StrangeSox

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:49 AM) Well, I do think it is extreme for our country to tell a foreign country or begin speculation of what they can/can't do when it comes to dividends, etc. That really isn't our right, imo. However, outside of that I don't think Britain has any reason to get there panties in a bundle, outside of the fact that clearly them, just like many Americans (and New Jersey employees) have seen their retirement portfolio's take a significant hit due to the spill. Obama incorrectly called them "British Petroleum" several times, so they took that as a shot against Britain. That's where it started, and then the dividend talks came in.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:41 AM) Again, what came first, the chicken or the egg. In a capitalistic society, people are going to push the envelope to earn money and that is why oversight to an extent is necessary. Oversight in areas where the issues either impact national security, safety, etc, or when things are too big and will impact our very well being (see case of the banks....we were so close to going into Marshall Law 2 years ago and I don't think people quite realize just how close we were to complete and utter chaos). You can't blame a lack of laws for a company behaving unethically. If there wasn't a law against murder, that wouldn't absolve the murderer from committing a moral and ethical violation. And, really, that's an indictment against our current form of win-at-all-costs captialism--it encourages the absolute worst behavior you can get away with. This fund withstanding, their response has been awful. They have absolutely no solution. No one does. And we shouldn't be drilling until we do. It's eariler in the thread. Something like 750 OSHA violations versus one for Exxon and one for Shell. It's available. They've been doing ok so far, but we're a long way from determining the true impact. We'll see what happens as the tens of billions climb. Again, agreed, their was a complete lack of competent, independent oversight. MMS was full of problems and the industry pushed for and got lax regulations. That should be fixed, but that doesn't work with the conservative mantra of deregulation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) Pull its licenses or permits? Levy huge fines? I'm tired of the executive taking s*** over when there's no need. When there becomes a need (if BP had said f*** you all, we're going home) then he can do something about it. Until then, leave it to the justice system we put in place for the last 250 years. This isn't even wrong. Getting BP to agree to a large fund voluntarily = Evil Socialist President usurping the court's role Fining BP to get the right amount = A-okay! The justice department failed in a case with drastically less impact to give fair and timely compensation. For now. They could stop tomorrow or make unreasonable determinations as to what constitutes a valid claim. This offers independent oversight. Britain's fake outrage is laughable. BP destroyed a good chunk of our coast and millions of people's way of life. They deserve all the scorn they get. And the company should lose money and investors should lose money over this.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) All I am stating is that BP did not have to go this way. So I would say they seem to be willing to put the money out there. Now this is probably because they know they completely screwed up massively and really ignored the signs that would have prevented the explosion and tried to cover up the magnitude of the leak immediately following. Two terrible things and quite frankly, criminal things in my mind. Do I know that for a fact though, hell no. That is my pure speculation that they covered up the leak (and I'm sure if they did it was in a way that they had plenty of evidence to support there claims, the #'s they used just tended to be ones that were most in there favor and far less conservative). Well, then we both agree here. I do think this a positive move for BP and for those affected. I don't think $20B will be enough, but it's a good start and much better than waiting for decades for litigation. It shows good faith on the part of BP, though I think your speculation as to why is dead on.

So, after demanding that Obama commandeer boats from private owners, Bachmann is back to whining about Big Government and "redistribution of wealth." Yes, that wealth is and should be redistributed to those harmed by BP's massive f***ups, you moron.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:27 AM) Well in that instance, why the hell didn't we walk away? Why did the US government continue to allow them to do this? Where were we to step in. That is pretty deplorable and to me I'd like to think we'd handle the safety issues hard-core. Well, we have terrible regulation for a variety of reasons. But you don't blame the effect for the cause. If BP wasn't a crappy company, they won't need such tight oversight. Government failed here, sure, but the root cause is still BP.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:21 AM) lol, you just love ignoring my entire statement to suit your argument. How does Obama fulfill the promise "we're not going to allow the people of the gulf coast to go uncompensated for 2 decades" without having the executive branch step in?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:18 AM) Technically, BP could have sat back, told the US gov to f*** off, and went to court. They didn't have to put down 20B of there own money in this mess. Sure they f***ed up and acted negligently and ignored warnings signs but just because something happened at one location in the entire world, doesn't necessarily mean BP is a crappy company and that upper management is full of dumbasses, etc. BP is a good, incredibly successful company that made a mistake. long series of short-cuts in order to boost profits and finally it added up to a disaster. First, financially successful and "good" are not the same. Not even close. Second, their safety record is abysmal and the emails detailing the design considerations of this well show a corporate culture of cutting corners to maximize profits. I linked to the document dumps a few pages ago. Third, this seems like you're supporting the idea of the fund instead of litigating it all like jenks wants. But maybe jenks just wants to get in on the case.

And how does Obama back up "we're not going to allow the people of the gulf coast to go uncompensated for 2 decades" if he lets the courts handle it? By getting BP to establish a large fund? Oh, wait...

But Exxon-Valdez is a very clear counter-point to the "let the courts handle it" non-sense. You've failed to address that. What is wrong with him getting BP to agree to a $20B fund and independent oversight? How is that a shakedown? How is that worse than the courts taking decades to sort it out?

Well, go ahead and defend it. You've flailed miserably so far.

Your position is absolutely ridiculous and you're unable to defend it.

I don't particularly like Obama. It isn't about you questioning "jesus" but about the ridiculous question of "why does BP need oversight!?!"!" The court system took 20 years to get payments for Exxon-Valdez and then drastically cut the award value. Why should the victims have to wait that long for compensation? What about environmental cleanup costs that need to be funded in the meantime? Why, exactly, is this so out of line for the executive branch of the government to get involved in the largest environmental disaster in our country? This is another case where, no matter what happens, conservatives will cry about Obama. Kap is shouting about criminal negligence and Obama not doing anything and jenks is saying that Obama should have nothing to do with this at all.

Sure it's necessary, because BP is a demonstrably unethical company. Why should we trust them to judge the fairness of the claims? Why should they still be in control? in this thread, we have one conservative arguing that Obama is criminally negligent and another saying he's doing way too much.

Joe Barton is not a smart man. How is it a "shakedown" if they're paying for damages they caused? Does he not know what words mean?

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:24 AM) So you don't think BP should pay for this? No no no, we can rely on BP to do the honest and ethical thing. Their track record proves it.

LOL. Are you serious?

You can't ever criticize a conservative for being racist, bigoted, stupid or crazy, or kap will flip out.

Money is just another resource, dood.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 08:36 PM) Um hmm. Keep painting her as a nutso fanatical b****. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 07:15 PM) Kap, please stop white-knighting terrible companies and crazy politicians. This lady is crazy and has crazy ideas, especially when put into context. She does a fine job painting herself.

Kap, please stop white-knighting terrible companies and crazy politicians. This lady is crazy and has crazy ideas, especially when put into context.

Via BP's annual review of world energy: My fiance's 101 year old great grandmother is doing her part by leasing space for a couple of windmills in Odell. But it's still a blip on the map:

Reid was looking at the very real possibility of losing his seat, but now that his opponent is a crazy person, he'll probably stay in.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) Which is why you severly punish employers who get caught. Then there wouldn't be the jobs. You need very defined and very strict standards on what constitutes a violation or you're just going to have employers not hiring any brown people. That sort of regulation and enforcement costs money. Lots of money.

less regulation or the same regulation = STUPID.