Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:37 AM) Well, I'm not one to defend Obama, but no, I don't think it's fair to blame him for a lot of that, there is more too it than just 'slow response'. Did he respond slow, sure...so did the entire senate/congress, and everyone else involved. But he didn't "cause" it. Lax rules didn't "cause it"...BP completely ignoring rules/regulations did. And seriously, enough with the f***ing "reforms". BP was negligent from the get go. These "rules and reforms" are the same as Daley's gun laws. THEY DON'T WORK BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T CARE. BP didn't care...so you could have had all the safety reforms in place, and it wouldn't have mattered. The logic of Obama supporters (on this issue): BP ignored security/safety measures and current regulation concerning the operations of an oil well. The government failed to enforce said regulations, allowing BP to continue operation despite said violations. More regulation would have solved the problem. What we need is more regulation, because going forward, BP WILL follow the rules (even though they clearly ignored them before). BP has started to pay out claims for said violations. BP has never indicated that they WOULDN'T pay for said claims. However, BP cannot be trusted to act appropriately because another oil company 30 years ago didn't. Therefore, Obama must ignore the judicial system, demand 20 billion, and become the chief claim administrator. See how they can argue both angles?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) There's lots of things you can blame Obama for here. 1. Not reforming the MMS fast enough 2. Being slow in the response 3. Leaving BP too much in control 4. Not committing enough resources to deal with the cleanup 5. Not responding fast enough to international offers of help I could go on. Agreed. After news of the oil spill hit, he should have seized their assets and appointed Rahm to run the company. Obamaocracy!

QUOTE (3E8 @ Feb 25, 2010 -> 10:32 PM) The Ricky Gervais podcast was the best of all times Totally agree. I hope they make some new ones. They have me crying most of the time. Stuff You Should Know is great for car rides/commutes. Two guys pick some random topic (history, science, philosophy....pretty much anything) that's interesting and then give a 30-40 minute summary/history/discussion. Sometimes it leads to further reading which is good. Bill Simmons (the sports guy) occasionally has good ones. But stay away from his small group of friends since they either talk about crap reality show and the yanks/sox. But when he has actual sports people it's good, or when he talks to guys like Alan Sepinwall or Chuck Klosterman it's pretty good.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 11:08 AM) Why don't you ask labor how happy they are with Obama. They kinda aren't. Well, lets be fair. Obama could provide the moon and they'd still find something to be unhappy about.

On a similiar note, anyone see that 60 Minutes piece about cyberwarfare? Using the internet to gain access to various utility services? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10393170-83.html Pretty interesting. I'm wondering wtf utility companies have their equipment on global servers. Can't they set up localized networks that can't be hacked into? Perhaps Obama's proposed powers stems from fear of something like this happening (though I would think that that point it'd be too late). And how many billions would the economy lose if he did shut down the internet, even for a day?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 18, 2010 -> 07:50 AM) I'm SHOCKED that we don't get angry and demand accountability for corporations that kill our citizens, destroy our ecosystem and destroy local economies. WHAT SOCIALIST EMPIRE IS THIS?!@?!!?!?!? There are two arguments here. One, that we all agree on - BP had a history of being on the cheap with their safety, and eventually it caught them in the ass, and their negligence caused the worst ecological disaster in our history. They should be made to pay for every dime that is a result of that. No one is disputing this. The second argument is that Obama is using this catastrophe for political gain on multiple fronts. I'm not blind. I realize EVERY president does this to some degree, but that doesn't mean I can't complain when I think Obama steps over the line. Arguing against some of Obama's moves isn't diminishing the anger or demand for accountability of BP and other like companies.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 02:01 PM) What the hell are you even arguing about? You're upset about this escrow thing??! Why? Is your uncle the CEO? Because I think its yet another step the executive has taken to control more of government, and another step government has taken to control private industry. I'm fine with it when there is no other remedy, but here BP has done nothing wrong yet but they're already forced to come up with 20 billion to set aside. It's the principle of the thing. I'm not defending them, I'm not saying they don't owe anyone anything, I'm just saying it's crap that Obama can say "give me 20 billion and WE'LL be the ones to pay it out." (and decide who gets what and when)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Every time things have been allowed to go that way, the victims get royally f***ed. Exxon-Valdez, Bhopal, etc. It never ends with just and timely compensation, especially if it gets dragged into courts. BP agreeing to an escrow account with independent administration seems like the perfect way to handle this. There is no reason to trust BP at this point to pay all legitimate claims fully and in a timely manner, and so the government has a vested interest in telling a private corporation how it needs to compensate its citizens. We shouldn't wait until they start screwing around to come back and punish them; that's how you end up with millions of gallons of oil in your fisheries and on your beaches. Preemption is a good thing. What are the options besides "wait until BP starts dicking around and drag it through the courts for 20 years" or "have BP set up a fund"? This isn't a fine or a penalty. It's not a punishment. It's establishing a fund to ensure that the millions of victims are adequately compensated for the damage BP has caused. Waiting decades for court decisions doesn't work. Trying to get this Congress to pass any sort of retroactive legislation is going to meet road blocks from Burton, Bachmann and others. Based on what? The fact that they have already set up a claim service and have paid hundreds of millions to people? Yep. Totally dicking everyone around.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) What a shock that you still haven't made a coherent argument. Why is it ok to fine them $20B but its so wrong to have them set up a $20B account with oversight? edit: functionally, what is the difference between the two? end result, what is the difference? why are you so upset about Obama getting BP to agree to this escrow account, and why is fining them so preferable? Why is BP setting up an escrow account to pay for the massive damages they caused a liberal position? What happened to conservatives always bleating on about accountability for actions? There's a difference because government shouldn't be in the role of telling companies how to go about paying their liabilities (claims) BEFORE they do something to warrant the liability. We all now BP f***ed up and is responsible, but it's not the executive's role to tell them they HAVE to set up a special account just to pay out claims. They should be able to pay out the claims however they see fit. Where does Obama get the right to tell them "set 20 billion aside RIGHT NOW?" The government should only get involved in that way when BP acts against the law. If they fail to fully compensate people (as determined by our JUDICIAL system) THEN you can fine them. It's government only responding when it HAS to, not because it CAN. You seem to assume that either way, BP is "fined" by the government for 20 billion. And I get that all Obama is doing is asking for an escrow account, but I think there are better ways to go about this. Pass a legislation that requires they keep X amount of profit available for potential payments. Who knows. There's a million other things they can do than to, yet again, usurp any idea of individual commercial rights and just tell them what to do. Maybe i'm not explaining it very well. But to me there's a clear difference in the government preemptively demanding this, and waiting until BP shows that it won't do it before levying a fine or some other penalty. Edit: that first sentence doesn't sound right. I mean to say that the government shouldn't tell a business how to go about paying their claims. The company has its resources set up as they want it. They'll pay it when they need to pay it according to the law. Only after they show that they're not following the law should the government step in and demand a fine or other penalty.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) and clearly, America is confused. A new Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 58 percent of Americans support Arizona's tough new immigration law. Support is strongest among Republicans and independents, and least strong among Democrats, especially minority Democrats. Still, the support is qualified in some respects. Even as a majority of Americans back the measure — which gives law enforcement officers authority to check the immigration status of people they have stopped or arrested — 57 percent of Americans also favor giving illegal immigrants who are already in the country a chance to become legal, if they pay fines and meet other requirements. Almost half of Republicans polled also support the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. In another result that rubs against the logic of the Arizona law, just 46 percent of respondents agree that states should be able to make their own border policies. Not that confusing to me. I'm in each camp. I'm in favor of the law, I'm in favor of some sort of path towards citizenship (with qualifiers), and I think the federal gov't SHOULD be in control of the borders, but since they're content with loop holes/half-ass policy, you get the AZ law (which btw, does nothing to limit federal law, just changes the protocal in AZ for enforcing those laws).

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) Yeah, people in the UK who seem to be personally offended by this, as if it was US vs UK, can go f*** themselves. No one is upset at the UK as a country, hell a lot of people probably think its an American company. They are upset at BP, not B. For now, maybe, until they see the smaller checks coming in. And it's still a "home country." Call it the AJ Rule. He's a prick, but you love him because he's on your team and you defened him anyway. Same thing here. That's "their" company, and they don't like it when other countries bash them. I would suspect our country would respond in the same way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:41 AM) 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. What a shock that you're a liberal. Gov't forces people to act (government saves!) versus Gov't making people pay for failing to act (boo! not enough!)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:24 AM) 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? 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. Here there was ZERO indication that would happen. They created a system for claims, they're paying those claims. Oh, and not that I care about this because I think Obama saying f*** you to BP was correct, but I am a little surprised not many people are worried about how his response has really pissed off one of our closest allies. And he's about to royally piss them off since something like one in every six pounds of pension money is coming to Americans, and not Brits.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:19 AM) 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... lol, you just love ignoring my entire statement to suit your argument.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) 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? It's irrelevant since they paid nothing up front and BP has already paid out claims. It VOLUNTARILY chose not to take that route. Again, totally fine with Obama saying "we're not going to allow the people of the gulf coast to go uncompensated for 2 decades." And "independent oversight." Who do you think he's going to appoint? If there's a politician in the group, it's no longer independent.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) 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. please point me to my post where i said this. 2 pages ago i said obama should have done more, and probably still needs to appoint more people/resources to the problem. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, i.e., him taking over the administration of claims, despite the fact that it was already ongoing, and despite the fact that there's an adequate avenue of remedy in case anyone gets screwed, i'm saying he should have no part in it. God, how unreasonable of me to assume the judicial branch plays its role and isn't taken over by the executive. God f***ing forbid.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:57 AM) Well, go ahead and defend it. You've flailed miserably so far. I have. I've said there's an adequate body to do exactly what he wants, it's called the courts. You know, the basis of our justice system. When s*** goes down, we don't need the president to stroll in, appoint some executive body and skirt the whole system. I said I was fine with him putting pressure on BP and threaten them so that they'd pay every cent due. WTF more do you want? I got in an auto accident the other day. f*** going through the courts for my claim, i'll just call up Obama and he'll FORCE THE COMPANY TO ACT AS HE WISHES!! Now you respond by putting words in my mouth and turning my argument into "Obama just hates people with money. BP didn't do anything wrong. s*** happens in life, they don't have to pay anything!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:52 AM) Your position is absolutely ridiculous and you're unable to defend it. yep, that's it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:48 AM) ahh, yes, we should wait for the courts to play this out, it only took the people affected by exxon mobile 20 years to get their pay. We should all make sure everyone get's f***ed over except BP. They are an amazing company because they are awesome and big and everyone is wrong except them, they should not be forced to do anything, they are competent, except to clean up the spill, the gov't should do that, the gov't should pay for it, WHY IS THE GOV'T MAKING BP PAY FOR IT..... WHY IS BP STILL CLEANING UP THEIR OWN MESS WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY Pssh, GMAFB. It's like talking to a wall with you people.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:37 AM) 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. ZOMG! People questioning Jesus II! Oh the humanity! I know you think Obama is the greatest thing ever, but he doesn't (and shouldn't) be putting himself in that kind of a position. It's ridiculous. We have this thing called a court system that already plays a role in what he's proposing and has for quite some time.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:24 AM) So you don't think BP should pay for this? Did I say that? I'm saying the Obama doesn't need to thrust himself into a situation that's already ongoing and that already has a mediation body (the courts). I'm fine with him saying "i'm going to make sure BP pays," but it's completely unnecessary to set up some third party (that he appoints) to administer the claims.

As I told a friend, if Breaking Bad can maintain this level of goodness for six seasons, then yes, it will overtake the Wire. In fact, I think if you compare the first three of each, Breaking Bad wins pretty easily. It gets better and better. I didn't think they could top season 2, but they did. I HATED Ziggy and the dock story line in season 2 of the Wire. There has never been a show that makes me sit at the edge of my seat, gasp, and say "whaaa?!?!" more than Breaking Bad. And it's not some writing gimmick like Lost. It's pure emotional, flight or fight response. People aren't killed like in the Sopranos just to be raw. There's important, meaningful consequenses for every action. And I LOVE how they kept the main theme of the show going. At any point, people act in that grey area of good or bad, justfiying their actions to fit their situation. Crazy good stuff.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jun 17, 2010 -> 10:11 AM) I think we all owe BP an apology Joe Barton I agree with him. It'd be one thing if BP hadn't already set up a claims system (and hadn't paid nearly 50% of the claims already submitted). Obama just wants to make this political - every claim that gets paid out is all thanks to Obama, not BP.

The last two Breaking Bad episodes were probably the best two hours of television I've seen in a long, long time (including one of my favorite shows, Lost). Just crazy good. Easily the best show on tv, and quickly becoming the best drama of all time.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 16, 2010 -> 12:33 PM) There's still incentive even if you stop entitlement programs. There are (or at least were!) jobs here; there aren't any in Mexico or a lot of other C.A./S.A. countries. Which is why you severly punish employers who get caught. Then there wouldn't be the jobs.