Big BP Mistake

Well cheaper if your not concerned with how long the well (and yes Bart it is still a well, a damaged or destroyed well, but still a well) is pumping oil into the ocean as long as people are going to get money then any need for further discussion in this thread on my part is obvious. Bicker amongst yourselves, I have better things to do. I am not sure how that money is going to benefit the dead animals and sea life, as well as the total destruction of many of the eco systems, but hey as long as he got them some money.......

Barton was not defending BP, he was defending the rule of law and the US Constitution. Originally Posted by john_galt

You're wrong. He WAS apologizing to BP, and it was sickening. That man has no honor, and neither does anyone that sticks up for him. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and to say otherwise is foolish.

If BP didn't want to pay, they should have said no and dealt with the future consequences.

You're wrong. He WAS apologizing to BP, and it was sickening. That man has no honor, and neither does anyone that sticks up for him. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and to say otherwise is foolish.

If BP didn't want to pay, they should have said no and dealt with the future consequences. Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

No, YOU'RE wrong. He was apologizing for the way in which BP was being blackmailed by a president who has no problem usurping his Constitutional authority to force BP to establish a fund. As is the case with everything this regime touches, it has everything to do with the Constitution.

And I agree with you, BP should have just said "Fuck you, Obama" and dealt with that fallout - it can't be any worse than it is now.

No, YOU'RE wrong. He was apologizing for the way in which BP was being blackmailed by a president who has no problem usurping his Constitutional authority to force BP to establish a fund. As is the case with everything this regime touches, it has everything to do with the Constitution.

And I agree with you, BP should have just said "Fuck you, Obama" and dealt with that fallout - it can't be any worse than it is now. Originally Posted by fritz3552

Prove it was forced. You're lack of class as well as your lack of respect for the Office of the President is enforced each time you say your stupid little, "Fuck you, Obama." It's childish.

I just love it when all my kids get along

REGIME? lol Ditto much? You laughing at the hungry like he did the other day too?

Right. "Fuck you" face to face with the POTUS. Great idea even for a powerful executive.

Why don't you say as much to the POTUS face to face? LOLOL Then you could tell us how much worse it could get from first hand experience. Just make sure to send us a post card from Cuba once they take the cuffs off. I hear its hot down there this time of year. Of course, you might end up in Leavenworth. Not much improvement really. Stone cell or plywood is a Hobson's choice at best? Or maybe they'd just taze the shit out of you. OOOOh maybe they could give you a holdover from the last admin and give ya the black bag over the head and send you to Poland via CIA aircraft and have former Warsaw Pact interrogators waterboard the hell out of you for a couple of months until you admitted that youself and G W personnally trudged the shaped charges up the stairs of the twin towers and faked the whole 911 thing? Then you could write the next "Turner Diaries" and make a mint. Oooh think of that! You and Anne Coulter on the rubber chicken circuit together. You could review her for us and tell us just how cold that pussy actually is. LOL

Where could I go to get a video of that happening to Fritz? Anyone?

Obviously, I am trying to be funny. Probably failing. But Jeez, does anybody hate Obama as good as Fritz does? Really, old man, bravo.

Actually I am sure there are some that do much more, but does he hate Obama more than you hated Bush. You were allowed the opportunity to "discuss" your hatred of Bush. Fritz has that right, although you might not agree Bart, he has that right just as much as you did when Bush was in charge.

Lets keep it civil guys, no need to get a thread closed. For the record, I dont like or dislike Obama, I dont know him personally, neither did I like or dislike Bush. I approve or disapprove of their policies and decisions which we all have the right to do. "Its never personal with me, its business, this is buisness and your taking it very personal" (thanks Sonny Corleone, Godfather one)

Yes, and he also has a right to hear about it just like I did. LOL By the way I am counting on you for that video.

To be honest, I miss Bush. Who to hate on now? Dick "Hey don't forget I'm still alive" Cheney? LOL Honestly sometimes I just have to start laughing. This is one of those times.

Why is there so much hatred around here. Can't we get back to the business of pussy? LOL

Bartman you are so contradictory; you defend Obama as just another president but then you say that telling him off would get you to Gitmo. Does that sound like any other president if you believe that? If you believe that you should be afraid. Back to the topic; Senator Nelson of Nebraska has said that what Obama is doing is unconstititutional (illegal) but it is morally justified. Think about that... A man rapes and murders my daughter, I catch up to him a week later, according to Nelson I am morally justified in killing him and don't need the police. Forget the daughter, how about a person who was ruining my country, according to Nelson (and your side of the aisle) what am I justified in doing? This is a serious question that should make you think. What am I justified in doing if I think it is moral? I expect an answer.
The bedrock of our law system is ex post facto. You cannot make a law after the fact that affects what happened before the law. We have had both Holder and Obama say that they will construct laws to punish what BP has done. That is absolutely unconstitutional. The constitution is our law. No, make that LAW as if written in stone. You seem to be of the lynch mob that has no regard for the law only what you feel is right in your belly. How many lynch mobs have gone out and killed the wrong man? BP is at fault, the MMS inspectors are at fault, OSHA is at fault, the environmental lobby shares the blame, and many in government also share in some blame for not understanding what they have been paid to support.
I believe in the law, just law, good law, and smart law. Notice I didn't say "fair" law. Someone once said, "we get what we deserve and that is the scary part. What if we truly get what we deserve?"

Of course I'm just speculating... Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

I love it when a poster sums themselves up perfectly.

That said, be aware that I got in trouble for post #40. Apparently, suggesting that another forum member is drunk is considered an insult. Even if he was making racial remarks in a late night post. I expect everyone who suggests another poster is drunk to get the same treatment.

Kudos to the poster who pointed out that Texas Republican Barton was defending BP. He's the ranking Republican on that committee and he started by apologizing to BP for the way they were treated. I posted his whole comment, unedited. You can also find the (sickening) video of Barton on YouTube. Watch the video and decide for yourself. Note the words that he used such as "shakedown" and "slush fund", and pay attention to his tone.

Maybe you still think he wasn't defending BP. Well, was he attacking BP? LOL Not quite! It sure sounded like Barton was attacking the President, though, didn't it? Yes it did. Republican Barton was attacking the opponent of BP. Sounds like a defense to me!

Back to the topic; Senator Nelson of Nebraska has said that what Obama is doing is unconstititutional (illegal) but it is morally justified. Originally Posted by john_galt

That is not what Senator Nelson of Nebraska has said. You want to know how I know that? I listened to the words that he said in the link that you provided.

NELSON: "Well I don't know that he does have that but on the other hand there's a moral obligation that I think was pointed out...and apparently BP has accepted uh that tuh that opportunity to put this uh money aside uh to..uh... to deal with the compensation and the remediation and the security that..that represents so we probably won't have to have the test of whether or not there's authority...certainly at some moral authority that they've responded to."

First off, you've got to give Nelson a hand for such a convoluted non-answer. He's basically saying, "I don't (personally) know if Obama has the constitutional authority to do what he's done, but he certainly has other kinds of authority (trying to change the subject). Any question of his constitutional authority is moot because BP has 'accepted the opportunity' to put the money aside for compensation so his authority won't be challenged.

If you pay attention, his answer was more about constitutional authourty being a moot point than anything else. The terms "moral obligation" (on BP's end) and "moral authority" (on Obama's end) were used as a matched pair.

"Maybe you still think he wasn't defending BP. Well, was he attacking BP? LOL Not quite! It sure sounded like Barton was attacking the President, though, didn't it? Yes it did. Republican Barton was attacking the opponent of BP. Sounds like a defense to me!"

Should the real question here LM be should the congress be attacking or defending anyone. Isnt is the purpose to get to the truth, to the bottom of the situation and then assign blame or mount a defense. To attack of to defend someone in a congressional hearing implies that the attacker of defending has already made their mind up prior to hearing the facts or non answers as the CEO provided, however I am not sure I would have answered anything either with such a hostile enviroment. To be honest nothing was gained by the whole hearing other than the opportunity for each side to get some face time on TV and to be seen by their constituants as being against BP (if from southern states) or for BP (if from oil producing states). I am not going to take the time to look but I wonder how many of the congressmen that got face time and got to make their attacks are up for re-election in 2010. This spectical was a media event and not a hearing where opinions had already been formed, it was not what a congressional hearing is suppose to be and that is a fact finding excersize.

My personal opinion is that like always American must have the evil bad guy to blame. BP is that evil bad guy. It is their well and they do have obligations to fix the damage. But we are already trying them as a nation, in the media and in our congress and the facts are not even in evidence yet. The investigation is not completed. What are we going to do when after all these months of blaming, cussing, boycotting BP we find out that the cause of the failure was a valve manufactured in China that was not manufactured to specs and failed. Do we now get mad a China??

What I have been saying is this, we as a nation need to withhold our anger and opinion until the following have been concluded:

1. Plug the freaking hole in the Ocean floor so there is not more leak.
2. Begin the clean up.
3. Complete the government invesigation into the cause of the explosion.

Once we have concluded the cause then, we using the rule of law, go after the person ultimately responsible as well as the owner of the facility which in this case is BP. I dont have a problem with the 20 billion fund, the people in those regions need immediate help and cannot wait for the legal process to conclude, but all this anger and media venom towards BP is as of yet unwarrented. It is being used for Political purposes by both sides and that is disgusting to me.

JG I like being contradictory. All of us are contradictory.

As to whether or not I believe Fritz would be sent off to prison for telling POTUS to "fuck off", I think I answered that when I pointed out that I was trying to be funny. To paraphrase Stewie Griffin " And it's not so much that I want Fritz in jail, it's just, I want him not to be free anymore."