CBS plus the New York Times and Newsweek and found that 51% of coverage of BHO was negative and 49% positive. Overall, analysis of his policies was 63% negative

Fox News on the other hand only provided positive coverage of BHO 22% of the time.

Maybe the other networks are liberal. Ok fine....and I watch Fox a lot but....Fox fair and balanced? Baloney. And they didn't analyze Hannity or Beck, but Bret Baier and Brit Hume.

http://www.cmpa.com/pdf/media_monitor_q1_2010.pdf

Above is the actual report; Below is a piece in the Washington Times discussing the report.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/26/obamas-honeymoon-with-media-is-history/?page=1

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers/by_the_numbers

Look at the numbers across America, on Obama's policies only about 30-35% of Americans agree with them, so if Fox News is at 22% and the rest of the media is at 50%, Fox news is actually closer to the public "fair and balanced" view of BHO.

jmog;394447 wrote:http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/14/fox-news-barack-obama-media-opinions-contributors-s-robert-lichter.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scoreboards/by_the_numbers/by_the_numbers

Look at the numbers across America, on Obama's policies only about 30-35% of Americans agree with them, so if Fox News is at 22% and the rest of the media is at 50%, Fox news is actually closer to the public "fair and balanced" view of BHO.

Ha nice try to spin.

Suppose most of the nation was opposed to the Iraq War and therefore the News organizations only reported 22% positively....Would you think that's "fair and balanced"?

C'mon man. C'moooooooooon. That's not "fair and balanced" by any stretch of the imagination. Suppose most of America wanted to enslave Black Americans and White America News Organization only reported 22% positively on black americans....would that be fair and balanced? It sounds like it would have to be based on your reasoning.

BoatShoes;394457 wrote:Ha nice try to spin.

Suppose most of the nation was opposed to the Iraq War and therefore the News organizations only reported 22% positively....Would you think that's "fair and balanced"?

C'mon man. C'moooooooooon. That's not "fair and balanced" by any stretch of the imagination. Suppose most of America wanted to enslave Black Americans and White America News Organization only reported 22% positively on black americans....would that be fair and balanced? It sounds like it would have to be based on your reasoning.

If most of the country is opposed to something, then the coverage by the media should reflect the views of those who are being covered. If almost everyone being covered expresses a negative view, how is that biased against the President? The media is simply reflecting how its viewers/readers feel about the issue.

This is proven out, I believe, in this study. The first half of the year was mostly fluff pieces about the Obamas and had little to do with policy decisions, or the media agreed so much with those decisions that the stories maintained a positive edge, even if the public opposed what he was doing.

I think this last six months, Obama simply can't hide any more from the negative press because most Americans disagree with just about everything he is attempting to do -- or they see his performance as being poor (economy, oil spill).

If the media isn't wildly biased in his favor, the stories SHOULD run negative, and they have -- although I still think he's getting far more positive press on just about all this stuff than any other president would be getting at this point. If the economy remained this poor under Bush, and he was this ineffective with the oil spill, the stories would be about 80 percent negative. That's probably true of just about any other president but this one.

Another example of how "all in" the media has been with this president since his campaign. Even as they have to run stories that are negative about his administration, he's still getting far more positive stories than I can imagine anyone else getting given everything that he's screwed up or simply been ineffectual on.

Writerbuckeye;394611 wrote:I think this last six months, Obama simply can't hide any more from the negative press because most Americans disagree with just about everything he is attempting to do -- or they see his performance as being poor (economy, oil spill).

If the media isn't wildly biased in his favor, the stories SHOULD run negative, and they have -- although I still think he's getting far more positive press on just about all this stuff than any other president would be getting at this point. If the economy remained this poor under Bush, and he was this ineffective with the oil spill, the stories would be about 80 percent negative. That's probably true of just about any other president but this one.

Another example of how "all in" the media has been with this president since his campaign. Even as they have to run stories that are negative about his administration, he's still getting far more positive stories than I can imagine anyone else getting given everything that he's screwed up or simply been ineffectual on.

The self-proclaimed objective 4th Estate went all-out to help BHO wrestle the nomination from Queen Hillary and they also became free advertising for the DNC during the presidential campaign. No question about that. Therefore, it has a vested interest in making the Anointed One look good even in the political mud, muck, and oil spill.

BoatShoes;394457 wrote:Ha nice try to spin.

Suppose most of the nation was opposed to the Iraq War and therefore the News organizations only reported 22% positively....Would you think that's "fair and balanced"?

C'mon man. C'moooooooooon. That's not "fair and balanced" by any stretch of the imagination. Suppose most of America wanted to enslave Black Americans and White America News Organization only reported 22% positively on black americans....would that be fair and balanced? It sounds like it would have to be based on your reasoning.

My post shows that its the MSNBC/CNNs of the world that is biased towards the left. If most of America doesn't agree with the policies and Fox News is falling in line with that with their reporting, then by all means that is "fair and balanced" while the other news agencies are biased.


On the other hand did you read the forbes article about the campaign on which news organization was more "fair"? So you really think in the last year Fox has turned from fair to biased while the others have turned from biased to fair? You can't truly believe that.

Writerbuckeye;394611 wrote:If most of the country is opposed to something, then the coverage by the media should reflect the views of those who are being covered. If almost everyone being covered expresses a negative view, how is that biased against the President? The media is simply reflecting how its viewers/readers feel about the issue.

.

I'm calling b.s.; If most of the country was against the Iraq War and therefore most of the coverage of it was negative (following your prescription of how to be a good news organization)...you would cry to ends of the earth about liberal media bias.

The role of a news organization is not to feed people their view of the issue but to present both the positive and the negative.

If there were a news organization that only positively reported on GWB 22% of the time because most of the country disliked President Bush....it's liberal media bias and the MSM is in the tank for all things panty waste and liberal.............when a news organization only positively reports on BHO, whom you despise.....it's proper journalism.

If you want to watch Fox News and you think it's a proper reaction to the "liberal" media out there (even though this study shows they overwhelmingly reported negatively on his policies and at best reported favorably about his persona generally at least 50% of the time) that's fine....but I mean, c'mooooooooon.....just admit that it's not some fair and balanced news organization

jmog;394850 wrote:My post shows that its the MSNBC/CNNs of the world that is biased towards the left. If most of America doesn't agree with the policies and Fox News is falling in line with that with their reporting, then by all means that is "fair and balanced" while the other news agencies are biased.
QUOTE]

Your post shows nothing and your definition of fair and balanced would mean that a racist country should get racist news for a news organization to do their job. I present with an analysis of every news broadcast in BHO's first year from a respected University. But, the results don't fit with your conception of reality and you give a Forbes article when that magazine is edited by a guy who ran for President for the Republican Party and who I guarantee isn't turning on CBS at night.

And either way, even if all the other news organizations are slanted to the left....Fox is undoubtedly slanted to the right...and you know, that's fine if you think it's a fair reaction to liberalism in the MSM...I watch Fox all the time...but you must at least admit that it's slanted to the right...even brit hume and bret baier....and it's not fair and balanced (unless perhaps on your warped/spinned conception of fair and balanced which you only agree with because you personally dislike BHO's policies....if most of the nation were Keynesians and the media were reporting favorably on the stimulus to be "fair and balanced" on your definition, you wouldn't agree with your own definition.

Writerbuckeye;394611 wrote:
I think this last six months, Obama simply can't hide any more from the negative press because most Americans disagree with just about everything he is attempting to do -- or they see his performance as being poor (economy, oil spill).

If the media isn't wildly biased in his favor, the stories SHOULD run negative, and they have -- although I still think he's getting far more positive press on just about all this stuff than any other president would be getting at this point. If the economy remained this poor under Bush, and he was this ineffective with the oil spill, the stories would be about 80 percent negative. That's probably true of just about any other president but this one.

Another example of how "all in" the media has been with this president since his campaign. Even as they have to run stories that are negative about his administration, he's still getting far more positive stories than I can imagine anyone else getting given everything that he's screwed up or simply been ineffectual on.

You would not think your own reasoning hear should apply if an unpopular conservative were the president...it'd be wild liberal bias. Also, I don't see how the media can be as "all in" with Barry as you suggest because even when they were doing fluff pieces in the honey moon....there was still coverage of him that was negative.....they did like BHO better than past president's....but certainly not "a slobbering love affair"

BoatShoes;394888 wrote:

jmog;394850 wrote:My post shows that its the MSNBC/CNNs of the world that is biased towards the left. If most of America doesn't agree with the policies and Fox News is falling in line with that with their reporting, then by all means that is "fair and balanced" while the other news agencies are biased.
QUOTE]

Your post shows nothing and your definition of fair and balanced would mean that a racist country should get racist news for a news organization to do their job. I present with an analysis of every news broadcast in BHO's first year from a respected University. But, the results don't fit with your conception of reality and you give a Forbes article when that magazine is edited by a guy who ran for President for the Republican Party and who I guarantee isn't turning on CBS at night.

And either way, even if all the other news organizations are slanted to the left....Fox is undoubtedly slanted to the right...and you know, that's fine if you think it's a fair reaction to liberalism in the MSM...I watch Fox all the time...but you must at least admit that it's slanted to the right...even brit hume and bret baier....and it's not fair and balanced (unless perhaps on your warped/spinned conception of fair and balanced which you only agree with because you personally dislike BHO's policies....if most of the nation were Keynesians and the media were reporting favorably on the stimulus to be "fair and balanced" on your definition, you wouldn't agree with your own definition.

Learn to read,the forbes article was reporting on a report/study by the exact same group you touted as "unbiased" the CMPA.

BoatShoes;394891 wrote:You would not think your own reasoning hear should apply if an unpopular conservative were the president...it'd be wild liberal bias. Also, I don't see how the media can be as "all in" with Barry as you suggest because even when they were doing fluff pieces in the honey moon....there was still coverage of him that was negative.....they did like BHO better than past president's....but certainly not "a slobbering love affair"

BS I respect you...I really do. But you can't really believe this. YES I admit I'm a flaming conservative but I still see what I see. The mainstream media have and always will have a liberal bias.

That being said I've been following politics closely for 30 (+) years and I've NEVER witnessed the OBVIOUS love affair from the mainstream press with a newly elected POTUS as I have observed with BHO. The press still goes out of its way to deflect, defend, and cover BHO's tracks whenever they have the opportunity. Why? Because the media played a huge role in BHO's election and they do not want to admit he's not qualified to do the job. To do so would be an admission of their own insane stupidity not to mention they should be reporting the news not making it.

We are an impatient nation. When things like Katrina and this BP situation happen, we divide immediately along political lines. We try to prove somehow that our man, (whichever that is) , did a better job than the other guy in solving the crisis, or at the very least, a less crappy job. And what exactly does that prove? I believe the answer to that question is.."not a damn thing." Katrina is behind us, although there is still much to do in the Gulf area to try and restore it to a reasonable facsimile of what was there before. George Bush is not God and he can't just flip a switch and make Katrina go away. Thousands died and those who remain down in that area have been changed forever. The only real criticism I have of the handling of that crisis from a governmental standpoint is the slowness of first response and some bad decisions along the way, such as the FEMA trailer problem. The American people from all over this nation did a whale of a job of pitching in, sending workers, sending food and medicine and clothing and all the rest. In the case of this oil crisis, also in the gulf, I think that Obama is not God either. This is a man made crisis by BP and the ball has to be in their court to be responsible and fix it. I think that the President can't magically be lowered down to the leak and put a giant mechanical "finger in the dike" and all will be well. I think that calling BP on the carpet and charging them for damage already done is a good start but we need to keep our boot on them and devote every bit of technology, money, etc. that we can spare to get the leak plugged and make sure it doesn't happen again. Bottom Line? Two horrendous disasters that can't be placed at the feet of either Chief Executive. let's just hope that we never have to face anything like either of these issues again.

Swamp Fox;395900 wrote:We are an impatient nation.

I stopped reading right here. In this situation I feel that it is justified being impatient. Why should we wait for results when the cause of the tragedy was negligence on BP's part? I don't think we should be impatient with Obama, but we should with BP. Everyday that this thing continues more wildlife is lost and the environment negatively impacted.

Why should we be patient with BP? They need to get this thing fixed yesterday.

Day 61: Satellite Reveals Stunning Scope of the Gulf Oil Slick.



I thought this was pretty funny and creative.

dwccrew;395913 wrote:
Why should we be patient with BP?

What is the alternative? Please be specific.

believer;395326 wrote:BS I respect you...I really do. But you can't really believe this. YES I admit I'm a flaming conservative but I still see what I see. The mainstream media have and always will have a liberal bias.

That being said I've been following politics closely for 30 (+) years and I've NEVER witnessed the OBVIOUS love affair from the mainstream press with a newly elected POTUS as I have observed with BHO. The press still goes out of its way to deflect, defend, and cover BHO's tracks whenever they have the opportunity. Why? Because the media played a huge role in BHO's election and they do not want to admit he's not qualified to do the job. To do so would be an admission of their own insane stupidity not to mention they should be reporting the news not making it.

This has been my observation as well. Until Obama's campaign, we had never, ever seen the mainstream media get "on board" with a candidate as quickly and thoroughly as they did. They made sure he won the primary (Hillary got far, far more negative press than Obama, who was never challenged with difficult questions or had his background vetted like most candidates); then they kept up the pace in the general election.

It would have been a very close election if the economy had not tanked as it did; but when things went south economically, it all but assured Obama a win.

What we saw by the media after that was BY FAR the most positive, gushing stories any new president has ever received. Even now, as most of the country things things are going in the wrong direction, and most people are opposed to Obama's main initiatives (health care, cap & trade, immigration), the media goes out of its way to deflect the harshest criticism and protect Obama's interests.

It's been quite amazing to watch, actually, especially if you're someone like me who has worked in this area all his life.

Of course, the downside to all this is obvious: when you don't have an opposition press actively checking the president and Congress, the people aren't getting a large measure of the protection they need to prevent what's happening now...a massive infusion of government in every aspect of our lives.

For the most part, a single point of view is being expressed and supported by stories the media runs each day. It doesn't matter the specific topic, but the slant is always supportive of a left of center view -- even when most Americans don't agree with that viewpoint (judging by polls that say as much).

At some point, this is all going to implode, however. Especially if the economy continues to struggle (and given Obama's policies, that seems likely). Even the most protective press cannot keep people from going into the voting booth and enacting dramatic changes. I think that's what we will probably see happen in the next year or so.