Talk:Gulf of Mexico oil spill

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It is high time Obama care about the environment like the Republicans do and end unsafe offshore drilling once and for all. JohnLeDeux 21:26, 10 May 2010 (EDT)

Marc Antony said that Cesar was ambitious

This statement is factual correct. But it makes the knowledgeable laugh, and it misleads those who don't have any further knowledge of Julius Cesar.

Reading such a statement in an encyclopedia where you expect truthful entries is confusing at best, deceitful at worst. If I read this sentence in a wiki, I would think that someone made a bad joke and revert it.

Why? Because, though Marc Antony uttered these words (at least in Shakespeare's work), he was just quoting Brute. It wasn't his own opinion. How do we know this? By reading the rest of the great speech. So, he quoted words which stated the opposite of what he thought.

Now, I read: Nobel Laurette [sic] in Economics, Dr. Paul Krugman, who has been highly critical of Obama economic policy wrote in his regular New York Times opinion column, Conscience of a Liberal, "The oil spill is Obama's fault."

The reader of this line is lead to believe that Paul Krugman thinks that the oil spill is Obama's fault. But is this the case? Obviously not, as Krugman goes on: No, I haven’t lost my mind — that’s not what I believe. But you know that’s what the talk-show hosts will be saying soon, if they haven’t already started. The only question is what the story will be.

So, Krugman is quoting some - though only imagined - talk-show hosts. And omitting this in the article is au par with stating Marc Antony said that Cesar was ambitious - misleading at best, deceitful at worst, ridiculous to those who read Krugman's column.

FrankC aka ComedyFan 10:35, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

So Krugman was saying "I told you so" for not listening to him and distancing himself further from Obama apologists? Rob Smith 13:11, 11 May 2010 (EDT)
Paul Krugman states the the claim "The oil spill is Obama's fault" is not his opinion, so, he thinks that such a claim is wrong. It's beyond me how this can be accidently misinterpreted.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 07:52, 12 May 2010 (EDT)
So in Krugman's regular Opinion Column published on the Opinion page where Krugman says the oil spill is Obama's fault is not his opinion. ooookayyyyy..... Rob Smith 12:02, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
I think what FrankC is saying is trying to say is that, despite the title, the article is not Krugman accusing Obama.DrRaymondL 14:50, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
Oh, you mean the New York Times is not a Reliable Source? Rob Smith
I see that RobSmith has readded the Krugman blurb despite being shown that Krugman does not believe that the Oil Spill is Obama's fault. Prior revisions were reworded to show the actual context of the article but RobSmith reverted that also. Can we get a final ruling from perhaps Mr. Schlafly on this because this is just plain deceitful. I don't even see why Krugman's opinion is even relevant considering the plethora of evidence in the article that shows Obama's poor response.ameda 19:42, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
This has been an ongoing battle between Obama & Krugman before Obama was even elected. See Obama attacking Krugman's credibility for example with a link to the source at, "trashing the credibility of Paul Krugman." There's stuff on the White House webserver as well. It's all typical liberal doublespeak; who knows what any of it means replete with the blame-rush-limbaugh claptrap. Facts are, Krugman wrote in the NYT it's Obama's fault. Even that measures up to WP's reliable source & verifiability standards. We know that, they're employing those same standards in its Conservapedia entry at this very moment. Rob Smith 20:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
No one is saying you're wrong about Krugman arguing with Obama, just that in that article he does not blame Obama for the spill. On the contrary, he believes the opposite. To make a metaphor, using the article in this way would be the equivalent of saying a patriot quoting a terrorist who said "America is evil" hates America also. RaymondP 20:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
According to the website Environmental Economics, Krugman was correct. Rob Smith 20:46, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
In that article I believe they are saying that Krugman's points which he said he disagreed with are correct. Please read Krugman's actual article: he is not saying it is Obama's fault, so bringing up his article in this is deceitful!RaymondP 21:14, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
The points have been made, I tried my hand at correcting it but RobSmith seems to want it and since he is an admin. I suggest we defer to him for now and either let it stand or get the opinions of other admins. This page is quickly going to be nothing but talk, back and forth, back and forth, repeating the same stuff with nothing new or productive. ameda 21:25, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
Alright, I understand and agree, I just felt uncomfortable leaving something so misleading alone. And sorry about my most recent edit in the article, I guess I must have slipped and highlighted a lot more than I intended! But anyway, is there a way for the issue to be arbitrated, because I'm gonna follow you by leaving it alone for now. RaymondP 21:34, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

(unindent) Ok, let's summarize. In an article Krugman wrote entitled, The oil spill is Obama's fault, Krugman did not really say the oil spill is Obama's fault, but Krugman lacks credibility per Robert Gibbs,, and Is this an accurate synopsis? Rob Smith 22:40, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

  • It's not a question of credibility or reliable sources, it's a question of reading comprehension! Paul Krugman expects his readers to be able to spot some basic literary techniques, like irony or satire. As he is writing an opinion piece - and not an article in the news section - he can take even greater liberties in their use. If many readers failed to recognize his intention, it would be Krugman's fault, and he would have to change his stile. If just a single reader doesn't get it, well, perhaps the reader should chose a not so challenging newspaper to read...
  • Still, Conservapedia's article creates the impression that Paul Krugman thinks that the oil spill was Obama's fault. That's false, and it should be corrected.
FrankC aka ComedyFan 08:56, 18 May 2010 (EDT)
Let me start by saying, don't worry, I'm not going to delete the reference in the article, I've learned my lesson and I'm sure there is a civil way we can resolve this. FrankC, I'd like to give Rob the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply did not have enough time to fully read the article, especially since he's the admin here. It is true, however, that in it's first sentence the article makes Krugman's opinion clear, that he does not believe what the title says. Therefore, I really do feel that either the reference should be changed to include Krugman's view, or, more preferably, simply deleted (why, after all, should someone reading this article be sent to someone trying to claim Obama is innocent?) Thanks, and hopefully we can come to a resolution everyone agrees on.RaymondP 09:05, 18 May 2010 (EDT)


I'm a bit puzzled by one matter in this article, which I really feel needs improvement (I, personally, have reasons to be concerned with this situation, and quite frankly I'm pretty frustrated at the administration's response to it.) However, this article seems to take the stance that oil drilling is bad and that approving drilling was what Obama did wrong. Considering that drilling is what will help us get off of foreign oil and is considered good on most other Conservapedia articles, this article could certainly benefit from shifting Obama's error from approving drilling to failing to respond, since, as of now, the article simply seems hypocritical. RaymondP 00:35, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

What Obama did was be the cynical, corrupt Chicago politician he is and quietly approve the operating of the platform, without ensuring that proper safety guidelines were implemented. It blew up in his face, so to speak. All kinds of drilling are never 100% safe, be it drilling for oil on land or sea, or natural gas. Risk is always a factor. Given the vast amounts of oil and gas we all use, the number of wells drilled, and their exceptional safety record, no one can honestly claim they have presented too great of risk. If the article implies otherwise, I am certain that is something the authors will correct in short order, so readers are clear on what happened. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:51, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

I am completely in favor of drilling in order to take advantage of our own reserves, but this must be done correctly and according to the laws in place to avoid this kind of disaster. What I am NOT in favor of is a president taking thousands of dollars from British Petroleum and then taking the unique step of granting them a categorical exclusion from the impact assessments required by law. PatrickP 08:27, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

I agree with you Patrick. This whole article rubs me the wrong way. I believe liberals were wrong to blame Bush for Katrina. I am a strong supporter of small government, drill here, drill now, and oil independence. And if Obama agrees then so be it. Let the states work this out with BP. Going after Obama because we disagree with him on every other issue seems somewhat disingenuous. It's somewhat akin to the Bush derangement people who opposed Bush on every issue just because he was Bush. Certainly the MSM is not blaming Obama for the oil spill the same way they would have blamed Bush. That's the point the talk show people are making. BP may have been negligent, but maybe they weren't. I am an engineer and I have to do dangerous tasks every day. I know the risks and I know I get paid a lot of money because I take those risks. That's how we get things done in America. And if you mess up and hurt other people you get sued, that's what the courts are for. I think the article would be a lot more interesting without so much emphasis on the politics. Facts about the cause and the effects of the oil spill. Maybe even include the history of oil rig accidents. More general information about how oil drills, especially these new deep sea oil rigs, work. That's the big element missing here. Obama is right when he states that oil rigs are generally very safe-just not these new deep sea rigs. They have to deal with an environment of extreme colds and high pressure. There are a lot of unknowns. This article needs help.

I don't know that this article takes a stand pro or con one way or the other vis-a-vie the question of drilling. it simply chronicles the actual facts and events--something other media neglect and/or distort. Wikipedia, for example, to my knowledge to this day a month after has nothing about the Gulf oil spill disaster, both an environmental & far larger economic disaster to an international region. It does have an extensive article about a lost rig laying at the bottom of the gulf, though. Rob Smith 23:32, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Deepwater Workers killed in the blast

Given that the liberal media has basically ignored the eleven men killed in the blast (when was the last time you heard any of their names mentioned?) it might be nice if we could mention them in the article. --Benp 22:38, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

"Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills..."

Is there a reason why this quote is featured in large letters at the top of the article? It's a perfectly correct statement (so there's no reason to point it out as an error), but it's not a very enlightening one (so it's not interesting enough to be the most prominent point of the article). If it's pointing out the folly in Obama's handling of this, I'm sure there are better quotes that we can use. This one is a perfectly reasonable and accurate thing to say. I would suggest alternative quotes, but I don't know what goal we're trying to achieve with them. ChrisGT90 00:31, 2 September 2010 (EDT)

Since another rig just blew today, that makes Obama's statement 0-2. --Jpatt 11:36, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
Would you really like a list of every oil rig that hasn't blown up? The two rigs that exploded are the exception, not the rule. I would like to provide another quote, but I don't know what goal we're trying to accomplish with the quotes. If there's a point we want to make it, I'll find a different quote that makes that point better. Just let me know what to look for. ChrisGT90 18:28, 2 September 2010 (EDT)
I think the point is that Obama knew the risks and irresponsibly tried to lull the public into complacency. If Obama had said "Oil rigs today generally don't cause spills, but we're going to watch them like a hawk to make sure they don't", it might have been different. Instead, Obama's rhetoric was dismissive of this danger and America was caught unprepared. KyleDD 19:18, 2 September 2010 (EDT)