PDA

View Full Version : Obama 7 minutes vs. 57 days...let's play the Obama "BP is like 9/11" game


petegz28
06-16-2010, 11:32 AM
Remember the infamous 7 Minutes? The 7 minutes between the time the 9/11 attacks occured and when Bush left the children's classroom?

I was just watching an interesting interview on Bloomberg and one guest said taking 57 days to talk to the CEO of BP and then for only 20 minutes was not really acceptable (paraphrased) and it seems he spends more time lacing up his golf spikes. The other gues immediately asked him if he raised the same issues when Bush spent 1/5 of his time at Crawford?

So, since Obama likened the BP spill to 9/11, which in and of itself was idiotic to do, let's address the criticism objectively.

Bush was slammed for spending 7 minutes in a classroom
Obama took 12 days before he even went to the spill site
Obama took 57 days before he even spoke with the CEO of the company responsible for the spill.


:hmmm:

KC Dan
06-16-2010, 11:35 AM
How dare you question "The Savior"?

petegz28
06-16-2010, 11:37 AM
FTR, Bush was at Ground Zero 3 days after the attacks.

ROYC75
06-16-2010, 12:07 PM
Oh my, didn't you here, since this was Bush's fault Obo was waiting for him to take care of this.

stevieray
06-16-2010, 12:16 PM
I don't have all the facts, but the police acted stupidly.

The AZ law is poorly construed (matches Fed Law)...and the overdramatic "if you don't have your papers"

I'm not going to talk to Governor Brewer. ok, now I will.

I won't talk to the CEO of BP...ok now I will.

....but the madman of Iran? NP.

orange
06-16-2010, 02:19 PM
You do realize that BP - as a result of pressure from Obama - has suspended paying out any dividends, to much uproar in England; and has established a $20,000,000,000 escrow account to pay claims.

No, I bet you didn't realize that. Because this obviously wasn't done over a five minute meeting in the Oval Office, which is what you are focused on.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 02:21 PM
You do realize that BP - as a result of pressure from Obama - has suspended paying out any dividends, to much uproar in England; and has established a $20,000,000 escrow account to pay claims.

No, I bet you didn't realize that. Because this obviously wasn't done over a five minute meeting in the Oval Office, which is what you are focused on.

And that has done what to contain the spill??? And yes, I did realize that, you should read some other threads. I was the first one to report that they agreed to the escrow fund.

orange
06-16-2010, 02:25 PM
And that has done what to contain the spill??? And yes, I did realize that, you should read some other threads. I was the first one to report that they agreed to the escrow fund.


They are capturing 500,000 gallons a day of oil at the spill site. They also have a couple thousand skimmer vessals in operation, collecting up to another half million. And of course they're working on a relief well. The fact that YOU don't know what's happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 02:28 PM
They are capturing 500,000 gallons a day of oil at the spill site. They also have a couple thousand skimmer vessals in operation, collecting up to another half million. And of course they're working on a relief well. The fact that YOU don't know what's happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You really shouldn't assume so much, Orange. The fact is the efforts are weak at best. Quit peter-puffing Obama so much. It gets old. They are working on several relief wells to be correct. And those won't have any effect until August at the earliest.

orange
06-16-2010, 02:32 PM
You really shouldn't assume so much, Orange. The fact is the efforts are weak at best. Quit peter-puffing Obama so much. It gets old. They are working on several relief wells to be correct. And those won't have any effect until August at the earliest.

Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, June 11, 2010

Just to summarize where we’re at on this Friday regarding people—about 25,000 are on the ground down there. This has become the largest oil spill response in our nation’s history. We have over 1,200 Coast Guardsmen, 1,400 National Guardsmen, 21,000 contractors and 700 volunteers.

A tremendous amount of equipment has flowed into the area. Most notably, we now have 400 skimmers on duty and around the gulf, 500 barges, 2,500 government and contract vessels and more than 2,000 vessels of opportunity utilizing local watermen and their knowledge and their vessels, 64 aircraft and 2.7 million feet of boom either deployed or staged and ready to deploy.

We’re also removing as much oil as we can from the surface around the well site as you know and then further out as we get towards shore, significantly increasing our skimming capability.

We have skimmed, to date, about 18 million gallons of oily water—the oil has to be decanted from that [and] our yield is usually somewhere around 10 or 15 percent on that. We have burned 3.8 million gallons of oil. We’ve applied over a million gallons of dispersant.



Read MUCH more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95780/transcript-of-adm-thad-allens.html#ixzz0r2vXzBm6

Hydrae
06-16-2010, 02:32 PM
They are capturing 500,000 gallons a day of oil at the spill site. They also have a couple thousand skimmer vessals in operation, collecting up to another half million. And of course they're working on a relief well. The fact that YOU don't know what's happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

That brings up an interesting point I have been curious about. It seems like every time we turn around there is a new estimate of how much crude is being ejected on a per day basis. The last number I heard yesterday was up to 2.5 million gallons a day. My question is, is this the amount coming out of the hole or is this the net amount being dumped into the Gulf after considering what they are now recovering? If it is the latter (which is really the number we should be concerned with), that would make it seem that at least 3 million gallons a day are being ejected. If true, how could the estimates have been off by a factor of about 15 in the first place?

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 02:34 PM
They are capturing 500,000 gallons a day of oil at the spill site. They also have a couple thousand skimmer vessals in operation, collecting up to another half million. And of course they're working on a relief well. The fact that YOU don't know what's happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

And Obama didn't do dick all to do any of that. That is all BP, it is not Obama, it is not the Administration. BP is required by law to pay for ALL clean up. ALL. As in every penny. Obama didn't do that. BP has said from day one they will pay all legitimate claims. Obama didn't do that. BP is capturing the oil. Obama didn't do that. They're drilling two relief wells, Obama didn't do that. WTF did Obammy do? He used a tragedy in a thinly veiled attempt to advance his own political agenda. I said it before, it is as if he came upon a man lying in the street in desperate need of medical attention and instead of helping him Obammy rifles the dude's pockets for spare change.

What Obammy is in charge of is keeping the oil off the shores. Cleaning oil off the beaches. Organizing clean up efforts and his administration has hit a massive wall of FAIL so f'ing big that the governor of LA is breaking the law to move ahead with building protective berms offshore to keep oil at bay.

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 02:36 PM
They are capturing 500,000 gallons a day of oil at the spill site. They also have a couple thousand skimmer vessals in operation, collecting up to another half million. And of course they're working on a relief well. The fact that YOU don't know what's happening doesn't mean it isn't happening.

True but the clean up isn't really going so great around the shore line.

Which brings another issue into play of who should be in charge of it because currently BP is. They are the ones not accepting expert volunteers, extra equipment etc...

petegz28
06-16-2010, 02:38 PM
True but the clean up isn't really going so great around the shore line.

Which brings another issue into play of who should be in charge of it because currently BP is. They are the ones not accepting expert volunteers, extra equipment etc...

Wel then that exhibits even worse leadership on the part of Obama. I can see BP being charged to plug the hole. And some are speculating now that they are not. But to contain the spill Obama needs to be more active in the actions that are being taken. This is our country, our land (per se), not BP's. If he is leaving it all up to BP then he is a bigger fucking joke than I thought.

orange
06-16-2010, 02:41 PM
And Obama didn't do dick all to do any of that. That is all BP, it is not Obama, it is not the Administration. BP is required by law to pay for ALL clean up. ALL. As in every penny. Obama didn't do that. BP has said from day one they will pay all legitimate claims. Obama didn't do that. BP is capturing the oil. Obama didn't do that. They're drilling two relief wells, Obama didn't do that. WTF did Obammy do? He used a tragedy in a thinly veiled attempt to advance his own political agenda. I said it before, it is as if he came upon a man lying in the street in desperate need of medical attention and instead of helping him Obammy rifles the dude's pockets for spare change.

What Obammy is in charge of is keeping the oil off the shores. Cleaning oil off the beaches. Organizing clean up efforts and his administration has hit a massive wall of FAIL so f'ing big that the governor of LA is breaking the law to move ahead with building protective berms offshore to keep oil at bay.

This whole response is laughable. The whole effort is being coordinated by Adm. Thad Allen, Incident Commander. While BP is paying, they didn't have all those contacts. Notice in that post above - #10 and the full story you could read at the link - how few of the vessels, personnel, etc. are BP employees.

Also, your "BP must pay it all" shit is just that... shit. The law limits BP's liability to $75,000,000. That's MILLION not billion. Everything else is from political pressure (threatening, cajoling, Alinskyizing - you know, "the Chicago Way" you wingers are so fond of exhorting).

orange
06-16-2010, 02:44 PM
True but the clean up isn't really going so great around the shore line.

Which brings another issue into play of who should be in charge of it because currently BP is. They are the ones not accepting expert volunteers, extra equipment etc...

Not so. BP is NOT in charge. Incident Commander Thad Allen (Coast Guard Admiral) is in charge.

And they ARE accepting volunteers, foreign equipment, etc. Not everything that's volunteered is useful.


Far too long to repeat here:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201006110023
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95780/transcript-of-adm-thad-allens.html
http://www.enewspf.com/index.php/latest-news/latest-national/16871-press-briefing-by-national-incident-commander-for-deepwater-bp-oil-spill-response-june-10-2010

Short form - they are using aid from other countries - including skimmers. They haven't needed to waive the Jones Act for any of it. Meanwhile, there are still thousands of domestic resources available.

....

There's only so much you can do with skimmers. The surface oil is not the problem, it's the underwater plumes. That's my own take.

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 02:57 PM
Not so. BP is NOT in charge. Incident Commander Thad Allen (Coast Guard Admiral) is in charge.

And they ARE accepting volunteers, foreign equipment, etc. Not everything that's volunteered is useful.

Ok my bad. I thought that BP was in charge of the shore line cleanup as well. Well I guess they will be paying for it but Thad Allen is in charge.

orange
06-16-2010, 03:03 PM
What Obammy is in charge of is keeping the oil off the shores. Cleaning oil off the beaches. Organizing clean up efforts and his administration has hit a massive wall of FAIL so f'ing big that the governor of LA is breaking the law to move ahead with building protective berms offshore to keep oil at bay.

You mean these berms:


June 3, 2010

BP has been ordered to fund six barrier island projects to protect Louisiana marshes from the oil spill at a cost of $360 million (£244 million).

Commandant Admiral Thad Allen, the National Incident Commander of the spill, yesterday charged the British energy giant with paying for five additional barrier islands, after calling for the first one last week.

He said: “Based on a thorough expert analysis, we believe that these six projects, which will be constructed expeditiously in the areas most at risk for long-term impact by oil, will effectively stem potential damage to these fragile shorelines.”

BP said that it supported the decision, although it would not manage the construction directly or assume “any liability for unintended consequences of the project”.

Tony Hayward, chief executive, said: “BP is committed to implementing the most effective measures to protect the coastline of Louisiana and reduce the impact of the oil and gas spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government and the state of Louisiana have agreed that the barrier islands construction is an effective response to the spill, and we look forward to working with them on this project.”

It is understood that the projects could take six to nine months to construct, with some taking up to a year. Experts are divided as to whether they are an effective response to the spill.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7143119.ece
Yeah, the Administration had nothing to do with that. ROFL

ROYC75
06-16-2010, 03:04 PM
Not so. BP is NOT in charge. Incident Commander Thad Allen (Coast Guard Admiral) is in charge.

And they ARE accepting volunteers, foreign equipment, etc. Not everything that's volunteered is useful.

Finally, after turning all help aside, local and foreign to start with.

Buy hey,at least he has found the ball and on it. It's better to be late than not at all, right.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 03:05 PM
This whole response is laughable. The whole effort is being coordinated by Adm. Thad Allen, Incident Commander. While BP is paying, they didn't have all those contacts. Notice in that post above - #10 and the full story you could read at the link - how few of the vessels, personnel, etc. are BP employees.

Also, your "BP must pay it all" shit is just that... shit. The law limits BP's liability to $75,000,000. That's MILLION not billion. Everything else is from political pressure (threatening, cajoling, Alinskyizing - you know, "the Chicago Way" you wingers are so fond of exhorting).

You are so wrong it is offensive. Go learn the f'ing statute.

1. The effort is undertaken by joint understanding of all offshore operators in the GOM that should one have an event that all will pool their resources to help mitigate it. The skimmers, the boats, the drill ships, the tankers, everything is part of a response plan that industry had developed long ago in conjunction with the USCG. Most of those vessels aren't USCG, they are industry. If nothing else the cynic can see it is a cost containment measure at the very least. Why? Because...

2. You and your leftist cronies DO NOT KNOW THE LAW. Governing statute here is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Under the OPA 90 the responsible party is require to pay for ALL clean up costs. That is the statute. Period.

Additionally, under that act there is indeed a STRICT LIABILITY of $75M for the responsible party. The responsible party under OPA 90 is the lessee. Period. No discussion. Strict liability means that the responsible party by simple virtue of being the responsible party must pay out all claims up to that cap. That is it. However, should the responsible party be found negligent then the cap is waived. Neither OPA 90 nor any other statute, state or federal, limits any claims for damages by states, individuals or other claimants seeking restitution as a result of a spill. There is no cap on claims. Period.

3. OPA 90 mandates that in the event of a spill a Unified Command be established with Federal On Site Coordinators.

None of this is Obammy's doing, it is all existing statute. Been that way for 20years. The only Chicago style politics Obammy is using is trying to capitalize on the misery of others for his own grandiose purposes.

The things Obammy's folks could have done like approved the request by the state of LA to build dredge berms, deploying the vessels of opportunity, having the booms propery stocked (the responsibility of the USCG and US gov't under OPA 90), having a proper understanding of the industry (the moratorium is going to compound every employment problem and struggle of the folks down there orders of magnitude. Probably going to cost at least 30K jobs and billions in state and federal revenues. Revenues to help those same folks. Obammy shit the bed on that one.), clean up. Shit like that.

I'll do laps on you on this all day long if you like.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 03:07 PM
You mean these berms:


June 3, 2010

BP has been ordered to fund six barrier island projects to protect Louisiana marshes from the oil spill at a cost of $360 million (£244 million).

Commandant Admiral Thad Allen, the National Incident Commander of the spill, yesterday charged the British energy giant with paying for five additional barrier islands, after calling for the first one last week.

He said: “Based on a thorough expert analysis, we believe that these six projects, which will be constructed expeditiously in the areas most at risk for long-term impact by oil, will effectively stem potential damage to these fragile shorelines.”

BP said that it supported the decision, although it would not manage the construction directly or assume “any liability for unintended consequences of the project”.

Tony Hayward, chief executive, said: “BP is committed to implementing the most effective measures to protect the coastline of Louisiana and reduce the impact of the oil and gas spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government and the state of Louisiana have agreed that the barrier islands construction is an effective response to the spill, and we look forward to working with them on this project.”

It is understood that the projects could take six to nine months to construct, with some taking up to a year. Experts are divided as to whether they are an effective response to the spill.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article7143119.ece
Yeah, the Administration had nothing to do with that. ROFL

Yeah, the ones Jindal requested 40 f'ing days ago. Yeah, those barrier islands. And Obammy only approved roughly 6% of the barrier islands requested. Yeah, those.

Pants
06-16-2010, 03:09 PM
And that has done what to contain the spill??? And yes, I did realize that, you should read some other threads. I was the first one to report that they agreed to the escrow fund.

And what do you want Obama to do? Invade BP?

petegz28
06-16-2010, 03:13 PM
And what do you want Obama to do? Invade BP?

I'd like to see more action taken on containing the spill and less action taken, for the time being, on worrying about who to blame and filing criminal charges.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 03:17 PM
I'd like to see more action taken on containing the spill and less action taken, for the time being, on worrying about who to blame and filing criminal charges.

Yep. The criminal charges thing I don't mind so much. Those guys are investigating and that's what they should be doing. But if Obammy put as much effort and thought into containment as he does on how to exploit this tragedy for his own gain this thing would have been solved weeks ago.

orange
06-16-2010, 03:18 PM
Go learn the f'ing statute.


SEC. 1004. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the total of the liability of a responsible party under section
1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed—
(1) for a tank vessel, the greater of—
(A) $1,200 per gross ton; or
(B)(i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross
tons, $10,000,000; or
(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less,
$2,000,000;
(2) for any other vessel, $600 per gross ton or $500,000,
whichever is greater;
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port,
$350,000,000.
http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf



$75,000,000 to the claimants. $75,000,000.

NOT $20,000,000,000

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Tell me again how the Administration had NOTHING TO DO with the barrier islands. I need a few more ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLs

I'll do laps on you on this all day long if you like.

Laps?! You're too busy chewing your ass to even get out of the starting gate.

Cave Johnson
06-16-2010, 03:19 PM
Yeah, the ones Jindal requested 40 f'ing days ago. Yeah, those barrier islands. And Obammy only approved roughly 6% of the barrier islands requested. Yeah, those.

You mean these berms, which aren't expected to last through the hurricane season.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127774917

petegz28
06-16-2010, 03:20 PM
Yep. The criminal charges thing I don't mind so much. Those guys are investigating and that's what they should be doing. But if Obammy put as much effort and thought into containment as he does on how to exploit this tragedy for his own gain this thing would have been solved weeks ago.

See, here is my problem with it. It reminds me of my days with Sprint and one of the reasons Sprint had problems. Whenever we would have an outage or something would break a ton of people would get on a call to fix it. But most spent the majority of the time bitching about who was to blame and what not instead of focusing on fixing the problem.

There will be plenty of time to point fingers. The goal now is to fix the fucking leak. Not walk around talking about how you are going to kick asses and file criminal charges. It's called priorities.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 03:21 PM
You mean these berms, which aren't expected to last through the hurricane season.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127774917

Well fuck, I know if I cut myself really bad that holding a towel on it won't last and be a long term fix. But it sure the fuck will help until I get to the hospital, won't it?

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 03:28 PM
After delays, U.S. begins to tap foreign aid for gulf oil spill


By Juliet Eilperin and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, June 14, 2010; A04


Four weeks after the nation's worst environmental disaster, the Obama administration saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills.

"We'll let BP decide on what expertise they do need," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19. "We are keeping an eye on what supplies we do need. And as we see that our supplies are running low, it may be at that point in time to accept offers from particular governments."

That time has come.

In the past week, the United States submitted its second request to the European Union for any specialized equipment to contain the oil now seeping onto the Gulf of Mexico's marshes and beaches, and it accepted Canada's offer of 9,842 feet of boom. The government is soliciting additional boom and skimmers from nearly two dozen countries and international organizations.

In late May, the administration accepted Mexico's offer of two skimmers and 13,779 feet of boom; a Dutch offer of three sets of Koseq sweeping arms, which attach to the sides of ships and gather oil; and eight skimming systems offered by Norway.

"As we understand what we need and identify domestic and foreign sources, we will act," said State Department (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Departments/DOS_Organizational_Chart)spokesman P.J. Crowley (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Philip_J._Crowley), who said the United States has received 21 aid offers from 17 countries and four international groups. "We are maintaining contact with these countries, we are grateful for the offers, and we will take them up on these offers."

But some lawmakers and outside experts are questioning whether the administration has been too slow to capitalize on these offers, lulled by BP's estimates on the oil flow rate and on its capacity to cope with the aftermath of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig.

"We're clearly behind the curve because BP did not have the game plan to deal with this spill," said Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Benjamin_L._Cardin) (D-Md.), who visited Louisiana on Friday. "I don't know if the federal government has the capacity it needs at this point."

Anthony H. Cordesman, a national security and energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration has been hampered because the spill is "a rare case" where the traditional emergency response routine does not apply.

"Most emergency relief is based on proven technology and precedence," he said. "We are now confronted by something that doesn't match any of the models."

A slippery slope

The State Department sent letters to some U.S. allies two weeks after the accident, and the Coast Guard initially sought to assess what supplies might be available overseas, but the administration's public posture on aid has been inconsistent. On May 5, Crowley announced that 13 international offers had been received and that decisions on what to accept would be made "in the next day or two." Two weeks later, the State Department said the government saw no reason to accept any of the offers.

Crowley said the Obama administration is well aware of what happened after Hurricane Katrina, when the U.S. government failed to capitalize on an unprecedented amount of foreign aid offers. Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil meant to be sold for cash. In the end, only $126 million in cash from 40 donors was received.

"This is different," Crowley said of the oil spill. "We are and will be drawing on the foreign assistance."

In many cases, this equipment is being provided by private companies -- at BP's expense. And like other elements of the joint response, decision-making has been complicated because federal officials must consult with the oil giant before signing off on any offer.

"The coordination on this side of the ocean was not completely clear," said Floris van Hovell, press counselor for the Dutch Embassy in Washington, adding that when a Dutch official was seeking to broker an aid agreement last month, "it was for a long time unclear on where he should go to and who should take the decision."

According to government sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) appealed to the White House several weeks ago, suggesting that it needed some foreign aid for practical and diplomatic reasons.

BP declined to comment.

'We want to help'

Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Christopher T. O'Neil wrote in an e-mail that decisions on foreign assistance are made between the top federal official on the scene, BP and "other represented agencies including state and local governments." The Coast Guard has a 51 percent "overriding vote in cases where consensus is not possible," he wrote. "All qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted."

In some cases, the administration rejected offers because they failed to meet U.S. specifications: The private consortium that serves as Norway's spill-response team uses a chemical dispersant that the Environmental Protection Agency has not approved.

In other cases, domestic politics are at play. Dutch authorities have worked in Louisiana since Katrina hit and were among the first to offer to help. After some hesitation, BP has obtained the state-of-the-art Dutch skimmers, two of which are in operation. Meanwhile, a massive sand-dredging operation is moving slowly.

A plan by Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Bobby_Jindal) (R) to create sand berms to keep oil from reaching the coastline originally came from the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares, both in the Netherlands. BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies -- which have less than one-fifth of the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- have objected to foreign companies' participation.

Garret Graves, who chairs Louisiana's Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, wrote in an e-mail that state officials "have made it clear to our contractors from the beginning that we want to use American dredges to complete this sand berm as quickly as possible . . . Ultimately, any effort to expedite these berms will be fully considered, but we remain committed to our American companies."

In the meantime, governments around the world are mobilizing help. In addition to boom, Canada has dispatched an aircraft for surveillance flights as well as several technical experts. Japan is still offering to send boom; the Swedish Coast Guard said it can send three ships that can each collect 370 barrels of oil an hour, but it is waiting to hear from the U.S. government or BP.

The Norwegian Coastal Authority has approved sending nearly a third of the nation's spill response equipment to the gulf if asked.

"We want to help the U.S. with whatever they need," said Espen Myhra, energy counselor at the Norwegian Embassy. "But of course, it's up to the U.S. and BP to decide what they need, and we will respond to that."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232_pf.html

Glad they're finally getting it right.<SCRIPT>var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/13/AR2010061304232_Comments.html" ;var article_id = "AR2010061304232" ;</SCRIPT>

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 03:32 PM
There will be plenty of time to point fingers. The goal now is to fix the fucking leak. Not walk around talking about how you are going to kick asses and file criminal charges. It's called priorities.

You mean contain the spill?

And just for the record one of the biggest oil spills in history, the ITXOC in the Gulf took 10 months to cap and stop the flow of oil. Apparently they haven't improved how to cap oil since then all the while making billions in profits every year. Pretty pathetic IMO.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 03:38 PM
You do realize that BP - as a result of pressure from Obama - has suspended paying out any dividends, to much uproar in England; and has established a $20,000,000,000 escrow account to pay claims.

No, I bet you didn't realize that. Because this obviously wasn't done over a five minute meeting in the Oval Office, which is what you are focused on.


How is this a good thing? The investors on fixed incomes , many retirement plans have BP stock, will find they have less to live on because BP will withhold or delay paying a dividend.

Its great to see Obama inflict financial hardship on global investors so he can show what a bad ass he is.

Cave Johnson
06-16-2010, 03:41 PM
How is this a good thing? The investors on fixed incomes , many retirement plans have BP stock, will find they have less to live on because BP will withhold or delay paying a dividend.

Its great to see Obama inflict financial hardship on global investors so he can show what a bad ass he is.

You people would literally bitch about anything. Obama sides with Americans in the tourist and fishing industries and you complain about British pensioners.

Holy Jesus Fuck it makes my head hurt.

ClevelandBronco
06-16-2010, 03:42 PM
And what do you want Obama to do? Invade BP?

Losing the next election and living the rest of his life as a shameful reminder of the embarrassment that is the democrat party would suit me fine, since you asked.

Cave Johnson
06-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Well ****, I know if I cut myself really bad that holding a towel on it won't last and be a long term fix. But it sure the **** will help until I get to the hospital, won't it?

The oil will already be past the berms, and they will get eroded away pretty quickly after installation, and will take away sand which might be needed in the future, but FUCK IT, WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 03:44 PM
SEC. 1004. LIMITS ON LIABILITY.
(a) GENERAL RULE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section,
the total of the liability of a responsible party under section
1002 and any removal costs incurred by, or on behalf of, the responsible
party, with respect to each incident shall not exceed—
(1) for a tank vessel, the greater of—
(A) $1,200 per gross ton; or
(B)(i) in the case of a vessel greater than 3,000 gross
tons, $10,000,000; or
(ii) in the case of a vessel of 3,000 gross tons or less,
$2,000,000;
(2) for any other vessel, $600 per gross ton or $500,000,
whichever is greater;
(3) for an offshore facility except a deepwater port, the total
of all removal costs plus $75,000,000; and
(4) for any onshore facility and a deepwater port,
$350,000,000.
http://epw.senate.gov/opa90.pdf



$75,000,000 to the claimants. $75,000,000.

NOT $20,000,000,000

ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Tell me again how the Administration had NOTHING TO DO with the barrier islands. I need a few more ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLs



Laps?! You're too busy chewing your ass to even get out of the starting gate.

Yeah, that's the strict liability limit. And also notice it says ALL REMOVAL COSTS. Well played peckerwood.

Cave Johnson
06-16-2010, 03:44 PM
Which of these methods do you support, Pete??

http://www.uproxx.com/feature/2010/06/time-to-fix-the-oil-leak/

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 03:45 PM
The oil will already be past the berms, and they will get eroded away pretty quickly after installation, and will take away sand which might be needed in the future, but **** IT, WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING.

Christ, we might need the sand in the future. It's for the children.

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 03:46 PM
You people would literally bitch about anything. Obama sides with Americans in the tourist and fishing industries and you complain about British pensioners.

Holy Jesus Fuck it makes my head hurt.

LMAO Ooops...

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 04:18 PM
You people would literally bitch about anything. Obama sides with Americans in the tourist and fishing industries and you complain about British pensioners.

Holy Jesus **** it makes my head hurt.

What about the Americans who own the stock in retirement accounts. You know we can buy stock in a Brit company, right?

ROYC75
06-16-2010, 04:22 PM
Losing the next election and living the rest of his life as a shameful reminder of the embarrassment that is the democrat party would suit me fine, since you asked.

This !

petegz28
06-16-2010, 04:26 PM
You mean contain the spill?

And just for the record one of the biggest oil spills in history, the ITXOC in the Gulf took 10 months to cap and stop the flow of oil. Apparently they haven't improved how to cap oil since then all the while making billions in profits every year. Pretty pathetic IMO.

Even more to my point then on why the effort should be how to contain as opposed to who to blame?

petegz28
06-16-2010, 04:27 PM
What about the Americans who own the stock in retirement accounts. You know we can buy stock in a Brit company, right?

The BP dividend makes up something like 11% of the all pension funds in Britain.

orange
06-16-2010, 04:30 PM
Yeah, that's the strict liability limit. And also notice it says ALL REMOVAL COSTS. Well played peckerwood.

You are so easy to shred it's ridiculous, pecker.


(b) COVERED REMOVAL COSTS AND DAMAGES.—
(1) REMOVAL COSTS.—The removal costs referred to in subsection
(a) are—
(A) all removal costs incurred by the United States, a
State, or an Indian tribe under subsection (c), (d), (e), or
(l) of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as amended by this Act, under the
Intervention on the High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.),
or under State law; and
(B) any removal costs incurred by any person for acts
taken by the person which are consistent with the National
Contingency Plan.
(2) DAMAGES.—The damages referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(A) NATURAL RESOURCES.—Damages for injury to, destruction
of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources, including
the reasonable costs of assessing the damage,
which shall be recoverable by a United States trustee, a
State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or a foreign trustee.
(B) REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY.—Damages for injury
to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or
personal property, which shall be recoverable by a claimant
who owns or leases that property.
(C) SUBSISTENCE USE.—Damages for loss of subsistence
use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any
claimant who so uses natural resources which have been
injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership
or management of the resources.
(D) REVENUES.—Damages equal to the net loss of taxes,
royalties, rents, fees, or net profit shares due to the injury,
destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or
natural resources, which shall be recoverable by the Government
of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision
thereof.
(E) PROFITS AND EARNING CAPACITY.—Damages equal to
the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due
to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal
property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable
by any claimant.
(F) PUBLIC SERVICES.—Damages for net costs of providing
increased or additional public services during or
after removal activities, including protection from fire,
safety, or health hazards, caused by a discharge of oil,
which shall be recoverable by a State, or a political subdivision
of a State.


The BOLD part is limited to $75,000,000. NOT $20,000,000,000. ROFLROFLROFL

Keep 'em comin', a bit of my floor isn't buffed, yet.

orange
06-16-2010, 04:34 PM
How is this a good thing? The investors on fixed incomes , many retirement plans have BP stock, will find they have less to live on because BP will withhold or delay paying a dividend.

Its great to see Obama inflict financial hardship on global investors so he can show what a bad ass he is.

Yes, this is a GOOD THING. That people who actually benefit from the company's profits pay for its mistakes. Yes, a VERY GOOD THING.

orange
06-16-2010, 04:35 PM
The BP dividend makes up something like 11% of the all pension funds in Britain.

Maybe they shouldn't be involved in hazardous undertakings that they can't afford.

Cave Johnson
06-16-2010, 04:35 PM
What about the Americans who own the stock in retirement accounts. You know we can buy stock in a Brit company, right?

They should have had better sense than to invest in a company that puts quarterly profits above external stakeholders, is a rampant safety violator, and is apparently shit at assessing catastrophic risk.

KC Dan
06-16-2010, 04:37 PM
Yes, this is a GOOD THING. That people who actually benefit from the company's profits pay for its mistakes. Yes, a VERY GOOD THING.Like car company unions?

orange
06-16-2010, 04:38 PM
Like car company unions?

Car company unions decide which cars to build and try to sell?

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 04:39 PM
Even more to my point then on why the effort should be how to contain as opposed to who to blame?

Because we like to blame people and point the finger. People were starting the blame game a week after 9/11. I guess it is the American thing to do now a days.

Direckshun
06-16-2010, 05:22 PM
He didn't say the oil spill is like 9/11. He said we can learn lessons from the oil spill just like we learned lessons from 9/11.

Which I said in the first thread you started.

Which is still on the first page.

Which you started and promptly ignored the second I posted the actual quote.

So any time you want to man up and face the man's actual words, I'm game.

Until then, this thread is reminiscent of a 20-minute Mark Levin rant based on a purposeful distortion.

Which is probably where you got the idea for this thread.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2010, 05:23 PM
The BP dividend makes up something like 11% of the all pension funds in Britain.


Proof its all about the man. Obama say no pay to Brits. No pay to angry white old rich folk.

vailpass
06-16-2010, 05:26 PM
You do realize that BP - as a result of pressure from Obama - has suspended paying out any dividends, to much uproar in England; and has established a $20,000,000,000 escrow account to pay claims.

No, I bet you didn't realize that. Because this obviously wasn't done over a five minute meeting in the Oval Office, which is what you are focused on.

ROFL Yeah that's it. Orange do you ever in your heart of hearts curse obama for making your life one big long chain of spin and excuse-making?

vailpass
06-16-2010, 05:29 PM
Can anyone imagine the outrage that would be pouring from the left, from hollywood and the media if Bush were still in office?
And yet there is radio silence towards obama.
But I'll bet when they gather in their little socialist cells they kvetch about obama loud and long.

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 05:32 PM
Yes, this is a GOOD THING. That people who actually benefit from the company's profits pay for its mistakes. Yes, a VERY GOOD THING.

We don't agree very often so I'm just pointing out when we do.

If BP goes out of business because they can't pay all claims for this mess tough s***. Price of doing business.

I have a sneaking suspicion though they'll continue to be solvent.

orange
06-16-2010, 06:15 PM
ROFL Yeah that's it. Orange do you ever in your heart of hearts curse obama for making your life one big long chain of spin and excuse-making?

You right-wingers want to get your stories straight? Other than hating Obama in general, just what is it exactly he should/shouldn't be doing?



Bachmann: Obama Exceeding Constitutional Authority in Ordering BP to Surrender Funds–’It’s All About Extortion’
Posted by daisymaxwell on June 16, 2010

Wednesday, June 16, 2010
By Chistopher Neefus


Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.).(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is exceeding his legitimate constitutional authority in telling BP it must set up an independent fund, not controlled by the company, for compensating victims of the Gulf oil spill. She described the administration’s policy as an action ”that’s all about extortion.”

“Private companies need to be held accountable but not necessarily to the executive branch,” said Bachmann. ”It seems to me there’s a misreading of the Constitution and a misunderstanding of jurisdictional limits from this White House on what the extent of executive power is. They don’t seem to understand that and it—now it seems that it’s all about extortion–and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds.”
Bachmann, who was speaking to a gathering of bloggers held at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., criticized the administration’s response to the massive oil spill in the Gulf.

The conservative from Minnesota said she was particularly bothered by the call President Obama made Monday–later reiterated in his Oval Office address Tuesday night–for BP to set aside money for reimbursements to victims of the Gulf oil spill that would be administered independently, taking control of the money away from the company.

“The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund, and now it appears we’re going to be looking at yet one more gateway for more government control, more money to government,” she said. “If there’s a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster?”

The proposed fund that the administration wants BP to create would go to reimburse individuals and businesses along the Gulf Coast that make claims as a result of the oil spill. But the money, which belongs to BP stockholders, would be taken out BP’s control and the administration has not clearly stated what due process of law would be observed in distributing the money.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified specifically to prevent the government from taking or redistributing private property without due process of law. The amendment says: ”No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=67800


Our Caudillo President
By Ben Stein on 6.16.10 @ 6:10AM

As I write this on Monday night, there are rumors around that BP will agree to President Barack Obama’s demand that the oil giant “voluntarily” put about $30 billion into a fund to be administered by the government to compensate victims of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster.

Now, no one disputes that this is a real disaster and that BP acted irresponsibly in commissioning Trans-Ocean and Halliburton to drill for oil in waters so deep that if a failure occurred there would be no way to fix it — at least until major damage had been done. BP, Trans-Ocean, and Halliburton, as well as the individuals involved, have much to answer for.

But the action of the President in demanding this immense transfer of the stockholders’ wealth without any legislation or court decision is extremely worrisome.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. The President’s job under the Constitution is to enforce the laws made by the elected Congress. His job is not to create new laws and enforce them all by himself. His job is as magistrate under the Constitution, not as Caudillo. He is not the law. He is supposed to enforce what Congress decides.

http://daisymaxwell.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/american-spectator-our-caudillo-president-ben-stein/

orange
06-16-2010, 06:20 PM
You do realize that BP - as a result of pressure from Obama - has suspended paying out any dividends, to much uproar in England; and has established a $20,000,000,000 escrow account to pay claims.

No, I bet you didn't realize that. Because this obviously wasn't done over a five minute meeting in the Oval Office, which is what you are focused on.
ROFL Yeah that's it. Orange do you ever in your heart of hearts curse obama for making your life one big long chain of spin and excuse-making?

So, the escrow account - is Obama behind it or not? And is it good or not?

I'm so confused.

dirk digler
06-16-2010, 06:23 PM
Can anyone imagine the outrage that would be pouring from the left, from hollywood and the media if Bush were still in office?
And yet there is radio silence towards obama.
But I'll bet when they gather in their little socialist cells they kvetch about obama loud and long.

That means you aren't listening. The left media from Olbermann, Matthews, Bill Maher the New York Times etc have talked and written really tough things about how Obama is handling this.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 06:24 PM
That means you aren't listening. The left media from Olbermann, Matthews, Bill Maher the New York Times etc have talked and written really tough things about how Obama is handling this.

I'll attest to that. The Left, speficially Oblerman and Matthews ripped Obama to shreds last night.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 06:25 PM
So, the escrow account - is Obama behind it or not? And is it good or not?

I'm so confused.

Behind it? Partially. Again it was voluntary by BP. Good thing? We are yet to see how the $'s get doled out.

vailpass
06-16-2010, 07:11 PM
That means you aren't listening. The left media from Olbermann, Matthews, Bill Maher the New York Times etc have talked and written really tough things about how Obama is handling this.

Forgive me, what you say is true. Some of the media has come around 3 months into it. The hollywood set remains conspicuous by their silence.

Still, would Bush have been given a 3 month grace period?

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 08:08 PM
You are so easy to shred it's ridiculous, pecker.


(b) COVERED REMOVAL COSTS AND DAMAGES.—
(1) REMOVAL COSTS.—The removal costs referred to in subsection
(a) are—
(A) all removal costs incurred by the United States, a
State, or an Indian tribe under subsection (c), (d), (e), or
(l) of section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), as amended by this Act, under the
Intervention on the High Seas Act (33 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.),
or under State law; and
(B) any removal costs incurred by any person for acts
taken by the person which are consistent with the National
Contingency Plan.
(2) DAMAGES.—The damages referred to in subsection (a) are
the following:
(A) NATURAL RESOURCES.—Damages for injury to, destruction
of, loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources, including
the reasonable costs of assessing the damage,
which shall be recoverable by a United States trustee, a
State trustee, an Indian tribe trustee, or a foreign trustee.
(B) REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY.—Damages for injury
to, or economic losses resulting from destruction of, real or
personal property, which shall be recoverable by a claimant
who owns or leases that property.
(C) SUBSISTENCE USE.—Damages for loss of subsistence
use of natural resources, which shall be recoverable by any
claimant who so uses natural resources which have been
injured, destroyed, or lost, without regard to the ownership
or management of the resources.
(D) REVENUES.—Damages equal to the net loss of taxes,
royalties, rents, fees, or net profit shares due to the injury,
destruction, or loss of real property, personal property, or
natural resources, which shall be recoverable by the Government
of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision
thereof.
(E) PROFITS AND EARNING CAPACITY.—Damages equal to
the loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due
to the injury, destruction, or loss of real property, personal
property, or natural resources, which shall be recoverable
by any claimant.
(F) PUBLIC SERVICES.—Damages for net costs of providing
increased or additional public services during or
after removal activities, including protection from fire,
safety, or health hazards, caused by a discharge of oil,
which shall be recoverable by a State, or a political subdivision
of a State.


The BOLD part is limited to $75,000,000. NOT $20,000,000,000. ROFLROFLROFL

Keep 'em comin', a bit of my floor isn't buffed, yet.

Under strict liability, which means they pay regardless of their culpability. They pay because they are the "Responsible Party" under OPA 90. The $75 M is the cap on that strict liability. There is no cap for any claims made outside of the strict liability claims structure. People can, and will, sue the ever loving shit out of BP for years to come and there is no cap on that. Period. WTF about this is so difficult for you to understand? Are you outside of your f'ing gourd?

Moreover, BP, as you have pointed out, is responsible for ALL CLEANUP COSTS in addition to the strict liability limit and any other damages assessed via the courts against them.

RaiderH8r
06-16-2010, 08:10 PM
We don't agree very often so I'm just pointing out when we do.

If BP goes out of business because they can't pay all claims for this mess tough s***. Price of doing business.

I have a sneaking suspicion though they'll continue to be solvent.

If BP goes tits up they file for bankruptcy and nobody gets dick.

orange
06-16-2010, 08:20 PM
If BP goes tits up they file for bankruptcy and nobody gets dick.

Well, except for that $20,000,000,000 in escrow. You know - the money that will be used NOW, not five or ten years from now when all the suits unravel. ROFL

How many times in one thread can you be completely wrong?

People can, and will, sue the ever loving shit out of BP for years to come and there is no cap on that. Period. WTF about this is so difficult for you to understand? Are you outside of your f'ing gourd?


... except ...

If BP goes tits up they file for bankruptcy and nobody gets dick.

You can't even keep track of your own points. ROFL

...


p.s. Obama -> BP escrow account - nothing at all or extortion? Which is it?

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 08:23 PM
If BP goes tits up they file for bankruptcy and nobody gets dick.

I don't think so.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 08:24 PM
Well, except for that $20,000,000,000 in escrow. ROFL

How many times in one thread can you be completely wrong?



... except ...



You can't even keep track of your own points. ROFL

...


p.s. Obama -> BP escrow account - nothing at all or extortion? Which is it?


Um, Orange, your rants you seem to miss the fact that the escrow is being paid out in payments, not a lump sum. So technically if BP went under in the next couple months the $20 bil would be toast.

orange
06-16-2010, 08:28 PM
Um, Orange, your rants you seem to miss the fact that the escrow is being paid out in payments, not a lump sum. So technically if BP went under in the next couple months the $20 bil would be toast.

That's the cash component. It's secured by assets in the meantime:



• BP will initially make payments of $3bn in Q3 of 2010 and $2bn in Q4 of 2010. These will be followed by a payment of $1.25bn per quarter until a total of $20bn has been paid in.
• While the fund is building, BP's commitments will be assured by the setting aside of U.S. assets with a value of $20bn. The intention is that this level of assets will decline as cash contributions are made to the fund.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/16/how-bps-escrow-account-will-work/#ixzz0r4NE4sHZ

mlyonsd
06-16-2010, 08:31 PM
I heard Krauthammer say tonight BP is sitting on 1 trillion dollars worth of oil reserves so I'm not really worried they can pay for the spill.

petegz28
06-16-2010, 08:32 PM
I heard Krauthammer say tonight BP is sitting on 1 trillion dollars worth of oil reserves so I'm not really worried they can pay for the spill.

Oh fuck, they can pay for it easily. The whole Obama crying over them paying a dividend is a farse.

alanm
06-16-2010, 11:28 PM
Is it 2012 yet? Please tell me that it is so we can get a do over. :spock:

alanm
06-16-2010, 11:41 PM
Can anyone imagine the outrage that would be pouring from the left, from hollywood and the media if Bush were still in office?
And yet there is radio silence towards obama.
But I'll bet when they gather in their little socialist cells they kvetch about obama loud and long.I'm confused as to where all the hollywood telethons raising money to help the people in the gulf states are.
Guess I better check the TV Guide.

PhillyChiefFan
06-17-2010, 08:26 AM
I get a kick out of the CNN headline today:

"Language Guru: Obama Speech to 'professorial' for his target audience"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html?hpt=C1

Apparently, he spoke at a 10th grade level, and that is over the head of most Americans...that has got to be the most insulting thing I have ever seen.

I suppose that is why everyone blasted it, because they just didn't UNDERSTAND it, you know cause everyone is just too stupid.

mlyonsd
06-17-2010, 08:34 AM
I get a kick out of the CNN headline today:

"Language Guru: Obama Speech to 'professorial' for his target audience"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html?hpt=C1

Apparently, he spoke at a 10th grade level, and that is over the head of most Americans...that has got to be the most insulting thing I have ever seen.

I suppose that is why everyone blasted it, because they just didn't UNDERSTAND it, you know cause everyone is just too stupid.

Maybe his target audience was those that voted for him.

blaise
06-17-2010, 08:38 AM
I get a kick out of the CNN headline today:

"Language Guru: Obama Speech to 'professorial' for his target audience"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html?hpt=C1

Apparently, he spoke at a 10th grade level, and that is over the head of most Americans...that has got to be the most insulting thing I have ever seen.

I suppose that is why everyone blasted it, because they just didn't UNDERSTAND it, you know cause everyone is just too stupid.

I bet there's one or two posters in this thread that thought his speech was incredible and awarded it an A+ in their mind.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 08:56 AM
I don't think so.

Ask the folks in Libby, MT what happened when W.R. Grace went and filed for bankruptcy.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 08:56 AM
I'm confused as to where all the hollywood telethons raising money to help the people in the gulf states are.
Guess I better check the TV Guide.

No shit. Where's the concerts for relief and shit?

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 08:58 AM
Well, except for that $20,000,000,000 in escrow. You know - the money that will be used NOW, not five or ten years from now when all the suits unravel. ROFL

How many times in one thread can you be completely wrong?



... except ...



You can't even keep track of your own points. ROFL

...


p.s. Obama -> BP escrow account - nothing at all or extortion? Which is it?

So Obama got them to put aside money they were legally obligated by pay anyway? Congrats Obammy on getting them to follow the law they already said they were going to follow.

Cave Johnson
06-17-2010, 08:59 AM
I get a kick out of the CNN headline today:

"Language Guru: Obama Speech to 'professorial' for his target audience"

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/16/obama.speech.analysis/index.html?hpt=C1

Apparently, he spoke at a 10th grade level, and that is over the head of most Americans...that has got to be the most insulting thing I have ever seen.

I suppose that is why everyone blasted it, because they just didn't UNDERSTAND it, you know cause everyone is just too stupid.

To vs. too fail.

BucEyedPea
06-17-2010, 09:07 AM
I see no value in defending leftist George Bush.

blaise
06-17-2010, 09:11 AM
I see no value in defending leftist George Bush.

Obama has been at least 4,000 times more heroic than Bush would have been. If Bush had been in charge the left would be marking the days passed and gallons of oil spilled as a testament to Bush's incompetence, but they haven't been. That's how I know Obama is doing a fantastic job.

InChiefsHell
06-17-2010, 09:19 AM
OK, just so I understand:

The law caps the fundage that they have to have at 75 million. They are liable for more, but the fund is capped at 75 million. BP doesn't have to legally pay more than that. But Barry is such a bad ass that they decided "oh shit, Barry's maaaaad...we will set up a 20 BILLION dollar escrow so he won't kick our ass"...

...or could it be that they know they will eventually pay out even more than this, so might as well put up a huge escrow to hopefully repair their image...

...no, I'm sure it was due to Barry's "bad muthafucka" image that made them jump.

...sure it was.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 09:33 AM
He didn't say the oil spill is like 9/11. He said we can learn lessons from the oil spill just like we learned lessons from 9/11.

Which I said in the first thread you started.

Which is still on the first page.

Which you started and promptly ignored the second I posted the actual quote.

So any time you want to man up and face the man's actual words, I'm game.

Until then, this thread is reminiscent of a 20-minute Mark Levin rant based on a purposeful distortion.

Which is probably where you got the idea for this thread.

Waiting for a reply, Pete.

Any time now.

InChiefsHell
06-17-2010, 10:37 AM
Here's the quote:
"In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11 . . . I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come," Mr. Obama said in an Oval Office interview Friday.

In other words it's not as simple as saying we can learn lessons from the oil spill just like we did 9-11. Where people have a problem is that 9-11 was a purposeful malicious attack on America and her liberties...the oil spill was an ecological disaster because somebody ****ed up...if you can't see the difference, or understand why this is upsetting to many people, then you are probably an Obama supporter...

Think of it this way. Say you get into a car wreck and were not wearing your seat belt...you would not say "In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11 . . . I think this accident is going to shape how we think about wearing seatbelts in the future..."

petegz28
06-17-2010, 10:39 AM
Waiting for a reply, Pete.

Any time now.

What do you want me to say that I haven't already said? He tried to use 9/11 to captialize on the BP spill. It was as idiotic as it gets.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 10:40 AM
OK, just so I understand:

The law caps the fundage that they have to have at 75 million. They are liable for more, but the fund is capped at 75 million. BP doesn't have to legally pay more than that. But Barry is such a bad ass that they decided "oh shit, Barry's maaaaad...we will set up a 20 BILLION dollar escrow so he won't kick our ass"...

...or could it be that they know they will eventually pay out even more than this, so might as well put up a huge escrow to hopefully repair their image...

...no, I'm sure it was due to Barry's "bad mutha****a" image that made them jump.

...sure it was.

The $75 million is a cap applied to a party's strict liability. Meaning the simple fact that they were engaged in an activity (drilling in this case) that resulted in an event or product defect (spill) then they are liable without cause to show mens rea (mindful intent). To sum up, effected people can make claims against BP and BP must pay those claims regardless of whether or not BP was ultimately the one who caused the spill (i.e. subcontractor error or another third party fault). The cap applies only to claims submitted under that strict liability standard and structure. BP is still obligated, by law, to pay for all clean up costs and the strict liability cap in no way, shape, or form, prevents any other claims to be paid nor plaintiffs to file suit in state and federal courts against BP seeking damages or restitution.

Should it be found that BP was negligent then the strict liability cap is waived and no cap is in place at that point.

Barry's shakedown yesterday was just that. He drug them in and who knows what agreements or commitments the Admin made with respect to any effect that $20B might have on future criminal suits or responsibility. Barry went behind closed doors with an individual/company under investigation by his Admin and demanded $20B. How about the Mayor and District Attorney drags a citizen into his office and demands money before trial and outside of existing statute? What of that? How does that sit with folks?

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:41 AM
He tried to use 9/11 to captialize on the BP spill.

How?

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:43 AM
In other words it's not as simple as saying we can learn lessons from the oil spill just like we did 9-11. Where people have a problem is that 9-11 was a purposeful malicious attack on America and her liberties...the oil spill was an ecological disaster because somebody ****ed up...if you can't see the difference, or understand why this is upsetting to many people, then you are probably an Obama supporter...

Of course there's a difference between the two events. Obama didn't suggest that the events were the same.

He suggested we learned lessons from 9/11. And that we'll learn lessons from the BP oil spill.

Yet that's "capitalizing" on 9/11...

That's cocoon shit right there.

InChiefsHell
06-17-2010, 10:47 AM
Of course there's a difference between the two events. Obama didn't suggest that the events were the same.

He suggested we learned lessons from 9/11. And that we'll learn lessons from the BP oil spill.

Yet that's "capitalizing" on 9/11...

That's cocoon shit right there.

Why bring up 9-11 Direkshun? Why even bring it up at all? Why not say "Katrina"?

Because he knows that 9-11 is the golden un-touchable political point. He can use it to his advantage about the oil spill. Again, if you don't see that, you just don't see it...

.,,not sure what you mean by cocoon shit...unless you mean I'm living in a cocoon...but I'd easily be able to say the same of you...

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 10:51 AM
Why bring up 9-11 Direkshun? Why even bring it up at all? Why not say "Katrina"?

Because he knows that 9-11 is the golden un-touchable political point. He can use it to his advantage about the oil spill. Again, if you don't see that, you just don't see it...

.,,not sure what you mean by cocoon shit...unless you mean I'm living in a cocoon...but I'd easily be able to say the same of you...

Because it doesn't matter if he brings up 9/11 or Katrina. He could easily bring up either and his point would be exactly the same.

"9/11 is the golden untouchable political point"? Oh lordy lordy.

Somebody must have forgotten to tell the Republican Party years 2001 through 2008.

InChiefsHell
06-17-2010, 10:56 AM
Because it doesn't matter if he brings up 9/11 or Katrina. He could easily bring up either and his point would be exactly the same.

"9/11 is the golden untouchable political point"? Oh lordy lordy.

Somebody must have forgotten to tell the Republican Party years 2001 through 2008.

There you go. Obama supporter does not understand why the rest of the country is not backing the dude, or happy with him about his handling of the spill. He doesn't get it either...

blaise
06-17-2010, 10:56 AM
Because it doesn't matter if he brings up 9/11 or Katrina. He could easily bring up either and his point would be exactly the same.

"9/11 is the golden untouchable political point"? Oh lordy lordy.

Somebody must have forgotten to tell the Republican Party years 2001 through 2008.

I realize the point he was making, but he did get some negative press and public reaction about it, so it probably would have been wiser for him to choose another analogy.
I doubt he'll draw that comparison again, I'll put it that way.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 10:58 AM
There you go. Obama supporter does not understand why the rest of the country is not backing the dude, or happy with him about his handling of the spill. He doesn't get it either...

Well, the left did such an effective job of criticizing Bush for invoking 9-11 into every conversation that it has now come around to bite them in the ass.

I blame James K. Polk. That f'er.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:00 AM
There you go. Obama supporter does not understand why the rest of the country is not backing the dude, or happy with him about his handling of the spill. He doesn't get it either...

Seriously. You're arguing that 9/11 is an untouchable golden point.

After voting for Bush in 2004. And McCain in 2008. And I'm sure you'd vote for Giuliani over Obama had he won.

And yet 9/11 is some condemning political point that we're not allowed to touch.

Christ.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:02 AM
I realize the point he was making, but he did get some negative press and public reaction about it, so it probably would have been wiser for him to choose another analogy.
I doubt he'll draw that comparison again, I'll put it that way.

Please. Pete got this from Drudge, who's distorted roughly 100% of what Obama's said to earn negative reactions.

Absolutely nothing is controversial about what Obama said. Unless conservatives want to pretend that 9/11 has all of a sudden become something we're not allowed to even mention anymore, in which case they've essentially turned their back on essentially everything their guys did the following seven-to-eight years after the attack.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:06 AM
How?

:rolleyes: ROFL

I like you Direckshun. But you are hoplessly devoted.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:08 AM
But you are hoplessly devoted.

Kettle calling the pot black, if you ask me. And honestly, I'll take my chances with Obama over Drudge.

blaise
06-17-2010, 11:08 AM
Please. Pete got this from Drudge, who's distorted roughly 100% of what Obama's said to earn negative reactions.

Absolutely nothing is controversial about what Obama said. Unless conservatives want to pretend that 9/11 has all of a sudden become something we're not allowed to even mention anymore, in which case they've essentially turned their back on essentially everything their guys did the following seven-to-eight years after the attack.

Okay, then by all means let him keep comparing things to 9/11. We'll see how that goes publicly. It doesn't matter how it intially got in the news, as long as it got there. I didn't initially read it here, I don't read Drudge, and I saw it. I'm almost positive it was linked on yahoo's main page.

You can say it's not controversial, but the fact is that it was in the news and people discussed it.
And what Bush or anyone else doesn't matter. It's not a question of right vs wrong. It's a PR issue. You can keep saying it's not bad PR, but it was more bad than good. Anyone that's looking at it the least bit objectively can see that, and I would wager you won't hear him do it again.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:09 AM
Kettle calling the pot black, if you ask me. And honestly, I'll take my chances with Obama over Drudge.

Yeah, you do that.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:11 AM
Okay, then by all means let him keep comparing things to 9/11. We'll see how that goes publicly. It doesn't matter how it intially got in the news, as long as it got there. I didn't initially read it here, I don't read Drudge, and I saw it. I'm almost positive it was linked on yahoo's main page.

You can say it's not controversial, but the fact is that it was in the news and people discussed it.
And what Bush or anyone else doesn't matter. It's not a question of right vs wrong. It's a PR issue. You can keep saying it's not bad PR, but it was more bad than good. Anyone that's looking at it the least bit objectively can see that, and I would wager you won't hear him do it again.

I don't give a shit if it's good or bad PR. I don't give a shit about this topic, other than the fact it's such a blatant distortion.

I imagine most people, if you asked them "is it right that the President said we'll learn things from the oil spill a lot like we learned things from 9/11," they won't give a shit either. Nobody gives a shit.

Except for Drudge. And the wingnuts. And both of these guys were hunky dory with the Republicans saying "9/11" about everything for nearly eight years.

So who gives a shit?

InChiefsHell
06-17-2010, 11:14 AM
Seriously. You're arguing that 9/11 is an untouchable golden point.

After voting for Bush in 2004. And McCain in 2008. And I'm sure you'd vote for Giuliani over Obama had he won.

And yet 9/11 is some condemning political point that we're not allowed to touch.

Christ.

No, I'M not making that argument, I'm saying there are those who have made that argument, mostly on his side of the aisle.

Ah, screw it, we're not communicating here.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:16 AM
I don't give a shit if it's good or bad PR. I don't give a shit about this topic, other than the fact it's such a blatant distortion.

I imagine most people, if you asked them "is it right that the President said we'll learn things from the oil spill a lot like we learned things from 9/11," they won't give a shit either. Nobody gives a shit.

Except for Drudge. And the wingnuts. And both of these guys were hunky dory with the Republicans saying "9/11" about everything for nearly eight years.

So who gives a shit?

Translation: I don't give a shit about this topic other than it makes my hero look bad. :D

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:17 AM
No, I'M not making that argument, I'm saying there are those who have made that argument, mostly on his side of the aisle.

Ah, screw it, we're not communicating here.

Oh -- so you don't have a problem with Obama evoking 9/11.

You have a problem with liberals not being equally upset that he evoked 9/11, after they complained about Republicans evoking 9/11 at every turn for eight years.

FAX
06-17-2010, 11:17 AM
Drudge For Super Spill Czar!!!

Send Drudge! He'll Get The Sludge!!!

FAX

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Translation: I don't give a shit about this topic other than it makes my hero look bad. :D

The President's words were blatantly distorted, and you fell for it.

Like you usually do.

Other than that, nope. I don't give a shit about this topic.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:21 AM
The President's words were blatantly distorted, and you fell for it.

Like you usually do.

Other than that, nope. I don't give a shit about this topic.

Sure they were. He didn't really say what he said. He just said what he said but he didn't really mean what it meant.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:23 AM
Sure they were. He didn't really say what he said. He just said what he said but he didn't really mean what it meant.

We learned foreign policy lessons from 9/11.

In the same vein, we will learn environmental lessons from the oil spill.

I'm to believe that's a risable thing to say.

That's Oz shit, Pete. Honestly. Who gives a shit.

blaise
06-17-2010, 11:23 AM
I don't give a shit if it's good or bad PR. I don't give a shit about this topic, other than the fact it's such a blatant distortion.

I imagine most people, if you asked them "is it right that the President said we'll learn things from the oil spill a lot like we learned things from 9/11," they won't give a shit either. Nobody gives a shit.

Except for Drudge. And the wingnuts. And both of these guys were hunky dory with the Republicans saying "9/11" about everything for nearly eight years.

So who gives a shit?

I never said you cared about the PR aspect. I said I bet Obama does. Why wouldn't he? He needs good PR for votes.
And most people won't see it as "is it right that the President said we'll learn things from the oil spill a lot like we learned things from 9/11". They'll just see a brief headline that says "Obama compares oil spill to 9/11" or hear a coworker say "Did you hear Obama said the oil spill was like 9/11" and that will be as far as they dig into it.
I guess you can just say only "wingnuts" care, but I bet there's more than just "wingnuts" that had a negative reaction.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:26 AM
I never said you cared about the PR aspect. I said I bet Obama does. Why wouldn't he? He needs good PR for votes.
And most people won't see it as "is it right that the President said we'll learn things from the oil spill a lot like we learned things from 9/11". They'll just see a brief headline that says "Obama compares oil spill to 9/11" or hear a coworker say "Did you hear Obama said the oil spill was like 9/11" and that will be as far as they dig into it.
I guess you can just say only "wingnuts" care, but I bet there's more than just "wingnuts" that had a negative reaction.

How is the President supposed to manage how Drudge and his ilk distort what he says?

Honestly.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:28 AM
How is the President supposed to manage how Drudge and his ilk distort what he says?

Honestly.

Maybe by not saying such stupid things?

blaise
06-17-2010, 11:29 AM
How is the President supposed to manage how Drudge and his ilk distort what he says?

Honestly.

In this case, by not comparing things to 9/11, like I said.
If you were advising him, and he said, "hey, I'm going to use that 9/11- BP oil comparison again, what do you think?" you'd honestly say, "Sounds great!"?
Or would you say, "let's stay away from that."
And if you say you'd say, "That's great" then you're lying.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:36 AM
In this case, by not comparing things to 9/11, like I said.
If you were advising him, and he said, "hey, I'm going to use that 9/11- BP oil comparison again, what do you think?" you'd honestly say, "Sounds great!"?
Or would you say, "let's stay away from that."
And if you say you'd say, "That's great" then you're lying.

I'm not going to blame Obama for having his words distorted. You, apparently, will.

So Obama, for the entirety of his Presidency, CANNOT say the words 9/11, in the off chance that dipshits like Pete will believe Drudge distorting his words into absolutely anything they can think of.

Right?

Are you honestly offended that Obama said we can learn lessons from the oil spill similarly to us learning lessons than 9/11?

If you're not offended, then why do you give a shit?

blaise
06-17-2010, 11:45 AM
I'm not going to blame Obama for having his words distorted. You, apparently, will.

So Obama, for the entirety of his Presidency, CANNOT say the words 9/11, in the off chance that dipshits like Pete will believe Drudge distorting his words into absolutely anything they can think of.

Right?

Are you honestly offended that Obama said we can learn lessons from the oil spill similarly to us learning lessons than 9/11?

If you're not offended, then why do you give a shit?

No I am not offended. That's clearly not the point I was making, nor was it the issue I was discussing. And I'm not blaming Obama for having his words distorted as much as I am blaming him for leaving that door open for others to distort them. It's not an issue of fair or unfair. It's a question of public reaction. My intial post was regarding the PR nature of the situation. That's why I gave a shit. I remarked that in terms of PR he would probably be advised to not do it again.
Is there even one person here that thinks he would be wise for him to use this analogy again?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:46 AM
I'm not going to blame Obama for having his words distorted. You, apparently, will.

So Obama, for the entirety of his Presidency, CANNOT say the words 9/11, in the off chance that dipshits like Pete will believe Drudge distorting his words into absolutely anything they can think of.

Right?

Are you honestly offended that Obama said we can learn lessons from the oil spill similarly to us learning lessons than 9/11?

If you're not offended, then why do you give a shit?

Yet you start a thread about someone else and take their words out of context. :clap:

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
No I am not offended. That's clearly not the point I was making, nor was it the issue I was discussing. And I'm not blaming Obama for having his words distorted as much as I am blaming him for leaving that door open for others to distort them. It's not an issue of fair or unfair. It's a question of public reaction. My intial post was regarding the PR nature of the situation. That's why I gave a shit. I remarked that in terms of PR he would probably be advised to not do it again.
Is there even one person here that thinks he would be wise for him to use this analogy again?

I didn't think it was wise for him to say it in the first place, any more wise than it is for me to say "sandwiches are delicious."

Because what he said is completely inoffensive. He has zero control over people distorting it, and he shouldn't start speaking in code simply to avoid having Drudge and Hannity forcefeed Pete distorted talking points.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Yet you start a thread about someone else and take their words out of context. :clap:

Were you offended by Obama's words, Pete?

Did he hurt your delicate sensibilities?

If not -- then why do you give a shit?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 11:48 AM
Were you offended by Obama's words, Pete?

Did he hurt your delicate sensibilities?

If not -- then why do you give a shit?

Not once did I ever say I was offended. I said it was idiotic to do such a thing.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 11:51 AM
Not once did I ever say I was offended. I said it was idiotic to do such a thing.

Why do you give a shit?

Chief Henry
06-17-2010, 11:52 AM
Its very obvious that Orange is pleased that BP is getting drilled (pardon the pun)
because he's an admitted socialist. With BP going down, it gives Orange and his
socialist loving like minded drones a little satisfaction that capitalism is taking a hit with
this problem.

But he fails to realize that it will be capitalism that will ultimatley clean this mess up.
If socialist only realized that the goverment can't do what they think it can do.
If the the US Gov't could clean this mess up , they would have been doing it already.

Capitalism is taking a hit in they're eyes, but it will be capitalism that will solve the problem and clean the mess up....eventually !

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:00 PM
Why do you give a shit?

Cause it was stupid. And while I myself am not offended I can understand where some would be.

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:01 PM
I didn't think it was wise for him to say it in the first place, any more wise than it is for me to say "sandwiches are delicious."

Because what he said is completely inoffensive. He has zero control over people distorting it, and he shouldn't start speaking in code simply to avoid having Drudge and Hannity forcefeed Pete distorted talking points.

Well, since there's no real down side to it, other than the wingnuts at Drudge, I'm sure we'll be hearing him invoke 9/11 in regards to the oil spill again.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:04 PM
Cause it was stupid. And while I myself am not offended I can understand where some would be.

This was a great topic.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Well, since there's no real down side to it, other than the wingnuts at Drudge, I'm sure we'll be hearing him invoke 9/11 in regards to the oil spill again.

At this point I hope he invokes it every day.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:06 PM
At this point I hope he invokes it every day.

You're being an idiot now

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:08 PM
You're being an idiot now

Much like the terrorists that attacked the twin towers were being idiots, I am being an idiot right now.

WATCH OUT PETE

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:10 PM
Direckshun is having a bad day.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:10 PM
Direckshun is having a bad day.

Much like America did, on 9/11.

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:13 PM
Much like America did, on 9/11.

Yep.

Direckshun
06-17-2010, 12:16 PM
Yep.

9/11.

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:18 PM
9/11.

Okay. Good for you.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:19 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EmT2y3UuM00&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EmT2y3UuM00&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:20 PM
Is Edward Cullen one of those vampire kids in that Twilight movie?

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:21 PM
The embed was disabled for this one but I encourage viewing.....LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUTIPQxo21c&feature=related


Especially at 0:35

orange
06-17-2010, 12:43 PM
OK, just so I understand:

The law caps the fundage that they have to have at 75 million. They are liable for more, but the fund is capped at 75 million. BP doesn't have to legally pay more than that. But Barry is such a bad ass that they decided "oh shit, Barry's maaaaad...we will set up a 20 BILLION dollar escrow so he won't kick our ass"...

...or could it be that they know they will eventually pay out even more than this, so might as well put up a huge escrow to hopefully repair their image...

...no, I'm sure it was due to Barry's "bad mutha****a" image that made them jump.

...sure it was.


A Texas congressman with a tin ear gave Tony Hayward, the embattled honcho of reviled oil giant BP, something totally unexpected on Thursday - an apology.

Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican who represents a sprawling district south of Dallas, called Hayward the victim of a "$20 billion shakedown."

"I apologize," Barton told Hayward at a House Energy Committee panel hearing on BP's Gulf of Mexico oil spill. "I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it's a tragedy."

Barton was referring to President Obama's faceoff with the BP barons that ended with the oil company saying sorry for the mammoth oil spill currently fouling the Gulf of Mexico - and promising to finance a $20 billion fund to compensate the victims.

Hayward, who was bracing to be raked over the coals by furious members of Congress, appeared to be taken aback by Barton's apology.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_texas_rep_joe_barton_apologizes_to_bp_ceo_tony_hayward_over_white_houses_20_bill.html#ixzz0r8KjRd Jp


ROFLROFLROFL

...sure it was.

orange
06-17-2010, 12:48 PM
ChiefsPlanet DC Right is like it's own little island of denial in a world of reality. Whether they're for it or against it, EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that Obama is behind the escrow account; EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming; and EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that it's not just "business as usual."

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 12:50 PM
ChiefsPlanet DC Right is like it's own little island of denial in a world of reality. Whether they're for it or against it, EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that Obama is behind the escrow account; EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming; and EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that it's not just "business as usual."

Yeah, BP's constant line of, "We'll pay for everything." was obstructionism at its worst.

mlyonsd
06-17-2010, 12:51 PM
ChiefsPlanet DC Right is like it's own little island of denial in a world of reality. Whether they're for it or against it, EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that Obama is behind the escrow account; EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming; and EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that it's not just "business as usual."

How do you know BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming? Because it took 2 months before they made it to the WH? I don't think that's on them.

JonesCrusher
06-17-2010, 12:52 PM
ChiefsPlanet DC Right is like it's own little island of denial in a world of reality. Whether they're for it or against it, EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that Obama is behind the escrow account; EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming; and EVERYONE ELSE in the world knows that it's not just "business as usual."


Link?

blaise
06-17-2010, 12:53 PM
At this point I hope he invokes it every day.

Me too.

orange
06-17-2010, 12:55 PM
Democrats Seize ‘Pivot Point’ in Barton Apology to BP
‘Republicans have made a very costly mistake,’ Dems claim

"It is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown."
—Texas GOP Rep. Joe Barton to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a House energy hearing Thursday on the Gulf spill.

Regardless of what he actually meant, GOP Rep. Joe Barton’s apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward this morning has sent his party into crisis mode. Republican and Democratic leaders have fallen over themselves to repudiate BP’s arrogant comments and at times sluggish response. But Barton’s lament that the White House partook in a “shakedown” of BP during a Roosevelt Room meeting yesterday seems to significantly change the debate.

The comments struck reporters in the room as odd. There was nothing for Barton to gain by publicly bowing to Hayward, nor did BP gain any measurable good will from the acknowledgement that it may have been bullied by Obama. Instead, says a Republican staffer, “there was almost an instant admission that what he said could turn into a huge problem.”

This staffer’s instinct was right. Sensing blood in the water, the White House quickly shot a statement to reporters, calling Barton’s comments “shameful” and hammering Barton on the fact that Gulf fisherman and small business owners are more worthy of an apology. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a ‘tragedy’, but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now,” said Robert Gibbs in a style, noted Politico’s Ben Smith, very reminiscent of how the Obama campaign used to shoot back at Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Democratic rapid response shops knew instantly, according to one aide, that this could be their moment to win the higher ground on energy legislation, if only they could tie Barton’s comments to his entire party. “Republicans have made a very costly mistake with their shameful defense of BP and their continued loyalty to their financial backers from Big Oil,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee press secretary Ryan Rudominer told NEWSWEEK. Then, he said, the DCCC would be putting out press releases later today in districts of all House Republicans on this topic.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how Washington narratives get written.

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/06/17/democrats-seize-pivot-point-in-barton-apology-to-bp.html

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 12:56 PM
How do you know BP had to be dragged kicking and screaming? Because it took 2 months before they made it to the WH? I don't think that's on them.

It was only a 20 minute meeting but it was a legit 20 minutes of cajoling.

Again, imagine if any citizen had been brought into the Mayor or Governor's office along with the DA or AG of the state and talked to about paying out a sum, before trial and outside of statute, how does that sit with folks?

What "deal" was there to make BP see the light on this? They are already statutorily required to pay for all clean up. Citizens will still sue, as is their right. States will sue, as is their right. The only "deal" would have been to back off of reform, regulation, or enforcement.

petegz28
06-17-2010, 12:58 PM
The fact that the media and some are glossing over the impact of the mandate to stop all drilling is costing Obama amazes me. Sure, BP is going to pay those people, which is utterly stupid since it was Obama who ordered the stoppage of all drilling. I even heard a Dem Congressman the other day say they need to re-visit that aspect becuase it was not a good move. Stopping all the drilling that is.

orange
06-17-2010, 12:59 PM
Link?

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


ROFLROFLROFL

petegz28
06-17-2010, 01:06 PM
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


ROFLROFLROFL

Yea, throwing Due Process out the window is hillarious, Orange. And I will add that getting BP to pay the salaries of those effected by Obma's personal call to stop ALL drilling is a shakedown.

KC native
06-17-2010, 01:09 PM
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


ROFLROFLROFL

JFC, and you wingers think the GOP has a chance to unseat Democratic majorities? ROFL

chasedude
06-17-2010, 04:18 PM
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px;">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ERdVL7OjB1Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>


ROFLROFLROFL

Joe Barton can go fuck himself.

LOCOChief
06-17-2010, 05:17 PM
He shouldn't have apologized, he was right it is a shakedown.

RaiderH8r
06-17-2010, 07:56 PM
And Barry's USCG pulls collection ships out of the game. Bobby Jindal is the guy on the ground getting shit done out there. Sure as hell ain't Barry.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/bp-oil-spill-gov-bobby-jindals-wishes-crude/story?id=10946379

Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.
"It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

Watch "World News" for David Muir's report from Louisiana tonight.

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP's oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

"These barges work. You've seen them work. You've seen them suck oil out of the water," said Jindal.

Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop
So why stop now?

"The Coast Guard came and shut them down," Jindal said. "You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, 'Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'"

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

"We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.
But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.


Louisiana Governor Couldn't Overrule Coast Guard
The governor said he didn't have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard's decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

"They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible," he said. But "every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer."

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.

Along Gulf Coast, Governors Ask, 'Who's In Charge?'
Fifty-nine days into the crisis, it still can be tough to figure out who is in charge in Louisiana, and the problem appears to be the same in other Gulf Coast states.

In Alabama today, Gov. Bob Riley said that he's had problems with the Coast Guard, too.

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean boom tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The Coast Guard went all the way to Bahrain to find it, but when it came time to deploy it?

"It was picked up and moved to Louisiana," Riley said today.

The governor said the problem is there's still no single person giving a "yes" or "no." While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard's command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"It's like this huge committee down there," Riley said, "and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power."