http://www.mediaite.com/online/rush-limbaugh-hints-that-he-thinks-oil-rig-disaster-might-be-an-inside-job/

Quote :

"While few will be surprised that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill hasn’t converted Limbaugh into a card-carrying Sierra Club member, probably fewer still were expecting him to blame environmentalists for the disaster. From the April 29 edition of his radio program: “…lest we forget, the carbon tax bill — Cap and Trade — that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. Then it was postponed, a couple of days later… what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plans, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing, here.” Limbaugh is suggesting that the environmental left staged the spill to promote a nuclear agenda and the passing of Cap and Trade. At least he acknowledges he has no proof: he’s just “noting the timing.”"

I guess some times are better than others for ecological disasters, eh?

[Edited on May 1, 2010 at 9:12 AM. Reason : Also, thread title fail. Too damn short for actual article.]

5/1/2010 8:46:43 AM

haha

5/1/2010 10:13:00 AM

while not likely the case with this oil rig, is it completely ludicrous to imagine an extreme environmental group sabotaging something for political gain and impact?

isnt that exactly what ELF does?

5/1/2010 10:24:59 AM

salisburyboy, is that you?

5/1/2010 10:28:49 AM

apparently some conservatives are calling the spill "Obama's Katrina." The, um, parallels are breathtaking.

5/1/2010 11:39:56 AM

Quote :

"isnt that exactly what ELF does?"

no, it isn't.

5/1/2010 12:19:06 PM

The guy has the integrity of a murderer. Why anyone takes him seriously is beyond my comprehension.

5/1/2010 1:42:32 PM

Quote :

"apparently some conservatives are calling the spill "Obama's Katrina." "

well, in order for that to be true, they would be admitting to valuing oil more than human lives. ooohhhh conservatives.

5/1/2010 2:02:02 PM

Why would conservatives want the government to clean up BPs mess when they didn't want the gov. to clean up the banks' mess?

5/1/2010 2:32:03 PM

I was telling my conservative buddy at work that I would not be surprised if some right-wing nutjobs actually attempted to claim that radical liberal environmentalists blew up the rig to support their agenda.

Looks like Rush proved me right!!

If crazy environmentalists blew up this oil rig; then Dick Cheney masterminded the 9/11 attacks as the big conspiracy to justify his war with Afghanistan and Iraq

5/1/2010 2:43:58 PM

I believe Limbaugh was the one who first came out with the "Obama's Katrina" comment.

5/1/2010 5:08:08 PM

I almost jettisoned my beverage when I heard him start on that rant yesterday. He proceeded to lay out a time line of what the president was doing while events were unfolding in the Gulf. This whole event does put Rush in a pickle though. He is forced to chose between hating on the president and his apathy towards the environment.

5/1/2010 5:13:18 PM

The sad part is that I am sure their are plenty of dumb ignorant buffoons who swallow this crap from Rush hook, line, and sinker

5/1/2010 5:36:59 PM

^^ That conflict is about three levels too deep for any true dittohead to notice.

5/1/2010 6:13:59 PM

so by calling the spill, "Obama's Katrina" is Rush admitting that Bush screwed up??

5/1/2010 6:21:15 PM

tu quoque est Rushus modus operandi

5/1/2010 6:26:50 PM

Rush is not a serious political commenter, he's just an entertainer like Howard Stern. I know he has some influence, but caring about what he says is what he wants.

5/1/2010 6:55:44 PM

^ Howard Stern didn't spawn Hannity and Beck. Howard Stern spawned naked women on the radio.

He can call himself an entertainer until he's blue in his big-ass face, but that doesn't mean it's true. He provides long-form commentary, primarily of an incendiary form. By his metric, then all people that comment on current events are merely entertainers.

5/1/2010 7:15:04 PM

The first tower may have been an accident, but the second showed it was terrorism, right?

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=125004§ionid=3510203

5/1/2010 7:29:00 PM

^^ i'm saying it's blatantly obvious that he doesn't put any actual thought into his "analysis" of any event. it's just whatever he can say to get people talking about him.

This is different than Hannity, because Hannity I think actually believes what he's saying, and operates under the pretext that he's using rational thought. I don't think Limbaugh thinks this of himself for most things.

If the targets of Rush's "jokes" didn't get so upset, perhaps people like Hannity or Beck wouldn't have been spawned. But it's probably in the nature of humanity to react to shocking statements.

I think the best way to marginalize Rush is to laugh off his most ridiculous statements as lame jokes and just be dismissive of him like you would a kid throwing a tantrum. If you take him seriously and respond to him like he's serious, then other people will too.

5/1/2010 7:53:29 PM

Quote :

"Why would conservatives want the government to clean up BPs mess when they didn't want the gov. to clean up the banks' mess? "

I think its pretty clear things are getting worse. Getting ANYONE involoved who can help is a great idea at this point. However, to specifically address your point. One is paid for with taxpayer money, the other with BP's.

5/1/2010 8:53:22 PM

^ so you're saying the president DOESN'T need to get involved then? Because BP is taking care of things?

5/1/2010 9:12:05 PM

Well I dont think O himself with a rag or an idea is going to help. However, using manpower and equipment of the govt could help resolve this. Surely you can tell the difference on who is PAYING, moron. BP isnt in trouble bc of bad business decisions, there is an enviro emergency and its getting worse.

I doubt BP has access to military aircraft.

[Edited on May 1, 2010 at 9:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/1/2010 9:53:57 PM

Quote :

" The guy has the integrity of a murderer"

Murders are usually capable of keeping their mouths shut from time-to-time.

(not directly related to integrity, but there you go)

5/1/2010 9:58:20 PM

^^ so then you support the bank bailouts, because they too are paying that $$$ back?

And of course BP is in trouble because of bad business decisions. They built this well to a lower spec than is available (and required by some other countries). They took a gamble to save some money, and lost, now our gov. and environment is paying the penalty.

5/1/2010 10:19:16 PM

I'm quite impressed with his endurance. I'd find it difficult to fill 6 hours of air time each day.

5/1/2010 10:20:22 PM

Quote :

"They built this well to a lower spec than is available "

That is all that is required from my understanding.

And we are getting all of our bailout money back? I must have missed that. (btw, I think the govt does have to do something to ensure our financial system, but I dont agree with rewarding bad decisions, which seems the norm now) GM should have just gone through regular bankruptcy, no bailout at all.

5/1/2010 10:49:35 PM

eyedrb was against bailouts before he was against them.


Or rather, he had a knee-jerk reaction against whatever Obama did in this circumstance, and is now trying to rationalize it to save face.

5/2/2010 8:31:18 AM

^really. Can you tell me where I have said anything against what "Obama did in this circumstance"? Or are you just trying to give us an example of what is wrong with our public schools?

5/2/2010 9:29:03 AM

Quote :

"That is all that is required from my understanding."

I've seen a lot of this lately in the mining thread and the various threads on the economic crises.* Just because the US doesn't legally require you to do something doesn't mean it's always okay to not do it. I've heard a lot of "We haven't done anything wrong! We only acted as immorally as the government allowed us to!"

The United States, for whatever reason,** doesn't require that oil rigs have these secondary shutoff valve things. Most countries do require them. Most companies install them anyway. BP didn't. At about a half a million, it was deemed too expensive.

Is that okay? Is doing the bare minimum that the government requires all we're shooting for? Should we expect countries to do every imaginable immoral thing as long as it serves their bottom line and isn't technically illegal? Is that the best we can do?

Surely in your work as a physician you do far more for your patients than the government forces you to do. That comes from being a good businessman, but it also comes from just being a good person. You could give people the absolute worst medical care possible that wouldn't get your ass thrown in jail (I'm not sure exactly what that would entail, but I think Student Health Services might know something about that). You could do that, but I bet you don't--and I bet your reasons go beyond simply what is best for your bottom line.

I know I'm a ka-raaaazy optimist, but I would like to think that US corporations could be trusted to not destroy the world even if we don't force them not to. That is pretty unrealistic, though.

* Not specifically from you, eyedrb, and not specifically about oil companies. Honestly, this rant's genesis has more to do with the Goldman Sachs representative telling congress, with regards to Timberwolf, that they sold it because people would buy it. As in, "why did you sell this instrument that you knew to be a scam?" Answer: because and people were buying it.***
** j/k lolz, the reason is we have incredibly powerful oil lobbies
*** But whoops we forgot to tell anybody it was designed to fail! lolz our bad

5/2/2010 10:15:07 AM

Boone, I apologize for my last comment. It was unnecessary and rude.

Spooky, I understand your point. However our rigs are required to have those shutoff valves, just not a wireless ones. So they did have an emergency shut off, it appears that it malfunctioned too when the rig exploded. Is there any gurantee that the wireless one would have worked? I dunno really.

To speak about my profession specifically there are TONS of modern equipment I would love to have and help with treatment and diagnosis. But they arent free. We have a 80k laser in our bigger office but not in the one I work in most. We simply can't afford it. I try to send them to our other office but many decline. Standard of care for monitoring and treatment of glaucoma is to monitor IOP, Visual Fields, and Photos of the optic nerve head. However, scanning lasers and other technologies allow us to monitor nerve fiber layers loss years before we can pick it up on a VF or photo.

The flip side is, how much do we benefit from catchign it early and treating early? I wouldnt think too much, bc the numbers who actually lose vision from glaucoma is very low and most are due to noncompliance and not seeking care. Ive only seen two who have lost vision, one wanted to for disability(in memphis), the other was an inmate who was treated while in jail, got released and 8 yrs later was back in jail. He didnt get treatment while out and lost sight in one eye. An office could have had 800k worth of equip and it wouldnt have done a thing to prevent these two from going blind. My point is simply that throwing money for best tech or latest equipment doesnt always lead to better outcomes.

Look at auto safety for another. We are sacrificing safety for MPGs, and are actually forcing auto makers to do so. Im not saying its a bad thing, but there are alwasy consequences, some just arent as apparent on the surface.

Spooky, the point about Goldman is a good one, but I think the difference is they seem to have deliberately mislead or were dishonest, if indeed they knew they were selling junk.(as opposed to just offering an investment option) I dont see the BP example as the same. They built thier rig to spec. Just as if people burned to death in a building, you could then say well you should have put in more exits.

5/2/2010 10:58:34 AM

Quote :

"so by calling the spill, "Obama's Katrina" is Rush admitting that Bush screwed up??"

True

although personally, I don't really see how either of them did anything wrong.

Quote :

" We are sacrificing safety for MPGs, and are actually forcing auto makers to do so"

I think that new U.S. federal crash standards put in place over the last couple of years come at a cost of HUNDREDS of pounds. That's sacrificing MPG (and performance, and at least some money) for safety.




[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

5/2/2010 11:23:49 AM

Quote :

"although personally, I don't really see how either of them did anything wrong."

What? Appointing a political crony with no disaster response chops is correct? Heckuva job.

5/2/2010 12:09:04 PM

Duke, I disagree. The push for higher MPG is making automakers go with smaller lighter cars, which fair worse in accidents. Yes there are other ways to increase MPG but weight reduction is at the forefront. There are reporst that say CAFE standards helped cause about 2k deaths a year that would have been survivable in larger/heavier cars. I would think a larger car with all of todays safety advancements would be a safer pick than a fortwo.

5/2/2010 12:23:34 PM

Quote :

"I know I'm a ka-raaaazy optimist, but I would like to think that US corporations could be trusted to not destroy the world even if we don't force them not to. "

When in history has this ever been the case? Civilizations have gone extinct in the past from raping their environments.

5/2/2010 1:00:32 PM

you way too many sci-fi movies if you think a corporation would destroy the world just to make an extra buck. some pollution here and there? sure. that's what happens when the corporation knows it can sue anyone who complains into oblivion since it has friends in high places. while, yes, some civilizations have done some dumb things, they did so at the behest of religion, NOT dollars.


I know I don't usually advocate for gov't regulation, but this whole disaster could easily have been averted if a simple device were installed on the bottom of the ocean. A solenoid-operated valve that closes the valve on loss of power would have effectively prevented this whole thing. There would have been a spill of the oil in the line from the ocean floor up to the rig, but that would have been negligible. The only cost? running a mile of wire down to the ocean floor in a conduit and installing a solenoid valve. Seriously, this is common fucking sense.

[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 1:13 PM. Reason : ]

5/2/2010 1:04:16 PM

^ there has been more than 1 mediterranean civilization that died out because short-term acquisition of resources overshadowed planning for long term sustainability.

We see this type of thinking every day, most prominently in the past few months with the banks.

When i used to work at Best Buy a few years back, they would try to boost revenue at the cost of real profits with the specific goal of keeping the stock price up.

5/2/2010 1:10:15 PM

The bad guy is always on the top floor of the huge building the camera scrolled up, smoking a cigar and killing trees, babies, secretaries, etc to earn a buck. He learned a lot in his best buy days.

5/2/2010 1:13:25 PM

forgive me if I think a failing bank falls short of "destroying the world."

5/2/2010 1:13:57 PM

^^ to some, capitalism is a religion. worship of the almighty dollar has been a contributing factor to quite a few disasters in american history. the point is still valid.

5/2/2010 1:14:01 PM

i knew someone would say that

5/2/2010 1:15:50 PM

^ take any of the recent mine accidents in WVa. QED.

5/2/2010 1:37:53 PM

Quote :

"forgive me if I think a failing bank falls short of "destroying the world." "

huh?

who said anything about destroying the world? haha… weird...

5/2/2010 1:41:07 PM

so, moron, did you even read the very quote you responded to in your own post?

^^ all the WVa mine incident proves is that when the foxes are guarding the henhouse, you lose chickens.

5/2/2010 2:58:10 PM

Apparently Limbaugh isn't the only one that wants to say fucking stupid stuff this week.

Bill Kristol Thinks We Should Be Drilling Closer To Shore
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-kristol-thinks-we-should-be-drilling-closer-to-shore/

Quote :

"So, look it was a bad accident. But the fact is, I think we get something like 1/3 of our domestic oil from off-shore drilling in the Gulf. We need it. And we can’t cut back on it. Incidentally, if we hadn’t stopped closer in drilling, after the Santa Barbara 40 years ago…we’d have a lot more drilling closer in, which is probably less dangerous, less treacherous than trying to drill 15 miles out form the coast. And incidentally if we wanted to have some on shore drilling there’s this thing called ANWAR up in Alaska, which is right there. There are no waves, there is no ocean…perfectly easy to drill a lot of oil there. So I’m a drill baby drill person. "

He wants to drill even closer to shore. Please, please, please explain how this is a good idea.

5/2/2010 4:00:00 PM

because you don't have to drop a drill bit so fucking deep. durrr. thus, if something goes wrong, it's easier to get to the cut off. durrr.

5/2/2010 4:11:24 PM

Or so that if something DOES go wrong (you're an engineer, you know it's gonna happen sooner or later), you're that much closer to landfall and even more ecological damage. That cuts both ways.

5/2/2010 4:24:04 PM

i mean, yeah, it does. but I'd say being closer to the action decreases the likelihood of shit happening. But, yes, when shit happens, it does mean you are closer to land. But, that could also help, as then you are closer to resources to fix it, as well.

5/2/2010 4:54:01 PM

Quote :

"Obama's Katrina"

Katrina:


Oil Spill:






[Edited on May 2, 2010 at 7:49 PM. Reason : .]

5/2/2010 7:48:41 PM

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/oil-hits-louisiana-coast-could-reach-florida-by-sunday/1091532

Quote :

"Pundit Rush Limbaugh, who has a home on Florida's Palm Beach, suggested that the explosion could have resulted from Earth Day eco-sabotage by one of the rig workers. Limbaugh also said a cleanup was unnecessary. "The ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there," Limbaugh said. "It's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is." "

lolwut

5/3/2010 11:32:37 AM