Michael Barone, Washington Examiner:
Thuggery is unattractive. Ineffective thuggery even more so. Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP’s Gulf oil spill.
Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s remark that he would keep his “boot on the neck” of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell’s definition of totalitarianism as “a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” Except that Salazar’s boot hasn’t gotten much in the way of results yet.
Or consider Obama’s undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts “so I know whose ass to kick.” Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you’re in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.
[…]
[…] there is Obama’s decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf. This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP’s and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.
The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly “peer reviewed” by “experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn’t include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and “counterproductive” to safety.
This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.
And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the Gulf cleanup? The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005. The Obama administration hasn’t and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren’t really any foreign vessels that could help.
The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle. It’s the Chicago way: Dance with the girl that brung ya.
Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the Gulf’s surface. Can’t do that until we see if they’ve got enough life preservers and fire equipment. That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a blog post he dated June 1, 1940: “The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport.”
Finally, the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward. It’s pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a “shakedown.”
For there already are laws in place that insure that BP will be held responsible for damages and the company has said it will comply. So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.
Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone. But the Constitution does not command “no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg.” The Framers stopped at “due process of law.”
Obama doesn’t. “If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so,” write the editors of the Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as “an American version of Vladimir Putin.” Except that Putin is an effective thug.
“Thug”? Well now.
That kind of rhetoric may be decidedly unhelpful, Michael. Let’s see how people react to it, then the GOP will decide if an apology from you is necessary.
Mr. Boehner — or one of the conservative pragmatists — will be in touch.
I actually posted that previously. What, no hat tip?
Note that Barone points out “ineffective” thuggery about Obama.
But it helps if you are going to go after someone to have a corroborating victim and BP seems to be willing to play bitch petroleum to Obama.
There are better arguments to be made about Obama fucking up. Defending BP, given how messed up this whole thing has been played, seems like doubling down on dumb fuck.
Where is Barone defending BP?
My reading skillz must be lacking.
Nobody reads your links, Joe. Overload, and all that.
You persist with this “defending BP” meme despite many people, in nice and not so nice ways, telling you to go jam a vuvuzela up your cockhole.
Doubling down appears to be one of your particular specialties Joe, so I will have to take your word for that one, insofar as it is a ‘seeming’ to you. As to the mewling characterization of ‘dumb fuck’-edness or as Carin points out, a defending of BP, you’re on your own.
Personally, I don’t think BP (or anyone else, for that matter) should pay for people being put out of work because Pezzident Bumblefuck wanted to stop the drilling.
Supporting Obama on this seems like doubling down on killing baby dolphins and making Baby Jesus cry.
Wait, if by “defending BP” you mean “defending a defendant’s right to be heard in court and not being ruled by capricious, extra-judicial, politically-motivated actors,” then I am totally defending BP.
No one – even the guilty – can be shakedown and threatened by a political elite outside the rule of law. The damage from the oil spill will be forgotten by this time next year. The damage from the BP shakedown by extortionists like Barack Obama are going to fundamentally change the way the law is applied in this country. And there’s no going back once the law doesn’t matter anymore.
Amen, Ella, Darth, and sdferr. Amen pretty much to everyone not named Joe.
I didn’t see it. Believe it or not, I have other things I’m doing.
But hey, congrats on reading the same article. And hat tip.
Not that TARP and the Chrylser/GM bailouts didn’t already set the stage for politically-driven, power-grabbing lawlessness. But still. Coffin nails and whatnot.
Hard evidence of Obama coercing BP into the escrow fund would be nice before such allegations are made.
It’s always possible that BP willingly agreed to this in exchange for partial immunity from federal lawsuits and a PR boost.
Same argument every single fucking thread.
Listen: BP doesn’t get to set precedence for giving the President kingly powers, no matter how voluntary. Do you understand? This is not about BP. This is about the precedent being set here.
Try to concentrate.
You are the ones crying that this escrow fund violates the rule of law. Barton apologized for BP (remember that is what started all of this). If BP agreed to it, BP agreed to it.
And Pablo and the rest of you also argue that the $75 million liability cap should protect BP. Even though BP agreed to waive that too (well before Obama got involved). Yet as dicentra pointed out, it is not ex post facto to suspend the Jones Act for this spill (something I definitely support), so why would BP voluntarily agreeing in writing not to rely on the liability cap be a problem?
AJB – How about Barcky’s words in the weeks leading up to the meeting?
AJB, so your argument is that unless we can prove this is government extortion (with hard evidence), we should believe, instead, it was a bribe by BP so they can avoid the judicial system? And the government accepted that bribe? And that’s the default, conventional-wisdom-style assumption?
Nice.
I think the precedent goes back at least to Bush and Paulson.
It is not our fault that you are an idiot, Joe.
I apologize for Joe being too slow to be allowed to eat pudding without adult supervision.
Ella, we’ve been drifting into lawlessness for a long time now. The prime exhibit that comes to my mind is the transformation of “illegal aliens” into “undocumented workers.” And I doubt that’s the first or even the best example.
BP doesn’t make our laws, even by voluntarily prostrating itself before our king in hopes of a PR boon and a promise from said king not to cut their bollocks off.
He said, again.
Barton apologized for BP. Lie.
He apologies to BP, for the mockery of our legal system and the rule of law that the dirty little socialists inflicted on them.
Joe, BP can’t agree to something unconstitutional so that makes it all okay. The President simply does not have the authority to set up and administer this kind of slush fund. Period. All of this is outside the rule of law even if BP agrees to it willingly.
You’re arguing that bribery to keep victims and/or criminal defendants out of court is okey-dokey. And that Presidents can make those agreements and manage the monies from them without judicial, legislative, or electoral oversight.
Awesome, really. But dictatorships ain’t for me.
Was it any more right then, in your estimation?
The banks should have fought Bush and Paulson on TARP. BP should have fought Obama on the escrow fund. But they did not.
Maybe Joe could explain to us, sans vapors, why our existing laws should be ignored, and our existing legal system insufficient to handle this. We patiently await your non-mendoucheous response.
Ernst, yes. The lawless drift has been happening, but people used to feel like they had t hide it behind the law or precedent or something, even as a lie. They’re not even trying to pretend that the law matters anymore (and haven’t been since Paulson in September 2008) and that’s a terrifying final step.
The banks should have fought Bush and Paulson on TARP. BP should have fought Obama on the escrow fund. But they did not.
Therefore, fuck the Constitution, fuck our laws, and fuck the legal system?
No Jeff, it was not right. But it takes the bravery of the aggrevieved party to fight it.
Joe, so because the banks and BP didn’t fight, that makes it okay? Can I make a rape analogy there about lack of consent and threat and how the fact that someone didn’t scream because they’re afraid doesn’t make it okay?
So, as long as you are not the one getting fucked, you should just shut the fuck up? Is that about it, Joe?
No it doesn’t, Joe. It takes the rule of law to fight it.
I already made a wife-beating analogy, Ella, and that seemed to fly right past Joe, as well.
JD, that is what the courts and the judiciary are for, fighting this very battle.
And while I welcome arguing policy in the legislature, I expect congressmen to do it competently. And if the GOP is going to flail around, and then in the end roll, perhaps this particular argument is not one worth pursuing. Especially when you have much stronger ones to go after.
Do you pride yourself on contradicting yourself?
The only reason this argument is “not worth pursuing” is because certain putative conservatives have taken the stance that this Big Company Can Afford to Pay for their Dirty Dirty Oil Disaster. And it is politically unhelpful to be seen supporting the latest scapegoat.
Which is not really a conservative argument.
Before I fully resume my New Year’s Resolution, I want to point out that Joe is far more mendoucheous and types more douchenozzlery than I had previously given him credit for. He is a maestro of mendoucheous douchenozzlery.
Yeah Jeff, I got your wife beating analogy. Well, if you want to stop it, we need to take control of congress and the presidency so we can pass statutes to ban the abuses of the Bush and Obama administrations. Until then, yeah, it takes an aggreived party fighting this in the courts.
But from a political perspective, Obama was flailing around last week. Now it is the GOP. As you pointed out, well played.
domes – You should have quit at “I would have thought” once you became a demonstrable liar.
Hey, another name switch from meya.
#22, bh. Rather pathetic, no?
They are flailing about because they are cowards, or else they hold the very unconservative position you do.
What I pointed out was that they again missed the opportunity to be conservative, and instead succumbed yet again to the progressive’s framing of events.
And each time, a number of “pragmatic conservatives” play right along — always with the same consequences following the same kinds of posts…
On what basis do you think it is making that asspull, bh? Did someone release transcripts of the meeting? Did someone release an agreement that shows that plaintiff lawyers will be excluded?
here is a happy story from… NPR
it is off-topic but I thought you might find it cheering
My point is politically there are far better arguments to be made to criticize Obama’s handling of this mess (which has been pathetic). While I do not support a John Dilliger rationale of going against deep pocket corporations (because that is where the money is), I am also not for letting BP off the hook for its own fuck ups under some rule of law argument(especially when BP is capitulating and admitting liability all on its own).
Good riddance to that one, happyfeet. That is a good start.
Some rule of law argument is precisely what makes it impossible for BP to be let off the hook. That’s how a society governed by the rule of law works.
Private backroom deals with our King guarantees no such thing.
I am not being unconservative. If BP agrees to some idiotic deal with the Obama administration and won’t assert its rights–I do not feel compelled to do it for it.
I do not support a John Dilliger rationale of going against deep pocket corporations (because that is where the money is)
Except when it is BP.
I am also not for letting BP off the hook for its own fuck ups under some rule of law argument
That writing this phrase did not make your head assplode is rather telling. On many levels.
Why on earth would you think that conservative/libertarian-types are in favor of a Strong Man to decide things for us? There are certain things that a legal process is good for, and determining legitimate claims of damage is one of them. Much rather that than a bureaucratic crony making unilateral decisions from an unaccountable position of absolute power.
You don’t have to feel “compelled” to do anything. But you are still backing a “deal” that only kings and dictators have the power to make — all because you don’t much care what happens to the party involved.
Darth – Couple that with a complete asspull that plaintiff lawyers will not be involved, and it is pretty clear that it is meya, the lying fascist.
I am kind of still waiting for Joe to show us who is “defending BP”, or advocating letting them off the hook. Methinks he prefers torching strawidiots, because they do not argue back.
What position is unconservative. That BP should have the freedom to make any deal it wants to deal iwth this mess? That if BP says week one that there is no liability cap and confirms that in writing, it should not be held to that position? That if BP was planning an escrow fund and then meets with Obama and confirms that–I need to save BP from Obama?
BP has a remedy. The Courts.
Beyond that our only other remember is to take control of congress and the presidency and changes laws to prevent things like TARP and this deal.
How is that unconservative?
I would have thought the right would be happy that we found a summary process to handle claims that did not involve plaintiffs lawyers. But “thug” just sounds so good.
Okay, you caught us. It doesn’t have a thing to do with Leviathan not letting a crisis go to waste and creating another reason for weighting the scales. We just want to call a “thug” a “thug.” For the Frisson.
That if BP was planning an escrow fund and then meets with Obama and confirms that
That is a dishonest description of what happened.
Yours. Which is why it is being supported here by meya and AJB.
JD, assuming your moniker is a reflection of some knowledge on your part, isn’t it a basic rule of contract law that you can’t enforce a contract that includes illegal activity? Or sumpin’ like that; that People’s Court judge gets me all distracted sometimes.
That is a big assumption, Darth, and not a title that I would accept. Having said that, the concepts of offer, acceptance, and consideration does preclude illegal activity.
JD, you are so concerned that the escrow fund was Obama threatening BP. So are you defending BP from being abused in such a manner by Obama?
Pablo is arguing that rule of law demands that the $75 million dollar statutory liability cap be maintained (although as dicentra points out and all of us agree it is fine to ex post facto the Jones Act’s protectionary stupidity). That if people have claims they have to go sue BP and let the courts deal with it.
That is all fine, if you believe it. Then why shouldn’t BP go fight this battle in the courts too if they were treated harshly by Obama?
I am not defending BP, nor is anyone else, far as I can tell. You can assert that, but it does not make it so.
You are the one advocating for something outside of the legal system, and have failed to make the case why the rule of law, and the Constitution should be abandoned in this instance. Hint. It would help your case to actually make a case, rather than asserting it.
What specifically am I saying that is unconservative? Parties have the right to agree to stupid deals. BP is not a teenage girl who got date raped. If Obama threatened BP, BP has the right to go to court to deal with that.
meya and AJB can fuck off. I am most definitely not with them, they are just enjoying the inhouse argument going on.
Explain to me the violations of constitutional law. Ex post facto? Doesn’t apply to federal action–and BP admitted the cap did not apply to this spill. A president coercing a private party to agree to something it shouldn’t (the escrow fund)? I think the party with standing to make that argument is BP.
This kind of begs the question, I think.
If you do not understand how this would offend the Constitution then you are a much bigger idiot than I have given you credit for.
When you follow some people’s reasoning on this matter, it’s hard to see how they’d be against almost any instance of a political shakedown.
Hey, if a major corporation pays off Jesse Jackson when he threatens to picket rather than make their case in court, then, hey, no harm, no foul! Nothing to even comment on, really.
I think the party with standing to make that argument is BP.
If you are not BP you should just shut the fuck up. And pray to Allah you are not next.
Thanks, JD. The point I’m aiming at is that if Obama and BP did cut a deal that’s in some way illegal, then there’s nothing to stop either party from reneging on that deal and screwing the other (hey, that deal we made? Screw it. And just TRY taking me to court).
I guess Trent Franks is lying too:
You cannot save everyone.
Joe, because by perpetrating an extortion scheme, Obama and his DOJ are already breaking the law and acting outside the judicial system. There is no justice. There is no law. Ergo, there is no “court” to go to – because if they follow the law, they’ll be overridden by Obama, and if they don’t, they’ll be a kangaroo court to carry out the extra-legal crap that he’s forcing on them.
Cf., Chrysler bankruptcy.
Joe – That has nothing to do with the topic.
You want to stop the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Henry Paulsons, and Barack Obamas of the world, take back congress and the presidency and we can pass legislation to stop it. Unfortunately the Constitution cannot defend itself on an individual basis, it takes an aggreived party to bring a case to court.
Folks – Gotta run. Wish I could say it was fun, but someone might misinterpret my words and force me to set up an escrow fund, and Joe will just tell me to lube up.
Am I the only one with the impression that Joe thinks that none of us want BP to pay to clean up their mess? Regardless of the amount it ends up being for the legitimate damage?
Darth – Am I the only one with the impression that Joe thinks …
Apparently so, because I have seen no evidence of thinking. Much emo and bravado. No thinking.
Darth, you think that’s it? That would be an odd belief. From Joe, I mean.
JD–really, that BP intended to do this escrow fund before Obama gave his speech is irrelevant?
Well at least if Trent Franks is telling the truth.
“…If BP agrees to some idiotic deal with the Obama administration and won’t assert its rights – I do not feel compelled to do it for it.”
It seems to me Joe, that right here in this “not feel compelled to do it for it” stands the critical difference betwixt you and those with you and everyone else here.
You seem not to be able to take on board the concept that no one in dispute with you is arguing ‘for it [BP]’ as opposed to ‘for the due process rights’ of not only themselves [your opponents] but everyone and anyone who may some day stand in the accused position in which BP stands today. Try this, take this on board and much that is obscure to you now will be made clear.
Oh, my #68 is to Joe’s #57.
I have to run too. Palamino. Palamino.
tubers, the whole argument for the slush fund is that it would allow BP to avoid lawsuits. So, victims would be denied legal recourse (much like BP is denied mounting any kind of defense in court).
Yes, completely irrelevant. Did they intend on handing $20,000,000,000 over to Barcky’s pay czar? If you can demonstrate that they were planning on handing $20,000,000,000 over to the government then maybe you might have a point about only that. However, you have not done so, nor does that quote demonstrate that, no matter how many fucking times you post it.
Fuck you, meya.
The lawsuit thing is conjecture, of course, but nothing going on here is exactly legal. Or does it have previous precedent. Or is it transparent or public or open. So, conjecture is what we’ve got.
You really are deranged, meya.
tubers, they can argue that EVERYONE can only be compensated from the escrow, so no one has a right to file suit. See the problem there?
Joe, I can sympathize with your argument; BP made it’s bed, let them lie in it. But good grief man, you are oblivious to what the larger argument is (summed up very well by Ella @20 IMO), and are thrashing mightily to score an irrelevant point.
This is not about BP, this is about bigger things. Namely, our political leaders freeing themselves from the constraints of our Constitutional republic.
You might be fine with giving Obama extra-Constitutional authority to speed up those welfare checks for Louisiana hotel owners and such, but pretending those of us appalled by the political overreach are motivated by some sympathy for BP is your own self deception.
Anyone heard Holder make any more noises about criminal prosecutions since Obama got control of that $20 billion?
Me neither.
Seems like Big Nanny doesn’t do emergencies well, don’t it?
Hadn’t thought of that myself. Good point.
When discussing this, that Martin Niemöller quote comes to mind. I’m probably not the only one.
“Comment by Joe on 6/21 @ 12:01 pm #
You are the ones crying that this escrow fund violates the rule of law. Barton apologized for BP (remember that is what started all of this). If BP agreed to it, BP agreed to it.”
Nice oil company you got here. It’d be a shame to see anything happen to it.
tubers, the people doing the arguing are the people in control of the government. So, if the government is in itself corrupt, there is no recourse.
“So, if the government is in itself corrupt, there is no recourse.”
Hence that whole “Constitution” thing.
shakedowns are teh awesome says the New York Times… people will soon be lining up around the corner to get raped by thugmerica!
Ella – tubers is personality #22 or so for meya/inyoursoup/RD/bdam/pfar/Ebert/etal. Expecting honest discourse is like expecting a scorpion not to sting.
JD, thanks. I just can’t keep up with all the names….
The RD personality disappeared a little while back. inyoursoup, bdam, pfar and others were short-lived. Kind of like a mayfly hatch. Or a mosquito. Too many really stupid things get attached to one name, and it gets jettisoned – people like JD make sure that we know which one is the latest screenname d’ jour.
It tends to only change names once its new moniker begins getting deleted, like its last 21 or so. It usually takes 1-2 comments, on the outside, to recognize.
The perpetual lack of substance is a dead giveaway.
Parasites, it has been theorized, were among the causes of the evolution of sexual reproduction.
On the other hand, as Yeats put it, “was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”
Joe, I’m going to ask this question one more time. I’ve already asked it a few times, and other people have too, but you’ve never answered it. And now we’re swirling down the rabbit hole of circular arguments while avoiding this very critical principle and our positions on it. If we know where we all stand on this, we can probably wrap these arguments up in very short order.
Again, rule of law, or not? Always? Sometimes? Where do you land on this, Joe?
“people like JD make sure that we know which one is the latest screenname d’ jour.”
That’s one nice thing I have to admit about nishi. At least she has the honesty to stick with one name, allowing me to effortlessly bypass her comments.
People that constantly change handles (monkyboy, RD, Charles, etc.) are pathetic and cowardly, and a heads up on who you are really dealing with is appreciated. That way you can make an informed choice, to ignore or mock, whichever your mood dictates on the occasion.
Things what are useless in fighting the oil spill are include Obama’s thuggery, pizza dough, and Jennifer Love Hewitt’s Swarovski Crystal Vajazzle.
Happyfeet, ya gotta admit though, Obama thuggery might prevent future oil spills. Maybe.
‘Cuz of the no drilling oil wells thing I mean…
hopefully that will get overturned tomorrow
Has anybody looked at having Daddy plug the damn hole with pizza dough?
June 15, 2010 Urban Word of the Day
“That’s what BP said.”
A variant of “that’s what she said.” Instead of referring to sexual connotations, it is used to refer to spending a lot of money, making a mess, or fucking up very badly. Arose after the 2010 BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
X: Oh man, I really screwed the pooch on that one.
Y: That’s what BP said!
X: It’s going to take me all day to clean this mess up.
Y: That’s what BP said!
X: I’m paying tonight. The sky is the limit.
Y: That’s what BP said!
And of course:
X: I am really re-thinking my support of Obama in 2008?
Y: That’s what BP said.
X: Maybe I should not have agreed to waive the liability cap?
Y: That’s what BP said.
X: Maybe I should not have agreed to that 20 billion dollar escrow fund controlled by Obmama?
Y: That’s what BP said.
X: Maybe we should have been more careful drilling the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place?
Y: That’s what BP said.
Hard evidence of Obama coercing BP into the escrow fund would be nice before such allegations are made.
How about words from the President’s own chief of staff, as uttered on national television?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzZmMjkxNDgwODgxMmE3NTE1ZTIwYjliNDg4MWEyNTQ=
Too hard for you AJB?
Pablo: Rule of law. Yes. Always.
Voluntary relinguishment of your legal, statutory and contractual rights is not against rule of law. If Obama did something illegal, by all means let’s go after him and have him impeached. I do not feel any sympathy to BP agreeing to things like this.
So Joe, your position is that Rahm is full of shit and that Obama ‘forced’ nothing from BP?
I want the Democratic party to lose control of the House and Senate in 2010 (if possible) or 2012.
I want Obama to lose in 2012.
I want the most conservative candidates who can win to win open seats.
I would vote for Rush, Levin, JeffG, etc. to congress, president, etc. I do not disagree with their principals. I am not defending Boehner’s handling of Barton– but I am sure as hell not defending or agreeing with Barton.
As a matter of tactics, driving a wedge between BP and Obama is not the answer. BP and Obama have been in bed with each other since 2008, lack of government oversight probably contributed to this well failing (by Salazar/Obama on Obama’s watch), Obama has definitely hampered the clean up and mitigation efforts.
This is Obama’s spill. This is also BP’s spill. The GOP needs to have a principled position on property rights and rule of law, but it sure as hell does not have to carry BP’s books to do it.
BP is Baracky’s girl. And BP has a social disease.
Well, Joe is conservative insofar as he obviously does not receive his talking points from the White House.
ThomasD. Yeah, I think Rahm is full of shit. Rahm Emanuel is a liar. Because Trent Franks says BP was going to do this escrow before the Obama speech and meeting.
Did Obama Administration demand things and threaten BP? Probably. So how did Obama force BP to do what it did? BP could have told Obama no and gone public. BP chose not to do so.
Or it could be BP was going to do this anyway, worked out some secret understanding with Team O, hence the agreement. BP is not some individual getting fucked over by the crushing weight of government (or some shrimp boat owner getting crushed finanically by the circumstances of this spill), it is a multinational corporation that has the resources to fight this battle if it was being fucked with.
The most obvious answer is this was a bunch of insider stuff staged by Obama and BP. Ever consider that? I mean, it is not like they didn’t help get the guy elected.
Did you just type that you have a principled position on the rule of law, without your head assploding?
This is somewhat akin to “So, if the sky is blue…”, no?
This almost calls for a chart that compares the relative strengths between BP and the Federal government.
Rahm Emanuel explained that the Jews have this concept of a scapegoat and…
well, our meeting was confidential, but you can guess what part I am playing in all of this.
Cheers!
I mean, are you serious?
From the EPA to MMS to just declaring a crippling moratorium, the Feds can squash BP like a bug.
Thanks for covering my back JD when I was “hiking the trail.”
Did you ever think BP might be “hiking the trail” with Team Obama?
Fuck you and your sock puppeting, Joe. Why is your fidelity to the rule of law contingent on one’s financial resources?
If you are going to commit a crime, murder is good. Nobody with standing to press charges, in Joe’s world.
Hell, if that dude let himself get dead, he can either stay dead or he can shake the dirt off and head to court and speak up for himself. Otherwise, fuck him.
Special circumstances / penalties for the rich.
Very very conservative, such a stance is…
Joe is too stupid to know he is stupid.
Joe is absolutely right. If The leader of the most powerful entity on the planet says he’s going to keep his boot on your neck, and threaten to kick your ass, you pays the money.
Voluntarily.
It’s not like Obama is going to go after little old you, after all.
But they are rich, Lee. And they had an accident.
So they needs to pay.
SOAK THE RICH!
Very conservative, that.
Hmmm… this Joe fellow has me worried about investing in the US and I hear they don’t hate oil companies in Brazil.
Sorry, folks. Hey, jobs are overrated anyways. Ask Obama.
It is as though Joe is trying to not understand.
I did not say “soak the rich” Jeff. So please do not say I did.
I know that the damages from this spill will be billions of dollars, that BP is primarily responsible for the clean up damages as the owner of the well alone (let alone if there is a showing of actual negligence/recklessness).
Do you think the federal government should pay for the clean up and the tort claims from damaged folks? Should the gulf states pay? Perhaps raising that tax on oil x20 on all of us to create a sufficient fund to pay for it all is the answer? That would certainly help BP’s stock price. Hey, maybe I should buy some now just in case that happens.
I am not defending Obama at all. The Obama administration sucks, owns this spill with BP, and I want to see Obama and the Democrats out of power. BP was in bed with Obama in 2008, it helped get him elected, it was very cozy with the administration, and I frankly think BPO are a lot closer than you think even now with Obama.
So I am not going to get all weepy about rule of law for a deal BP did with Obama.
We need better choices if you want real change from the Mac Daddy GOP status quo. I mean, there are so many pricipled conservatives out there to choose from.
“it is a multinational corporation that has the resources to fight this battle if it was being fucked with.”
For the millionth time, the federal government is a corporation we will refer to as US Corp.
Obama is US Corp’s President
Just like a corporation! (except with zero experience)
Biden is the VP
Just like a corporation! (except for the crazy)
Congress and the Senate represent are upper management
Just like a corporation! (if the Corp recruited only spineless imbeciles)
US Corp. has two million overpaid middle managers who do not do jack
Just like a corporation! (so true, only difference is the scale)
US Corp delivers spectacularly bad service
Just like a corporation! (that libs would be picketing)
Your pay US Corp or they put you in jail regardless of whether or not you received service
Just like a corporation! (wrong. this one’s exclusive to gov.)
US Corp has an army
Just like a corporation! (Blackwater doesn’t count)
US corp has spies
Just like a corporation! (no corporation would ever tolerate the clueless CIA ones)
US Corp ignores its own laws
Just like a corporation! (BP?)
US Corp destroys other corporation to create unemployment
Just like a corporation! (does what Fannie did to Lehman count)
US Corp is printing fake money as a sideline
Just like a corporation! (Milton Bradley?)
US Corp is 13 trillion dollars in the red
Just like a corporation! (is that you, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?)
US Corp is making your children pay for its bad management
Just like a corporation! (AIG)
US Corp does hostile takeovers of companies and tells the bondholders of those companies to get bent
Just like (they did to) a corporation! (GM, Chrysler)
US Corp is the ultimate redundancy since it duplicates the efforts of the 50 smaller companies that also operate in its territory
Just like a corporation! (that should be closed down)
US Corp has decided that its clients are the problem.
Just like a corporation! (I await examples)
Hey! Is that the sound of cognitive dissonance coming from my left?
It is like you are aggressively not even trying anymore.
I have seen guys I go fishing with end up with federal criminal charges because the bilge pump on their boat put a fucking sheen on the water. They had to take lie detector tests, spend $25,000 on lawyers, just to get the U.S. Attorney’s office to accept it was an accident (and settle for the civil penalties). By the grace of God I have not been in that situation.
So yeah, I get how the government can totally fuck with you. I want this government fuck power curtailed.
On a massive loss of this scale, only a BP could even deal with it. Anyone else would be wiped out and bankrupted by it. Hell, BP may be bankrupted by it and it makes $5 billion a quarter. I do not know what was discussed in that BP/Obama meeting. But if BP agreed to some deal, BP agreed to the deal. I am all for criticizing Obama (there is a lot to criticize Obama for), but I do not feel inclined to defend BP for something it agreed to.
We have to win elections. Beat Obama. Elections have consequences.
Apologizing to BP is not a good way to acomplish those goals. If that makes me unconservative to say that (because that is what I am saying), oh well.
US Corp has decided that its clients are the problem.
Just like a corporation! (I await examples)
Pick a media corporation, any media corporation, but the print ones are best!
“So I am not going to get all weepy about rule of law for a deal BP did with Obama.”
Weepy? That sounds a little loaded.
This is another brick in the wall dude, one more cut in the death by a thousand cuts. That it doesn’t dawn on you while you type the above is amazing to me.
Your point is in keeping with the stance you took on Obama firing the CEO of GM, right?. His quoting salary caps to insurance companies? That was cool with you, right? They are powerful, wealthy Corporations, so Constitutional constraints be damned, right?
I’m too lazy to look, but I’m sure that was your stance in those instances…
Thanks, Ernst, I was stuck on that one. Nice work.
“We have to win elections. Beat Obama. Elections have consequences.
“Apologizing to BP is not a good way to acomplish those goals.”
Neither is running away from fights; or avoiding the fight in the first place because your afraid you might have to run away.
You’re quite welcome Mr. W. And that’s not the sound of cognitive dissonance you‘re (got it right that time) hearing, it’s the gears of doublethink grinding away.
I am advocating looking at the federal government as a corporation because when you do their motives become much more clear.
LBascom, no I was not for the GM deal. I was not for salary caps. So don’t make up shit and say I was for it. Or any of Obama’s deals since he took power. I would have preferred GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy without government intervention. I think this escrow fund is a business decision by BP. Is there a secret quid pro quo? Maybe.
Why is BP such a willing victim?
Hmmmm
And yeah, that is me as “Kurt Cobain” in response to JD’s comment in the thread above.
How many sock puppets is that today, Joe? Again, simply reiterating your prior comments and reASSerting your prior ASSpulls does not constitute an argument. Rule of law only for those that cannot afford to fight the government? Nobody put words in your mouth, your positions are just that goofy.
“Neither is running away from fights; or avoiding the fight in the first place because your afraid you might have to run away.”
Also, losing a fight doesn’t necessarily mean shouldn’t have fought.
Alas, or dwindling supply of honorable men has lessened the shame of the cowardly. Too many can’t conceive of actually fighting for a mere idea, and principles are shed right alongside each vertebra.
I blame Hollywood.
I’m so oily that’s ok cause so are you
Someone else was speaking about looking at government as we might look at a business the other day, though to a different purpose. Ah yes, here it is:
“LBascom, no I was not for the GM deal. I was not for salary caps. So don’t make up shit and say I was for it”
Gee, you miss my irony.
Can’t say I’m surprised…
“When you put it like that, overspending by government seems un-American. ”
Un-American my ass. Universally immoral is the phrase he’s looking for, I believe
Lee – Its ability to have a point sail past its head, unnoticed, is unmatched.
Since that other link doesn’t go where the url says it goes, here‘s the article entire: just go to page four for the quote and context.
“Government operates without the market pressures that produce efficiency and increase quality.”
That is why each state was supposed to be independent and the federal gov just a mechanism to resolve disputes. then if one did not like New York, they could move to Texas. Eventually, New York would be forced to do something responsible to staunch the bleeding.
It really makes sense, but I fear a bit too much sense for those in power.
“It really makes sense, but I fear a bit too much sense for those
indesiring more power.”Sorry, I thought it could use more focus…
People will tell you that government is different from any other group of individuals, and if we are feeling charitable we can say that they are mistaken.
I could solve the spending crisis by next week by simply turning the government over to Walmart, Apple, and a bunch of other multinationals and telling them they could keep 10 percent of the money left over as long as the services remained constant.
An estimated 60 billion a year in medicare fraud is what they ADMIT to, Planned Parenthood can’t remember what it did with a billion, ACORN got 5 billion, and on and on and on…
If it were a corporation we would have put Congress in shackes and whipped them of the Capitol steps. Yeah, even the CBC because we’re post-racial.
LBascom, I am not defending Obama. I did not vote for Obama, I never said Obama was a “good man”, I got what Rush meant when he said he wanted Obama to fail. I dislike Obama policies and want them to fail.
I am not defending BP and I think it is stupid for the GOP to attempt to do so under some “rule of law” argument for a deal BP agreed to voluntarily fund to assist devestated citizens in the gulf. I think BP is facing massive liablity for something that they will almost certainly be held liable for as owner of the well(and worse if it is shown BP was negligent/reckless).
From Joe’s first link (and we talked about this last night from a ‘feets link):
How in the world does that show a secret deal? It shows two open-ended threats that were totally unreasonable. Threats used to coerce them.
Do you even understand what shakedown means?
This argues against your case. Not for it.
/sock off
Even so Mr W, the feedback of out-migration can hardly be supposed to have an impact as forceful as the feedback corporations experience in the daily loss of sales, loss of market share, loss of stock capital valuation, to say nothing of being hauled into court to lose the company altogether on the decision of a judge and jury.
Or further on feedback, I’d like to rid the company of John Boehner today due to his manifest incompetence at his job, not in twelve years or however long his constituents may decide to keep him in the House and his House constituents to decide to keep him in his ‘leadership’ role; yet where I or other stock-holders might have a hope that we’d manage such a thing with a blundering CEO, as US voters we’re shit out of luck.
Well it is good to see they are finally admitting they are in the bag for him, Mika will save Obama.
I am afraid that we get the government we deserve.
I am afraid; what if we deserve this government?
bh, my guess aruing about this alleged shakedown over and over to the voters is not going to help the goal of getting Obama out of office. All I know is BP agreed to it.
Voters blame Obama for poorly handling the spill. Voters blame BP for the spill. Obama and BP deserve one another.
If you think this is the smoking gun for taking on Obama, run with it. The original post was Boehner screwed up by missing the opportunity to attack Obama about thisa after apology to BP–but given that there are so many better arguments to attack Obama on, I would have let this one go.
But it takes the bravery of the aggrevieved party to fight it.
I’d say a more likely and effective avenue for the fight would be for the people to stand up and say “You have no right to do that”. Now if only we had some mechanism by which the people could express such a notion. Perhaps some sort of representation within the government.
Nah, they’d probably just make a hash of it by saying it the wrong way.
“…I would have let this one go.”
Joe, does the four-thousandth iteration of your sense of the appropriate measures to have taken in these matters have any greater weight than the first iteration, do you think? If not, why bother? And therefore, if so, as you must believe, since you’ve gone to the trouble to issue it, why is that? What is it about this latest rehearsal that puts it over the top?
Jeff said argue Jones Act, fair enough.
Bush waived it during Katrina, Obama has not because he is owned by the Unions. That seems like an argument that has some legs.
Okay, I refuse to be on Andrew Sullivan’s “side.” You win. I denounce myself.
I have dealt with both my anger and also my seaturtle issues I think.
Liars lie. And this is news? To who?
I was aiming 166 at 164, for what it’s worth.
“LBascom, I am not defending Obama.”
You are if anyone else’s argument defends BP, as you claim. Same, same.
“I am not defending BP and I think it is stupid for the GOP to attempt to do so under some “rule of law” argument for a deal BP agreed to voluntarily fund to assist devestated citizens in the gulf”
So, if the Feds want to engage in a little racketeering or extortion, it’s not a bad thing because of who the target is? And calling Obama out on it was a stupid move?
In your world buddy. I’ve found the experience very enlightening, but less so than many others because it’s being talked about, I expect.
Ok, I knew Obama was a Chicago thug, BP was British (ergo, weanies), and the RNC are gutless, so it wasn’t that illuminating. But still, I bet people are figuring shit out now, that only last month were clueless bastards.
Thanks Mr. Barton, even if ultimately you placed more value on your committee chair than your honor.
I mean angst issues
there really hasn’t been a lot of news today really
Well it is a stretch, but here is some good news, Ralph Nader says LBJ would have plugged the well and may run against Obama.
LBascom, I am not defending Obama. Not even indirectly. Run with the thug argument.
The world that Joe describes where the rule of law is applied to only those that cannot afford to fight the government, and are sympathetic enough figures is pretty fucking stupid. No matter how many times he says it, and how many links he spams.
Here is how President Nixon handled legal matters. Everything with Republicans is projection, projection, projection and still more projection.
if by “projection” you mean boisterous man on man action replete with a full selection of Jergens creams and lotions
Nixon? Really? Nixon?
nixon of epa, ddt ban, wage and price controls. good luck pinning that on conservatives.
nixon’s the one
Well, that settles it. No way is zombie Nixon getting my vote in ’12.
yea and gerry ford’s win buttons. go for it
Lefties even project regarding projection.
fucking simon brought up Nixon? Really?
That’s Nixon to you bitches.
Nixon? Really? Nixon?
Yes, Nixon. It’s so quaint to read about that ITT case.
“At the time of Nixon’s intercession, the Justice Department was determined to carry an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to establish the principle that business competition can be unlawfully hindered by the growth of conglomerates, which expand by acquiring unrelated businesses, as much as by corporate growth in a single industry.”
They bought Nixon off for a measly 400 grand, and it went right in the pocket of the RNC. Republicans don’t do extortion for small people.
yea ’cause the us gov’t has always been making cars or student loans or medical care
” Run with the thug argument.”
Er, that’s what 99% of the comments are doing.
You’re the one saying you don’t care, BP deserves it.
Which, they probably do, but I’m still uncomfortable with the government being thug extortionists.
OK, let’s say I was the unscrupulous CEO of a multinational who was getting its ass beat by market forces, Mother Nature, and negligence. Then let’s say there is a President of the most powerful nation on Earth who is getting his ass kicked by market forces, Mother Nature, negligence, and incompetence. We both need a life line so that we can get our lives back–you know, do a little yachting, a little golfing. So here’s what we do.
CEO to his Consigliere: ” Yo Cyril. The numbnutz President is too stupid or chickenshit or both to come to the table, so let’s float a little con that will take some PR pressure off us both. God knows, he needs to work on his game. He swings like a girl, but I digress. Here’s the deal. We’ll “promise” $30 billion in payola, but commit only $3 billion–shit the racket can cash flow that all day. So here’s how we spin the rubes see. This dough will make it square with the coonasses we’re screwing in the Gulf. Ain’t we splendid? We got the cash, give me the float, and we’re square–for now. I’ll play like he’s kicking my ass. Oooh, ooh, you’re kicking my ass Mr. President. Thank you very much can I have another. Dick Daley is spinning. That bastard would have already got $30 billion wired to his Swiss bank account.”
Consigliere: “I’ll order up the yacht. And let’s send the Prez a sleeve of Rahm’s balls.”
CEO: That’s the ticket.
Got any dirt on Millard Fillmore, simon?
JD, I never ever said that. That is just some fantasy you have. You just make that shit up as you go along. But you know what, fuck if I am going to be on Andrew Sullivan’s side of this issue. So go for it. Obama’s administration is a thug-o-cracy.
But I suspect that there is some sort of an “understanding” between BP and Obama.
BTW–I never defended Obama in any of this. I just do not feel the least bit bad for BP and I think it is stupid to apologize to BP. But hey, I give up. You all beat me down like Rahmmy, Holder and Baracky beat down BP.
JD you can take your boot off my neck now.
You most certainly did so it was alright since BP could afford it, and since they are bad actors. If this characterization of your 89381735 comments to that effect is inaccurate, I am positive that people here will tell me so. Your track record of consistency and integrity is suspect.
Another way of putting that would be “After losing their case, the Justice Department was determined to carry an appeal…” But you do make a point, simon. I don’t see where the Dems got $400K to throw this case, though the situation is different in that we’d already won that one.
Nixon? Seriously?
Yes, I did vote for him in 72 (one year before that Time article was written) but I was 18 y/o and his opponent was McGovern for pity’s sake.
i want dirt on Peirce
Let’s see…Monday…yes, Rep. Joe Barton still spoke well enough for me.
That is all.
JD, BP had the right to go to court and fight this. So how does the fact BP can afford to fight the Administration in court (or at a minimum go a few rounds with the government) make that right any less available?
There might be another reason BP made the decision not to fight. As Rummy said, “As you know, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”
With this general in charge, maybe BP wisely picked unconditional surrender.
Would you make that pick that individual to lead your litigation defense? Like I said, there may be a secret sweetheart deal here.
Got any dirt on Millard Fillmore, simon?
Depends how you define dirt. He was the head of that eras’ Tea Party, the Know-Nothings. Nativist, anti-immigrant… they eventually found a home in the Republican Party.
Enough silliness from you, Joe. Spam some links. Do what you do. Just quit making an ass of yourself.
Joe, BP doens’t have enough political (or moral) capital to substantially fight what Obama dictated. Hell, the poor guy (Hayword) can’t even spend a day watching his yacht race without an uproar. You can’t expect BP to be able to mount a decent defense, however warranted it might be.
fucking simon is one of those brilliant trolly thingies that can blame anything on Republicans.
that screams demonrat party
I do not understand Mr. simon’s thesis
anti-immigrant…
You forgot a word there. I’m thinking it’s because by doing so you can continue to delude yourself that merely associating oneself with a particular party label makes you one of the “good guys”. So congratulations!
I do not understand Mr. simon’s thesis
Let me explain. Republicans suck.
sad simon is only partially right … some know-nothings did eventually join the Republican party
the anti-slavery ones
the pro-slavery ones joined the Democrats
oh. der.
her is another thing what I do not unnerstand.
what is a BP Group Chief of Staff zactry?
Alhouse on the “shakedown.” But she voted for Obama, so she cannot be trusted (even if Rush gives her a nod every now and again.
Yeah good sardonic point Serr8d, poor Hayward, can’t even go to his yacht race without an uproar (how the fuck did Exxon manage to pull it off killing sea otters when Bill Clinton was president–fuck that Obama is just amazing). BTW, what was Obama doing this weekend, golfing wasn’t it? Shouldn’t he be in the office working?
I was 6 in the 1972 election… Nixon, good Lord…
BTW, what was Obama doing this weekend, golfing wasn’t it? Shouldn’t he be in the office
workinggetting blow jobs from interns?Apparently the blow jobs from Hayward were enough to carry him over.
Makewi – Apparently he/she/it thinks we are fans of Team R
the pro-slavery ones joined the Democrats
You mean the states rightists? They belong to the Republican party now, too.
You mean the states rightists? They belong to the Republican party now, too.
Yay team!
Bitches! This is how you work an oil spill.
fick slick, dicklick.
Then golf.
I heard tell that the GOP had a black man at its head and ran a woman as the VP candidate. No doubt a ruse to ensure that the term “states rights” still secretly can mean pro slavery.
In case these are useful things to talk about, as is Nixon, as they keep the focus off the current president and his own individual failings. Of which there are many.
I was 6 in the 1972 election… Nixon, good Lord…
Way up thread someone mentioned that Obama was setting a bad precedent. If you had been 44 years old in 1972, would you have said that Nixon was setting a bad precedent by ordering his Justice Dept. to drop the appeal because ITT had donated 400 grand to the RNC?
If Nixon had trumpeted such plans to the nation, then definitely yes.
I was 6 in the 1972 election… Nixon, good Lord…
I didn’t place that well, but I beat Pat Paulson and Dr Spock. If it wasn’t for Pigasus, I’d be a household name.
i like bp’s 20 billion donation to the dnc
I wish there were Presidential trading cards. The backs could list GDP in and GDP out, stats, major scandals, and accomplishments (or lack thereof).
Can you imagine what a mint condition Ron Reagan from his SAG days would fetch?
Conversely, a number one draft pick like Barry who ends up bombing in the majors and taking his team out of contention would sell only because somebody wanted the gum.
I was 14 in 1972, had McGovern stickers and pins on everything I owned and thought Nixon set a bad precedent by waking up in the morning. Any more questions?
fsimon – By your metric, Barcky is 50,000 times the crook Nixon was.
JD,
Barcky is 50,000 times the crook Nixon was.
FIFY
Simonez, seems the Constitution (and the protection thereof) is wholly a responsibility of the Tea Party now. Since Republicans and Democrats alike have forsworn any but passing mention of it.
Especially this current far-left Alinskyite Obama administration. Why, you’d think O! thinks he has unlimited fiat powers, and can dictate terms to whomever he wants, whenever he wants, to make happen whatever he wants to see happen, all that made OK in the minds of swooning Dems and related leftards because of his depth of His empathy!
I was 13 in ’72 and busy worrying more about giving and getting attention from, well, Debbie Denise, &c., than Nixxon.
Jesus fuck
They see no problem with expressing those ideas out loud, happyfeet.
And let’s nationalize the goddamn fruit industry too!
I think that’s where Mr. SEK got his doctorate I wonder if he knows this guy
We suck down 20,000,000 barrels of oil every single day of the year. There’s a big dent getting ready to show up in that, because of Obama’s crazed Gulf policy, with the resultant price increases showing up by just after November’s election. If the spill wasn’t his Katrina, then the coming national energy crisis will be.
We’ll definitely be rid of him in 2012. If we still have polls and elections then.
That is pretty telling, happyfeet.
Tort reform for medical malpractice: good. Out of court settlements between parties relieve courts from the burden of hearing damage claims. Tort reform for oil industry malpractice: bad. Let the courts carry the burden. Government has a role to play in medical malpractice, setting limitations, like caps on awards, as it sees fit. Government has no role to play in oil industry malpractice. Let the shrimpers and restaurants and all the related groups of affected parties bring BP to court. The burden on the court is tolerable.
Now you are just being dishonest, fucker.
the little president man’s undignified gang rape of BP won’t lessen the burden on the court not even a little
link
call and say george s. needs his balls sucked
When did the Executive get granted legislative and judicial powers? Was the Constitution re-written recently? Why are you a fucking douchenozzle? What is wrong with our existing law and legal system that Barcky feels compelled to act outside of it? What are the specifics of the shakedown Under what authority was the President acting under when he did this? These should be easy questions for you.
“Let the courts carry the burden.”
No one that I have seen has suggested that BP be barred from settling privately with persons or businesses claiming BP has injured them; so only in instances where such voluntary settlements are unattainable would resort to the courts be necessary, and those suits will go forward even under the current scheme. Stop making shit up, why don’t you?
so only in instances where such voluntary settlements are unattainable would resort to the courts be necessary, and those suits will go forward
same as in medical malpractice, and yet you want the government to play a role there.
When did a state legislature or congress pass this as a law, fucker? Or do you think that King Barcky should just be able to deem shit passed? Good Allah, you leftist trolls are a piece of work.
These should be easy questions for you.
They are. Baracky proposed a plan to BP. BP accepted the plan.
The End.
Go find where I’ve had anything at all to say about medical malpractice reform asshole. I can save you some time though, it isn’t there to be found.
So that is your idea of tort reform, simon? The doctors can just pool their money and voluntarily give it to Obama to divvy out as he sees fit?
So fucker simon basically admitted that he cannot answer even one of the questions posed in #236. He didn’t even give it an effort.
When did the Executive get granted legislative and judicial powers? Was the Constitution re-written recently?
JD, that would be the interstate elastic powers section of the “Good and Welfare” clause enacted by John Conyers using his authority under the “and other minorities too!” expansion of the Wise Latina rule of juris dictat.
…of the United States of America. The beginning of the Fascist States of America
“. He was the head of that eras’ Tea Party, the Know-Nothings.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!
Oh, my, that is funny.
Got any more?
There’s also the when the “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” precedent, which is the ONLY way the Nixon is relevant to this debate, as far as I can tell.
“You mean the states rightists? They belong to the Republican party now, too.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
Oh, Great Cthulu, you got a million of ’em.
WEre you on the Borscht Circuit by any chance?
BTW, the Democrats were the ones who supported slavery.
The Republicans weren’t.
Just in case you missed it.
Ernst – Seriously, did I miss something? Did Congress pass this? Or is this guy fucker simon trying to make Joe seem smart in comparison?
“same as in medical malpractice, and yet you want the government to play a role there.”
A LEGAL role.
An important distinction from the Oilbama Shakdown.
“They are. Baracky proposed a plan to BP. BP accepted the plan.
The End.”
Nice oil company you got here.
Wouldn’t want to see anything bad happening to it, would you?
And yes, that was an explict example of thuggery by Oilbama.
What a bunch of whiners you are.
In 1952, President Truman nationalized the steel industry in order to avert a workers’ strike. The steel companies sued and won a Supreme Court decision against Truman in a mere two months period of time. If you think what President Obama did was unconstitutional, take it to court.
“Comment by f. simon on 6/21 @ 8:28 pm #
What a bunch of whiners you are.”
And you’re a lunatic.
Kinda balances out.
No, you didn’t miss anything JD, but the fucker’s a progg; wishing MAKES IT SO.
Though I disagree with your characterization of being a whiner, it is much much much much much much much better to whine than to be a dishonest little fuck like you.
What law was Barcky acting under when he did this, fucker?
Oil producers in the Gulf other than BP whose rigs have been shut down by the idiot Obama ought to simply go back to work, and if interfered with take the case to court. In other words, ignore the pipsqueak. Just do it.
That would make them racists, sdferr.
Why do you love evil oil companies and hate shrimpers, sdferr?
From now on, we should propose everything be done “for the shrimpers” instead of the earlier iteration, “for the children”.
Hoohaw – He took $20,000,000,000 from Stevie Wonder? Why does he hate blind people?
Cause I like to drive and I worked for a shrimper once, Pablo.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/21/florida-senator-obama-told-me-we-cant-deploy-oil-skimmers-because-they-might-be-needed-elsewhere/
Calling them inept and incompetent would be the understatement of the year.
…buncha toe-sucking freaks!
vs.
I’m confuzzled. What the fuck is the twenty billion America ganked off BP supposed to do exactly?
Is HooHaw just trying to play dumb?
Two posts JD, times up. ;-)
Think I’ll ignore meya this round… for the shrimpers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-17/bp-struggled-with-cracks-in-gulf-well-as-early-as-february-documents-show.html
Identity #3 today. Congrats.
What the fuck is the twenty billion America ganked off BP supposed to do exactly?
Probably get Obama reelected.
If that Bloomberg article is right, Barcky’s administration knew of the problems at this rig as far back as Feb 13, and it had a prior leak that took almost 10 days to repair. And MMS knew of the dangers of this rig before it exploded.
I wonder if all of those people who screamed about how Bush ignored the warnings for 9/11, the LIHOP or MIHOP clowns will apply the same standards to this. No, I really do not wonder.
JD, ever notice how the only person who ever mentions Liz Birnbaum anymore is, um, me? They’re still talking shit about Mike Brown but it’s like Liz has just slipped down the memory hole.
Consistency, Pablo. It is the hobgoblin of simple minds, no?
Where is FEMA, by the way?
Is this even something FEMA can be tasked with?
For the love of God, man, have you not seen Forrest Gump? You animal!
Probably trying to figure out a way to bill BP for their continued existence.
And the oil refinery, I forgot to mention the oil refinery. Good times.
That’s some creepy shit, ‘feets. Especially when it seems that mostly where BP cut corners, it had Baracky’s permission to do so. Before it all went to hell.
Oh, and the ultimate cause not yet being determined. That ought to matter too.
Clearly Bush’s fault …
On a lighter note, the cat serenading lute strummer informed me tonight that Teh One has a better record on taxes than Reagan, and since taxes are the purported reason for teabaggers, the only other possible reason for their existence is racism.
Free gas? I hear that’s all the rage, especially in the free mortgage combo package.
dude the constitutional scholar is deep in chicago
“Free gas?”
No, the workdays there, toiling in the bubble-towers and broken down storage tanks, pulling the heat exchangers for cleaning with a team of 9 guys on a 30′ long x 5/8″ stainless tube putting out a water-jet at god only knows what psi and guiding the sucker home in one bundle-tube after another. Like I said, good times.
Ah, so you were oppressed! :)
• First they came for GM, but I did not protest because GM was run into the ground by the unions.
• Then they came for the banks, but those mo-fos deserved to get an ass-whuppin big time. Too rich and all that.
• Then they came for BP, but because BP is huge and screwed up big time and is participating voluntarily with Obama in kabuki for the masses, while the Center for American Progress (a Soros group) calls all the shots, including the 6-month moratorium and the slush fund, which strangely benefits Petrobras, in which Soros is invested up to his eyeballs.
• Then they came for you, Joe, and nobody was left to give a rip.
Speaking of GM, Hennessey vivisects Rahm, and invites the White House press to follow up. They won’t. (Insty linked)
Though if you’d like a respite from all this talk, please come look at my latest bebeduck photos and videos.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36459782@N00/sets/72157623742520531/
Water’s clean and everystuff!
Imagine that, Soros benefiting. I am not exactly sure how I am supposed to defend BP from itself, but my guess Obama may have worked out something for BP too.
Maybe Mittens or Fuckabee can save us. Or Pawlenty!
I think Dicentra’s point, Joe, is you’re “fuck ’em, they get what they deserve” attitude means that when it’s your turn to bend over, you’ll not only get it, you’ll have it coming to you as well,
Ernst, get your head out of your ass.
I have it coming to me? And you are some paragon of virtue? Because you think it is unfair for BP to pay for this mess?
BP is responsible, at least in part, for the biggest oil spill in U.S. history (if only from owning the well that failed). Yeah, it’s going to get fucked given how things turned out, but BP at least gambled on a well that could be highly lucrative for it. There is evidence supporting BP pushed the schedule agressively on bringing that well in. Millions of people in the gulf are going to be impacted negatively as a result of the spill. I expressed little regret over a deal BP voluntarily agreed to (shakedown, neg. settlement, whatever). I would rather one company pay for its own mistakes than the industry and consumers as a whole (which would be the case if the government picked up the slack and then taxed us to make up the difference).
Obama, of course, is making things far worse by fucking up the clean up and imposing the oil drilling ban.
But the more I think about this, the more I think Obama and BP did come to some private understanding. It would be nice to now what it is. You know, transparency and all.
Joe, WTF? Nobody is arguing that BP shouldn’t have to pay for cleanup. That they’d have to pay for any spills was known before the drilling started. It was part of the contract they had with Deepwater Horizon.
Now knock it off with that gawdawful strawman. I mean, look at this:
Who the hell taught you to read English. Not one person on the PLANET is arguing that the gubmint should pay and BP should be let off lightly.
What is wrong with you? Stop it! You’re making a terrible ass of yourself!
But the more I think about this, the more I think Obama and BP did come to some private understanding. It would be nice to now what it is. You know, transparency and all.
Who needs transparency when we have Glenn Beck’s White House mole?
Look: BP is big into cap and trade and global warming garbage, which means they’re heavily invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which, once cap and destroy is put into place, will make a few people obscenely rich at everyone else’s expense as the elites pretend to swap an invisible gas.
Al Gore, George Soros, all of Obama’s radical buddies, the folks at the Center for American Progress, Van Jones, Fannie and Freddie—you name ’em, they’re fixin’ to make more money than God.
Which, it might be useful to see if any GOPers are also fixin’ to be enriched by the CCX, and lo, they may end up being the “pragmatics” who don’t want to upset the apple cart.
I’m an epsilon semi-moron when it comes to html. So would somebody do me the kindness of linking to Thomas Sowell’s latest (June 22) column over at NRO or Townhall or whereever the hell else it is. And then, Joe, would you be so kind as to read it and share with us whether or not, in your opinion, Dr. Sowell has his head up his ass as well?
Excerpt:
“Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP’s oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated. But our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men.” If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.
“But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.”
Obama must be following the Kenyan constitution.
Corrine Brown is ready to go international with her skimming, it appears. I think Obama should trust the experts.
“But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.”
Here you go, Ernst. This one is good, also.
The question I have, is that if it was not confiscated, wouldn’t that make it a contribution?
No, they went through his MMS. Because of the regulation. For someone who likes to pretend they know how things work, you’re an awfully big sillyhead.
“I have it coming to me?”
Whatever the Oilbama regime fucking well wants.
Moron.
“Because you think it is unfair for BP to pay for this mess?”
GREAT straw man, BTW.
same as in medical malpractice, and yet you want the government to play a role there.
No I don’t.
““But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law.” Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.” ”
I’d say there’s a bit more than a ‘technicality’ that there isn’t a confiscation when your objection is to… confiscation.
Sowell again:
“If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don’t believe in constitutional government. Without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a “crisis” — which, as the president’s chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to “go to waste” as an opportunity to expand the government’s power.
[…]
“If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.
“The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP’s money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed “czars” controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.
“Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — versus the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the “useful idiots” of our time. But useful to whom?” [emphases added]
hooha –finally some truth in advertising out of Meya.
Thank You for the link, B Moe. On a day that may or may not come, I owe my Don a service, which I will not hesitate to provide.
dicentra–I think there was a deal between the WH and BP. BP got something for that $20 billion it voluntarily gave up. We have not heard all the terms. Part of it is stagering the payments over four years. BP has been making more than $5 billion a quarter, so making $5 billion dollar payments a year for four years is pricey but doable. But that is serious dough and BP must be getting something.
Sowell makes a good policy point, but people agree to deals like BP’s (granted on a much smaller scale) all the time. Of course part of it was BP was going to do it anyway. Before the Obama meeting. Before the Obama speech.
a) So did Obama just luck into BP own generocity and then take credit for it?
b) Did Obama threaten BP to set up the fund?
c) Or did Obama offer some undisclosed carrot to BP, a company closely tied to the Obama administration and its cap and trade policies before the spill?
d) Or all the above?
When Cap and Trade passes BP won’t even notice 20 billion dollar rounding errors in its statements.
The idea is to keep you looking at the micro, whilst your betters are focused on the macro.
Another day, same BS. How is that strawidiot war going, Joe?
BP got something for that $20 billion it voluntarily gave up. […] [P]eople agree to deals like BP’s … all the time.
Yup, like say restauranteurs who voluntarily agree to use certain garbage and linen services for the privilege of not seeing their property burned down. John Gotti just called. He wants the fish market and Longshoreman’s union back.
How many ways can Joe rearrange the deck chairs to say the exact same thing again? Thank God the only things this guy gives a shit about are waterboarding, BP and inter-blog drama. Can you imagine having to read this dog with a bone retardoprattle in every comment thread?
Abe – It is as though he thinks he can say the same things, in a different order, for the 93817356th time, and that will make it so. Truth through repetition.
And if they get caught they go to jail for it.
Well, Republicans do.
I’d say there’s a bit more than a ‘technicality’ that there isn’t a confiscation when your objection is to… confiscation.
I think you’re right. This is really more of a case of extortion. A felony.