In the white House presser we are being told the oil is "dispersed" and breaking down.

[Stinky The Clown]

[asdjrocky]

1. I have no idea what to believe any longer. nt

[earth mom]

80. Believe what you see with your own eyes. Don't let THEM tell you what to think. nt

[joeybee12]

2. Thank God! That means it's not in the food chain, right, it's completely

gone, right?

Those idiots.

I don't know what irritates me more...the lies, or that they think we're that stupid.

[katandmoon]

3. The lies never stop

[yellowcanine]

5. I am sure the NOAA scientists appreciate being called liars.

This information was from a report by NOAA scientists. Do you have a reason for not believing them or is this just a case of calling any information you don't understand "lies"?

[spanone]

8. i think there have been enough misleading statements to be skeptical

[Individualist]

9. plus the fact that NOAA is a government agency

and government agencies say what the administration tells them to say.

[NoNothing]

12. Oh oh oh

You mean like the IPCC?

War on science, indeed.

[jpak]

87. Yes - it IS a conspiracy

trust no one!

:D

[jpak]

32. Dr. Jane Lubchenko is a marine ecologist and a past president of the Ecological Society of America

yet some folks are quick to call her a liar

which sez a lot

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

39. what a stupid unsubstantiated claim

double plus stupid

yup

[Javaman]

65. While the claim might be stupid...

you have to stand back and see what benefits the government the most.

If they state that there is still a mess, then more and more legal claims pile up. More and more people demand investigations, etc. These reactions were slowly spinning out of control to other areas of our nation where the ecology was being destroyed. What of the Michigan Spill? That got hushed up.

But if they state that "all is well" and it's claims are backed by someone who is "important"; then the whole mess gets pushed to the back of the room, so they can proceed onto whatever they deem important brainwash us with.

oil may disperse but it doesn't vanish and will continue into the food chain as well as the illegal dispersant BP was spraying.

We will be feeling the effects of this spill for generations.

I can't wait to see what happens in about 5 to 6 months when the first kids are born from people affected in that area and how they turn out.

[earth mom]

81. So what? Scientists can lie too if the price is right. nt

[jpak]

86. So Obama is paying scientists to lie? What horseshit

:rofl:

[Cetacea]

91. Didn't she also say the leak was 5,0000 barrels/day?

I do respect her creds, but I think that a lot of people are running too soon with BP's "facts".

[katandmoon]

36. Tough fucking shit.

[Raineyb]

68. Would this be the same NOAA that BP had been keeping away from the data?

I'm more than a bit skeptical. I don't believe them one whit.

[Donnachaidh]

98. they should -- it's what they ARE

You really think BP hasn't got tentacles into that group too? I have this bridge you'll LOVE to own.... :sarcasm:

[Individualist]

6. +1

[RKP5637]

4. White House presser = endless bull shit. n/t

[phleshdef]

7. The climate in the gulf of Mexico does lend itself to dealing with oil better than Alaska.

This possibility was brought up when this whole thing first happened.

[Javaman]

66. And you know this how? because they told you so?

:rofl:

Yeah, because it's so big that it will have no adverse effect upon nature at all! LOL

Priceless, simply priceless.

[phleshdef]

82. Dont put fucking words into my post that I did not type.

I never said anything about it not having an adverse effect on nature. I'm just pointing out that an area like the gulf can handle getting rid of it better than an area like the coasts of Alaska. More exposure to higher temperatures = more evaporation. Its simple fucking grade school science to begin with. If you don't have that much down, I can't help you.

There were a lot of articles put out by people in the environmental science community when the disaster first hit highlighting that fact. I'd search around and see if I could find it again, but it probably wouldn't make any difference to you. You are more interested in inventing arguments and assigning them to people that didn't make them so that you can then argue back, all to make yourself feel smart or something I suppose.

[Javaman]

88. "gulf can handle getting rid of it better than an area like the coasts of Alaska"

it doesn't get rid of anything. Wow!

the difference is: Alaska's coast got hit so it's easy to see. They gulf gets hit a hell of a lot harder, but the stuff is still there.

You want grade school science, Okay, here you go...

"When a liquid evaporates, its molecules must separate themselves from their attachment with
others in the liquid and then move off into the air space above. Heating the liquid makes the
molecules move faster and weakens their attachment to each other. That is why warm liquids may
evaporate more quickly than if they were cold.

Nevertheless, the molecules in some kinds of liquids, like oil for example, are rather large and
well-tangled up and attached to each other. This means that evaporation, if it occurs at all, is
very slow. That is why cooking oil, even though sometimes heated to a very high temperature,
does not evaporate to an appreciable extent."

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03025.htm

Keep digging, have fun!

[Oregone]

10. And all the arsenic in the oil must of evaporated too!

Right...that can happen, right?

[Javaman]

69. But of course it did! LOL

Because it just magically goes away!

I'm sure more than enough people on the down side of mountain top removal and gold mining tilling sites will agree!

We live in sad times.

[kenny blankenship]

84. It broke down into its constituent elements: candy floss and pixie dust

and was thus rendered sweet and harmless.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. = "we can give BP back its $20 Billion now" nt

[daa]

13. Where has the oil gone?

By Samantha Joye | Published: August 1, 2010 3:26am
The Deepwater Horizon wellhead that tapped the Macondo reservoir was capped on 15 July 2010. After the venting of oil and gas into the Gulf waters was stopped, everyone felt a sense of relief. Multiple news outlets have reported that the surface oil has disappeared, for the most part. I read many reports that stated conclusively the oil had been either transferred to the atmosphere (via evaporation) or that it had been consumed by oil-eating microorganisms. Everyone’s reaction was, not surprisingly, ‘what a relief !!’.

Should we be relieved? Is this disaster over?

On the whole, I believe the answer to both questions is no. It is a relief that the volume of surface oil is reduced, as this lowers the probability of oil-fouling of coastal beaches and marshes. However, it’s likely that a great deal of oil is still out there in the Gulf of Mexico’s waters, it’s just no longer visible to us.

While some of the oil has most certainly evaporated, much of it was dispersed and this oil is still floating around, invisible to our eyes, within the ocean’s water column. Some of the oil has probably sedimented to the seafloor, where it is also invisible to our eyes. The fact that this oil is “invisible” makes it no less of a danger to the Gulf’s fragile ecosystems. Quite the contrary, the danger is real and the danger is much more difficult to quantify, track and assess.

And, what about the dissolved gases, mainly methane? Very few measurements of methane concentrations have been made and very few people are thinking about methane’s potential impacts on Gulf deep waters. We, and a couple of others, have measured remarkably high methane concentrations in the water column. Its oxidation, and the microbial growth it fuels, will influence oxygen and nutrient budgets in the deepwater.

What about the dispersants? Where have they gone and what is their impact in the system? How are dispersants influencing the organisms that call the Gulf’s waters, beaches and marshes home? We do not know the answers to these questions but we need to know.

The impacts of the oil, gas and dispersant on the Gulf’s ecosystems will be felt for years, if not decades. We cannot pretend the danger has passed for it has not. Additional and on-going studies of open water, deep seafloor, and coastal dynamics are necessary. We must be diligent and we must insist that long-term monitoring programs be established and maintained so that we can evaluate and insure the recovery of the Gulf’s ecosystems.

http://gulfblog.uga.edu/

[Blue Owl]

14. Oh and we're winning in Afghanistan, too

n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. *sigh* It's a corporate world. We're just living in it.

[scheming daemons]

16. People are emotionally invested in bad news.... they won't accept good news

That's what is happening in this thread.

[spanone]

17. not really, they are just wondering which stories to believe.

[NoNothing]

20. I would tend to believe the stories told by the scientists

They tend to be more fact-based.

[Individualist]

22. Did you believe NOAA when they lied about underwater plumes of oil

and that they later admitted existed?

Government agencies say whatever the administration wants them to say.

[scheming daemons]

24. If they "later admitted it".... that would imply it was not a "lie", but a "mistake"

Scientists revise estimates as new data comes in.


They may in this case too... in either direction.

[Individualist]

26. rofl

Have you ever worked for the federal government? I have!

[scheming daemons]

29. Yes..... I work for a government contractor right now....

... at a scientific lab.


Scientists don't care much about the politics.... they just analyze the data.

[katandmoon]

38. I'm sure that was the case under the Bush administration too.

[scheming daemons]

46. The scientists weren't the problem during Bush's administration.....

[jpak]

58. ummm...in Obama's inaugural address he vowed to "return science to its rightful place"

and he has - Jane Lubchancko is s real marine ecologist - not a GOP political hack

Bush has not been president for some time

FYI

[Individualist]

40. a government contractor...

okey dokey.

[Subdivisions]

41. That explains sooooo much. n/t

[scheming daemons]

44. What does it explain? I'm employed by a company that does work for the Dept. of Energy

What's your job?

[Subdivisions]

47. I sell alternative energy products. Does that make you better than me? ARE

you better than me?

[scheming daemons]

57. Did I imply that in ANY way? Did I say that your profession "explains so much"???

Interesting that you insult MY line of work, and when I tell you what I do ... you have the nerve to say that I'm saying I'm "better" than you?



It's great that you sell alternative energy products. Kudos...



But take that chip off your shoulder, skippy. I didn't insult you, you insulted me... remember?

[Subdivisions]

61. 'I work for the DoE (sic). What's your job?'

As if you are better than me because you work for the DoE (or a contractor of the DoE).

Big deal.

"That explains sooooo much." I have worked in gov contracting. If your paycheck comes from .gov, you're not as inclined to engage in dissent of the government for fear of losing the funding that includes your pay. Even if this premise doesn't apply exactly to you, it does apply in countless ways.

Chip on my shoulder? Pot calling the kettle...well, you know the rest.

[scheming daemons]

42. contracted by the DOE

[Individualist]

49. Big whoop.

I know all about contractor positions; I used to screen them for employment.

[flamingdem]

51. Oil spill dispersant could damage coral populations - 3 august newscientist.com

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19260-oil-spill-dispersant-could-damage-coral-populations.html

Oil spill dispersant could damage coral populations

* 17:45 03 August 2010 by Sujata Gupta

Coral populations in the Gulf of Mexico could fall because of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster – from contact not with oil but with the dispersant that's supposed to get rid of it.

Laboratory tests suggest that Corexit 9500A, the dispersant used by BP to tackle the largest offshore oil spill in US history, stops coral larvae latching onto the surfaces where they usually mature.

The larvae, often the size of a pinhead, float in the sea before latching onto surfaces such as rocks on the sea floor, cliff faces or old oil rigs. It takes hundreds of years for a mature colony to develop.

Researchers at Mote Marine Laboratory in Summerland Key, Florida, studied how larvae of shallow-water Mustard Hill corals (Porites astreoides) settled onto cement discs in three different combinations of liquids: seawater and oil, seawater and Corexit 9500A, and a combination of all three. Concentrations of oil and dispersant were comparable to those likely to be found around the Deepwater Horizon well head before it was capped.

The team observed the larvae for 48 hours, which is around the time it takes for most coral larvae to settle. Preliminary and as yet unpublished results show larvae in the oil-water mix are able to latch onto the discs, whereas those in beakers containing the dispersant remained suspended in the water.
Deeply risky

Though the Mustard Hill coral and their offspring in the Florda keys are not yet exposed to oil or dispersants, researchers studying deep-sea corals that reside closer to the broken well head are concerned by the results.

"You should test each individually, but of course we can't usually do that," says Steve Ross, a zoologist and deep-sea coral specialist at the University of North Carolina in Wilmington. "I think we can assume that if there's a negative impact on one type of coral… there will be a negative impact on another."

[EFerrari]

56. Um, Ivor Van Heerden was threatened with his job by NOAA

for pushing back when the White House knew about the levees failing almost a full day before they notified anyone. He was the deputy director as the LSU Hurricane Center. Scientists may not care about politics but they sure get caught up in them. Just like all the scientists the FBI hired to tell them Ivins mailed anthrax. It's pretty common.

[daa]

71. He was fired eom

[jpak]

43. When did NOAA scientists *lie* about underwater plumes?

was this before there was any CTD data to substantiate any claims one way or another?

yup!

and FAIL

[Cetacea]

92. Which scientists? Independent ones or those under BP payrolls?

[Stinky The Clown]

27. Hi, scheming daemons! Thanks for sharing.

:hi:

[SidDithers]

48. +1...nt

Sid

[flamingdem]

53. Oil Dispersant Working Its Way Into The Food Chain

http://www.justmeans.com/Oil-Dispersant-Working-Its-Way-Into-Food-Chain/24408.html

I just read an article describing the use of a chemical dispersant as a method to break up the oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The problem is obviously severe, as BP is willing to put a chemical to disperse the oil, rather than collect it for profit. It is understandable that the situation has gone further than anyone would ever have imagined, and now we're at a crux situation. Without intending to sound cynical, I'm not surprised that the petroleum industry responds with a chemical made from petroleum distillates: Corexit.

Even the name Corexit (corrects it) bothers me significantly; it implies that there is a "fix it" chemical, when in fact, the probability of the problem being compounded is far greater.

Corexit is a chemical made from six substances, five of which are listed as hazardous:


1. Distillates

2. petroleum,

3. hydrotreated light

4. Propylene Glycol

5. Organic sulfonic acid salt


Here is the Material Safety Sheet for your own investigation. It states that prolonged exposure to the skin is slightly caustic and that - though it is not normally a "likely route of exposure"- ingesting the chemical can "cause chemical pneumonia if aspirated into lungs following ingestion."

Except now we might be seeing a more "likely route of exposure" as the dispersant will break up oil into tiny particles that will be consumed by sea life, which, in turn, we eat. That is, of course, if the sea life lives long enough to find its way on to our plates.

Television Spin:

KTRK, Houston, ABC 13 aired a video with a person dressed like a scientist explaining what the dispersant does. He claimed that Corexit is safer than dish soap, later reiterated by the segment host:

"The dispersant has been used around the world at oil spills, and studies have actually shown that the toxicity levels in ice cream, shampoo and a chocolate candy bar, are higher. But one study that has not been performed is the impact of the dispersant at 5000 feet underwater, where BP has been using an extraordinary amount of the chemical. Still, most analysts agree, the dispersant is still the best and quickest temporary solution."


My first question was: "If this chemical is so safe, why is this guy wearing safety goggles and gloves?

picture-16And it's not that I don't necessarily believe the words he's saying are true; rather, I don't think he's telling the whole truth. He says the dispersant is safe, but the Material Safety Sheet says otherwise (It does say carries a low toxicity level in small amounts, but as we're seeing the use of it in enormous amounts, the low toxicity claim is somewhat nullified).

And now we're finding evidence of not only oil, but Corexit in the larvae of the blue crab.

The truth is, nobody knows what's going to happen - and which is worse? Leaving the oil on the top? Or encouraging it to break down? I don't have that answer. And neither does the EPA: On May 20, 2010, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, "this is unprecedented volumes of dispersants used so far" when talking about the chemical dispersant known as Corexit being used to break down oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

I do know, that while watching the "scientist" perform his test, one beaker full with oil & dispersant; the other with just oil, the murky dispersant beaker seemed almost worse to me. At least with the oil floating on the top, there was still some clear water underneath. My immediate concern is that as the oil and dispersant work their way into the food system, how long will it take to clear out?

And I truly want to believe that the companies involved are doing everything they can to create the least amount of impact possible, but I'm truly concerned for the lack of testing of these chemicals in this quantity. It doesn't look good for sustainable food on the seafood front.

Photos taken from video via Youtube, KTRK, Houston, ABC 13

[daa]

73. YOU eat fish from the gulf

I won't ever again. I suppose you believe Obama was eating fish from the gulf when he was there too. Not likely.

[LoZoccolo]

95. +1 with a thousand zeroes after it n/t

[Donnachaidh]

99. and other people would claim that they were only getting a chemical peel if acid was poured

on their head by their *heroes*.

:eyes:

[madrchsod]

18. well it`s kinda like katrina

after the cameras are gone and the country moves on there will still be the remains to deal with. and if katrina is any example of what the gulf coast in in for....

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Incrementally reducing the damage = reducing BP's penalty and fine.

[scheming daemons]

25. Doesn't work that way. They are fined based on amount spilled, not on damage done.

$4300 per barrel.

5 million barrels.


That's $21.5 billion in fines alone. Doesn't count the $20 billion in the trust fund.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. Do *you* think they'll pay that?

[scheming daemons]

30. I think it will end up going to court at some point and they'll settle for somewhat less

They'll get the fines reduced to some amount less than $4300 per barrel.


Either that.... or they'll file for bankrupcy.

[Stinky The Clown]

52. So you agree? The fines are negotiable bullshit

Did you ever pay a reduced rate for your parking ticket?

There are two standards, pal, and you're arguing for the one that FUCKS you.

[scheming daemons]

59. Actually... yes... I have argued my way out of a ticket

Speeding. 15 MPH over. Got the fine reduced and points taken off.



You've never fought a traffic ticket and got the penalties reduced?




It's reality, stinky. BP has rich and powerful lawyers. They'll settle out of court for a large amount, but not the amount they SHOULD pay.


It's the system we live in.

[Stinky The Clown]

63. You okay with the system?

Because I honestly see almost no attempt to change it.

[scheming daemons]

67. It's been the "system" for every cilization since homo sapiens first stood upright

The powerful play by their own set of rules.


A man came along 2000 years ago, tried to change it... got killed.... and then had his message bastardized by those same powerful folks.



It is what it is.


As long as there are people, there will be quests for power over them. And those that attain that power will use it to their advantage.


It's human nature.


This is why strong regulations are a necessary thing in an advanced society. Left to their own devices, the powerful will destroy the non-powerful. Every time. In every society that's ever existed. Everywhere on the planet.

[Stinky The Clown]

75. A long time ago, I shocked a far, far lefty as we discussed capitalism

I proclaimed myself a capitalist. I still do. I am a company owner and an employer. I am an invetment real estate owner. I am not a communist. I enjoy profit and seek to maximize it . . . . . .

. . . . . within reasonable, responsible limits.

I FAVOR government intervention in business.

I favor regulation.

I favor managed capitalism (oddly, so does the Chinese government).

I favor rigging the system such that the reward of great corporate success is the break-up of the winning company.

I favor a hard-stop separation of government and business with draconian penalties for violating it. That includes lobbying and campaign financing.

I favor a mandated maximum ratio between the highest paid employee and the lowest paid employee.

I favor taxing investment income at the same rate as labor wages.

etc.

[scheming daemons]

77. Stop it... before I start liking you

[TheKentuckian]

21. It's bullshit. Everyone loves a happy ending so much that it is easy to believe

and just move along after being told their is nothing to see here.

We know the portion they burned or recovered was infinitesimal which means we figure out where it went or swallow crazy shit that millions of barrels of oil evaporated and this quick.

I'm thinking a similar amount of water would be hard pressed to evaporate at such a rate that in two weeks almost every drop spilled on the fifteenth day back would be gone.

Where is the oil, how much was it, and what is it doing are real questions that are being met with fairy tales.
Oil went poof, is magic talk for those who wish to no longer think about it.

[scheming daemons]

23. Your lack of scientific knowledge is the basis for your doubt

Gallons of water on earth:.....326,000,000,000,000,000,000
Gallons of water in GOM:...........650,000,000,000,000,000
Gallons of oil spilled in GOM:.................200,000,000


Gallons of water that evaporate each day on the planet (to become rain).....: 2,000,000,000,000


Yes.... 20,000 times more water evaporates each day on earth than the amount of oil that spilled into the gulf. By the way, 200,000,000 gallons is the most pessimistic estimate of oil spilled.




I understand that you are emotionally invested in this not being true. But it is.

[NoNothing]

31. Nicely put

If the Gulf were an olympic-sized swimming pool, and the oil was 100% arsenic, the water in the pool would still, according to the EPA, be safe to drink.

[yawnmaster]

85. put another way ( I like the swimming pool analogy)...

If you swim in a public pool, you are in contact with, getting in your eyes, swallowing, more urine, spit, dead skin, other things than the oil you would be in contact with if you swam in the gulf.

so...swim in a public pool or the gulf? your choice!

[TheKentuckian]

93. grok no no ocean has much water. grok no no gulf have much water but less than all seas

Grok did not know lots of water evaporates, grok had no idea where come from rains that give water to land.

You smart, you help Grok. Now grok see oil go poof just like water and come back as rain like sea.

Grok glad smart friend help Grok, Grok not smart.

[Cleita]

33. I'm waiting for the Cousteaus and Sea Shepherd

to dive down and take a look before I believe anything coming out of BP and our government.

[Subdivisions]

54. All that oil that Philippe dived into is apparently gone. n/t

[Cleita]

97. Sure it is, in the Magic Kingdom maybe. n/t

[blindpig]

34. Well, I guess BP is off the hook....

If their PR Department sez it then it must be so.

Fines, compensations and restoration cost will be settled well before the data is complete and we shall 'move forward'.

If this don't make ya sick then what's wrong with ya?(rhetorical)

Kill Capitalism

[kenny blankenship]

35. So you see, folks, all you got to do when you have waste oil to dispose of

is to just pour it out somewhere. That's correct. Doesn't matter where - your backyard, your neighbor's backyard, or a handy but fragile ecosystem full of diverse and exotic life forms - just pour that nasty old oil out and forget about it.

Nature will take care of it -and a lot sooner than you think! Hint: for even quicker action pour it out in moving water - it's like nothing ever happened.

[Subdivisions]

45. Yep, just throw your waste oil into the sea. It'll be gone quick. n/t

[SidDithers]

50. K&R. Good news...

Thanks for posting, Stinky!

Sid

[uppityperson]

55. It is dispersed and breaking down, but doesn't mean it's gone away or dispersal is good

It is dispersed around the wetlands and a bunch of places in the ocean. It is not one huge mess but a whole bunch of smaller messes. Yes, it is breaking down but how long will that take?

That statement can be totally accurate yet very very very misleading.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. Welcome to the presser!

Now go sit in the back and shut up. You ask too many questions. :sarcasm:

[Forkboy]

60. Hey, if you can't trust governments and big oil, who can you trust?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Good.

I guess it's time for all the "OMG, the gulf is dead, this spill will kill off all the plankton in the seas and doom us all" nuts to apologize for their fearmongering. Not that I'll expect it. They'll probably just invent another conspiracy theory about how "the real damage is being covered up."

[happy_liberal]

64. The US has the best health care in the world!

:grr:

[yawnmaster]

70. will someone PLEASE show some evidence that this is bullshit?

real evidence.
not "they told lies before and they are lying now".
not "where could that oil have gone?"
not "everyone knows its a lie".

just some unbiased evidence.
either way actually.

[scheming daemons]

78. +1

[Subdivisions]

89. Yes, where is that pesky data? I'd like to see the data that was used

to generate today's WH press briefing report.

Happen to know how I could get my grubby little hands on it?

[yawnmaster]

102. No I don't, and I'd like to see it too...

as I've stated, I'd like to see evidence from either side, instead of hyperbole.

[bvar22]

72. Hooray!!!

All that oil just disappeared!!!
And I was worried...LOL

This is great news!
The next time you change the oil in your car,
just pour the old oil in the nearest river,
because it just goes away!

Don't worry.
Be happy,
and CONSUME!

[laughingliberal]

74. +1 nt

[yawnmaster]

83. one of the problems with pouring it down the drain...and this is ONLY one...

is that rivers and drains have no natural organisms to digest the oil, since oil is not normally found there.
Whereas in the gulf, and elsewhere in the world, oil has been leaking from the ground, naturally, for eons and micro-organisms have adapted there to digest the oil, and they do it very well.
Please don't pour car oil down the drain (in addition your auto oil contains metal and other things that natural oil does not and for which micro-organisms can not normally handle).

thank you

[Subdivisions]

90. But it wouldn't hurt anything to throw it off a pier in Galveston, right? n/t

[yawnmaster]

101. it would hurt locally, but not as much as putting in the river.

And it would be consumed faster than if it were dumped in the river.

[Autumn]

103. Is it consumed or just moved out of the area

by ocean currents? I would think the latter.

[yawnmaster]

104. Actually both. The oil will eventually get consumed. The gulf is full of...

micro-organisms that have evolved to do this, since the gulf is loaded with oil and there have been natural leaks well before man was even walking on two legs. The ocean currents will definitely move it around but at the same time it is being consumed by the bacteria that thrives on it.

My point is that in rivers these organisms don't exist or at least aren't as plentiful.

[earth mom]

79. War is Peace. Oil is Healthy. So that's the new lie being fed us?

My gawd, they must think we are all as dumb as a box of rocks.

Remember the Exxon Valdez spill?

That spill was worse, a gazillion times worse!!!

[yellowcanine]

105. In your cartoon world maybe. I heard nothing of the kind. Neither did you.

Because no one said that. Just because it makes a cute soundbite doesn't mean it should be said.

[City Lights]

94. Paging Officer Barbrady...

[bvar22]

96. Look on the bright side..

A couple of more weeks at this rate,
and we will be thanking BP FOR the wonderful Oil Spill,
AND paying their Upper Management bonuses out of the Public Treasury.
.
.
.
Not too big a leap when you consider that this IS exactly what we did for Wall Street.

[nc4bo]

100. Too sad to put into words. Truly. nt