Nationalize BP

Or maybe it was a contingency of right wing nuts, led by Glenn Beck, who blew it up it up to frame Obama so they might have fodder to feed their zombie followers. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Actually, according to the nutbar black helicopter, chem trail, UFO theorists on early A.M. radio, the North Koreans slipped a mini sub into the gulf and torpedoed the platform.

It amazes me just how non-educated the general public is of the energy sector. Noticed I said Energy and not Petroleum or Oil Company? Originally Posted by Woody of TX

Despite the contents of my signature line, there are times when "UN" is the proper prefix.....this is one of them!

Huh??

What the hell does whatever the "birthers" think have to do with the fact that Obama is intent on cramming through a manifestly anti-growth agenda?

It's generally a good idea to read and understand a post before tossing non sequiturs. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

If you can't comprehend my response, then it's apparent you don't comprehend your own post.

That, and......oh, skip it. Like they say, if ya need to explain it......

The basics of our government are illustrated in this thread, all are equal and have the right to express themselves and are entitled to the fruits of their labor within the guidelines of the rule of law. If the rules of law are broken there is provision for regress, both criminal and civil. The government has no right to take any action or property without due process. If BP has screwed the pooch on this one they will loose their ass. But a court of law, not the president or some agency gets to decide the penalty.

The basics of our government are illustrated in this thread, all are equal and have the right to express themselves and are entitled to the fruits of their labor within the guidelines of the rule of law. If the rules of law are broken there is provision for regress, both criminal and civil. The government has no right to take any action or property without due process. If BP has screwed the pooch on this one they will loose their ass. But a court of law, not the president or some agency gets to decide the penalty. Originally Posted by oden

Screw that. If there was ever a time for a shoot first, ask questions later, nows the time. If GW can get the ok to put us in a prolonged war, I think Obama should have free reign to string up some BP execs no questions asked. Or of least leave them smack dab in the middle of a fishing port and let the locals have at 'em.

Screw that. If there was ever a time for a shoot first, ask questions later, nows the time. If GW can get the ok to put us in a prolonged war, I think Obama should have free reign to string up some BP execs no questions asked. Or of least leave them smack dab in the middle of a fishing port and let the locals have at 'em. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Spoken like a true dumbass who misrepresents the past, in an attempt to get his support some BS thought today.

If BP has screwed the pooch on this one they will loose their ass. But a court of law, not the president or some agency gets to decide the penalty. Originally Posted by oden

So you're against Tort Reform. Got it!

If you can't comprehend my response, then it's apparent you don't comprehend your own post. Originally Posted by Doove

I suspect it's an exercise in futility, but let me try this once more.

Here's what I actually said:

Irrespective of the "political bent" of most of the posters in this forum, whatever it may be, don't you think the "anti-Obama rhetoric" might have just a little bit to do with the fact that he's trying to cram through the most anti-growth economic agenda in many decades -- and that more and more people are beginning to realize that? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It's really pretty clear. I simply stated that the "anti-Obama rhetoric" to which Charlestudor2005 alluded should come as a surprise to no one, given widespread and growing concerns about Obama's economic agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet you responded with this non sequitur:

Ah. So the birthers are motivated by what they believe to be anti growth economic policy. Gotcha. Originally Posted by Doove

Did I say (or infer) that everyone who opposes Obama's agenda does so for reasons connected with his economic agenda? Of course not. Some are social conservatives. Yes, a few are "birthers." So what? It's clear that a large (and growing) number of people are alarmed by all this ineffective, out-of-control spending.

But in some small minds, anyone who has a problem with the wasteful, pork-festooned "stimulus" package, the unaffordable and poorly-designed health care "reform" plan, the cap-and-trade scam, or the public employee union giveaways must be a racist...or even a birther!

If you can't comprehend my response, then it's apparent you don't comprehend your own post.

That, and......oh, skip it. Like they say, if ya need to explain it...... Originally Posted by Doove

Doove, just a suggestion, if I may:

Before you tattoo this thread with more snarkiness and condescension, why don't you make an effort to understand statements to which you respond.

You'll seem a lot less foolish.

I'm amazed this foolishness has gotten 3 pages of responses

Screw that. If there was ever a time for a shoot first, ask questions later, nows the time. If GW can get the ok to put us in a prolonged war, I think Obama should have free reign to string up some BP execs no questions asked. Or of least leave them smack dab in the middle of a fishing port and let the locals have at 'em. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

My question would be: Haven't you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution?

My question would be: Haven't you ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? Originally Posted by John Bull

Many BP execs are British, so the Constitution doesn't apply to them. As i've been told.

They still have to answer in U.S. courts for a U.S. law violation so yes, the Constitution does apply. Further, they do business in the U.S. so again, our laws apply.

I'm amazed this foolishness has gotten 3 pages of responses Originally Posted by atlcomedy

They still have to answer in U.S. courts for a U.S. law violation so yes, the Constitution does apply. Originally Posted by John Bull

Funny, that's not what i heard from the Right when the Detroit plane bomber was Mirandized.

Before you tattoo this thread with more snarkiness and condescension, why don't you make an effort to understand statements to which you respond. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Wow, CaptainMidnight! With my loose interpretation of your last 2 posts, i've counted no less than 5 personal insults/condescending statements. In other words, can it with the complaints about snarkiness and condescension.

You wanna get into a prolonged defensive oration on what your comments really did or didn't infer, fine. Have at it. I can play that game too. Nowhere did i indicate that all birthers are motivated by Obama's "anti growth" economic policy. So there! And it only took me 15 words. 17 if we include "So there!".


More seriously, however, here’s what I really meant to convey, reading between the lines.

People on your side didn’t flinch when Bush passed a Trillion Dollar medicare expansion. People on your side didn’t flinch when Bush paid for Trillion Dollar tax cuts for the rich by cutting spending, um, nowhere. People on your side didn’t flinch when Bush was doubling the national debt. And worst of all, people on your side didn’t flinch when Bush started what is now a Trillion Dollar war over, at worst, a bunch of lies, and at best, reasons that didn’t exist. Wars = dead people. Wars = kids without fathers. Wars = survivors without limbs. And not only did your side not flinch, you praised it all to the high heavens. And that's all even before we get into torture, and having a hand in outing CIA agents, and Michael Brown, etc etc etc.

But now, we get a guy who spends a trillion dollars, not to lie people into a war, but to assist people without healthcare, and your side is apoplectic. Spends not on tax cuts for the rich, but on tax cuts for working people, and your side is apoplectic. Sorry, but I happen to think the inconsistency borders on the absurd. No less absurd than i find the whole birther argument to be. So I liken your “anti Obama anti growth economic policy” rhetoric (or whatever it is you wanna call it) to the birthers in that the only difference is that you’re smart enough to find a more intelligent topic to use for your Obama hatred than the birthers. Which isn’t to say your hatred is any more intelligent than that of the birthers.