Every time these folks look like they're about to
win big, they shoot themselves in the foot. Be sure to watch the video of Joe Barton, GOP congressman out of Texas .
It's embarrassing watching these idiots, and how clueless they are on so many levels. At the end of the day, the oil will stop spilling, and the environment will be restored to hopefully an acceptable level. There will be significantly less off-shore drilling, which will make the environmentalists happy. As a result, the oil companies and oil integrators will go elsewhere as a result of additional risks associated with regulation, insurance and taxes. Exxon Mobil is already moving rigs to other locations outside the gulf. They don't want the hassle. Supply will be reduced, and prices will rise. Oh yeah, how about hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be lost.
The question is not "if" we will have a double dip recession, but when. And you wonder why companies, large and small are not hiring.
in their numeous safety violations & design flaws for the event horizon rig, caused this catastrophe. All the possible economic repercussions you mentioned that could happen, flow from BP's massive stupidity. Yet people like Limbaugh & those from the GOP libertartian wing, like Rand Paul & Michelle Bachman, defend BP's actions
So much for unregulated, laissez-faire Capitalism.
BP fucked up big time, and as a result, there will be unintended consequences.
I've mentioned this before about the American Airlines DC-10 crash in Chicago in 1979. 279 people perished in that flight. It was tragic. The reaction by government was to ground all DC-10's. They claimed the DC-10 was unsafe. As a result, the travel industry was hit hard, including massive layoffs at McDonnell Douglas, airlines that operated the DC-10, contractors, travel suppliers, you name it. Guess what? DC-10 was a great plane. The problem was with maintenance at American Airlines. It was human error.
Same is happening in this industry. One company fucks up royally, and all are guilty by association.
So if you are the CEO of Exxon, Chevron, Occidental, Baxter, Noble, and on and on, what do you do? You make a business decision that the risks outweigh the benefits drilling in the gulf as a result of government action. You go elsewhere for your business, and as a result you take those jobs with you. Look across the corporate landscape, from financials, to health care, to technology, to energy, they are not hiring due to Washington, and I don't blame them.
My favorite anti-business anti-job growth is the planned tax increase for venture capital. Those same guys in Silicon Valley that are the engine of hi-tech growth. The Democrats see a money pit, and now will be taxing venture capital at the regular income tax vs the capital gains tax rate. So what do you think will happen? These small nascent companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere won't get the seed and operational money to design, develop and distribute new products and services. These are the same VC's that funded Google, EBay, Amazon, Apple, etc etc. etc.
Unintended consequences.
Someone needs to explain what one might do if they are full of hyperbole and almost no facts.
One might accuse the entire GOP for the comments of one member. Unfortunately, the "GOP" has since made Barton retract his correct assertion that Obama was "shaking down" BP.
One might accuse BP of criminal negligence when the facts do not yet support the assertion.
One might ignore the federal government’s role in the accident when their own regulations forced new wells to be drilled in mile deep water when other oil is within much safer reach.
One might do these things, but I couldn’t imagine it happening.
Ed, tell that to residents of the Gulf Coast states that are suffering through this environmental & economic catastrophe.
If Ed & like minded posters had their way they'd turn this country's government from a "representational democracy" to a "Corpocracy" with Ed as its King.
I don't think Ed has time to reply----he's late for his teaparty meeting.
Read dnchil's explanation below. He has more patience for the hyperbole than I do.
Can we assume you now agree with my other points?
Many workers on the rig knew it was a "nightmare well" with massive design & safety violations. Just watch the news about this. If that's not criminal negligence what is ?----Oh, wait-----you don't get your news from the MSM------you get it from Fox & talk radio. According to them "leftie environmentalists planted a bomb on the rig which caused this catastrophe."
As for Phil's parroting of the far left saying all businesses are evil, I don't believe that-----but, Ed, who was responsible for the financial collapse ? The recent coalmine disaster that killed over 20? & now the Gulf disaster ? gremlins ?
I don't malign all corporations, but I don't worship them blindly like you & Phil do. They have been guilty of egregious violations just as the U.S govt has from time to time. Trouble with you guys is you don't see both sides of the picture.
Ed, save your "Social Darwinism" for your teaparty loons---sensible folks just don't buy it.
I could point out several examples to you where I was critical of BP in the past weeks, but it would make no difference to you. You are more interested in making this personal, emotional and hyperbolic.
that statement. I can almost guaranty that at his next election his opponent will say he "tried to protect" BP.
To bad he backed down - I had a lot of respect for him until he did that.
Sen. John Cornyn said he "shares" Barton's concern. Rep. Michele Bachmann said that BP shouldn't agree to be "fleeced." Rush Limbaugh called it a "bailout." The Republican Study Committee, with its 114 members in the House, called it a "shakedown."
Yeah, that's hyperbole all right. Sort of like saying it's just the comments of one member....
BP will be lucky if they don't have to forgo profits to shareholders for the next 10 years to effect cleanup and reimburse people. This was truly Corporate Roulette - with BP reaping all the winnings and the American People assuming all the risk.
It is more ingenuous to call THAT group that forced him to recant, "THE GOP" than Pus's original characterization.
Besides, at the time of the posting, only Barton was cited by Pus and HE defacto declared Barton to be "THE GOP."
So I can assume you agree that my other examples of Pus's hyperbole were accurate?
I made a point. You may not extrapolate anything you please from what I did not say - if you wish to build a straw man, kindly supply your own materials.
“fucking with people?”
Someone dishes it back and you lose it?
you have delusions of adequacy or something ?---------LOL !
Personal, Emotional AND Hyperbolic. All in so few words as well.
BP should pay damages, but this is not the way.
In the U.S., we used to have a system where if some one did something wrong, the courts were the forum. You paid the money in court, in either a civil or criminal proceeding.
The executive can't demand payment with no trial, no hearing, no proof.
Yes, the "EVIL ONE" can settle, which is how this is framed, but I think it is a Peron-like move to demand money pre anything that resembles even an administrative hearing at the least.
Yes, BP should pay for any damage they may have caused, but this is a shake down.
Also, when the executive branch deals with this type of thing there is massive, massive, massive waste and fraud. Look at Katrina.
If BP goes bankrupt, every dollar given to someone who has a fake claim is a dollar stolen from a real victim.
There is a history of fraud, waste, fraud, waste, and fraud in every disaster. I remember after the Northridge quake,the level of fraud they uncovered the next year was insane.
Finally, if there is a delay in processing payments, now that the fed has the money, guess whose fault it is.
Okay, for those too dumb to have understood, I will say it again. BP should pay for anything that they caused. But this is not how it is done.
BP decided themselves it was in their best interest more then Obammessiah forcing them and the figure yesterday was agreed upon before the perp walk .
A lot of people decided it was better to give donations to Jesse Jackson, or to settle claims with him involving civil rights rather than face bad publicity.
They did so willingly.
A lot of banks wrote bad loans for people who couldn't afford it because they were told they would get bad publicity in the hood if they didn't help poor people get loans.
A lot of restaurants donated to the local, unincorporated insurance company or gave their garbage collection business to someone else's company because they were promised their windows would not be broken.
"You pay $20,000,000,000 or we will keep our boot on your neck." Sounds fair to me.
I think you give too much credit to Obama . BP hopes this will take the heat off. Claims can still be contested as well even though the funds are available right or does Kenneth R. Feinberg have the last word in all pay outs ?
-- Modified on 6/17/2010 5:58:35 PM
have "shaken down" businesses in the past for millions of bucks & in avoiding bad publicity & "white guilt" they "paid up".
Phil, I don't like Jessie ( "Hymietown" ) Jackson either, but do you know what you sound like ?!---------LMFAO !
IF BP decided to pay in advance without the "shakedown" & BHO knew this & decided to apply pressure anyway for political gain, certainly reprehensible. But we don't know that do we ? So what are we supposed to do ? Wait years for the courts to litigate this ? If he did "shakedown" BP to get the 20 billion, more power to him. Those who are against this don't live in the gulf states. This is a catastrophe. They need to be compensated as quickly as possible. Walk a mile in their oil soaked shoes.
I am not implying that Jackson shaked people down. I am saying it. They did it legally, not threatening to break legs. But it was still a legal coersion
Ironically, I don't hold "Hymie Town" against Jackson at all. That type of off the cuff remark doesn't bother me. I think it is a humorous way to describe NY, and even though I am Jewish, I think that was much ado about nothing.
Finally, I am not limiting it to African Americans. Indeed, much of my post was the laundry business and restaurants. For those who don't know history, I was referring to the IRISH and ITALIAN gangs, NOT Blacks.
Here is the bottom line. Blacks do engage in that activity. Check out how the Bloods and Crips get "donations." But so do other groups, like Armenian Poswer.
And Jesse Jackson tread the line. "Do you want pickets in front of your bank, store, etc."
Yes, you wait for the legal system. Sorry. It takes 4 years to convict a murderer. I have a child molestor who is going on 6 years before trial.
Speed up the system. Fine. But legal is nice.
Peron got donations also. And he wasn't Black.
to people in the Gulf coast states suffering from an environmental & economic disaster.
Hoisted on his own petard.
-- Modified on 6/17/2010 10:07:00 PM
You might be interested in knowing that many Alaskans went to their graves before getting their rightful compensation from the Exxon Valdez accident. Due process, as phil is saying, is a lengthy process, no matter what the case involves.
Obviously, the comparison is BP to child molestors and murderers. I am defending the unpopular, if you haven't figured that out.
I mean, how obvious is that. I am saying the person that society hates is the one who needs protection.
In this case, let's play a guessing game: "Most people are mad at BP, or most people are mad at shrimpers."
I don't know how you could get it so reversed.
Guess you've never heard of Jackson's Rainbow Push coalition, huh? Rainbow Push brought shaking down corporations to new heights. Just ask Nissan, Nike, etc... Al Sharpton trying to shake down NYC over Tawana Brawley? Those two alone have made a bundle over the years extorting money from corporations, businesses, and individuals.
Be sure not to miss that Teaparty meeting with ed tomorrow-------
-- Modified on 6/17/2010 11:00:43 PM
Sorry, PP not gonna be there....I hate tea, green, black, yellow, Earl Grey, Darjeling, whatever. Although, I'd like to meet ed2000. He seems like a straight up guy.
Btw, you seem to know an awful lot about the Tea Party, and when they hold their meetings. Wonder why that is?
is wrong. The most outrageous thing is sending the AG to investigate possible criminal actions - the message is clear, if you don't pay what we say we may start criminal proceedings.
Further, while the evidence is indeed starting to show negligence and Tony Hayward to my surprise said today the accident was preventable (I know the lawyers swooned when he said that), the Act of God defense cannot conclusively be ruled out at this stage.
You may be right about Holder but that idiot may still press criminal charges if he has a trace of evidence.
I do not see how BP can use an act of God defense now as the PR costs are so high they will have to accept a lot of responsibility.
-- Modified on 6/17/2010 6:19:52 PM
-- Modified on 6/18/2010 11:29:26 AM
The Republicans will always side with big corporations over their own constituents.
In this case they are siding with a British Corporation over Americans harmed be BP negligence!
Big Corps. Wow. Evil. Let's not think if it is the right way to do things. They bad.
No one - NOT ONE PERSON ON THE RIGHT - is saying BP should not pay if and when the facts come out. They are saying that you don't send Jesse Jackson to knock on the door and say, "Pay up before any determination is made."
Gosh, Eva Peron used to get huge donations for her Foundation from all sorts of Evil companies that paid, paid, paid, and paid.
It really did the little guy good to shake down the EVIL ONES.
Likewise, no one with any brains will argue there will be no fraud and waste when 20 billion is in the pot.
For every person who steals from that pot, and innocent person is hurt.
Finally, millions of small Americans own BP as share holders and people who have pensions that have funds. THE BIG EVIL CORP is not hurt in the board room by a shakedown.
Oh, wait. We have a very unpopular defendant. Let's just go bongos.
It is the unpopular defendant that needs to be protected.
over 20 billion and that a 3rd party is going to dole it out as they see fit?!!
Obama is a crazy-man. He's a wannabe Vlad Lenin or Joe stalin.
That shit-for-brains really does think more taxes and more gov control and cap and trade and more gov spending will IMPROVE THE ECONOMY??!!??!!!!
OBAMA IS A CRAZY-MAN!!!!! AND HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!
where's Jack Kevorkian when we need him ?!
the Bellagio Buffet instituted the three servings per customer limit.
But, while you bemoan this injustice, you need to remember that BP not only owes obligations to the persons damaged by the spill but also to its shareholders. BP can't just agree to pay limitless amounts for the spill and be fair to their shareholders (and yes I am a tiny one).
They are entitled to due process to measure their liability and that is what Mr. Obama seems to have forgotten.
Or should I say "D.C." ?-----Btw, how were your 12 "ethereal balkavas" this morning ?--
-- Modified on 6/17/2010 8:44:23 PM
Apparently there is one item the Bellagio Buffet does not serve any more - but you should try real baklava some time. It is quite good.
preferably one in "Dhizdi" or "Jidi". Know where I can find one ? Perhaps on Westwood Blvd., just south of Wilshire ---?-----
about baklava, although I don't recall any buffets there.
But then again, I rarely leave the tony confines of Manhattan Beach.
On the other hand, to avoid an international incident, perhaps it would be best if you would abstain from any commentary about Iran should you visit.
would spark an "international" incident.I lived in L.A. for a long time & had many Persian ( or, If you'd like, Iranian )emigre business contacts.
Very nice folks that wouldn't find my question offensive at all. But your concern DOES touch me.
OTOH,when you visit Vegas, it would behoove you not to make remarks about people "moaning about interest rates" while coming. I know quite a few "influential" folks here who didn't care for that remark.
I have no idea what you are talking about -"moaning about interest rates"?
I believe I said you were bemoaning the injustice of the Bellgaio's 3 trips per customer limit at the buffet. Don't think interest rates have much to do with that decision - it's self preservation for hte buffet.
which wouldn't be good for your profession. Check the archives for the remark you made.Perfect example of your "faulty memory" is the fact that I told you earlier I've never been to the Bellagio buffet. In fact,don't go to buffets, period. This must come from the "hearsay sources" that you went behind my back to collect about me. I still issue my "quid pro quo" challenge to you : e-mail your "sources"
to me & I'll give you my sources about you.
Not expecting anything, though. Marikod, stick to your "chickenshit alias"----more your style--------
She Who May Not be Named?
delete
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 6:55:57 AM
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 7:30:52 AM
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 7:31:53 AM
Or is this the work of She Who Shall Not be Named? I know she can see thru aliases as quickly as you can finish your first serving at the Bellagio Buffet, but I didn't think she could actually delete posts.
Did you really think I would risk getting on her bad side? Hey, I never said I was brave.
which is the reason why I deleted it. You can see it at the bottom of the thread.
Hell, be brave------it'd be a nice change of pace----------LMFAO !
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 9:04:29 AM
Roman Polanski to the lynch mob.
I guess you draw the line at child molesters. Still, it was a noble quote:
"It is the unpopular defendant that needs to be protected."
I wasn't turning Polanski over to a lynch mob. I was willing to turn him over to a court. See, I thought he may have done wrong, so he should face a judicial system. WOW. That's a shocker.
HERE IS THE DIFFERENCE. RP would have a lawyer, a judge, and an appeal. He would have all due process. On the other hand, Emett Till did not. That is a lynch mob. See?
Likewise, I have said that BP may have done wrong so they should also face a court.
"Gosh, he forcibly sodomized a 13-year old girl and has since live the life of Entertainment Elite Royalty. Yes. I do think that there is a moral compulsion when someone shoves his dick up a 13-year old girl's ass after drugging her that he spend a little time in jail. "
But I'm delighted to learn that you have backed off this statement and now properly say "I thought he may have done wrong, so he should face a judicial system."
I am flattered that my words have such a long-lasting impact.
However, my view of the facts for which he should be liable are not coming from a lynch mob. They are coming from court proceedings. He had his day in court. Sometimes people ask for a jury. Some times they enter a plea. But they had due process.
I have never said that he should be punished for anything that was not the result of judicial findings or judicial proceedings.
Yes, at times facts may exist that are not proven at trial, for one reason or another, and they may be good reasons from the defense for avoiding those facts. When that happens, society may not impose punishment for details not proven, although individuals are free to make judgments, so long as they don't take the law into their own hands.
But to say that Polanski was subject to a lynch mob is silly. Polanski had top legal advice and made the decision he did based on that.
Yes, the fact is that he did a bad thing to a child, and lived in Paris, dining on fine food and wine and going to paries with beatiful people whose children never had a dick shoved up their asses, so they don't care. Yes, I still stand by my belief that when someone sodomizes a child, he should be made to pay.
But I never said that he should be punished by anything other than the legal system, functioning with the same protections of any other child molestlor.
Now, since you treasure every word I say, please find one thing I ever said that would indicate my belief that he should be punished by a lynch mob.
watch out, he might seek hearsay info on you
or revert to his "chickenshit alias".
Too much-------LMFAO !
40 percent of BP shares are owned by United States shareholders.
Bill Maher said something I rather liked last week. So what if jobs are lost by us ending drilling in the Gulf. I personally could give a shit. Gov't regulations kill jobs in the kiddie porn industry too. That doesn't make the job losses a bad thing. The federal gov't could hire every single oil worker to clean up the Gulf, and it would only cost 5 billion. The Pentagon just ordered 7 billion in spare parts they don't need.
To call what Obama is doing with BP a "shake down" borders on fucking retarded. Corporations do NOT have the right to exist. They are given PERMISSION to exist, plain and simple. What ought to happen is the attorney general ought to revoke BP's corporate charter in Delaware, and distribute their assets to their share holders. Then we ought to tax their capital gains at 90%, and use it to clean up the Gulf.
Instead, Obama is playing nice with BP, despite that they've been fucking up non-stop for the last 2 months with no signs of slowing. It could cost as much as a trillion dollars to clean up the Gulf, and all Obama has managed to get is a measely 20 billion.
The sick fucking thing about this is that we could have used this disaster to push for a mini-Manhattan type project to move to renewables. But there's Obama playing kissy face with the people who are fucking things up.
You know what happens when a wind mills breaks and falls into the ocean? A splash.
what the fuck.
it offends their notion of laissez-faire unregulated capitalism; as I said previously ,there are some here who want to replace our representational form of Democracy with a Social Darwinist "Corpocracy".
If that's the case, the "GOBP" will get their asses kicked in Nov.
-- Modified on 6/18/2010 12:59:44 PM
the two dumbest comparisons are "man on the moon" and "Manhattan Project."
In both those case, the principles were known and it was an application issue.
As of now, we don't know how to get enough power from wind and sun to power NYC.
The silly mayor of NY said he wanted to put a wind mill on every builidng. If every building were equipped with a windmill, it would power the lobby and one hallway, killing every bird in the city.
The Chinese built a huge solar facility. Easy. Monday they tell 25,000 to get out of their homes, and send in bulldozers. Ready to build on Tuesday. Permits? They don't need no stinking permits. They learned from Mao. Don't like the policy - get re-educated.
They want a wind farm in the wilds in CA near Palm Springs. ETA for EPA review - 3 years, just to look at the plans. Not counting court challenges. First kilowatt. Oh, maybe 2025.
I know where you can build wind mills. Off the coast. But not off the coast in any area where a Kennedy lives. No. I think near a poor person's beach is better.
They want to use ethanol. Good. Use corn. Raise the price of food. Only fucks poor people. Al Gore can afford more food than he needs, but if it is better to use that land for energy, do it.
Also,corn needs water,which we are short of in CA. Oh, well.Make that more expensive and let the poor drink Coke.
Those new light bulbs are great. Hmmmmmm. When I was in college the big threat was mercury. Guess what those new light bulbs contain.
In 2030, there is going to be a disaster when people don't dispose of the new light bulbs properly and people living near dumbs are growing three eyes and green skin. Oh, well. Fuch them. They shouldn't live near dumps.
The technology for the Manhattan project and the moon launch was 95% known. The technology for mass use of renewables at a reasonable rate is a mystery.
I don't like oil companies, but the 20th Century saw the greatest improvment in the history of hte world in life style. Thanks to cars.
Phil, Germany is set to become 100% energy independent by 2020, all because of solar. All we have to do is invest in it, that's all.
Geothermal has more potential then solar at this point. Hell, geothermal has more potential then nuclear.
Screw ethanol. We can use bio diesel developed from algae. We have the technology for this right now. All we need to do is invest in it.
If Germany is already "set" to become indendent solely because of solar, then we don't have to do anything, but buy their technology. If it exists, it will be for sale, just like hybrids and everything else.
If someone there builds a solar plant or what ever that can fuel my house and car, it will be on the market in 8 months because they will want to get their money back. If it works, I will buy it.
Hey,if it is that close, I would invest in it, as would a million other people. They don't need government money.
But maybe they are close in theory. Like light sabers.
You don't need the state or tax money. The government didn't invest in hybrids, private companies did.
If Germany manages to develop that, it will be for sale.
Yes, and they will have huge solar plants that will fuel their airplanes. As you said, they will be 100% energy independent because of solar.
We are 9 years away from 2020. Is Germany really so close that they will be fueling everything off the sun in 9 years? Can I get some of what you are smoking.
Do you know the size of the proposed solar plant they were going to build in the CA desert? Huge. It would power a big town. And we killed it. Not because of BIG BAD OIL. But because of enviornementalists.
And Germany is going solar. Too bad they were snowed in last winter.
Also, it is amazing. You manage to avoid almost everything. Like the Elite Fuckheads like Deady Teddy not wanting wind farms in his back yard. Ditto CA dumping solar farms.
Finally, you ignore the toxic nature of those new stupid light bulbs.
And Spain invested big time, until they discovered that every job "created" cost a fortune.
In fact, they are abandoning their program. AND NOT because of their economy. If their energy program was so good, that would be what they would keep to stimulate their other sagging nanny state.
No, that program just ain't paying off. Even at the insane rate that they already pay for gas.
FLOP, FLOP, FLOP.
I know. We see how that failed. Let's follow them.
Only someone who works for the government would suggest that.
(Like following Canada, which may start charging for office visits to doctors. Wait! they pay higher taxes to get "free" health care, and now they may have to pay hirer taxes AND pay for office visits. Good. That worked.)
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 12:41:28 PM
You get your advice from Bill Maher 
That might be where your problem has been all along
''You know what happens when a wind mills breaks and falls into the ocean? A splash.'' BIll Maher
-- Modified on 6/18/2010 3:37:26 PM
Expecting sensible comments from Maher, is like expecting sensible comments from Willy. It's just not going to happen.
Yeah let's start a precedent that businesses are not going to be entititled to due process, yeah that's just what this country needs. What a fucking moron.
businesses had zero due process until the late 19th century, and that only happened because a Supreme Court clerk LIED on a head note.
Corporations are not entitled to any rights, much less Due Process. I fail to see why it's a good thing that the entire country has to grab their ankles so a few jackasses can make a profit. They only Due Process these cretins deserve is to be stung up by their necks.
Through its criminal negligence, it created an unparalled act of ecological/economic terrorism.
BP deserves due process as much as Osama Bin Laden does.
If conservatives want to continue defending BP, a massive losing hand.
You say BP doesn't deserve DP because it committed criminal negligence.
GOOD IDEA. Let's get rid of due process for all criminals. And the worse the criminal, the less the DP.
Some people in prison killed several people. Why we gave them a trial is just beyond me. They were worse than criminal negligence. They acted intentionally.
In fact, I don't know why anyone accused of murder should get DP and a fair trial. You think they are guilty before all the facts are determined. Break their fucking legs and shoot them in the head.
No. No DP there.
In fact, criminal negligence is the lowest level of culpability for any crimes. Pesky little rights.
The ironic thing is that Obama wants to give terrorist rights, but not people involved in accidents.
Yes, it had a terrible impact. But a plane can crash with minimal culpability and kill 500 people. I know. Next time there is a plane crash, let's strip United Airlines of DP.
Equating BP with the acts of egregious criminals ? I don't think so. Many ( but not all ), of these criminals working under diminished capacity ( mental illness,substance abuse, brain damage,etc ) & I'm not going for an insanity defense excuse there. Simply put, many of them were too bug fuck crazy to know what they were doing. Still, they deserve DP & appropriate punishment, if the facts are bourne out. OTOH, BP is a supposed to be a "responsible"
mutinational company; they KNEW what they were doing. Warned they were drilling a "nightmare well" & went ahead anyway to save time & money. That resulted in 11 deaths & an unprecedented ecological/economic catastrophe,which I equate as an act of terrorism.
Speaking of terrorists, I don't don't think Osama Bin Laden deserves due process either. Let a predator drone take that fucker out.Somehow I have a hunch that you agree with me,which would
make your stand inconsistent, to say the least.
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 3:11:02 PM
Phil's admirale allegiance to due process vanishes the minute you say "suspected terrorist" (it does not have to be Bin Laden). Execution, torture, confinement - it all okay with him if the government utters the magic words "suspected terrorist."
If innocent people are killed, or children or other poor souls are confined in Gitmo for years without sufficient evidence as the habeas corpus cases show us relentlessly, he says "war is hell." If you point out we are not actually at war with the people killed or imprisoned, he says that is a technicality.
This is not to beat up on Phil bc his position actually reflects mainstream thought - that is what is tragic.
Don't think we can equate BP with terrorism though - that requires intentional conduct not negligent conduct, although the degree of negligence seems to be rising every day.
Does the MMS deserve due process ?
Do you contend they are not guily of rational safety inaspections by reason of brain damage?
What would be their fair punishment in your responsible world?
"inaspection" ?---are you Italian?
As for MMS, corrupt cronies-appointees of Cheney/Halliburton big oil "cabal".
As for fair punishment, put em next to Osama Bin Laden when that predator drone comes buzzing by--------LOL !
You say, "No DP for criminals." You weren't equating them, and neither was I. You were making BP worse then the most egregious criminals.
The worst criminals get DP, but for some reason BP doesn't deserve it. Ergo, it must be worse than the murderers.
Next a pretty small number of criminals have the mental problems you talk about. Trust me. I have been dealing with them for decades. I have seen psych reports of scores. I have seen family histories of I don't know how many. The number that have that type of mental condition is exaggerated from my experience.
Also, even if it is true that some are mentally damaged, the only way that you find out is via the tools provided by DP. If you give them DP first, you have given it to those who are not brain damaged, thereby giving the most egregious criminals the DP you seek to deny others.
But the only way is to give DP to see who "deserves" it.
Also, all that is known about this disaster is untested allegations. Gosh, maybe much of what is being said is not accurate. Let's kill 'em and then have the committee hearings.
Also, there is causation problems. Not all negligence may have contributed. You can drive down the street drunk, but someone runs the red light when you are going slowly, and bingo. Dead people. Not necessarily caused by the negligent drunk.
The nice thing about DP is you find out what happened.
Finally, I don't disagree about Osama as a good target for a drone. But that is because I believe we are at war with him. That doesn't make my stand inconsistent at all. You treat war enemies different than criminals.
The test of inconsistency it treating similar people (or things) differently. There is nothing "inconsistent" with treating peopleor things you percieve to be different in a different manner.
Finally, getting back to your definition of terrorism: It is nice to make up your own definition. I think terrorism is any time someone says something I don't like.
On the other hand, virtually every accepted definition of terrorism involves someone intending the result for the purpose of causing another group to change their actions. Palestinians bomb cafes, intending to kill civilians, to get Isreal to vacate. The IRA intentionally kills people bombing a pub to get England to take a political action, namely get out of ireland. The Basque bomb a market to get Spain out of their region.
All of these involve intentionally killing to alter governmental (or societal) behavior.
Accidents can cause terrible damage. An air controller can be doing a crossword puzzle and 2 planes colide over SF, killing 1,500 people in the air and on the ground and causing untold damage. That isn't terrorism. It's called an accident. A really bad accident, but an accident nontheless.
There can be gross negligence, if you really failed to follow reasonable care. But they are not intentional killings to modify behavior.
This would be terrorism is BP said, "we are blowing up the well to get the U.S. to do X."
Only by making up your own definition of terrorism can you use that phrase.
Do you think BP did this on purpose? And what did they want out of it?
-- Modified on 6/19/2010 3:36:11 PM
I said, about the criminals you mentioned, they deserve DP.The exceptions I make are for terrorists like Osama Bin Laden & BP.
Once again, BP KNEW what it was doing & the massive risks they were taking.Let me post a hypothesis that you might find wild,but I've been pondering. Do you think the "limeys" would
incur such egregious design flaws/safety violations on a oil rig situated off their "island" ?
One could posit this theory as an act of subliminal Anti-Americanism,which resulted in an act of subliminal "criminal negligence/terrorism".
Xenophobia/Ethnocentrism of the Id can be one mean fucker--------paging Meinarsche-----
You callede BP a terrorist. On what definition? As I explained, every serious definition of that involves intentional acts of murder to alter state policy.
You describe massive risk. That is not intentional. That is grossly negligent.
I have no idea if the Brits would allow such egregious design flaws off the UK. But even if the flaws exist, design flaws are negligence. It is like the Pinto (at its worst interpretation), cutting corners to save money, leading to risk of someone being burnt to death. That is not intentional.
Terrorism is intentional. I cut off your head on video to kill you so that your government will alter its behavior.
For the last time, maybe, do you think BP blew up the rig on purpose?
When you say, "you can posit this theory as submiminal anti-Americanism...."
Yes, you can posit any theory that you want. But even if it is "submiminal," it is still an accident. Yes, the accident may be a "Freudian slip," if you will, but it is not intentional as in putting a bomb in a cafe.
Likewise, under this theory, it may be anti-Americanism, but mere hatred is not terrorism.
Of course, this begs the question: Why does BP hate America. What level of anti-Americanism goes on in BP's boardroom, undetected and unreported, that causes them to do this? And what do they hope to gain?
In any event, you posit this theory that no one has ever suggested. Just make it up out of whole cloth, and bingo.
Do you have any evidence that the BP's action was the result of "subliminal anti-Americanism." What is there in BP's history that might indicate this hatred.
In short, you make up this theory, that even if true doesn't fit any prior definition.
No matter how you spin it, it is still taking risks, rather than intentional.
Under any legal or moral theory, that is negligence (or gross negligence, or even criminal negligence). However, under every legal and moral theory, negligence of any level is less cupable than criminal specific intent.
And you would deny DP to the grossly negligent, while granting it to the intentional child molester/murder.
Good moral priority.