Community Blogs
BP Chief goes to yacht race...while President Obama golfs.
Funny how the mainstream media is choosing to ignore the fact that yes, while BP CEO Tony Hayward did indeed visit a yacht race over the weekend, President Barry Obama was hitting the links...all while oil continued to spew into the Gulf of Mexico...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37798557/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/?ns=disaster_in_the_gulf?GT1=43001
...and this clueless, arrogant, man-child is out playing golf? OK, we've got two wars going on, the economy stinks, jobs are being lost (except those taxpayer-funded government jobs!), illegals are streaming into our country, our Constitution is being trashed, the government is suing the state of Arizona for enforcing a federal law, socialized medicine may become a reality, Iran and North Korea are building nuclear weapons without hesitation, Obama has angered our closest allies in Israel and the UK - not to mention Poland and the Czech Republic, and there is a bit of an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine for one moment if President Bush was in charge. He'd have been impeached by now...
Didn't President Bush give up his golf game after lefties hooted and hollered about how cold and mean-spirited it was of Bush - playing golf while our soldiers were dying during a time of war! How could the president be golfing??? Yet, already Obama has played more golf during his short time as Prez than Bush did his entire two terms!
So why did the mainstream media only report on the CEO of BP visiting a yacht race?
Tony Hayward isn't the President of the United States. From "Obama goes golfing again:" "And besides that, Mr. Hayward was not the one who took an oath to uphold the constitution and defend the county against all enemies both foreign and domestic. It was not a republican who was sworn in either. Obama is a democrat, right? When will the media stop trying to protect The One from honest scrutiny? These same journalists (and I use the term very loosely) wouldn't have hesitated for one moment to report on President Bush if he had gone golfing during the Gulf Oil crisis. And if Bush's golf game coincided with the CEO of BP attending a yacht race, the two would have been linked - no question. Why, these "oil men" - out enjoying themselves while the Gulf Oil spill is still in crisis mode! What juicy headlines and stories those would have been!
Instead, the public is only treated to reports on how cold and callus the CEO of BP is for attending a yacht race on his day off. As one Louisiana business owner put it: "I don't think he has any feelings." Although this gulf resident was referring to Tony Hayward, perhaps this same person would have used the identical words to describe Barry Obama - if the media would have reported on how the Prez was spending HIS free time..
Can't wait to hear how anyone defends this clown...
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (51)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
97 Comments
sirlaughsalittle - Jun 21, 2010 11:22 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc
Bush said he gave up golf in August 2003: "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. ... I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." Bush was also seen playing golf in October 2003, as a video MSNBC aired shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUrc3RzKXXc&feature=related
Presidents past and present have been known to relax by playing golf.
Besides, golf is a sport that the common man can relate to. Yachting is generally reserved for the filthy rich. To equate the two is stupid.
Carl Hicks - Jun 21, 2010 12:08 PM
let nature take care of it...
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 12:13 PM
How many of these "GOPS" were playing golf with someone in the oil industry?
How many black friends do you have Hemmer?
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 12:19 PM
And Bush was roundly criticized by many on the left - and news organizations - for golfing during war time.
Go to "The Media's Golf Double Standard" at:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-21/the-medias-double-standard-on-presidential-golf/full/
Love this excerpt:
"Bush was also constantly ridiculed and criticized for playing golf, most memorably by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9/11. In August 2003, Bush gave up the game, believing it sent the wrong message to grieving parents of soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, he was ridiculed for that as well."
And this:
"And how about this headline from The Washington Post: “Just the Sport for a Leader Most Driven.” Richard Leiby reports, “To some, Obama’s frequent outings reflect a cool self-confidence.” The article then quotes a sports psychologist who said Obama seemed able to play golf despite the grim reports by the media about the wars and the economy.
That bears repeating. Here is a journalist remarking about Obama that he is “able” to play golf despite war casualties and economic disaster. For Bush, the press couldn’t believe that he would dare golf at such a time, but for Obama they marvel that he can."
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 1:03 PM
Leaders remain cool under pressure and have the discipline to think and not react.
Ask any CEO.
If the CEO panics the ship will surely go down, if the CEO remains calm then there is at least a cool head at the helm and the ship may be saved.
Christian Democrat - Jun 21, 2010 1:24 PM
I have no problem with any President playing golf for a few hours. For crying out loud, we all are entitled to our stress relievers, and a few hours to clear our heads. Some people go for a walk, some play sports, some read, some pray, etc. Since when is the President of the US not allowed to do these things?
However, flying off to the ranch for WEEKS at a time, sometimes even a MONTH - yeah, that I do have a problem with. Few hours of golf vs weeks in Texas. HUGE difference..
And perhaps it was missed by Hemmer, but CEO Tony is no longer in charge of the oil spill issue. He stepped down prior to running off to "get his life back" on the yacht. Perhaps now, some progress will be made on getting this oil spill stopped. Even BP Chairman Svanberg knows that Tony was failing miserably:
Svanberg told Britain's Sky News that BP Managing Director Bob Dudley will take over management of the worst oil spill in US history. He said that Hayward's performance -- which has been mired by repeated public gaffes -- had compounded BP's woes.
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 2:05 PM
Bush playing golf = bad.
Obama playing golf = just fine, no problem!
I wouldn't have expected anything less.
Oh, and by the way, this one is for "sirlaughsalot" or "sirlaughsalittle" or "jmark" or whomever: If BP CEO Tony Hayward had chosen to spend his "off day" at a NASCAR race - or a baseball game - he still would have been raked over the coals by the mainstream media. Let's be honest. Any type of leisure activity would have been grounds for attack by the liberal card-carrying members of the Barack Obama Fan Club (better known as "the mainstream media").
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 2:17 PM
From: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/454782/the_worst_major_oil_spills_in_history_pg3.html?cat=37
"Ironically, the worst oil spill in human history wasn't the result of an accident. During the Gulf War, Iraqi forces, attempting to thwart a potential landing of American soldiers, opened the valves at an offshore oil terminal and dumped oil from several tankers. The oil they released created a 4-inch thick oil slick that covered 4000 square miles. To put it in perspective, that's enough oil to cover the entire state of Rhode Island one foot deep in oil."
An estimated 460 million gallons of oil were released, Mr. Hicks. Are we hearing any envirnomentalists decrying this? Or have the effects been taken care of....by nature???
In contrast, the BP oil spill is estimated right now to be around 79 million gallons. And yes, Mr. Hicks, even if you don't like to hear it, nature WILL take care of the spill...all in good time. Many of us are short on patience these days, but major accidents like this can take decades to repair themselves. The fact is - they do. Nature DOES have a way of healing itself, even if Obama waving his hands doesn't do diddly.
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 3:36 PM
The Iraq thing wasn't an an oil spill BTW it was a tactical defensive operation. Oil has been used in this way for centuries.
In the history of the world, no one has had an accident as bad as the BP spill. The only thing that come close to this was Chernobyl.
Environmentalists decried the Iraqi actions. And they monitored it's results. National Geo had a pile of stuff on it.
You should read this:
http://www.lenntech.com/environmental-effects-war.htm
To compare a war time act to what happened in the Gulf is grasping at straws as you sink in your Obamahate swamp Hemmer.
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 3:50 PM
Nature does heal. It does take time, of course, but nature has a way of taking care of itself.
And jman99, what was the point of your comment? Are you so intent on making BP the villain? Think BP wanted this oil spill? Nada. No oil company wants something like this to happen. Wal-Mart, Toyota, BP, geez, what companies DO liberals like? And you know what? It is major corporations that employ people - give people work - the ability to make a living. Think the government does the same?
Sure, the government creates jobs, but the government doesn't create wealth - it doesn't make money. The private sector does. Government jobs are paid for by taxpayer dollars -no new money flowing into the system. No creative involved. No development or intelligent thought (at least is sure seems that way!). Just bureaucracy. Red tape. Wasted dollars. More debt. And Obama is growing government at a rapid pace while the private sector continues to suffer.
For a President and Administration to hate the private sector and big businesses with such a passion is just wrong. As the great one, Ronald Reagan, once stated: "Government is not a solution to our problem, government IS the problem."
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 3:54 PM
Bush playing golf: bad
Obama playing golf: just fine, no problem!
Now, according to you:
Accidental oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico: bad
Intentional oil spill in Kuwait (almost six times larger than the BP spill): doesn't count as a "real oil spill", since it happened during a time of war.....yeah, right....
Thanks jman99 - I cannot make this stuff up! Great material! Keep it comin'
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 4:07 PM
The spill in Kuwait never drifted anywhere significant because it was mostly on land. See the difference?
Most of the oil that went into the gulf is still in the water and it is starting to drift. When it hits the Gulf stream and heads up the east coast,, it will go right around Rhode Island.
BP may not have wanted an oil spill, but the didn't want an oils spill so badly that they would have done what ever was possible to prevent it.
You have remember that the oil business is a "biggest Balls: business so You have to take into consideration that the BP boys wanted to show who has the biggest pair by drilling the deepest biggest baddest well and bringing it in on time and under budget.
Well they started to cut corners and bribe the inspectors. We nave the results all along the coast.
I hope some day BP will drill one in your neighbours front yard. I'm sure you will be fine with that.
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 4:20 PM
If the Government creates no wealth, then why do so many chase government contracts?
I Haliburton suffering in Iraq? Are they doing this out of the goodness of the shareholders hearts?
How about the share holders of defence contractors stock? are they not making any money?
How about the share holders of construction company stocks when the government contracts for a road? are they not receiving money?
You suck at this Hemmer.
All you do is parrot tea party propaganda and call it a "blog". I don't see any original thinking here on your part. It's just free advertising for an extreme point of a view.
Mostly I don't see any thinking at all.
ahemmer - Jun 21, 2010 5:01 PM
You state: "Since you imply jman is wrong, you must think the opposite:
Accidental oil spill in the Gulf Of Mexico: good
Intentional oil spill in Kuwait (almost six times larger than the BP spill): counts as a "real oil spill", since it happened during a time of war.....
yeah, right... you're so smart."
Actually, I think both the accidental oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico AND the intentional spill in Kuwait were both bad. My point was - they were both major oil spills - one much larger than the other, yet we hear little about it. And great point that jman99 brings up - "The spill in Kuwait never drifted anywhere significant because it was mostly on land. See the difference?" Key words: MOSTLY ON LAND. Imagine if the Democrats and Obama and evironmental wackos, in their infinite wisdom, would ALLOW oil companies to drill on land - in the United States AND closer to shore. Imagine how much easier and less damaging any potential oil spill accidents would be to contain. And imagine all the oil our own country could produce - with less reliance on foreign oil sources! What a concept!
But instead, we force oil companies faaaaarrr offshore in deep waters. And look what happens. Not that oil spills of this magnitude are common - they are not. But we must not prohibit any future drilling because of this. It makes no sense whatsoever.
And "Fighting Jims Lies": try sticking to the post topic rather than attacking yours truly. Out of four comments, only one relates to the blog topic. Are you the new "jmark?"
Onlyoneme - Jun 21, 2010 5:19 PM
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/persian-gulf-oil-spill-offers-grim-lesson-for-gulf-of-mexico-disaster/19506413
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 5:26 PM
Just admit that you haven't go a clue about what you are cutting and pasting to your blog and we'll all give you the respect you deserve.
Onlyoneme - Jun 21, 2010 5:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill
Onlyoneme - Jun 21, 2010 5:37 PM
The study demonstrated that, in contrary to previously published reports e.g. already 1993 by UNEP, several coastal areas even in 2001 still show significant oil impact and in some places no recovery at all. The salt marshes which occur at almost 50% of the coastline show the heaviest impact compared to the other ecosystem types after 10 years. Completely recovered are the rocky shores and mangroves. Sand beaches are on the best way to complete recovery. The main reason for the delayed recovery of the salt marshes is the absence of physical energy (wave action) and the mostly anaerobic milieu of the oiled substrates. The latter is mostly caused by cyanobacteria which forms impermeable mats. In other cases tar crusts are responsible. The availability of oxygen is the most important criteria for oil degradation. Where oil degrades it was obvious that benthic intertidal fauna such as crabs re-colonise the destroyed habitats long before the halophytes. The most important paths of regeneration are the tidal channels and the adjacent areas. Full recovery of the salt marshes will certainly need some more decades.””
The article also states that no clean up of the “spill” in the Persian Gulf was undertaken.
It should also be pointed out that the oil was released onto the surface of the water not 5,000 feet below. Which has a significant impact of the dispersal of the oil. And no nature has not cleaned it up yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 5:50 PM
Dr. Jacqueline Michel, US geochemist (2010 interview – transcript of radio broadcast):[6]
The long term effects were very significant. There was no shoreline cleanup, essentially, over the 800 kilometers that the oil – - in Saudi Arabia. And so when we went back in to do quantitative survey in 2002 and 2003, there was a million cubic meters of oil sediment remained then 12 years after the spill.... [T]he oil penetrated much more deeply into the intertidal sediment than normal because those sediments there have a lot of crab burrows, and the oil penetrated deep, sometimes 30, 40 centimeters, you know a couple of feet, into the mud of these tidal flats. There’s no way to get it out now. So it has had long term impact.
jman99 - Jun 21, 2010 6:30 PM
http://www.theworld.org/2010/05/04/lessons-learned-from-gulf-war-oil-spill/