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

[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?

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

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_

[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

[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

[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 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.?

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

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:

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.

[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.

[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

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.?

[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.?

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.

[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.?

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...

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

cybrcatter

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

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

LJS9502_basic

[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

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

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?

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.

[ :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

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.

[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

[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

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

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

Dark_Knight6

[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

[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

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

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

[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

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

[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

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

Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

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

LJS9502_basic

[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

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?

[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

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.Osaka-06

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

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.

[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

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.

: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.

[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

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

Osaka-06

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

LJS9502_basic

:

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

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Osaka-06"]

[So what IF it went through Washington or not?

Osaka-06