Sickening.

Seriously...WHAT THE FUCK!

This isn't fucking legal, STOP THEM! SOMEBODY FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!

Nah fuck this we're done Obama. You're fucking Done! I voted for you and now you're fucking up you fucking Tool. You're out.

It makes me sick to think that even in such obvious and desparate times of catastrophe, we are unable to trust our leaders to work for the community. This is not an Obama thing. Do we think it would have been any better under a Republican govt? No chance!
I really hope that these people do defy the law and continue to do whatever they can to contribute to the least farked outcome.

I was saying the same thing months ago.>> ^Yogi:

Nah fuck this we're done Obama. You're fucking Done! I voted for you and now you're fucking up you fucking Tool. You're out.

*quality environment rape - thanks, I didn't think I could feel worse about that.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by JiggaJonson.

>> ^Yogi:

Nah fuck this we're done Obama. You're fucking Done! I voted for you and now you're fucking up you fucking Tool. You're out.


What do you plan on doing? You have a two (one) party system.

I don't agree with this.

However, 65 feets ain't so bad. It sucks, but you can use a tripod/telephoto lens.

And frack you bp...

On your way to a fascist state, eh? Freedom of the press is slowly going down the drain.

*fear *talks

Adding video to channels (Fear, Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

Somewhere on a ranch in Texas, George W. Bush puts down his copy of My Pet Goat and smiles.

>> ^Yogi:

Nah fuck this we're done Obama. You're fucking Done! I voted for you and now you're fucking up you fucking Tool. You're out.


What gets me, is people actually thought that Obama was any different.

The executive branch is only interested in one thing, power and more power.

Anyone ever wondered what a Parish is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_%28country_subdivision%29

Ever since Left 4 Dead 2 Parish I always wandered what the fuck that meant. It is like a county.

I've got a theory hypothesis.

They can't stop the oil spill, that's given. Now, given the government's actions they are preparing for the long-hawl. Going out on a limb, into speculation, I think the executive branch and its Plutocratic backing are worried that they won't be able to successfully drill a relief well. Or worse, the relief well doesn't work?

I just did a google search on "Will a relief well work?" Nothing but optimism. Blind optimism is no good, they need to be prepared for when that shit doesn't work. That begs the question, has anyone prepared for when the relief well doesn't work?

What if, in the process of drilling the relief well BP fucks up?

This video is an example of damage control, and the control of information. Someone in the Judicial Branch or Congress better fucking wake up. They need to reign the executive branch in, and smack 'em around a bit.

Nothing to see here, citizens. Fill up your cars and go for a nice drive.

And the spiral continues...

Evil has always and will always reign on planet earth. You can never escape the state of nature, you can only delay its effects.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

I've got a theory hypothesis.
They can't stop the oil spill, that's given. Now, given the government's actions they are preparing for the long-hawl. Going out on a limb, into speculation, I think the executive branch and its Plutocratic backing are worried that they won't be able to successfully drill a relief well. Or worse, the relief well doesn't work?
I just did a google search on "Will a relief well work?" Nothing but optimism. Blind optimism is no good, they need to be prepared for when that shit doesn't work. That begs the question, has anyone prepared for when the relief well doesn't work?
What if, in the process of drilling the relief well BP fucks up?
This video is an example of damage control, and the control of information. Someone in the Judicial Branch or Congress better fucking wake up. They need to reign the executive branch in, and smack 'em around a bit.


Ya, been reading about that too. Now estimates are potentially a year out for a relief well. Buy that time, the ecology of the entire gulf and the east coast of the united states could be dead, for centuries.

It's amazing what you can buy with lobby funds.

Coming Soon:

- No filming of Police: Fake = "Obstructing Justice", Real = "Police brutality"
- No filming in War zones: Fake = "Danger to journalists", Real = "Civilian death & abuse"
- No filming of any Corporate polution: Fake = "toxic exposure", Real = "Public meddling"
- No publishing stories that have not been editing by a government department.
....Fake = "Threatening national security", Real = "Political Corruption"

You can't white wash if you let people throw mud.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by kronosposeidon.

"The media always does the right thing (when all of the alternatives have been exhausted)."

JESUS CHRIST!! We are motherfucking turning into North Korea. Seriously, what the fuck!?

Get that piece of shit out of the fucking white house RIGHT NOW! He hasn't tried fixing the economy, and now this shit?! NOBODY VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE, ASSHOLE! Now you're fucking up my country? GET OUT.

NOT CONSTITUTIONAL. But... who said the USA was a Constitutional democracy. It isn't. It is a Corporational Plutocracy.

Ah come on. 65 feet is plenty with TV cameras. 300 feet is over the top and I would be able to understand. But do you REALLY need to stick your TV camera up a stressed out oiled birds beak to get the images needed to penetrate the jaded mind-shell of the average TV viewer who is happily munching his TV dinner, exhilirated in his induced 30 second outrage? And do you need to get closer than 65 feet to a clean up boat to shoot it? Maybe you'd be interfering with their work if you're any closer? And not just one, but a whole flock of journalists in boats.

You're behaving as if a media black out was being enforced - and all that's happening is getting the media to give a little room. So what?

>> ^srd:

Ah come on. 65 feet is plenty with TV cameras. 300 feet is over the top and I would be able to understand. But do you REALLY need to stick your TV camera up a stressed out oiled birds beak to get the images needed to penetrate the jaded mind-shell of the average TV viewer who is happily munching his TV dinner, exhilirated in his induced 30 second outrage? And do you need to get closer than 65 feet to a clean up boat to shoot it? Maybe you'd be interfering with their work if you're any closer? And not just one, but a whole flock of journalists in boats.
You're behaving as if a media black out was being enforced - and all that's happening is getting the media to give a little room. So what?


40 Thousand dollar fine, and Class D felony charges. Pretty much says, "Fuck you 1st ammendment." As if the media being two feet from boom on the beach is a problem. Perhaps you weren't watching the same video as I was. But it's not just a water 65ft rule. It's also for beaches too, if not by extension but by use. If a boater cannot get to an island that is affected by oil because of the rule, then they cannot photograph the impact it has having on said beach.

It's not the rule itself, or the numbers. It's a matter of principle. If you can't understand that, go read a constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States:_three_branches

The Media should be up the cleanup crew's, coast guard's asses with a flashlight and magnetic probe, after all that's exactly what we expect of them.

The article below is beside the point, but interesting nonetheless.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, July 4th, 2010 11:47am PDT - promote requested by NordlichReiter.

And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.

>> ^Porksandwich:

And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.


Now that's an argument I can get behind. The argument that the 65 foot rule is because there are hazardous chemicals, oil and or corexit, being used. Not because they arbitrarily need to create safe zones, and media personnel are simply hampering their efforts.

But, Proksandwich, that would require BP and Government officials admit that there are hazardous chemicals in use; which are a direct danger to living things.

Well, the drive-by media elected this fraudisdent, it's only justice the community thuganizer finally shows them all what useful idiots they are. Except FOX. ha ha ha ha ha!

Maybe now people will learn on what the western world is based.

HAHA! WAY TO GO STATIST IDIOTS!

Man, am I getting tired of saying that. And these are the people you want controlling your internet? Yes, Obama was your great savior! *rolls eyes*

Here's the Act that enables this ban:
http://oceancommission.gov/documents/gov_oceans/pwsa.pdf

The title is misleading, not that I want to defend the ban, but the ban is on anyone coming within 65' of cleanup operations. There's nothing about filming or shooting. I'm assuming that's why this isn't a violation of freedom of press. If the ban applied only to press it would be a blatant violation. If it made any mention of photography, that would probably be harder for them to defend as well.

My only thought on this is that if they admit it now, after months, when people get ill later....there will be proof to go back on and say they knew it was dangerous and didn't alert people soon enough. If they play the game you see all the CEOs playing "I don't recall" "I wasn't aware" "Im deaf dumb and blind" during Congressional hearings, they stand a chance of being able to blame it on the very people they are denying access to study the side effects and such of this. It almost sounds like a conspiracy nut explanation, but I can't see the point in not telling people that this stuff can give them cancer 10 years down the line and that they shouldn't be letting their kids play in the water where the oil may be present.


>> ^NordlichReiter:

>> ^Porksandwich:
And they still aren't telling people that exposure to this shit can make them sick, 65 foot rule sounds like a way to deny people treatment when they get sick from exposure. Because damn near everyone has a cell phone with a camera...so if you end up exposed, you had photographic equipment on you when it happened. So you broke the law, and since you became injured/ill because you broke the law...you can only blame yourself.

Now that's an argument I can get behind. The argument that the 65 foot rule is because there are hazardous chemicals, oil and or corexit, being used. Not because they arbitrarily need to create safe zones, and media personnel are simply hampering their efforts.
But, Proksandwich, that would require BP and Government officials admit that there are hazardous chemicals in use; which are a direct danger to living things.

MAN! If only there were an internet kill switch to stop all this bad press... I wish some "Independent" Senator would "save" me...

I mean, come on.... China has it right?