Obama admin bans press from filming BP oil spill areas in the Gulf

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for _R34LiTY_
_R34LiTY_

3331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#301 _R34LiTY_
Member since 2008 • 3331 Posts

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Our country is not as condensed as other countries and commutes are not close.....that is part of the reason....:|

LJS9502_basic

I never saidwe are as condensed. Where you'd get that idea?

The post about oil use......I was giving you a reason why we use more than some countries with better public transportation. Plus, we do have more people than many other countries...

But our demandfor oil doesn't end at commute solutions, it's everything we toy with. No?

it's just my opinion that it's absurd that although we have roughly 15-20% of the worlds population, we somehow have the capacity to useoil far more than any other nation on the globe, especially when compared to those who are overpopulated or who we viewas overpop(china/india etc). Some would say we use 40% of the world oil, some say 60%. Whatever it is, our consumption of it is more than necessity requires & isbogus for USA to be so needy for it. But it seems like it's due to our wanting to live the "American lifestyle" which almost seems like that in itself means living beyond our means while the rest of the world gets by with whatever we dont use. the crumbs, so to speak

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#302 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="scorch-62"] Nothing was on shore on day one.

However, reporters were down there for some time reporting. That suddenly changed. I find a healthy skepticism is imperative when dealing with the government....but you can believe their press releases if you chose. The Coast Guard will get directives from higher up as to credentials.....

And I will because there's no reason to believe otherwise.

Well one reason is that Coast Guard IS under Washington. No Admiral or General sets policy alone.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#303 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

But our demandfor oil doesn't end at commute solutions, it's everything we toy with whether synthetic or not.

it's just my opinion that it's absurd that although we have roughly 15-20% of the worlds population, we somehow have the capacity to useoil far more than any other nation on the globe, especially when compared to those who are overpopulated or who we viewas overpop(china/india etc). Some would say we use 40% of the world oil, some say 60%. Whatever it is,our consumption of it ismore than necessity requires& isbogus for USA to be so needy for it. But it seems like it's due to our wanting to live the "American lifestyle" which almost seems like that in itself means living beyond our means while the rest of the world gets by with whatever we dont use. the crumbs, so to speak

_R34LiTY_

Well I didn't say it did. But in and of itself....that will use a lot of oil would you not agree? Personally, I'd rather find alternate fuel sources...which includes your toys etc/

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#304 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

And who's to say the coast guard will get word from higher up? Thad is an admiral after all, i'm pretty sure he makes most of the calls.

LJS9502_basic

Heads of ALL military forces answer to Washington. They don't create policy by themselves. Ever.

This simply is not true. Washington appoints a man in charge for a reason, and it's your job to get the job done once you're appointed. Obviously those who appointed you will want things done a certain way but the notion that anything any federal official ever does, ever, comes directly from the office of the President is just silly. There's no way in heck you could ever fight a war if every move had to be decided by the President.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#305 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

And who's to say the coast guard will get word from higher up? Thad is an admiral after all, i'm pretty sure he makes most of the calls.

Ninja-Hippo

Heads of ALL military forces answer to Washington. They don't create policy by themselves. Ever.

This simply is not true. Washington appoints a man in charge for a reason, and it's your job to get the job done once you're appointed. Obviously those who appointed you will want things done a certain way but the notion that anything any federal official ever does, ever, comes directly from the office of the President is just silly. There's no way in heck you could ever fight a war if every move had to be decided by the President.

Uh dude. It's quite true. That's how the military works. For one thing...I've been in the military. You have not. Major policies like something that is in the news will ALWAYS have input from Washington.
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#306 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I've been in the military. You have not.

Mighty presumptuous. "Admiral, some of the local inhabitants are setting fire to our base; should we set up a permiter and not let them near the camp?" "Hold on a sec, i have to go ask the President...." That just does not happen. People put in charge are in charge for a reason, especially an ADMIRAL. That's a huge rank, and one which comes with authority to do what you need to do to get the job done. You receive orders from your superiors obviously, but it's your prerogative to carry out those orders. You aren't told every single intricate thing you need to do, otherwise why the hell even have you there? Why not just make the President in charge of everything?
Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#307 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts
I vote Democrat for the most part, but I don't blindly agree with everything they do because I vote that way. This blanket rule is BS. Reporters can be in many war-zones if they wish to risk it. The petty reasoning I heard in the video were sorry excuses to block them from accessing this disaster in domestic waters. For shame.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#308 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Heads of ALL military forces answer to Washington. They don't create policy by themselves. Ever.

LJS9502_basic

This simply is not true. Washington appoints a man in charge for a reason, and it's your job to get the job done once you're appointed. Obviously those who appointed you will want things done a certain way but the notion that anything any federal official ever does, ever, comes directly from the office of the President is just silly. There's no way in heck you could ever fight a war if every move had to be decided by the President.

Uh dude. It's quite true. That's how the military works. For one thing...I've been in the military. You have not. Major policies like something that is in the news will ALWAYS have input from Washington.

This does not make you an authority on the subject... were you in the Coast Guard and therefore are familiar with Coast Guard policy, chain of command, etc.?

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#309 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

This does not make you an authority on the subject... were you in the Coast Guard and therefore are familiar with Coast Guard policy, chain of command, etc.?

chessmaster1989

"Our CO had devised an infuriating new policy; no snatches to be taken out of the camp in daylight, and no civilian vehicles of any kind within one hundred metres of the gates. It made life even harder for the daily patrols, but it was absolutely necessary."

From Sniper One, the book i am currently reading about the British snipers in Afghanistan. :o Herein, jeeps being sabotaged when stopped in the local town and civilian vehicles being used as suicide bombs resulted in a policy being created and enforced to prevent those two things from happening. I am quite sure they didn't have to call up the houses of parliament to ask for permission first. :roll:

Avatar image for majwill24
majwill24

1355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#310 majwill24
Member since 2004 • 1355 Posts

I vote Democrat for the most part, but I don't blindly agree with everything they do because I vote that way. This blanket rule is BS. Reporters can be in many war-zones if they wish to risk it. The petty reasoning I heard in the video were sorry excuses to block them from accessing this disaster in domestic waters. For shame. cybrcatter

THANK YOU!

Anyone who believes in media access should be afraid of people like the apologists in this thread. Turning a blind eye because you like someone is why there is so much cronyism in government.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#311 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]I vote Democrat for the most part, but I don't blindly agree with everything they do because I vote that way. This blanket rule is BS. Reporters can be in many war-zones if they wish to risk it. The petty reasoning I heard in the video were sorry excuses to block them from accessing this disaster in domestic waters. For shame. majwill24

THANK YOU!

Anyone who believes in media access should be afraid of people like the apologists in this thread. Turning a blind eye because you like someone is why there is so much cronyism in government.

*sigh* this is really getting out of hand. I'm not an "apologist." If there were direct evidence that Obama or his administration ordered this move for political purposes, I would oppose the move. But, since the evidence is that this is a standard Coast Guard procedure, I am merely questioning those who are rushing to the conclusion that Obama had something to do with this, as well as those speculating involvement baselessly.

But hey, if that's reason to be "afraid" of me, and if that's me "turning a blind eye," then I must say I think you need to take a step back and look at what you're saying.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#312 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] This simply is not true. Washington appoints a man in charge for a reason, and it's your job to get the job done once you're appointed. Obviously those who appointed you will want things done a certain way but the notion that anything any federal official ever does, ever, comes directly from the office of the President is just silly. There's no way in heck you could ever fight a war if every move had to be decided by the President. chessmaster1989

Uh dude. It's quite true. That's how the military works. For one thing...I've been in the military. You have not. Major policies like something that is in the news will ALWAYS have input from Washington.

This does not make you an authority on the subject... were you in the Coast Guard and therefore are familiar with Coast Guard policy, chain of command, etc.?

:roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#313 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh dude. It's quite true. That's how the military works. For one thing...I've been in the military. You have not. Major policies like something that is in the news will ALWAYS have input from Washington.LJS9502_basic

This does not make you an authority on the subject... were you in the Coast Guard and therefore are familiar with Coast Guard policy, chain of command, etc.?

:roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.

Yes, a standard Coast Guard procedure (watch the video dude!) would have direct input from Washington. :roll:

Listen to what you're saying dude... this IS NOT a major issue. The media, as well as those speculating that Obama was behind it, are the ones who have made it an issue.

Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#314 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh dude. It's quite true. That's how the military works. For one thing...I've been in the military. You have not. Major policies like something that is in the news will ALWAYS have input from Washington.LJS9502_basic

This does not make you an authority on the subject... were you in the Coast Guard and therefore are familiar with Coast Guard policy, chain of command, etc.?

:roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.

C'mon LJ, Commander in Chief is just a fancy title you get to have, like honorary Phds :P

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#315 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

In any case I'm done here. This isn't productive, it seems that some of the people suggesting Obama's involvement have more desire to speculate than to look at the actual facts and reason from there.

Or, in other words...

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#316 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[ C'mon LJ, Commander in Chief is just a fancy title you get to have, like honorary Phds :P

cybrcatter

Not true...which is why many officers in the military vote Republican...because those commanders in chief benefit the military. Odd that people don't understand that NONE of the military services have the authority without the backing of Washington.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#317 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] :roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.

You seriously think this is a serious issue which the coast guard would have to seek presidential approval to implement? :? Also, previously you said that 'you never make policy. Ever.' whereas now you seem to be saying you do, but only in some circumstances (ie serious vs non-serious). Frankly i would stick to my original point, which is that people in very, very high-ranking positions like Admiral are generally left to their own authority to get a job done, not told what to do on a daily basis by the President regarding every little decision. He said he had received many complaints from workers about people getting in the way. So he decided that nobody is allowed within 60ft any more to try and help with that problem. I see no reason why the President would have been involved.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#318 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] :roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.

You seriously think this is a serious issue which the coast guard would have to seek presidential approval to implement? :? Also, previously you said that 'you never make policy. Ever.' whereas now you seem to be saying you do, but only in some circumstances (ie serious vs non-serious). Frankly i would stick to my original point, which is that people in very, very high-ranking positions like Admiral are generally left to their own authority to get a job done, not told what to do on a daily basis by the President regarding every little decision. He said he had received many complaints from workers about people getting in the way. So he decided that nobody is allowed within 60ft any more to try and help with that problem. I see no reason why the President would have been involved.

Of course not. This MAJOR oil spill is off no interest to Washington at all....nope. No way.....
Avatar image for cybrcatter
cybrcatter

16210

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#319 cybrcatter
Member since 2003 • 16210 Posts

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

[ C'mon LJ, Commander in Chief is just a fancy title you get to have, like honorary Phds :P

LJS9502_basic

Not true...which is why many officers in the military vote Republican...because those commanders in chief benefit the military. Odd that people don't understand that NONE of the military services have the authority without the backing of Washington.

I'll make sure to add J/K next time
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#320 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

[ C'mon LJ, Commander in Chief is just a fancy title you get to have, like honorary Phds :P

cybrcatter

Not true...which is why many officers in the military vote Republican...because those commanders in chief benefit the military. Odd that people don't understand that NONE of the military services have the authority without the backing of Washington.

I'll make sure to add J/K next time

I wasn't talking about you though....:P
Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#321 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

In any case I'm done here. This isn't productive, it seems that some of the people suggesting Obama's involvement have more desire to speculate than to look at the actual facts and reason from there.

Or, in other words...

chessmaster1989

I agree with you. There's nothing at all wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism but at times the skeptic interpretation of events is less rational than the 'official' explanation.

In this instance, the official explanation that they decided to stop people getting within 60 ft of the oil because of numerous complaints from workers about their work being constantly interfered with makes much sense and seems much more likely than this actually being a conspiracy from the President to restrict the media from filming something which has already been on the TV for weeks.

Heck, as if you can't film oil from 60ft away anyways - are they kidding?

Avatar image for greeneye59
greeneye59

1079

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#322 greeneye59
Member since 2003 • 1079 Posts

I voted for him believing that there was some chance he would be moderate and not your typical slimey, weasely politician. Turns out I was wrong. I don't believe this is anything other than a politically motivated ploy.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#323 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] :roll: All military branches are under the president. Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and yes....Coast Guard. And yes...major issues like this would have input from Washington.

You seriously think this is a serious issue which the coast guard would have to seek presidential approval to implement? :? Also, previously you said that 'you never make policy. Ever.' whereas now you seem to be saying you do, but only in some circumstances (ie serious vs non-serious). Frankly i would stick to my original point, which is that people in very, very high-ranking positions like Admiral are generally left to their own authority to get a job done, not told what to do on a daily basis by the President regarding every little decision. He said he had received many complaints from workers about people getting in the way. So he decided that nobody is allowed within 60ft any more to try and help with that problem. I see no reason why the President would have been involved.

Of course not. This MAJOR oil spill is off no interest to Washington at all....nope. No way.....

:roll: Because when i said this isn't a serious issue i was obviously talking about the oil spill, not the coast guard telling people not to get too close to the cleanup operation. Pffft.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#324 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[ :roll: Because when i said this isn't a serious issue i was obviously talking about the oil spill, not the coast guard telling people not to get too close to the cleanup operation. Pffft. Ninja-Hippo
Roll your eyes all you want but the Coast Guard wouldn't be telling people this WITHOUT the oil spill now would they.:lol:

Avatar image for ff7cloudking
ff7cloudking

3161

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#325 ff7cloudking
Member since 2005 • 3161 Posts

I just got this in my inbox

CNN's Anderson Cooper reports on the disturbing issue.

link

So, is it politics or legitimate federal concerns?

majwill24

I don't know how recent this video is, i know that it was uploaded on the first, but i don't know when Anderson Cooper actually reported on this. But, at this point the ban on filming the oil spill is old news.

Regardless, this move is one that i strongly disagree with. It has nothing to do with safety and is all politics. It's almost some mild form of government propaganda and it is blocking the press from doing its job (which admittedly it rarely does anyway).

EDIT: And to those who say that this is a move for safety, the Obama administration is also banning any FLY OVERS of the oil spill. Meaning that they are not allowing people to fly over it and take pictures/record video.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#326 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][ :roll: Because when i said this isn't a serious issue i was obviously talking about the oil spill, not the coast guard telling people not to get too close to the cleanup operation. Pffft. LJS9502_basic

Roll your eyes all you want but the Coast Guard wouldn't be telling people this WITHOUT the oil spill now would they.:lol:

Who said otherwise? :? Surely that's stating the obvious? What i did say was that this decision is not a big deal or a 'serious issue' and thus likely did not come all the way down from the President, but was a decision taken by the Coast Guard like they said it was.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#327 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][ :roll: Because when i said this isn't a serious issue i was obviously talking about the oil spill, not the coast guard telling people not to get too close to the cleanup operation. Pffft. Ninja-Hippo

Roll your eyes all you want but the Coast Guard wouldn't be telling people this WITHOUT the oil spill now would they.:lol:

Who said otherwise? :? Surely that's stating the obvious? What i did say was that this decision is not a big deal or a 'serious issue' and thus likely did not come all the way down from the President, but was a decision taken by the Coast Guard like they said it was.

This deals with the oil spill...so it's either a big deal or it's not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#328 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

This deals with the oil spill...so it's either a big deal or it's not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

LJS9502_basic
That makes literally no sense whatsoever. Is Iraq a big deal? Yes. Is the exact time of day the toilets should be cleaned out on a military base in Iraq a big deal? No. "But Iraq is a big deal, and this deals with Iraq, therefore it must be a big deal too! Alert the President!" That logic is simply broken. :?
Avatar image for Jamiemydearx3
Jamiemydearx3

4062

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#329 Jamiemydearx3
Member since 2008 • 4062 Posts

He's done literally nothing to solve the problem. He's simply trying to save his own ass at this point.

Dark_Knight6

What an intelligent post....Not. How do you know he has done nothing? You only hear what they want you to hear.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#330 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

This deals with the oil spill...so it's either a big deal or it's not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

Ninja-Hippo

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. Is Iraq a big deal? Yes. Is the exact time of day the toilets should be cleaned out on a military base in Iraq a big deal? No. "But Iraq is a big deal, and this deals with Iraq, therefore it must be a big deal too! Alert the President!" That logic is simply broken. :?

What a fallacious analogy. Reporters being denied access is not the same thing at all. That IS a Washington decision and not an admiral/generals call.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#331 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

This deals with the oil spill...so it's either a big deal or it's not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways...

LJS9502_basic

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. Is Iraq a big deal? Yes. Is the exact time of day the toilets should be cleaned out on a military base in Iraq a big deal? No. "But Iraq is a big deal, and this deals with Iraq, therefore it must be a big deal too! Alert the President!" That logic is simply broken. :?

What a fallacious analogy. Reporters being denied access is not the same thing at all. That IS a Washington decision and not an admiral/generals call.

It's not a remotely fallacious analogy, it's demonstrating how silly that logic is. One thing is a big deal, therefore any and ALL aspects of that thing are also a big deal? What sense does that make? :? How do you know that this is a washington decision? What fact are you basing that off? He said he got lots of complaints from clean up crew members of people interfering, so he decided no more non-crew members within 60 feet of the clean up operation. What is it about that which seems like something so drastic and so important that it had to come down from the President personally? You realize that the Admiral has made far more important decisions than this one which didn't come from the President at all? Decisions which the President decided to change when he found out about them? This decision isn't remotely big enough to have come down from Washington. And once again you contradict your earlier statement where you claimed Admirals don't make policy. Ever. Now you seem to be saying that they do, just not when it's important. Which this isn't.
Avatar image for Osaka-06
Osaka-06

781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#332 Osaka-06
Member since 2010 • 781 Posts
Ninja-Hippo why are you even trying? We both know LJS won't admit to being wrong and it's pretty clear that you've succesfully put your point across.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#333 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

Ninja-Hippo why are you even trying? We both know LJS won't admit to being wrong and it's pretty clear that you've succesfully put your point across.Osaka-06
No he hasn't . I know how the military works and ALL major decisions go through Washington. That's a fact....

I'm both an American and a vet.....and I was MI.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#334 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]Ninja-Hippo why are you even trying? We both know LJS won't admit to being wrong and it's pretty clear that you've succesfully put your point across.LJS9502_basic
No he hasn't . I know how the military works and ALL major decisions go through Washington. That's a fact....

And this is neither a military operation nor a major decision.

EDIT: and did you not rebuke someone just the other day for addressing the poster, rather than the post? ;)

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#335 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Osaka-06"]Ninja-Hippo why are you even trying? We both know LJS won't admit to being wrong and it's pretty clear that you've succesfully put your point across.Ninja-Hippo
No he hasn't . I know how the military works and ALL major decisions go through Washington. That's a fact....

And this is neither a military operation nor a major decision.

Oh it most certainly is a major decision. It's also a switch in policy. Both red flags...and the Coast Guard is a military operation...always.:|
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#336 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

EDIT: and did you not rebuke someone just the other day for addressing the poster, rather than the post? ;)

Ninja-Hippo

:lol: Pointing out a discrepancy in credentials is not addressing the poster....

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#337 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

EDIT: and did you not rebuke someone just the other day for addressing the poster, rather than the post? ;)

LJS9502_basic

:lol: Pointing out a discrepancy in credentials is not addressing the poster....

Yes it is. It's an ad hominem through and through. "What, you're listening to THIS GUY? He's not even in the army...." The post is the thing to address, not the poster. ;) It's right up there, still waiting.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#338 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

EDIT: and did you not rebuke someone just the other day for addressing the poster, rather than the post? ;)

Ninja-Hippo

:lol: Pointing out a discrepancy in credentials is not addressing the poster....

Yes it is. It's an ad hominem through and through. "What, you're listening to THIS GUY? He's not even in the army...." The post is the thing to address, not the poster. ;) It's right up there, still waiting.

No as I stated....I WAS in the army and I know how the military works. You can offer your credentials at any point.....what experience do you have with the US military? After all...you're continually telling me I'm wrong...so I'd like to know your experience.

Yeah...and I addressed it. This was after your edit. I addressed the first part already. Second....I told you major decisions...and the oil spill and everything dealing with it ARE major...and you mentioned toilets. What the?

Avatar image for Osaka-06
Osaka-06

781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#339 Osaka-06
Member since 2010 • 781 Posts

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]Ninja-Hippo why are you even trying? We both know LJS won't admit to being wrong and it's pretty clear that you've succesfully put your point across.LJS9502_basic

No he hasn't . I know how the military works and ALL major decisions go through Washington. That's a fact....

I'm both an American a vet.....and I was MI. He's from the UK.....hmmm.

You must've been pretty far up the ladder to know such things as fact. Anyways, even IF this went through Washington, it wouldn't have gone through the president since he's not qualified to make such decisions. It would probably go through the DHS, if it was as important as you claim it is.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#340 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

You must've been pretty far up the ladder to know such things as fact. Anyways, even IF this went through Washington, it wouldn't have gone through the president since he's not qualified to make such decisions. It would probably go through the DHS, if it was as important as you claim it is.Osaka-06
As president he is briefed on things....and HE can offer his input. Nonetheless, I've repeatedly referred to it as Washington and not specifically the president.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#341 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

No as I stated....I WAS in the army and I know how the military works. You can offer your credentials at any point.....what experience do you have with the US military? After all...you're continually telling me I'm wrong...so I'd like to know your experience.

LJS9502_basic

"Ad hominem usually involves belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out ostensible flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."


Examples:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."

The post is still there. Feel free to explain to me why it's incorrect, but you being in the military does not make you an authority on this in the slightest, and another person's not being in the military does not have any effect at all on their ability to discuss the logical flaws in your argument.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#342 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

No as I stated....I WAS in the army and I know how the military works. You can offer your credentials at any point.....what experience do you have with the US military? After all...you're continually telling me I'm wrong...so I'd like to know your experience.

Ninja-Hippo

"Ad hominem usually involves belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out ostensible flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."


Examples:

* "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."

The post is still there. Feel free to explain to me why it's incorrect, but you being in the military does not make you an authority on this in the slightest, and another person's not being in the military does not have any effect at all on their ability to discuss the logical flaws in your argument.

No. I gave MY credentials. You are still free to give yours...though I do know you are not of the US.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#343 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

:roll: That is simply an ad hominem. My post is there with my arguments to respond to. If i am incorrect, you can explain why. Merely ignoring everything i have to say and asserting yourself as correct because you were in the military is illogical.

The topic is being discussed, and my take on it is still right there ready and waiting for you to discuss. Further, your continued inference that i supposedly lack any and all form of military experience is very presumptuous, though it's not something i'd even indulge as, like i've said, it's utterly irrelevant and has no baring on the quality of the arguments i've provided.

EDIT: 'i do know that you are not of the US' is also presumptuous, incorrect and once again, entirely irrelevant both to the topic and my ability to comment on it.

Avatar image for Osaka-06
Osaka-06

781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#344 Osaka-06
Member since 2010 • 781 Posts

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No he hasn't . I know how the military works and ALL major decisions go through Washington. That's a fact....

I'm both an American a vet.....and I was MI. He's from the UK.....hmmm.

LJS9502_basic

You must've been pretty far up the ladder to know such things as fact. Anyways, even IF this went through Washington, it wouldn't have gone through the president since he's not qualified to make such decisions. It would probably go through the DHS, if it was as important as you claim it is.

As president he is briefed on things....and HE can offer his input. Nonetheless, I've repeatedly referred to it as Washington and not specifically the president.

So what IF it went through Washington or not?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#345 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]:roll: That is simply an ad hominem. My post is there with my arguments to respond to. If i am incorrect, you can explain why. Merely ignoring everything i have to say and asserting yourself as correct because you were in the military is illogical. The topic is being discussed, and my take on it is still right there ready and waiting for you to discuss. Further, your continued inference that i supposedly lack any and all form of military experience is very presumptuous, though it's not something i'd even indulge as, like i've said, it's utterly irrelevant and has no baring on the quality of the arguments i've provided.

And how many times must we repeat the same conversation. Look..the oil spill and ensuing press IS a major issue. Do you deny that? Major issues DO go through Washington. The president definitely knows about5 the embargo on the press. Are you saying his is unaware? Is comparing the oil spill to toilets a good analogy?
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#346 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

Osaka-06

Well now you tell me since Ninjas argument....which you support is that it hasn't.

Avatar image for Ninja-Hippo
Ninja-Hippo

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#347 Ninja-Hippo
Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]:roll: That is simply an ad hominem. My post is there with my arguments to respond to. If i am incorrect, you can explain why. Merely ignoring everything i have to say and asserting yourself as correct because you were in the military is illogical. The topic is being discussed, and my take on it is still right there ready and waiting for you to discuss. Further, your continued inference that i supposedly lack any and all form of military experience is very presumptuous, though it's not something i'd even indulge as, like i've said, it's utterly irrelevant and has no baring on the quality of the arguments i've provided.

And how many times must we repeat the same conversation. Look..the oil spill and ensuing press IS a major issue. Do you deny that? Major issues DO go through Washington. The president definitely knows about5 the embargo on the press. Are you saying his is unaware? Is comparing the oil spill to toilets a good analogy?

You still haven't responded to the post. ;) 1) The oil spill is a major issue. Obvious is obvious. Nobody has said otherwise. 2) As i explained to you, just because something is a major issue does not mean that every single daily thing pertaining to that issue is ALSO a major issue (as your illogical argument of 'you can't have it both ways' asserted that anything to do with the oil spill was by extension, a big deal.) 3) I did not compare the oil spill to toilets. I compared the Oil Spill to Iraq. Perfectly good analogy. I compared the decision to tell non-clean up crew people to stay clear of the clean up efforts to the daily procedure for emptying out latrines ie a perfectly normal, reasonable decision made on a daily basis, not a major "ZOMG BIG DEAL" issue. 4) It isn't an embargo on the press. It's a policy on *people*. If you aren't a BP employee, a coast guard official or otherwise involved in the cleanup, stay 60ft away from the cleanup operation at all times. Of course, when the press think they're special it can easily be twisted into a 'media embargo' but that simply isn't the case. They've already made exceptions for the media. 5) The President will be aware of this because it is currently on the news. He's either happy with it or he isn't. He's intervened in other decisions the Admiral has made, so clearly not everything has to go through Washington first. ;)
Avatar image for Osaka-06
Osaka-06

781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#348 Osaka-06
Member since 2010 • 781 Posts

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

LJS9502_basic

Well now you tell me since Ninjas argument....which you support is that it hasn't.

My argument is that Obama is in no way responsible for it. It doesn't matter if Thad Allen (which it was) or some secretary at the DHS made the desicion. The president is not capable of micromanaging government actions like that.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#349 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

:

EDIT: 'i do know that you are not of the US' is also presumptuous, incorrect and once again, entirely irrelevant both to the topic and my ability to comment on it.

Ninja-Hippo

You don't live in the UK anymore? Because you did state that at least once. You have called my knowledge of the military into question...it's highly relevant. I gave my credentials for that purpose. Second...the head of EVERY military branch is in Washington and I would like an explanation how Washington is not involved in these decisions as you keep reiterating.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#350 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180302 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

Osaka-06

Well now you tell me since Ninjas argument....which you support is that it hasn't.

My argument is that Obama is in no way responsible for it. It doesn't matter if Thad Allen (which it was) or some secretary at the DHS made the desicion. The president is not capable of micromanaging government actions like that.

Well that's not entirely true. Presidents can micromanage events as they desire. That is why there are meetings in DC with the president. I nowhere in this thread said he did. I said I do not know. Would it surprise me? No. This is a major story. It's not quite mundane. But whether he did or not...Washington was involved. Which is what I have continued to say. Not president...but Washington.