Responding to Creilman's large post above...

First I want to go down the list of bullet point
 

1. Did they lie about how much oil there was or make a bad estimate. This spill was epic in scope. More than any before.
2. They did a little photoshop, but mostly to make it look cool, not to create a lie.
3. I am not sure that the retrict reporters story is 100% true. Even if it is, it doesnt mean that the situation is worse than it is.
4. Again this could be PR related, but did it really impact anything?
5. So off all the scietists in the world BP owns some and controls their publication ability? Is this really anything?

Anytime you throw a series of bullet points together it seems more important than each issue by itself.

I admit of course there is still some oil below the surface. And that damage was done to the enviroment. I am not saying this isnt anything. What I am saying is that this isnt a global scale disaster. I want to point out that Rush seems closer to accurate on the scale of this than a lot of the enviromentalists that were on CNN in the last month. That the left always makes anything like this seem worse than it is.

This was the worst event of this nature in history. We may never have anything this bad again. If this is as bad as it gets it seems like drilling isnt as big a risk as some would tell you.

Wow.  Straight out of the world of willful ignorance.  Is it as blissful as they say, Swamp?

If we start form a position that BP is evil and we have to prove they are not evil you are right.

If we start from everyone gets a fair shake and what can you prove I think my position becomes valid.

What evidence do you have of malice of intent on BPs part? I presented resonable responses to your questions. I think you laid it on kind of thick, and strung together unrelated issues to make BP look worse.

I listed facts about BP's behavior since the spill started.  I do not believe there was malice or intent on BP's part (dangerous and willful negligence, yes), but there is a high incentive, in the tune of billions of dollars, for them to downplay the severity of the spill.  Fines and compensation to victims will have a lot to do with the amount of oil spilled.

You don't think they've had a fair shake?  This is akin to trying a case against a serial killer and only allowing testimony and evidence from the killer without allowing the prosecution to provide any evidence, question any witnesses, or do any research on the case at all.  They just have to sit there and let the defendant tell it like it is.

So you compare BP to a serial killer, but claim no bias.

You listed facts, or at least possible facts. Does the photoshop thing mean anything? Does the restricting reporters mean anything? Does the image of the gusing gyser mean anything. Do these 3 things matter in the end?  In the end can they control a story of this size?

Isnt there an incentive for the enviromentalists to make this seem worse than it is?

You listed facts, or at least possible facts. Does the photoshop thing mean anything? Does the restricting reporters mean anything? Does the image of the gusing gyser mean anything. Do these 3 things matter in the end?  In the end can they control a story of this size? 

Yes, those things matter and yes they can and are controlling the story.  They're giving false information while not allowing reporters to conduct investigations.  They've unleashed their PR campaign and the corporate media is regurgitating it.  Of course, you are buying it.  

Swamp, it wouldn't be an issue if you brought this up as a question, "is this as bad as originally thought".  It's that you are so eager to jump on the bandwagon of any piece of opinion that you come across that doesn't disturb your rigid mindset.  You do this without considering that there is a wide range of opinions about this disaster that still exist.  You do this without considering that no conclusive studies are even close to being completed on the damage that has been done.  You do this even in the face of evidence that there is still a very significant amount of oil out there, not just in the deep sea, but right underneath the beaches that are supposably clean.  Did you even watch the news footage I linked?  They can see oil bubble up from below the sand as they walk over it.  

The perpetrator, the one who has everything to gain if people just forget about this and move on, is telling you that everything is not that bad and you're just willing to believe that.  

OK, lets be fair.

BP is trying to make it look like it is less than  it is. No problem admitting that. Does BP control the truth. Getting people on the street to not hate them seems logical. I am sure you dont think that BP is winning the PR war.

So how much control does BP have. As far as I can tell the limiting of reporters is at worst limited. Maybe in areas where work is being done, but not on a whole area way. Reports are being filed daily by every network.

Did you feel your access to seeing the web page with the spewing oil was limited? 

My main point is if we put this in a scale of 1-5.

1 Epic disaster
2 Major disaster
3 Bad incident
4 Minor incident
5 nothing serious

I say all the coverage has been putting it between 1 and 2. Lots of 1 talk.

Seems like it is between 2-4 and closer to between 3-4.

I dont think it is our side who is being unreasonable or unfair or not looking at the reality of the situation.

Can you give a similar example for each of your 5 disasters points, not including the BP spill?

1 Cherynobol
2 Bhopal
3 Exxon Valdez
4 Three mile island
5 Exrything else.

Why don't you ask the oyster company that had to close its doors and the fisherman put out of business if it was a disaster or not.

On the bright side, if swamp is right (pause for laughter) the the republicans can't ***** about Obama's lack of response.

Of course they can. You make it sound as though the GOP tries to have a rational basis for their criticisms.

Posted by antonsirius on 8/10/2010 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Of course they can. You make it sound as though the GOP tries to have a rational basis for their criticisms.

Another popular liberal talking point currently being pushed by lefists.

The entire Republican party opposes everything Obama says because they are hateful racists. Not based on his attempts to take the American economy on a radical swing to the left. Not based on time tested economic beliefs.

Republicans are doing what makes sense based on their belief structure.

I can't be the only one who wants to troll the "worst disaster that never happened" thread in a way that would get me banned from the EU.

What radical swing to the left as Obama made on anything? He's at-most a centrist, but with the way he's handled wall street and the military, Obama acts like a mid-nineties republican.