The Man Who Would Be Dictator?

[Guest]

Obama said he's informing BP that they must surrender money to be put under government administration. On what Constitutional Authority? Where are the due process rights of the BP shareholders.

Obama doesn't crave totalitarian power? I guess we're starting to put that naive notion to rest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67814

[Guest]

Sounds like what you get in a plea-bargain. In this case (based on what little I've heard) the deal is "you start with a $20B fund and we won't seize your company and throw you in jail".

[Guest]

Sounds like what you get in a plea-bargain. In this case (based on what little I've heard) the deal is "you start with a $20B fund and we won't seize your company and throw you in jail".

It'll be great to be bailed out by forcing the senior citizens in the UK to pay for this and who depend on their pension checks, that will be drastically reduced because of this deal. What's the immense hardship on the elderly compared to making people think Obama, or the "Ass Kicker In-Chief", is actually doing something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7815713/Barack-Obamas-attacks-on-BP-hurting-British-pensioners.html

[Guest]

Riddle me this: Let's just forget for a moment that Obama and his administration strong-armed BP executives into setting up an open ended $20 billion slush fund without a judge, jury or any proof of what went wrong or how to fix it. Why is it okay for BP to withhold dividend payments to shareholders, risk the investment portfolios of investors worldwide which, by the way, includes teachers' unions in Texas while it was unacceptable for the auto industry and/or the banking industry to tighten their belts or file bankruptcy?

[Guest]

To the seniors in the UK I'd ask - who forced you to invest in a company that (let's use some demagoguery for effect here) is destroying the planet? Was it your pursuit of the almighty Pound Sterling and you didn't care about the effects since you're going to be dead soon anyway?

I heard this argument used against the tobacco company settlements and why 'pensioners' should pay for the settlement with reduced dividends.

So at best, the pensioners might be innocent if the PENSION FUND MANAGERS are the ones who made the decisions.

Sorry, trotting out little old ladies and pleading for sympathy is blackmail.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the auto industry DID file for bankruptcy (though not quite the way it normally happens). The banking industry (this is what boggles me) had "too big to fail" firms MERGE to become even BIGGER! But in neither of those cases were there crimes committed (though it appears some mortgage brokers might be going to jail eventually).

Comparing an accident from gross and willful negligence that results in an environmental catastrophe and wipes out the living of an entire region... Well, go ahead and compare the effect of this on a shrimp boater compared to a pensioner in the UK where ONE of their companies won't be making payments. Remember, it's not like they ALL get their retirement from ONLY BP dividends.

[Guest]

Okay, djplong, here is what confuses me. You said, and I've heard many others say similar things about BP, "gross and willful negligence." When was their trial or the investigation that found these legal findings?

[Guest]

BK,are you defending BP?

[Guest]

I'm just asking a question. Can you answer it?

[Guest]

The Kool-Aid has been drunk. I know when it's hopeless to continue a discussion. May this usurping of power be everything you hope it will me.

[Guest]

Has anyone watched any of the testimony by BP CEO before Congress on the oil spill?

Here's a blog that updates what is happening. I'm ashamed to be associated with these idiots questioning Tony Hayward. Is there one single person in this committee that understands that Tony Hayward was not on the rig? That Tony Hayward is an executive with a large corporation. I've heard them ask him no less than five times in an hour if he was on the rig or aware of certain things happening on the rig the second they happened. And when he says he wasn't on the rig, they act like that is a disgrace.

This is what happens when you have people in Congress with absolutely no, none, not one bit of experience in the real working world.

One woman now is rebuking Hayward for not being sad enough about the deaths of BP employees. Hayward very slowly explained that he was very upset about the deaths and had expressed that to the families, BUT Hayward corrected her, the 11 killed were not employees of BP.

Here's another example from the blog:

"7.51pm: Hayward says he'd be "very surprised" if his chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, or head of exploration and production, Andy Inglis, were involved in decisions about the design of the leaking Macondo oil well.

"The BP boss is playing a dangerous game by declaiming all responsibility for what went on at the rig. He's not exactly inspiring confidence in his senior leadership team.

"Mike Doyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat, reminds Hayward that he's not running a department store, he's running an oil company with "life or death" decisions. Doyle remarks that he's wondering if he could run an oil company, it pays better than being a Congressman and doesn't seem to involve much work: "Those of you at the top don't seem to have a clue what was going on at this rig."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/andrew-clark-on-america/2010/jun/17/bp-tony-hayward-congress-live-blog

[Guest]

BP officials are much smarter than Obama and his regime members.

Thinking that BP will put 20 billion dallars upfront in slush fund is naive
and indicates a lack of understanding of a powerful global company.

It will be a long time possibly years before all that money is extracted from this company.

[Guest]

Obama said he's informing BP that they must surrender money to be put under government administration. On what Constitutional Authority? Where are the due process rights of the BP shareholders.

Obama doesn't crave totalitarian power? I guess we're starting to put that naive notion to rest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67814

Dick Armey....LOL

[Guest]

My understanding, cashman, is that BP will put $5 billion a year for the next five years into a fund. They will reduce spending and sell some "$10 billion in assets over the next month" to raise money according to an article in the
New York Times. Wonder what they'll sell? Do you think Transocean will pay for anything in the near future. They apparently already settled with the insurance company who insured the rig that exploded to the tune of $401 million.

From the article: "The fund will be created over four years, at $5 billion a year. It is backed by the collateral of $20 billion in company assets in the United States. Though it is a significant hit for any company, the phase-in is intended give BP enough breathing space to manage its cash flow. BP said it would raise money by reducing spending programs and selling $10 billion in assets over the next month. Last year, BP generated profits of $17 billion.

"Mr. Feinberg will segue into his new role as the fund administrator, perhaps setting up shop in Louisiana, just as he is nearing the end of his stint as the government’s 'pay czar' overseeing executive compensation at the nation’s biggest banks, a post created in response to public outrage at bankers’ bonuses after the financial bailouts of recent years. Besides serving as special master for the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, he helped in cases involving compensation for victims of illnesses related to asbestos and to Agent Orange chemical poisoning, among many others.

"The claims process will be independent of BP and the government. Claimants who are rejected will be able to appeal to a three-person panel. BP can appeal only claims exceeding $500,000, unless Mr. Feinberg decides otherwise, said Carol M. Browner, a White House energy official."


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/us/politics/17obama.html?pagewanted=2

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6992073.html

[Guest]

Dick Armey....LOL

???????

[Guest]

???????

Right Wing Spin Machine in full force:


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0616/Tea-Party-s-Dick-Armey-slams-Obama-s-BP-oil-spill-response

[Guest]

Right Wing Spin Machine in full force:


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2010/0616/Tea-Party-s-Dick-Armey-slams-Obama-s-BP-oil-spill-response

It seems Dick Armey has it right. That was the point of my post. I'm glad you linked it so I know there are representative who feels as I do.

This is typical Chicago strong-arming. I'd like to know what he threatened BP with. If it's worse than this deal it must be a doozy.

[Guest]

An article in Forbes magazine the day before BP agreed to the slush fund titled, "Why BP Will Pay Obama's Escrow Fund," is an interesting read:


http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/06/16/why-bp-will-pay-obamas-escrow-fund/?partner=relatedstoriesbox

[Guest]

It seems Dick Armey has it right. That was the point of my post. I'm glad you linked it so I know there are representative who feels as I do.

This is typical Chicago strong-arming. I'd like to know what he threatened BP with. If it's worse than this deal it must be a doozy.

Surely you don't mean me......I am very happy with the "slush fund" and over the top about the oil workers unemployment fund.

[Guest]

Surely you don't mean me......I am very happy with the "slush fund" and over the top about the oil workers unemployment fund.

While you libs are hollerin' and whoopin' and having a good time; we are slowly losing and steadily losing our freedom and rights and rule of law. I'm glad you're so happy.

When they come for you no one will be left to care.

[Guest]

While you libs are hollerin' and whoopin' and having a good time; we are slowly losing and steadily losing our freedom and rights and rule of law. I'm glad you're so happy.

When they come for you no one will be left to care.

RichieLion....they have already come for me.

[Guest]

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0617/gop-congressman-apologizes-to-bp-for-20-billion-shakedown/
maybe you agree with this idiot

[Guest]

It'll be great to be bailed out by forcing the senior citizens in the UK to pay for this and who depend on their pension checks, that will be drastically reduced because of this deal. What's the immense hardship on the elderly compared to making people think Obama, or the "Ass Kicker In-Chief", is actually doing something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7815713/Barack-Obamas-attacks-on-BP-hurting-British-pensioners.html

I really find this odd....so let get straight you are more concerned about the elderly in UK than the oil workers, fisherman, tourist industry and the environment in the US.. Did I get that right?

Or perhaps you have so BP or big oil stocks in your portfolio?

[Guest]

I really find this odd....so let get straight you are more concerned about the elderly in UK than the oil workers, fisherman, tourist industry and the environment in the US.. Did I get that right?

Or perhaps you have so BP or big oil stocks in your portfolio?

Naaaaa ............... I'm with you Cologal, screw the elderly and screw it if Obama flouts the rule of law and shakes down a private company to release their money with threats to destroy their business. I'm hoping he nationalizes all industry and we all have to sing praises to Obama every morning under penalty of law.

I'm just saying, if you can't understand what's really happening; I pity you and Waynet for the grief you'll feel when it all finally smacks you in the face.

[Guest]

Okay, djplong, here is what confuses me. You said, and I've heard many others say similar things about BP, "gross and willful negligence." When was their trial or the investigation that found these legal findings?

Emloyees who survived the disaster were testifying to things like not keeping the batteries on the BOP units (Blow-Out Preventers) charged. It would appear that is the reason the BOPs didn't work when the workers tried to activate them.

When you have BP being cited over 700 times for 'gross and willful' negligence in the operation of their platforms while companies with far more 'evil' reputations (like Exxon-Mobil) don't have more than 7. It means Exxon-Mobil could be 10 times worse than they are and still only have a tenth of the violations that BP does.

It would appear, from the information that is coming out (and that the press is pouncing on like starving lions) that BP had a house of cards and it's coming down. There appears to be a LOT of dirty laundry that is going to come out.

[Guest]

Have you ever heard of people being sworn in to testify in a court of law, under oath? The people who were killed and the survivors of the explosion were not BP employees. Do you realize that? There are many parties to any potential lawsuit or blame in this accident. There are many ongoing investigations. The blow out preventer is still at the bottom of the ocean and part of the investigation is to recover it and determine what went wrong. Do you see how the whole process is undermining the judicial system?

God forbid you or the federal contractor you work for is ever involved some sort of incident based on human error and you are prosecuted before you are given the opportunity to present facts or allowed to investigate what happened. How does that assist in any kind of learning process to make things safer? Notice I say safer, I don't say, so there will never be another accident. In the real world, nothing is perfect. Accidents happen. The best course is to understand how to do and make things as safe as possible. You know the saying, Learn from our mistakes. Let's make sure things are investigated first without knee jerk reactions to blame the person with the deepest pockets.

[Guest]

If the company is cited so many times by a federal agency that oversees these rigs, what role does that agency play in this? What were the outcomes of the citations? Have you researched that or are you just repeating what you read or heard on the "news?" I'm not saying they weren't cited. The process doesn't stop after the citation.

[Guest]

I just find it unbelievable that all the anti-oil people on this blog are so happy with our government as if it was doing anything remotely useful.

BP is struggling to shut this leak; the government seems to know crap on how to accomplish this, and it's action is to flog the people who have to accomplish this in a self-serving circus of chest-puffery.

In Louisiana where the people affected by this spill are working to protect hearth and home, the government reaction is to stop them. The Coast Guard has been mobilized against citizens until they are satisfied that the people protecting their property are up to code on life jackets and fire extinguishers and what-not; supposedly; while they, of course, do NOTHING!!

With all the oil shut off for who knows how long, and the push for Cap & Trade and the inevitable dramatic increase in the need for foreign oil, which will cause prices to astronomically skyrocket, will you then still be happy with all this posturing.

The dupes who fall for this freak show of a thugocracy are pitifully naive.

[Guest]

I just find it unbelievable that all the anti-oil people on this blog are so happy with our government as if it was doing anything remotely useful.

BP is struggling to shut this leak; the government seems to know crap on how to accomplish this, and it's action is to flog the people who have to accomplish this in a self-serving circus of chest-puffery.

In Louisiana where the people affected by this spill are working to protect hearth and home, the government reaction is to stop them. The Coast Guard has been mobilized against citizens until they are satisfied that the people protecting their property are up to code on life jackets and fire extinguishers and what-not; supposedly; while they, of course, do NOTHING!!

With all the oil shut off for who knows how long, and the push for Cap & Trade and the inevitable dramatic increase in the need for foreign oil, which will cause prices to astronomically skyrocket, will you then still be happy with all this posturing.

The dupes who fall for this freak show of a thugocracy are pitifully naive.


How did we become anti oil people? There are a number of things I am anti but oil ain't one of them.

Corporations have to be made accountable....BP leased this rig and were the ones who made the decisions. So your idea is let this all play out in a court of law and when all the fun and games are over in 10 -15 years. Everyone will know who to sue and a new round of court actions will start. But what will become of the "small people". The fisherman will be long out of business and the lives ruined. Is that what you really want?

I sure as heck didn't like 43 but your abolute hatred of 44 goes far beyond anything I thought of.

[Guest]

How did we become anti oil people? There are a number of things I am anti but oil ain't one of them.

Corporations have to be made accountable....BP leased this rig and were the ones who made the decisions. So your idea is let this all play out in a court of law and when all the fun and games are over in 10 -15 years. Everyone will know who to sue and a new round of court actions will start. But what will become of the "small people". The fisherman will be long out of business and the lives ruined. Is that what you really want?

I sure as heck didn't like 43 but your abolute hatred of 44 goes far beyond anything I thought of.

As far as 44 goes; I abhor all progressives.
If you like something I guess the rule of law can go out the window. I get it.

[Guest]

So Tony Hayward and BP are good citizens and are not culpable for the disaster and were so prompt and forthcoming in offsetting the very real, long-term financial losses that there was no need to step in and grab the bull by the horns and create a better, more efficient way to compensate the real victims of this mess?

[Guest]

A better way than the Constitution? Do you realize they have already paid out more than $80 million in claims to ordinary residents in the Gulf? Claims at claims centers set up by BP where ordinary residents come in and fill out the paperwork and document their lost wages. $80 million. Think about that.

[Guest]

He's the guy in charge..."the buck stops here"...and he is oblivious or does not care. Did you notice that the board of directors has removed him from the whole deal? They get it...why don't you?

[Guest]

Off with his head!! A public stoning first! But wait, let's first do to BP what we did to the drunken captain of the Exxon Valdez Joseph Hazelwood.

[Guest]

You can hate progressives,liberals,Obama,apple pie and chevrolet but to defend BP in any way is totally immoral. They and they alone are responsible for this spill. The gov't reaction to it the attempts at closing the hole are a different issue. Please don't confuse the two. BP is liable for all damages and 20 billion is nothing for the damage THEIR rig has caused.

[Guest]

There are attorneys who will defend baby killers. I'm just saying let's have an investigation, gather the facts and let them be tried first. What part of the US Constitution don't you people understand. It is the law that stands between us as Americans and a monochary.

[Guest]

BK,what part of this don't you understand?An entire way of life is at jeopardy. It's not just about jobs or animals,it's about a way of life.All Obama is insisting on is responsible conduct and a responsible response to something THEY caused.Putting aside 20 billion to take care of the IMMEDIATE needs of these people who are not rich,who have bills,who must feed their families is not against any law. It's to take care of the people NOW. They can't survive 15 years of court battles. I don't understand your total disregard for the plight of fellow Americans and your defense of an oil company that has caused the greatest disaster in American history.

[Guest]

As far as 44 goes; I abhor all progressives.
If you like something I guess the rule of law can go out the window. I get it.

You know this is not the first time you tried this tatic...so the rule of law is important for all of us. If this action is unlawful then BP can take the US government to court. Just like when Truman tried to seize the Steel Companies. I know I am not a lawyer are you? Some lawyer will try to make some money on this you can bet on it.

And if you don't like something then its socialist, Chicago tactics, right from the Sal Alinsky playbook.......etc.

[Guest]

You know this is not the first time you tried this tatic...so the rule of law is important for all of us. If this action is unlawful then BP can take the US government to court. Just like when Truman tried to seize the Steel Companies. I know I am not a lawyer are you? Some lawyer will try to make some money on this you can bet on it.

And if you don't like something then its socialist, Chicago tactics, right from the Sal Alinsky playbook.......etc.

You do not get it and your sarcastic comebacks prove it.

BP and BH are equally responsible for the oil spill because they sit in the seats where the buck stops.

We thinkers are aware that BH and his crowd are using Chicago style tactics.
If you disagree with that you are just not processing the facts

[Guest]

You know this is not the first time you tried this tatic...so the rule of law is important for all of us. If this action is unlawful then BP can take the US government to court. Just like when Truman tried to seize the Steel Companies. I know I am not a lawyer are you? Some lawyer will try to make some money on this you can bet on it.

And if you don't like something then its socialist, Chicago tactics, right from the Sal Alinsky playbook.......etc.

What he did was threaten BP with something more ominous than the loss of this incredible amount of money from it's investors. How do I know? BP would never have caved otherwise. This is how he got away from the letter of the law and as the President of our supposedly free nation I find his actions despicable and sordid. Ends don't justify the means.

While you're celebrating your darling President, look up the word "incrementalism" and you'll understand what might be happening to the way, I'd wager, you once understood America, and how far your view has slid from when you were a girl.

Please google Obama's mentors, teachers and backers and you'll see every indication he is an Alinsky protege and socialist activist. I posted a graph of the influential people behind this man on this blog. Look at it and tell me where I'm mistaken.

[Guest]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100619/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill

[Guest]

Cashman,How can you possibly say they are both equally guilty of this catastrophe.? What did Obama have to do with the tower that blew up?Just because he's the President means he's responsible for it. That's plain ignorant. Are you going to give him credit for the Lakers winning the NBA or the soccer teams tie game? As I stated earlier you can blame him for the response but to give him equal blame for the spill shows where your really at. You hate the man it's plain and simple and your hatred gets in the way of any true dialogue. Your previous post is a disgrace.

[Guest]

Cashman,How can you possibly say they are both equally guilty of this catastrophe.? What did Obama have to do with the tower that blew up?Just because he's the President means he's responsible for it. That's plain ignorant. Are you going to give him credit for the Lakers winning the NBA or the soccer teams tie game? As I stated earlier you can blame him for the response but to give him equal blame for the spill shows where your really at. You hate the man it's plain and simple and your hatred gets in the way of any true dialogue. Your previous post is a disgrace.

You really aren't this dense, are you? The oil companies are the most highly regulated industries in the U.S. Just weeks before the explosion the oil rig was given passing grades.
After the explosion the government did nothing to help in the aftermath but jump up and down like you.
What part of the "buck stops here" don't you understand?

I'm only being personal in this post because that's seems to be the way you respond to others.

[Guest]

Then I'll say the same to you. If you want to get on Obama for the reaction to the spill that's fine. But to say he shares responsibility with BP for the spill is both ignorant and untrue. You take it from here. hate does strange things to people.

[Guest]

And about being dense,never mind.

[Guest]

Then I'll say the same to you. If you want to get on Obama for the reaction to the spill that's fine. But to say he shares responsibility with BP for the spill is both ignorant and untrue. You take it from here. hate does strange things to people.

Your friends at the Daily Kos are blaming Bush and Regan !

[Guest]

No, Obama probably didn't cause the spill, but he sure hasn't done anything to try and contain it. Other countries offered help immediately and he refused. He seems intent on interferring, as much as possible. As Rahm says, never let a crisis go to waste.

[Guest]

Cashman,How can you possibly say they are both equally guilty of this catastrophe.? What did Obama have to do with the tower that blew up?Just because he's the President means he's responsible for it. That's plain ignorant. Are you going to give him credit for the Lakers winning the NBA or the soccer teams tie game? As I stated earlier you can blame him for the response but to give him equal blame for the spill shows where your really at. You hate the man it's plain and simple and your hatred gets in the way of any true dialogue. Your previous post is a disgrace.

Ignorant is not being aware of the facts. When are you going to find out what the facts are? I will tell you: "not until you do your research using more indepedent sources
than you do.


Even then you will still not be aware if your ideology keeps your mind closed.


PS.you are the first person in my life to call me "ignorant" which makes you a very special person.

[Guest]

Here is the fact plain and simple. An oil rig owned and operated by BP blew up and is causing what may be the worst ecological disaster in American history. That's the FACT. Indisputable,undeniable....everything else you and others say is opinion,hearsay.... Here is another fact..To defend BP in any way is being ignorant of that one fact and showing your true hatred of one man. You don't even care what happens tp the people along the Gulf as long as you can blame Obama for it.

[Guest]

Here is the fact plain and simple. An oil rig owned and operated by BP blew up and is causing what may be the worst ecological disaster in American history. That's the FACT. Indisputable,undeniable....everything else you and others say is opinion,hearsay.... Here is another fact..To defend BP in any way is being ignorant of that one fact and showing your true hatred of one man. You don't even care what happens tp the people along the Gulf as long as you can blame Obama for it.

I do not defend BP. I defend the rule of law, not the thugocracy.

Yoda

[Guest]

Yoda,you call it a thugocracy,I call it helping Americans whose way of life is threatened. Obama is insisting on is responsible conduct and a responsible response to something THEY caused. Again putting aside 20 billion to meet the needs of real people who have mouths to feed and bills to pay is against no law I know of. These people need help NOW. If you call this thugocracy you have no feelings for suffering Americans. But if we do it your way BP keeps this in court for 15 years before paying anything.(Remember the Valdez) and the law is served. Unfortunately most of these people in 15 years will not survive. So,I'm for thugocracy except I call it doing what government is supposed to do HELPING AMERICANS WHO CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES through NO FAULT of their own.

[Guest]

Here is the fact plain and simple. An oil rig owned and operated by BP blew up and is causing what may be the worst ecological disaster in American history. That's the FACT. Indisputable,undeniable....everything else you and others say is opinion,hearsay.... Here is another fact..To defend BP in any way is being ignorant of that one fact and showing your true hatred of one man. You don't even care what happens tp the people along the Gulf as long as you can blame Obama for it.

Very sad.

[Guest]

Yoda: I apologize for the way this will sound. But does this mean that you think the way that the Exxon Valdez situation was handled was proper? That is, Exxon fought the court award tooth and nail all the way through the courts and got it reduced to 10% of it's original value. It took YEARS for people to see so much as a penny.

Say what you will about BP and negligence or whatever.. But I know this about myself. If I screw up, I admit it when I realize it and try to make amends. I'm not perfect, nobody is. But I don't sit on my ass screaming "innocent" until "proven" guilty - not if I know I did something wrong. BP, at least in this measure, for whatever reasons, is saying "we screwed up" and aren't forcing shrimp boaters to go 5 or more years dragging things through the courts making nobody but lawyers more wealthy before letting them see a dime.

I don't give a sick dingo's kidney if BP feels 'forced' to do it because they have the legal right to fight it IF THEY SO CHOOSE. They chose not to. Again, for whatever reasons, they're doing the right thing. Some people thought they would declare bankruptcy to avoid paying for this - which would have been difficult since no judge would accept it given they have $3T (yes, trillion) in sales and $30B in profits per year.

[Guest]

Yoda: I apologize for the way this will sound. But does this mean that you think the way that the Exxon Valdez situation was handled was proper? That is, Exxon fought the court award tooth and nail all the way through the courts and got it reduced to 10% of it's original value. It took YEARS for people to see so much as a penny.

Say what you will about BP and negligence or whatever.. But I know this about myself. If I screw up, I admit it when I realize it and try to make amends. I'm not perfect, nobody is. But I don't sit on my ass screaming "innocent" until "proven" guilty - not if I know I did something wrong. BP, at least in this measure, for whatever reasons, is saying "we screwed up" and aren't forcing shrimp boaters to go 5 or more years dragging things through the courts making nobody but lawyers more wealthy before letting them see a dime.

I don't give a sick dingo's kidney if BP feels 'forced' to do it because they have the legal right to fight it IF THEY SO CHOOSE. They chose not to. Again, for whatever reasons, they're doing the right thing. Some people thought they would declare bankruptcy to avoid paying for this - which would have been difficult since no judge would accept it given they have $3T (yes, trillion) in sales and $30B in profits per year.

I don't think anyone believes that BP should be let off the hook, but there are laws and legal procedures that have been specifically drafted and passed for this sort of situation and occurrence.
The ends justify the means, I guess, in your view. I can't wait for the next obamanation that occurs and see if the incremental eroding of rule of law and our American values affects you or the people who believe as you do.

[Guest]

You do not get it and your sarcastic comebacks prove it.

BP and BH are equally responsible for the oil spill because they sit in the seats where the buck stops.

We thinkers are aware that BH and his crowd are using Chicago style tactics.
If you disagree with that you are just not processing the facts

I process the facts quite well. But I don't drink the same Kool-Aid that you do.

[Guest]

RichieLion: Yes, there are laws. But I'll ask you this - and I hope I don't sound condescending - but even with the laws, what prevents government and industry getting together voluntarily to expedite the handling of aspects of this disaster?

In other words, why wait for the courts to demand good intentions when BP was ready to go immediately. I mean, even if the justification from BP is "Well, we might avoid some of our people going to jail and we'll save a bundle, perhaps billions, in legal fees and it's the best way to get our stock price back up (to get this in our rear view mirror) - let's do it". So what?

In this case, perhaps it's BP seeing ghosts of Exxon past and they don't want any of that. Even from a purely BP-selfish point of view, the sooner they get ahead of this, the sooner their stock price rebounds and the sooner they pay dividends.

[Guest]

djplong: That sounds lovely; only I don't think so. It's seems more likely BP was threatened with the seizure of their assets or something quite similar in the "Chicago" style as was and is being encouraged by some in Congress and the progressive/socialist base of Obama's party.

[Guest]

you have not one shread of proof on your side. That is total speculation.But please lets not let the facts get in the way.

[Guest]

If' I'm BP and the goverment is threatening my assets with seizure, then my PR machine goes into high gear. Remember, I have three trillion in sales per year and I can eat a one-time $20B his and still make $10B in profits. Here's what I say:

"We're prepared to set up a multi-billion dollar fund to pay claims in the Gulf so that the residents of that area won't have to go through what the people of Alaska had to endire - but the government is threatening an unconstitutional seizure of assets (see Ammendment 5 of the Constitution) which would prevent us from focusing on these efforts."

Now, if there were threats that were not nearly as drastic, I'm guessing we wouldn't hear of them. But nationalizing foreign assets? That would get the government of the UK involved and I can't imagine the kind of furball that would start happening.

[Guest]

you have not one shread of proof on your side. That is total speculation.But please lets not let the facts get in the way.

Here is an article professing the President has informed BP the US Govt. would do exactly like I iterated.
http://www.connecticutplus.com/cplus/information/news/National_3/A-message-from-Seize-BP-about-the-Obama-administration-s-new-position-on-BP87648764.shtml

Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs says the President has the power to compel BP to hand over it's funds.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/15/obama-bp-oil-spill-claims

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocates the takeover of BP's stateside interests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/15/obama-bp-oil-spill-claims

I've got more stories to back up my "total speculation". I know you won't admit you could have been mistaken. I'll just wait for the usual denigration of my links and my state of mind.

[Guest]

the puppet masters could not be happier.

A wise man once said, “When the tiger escapes from his cage and kills, it is not the fault of the tiger but rather the zookeeper.”

We have focused far too much on the tiger, BP, and not enough on the zookeeper, the United States government. This does not excuse BP from damage caused by the spill, nor allow us to blame government agencies most of us have never heard from before.

These are easy targets for those actually responsible to hold up and say, “Here are the evil doers, let’s tar and feather them and run them out of town on a rail” What is does say is that this spill along with our hemorrhaging of money to the oil states will continue until the United States Government accepts that it is the primary actor in this tragedy. Our lack of a coherent, rational energy policy has set up these problems and allowed them to continue since the days of Jimmy Carter. This is neither a democrat nor a republican problem, a problem created solely by the Congresses or the Presidents. – It is a failure of will on the part of the people of this country and our elected representatives.

So, what should we do? There are several things that need to go one immediately: (1) cleanup the mess and plug the leak; (2) get gulf oil back on-line, this is thirty percent of the nation’s oil supply and eliminating it will not only cripple the economy of the gulf states but the county; (3) start building nuclear power plants immediately – we need legislation to prevent the ‘environmentalists’ from blocking this action; (where did the idea come from that there were people who cared about the environment and those that favored pollution come from?) (4) Open Yucca Mountain for the long term storage of high level nuclear waste – every study by DOE scientists has shown is the safest way of disposal; (5) make a quick cost benefit study of the ways of producing electricity; (6) shift existing oil fired plants to coal; (7) begin a crash program to shift OTR trucking from gasoline to natural gas, even if it means shutting down natural gas fired plants and converting them to coal – coal is our bridge to the future; (8) kill ‘cap and trade’ legislations, if cap-and-trade is not killed, everything else will be in vain, we will become a third world country.

[Guest]

read your 2 posts and found them quite interesting.From your first post
"What the White House would do if BP refused..."the White House has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to create an escrow account"
from the second..the U.S.will handle damage claims"IF NECESSARY"."We have to get an independent claims process." Doesn't seem heavy-handed or dictatorial to me.

[Guest]

"Incrementalism"; you're getting used to ignoring law and procedure to gain a goal little by little by little ................