Obama Gulf spill address

[Parkbandit]

One of THE worst "Presidential" speeches I've ever watched. Fluff and non-specific objectives were great for a campaign.. but it's a clear sign of how shallow and inexperienced he is as the actual President. I kind of feel bad for the guy.. he's clearly over his head and his advisors are some of the worst in history.

[Gan]

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_ dont_sense_executive_command.html

_______________________________________________

Funny how quickly they turn.

[Parkbandit]

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Howard Fineman react to President Obama's Oval Office Address on the oil spill. Here are the highlights of what the trio said:

Olbermann: "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days."

Matthews compared Obama to Carter.

Olbermann: "Nothing specific at all was said."

Matthews: "No direction."

Howard Fineman: "He wasn't specific enough."

Olbermann: "I don't think he aimed low, I don't think he aimed at all. It's startling."

Howard Fineman: Obama should be acting like a "commander-in-chief."

Matthews: Ludicrous that he keeps saying [Secretary of Energy] Chu has a Nobel prize. "I'll barf if he does it one more time."

Matthews: "A lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk."

Matthews: "I don't sense executive command."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_ dont_sense_executive_command.html

_______________________________________________

Funny how quickly they turn.

Yea.. you don't get 3 bigger Obama supporters than those 3... that's hilarious.

[Cephalopod]

It was pretty light on substance. Take-away from the speech: there was an oil spill in the Gulf.

[Ribbons]

Words cannot fathom how terrible of a President this man is.

[Androidpk]

2012 can't come soon enough.

[Stabbyrogue]

2012 can't come soon enough.


Because if this had happened five years ago it would be so much better.

[Delias]

Pretty sure shitty leaders are par for the course.

[TheEschaton]

How quickly they turn? No, that's normal, we can criticize our own when they fuck up or are generally idiotic. It's the lockstep of the right which is the abnormal thing.

[Methais]

How quickly they turn? No, that's normal, we can criticize our own when they fuck up or are generally idiotic. It's the lockstep of the right which is the abnormal thing.

http://extremelifechanger.com/web_images/denialism1final.jpg

[Parkbandit]

How quickly they turn? No, that's normal, we can criticize our own when they fuck up or are generally idiotic. It's the lockstep of the right which is the abnormal thing.

:rofl:

That's the quote of the day. I'm sure individuals like Rangle would agree with you.........

[TheEschaton]

Rangel? Last I checked, he was roundly criticized by people from both sides of the aisle.

[Parkbandit]

Rangel? Last I checked, he was roundly criticized by people from both sides of the aisle.

Seriously? You might want to check on the dates in which Rangel was "roundly criticized by people" in the Democratic Party... and how long his tax evasion issues were known. If he were a Republican, the Republicans would have run him out of town by now.. not backed him in his re-election bid.

When you are done with your pink colored sunglasses, my daughter would love to borrow them.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/8931117/2/istockphoto_8931117-pink-sunglasses.jpg

[4a6c1]

Ok so basically he went on prime time to tell us there was an oil spill in the gulf and we need other forms of energy?!

THANKS FOR LETTING US KNOW. THANKS. APPRECIATE THAT.

Less talk more work, goddamn.

[Methais]

Has nothing to do with this thread:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/25472_388424773187_36400348187_3803.jpg

[Anebriated]

Because Bush's speeches didn't make me want to beat myself to death with a dictionary...

[Methais]

Because Bush's speeches didn't make me want to beat myself to death with a dictionary...

And that makes Obama's speech better how? Or is this just where the obligatory Bush card must be played and it happened to be your turn?

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs17/f/2007/189/c/5/George_Bush_Yu_Gi_Oh_card_by_eggmanrules.jpg

[4a6c1]

Has nothing to do with this thread:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/DoyleHargraves/25472_388424773187_36400348187_3803.jpg

Allegedly, Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young boyscout puppet in the early 1990's and this is totally relevant to the conversation.

[TheEschaton]

Seriously? You might want to check on the dates in which Rangel was "roundly criticized by people" in the Democratic Party... and how long his tax evasion issues were known. If he were a Republican, the Republicans would have run him out of town by now.. not backed him in his re-election bid.

When you are done with your pink colored sunglasses, my daughter would love to borrow them.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/8931117/2/istockphoto_8931117-pink-sunglasses.jpg

From a NY Times article in March:

A growing number of rank-and-file Democrats said they could not envision standing behind the embattled chairman given the likelihood that he would soon face further reprimands by the ethics committee, and Republican challengers would criticize such a vote in the fall elections.

Representative Debbie Halvorson, Democrat of Illinois, said in a statement Tuesday: “I believe it would be most appropriate for Mr. Rangel to step aside as chair of the Ways and Means Committee. The American people are facing enormous challenges, and Congress must be completely focused, without distraction, on the important work that remains to be done to continue creating jobs, fixing health care and turning our economy around.”

A senior Democrat on the committee said that he could not vote to support Mr. Rangel and had informed House leaders of his position. “I think it’s done,” this lawmaker said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was worried about opening the floodgates to further criticism of Mr. Rangel.

Representative Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, on Tuesday became the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to call for Mr. Rangel to step down. Mr. Rangel is one of the most senior members of the caucus; Mr. Davis is running for governor of Alabama this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03rangel.html

As for not being run out of office, please don't pretend for a minute that Republicans haven't turned a blind eye to misdeeds commited by Republicans as long as humanly possible. What about Mark Foley, who touched little boys? I remember the Republican rep who did nothing about it: Thomas Reynolds, R-NY, my own congressman when I lived upstate. Foley went almost a year after they heard complaints from his pages, before being run out, not by Republicans, but by the media.

[4a6c1]

Because Bush's speeches didn't make me want to beat myself to death with a dictionary...

Yeah. I laughed anytime he tried to pronounce anything correctly. But I forgave him because I recognize it as a Texas rich white guy thing. My Dad has the same problem. Despite the British speech coach that has him over-elongating his O's like a gay man...

Now that creepy little chuckle that Jon Stewart has down pat....NO EXPLANATION.

[Clove]

http://www.aolnews.com/the-point/article/the-left-bashes-barack-obamas-oil-spill-speech/19518881

[Tsa`ah]

And for all of the light weight rehash of what we already knew, this morning Obama secures 20 billion for an independently managed escrow account as a beginning measure to hold the multi-national giant responsible for the damages.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN600320100616

[Parkbandit]

From a NY Times article in March:

A growing number of rank-and-file Democrats said they could not envision standing behind the embattled chairman given the likelihood that he would soon face further reprimands by the ethics committee, and Republican challengers would criticize such a vote in the fall elections.

Representative Debbie Halvorson, Democrat of Illinois, said in a statement Tuesday: “I believe it would be most appropriate for Mr. Rangel to step aside as chair of the Ways and Means Committee. The American people are facing enormous challenges, and Congress must be completely focused, without distraction, on the important work that remains to be done to continue creating jobs, fixing health care and turning our economy around.”

A senior Democrat on the committee said that he could not vote to support Mr. Rangel and had informed House leaders of his position. “I think it’s done,” this lawmaker said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was worried about opening the floodgates to further criticism of Mr. Rangel.

Representative Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, on Tuesday became the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to call for Mr. Rangel to step down. Mr. Rangel is one of the most senior members of the caucus; Mr. Davis is running for governor of Alabama this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/nyregion/03rangel.html

As for not being run out of office, please don't pretend for a minute that Republicans haven't turned a blind eye to misdeeds commited by Republicans as long as humanly possible. What about Mark Foley, who touched little boys? I remember the Republican rep who did nothing about it: Thomas Reynolds, R-NY, my own congressman when I lived upstate. Foley went almost a year after they heard complaints from his pages, before being run out, not by Republicans, but by the media.

So that is your "proof" that illustrates how Democrats hold their own to the fire.. and Republicans don't?

:rofl:

[LMingrone]

That was the worst speech I've seen in a while. Good thing I was playing the "Obama speech drinking game". I couldn't finish playing because SOMEONE decided to put "I" on the list.

[Kembal]

And for all of the light weight rehash of what we already knew, this morning Obama secures 20 billion for an independently managed escrow account as a beginning measure to hold the multi-national giant responsible for the damages.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSWEN600320100616

So, question for everyone: what's more important, the speech (which, yes, it was not one of his better ones) or what he achieved today with BP having to put $20 billion into an escrow account?

[Parkbandit]

So, question for everyone: what's more important, the speech (which, yes, it was not one of his better ones) or what he achieved today with BP having to put $20 billion into an escrow account?

Kudos to us for getting 20 billion from BP. Thankfully, it was put in an independently managed escrow account and not with our government.

His speech was still horrible... which this news didn't change.

[Kembal]

Kudos to us for getting 20 billion from BP. Thankfully, it was put in an independently managed escrow account and not with our government.

His speech was still horrible... which this news didn't change.

Yeah, I know the speech was weak. I'm just saying in the scheme of things, $20 billion was more important than the speech. The speech, even if it was perfect and a shining example of oratory for the ages, wasn't going to change a damn thing.

[HJFudge]

Obama cant win with these people. He gives a good speech, he's degraded for being "just an empty suit speech-giver" but if he gives a bad speech (which, I think everyone agrees, this WAS) he "Shouldnt be president cause he cant give a good speech!"

The majority of his detractors on this board, PB and them, are not arguing with Honest Intent. They post things like this for one reason and one reason alone. Hint: its not to have an honest debate or intellectual, high minded discussion.

Also. Yes, the 20 billion is a step in the right direction. I still think more needs to be done though. But it IS a step in the right direction.

[Anebriated]

The 20 billion is not a final number, it is just the minimum BP will add to an independently managed escrow account that will be managed by the same guy who oversaw the 9/11 tragedy fund.

The speech means nothing in the big picture other than the speech writers had a bad day.

[Gan]

How quickly they turn? No, that's normal, we can criticize our own when they fuck up or are generally idiotic. It's the lockstep of the right which is the abnormal thing.

LOL

[ClydeR]

So, question for everyone: what's more important, the speech (which, yes, it was not one of his better ones) or what he achieved today with BP having to put $20 billion into an escrow account?

Sometimes, knowing the right question is better than knowing the right answer. If this is one of those times, then Kembal is bad off. The right question is.. If Obama had given a good speech, how many billions more would BP have put in the escrow account?

[Anebriated]

Sometimes, knowing the right question is better than knowing the right answer. If this is one of those times, then Kembal is bad off. The right question is.. If Obama had given a good speech, how many billions more would BP have put in the escrow account?

Heh, in your case the right question would have been which came first, the meeting that produced $20b+ or the speech about said meeting... you never cease to amaze.

[Xanator]

Just a speech, and really inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I could honestly care less what he says. The people affected by the spill want/need to see action, and whether he gives a great speech or not is really not an object.

Is he out of touch? Maybe, but I don't think completely. Delivering on the BP escrow account is a promising sign. He came to our beach (which hasn't yet been hit with any serious amounts of oil) and saw the empty hotels and restaurants, and could feel the tension mounting. But there was no black tar on the white sand, and it's the same with him as it is with people all over the country. I think the sense of impending doom wasn't necessarily lost on him, but I also think this is a situation that just doesn't really resonate very strongly with him.

He gave a speech to a training class and members of other branches of the service at the Navy base that initially touched on the subject of the oil spill and ultimately resolved itself into a protracted military back-patting session. That was the audience, and that's fine. He gave a speech to what I personally perceive as either a disinterested, ignorant, or jaded public that started off kicking the oil spill's ass and ultimately resolved itself into a clean energy pep rally. I put off heading to the grocery store for fear that I'd miss it, and literally just stood up and left after about the first five minutes. There was really no meaningful content, and he ventured far off-topic to boot. It's more than a little ironic, in light of last night's speech, that he recently accused Tony Hayward of being the kind of person that just says "all the right things."

But, fine, whatever. I'm not concerned if he makes a killer speech. I'd rather he come on down and grab a shovel. I'm not concerned if there are criminal charges brought against BP right now. I'd rather the AG come on down and grab a shovel. I work on the beach and depend largely on annual tourism for my income and livelihood just as sure as a lot of other people here, and I don't personally need a speech that goes down in the annals of speech history to lend any more gravitas to the situation.

[Back]

Daily Show just ripped him one like no other show can. :lol: Nailed FOX worse though.

[Delias]

I have some less than stable relatives who keep trying to convince me that this oil spill is a conspiracy enacted by BP. I'm not entirely sure how sound a business plan it is to cost yourself billions of dollars. Pretty sure I hate both politics and people in general, and am considering a shack in the woods... but with the obvious mental problems that apparently run in my family, total isolation might just make things worse.

[Xanator]

BP Cares About the Small People. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061605528.html)

[Methais]

The speech was pretty much what I expected:

Blah blah blah oil, blah blah blah cap & trade, blah blah cap & trade, blah blah green energy, blah blah blah green, blah blah climate change, blah blah I don't know how we're gonna do it but we're gonna do it, blah blah no details, blah blah nothing, blah blah, thank you and God bless.

http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/b-says-nothing-better-than-anyone.jpeg

EDIT: In before left wing red rep.

[LMingrone]

Let's get more nuclear up in here. Gen-X is scared of it because of the missile crisis, 3MI, and Chernobyl. There's some waste, but not much anymore because of the recycling processes we now use. Get scientists, not politicians, to watch over them. Of course big oil doesn't want this and is doing whatever they can to keep it out. I hate people talking about wind farms and tidal/wave generation. You think that's not going to have an effect on the environment? Maybe not short term...just like oil.

Fission and fusion all up in here.

[Anebriated]

Let's get more nuclear up in here. Gen-X is scared of it because of the missile crisis, 3MI, and Chernobyl. There's some waste, but not much anymore because of the recycling processes we now use. Get scientists, not politicians, to watch over them. Of course big oil doesn't want this and is doing whatever they can to keep it out. I hate people talking about wind farms and tidal/wave generation. You think that's not going to have an effect on the environment? Maybe not short term...just like oil.

Fission and fusion all up in here.

Big oil does have some methods in place to prevent this sort of mess as it is what my company does with bulk petroleum storage. We deal mostly with gas stations, a refinery and tanks for hospitals, rental car facilities, etc. The problem is because this rig was registered in the Marshall Islands it was not subject to full American testing procedures. It was an 8 hour inspection instead of a 4 week inspection.

[Sean of the Thread]

Obama is a dipshit.

[Rocktar]

http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/obama_at_bat.html

[LMingrone]

Big oil does have some methods in place to prevent this sort of mess as it is what my company does with bulk petroleum storage. We deal mostly with gas stations, a refinery and tanks for hospitals, rental car facilities, etc. The problem is because this rig was registered in the Marshall Islands it was not subject to full American testing procedures. It was an 8 hour inspection instead of a 4 week inspection.

Makes sense. My suggestion: Don't buy anything from BP. Not that other companies are better, but BP is the closest place near me to get gas, snacks, soda, etc. I'll spend the couple extra bucks to drive to another place. I love my country more than $.

I'll try to make a quick analogy, even though someone will say, "That's a stupid analogy." If someone comes into my home, and starts destroying shit....they're kicked out and can never come back. Seems fair.

[Cephalopod]

Makes sense. My suggestion: Don't buy anything from BP. Not that other companies are better, but BP is the closest place near me to get gas, snacks, soda, etc. I'll spend the couple extra bucks to drive to another place. I love my country more than $.


It's already been pointed out, but almost all of the BP gas stations are now independently owned. Boycotting BP gas stations is only going to punish the already-struggling gas station owners and drive them out of business, with the end result of withholding "a rounding error in terms of overall revenues or profits" from BP.

The only way you can effectively punish BP is to drive less (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/your-money/12money.html?fta=y).

[LMingrone]

It's already been pointed out, but almost all of the BP gas stations are now independently owned. Boycotting BP gas stations is only going to punish the already-struggling gas station owners and drive them out of business, with the end result of withholding "a rounding error in terms of overall revenues or profits" from BP.

The only way you can effectively punish BP is to drive less (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/your-money/12money.html?fta=y).

Thanks for the link, it really was informative. (Not sarcastic)

They should change their name to something else than and post a note on the door that they're not affiliated with BP.

[Cephalopod]

Thanks for the link, it really was informative. (Not sarcastic)

They should change their name to something else than and post a note on the door that they're not affiliated with BP.

A lot of them have contracts (from when they acquired the station) that require them to retain the name, run credit card transactions through BP's credit card clearing systems, and purchase BP gasoline until (in some awful cases) 2020. BP still makes money off of this, but it's less than pennies to them... meanwhile the franchise owners are saddled with being unable to get competitive rates for things like gasoline and credit card processing because they're locked in. It's a shitty deal for the people who bought these stations.

NPR had a good (frustrating) piece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127747890) on it a few days ago.

[Outlaw Pete]

I'm no fan of this President, but what did you guys expect to hear?

I believe in private enterprise and the free market. I expect BP, and not the federal government, to stop the well and clean up the gulf. To the extent that people (natural and otherwise) are damaged by this accident, then I expect the United States courts to correctly compensate them for their damages and BP will foot that bill.

Do you guys really want to hear about how our federal government is going to spend our money on X, Y, and Z? Isn't that just more socialism?

[LMingrone]

You're completely right. I've worked for many franchises in the labor industry. As I said before though, my country is more important to me than money. Whoever signed the contract should have DEMANDED a clause that says "If you fuck up, the contract is void." I hate seeing good people suffer from other people's mistakes, and I know a lot of them are going to lose a ton of cash from these idiots screwing up. There has to be a line somewhere.

[Parkbandit]

Makes sense. My suggestion: Don't buy anything from BP. Not that other companies are better, but BP is the closest place near me to get gas, snacks, soda, etc. I'll spend the couple extra bucks to drive to another place. I love my country more than $.

I'll try to make a quick analogy, even though someone will say, "That's a stupid analogy." If someone comes into my home, and starts destroying shit....they're kicked out and can never come back. Seems fair.

That's a stupid analogy... and a really stupid way to "punish" BP. I also don't understand your reasoning of "I love my country more than $".

[LMingrone]

That's a stupid analogy... and a really stupid way to "punish" BP. I also don't understand your reasoning of "I love my country more than $".


Why not? That's how I really feel. Greed has gotten us here.

[Parkbandit]

Why not? That's how I really feel. Greed has gotten us here.

Greed has gotten us where, exactly?

What is your overall goal, in regards to BP?

[LMingrone]

I have no goal. I'm just saying how I feel. You don't have to agree and I respect that. Look at your avatar and sig...what's your goal? Please answer that.

[Clove]

A lot of them have contracts (from when they acquired the station) that require them to retain the name, run credit card transactions through BP's credit card clearing systems, and purchase BP gasoline until (in some awful cases) 2020. BP still makes money off of this, but it's less than pennies to them... meanwhile the franchise owners are saddled with being unable to get competitive rates for things like gasoline and credit card processing because they're locked in. It's a shitty deal for the people who bought these stations.

NPR had a good (frustrating) piece (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127747890) on it a few days ago.I think you're understating the effect on revenue boycotting a franchised gas station has on BP. I agree you punish the small business man more than BP, however if they're required to purchase their gasoline from BP it IS a distribution point for BP's product. Killing the brand cuts off a stream of gasoline revenue for BP.

As for PB, yes BP does need to pay and if they can't pay for their mess with the assets they have NOW and remain in business- they have no place being in a business where such catastrophic messes are possible. Errors like this can be and SHOULD be enterprise killers. Yes if they go under it may mean we have to foot the balance, but then keeping them in business with our consumer dollars is little different- except one: By keeping them in business we give them the opportunity to continue to make devastatingly costly blunders. This is just another "They're too big to fail" argument.

[Anebriated]

Franchised gas stations are not always required to buy their gas from the parent company. Many times it comes down to whoever can supply the cheapest(generally a middle man company) gas in the area. Distance from a BP plant would cause some stations to have to raise their prices too high otherwise.

[Parkbandit]

As for PB, yes BP does need to pay and if they can't pay for their mess with the assets they have NOW and remain in business- they have no place being in a business where such catastrophic messes are possible. Errors like this can be and SHOULD be enterprise killers. Yes if they go under it may mean we have to foot the balance, but then keeping them in business with our consumer dollars is little different- except one: By keeping them in business we give them the opportunity to continue to make devastatingly costly blunders. This is just another "They're too big to fail" argument.

I've never stated that I don't think BP should pay for every problem associated with their oil spill... but I don't understand your reasoning in this paragraph. You say that they should have assets now and remain in business, or they have no place being in this sort of business.. and in the very next sentence, you say that this type of accident can and should kill their company. Huh?

My only issue with this whole "boycott BP" isn't to save BP.. it's to ensure that BP can stay solvent enough to pay for the entirety of this accident and that the US taxpayers won't have to foot the bill. That's it.

[ClydeR]

I think you're understating the effect on revenue boycotting a franchised gas station has on BP. I agree you punish the small business man more than BP, however if they're required to purchase their gasoline from BP it IS a distribution point for BP's product. Killing the brand cuts off a stream of gasoline revenue for BP.

What's good for BP is good for the oil spill. That's how Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour explained it on Fox News. This $20 billion escrow business is just silly. We should wait until it's time for BP to pay before we ask them to put up money.


BARBOUR: Well, look, BP is responsible to pay for everything. If BP is the responsible party under the law, they're to pay for everything. I do worry that this idea of making them make a huge escrow fund is going to make it less likely that they'll pay for everything. They need their capital to drill wells. They need their capital to produce income so that they can pay that income to our citizens in Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, and to pay for all the damages done. BP needs to pay, is supposed to pay, must pay every penny. But this escrow bothers me that it's going to make them less able to pay us what they owe us. And that concerns me.

VAN SUSTEREN: Governor, what would you say to the people of Britain, especially the pensioners, the people who are waiting for the dividend come this summer, that over $10 billion dividend that they want out of BP? Should BP hold that back or not? And what do you say to those people in Britain?

BARBOUR: Well, I say this. BP's responsible to pay all the costs. They are the responsible party. They should pay all the costs. But at this stage, while the payments are not coming as fast as we'd like from BP or from the SBA or the federal government or anybody else, the fact is, they are saying that they have the ability to pay and that they will pay. So it bothers me to talk about causing an escrow to be made, which will -- which makes it less likely that they'll make the income that they need to pay us.

More... (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,594742,00.html)

[Clove]

I've never stated that I don't think BP should pay for every problem associated with their oil spill... but I don't understand your reasoning in this paragraph. You say that they should have assets now and remain in business, or they have no place being in this sort of business.. and in the very next sentence, you say that this type of accident can and should kill their company. Huh?I thought that my introducing the sentiment that if a company doesn't have the assets to clean up their blunders they shouldn't remain in business was enough to later imply "Errors like this can be and SHOULD be enterprise killers [if they cannot clean up their mess]." Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.


My only issue with this whole "boycott BP" isn't to save BP.. it's to ensure that BP can stay solvent enough to pay for the entirety of this accident and that the US taxpayers won't have to foot the bill. That's it.Whether the taxpayer pays for it or the consumer pays for it, we're still paying for it. I seriously doubt they're going to agree to stay in business and profit long enough to pay for their mess and leave the game.

[Parkbandit]

I have no goal. I'm just saying how I feel. You don't have to agree and I respect that. Look at your avatar and sig...what's your goal? Please answer that.

:rofl:

Ok? I've never done something where I like my country more that money without a goal in mind.. or a reason.. but hey, to each their own I guess. It makes no sense to me and you can't explain it.. so whatever.

As far as my avatar goes.. it's angered so many liberals in the past that I decided to keep it up. My signature pic box did the same thing. Daniel's stupidity is just too awesome to replace. If I find a dumber post from a dumber person, I'll probably replace it.

[Anebriated]

I agree with PB at this point. BP is to blame but sending them bankrupt does NOT help the situation at all. They've currently placed the 20b in the escrow account but that is open ended, more money could be added should it be needed. If BP goes under then enjoy the "wasted" tax dollars because the idiots of the country felt a need for their voices to be heard.

[Parkbandit]

I thought that my introducing the sentiment that if a company doesn't have the assets to clean up their blunders they shouldn't remain in business was enough to later imply "Errors like this can be and SHOULD be enterprise killers [if they cannot clean up their mess]." Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.

You didn't spell it out for anyone... don't blame the reader for your inability to communicate effectively. But, your apology is accepted.



Whether the taxpayer pays for it or the consumer pays for it, we're still paying for it. I seriously doubt they're going to agree to stay in business and profit long enough to pay for their mess and leave the game.

Difference is.. when I go to a BP gas station now, I get something for my money (gas, food, etc..). If BP goes tits up, I get absolutely nothing for my tax money being directed towards the cleanup that I wouldn't have received if someone else (BP) was footing the bill.

[Daniel]

My only issue with this whole "boycott BP" isn't to save BP.. it's to ensure that BP can stay solvent enough to pay for the entirety of this accident and that the US taxpayers won't have to foot the bill. That's it.

So we should spend our money on BP so we don't end up spending our tax dollars for BP.

That makes sense...

[Cephalopod]

http://i.imgur.com/lf3of.png

[Parkbandit]

So we should spend our money on BP so we don't end up spending our tax dollars for BP.

That makes sense...

Where did I say you had to change your spending habits? You would have a point if I posted "We all need to go to BP stations and buy gas from only them, to help them pay for the oil spill".

In this case though, I didn't post that.. and you look dumb as usual. :(

[Clove]

Difference is.. when I go to a BP gas station now, I get something for my money (gas, food, etc..). If BP goes tits up, I get absolutely nothing for my tax money being directed towards the cleanup that I wouldn't have received if someone else (BP) was footing the bill.This reasoning is so flawed I don't know where to begin. I'll simply ask you to explain which costs more:

Five dollars worth of jelly beans
Five dollars worth of long distance phone calls

[Parkbandit]

This reasoning is so flawed I don't know where to begin. I'll simply ask you to explain which costs more:

Five dollars worth of jelly beans
Five dollars worth of long distance phone calls

The only flaw is in your understanding of the situation.

If BP goes tits up.. and the spill ends up costing 100 billion dollars.. who is left holding the bag for say 70 billion dollars?

[Clove]

The only flaw is in your understanding of the situation.

If BP goes tits up.. and the spill ends up costing 100 billion dollars.. who is left holding the bag for say 70 billion dollars?If BP pays the 70 billion dollars, where are they getting it from?

Either way we pay. The only difference is a reckless company continues to operate and shows other companies that it is possible to recover from catastrophic errors in judgement whether or not they even have the resources to reasonably correct it.

[Anebriated]

I wouldnt change your habits and focus on going to a BP station. If it happens to be where you stop to get gas fine, but theres no benefit from specifically avoiding their stations.

[CrystalTears]

Thankfully there aren't any in my local area to have to dodge anyway.

[Anebriated]

If BP pays the 70 billion dollars, where are they getting it from?

Either way we pay. The only difference is a reckless company continues to operate and shows other companies that it is possible to recover from catastrophic errors in judgement whether or not they even have the resources to reasonably correct it.

Because you know Exxon never recovered from the Valdeez disaster... Believe it or not but BP does more than just deal with oil, they have other methods of generating revenue only they arent in a market like the oil market. Yes tighter regulations should be placed on BP for the time being but we NEED to give them a chance to recover from this.

[Parkbandit]

If BP pays the 70 billion dollars, where are they getting it from?

Either way we pay. The only difference is a reckless company continues to operate and shows other companies that it is possible to recover from catastrophic errors in judgement whether or not they even have the resources to reasonably correct it.

I spent $750 dollars last year at BP gas stations. In exchange for my money, I received the going rate of $750 in gas for my vehicle.

When BP pays for this spill, they do it with the proceeds they made off commerce... exchanging goods and services for currency.

When BP goes tits up, and the US taxpayers are left footing the bill, they get nothing in return for the money spent. In fact, the tax payer loses some funding to this project here or this school there if the US Government pays the bill.

It's pretty simple.. I'm still not sure why you are so confused. Perhaps you are thinking too hard on jelly beans and long distance?

[Parkbandit]

Everyone is egging on the president to get tough on BP, but Obama simply has no legal or legislative authority to force the company to set up a multi-billion dollar fund for victims, writes Ben Stein. BP no doubt "acted irresponsibly," but Obama is going well beyond the scope of his presidential powers as spelled out in the Constitution by demanding "this immense transfer of the stockholders' wealth," writes Stein. It's akin to his decision to fire the head of the GM with a phone call.

"To create specific enactments and actions without any authority—now Mr. Obama's specialty—is so at odds with the law of the land that it terrifies me," writes Stein in the American Spectator. "These are not the acts of a teacher on Constitutional law. These are the acts of a big city boss or a third world dictator. If you want to know why business has pulled in its horns and hunkered down, and why people at tea parties and elsewhere are scared, look no further that Barack 'I Am The Law' Obama. "

http://www.newser.com/story/92736/obama-acting-like-a-dictator-on-bp.html

[ClydeR]

I spent $750 dollars last year at BP gas stations. In exchange for my money, I received the going rate of $750 in gas for my vehicle.

When BP pays for this spill, they do it with the proceeds they made off commerce... exchanging goods and services for currency.

When BP goes tits up, and the US taxpayers are left footing the bill, they get nothing in return for the money spent. In fact, the tax payer loses some funding to this project here or this school there if the US Government pays the bill.

I agree with PB -- whose name looks suspiciously similar to BP -- that we should go out of our way to support companies with bad environmental records. That's the only way to make the world clean.

If you just shop at the companies with the best records (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pickyourpoison/), then you hate the environment.

[Clove]

I spent $750 dollars last year at BP gas stations. In exchange for my money, I received the going rate of $750 in gas for my vehicle.

When BP pays for this spill, they do it with the proceeds they made off commerce... exchanging goods and services for currency.

When BP goes tits up, and the US taxpayers are left footing the bill, they get nothing in return for the money spent. In fact, the tax payer loses some funding to this project here or this school there if the US Government pays the bill.

It's pretty simple.. I'm still not sure why you are so confused. Perhaps you are thinking too hard on jelly beans and long distance?I'm not sure why you're so confused.

The cost of the clean-up doesn't get significantly more or less expensive whether the check is signed by BP or the US Treasury.

Whether you "pay for it" by contributing to taxes or BP's bottom line you get the same thing for your dollar; an oil spill cleanup.

If it costs 100 billion to clean the oil spill you can pay 100 billion in taxes or it can come from a 100 billion in BP profits. Either way you're paying a 100 billion (except if it's through BP profits it's coming out of their margin so you'll have to buy much, much more than a 100 billion dollars in gasoline to generate that 100 billion). You're not "getting" anything extra going the BP route (you're still paying for the gasoline) except keeping them in business.

Now if you were talking about putting them in some sort of receivership that allowed us to control their profits until this mess is resolved or if we could put some kind of lein on them until they reimbursed us for the clean-up, well I'd say fine. But as far as I know they are simply making voluntary agreements while it's business as usual. And it isn't business as usual, not for the Gulf of Mexico.

[Parkbandit]

I agree with PB -- whose name looks suspiciously similar to BP -- that we should go out of our way to support companies with bad environmental records. That's the only way to make the world clean.

If you just shop at the companies with the best records (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/pickyourpoison/), then you hate the environment.

That's probably the weakest reply to a post you've made in quite some time "ClydeR". I have never stated that we should go out of our way to support companies with bad environmental records.

But let's be honest.. that's the whole reason you created this login.. you couldn't debate with honest ideas and compete effectively. You are intellectually bankrupt, so the only crutch you had left is to create a persona that was ultra right in an effort to make fun of it.

[Clove]

Because you know Exxon never recovered from the Valdeez disaster... Believe it or not but BP does more than just deal with oil, they have other methods of generating revenue only they arent in a market like the oil market...What exactly are you trying to say? BP will recover regardless of what the consumer market does? Why exactly does it matter then if anyone choses to boycott them (or not)?

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure why you're so confused.

The cost of the clean-up doesn't get significantly more or less expensive whether the check is signed by BP or the US Treasury.

Whether you pay for it out of your taxes or out of the net profits from patronizing BP you get the same thing for your dollar- an oil spill cleanup.

If it costs 100 billion to clean the oil spill you can pay 100 billion in taxes or it can come from a 100 billion in BP profits. Either way you're paying a 100 billion (except if it's through BP profits it's coming out of their margin so you'll have to buy much, much more than a 100 billion dollars in gasoline to generate that 100 billion). You're not "getting" anything extra going the BP route (you're still paying for the gasoline) except keeping them in business.


While I appreciate your Tsa`ah impersonation of digging in your heels to defend a poor argument.. I think you should have simply let this one go.. since you aren't making very much sense.

Are you seriously still making the argument that there is no difference to letting BP pay for the oil spill or letting the US Government?

In one scenario, I don't go out of my way to "boycott" BP and purchase gas from the stations I've used in the past... and BP continues to pay for cleaning up the mess they created.

In the other scenario, I do go out of my way to not purchase anything from BP and they go into bankruptcy. The remainder of the oil spill costs must then be picked up by the US Government. To pay for the additional 80 million (I made this number up.. feel free to use whatever number you choose), the US Government must cut spending from other programs to make up for the difference.

In one scenario.. I lose nothing: I've received the gas I paid for and the oil spill gets cleaned up.

In the other scenario.. the US Treasury spends money they don't have and still must pay for the cleanup, so they cut programs that may or may not benefit me.



Now if you were talking about putting them in some sort of receivership that allowed us to control their profits until this mess is resolved or if we could put some kind of lein on them until reimbursed us for the clean-up, well I'd say fine. But as far as I know they are simply making voluntary agreements while it's business as usual. And it isn't business as usual, not for the Gulf of Mexico.

Yea.. that's just what we should do.. take over another business.. because the US Government is great at managing businesses.

[Anebriated]

What exactly are you trying to say? BP will recover regardless of what the consumer market does? Why exactly does it matter then if anyone choses to boycott them (or not)?

Im just saying that people were playing chicken little with that spill just as they are today. It is still an ongoing process but they worked with the government and are slowly restoring things to normal. They have also rebuilt their image over time, granted people still hate them for what they are. It matters because if people boycott and they are forced to go under then the entirety of America is now footing the bill. Currently we are paying for it with the proceeds BP has made in their time serving America with gas.

[Clove]

While I appreciate your Tsa`ah impersonation of digging in your heels to defend a poor argument.. I think you should have simply let this one go.. since you aren't making very much sense.

Are you seriously still making the argument that there is no difference to letting BP pay for the oil spill or letting the US Government?You're hopeless.

I said the cost is the same, and you're paying it either way. You're concerned with the potential effect it will have on tax spending in other sectors if we pay a larger portion of it from tax dollars. I'm concerned with allowing a corporation capable of such incredible failures the opportunity to continue making them and providing that example to others in that industry.


Yea.. that's just what we should do.. take over another business.. because the US Government is great at managing businesses.I suggested controlling their assets, not their business.


Im just saying that people were playing chicken little with that spill just as they are today. It is still an ongoing process but they worked with the government and are slowly restoring things to normal. They have also rebuilt their image over time, granted people still hate them for what they are. It matters because if people boycott and they are forced to go under then the entirety of America is now footing the bill. Currently we are paying for it with the proceeds BP has made in their time serving America with gas.Yes, Exxon took care of it and we sent the message that these kinds of mistakes are unacceptable and inexcusable and now the oil business is MUCH safer. Wait. What?

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit, you are pulling a pretty good impersonation of Tsa`ah here today.

I'm not paying a single penny if BP is paying for the bill.

None of my tax money will be paying a penny if BP is paying the bill.

That's not true if BP cannot pay the bill and the US Government is paying the bill.

I can't understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.. unless you are attempting to morph this debate into something we're not talking about.. ala Tsa`ah.

[Anebriated]

Yes, Exxon took care of it and we sent the message that these kinds of mistakes are unacceptable and inexcusable and now the oil business is MUCH safer. Wait. What?

Id try and read into your sarchasm if your view on the situation wasnt so skewed. BP R TERRORIZER... QUICK SOMEONE HANG THEM. That accomplishes nothing except to put this country in even MORE debt.

[Anebriated]

Obama Gulf spill address 06-17-2010 01:40 PM It's sad.. no.. pathetic that you feel the oil spill is a chicken little call. Shows how much you give a shit. Oh yeah, you don't.

Thank you to whoever left that. Youve obviously read only a post or two of what I have written on the subject since its happened.

[Androidpk]

Obama is doing the best he can do.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/showbiz/2010/06/17/bts.oprah.on.oil.spill.cnn?hpt=C2

[Daniel]

Id try and read into your sarchasm if your view on the situation wasnt so skewed. BP R TERRORIZER... QUICK SOMEONE HANG THEM. That accomplishes nothing except to put this country in even MORE debt.

Your lack of perspective is amazing. This spill is going to put us more into debt period. That's besides the point. An entire economic region is going to be devastated and you guys are sitting here defending big business and economic impunity because you're afraid they'll pick up their toys and go home if we play rough.

[Daniel]

Yea.. that's just what we should do.. take over another business.. because the US Government is great at managing businesses.

Because letting them do it themselves obviously worked out well for everybody?

It's amazing that you'll still defend your economic theory tooth and nail when one of the major arguments against it is playing out in front of us in the worst way.

[Parkbandit]

Because letting them do it themselves obviously worked out well for everybody?

It's amazing that you'll still defend your economic theory tooth and nail when one of the major arguments against it is playing out in front of us in the worst way.

What exactly is the major argument against it being played out right now? That the Government, who's responsible for regulating the drilling platform didn't do it's job and keep on top of the inspections they were supposed to conduct?

Yea....

[Back]

What exactly is the major argument against it being played out right now? That the Government, who's responsible for regulating the drilling platform didn't do it's job and keep on top of the inspections they were supposed to conduct?

Yea....

Wait... aren’t you against government involvement?

[Daniel]

What exactly is the major argument against it being played out right now? That the Government, who's responsible for regulating the drilling platform didn't do it's job and keep on top of the inspections they were supposed to conduct?

Yea....

Imagine that. Government entities gutted becaue their bosses fundamentally didn't want "government" involvement in business weren't able to prevent this from happening. It's really shocking actually.




Wait... aren’t you against government involvement?

Yea...exactly...

[Parkbandit]

Wait... aren’t you against government involvement?

Where have I said that I'm against all government regulation? If you could go ahead and quote that post, it would be fantastic. Once you find that post, how about I send you a nice 12 pack of Coors Light so you can drown out how depressing your life really is! I tell you what, if I had to live your life, I would definitely want to be shitface drunk too.. so you are just a victim!

Stick with reality.. your hyperbole only feeds Daniel into thinking he's not as dumb as everyone else knows he is.

[Parkbandit]

Imagine that. Government entities gutted becaue their bosses fundamentally didn't want "government" involvement in business weren't able to prevent this from happening. It's really shocking actually.

Yea...exactly...

And right on que....

Wait, so you are saying that the reason our Government didn't do their job was because they didn't have the funding?

It's really a big shock you work for our government...

[Methais]

Because letting them do it themselves obviously worked out well for everybody?

Didn't the feds give or nominate BP for some sort of safety award 10 days before the explosion?


Wait... aren’t you against government involvement?

Being against government totally and being against big government aren't exactly the same things you know.

[Back]

Where have I said that I'm against all government regulation? If you could go ahead and quote that post, it would be fantastic. Once you find that post, how about I send you a nice 12 pack of Coors Light so you can drown out how depressing your life really is! I tell you what, if I had to live your life, I would definitely want to be shitface drunk too.. so you are just a victim!

Stick with reality.. your hyperbole only feeds Daniel into thinking he's not as dumb as everyone else knows he is.

Fly off the handle much? You started to blame the Obama administration then when called on it back peddaled and launched into a tirade about my personal life.

S’cool though. Keep spending your money at BP. I am sure they need it.

[Parkbandit]

Fly off the handle much? You started to blame the Obama administration then when called on it back peddaled and launched into a tirade about my personal life.

S’cool though. Keep spending your money at BP. I am sure they need it.

Who is blaming the Obama administration? I'm sure not. It was happening with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc... It's a government problem, not really only Obama's. In fact, I think there's a post of me saying to blame Obama for this is as dumb as people like you blaming Bush on Katrina.

And where exactly have I back "peddaled"? You are either delusional or just plain stupid. Given your history here... I think it's more the latter.

[Parkbandit]

Being against government totally and being against big government aren't exactly the same things you know.

ZOMG U R ANARCHIST!

[Anebriated]

Your lack of perspective is amazing. This spill is going to put us more into debt period. That's besides the point. An entire economic region is going to be devastated and you guys are sitting here defending big business and economic impunity because you're afraid they'll pick up their toys and go home if we play rough.


Im aware of the regional devastation that we will go through but riddle me this, would the region be better off if all the oil refineries along the LA/Gulf coast packed up and left? Where does that leave all of the people who worked at the refineries or on the oil rigs? that region is around 40% of America's refining power and is a valuable commodity in that area. If you want to talk about stabilizing a region and avoiding debt then you cant go that route. What happens when BP goes under and everyone in the great old US of A who has stock in BP loses their money? I dont remember the exact numbers but someone was saying earlier today that BP's stock has gone up since the escrow account was created. What about the new jobs the recovery effort will bring in for an area still struggling from Katrina? What about the new flow of money, 20b that is geared towards that area, thats certainly a bad thing right? The fishing market might go dry but the fishermen can rent their boats to BP to aid in the clean-up. Its what the fishermen did during the ExxonValdez spill.

[Methais]

In fact, I think there's a post of me saying to blame Obama for this is as dumb as people like you blaming Bush on Katrina.

Bush was totally Katrina's fault.

:)

[Anebriated]

What exactly is the major argument against it being played out right now? That the Government, who's responsible for regulating the drilling platform didn't do it's job and keep on top of the inspections they were supposed to conduct?

Yea....

Not sure if this was a tongue in cheek comment or not but the government is not in charge of the inspections. A private company that goes by MMX(Mineral Mining Coorporation or something like that) was in charge of the inspections and it has since been revealed that they were missing like 16 of the monthly inspections from the past 5 years. Also because the rig was registered in the Marshall Islands they werent held to American standards of testing which last a lot longer and are more in depth.

[Celephais]

What about the new flow of money, 20b that is geared towards that area, thats certainly a bad thing right?

This made me wonder how much money isn't flowing in that region because of the fishing stopage. Thought I'd pass along the info.


Fisheries

Gulf fisheries are some of the most productive in the world. In 2008 according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, the commercial fish and shellfish harvest from the five U.S. Gulf states was estimated to be 1.3 billion pounds valued at $661 million. The Gulf also contains four of the top seven fishing ports in the nation by weight. The Gulf of Mexico has eight of the top twenty fishing ports in the nation by dollar value.

Shrimp: Gulf landings of shrimp led the Nation in 2008 with 188.8 million pounds valued at $367 million dockside, accounting for about 73% of U.S. total. Louisiana led all Gulf states with 89.3 million pounds; Texas with 63.8 million pounds; Alabama with 17.2 million pounds; Florida (west coast) with 9.9 million pounds; and Mississippi with 8.6 million pounds.

Oysters: The Gulf led in production of oysters in 2008 with 20.6 million pounds of meats valued at $60.2 million and representing 59% of the national total.
>$1 billion a year.


Recreational: The Gulf also supports a productive recreational fishery. In 2008, marine recreational participants took more than 24.1 million trips catching 190 million fish from the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding waters. The total weigh in pounds was over 73.6 million in 2008.
24.1 million trips ... recreational offshore fishing trips are not cheap ... no clue what the actual market size would be, but it sounds like a multi-billion dollar market.

How much that market dwindles/is effected remains to be seen, I was just curious what the numbers were. $20B as a one time infusion into the regional economy may not fully offset the market impact (and the $20B isn't all going into the regions pockets, for example, Kevin Costner sold 32 of his centerfuge dealies to BP in an effort for the cleanup, no clue where he's based).

Source: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html

[Anebriated]

The 20b is not a one time infusion. It will be dispersed as deemed necessary over the life of the recovery project. Its also not hard capped at 20b, that was just the starting number.

[Daniel]

And right on que....

Wait, so you are saying that the reason our Government didn't do their job was because they didn't have the funding?

It's really a big shock you work for our government...

Is that what I said?

"gutted" goes far beyond "lack of funding".

[Sean]

This made me wonder how much money isn't flowing in that region because of the fishing stopage. Thought I'd pass along the info.


>$1 billion a year.


24.1 million trips ... recreational offshore fishing trips are not cheap ... no clue what the actual market size would be, but it sounds like a multi-billion dollar market.

How much that market dwindles/is effected remains to be seen, I was just curious what the numbers were. $20B as a one time infusion into the regional economy may not fully offset the market impact (and the $20B isn't all going into the regions pockets, for example, Kevin Costner sold 32 of his centerfuge dealies to BP in an effort for the cleanup, no clue where he's based).

Source: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/about/facts.html

It's also a question of how long the industry will continue to be effected beyond this year.

[Gan]

Im aware of the regional devastation that we will go through but riddle me this, would the region be better off if all the oil refineries along the LA/Gulf coast packed up and left? Where does that leave all of the people who worked at the refineries or on the oil rigs? that region is around 40% of America's refining power and is a valuable commodity in that area. If you want to talk about stabilizing a region and avoiding debt then you cant go that route. What happens when BP goes under and everyone in the great old US of A who has stock in BP loses their money? I dont remember the exact numbers but someone was saying earlier today that BP's stock has gone up since the escrow account was created. What about the new jobs the recovery effort will bring in for an area still struggling from Katrina? What about the new flow of money, 20b that is geared towards that area, thats certainly a bad thing right? The fishing market might go dry but the fishermen can rent their boats to BP to aid in the clean-up. Its what the fishermen did during the ExxonValdez spill.

The government buys (nationalizes) all US BP assets and goes into the oil drilling/refining business.

If its good enough for Chavez...

wait, what?

[Celephais]

It's also a question of how long the industry will continue to be effected beyond this year.


How much that market dwindles/is effected remains to be seen


The 20b is not a one time infusion. It will be dispersed as deemed necessary over the life of the recovery project. Its also not hard capped at 20b, that was just the starting number.
My mistake on the one time part, but I meant more that you can't just say the economy of the gulf region is going to see a $20b boost and call that "not a bad thing". The net effect on the economy of the gulf region is rather difficult to determine, but it seemed to me like you tried to paint the $20B as a "sry bout yer gulf, herz sum monies", thing, like it completely overshadowed the amount lost to the fishing economy.

[Anebriated]

My mistake on the one time part, but I meant more that you can't just say the economy of the gulf region is going to see a $20b boost and call that "not a bad thing". The net effect on the economy of the gulf region is rather difficult to determine, but it seemed to me like you tried to paint the $20B as a "sry bout yer gulf, herz sum monies", thing, like it completely overshadowed the amount lost to the fishing economy.

I can see how it came across that way but thats not what I was getting at. Was more talking about how some good actually came out of the ExxonValdez spill by bringing in recovery project money into the area giving it a "stimulus boost". This isnt how id like to see the area making money over the next 10-50 years but its a small consolation for the damage done.

[Latrinsorm]

BP is to blame but sending them bankrupt does NOT help the situation at all.Sending murderers to jail doesn't help the murdered - that's not the point. What we "NEED" to do is demonstrate that there are consequences for destroying lives beyond a brief haranguing from crusty old Congresspeople. There are options beyond "catastrophically reckless businesses" and "complete abandonment by businesses", options that have served us quite well with pretty much every company in pretty much every industry.
You're hopeless.I think what PB is saying is that he personally doesn't buy anything from BP, so he personally is getting the clean-up for free so long as everyone else gives BP money. He has kept telling us that a certain economic theory is great so long as you can keep spending other peoples' money, it's only reasonable for him to speak from experience.

[Parkbandit]

I think what PB is saying is that he personally doesn't buy anything from BP, so he personally is getting the clean-up for free so long as everyone else gives BP money. He has kept telling us that a certain economic theory is great so long as you can keep spending other peoples' money, it's only reasonable for him to speak from experience.

The first two words in this quote is where you failed miserably..

But we both know that fail was inevitable, didn't we.

http://www.failfunnies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/perez-the-fag.jpg

[Celephais]

Um... I'm all for disagreeing with PB on lots of stuff, but how is it so hard to see what he's saying.

Gas costs $3 a gallon from BP, it also costs $3 a gallon from saftey-r-us gas. You need 10 gallons. If everyone sticks to their status quo, and you used to buy gas from BP, BP continues to operate, you've paid $30, BP cleans up the oil spill. If somehow not buying gas from BP would cause BP to go under, and you buy gas from saftey-r-us, BP goes out of business, you pay $30 for gas, and then big ole government reaches into your pocket and takes a hamilton from you to cleanup the gas, you've now paid $40.

Boycotting BP in the hopes they go under and continuing to buy gas from an alternative is only going to make some other oil company richer.

Should the parties responsible be held responsible and be made to pay, absolutely, more importantly measures be taken to make sure that NO OTHER company can make the same mistakes, there is zero chance that other massive oil companies weren't taking the same risks.

[Methais]

Um... I'm all for disagreeing with PB on lots of stuff, but how is it so hard to see what he's saying.

Simple logic is hard around here.

[Slider]

I agree that BP should be held responsible for cleaning up this spill, but I wonder why it seems that Transoceon, the company who operated the Deepwater Horizon, seems to be getting off without paying any part of the clean up cost. Or for anything it appears. They where the ones who screwed up here, it was their platform that blew up, it was their responsability to ensure that the rig was operated in a safe manner. I am not saying that BP did not play a part in this, I am NOT saying that BP should not pay for the cleanup, I am just saying what part is Transoceon going to end up paying?

Some of the stuff I have heard about what went on does not make sense to me. I know a lot of people who work in the Gulf, either on rig boats, lift boats or on the rigs themeselves, and we all seem to be asking the same questions.

WTF happened to the blowout valve that should have shut this thing down before the oil spill ever happened. Its only purpose it to prevent this very thing from happening, and it didn't work????

Why is it not one of the workers on that rig heard a single alarm go off before the fire started? Those rigs have all kinds of alarms and sensors on the pipeline that are there to measure pressure on the pipes, and alarms go off if that pressure is exceeded. Not too mention that those sensors are supposed to be monitered 24/7 so that the rate of flow in the pipe does not exceed safety margins. Yet not one worker heard any alarms. Every one of them interveiwed said the first thing they knew anything was wrong was the fire itself.

But the interveiw I saw with the wife of one of the crew-members on that rig really has me confused.

"Transocean toolpusher Jason Anderson told his wife, Shelly, that he was concerned about BP's safety practices on the rig. Anderson was so worried about an accident that he spent his last trip home getting his affairs in order."

"Everything seemed to be pressing to Jason about getting things in order. In case something happened. Teaching me how to do certain things on the motor home so that I could go and do things with the kids, make sure that I knew how to do everything," an emotional Shelly Anderson told NBC's Lisa Myers.

Her husband drew up a will and talked about his hopes for their daughter and son.

Ok, if this guy was so worried about being on that rig that he drew up a will, why in the hell did he go back to work on that rig? If you knew your life was in danger to the point that you don't think your going to be coming home, why the fuck would you go to work? It is not like he couldn't get another job, on another rig, or even that he couldn't have just walked away. On the other hand, that does sound to me like someone who is going to commit suicide. (Let the flames commence!!) Seriously, those are all warning signs of suicide.

[CrystalTears]

Simple logic is hard around here.
I get what he's saying, I just don't agree with it.

[Clove]

Um... I'm all for disagreeing with PB on lots of stuff, but how is it so hard to see what he's saying.

Gas costs $3 a gallon from BP, it also costs $3 a gallon from saftey-r-us gas. You need 10 gallons. If everyone sticks to their status quo, and you used to buy gas from BP, BP continues to operate, you've paid $30, BP cleans up the oil spill. If somehow not buying gas from BP would cause BP to go under, and you buy gas from saftey-r-us, BP goes out of business, you pay $30 for gas, and then big ole government reaches into your pocket and takes a hamilton from you to cleanup the gas, you've now paid $40.

Boycotting BP in the hopes they go under and continuing to buy gas from an alternative is only going to make some other oil company richer.

Should the parties responsible be held responsible and be made to pay, absolutely, more importantly measures be taken to make sure that NO OTHER company can make the same mistakes, there is zero chance that other massive oil companies weren't taking the same risks.I understand what PB's saying, I simply disagree with him.

Obama Gulf spill address 06-17-2010 04:12 PM Wow ... you are definitely a Retard. PB's point = make BP pay ... you = does not matter if it is BP or US Gov't ... FFS!! it *does matter!!* it should be BP period!I'm probably wasting my breath here but you're confused. BP should pay for as much of the cleanup as we can get from them; however, I'm not in favor of "doing what we can" to keep them in business simply because they made an expensive mess that we hope they'll pay for. I'm not in favor of keeping them profitable and therefore rewarding their leadership for setting the policies that made a pig fuck. I'm not in favor of sending the message to other companies that they can push the envelope of safety for profit and if there's a disaster; well, it's okay they can keep on making money (just as long as they pay enough compensation for it).

Now if BP agreed to prioritize their profits to cleanup, or were willing to give the US some sort of lien on all their assets or control on X% of their profits until the recovery was paid for, I might feel differently. I might feel differently if there were any sort of judgment against them at all. But as it stands now. Fuck them. If I thought the American public had the cajones and unity to drive them out of business, I'd encourage it.

[Celephais]

I get what he's saying, I just don't agree with it.

The part about if you should or shouldn't boycott BP may be contestable, but something like:

I said the cost is the same, and you're paying it either way
Is dead wrong, if BP is paying for it, you aren't. BP can't "pass the cost on to the customer" when they have competitors. It's not like the pumps are going to say "Regular - $2.89, Premium - $2.99, Sorry we fucked up the gulf - $3.09". Sure the cost of the cleanup is always the same, but if BP goes under, it will directly effect your pocket, if BP pays for the cleanup, it will not effect your pocket.

It's sort of like if you see two brands of the same cereal at the same price, and one of them says "for each box we give 10 cents to your local schools", yeah... the school system is still going to "cost the same" and you may be "paying for it either way", but you might as well make your money fill both purposes by paying for school and cereal w/ the same dime.

[CrystalTears]

It's sort of like if you see two brands of the same cereal at the same price, and one of them says "for each box we give 10 cents to your local schools", yeah... the school system is still going to "cost the same" and you may be "paying for it either way", but you might as well make your money fill both purposes by paying for school and cereal w/ the same dime.
And if the company that was giving that 10 cents per box were responsible for burning a school down, I wouldn't be inclined to give them my business anymore, but that's just me.

[Celephais]

And if the company that was giving that 10 cents per box were responsible for burning a school down, I wouldn't be inclined to give them my business anymore, but that's just me.

And that part is certainly something you can call an opinion and argue about, which I clearly said in the first half of that post. Arguing that you're going to pay the same amount either way (assuming that said company goes out of business) is not.

[CrystalTears]

But you are still paying for it one way or another, either by purchasing their products or services, or paying taxes. And I get the premise "but at least you're getting something out of it", but I'd rather not reward the company responsible in the process.

[Delias]

And if the company that was giving that 10 cents per box were responsible for burning a school down, I wouldn't be inclined to give them my business anymore, but that's just me.

Oh, I don't know... the education system being the way it is, the school-burning might be a good thing. No child left behind...in arson.

[Parkbandit]

But you are still paying for it one way or another, either by purchasing their products or services, or paying taxes. And I get the premise "but at least you're getting something out of it", but I'd rather not reward the company responsible in the process.

So you would rather the US Government pay for the cleanup than the people responsible for it? Awesome.

[Parkbandit]

I understand what PB's saying, I simply disagree with him.


That has not been obvious to any reader of this thread today.

[Methais]

But you are still paying for it one way or another, either by purchasing their products or services, or paying taxes. And I get the premise "but at least you're getting something out of it", but I'd rather not reward the company responsible in the process.

Would you prefer the government print more money and pay for it with that? That's the other option.

[CrystalTears]

So you would rather the US Government pay for the cleanup than the people responsible for it? Awesome.
Is that really what I said? Is BP broke already? They can't help pay for it? They should fork over as much as they can to help pay fix the mess they created.

[RichardCranium]

Oh, I don't know... the education system being the way it is, the school-burning might be a good thing. No child left behind...in arson.

I'm going to hell; who's coming with me?


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/troydenh/lol.jpg

[Clove]

Is that really what I said? Is BP broke already? They can't help pay for it? They should fork over as much as they can to help pay fix the mess they created.But why do I need to pitch in my consumer dollars, or encourage others to?

If they manage to pay for the cleanup fine. If they go tits up because consumers hate their guts for the shit they fucked up, fine. Yes, that could cost us. TANSTAAFL.

[Methais]

I'm going to hell; who's coming with me?


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/troydenh/lol.jpg

http://tailgate365.com/ravens/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/timzaccheo.jpg

[Xanator]

But let's be honest.. that's the whole reason you created this login.. you couldn't debate with honest ideas and compete effectively. You are intellectually bankrupt, so the only crutch you had left is to create a persona that was ultra right in an effort to make fun of it.


Where have I said that I'm against all government regulation? If you could go ahead and quote that post, it would be fantastic. Once you find that post, how about I send you a nice 12 pack of Coors Light so you can drown out how depressing your life really is! I tell you what, if I had to live your life, I would definitely want to be shitface drunk too.. so you are just a victim!

Stick with reality.. your hyperbole only feeds Daniel into thinking he's not as dumb as everyone else knows he is.


The first two words in this quote is where you failed miserably..

But we both know that fail was inevitable, didn't we.

http://www.failfunnies.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/perez-the-fag.jpg

I mean, you're generally way too out there and you often really do come off like a senile babbler, but you raise a lot of good points and there's certainly nothing wrong with your argument in this thread. That said, the whole unimaginative personal attack thing you do kind of invalidates anything else you say. Makes you sound like your upstairs neighbor's white trash girlfriend.

http://lunchat1130.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/snookie.jpg
^ PB

[Parkbandit]

Eight days ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin vacuuming crude oil out of his state's oil-soaked waters. Today, against the governor's wishes, those barges sat idle, even as more oil flowed toward the Louisiana shore.

Louisiana Governor Jindal frustrated over decision-making red tape. "It's the most frustrating thing," the Republican governor said today in Buras, La. "Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges."

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

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

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

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

"We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil," said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

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

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

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

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

Our government.. doing what they do best...

[Gan]

Simple logic is hard around here.

Deserves to be repeated.

[RichardCranium]

Jindal 2012.

[Parkbandit]

I mean, you're generally way too out there and you often really do come off like a senile babbler, but you raise a lot of good points and there's certainly nothing wrong with your argument in this thread. That said, the whole unimaginative personal attack thing you do kind of invalidates anything else you say. Makes you sound like your upstairs neighbor's white trash girlfriend.


Take a look in the mirror pal.. you just did that which you accused me of.

Makes you look pretty pathetic, doesn't it? By your own admission, I've raised a lot of good points.. which is far more than you've done in this or any other thread.

So.. if you bring nothing intelligent to any conversation.. and you use unimaginative personal attacks.. that must make you completely worthless.

[Parkbandit]

Jindal 2012.

Eh.

He really, REALLY fucked up his one opportunity to make a good first impression with his response speech to Obama.. and he bombed. I know a President isn't about just being well spoken (look what that got us...) but he blew it so bad that I wonder how good he really would be as President.

[Xanator]

Take a look in the mirror pal.. you just did that which you accused me of.

Makes you look pretty pathetic, doesn't it? By your own admission, I've raised a lot of good points.. which is far more than you've done in this or any other thread.

So.. if you bring nothing intelligent to any conversation.. and you use unimaginative personal attacks.. that must make you completely worthless.

You told a sociopath he's a fake schizophrenic for attention on an online forum, an alcoholic that he drinks, and likened a crossdresser to Perez Hilton. Don't you dare call me unimaginative, Snookie.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm going to hell; who's coming with me?


http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k15/troydenh/lol.jpg

I hate that I laugh so hard at that picture, every. fucking. time.

[RichardCranium]

Eh.

He really, REALLY fucked up his one opportunity to make a good first impression with his response speech to Obama.. and he bombed. I know a President isn't about just being well spoken (look what that got us...) but he blew it so bad that I wonder how good he really would be as President.

Oh I know. I was kidding. Ironic as it is, he's way too wishy washy to be president.

[Gan]

Comma police!

Nevermind, the moment is gone.

:(

[Parkbandit]

You told a sociopath he's a fake schizophrenic for attention on an online forum, an alcoholic that he drinks, and likened a crossdresser to Perez Hilton. Don't you dare call me unimaginative, Snookie.

How about a hypocritical piece of worthless garbage.. that seems far more fitting and appropriate.

[Delias]

This thread makes me need to poop.

[LMingrone]

I love when someone starts a thread knowing it's going to start a flame war, then gets pissed and makes personal attacks on people when they don't agree with the OP. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!! YOU'RE STUPID AND UGLY!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Clove]

Simple logic is hard around here.Ralph owns some office buildings and contracts BP cleaning service to clean them. On several occasions Ralph's employees notice irresponsible and reckless behavior by BP's employees that could result in a building fire and complaints are made but the behavior continues and Ralph never switches services.

One day the worst happens, an office building burns down because of BP's negligence. Ralph files suit against BP and finds another cleaning service.

Ralph also tells his experience to other business owners and encourages them not to use BP's cleaning service; but one day one of his colleagues says, "Ralph, Ralph, Ralph... you can't do that. You should retain their cleaning services and moreover encourage others to use them too! If not they could go out of business and you might not recover all your damages from them. Besides, you need to pay someone to clean your businesses anyway, you may as well pay them."

Simple Logic Indeed.

[Anebriated]

your example is valid and I would agree with it in a small scale sense. However this current blunder is MUCH bigger than a building burning down making your example apples to oranges...

[Parkbandit]

I love when someone starts a thread knowing it's going to start a flame war, then gets pissed and makes personal attacks on people when they don't agree with the OP. YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME!! YOU'RE STUPID AND UGLY!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

The original poster (me) stated that Obama's speech was one of the worst "Presidential" speeches ever.

I don't think anyone actually disagreed with that.

[Clove]

your example is valid and I would agree with it in a small scale sense. However this current blunder is MUCH bigger than a building burning down making your example apples to oranges...A difference in scale is not apples and oranges. It is small apples and large apples. The fact that this situation is so much more devastating is even more reason we need to protect ourselves from people willing to risk creating them and send messages to those who would consider risking them that the consequences could be ruin for them.

[Celephais]

Simple Logic Indeed.

Christ, how can neither of you separate the idea of not using them because you don't like the way they've acted from the fact that if they go out of business you will end up having to foot the bill.

I agree with you that they acted recklessly and you can use your money to vote your displeasure. You can argue with PB about that till your face turns blue.

You cannot however state that you will pay the same if BP pays for the spill or if the government pays for the spill. (You can state that on a karmic scale you'll pay less for it if you put BP out of business and the government pays the bill, but then you're a moron for thinking you can argue PB on that point).

How about you just say that you hope they go bankrupt the day after they finish paying for the cleanup?

[Parkbandit]

A difference in scale is not apples and oranges. It is small apples and large apples. The fact that this situation is so much more devastating is even more reason we need to protect ourselves from people willing to risk creating them and send messages to those who would consider risking them that the consequences could be ruin for them.

Not really.. since BP could replace that building with the change they find from the couch cushions in their break room. We're discussing the largest environmental spill in history.. not something like a building fire that happens multiple times every day.

[Clove]

You cannot however state that you will pay the same if BP pays for the spill or if the government pays for the spill.I understand your argument and I'll concede you some points; however you and PB are oversimplifying the situation. You're saying that in a perfect economic scenario if you buy a product from BP you'd need anyway (and they give it to you at competitive prices) then you spend no more for that product and BP pays for the cleanup out of their margin and every thing is hunky dory. It isn't as simple as that, however.

How much of their margin do you think BP will contribute? Enough to pay for the clean-up outright as funds are needed? Or are they going to reimburse us? If so, how long will it take them to reimburse us? If they're reimbursing us will we charge them interest? If so, how much?

While you are correct in a perfect scenario it would not cost us for BP to remain in business and pay for the entire clean-up as funds are required for it. I'm very skeptical it will play out that way and without any judgments against their company as long as they operate with the executive staff they have now, by patronizing them we continue to compensate bad businessmen for doing bad things.

I submit that it will NOT play out as such a perfect scenario. I will concede that if BP stays in business long enough to reimburse us for the clean-up it will likely cost less than if tax payers pay for it, or a significant fraction of it IF you will admit that either way we are still assuming the cost of some of that clean up. However, if BP's business suffers we send the message that risking this kind of disaster is unacceptable and may have ruinous consequences for anyone that causes them.


How about you just say that you hope they go bankrupt the day after they finish paying for the cleanup?I thought I conveyed that sentiment, but if this is how you'd rather I word it, fine. I do hope they go bankrupt the day after they finish paying for cleanup, and furthermore if they go bankrupt before they pay for it; I'm okay with that too. Sometimes justice is expensive.

[Celephais]

I will concede that if BP stays in business long enough to reimburse us for the clean-up it will likely cost less than if tax payers pay for it
LIKELY! Dude... you are not that stupid. LIKELY!


or a significant fraction of it IF you will admit that either way we are still assuming the cost of some of that clean up.
Read what you just said "If they stay in business long enough to reimburse us... we are still assuming the cost". Do you know what reimburse means?


I thought I conveyed that sentiment, but if this is how you'd rather I word it, fine. I do hope they go bankrupt the day after they finish paying for cleanup, and furthermore if they go bankrupt before they pay for it; I'm okay with that too. Sometimes justice is expensive.

That's fine, if you're willing to pay for the justice, that's perfectly reasonable. Your argument that we somehow are paying for it if BP pays for it is stupid though, monetarily. If BP covers the bill, sure there may be some tiny ripple downstream where we pay a little bit more, but in no way can you say that total out of pocket expense for you will be equal if BP or the US gov pays for the cleanup.

[Parkbandit]

I submit that it will NOT play out as such a perfect scenario. I will concede that if BP stays in business long enough to reimburse us for the clean-up it will likely cost less than if tax payers pay for it

That only took 24 hours..........

You do realize that this part was my only point.. and no amount of heel digging in on your part to defend your initial stupidity will change that, right?




My only issue with this whole "boycott BP" isn't to save BP.. it's to ensure that BP can stay solvent enough to pay for the entirety of this accident and that the US taxpayers won't have to foot the bill. That's it.

[Celephais]

Along w/ the lack of logic, I see a lot of people trying to twist peoples points into ones that are arguable, polar to their own, so they have something to attack. PB, you may have hinted at something that was attackable, but yeah... your point was solid as far as I could tell (I'm sure someone will go back and analyze all your posts to find something that wasn't intended there).

[ClydeR]

That only took 24 hours..........

Yeah, really. Nobody has been able to counter PB's BP point for two reasons. First, because PB is 100% right about BP. And second, because they don't even remember algebra.

In algebra, if you add something to one side of an equation, like the equation of receipts and disbursements relating to the oil spill cleanup, then you have to add the same amount to the other side of the equation.

If you spend money on BP, then an identical amount of money gets spent by BP on the oil spill cleanup, freeing the federal government of having to spend that amount of money. But if you spend money at another oil company, then that money disappears forever.

And don't even get me started on the income tax collection implications of spending money in 2010 at BP versus spending it at another oil company.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, really. Nobody has been able to counter PB's BP point for two reasons. First, because PB is 100% right about BP. And second, because they don't even remember algebra.

In algebra, if you add something to one side of an equation, like the equation of receipts and disbursements relating to the oil spill cleanup, then you have to add the same amount to the other side of the equation.

If you spend money on BP, then an identical amount of money gets spent by BP on the oil spill cleanup, freeing the federal government of having to spend that amount of money. But if you spend money at another oil company, then that money disappears forever.

And don't even get me started on the income tax collection implications of spending money in 2010 at BP versus spending it at another oil company.

I may have just busted this whole identity thing wide open.....


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/WarclaidhmClydeR.jpg

It fits most of the criteria:

1) Liberal
2) Stupid
3) Can't defend own position
4) Gay (this is the only one that doesn't work.. since I don't know for sure if Kevin is indeed gay.)

[Clove]

That only took 24 hours..........

You do realize that this part was my only point.. and no amount of heel digging in on your part to defend your initial stupidity will change that, right?You really shouldn't pat yourself on the back so hard. I agreed that if BP can stay solvent long enough to pay for the cleanup it may be cheaper than if they didn't. If you read carefully I still maintain that no matter how it plays out, the taxpayers will still be paying for some of it (because it is unlikely that BP will be paying the bills as they occur and I doubt they will reimburse us the full value over time). Of course I can't see the future, but this isn't an unreasonable assumption in my opinion. If you think the taxpayers are going to get out of footing at least some of this bill if we just keep patronizing BP... well I have to say you have a childish understanding.

So if what you're saying is we should do what we can to keep them in business because it will be cheaper than letting them fail; congratulations, you just used the same excuse that was given to bail out AIG.

[Gan]

Along w/ the lack of logic, I see a lot of people trying to twist peoples points into ones that are arguable, polar to their own, so they have something to attack. PB, you may have hinted at something that was attackable, but yeah... your point was solid as far as I could tell (I'm sure someone will go back and analyze all your posts to find something that wasn't intended there).

Still waiting for the splinter post king to make an appearance...

[Parkbandit]

You really shouldn't pat yourself on the back so hard. I agreed that if BP can stay solvent long enough to pay for the cleanup it may be cheaper than if they didn't. If you read carefully I still maintain that no matter how it plays out, the taxpayers will still be paying for some of it (because it is unlikely that BP will be paying the bills as they occur and I doubt they will reimburse us the full value over time). Of course I can't see the future, but this isn't an unreasonable assumption in my opinion. If you think the taxpayers are going to get out of footing at least some of this bill if we just keep patronizing BP... well I have to say you have a childish understanding.

I'm not patting myself on the back... I knew I was correct in the beginning. It was only you that didn't understand it for 100+ posts. And now you maintain that you are correct in some way? Pretty pathetic.. very Tsa`ah like though. You would better serve yourself to simply let this topic die.. instead of bumping it over and over again with your same, tired stupidity. Perhaps you should stick to subjects you don't look like a retard in.. maybe just stick to how to care for smelly rodents as pets?




So if what you're saying is we should do what we can to keep them in business because it will be cheaper than letting them fail; congratulations, you just used the same excuse that was given to bail out AIG.

The only similarity to the BP oil spill and the AIG bailout is that you were wrong on both cases and I was spot on.

[Delias]

I'm not patting myself on the back... I knew I was correct in the beginning.

Amazing self assurance there, old boy. That's the sort of mentality that leads to some pretty terrible things. A nice healthy case of doubt is good for you.

[Anebriated]

Look its rare that I find myself siding with PB but he was right from the start of the thread.

[Clove]

I'm not patting myself on the back... I knew I was correct in the beginning. It was only you that didn't understand it for 100+ posts. And now you maintain that you are correct in some way? Pretty pathetic.. very Tsa`ah like though. You would better serve yourself to simply let this topic die.. instead of bumping it over and over again with your same, tired stupidity. Perhaps you should stick to subjects you don't look like a retard in.. maybe just stick to how to care for smelly rodents as pets?And you wonder why I call you childish?


The only similarity to the BP oil spill and the AIG bailout is that you were wrong on both cases and I was spot on.If you say so. At least you learned that the Senate has the power to void contracts.

Let me make some predictions and we'll see who's right as time passes.

1) Regardless of whether or not BP stays in business they will not pay for all the clean-up costs or compensate more than 1/2 of those directly damaged by the spill.

2) They will spend decades in court and though judgments will be made against them they will appeal. Through the appeal process they will delay payment and ultimately reduce the judgments to half or less of the original amount (which by the time they pay will be worth even less).

3) They will make some settlements out of court for a fraction of the cost of the damage suffered by those directly affected by the spill.

In the meantime taxpayers will be paying for a substantial cost of the cleanup (some of which may ultimately be reimbursed by BP) and the taxpayers will be paying for social services to those damaged by the spill while they try to realize any recompense from BP.

What causes me to make these predictions? History. The Valdez disaster happened in 1989. In Baker v Exxon the original punitive damages were set at 5 billion (to provide some perspective Exxon reported 5 billion in profits in 1990). 19 years after the disaster the Supreme Court reduced those damages to 500 million. As of last year Exxon has paid 383 million of the 500 million in punitive damages and approximately 8,000 of the original Valdez plaintiffs have died since the spill before receiving that compensation from Exxon as they fought the judgment in our courts.

Either way, the American taxpayer is going to be paying for much of the aftermath of this mess. But the more BP's business suffers as a result of this mess, the less likely they (or other businesses like them) are to risk policies that could lead to these disasters. If your only point is IF BP stays in business AND they pay ALL the real costs of the disaster it won't cost the taxpayer money, you're correct. But you're deluded if you really think contributing as much as you can to their profits will net that result. Whether or not BP goes out of business, don't imagine that taxpayers aren't going to bear the brunt of this disaster. I don't really care if you believe me, you'll see in the end.

[Parkbandit]

And you wonder why I call you childish?


I always thought it was the best you could come up with. Pretty fucking lame either way... but you are Clove, lame is your middle name.



If you say so. At least you learned that the Senate has the power to void contracts.

Let me make some predictions and we'll see who's right as time passes.

1) Regardless of whether or not BP stays in business they will not pay for all the clean-up costs or compensate more than 1/2 of those directly damaged by the spill.

2) They will spend decades in court and though judgments will be made against them they will appeal. Through the appeal process they will delay payment and ultimately reduce the judgments to half or less of the original amount (which by the time they pay will be worth even less).

3) They will make some settlements out of court for a fraction of the cost of the damage suffered by those directly affected by the spill.

In the meantime taxpayers will be paying for a substantial cost of the cleanup (some of which may ultimately be reimbursed by BP) and the taxpayers will be paying for social services to those damaged by the spill while they try to realize any recompense from BP.

What causes me to make these predictions? History. The Valdez disaster happened in 1989. In Baker v Exxon the original punitive damages were set at 5 billion (to provide some perspective Exxon reported 5 billion in profits in 1990). 19 years after the disaster the Supreme Court reduced those damages to 500 million. As of last year Exxon has paid 383 million of the 500 million in punitive damages and approximately 8,000 of the original Valdez plaintiffs have died since the spill before receiving that compensation from Exxon as they fought the judgment in our courts.

Either way, the American taxpayer is going to be paying for much of the aftermath of this mess. But the more BP's business suffers as a result of this mess, the less likely they (or other businesses like them) are to risk policies that could lead to these disasters. If your only point is IF BP stays in business AND they pay ALL the real costs of the disaster it won't cost the taxpayer money, you're correct. But you're deluded if you really think contributing as much as you can to their profits will net that result. Whether or not BP goes out of business, don't imagine that taxpayers aren't going to bear the brunt of this disaster. I don't really care if you believe me, you'll see in the end.

We weren't making predictions in this thread.. most of us were simply using common sense... something you clearly lack as illustrated by most of your posts in this topic.

[Xanator]

It fits most of the criteria:
...
2) Stupid
...
4) Gay (this is the only one that doesn't work.. since I don't know for sure if Kevin is indeed gay.)


...maybe just stick to how to care for smelly rodents as pets?


...but you are Clove, lame is your middle name.

http://img.actressarchives.com/features/braingasm/snookie-pickle.jpg

[Parkbandit]

It's ok Xanator.. perhaps you can actually participate in the next big political thread without looking like a flaming hypocritical sack of shit.

It's pretty damn unlikely though.. isn't it. But hey, there's always a first time!

[Methais]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/ScLoEjh_t0I/AAAAAAAAIT8/ZyRS1maGAQk/s320/OBAMA+IS+A+LYING+SACK+OF+SHIT.PNG

[Clove]

We weren't making predictions in this thread.. most of us were simply using common sense... something you clearly lack as illustrated by most of your posts in this topic.Actually I was saying that there isn't really any reason to discourage people from boycotting BP. You apparently believe that we ought to contribute to their profits as much as possible because then we'll be able to make them pay for the damage they've caused and it won't cost the taxpayers anything. Given history that's a childish fantasy if you ask me. BP will do everything in its power with its profits to pay as little as possible as late as possible. That's common sense. BP will use every dollar of its profits to avoid as much responsibility as it can and you think it's a good idea to feed them. Yup, you're all about common sense, undeniably.

I will say that if this escrow account actually flies it will be a remarkable first and send a strong message to business. I'll believe it when the 20 billion is in the fund, out of BP's control and actually disbursed, however.

[Warriorbird]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/ScLoEjh_t0I/AAAAAAAAIT8/ZyRS1maGAQk/s320/OBAMA+IS+A+LYING+SACK+OF+SHIT.PNG

Go on. Don't blame BP more.

[Methais]

Go on. Don't blame BP more.

How does me thinking that Obama is a dumb fuck and full of shit about everything = me not blaming BP?

PROTIP: You can think Obama is stupid AND still hold BP responsible for the oil spill. The cleanup is a different story though.

[Warriorbird]

So... the federal government is incredibad and should stay out of business situations unless business has made the biggest oilspill ever. Then they should clean it up for them?

Man, that tort reform has your head in crazy places. Sounds pretty pro bailout to me.

[Methais]

So... the federal government is incredibad and should stay out of business situations unless business has made the biggest oilspill ever. Then they should clean it up for them?

Man, that tort reform has your head in crazy places. Sounds pretty pro bailout to me.

No, but they could at least stay the fuck out of the way so people who know what they're doing can get it cleaned up, don't you agree? Or are you cool with things like telling other countries "no thanks" when they offer to help, or the Coast Guard shutting down Bobby Jindal's cleanup boats for a day or two that he sent out after getting tired of waiting for Obama to stop golfing, for example?

[CrystalTears]

So... the federal government is incredibad and should stay out of business situations unless business has made the biggest oilspill ever. Then they should clean it up for them?

Man, that tort reform has your head in crazy places. Sounds pretty pro bailout to me.
Do you even read thread posts anymore?

Even though some of us have been disagreeing on how the cleanup should pay for it, no one feels that the government should completely bear the burden of this problem. Nearly everyone feels that BP should cleanup their own mess.

[Warriorbird]

No, but they could at least stay the fuck out of the way so people who know what they're doing can get it cleaned up, don't you agree? Or are you cool with things like telling other countries "no thanks" when they offer to help, or the Coast Guard shutting down Bobby Jindal's cleanup boats for a day or two that he sent out after getting tired of waiting for Obama to stop golfing, for example?
-Methais

..and while your rage at Obama continues you still don't seem to mind that BP's capped out at $75 mil to pay for this. Love that tort reform now! I feel bad for LA.

Jindal's bit was political stunting. Least he could do after fellating big oil as hard as he has.

[Warriorbird]

Do you even read thread posts anymore?

Even though some of us have been disagreeing on how the cleanup should pay for it, no one feels that the government should completely bear the burden of this problem. Nearly everyone feels that BP should cleanup their own mess.

Where's the posting about that? I sure see a lot of BLAME OBAMA!

[AnticorRifling]

Obama is acting like a douche bag != blame Obama. No matter how much you will it to be.

[CrystalTears]

You'll have to point out which post is specifically blaming Obama for the oil spill.

[Warriorbird]

Well then. Show me some non queued posts saying anything bad about BP. Compare the totals to Obama complaints.

[Methais]

..and while your rage at Obama continues you still don't seem to mind that BP's capped out at $75 mil to pay for this. Love that tort reform now! I feel bad for LA.

Please quote where I said I didn't mind BP being capped at $75m. You can't, because I didn't, because I think they should have the pay for 100% of the cleanup.

Seriously, where do you come up with this shit? Do you just pull X talking point out of a hat, pull Y poster's name that doesn't like Obama out of another hat, and combine them into one big post of fail?


Jindal's bit was political stunting. Least he could do after fellating big oil as hard as he has.

Yeah...

Jindal: Ok guys, let's get these boats out and start cleaning up.
Feds: You can't do that sir, because of XYZ, you'll have to wait for it to be processed and approved.
Jindal: WTF?

later...

Jindal: Hey guys, how's that approval coming along?
Feds: LOLWUT?

later...

Jindal: Fuck this, send out the boats.
Coast Guard: Guys stop! We have to make sure you have lifejackets aboard, the oil can wait!!!!! It'll only take a day or two!
Jindal: /facepalm

Speaking of political stunts, do you also believe that Obama isn't politicizing this crisis (that clearly shouldn't be wasted) too?

[CrystalTears]

Well then. Show me some non queued posts saying anything bad about BP. Compare the totals to Obama complaints.
No no. You said people were blaming Obama for the oil spill. I asked you to back that up. If you can't, then fine, but don't backpeddle by saying that people complaining about Obama is the same thing. Find the posts of people saying that the oil spill was being blamed on Obama and I'll concede.

[AnticorRifling]

CT you've got to add them up and compare the totals duh! Clearly if they aren't bitched about 1 for 1 then one of them is right and in no way wrong....wut

[CrystalTears]

CT you've got to add them up and compare the totals duh! Clearly if they aren't bitched about 1 for 1 then one of them is right and in no way wrong....wut
Is this where you tell me that bitches are meant to be seen and not heard again? :tongue:

[Parkbandit]

Where's the posting about that? I sure see a lot of BLAME OBAMA!


Who is blaming the Obama administration? I'm sure not. It was happening with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc... It's a government problem, not really only Obama's. In fact, I think there's a post of me saying to blame Obama for this is as dumb as people like you blaming Bush on Katrina.


http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/117000/117416_76837_Unsuccessful.jpg

You make this too easy... it's almost not even entertaining at this point.

Almost...

[Warriorbird]

Yeah...

Jindal: Ok guys, let's get these boats out and start cleaning up.
Feds: You can't do that sir, because of XYZ, you'll have to wait for it to be processed and approved.
Jindal: WTF?

later...

Jindal: Hey guys, how's that approval coming along?
Feds: LOLWUT?

later...

Jindal: Fuck this, send out the boats.
Coast Guard: Guys stop! We have to make sure you have lifejackets aboard, the oil can wait!!!!! It'll only take a day or two!
Jindal: /facepalm

Speaking of political stunts, do you also believe that Obama isn't politicizing this crisis (that clearly shouldn't be wasted) too?

-Methais


BP and the Coast Guard handled explosion evac.

Dispersants were first used by the Coast Guard on the 22th, 2 days after the explosion and on the day of the sinking.

Containment booms are first authorized by Jindal on the 29, 7 days after the sinking. They're put on the shore.

"Containment dome" from BP.

Shenanigans.

'Oh shit it's bigger'

Tony Hayward calls the oil spill "relatively tiny" in comparison with the size of the "ocean."

More shenanigans.

Burn off.

Top Kill fails.

Jindal asks Obama to end the deep water drilling moratorium.

A whole bunch of other shit happens.

2 months later.... after a whole slew of failed BP cleanup stuff and a bunch of dispersants from the Coast Guard and BP

Jindal complains about the cleanup speed. Vacumn boats had been delayed 2 weeks.

...and this is the bit that strikes home for you.

[Methais]

BP and the Coast Guard handled explosion evac.

Dispersants were first used by the Coast Guard on the 22th, 2 days after the explosion and on the day of the sinking.

Containment booms are first authorized by Jindal on the 29, 7 days after the sinking. They're put on the shore.

"Containment dome" from BP.

Shenanigans.

'Oh shit it's bigger'

Tony Hayward calls the oil spill "relatively tiny" in comparison with the size of the "ocean."

More shenanigans.

Burn off.

Top Kill fails.

Jindal asks Obama to end the deep water drilling moratorium.

A whole bunch of other shit happens.

2 months later.... after a whole slew of failed BP cleanup stuff and a bunch of dispersants from the Coast Guard and BP

Jindal complains about the cleanup speed. Vacumn boats had been delayed 2 weeks.

...and this is the bit that strikes home for you.

BP are a bunch of fuckups. The federal government are a bunch of fuckups.

What part are you confused about?

[Warriorbird]

Nice to hear BP actually mentioned for once.

[Methais]

Nice to hear BP actually mentioned for once.

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh253/Lenka_falconer/2ba100.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Nice to hear BP actually mentioned for once.
Are you mental? "For once"? It's been said during the whole thread that BP needs to cleanup their mess. In fact the argument has been whether we should HELP BP with their profits so that they continue to pay. Is it because we didn't say the black oil spill that you didn't pick up on it or something?

[Parkbandit]

Are you mental? "For once"? It's been said during the whole thread that BP needs to cleanup their mess. In fact the argument has been whether we should HELP BP with their profits so that they continue to pay. Is it because we didn't say the black oil spill that you didn't pick up on it or something?

Racist.

[CrystalTears]

Racist.
Heh, well WB is the one who likes to play the race card so I was just making him happy.

[Back]

What exactly is the major argument against it being played out right now? That the Government, who's responsible for regulating the drilling platform didn't do it's job and keep on top of the inspections they were supposed to conduct?

Yea....

This is where you start to imply blame on the government which happens to be the Obama administration at this point in time.


Where have I said that I'm against all government regulation? If you could go ahead and quote that post, it would be fantastic. Once you find that post, how about I send you a nice 12 pack of Coors Light so you can drown out how depressing your life really is! I tell you what, if I had to live your life, I would definitely want to be shitface drunk too.. so you are just a victim!

Stick with reality.. your hyperbole only feeds Daniel into thinking he's not as dumb as everyone else knows he is.

I never said that you were against all government regulation. I just pointed out that you, a huge “small government” proponent, started pointing towards government regulation for being at some kind of fault in the situation in the post above. Then you flipped out as if I had insulted your mother.


Who is blaming the Obama administration? I'm sure not. It was happening with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc... It's a government problem, not really only Obama's. In fact, I think there's a post of me saying to blame Obama for this is as dumb as people like you blaming Bush on Katrina.

And where exactly have I back "peddaled"? You are either delusional or just plain stupid. Given your history here... I think it's more the latter.

You act like you have some huge Earth shattering revelation when in fact you are creating a false impression of reality in the first place. Trying to blame Obama for this or trying to blame Bush for Katrina are equally idiotic as any moron could tell you. But thats the end of the comparison.

You will not find a post of me blaming Bush for Katrina like you claim I have done. In fact, everything you have posted is just false.

I have made no claim that you blame Obama. I have pointed out where you started to blame the current government. I have never claimed that Katrina is Bush’s fault.

You sir are a donkey. A silly and ridiculous backwards one at that.

Now, please do carry on talking about 12 packs and cigarettes and anything else you can possibly dredge up from the past 8 years that you think will offend me.

[Warriorbird]

Are you mental? "For once"? It's been said during the whole thread that BP needs to cleanup their mess. In fact the argument has been whether we should HELP BP with their profits so that they continue to pay. Is it because we didn't say the black oil spill that you didn't pick up on it or something?

It didn't hit my reading list actually. Amidst a haze of research I think I thought I'd already read a Gulf Spill address discussion.

Entertainment for the hour achieved. You've slightly restored my faith in humanity.

[Methais]

Now, please do carry on talking about 12 packs and cigarettes and anything else you can possibly dredge up from the past 8 years that you think will offend me.

At least he was kind enough to not mention the scarf. :)

[Gan]

Or the dumpster woman.

Or the tiny penis.

Or Beth.

[Parkbandit]

It didn't hit my reading list actually. Amidst a haze of research I think I thought I'd already read a Gulf Spill address discussion.

Entertainment for the hour achieved. You've slightly restored my faith in humanity.

How did I know the ol' "I wuz just entertaining myself.. I didn't really mean the shit I posted" excuse would rear it's ugly head.

[Warriorbird]

Nah. Lazy is a different variant than just fucking with you.

[Latrinsorm]

How does me thinking that Obama is a dumb fuck and full of shit about everything = me not blaming BP?Um, backpedal much? Your picture clearly says EITHER OR.

[Parkbandit]

Nah. Lazy is a different variant than just fucking with you.

Well, you've never cared about looking like a complete dipshit.. I guess this is no different.

[Clove]

Um, backpedal much? Your picture clearly says EITHER OR.Did you just call Methais on a conjunction?!

[Anebriated]

Or the dumpster woman.

Or Beth.

no need to be redundant.

[Methais]

Um, backpedal much? Your picture clearly says EITHER OR.

WUT? My picture says NO ILLEGALS ----> NO BURRITOS...

[Clove]

WUT? My picture says NO ILLEGALS ----> NO BURRITOS...He meant this picture.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_of9ue2vob2g/ScLoEjh_t0I/AAAAAAAAIT8/ZyRS1maGAQk/s320/OBAMA+IS+A+LYING+SACK+OF+SHIT.PNG

You said "and" and the picture says "or"

(Official Latrinese translator)

[Warriorbird]

Well, you've never cared about looking like a complete dipshit.. I guess this is no different.

Sort of entertaining coming from you.

Thanks!

[Latrinsorm]

Did you just call Methais on a conjunction?!:)

[Gan]

http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/mm831schoolhouse_rock_conjunction_junction_posters .jpg

[ClydeR]

Looks like BP retailers have decided to highlight the boycott issue.


BP owns just a fraction of the more than 11,000 stations across the U.S. that sell its fuel under the BP, Amoco and ARCO banners. Most are owned by local businessmen whose primary connection to the oil company is the logo and a contract to buy gasoline.

In recent weeks, some station owners from Georgia to Illinois say sales have declined as much as 10 percent to 40 percent.

Station owners and BP gas distributors told BP officials last week they need a break on the cost of the gas they buy, and they want help paying for more advertising aimed at motorists, according to John Kleine, executive director of the independent BP Amoco Marketers Association. The station owners, who earn more from sales of soda and snacks than on gasoline, also want more frequent meetings with BP officials.

More... (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hq_1MDOSYshmo7VJqSGK93jaSiRQD9GJQLQO0)

[Clove]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10731408


BP accused of 'buying academic silence'
By Robyn Bresnahan BBC News

The head of the American Association of Professors has accused BP of trying to "buy" the best scientists and academics to help its defence against litigation after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"This is really one huge corporation trying to buy faculty silence in a comprehensive way," said Cary Nelson.

BP faces more than 300 lawsuits so far.

In a statement, BP says it has hired more than a dozen national and local scientists "with expertise in the resources of the Gulf of Mexico".

The BBC has obtained a copy of a contract offered to scientists by BP. It says that scientists cannot publish the research they do for BP or speak about the data for at least three years, or until the government gives the final approval to the company's restoration plan for the whole of the Gulf.

It also states scientists may perform research for other agencies as long as it does not conflict with the work they are doing for BP.

And it adds that scientists must take instructions from lawyers offering the contracts and other in-house counsel at BP.

Bob Shipp, the head of marine sciences at the University of South Alabama, was one of the scientists approached by BP's lawyers.

They didn't just want him, they wanted his whole department.

"They contacted me and said we would like to have your department interact to develop the best restoration plan possible after this oil spill," he said.
Advertisement

Russ Lea from the University of South Alabama: Some clauses in the contract "were very disturbing".

"We laid the ground rules - that any research we did, we would have to take total control of the data, transparency and the freedom to make those data available to other scientists and subject to peer review. They left and we never heard back from them."

What Mr Nelson is concerned about is BP's control over scientific research.

"Our ability to evaluate the disaster and write public policy and make decisions about it as a country can be impacted by the silence of the research scientists who are looking at conditions," he said.

"It's hugely destructive. I mean at some level, this is really BP versus the people of the United States."

In its statement, BP says it "does not place restrictions on academics speaking about scientific data".


But New Orleans environmental lawyer Joel Waltzer looked over the contract and said BP's statement did not match up.

"They're the ones who control the process. They're depriving the public of the data and the transparency that we all deserve."

But some scientists who have been approached by lawyers acting on behalf of BP are willing to sign up.

Irv Mendelssohn is a professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University.

"What I'm doing wouldn't be any different than if I was consulting with one of the natural resource trustees. I am giving my objective opinion about recovery."

Some scientists approached by BP lawyers have been offered as much as $250 an hour.

Prof Mendelssohn says he would negotiate his normal consulting fee, which is between $150 and $300 an hour. But he says that is not why he is doing it.

"Good scientists, they're going to be giving their opinions based on the facts and they are not going to bias their opinions. What's most important is credibility."

But Cary Nelson is concerned about the relationship between corporations and academia.

"There is a problem for a faculty member who becomes closely associated with a corporation with such powerful financial interests.

"My advice would be: think twice before you sign a contract with a corporation that has such powerful economic interests at stake."
And BP's games to minimize their liability begin. This is what BP profits are spent on.

[Rocktar]

..and while your rage at Obama continues you still don't seem to mind that BP's capped out at $75 mil to pay for this. Love that tort reform now! I feel bad for LA.

Jindal's bit was political stunting. Least he could do after fellating big oil as hard as he has.

So mush headed idiot, where is this 75 mil figure coming from? Specifically, not your usual answer that includes removal from your anal orifice or pulled from thin air.

[Clove]

So mush headed idiot, where is this 75 mil figure coming from? Specifically, not your usual answer that includes removal from your anal orifice or pulled from thin air.And you can't fool Capt. Lunn. He's an expert on inserting and removing things from anal orifices.

[Rocktar]

And you can't fool Capt. Lunn. He's an expert on inserting and removing things from anal orifices.

You didn't tell me your mother tattled.

[Parkbandit]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10731408

And BP's games to minimize their liability begin. This is what BP profits are spent on.

What company doesn't try to minimize their liability? And it's not profit, since they are spending it.

[Celephais]

What company doesn't try to minimize their liability?

Did Clove say that they shouldn't be doing it? Or did he point out a fact? That fact is correct, right?


And it's not profit, since they are spending it.
If I melt ice, it's no longer ice, but it was when I started melting it. I don't say "I'm going to melt some water".

[Clove]

What company doesn't try to minimize their liability?Did I sound surprised? They will use their assets to avoid paying as much as possible for the cleanup and damage and they will use their assets to delay whatever payment they are made liable for, for as long as possible. Meanwhile, how much do you want to bet that their two refineries that racked up so many egregious OSHA violations are still unaddressed and still operating?

And it's not profit, since they are spending it.Is that the best criticism you can come up with? Do you really think I don't know the definition of a profit and an expense? This is where the dollars you spend on BP products go. Feel better?

[Clove]

You didn't tell me your mother tattled.Sorry my mom only does RT Gor RP. She says the VT guys aren't hardcore enough.

[Parkbandit]

Did Clove say that they shouldn't be doing it? Or did he point out a fact? That fact is correct, right?

Read his quote again. Do you know what the term "game" is in that context? I'll give you a clue: He wasn't talking about "Chutes and Ladders". I'm sure you will need more clues though.. so feel free to send me a PM and I'll explain it to you.



If I melt ice, it's no longer ice, but it was when I started melting it. I don't say "I'm going to melt some water".

If you don't know what the term "profit" is, just ask. I'll help you out. It doesn't mean frozen water though.

[Parkbandit]

Did I sound surprised?

No.. you sounded completely ignorant on how businesses run.


They will use their assets to avoid paying as much as possible for the cleanup and damage and they will use their assets to delay whatever payment they are made liable for, for as long as possible.


Again.. pretty much SOP for any company in their position.


Meanwhile, how much do you want to bet that their two refineries that racked up so many egregious OSHA violations are still unaddressed and still operating?

Who's fault is that? If our government told them they have x days to fix whatever violation you believe occurred.. and they are still operating beyond that time period.. don't you think the onus is on OSHA at this point?



Is that the best criticism you can come up with? Do you really think I don't know the definition of a profit and an expense? This is where the dollars you spend on BP products go. Feel better?

To be honest, I have no idea what you know or don't know. I think we can both agree that the term "profit" was used erroneously.

[Clove]

No.. you sounded completely ignorant on how businesses run.

Again.. pretty much SOP for any company in their position.How can observing a fact indicate ignorance? I -am- pointing out evidence that BP (just as Exxon before it) will not pay for the cost of their mess, regardless of how much money they make or how much longer they stay in business.


Who's fault is that? If our government told them they have x days to fix whatever violation you believe occurred.. and they are still operating beyond that time period.. don't you think the onus is on OSHA at this point?Oh certainly the government has failed to stop them. However, if BP hasn't fixed their violations it certainly is evidence that they aren't interested in changing their policies and taking on the expenses necessary to operate safely in the future; unless someone holds a gun to their head.


To be honest...You're just interested in trolling.

[Celephais]

Read his quote again. Do you know what the term "game" is in that context? I'll give you a clue: He wasn't talking about "Chutes and Ladders". I'm sure you will need more clues though.. so feel free to send me a PM and I'll explain it to you.
I didn't say he wasn't saying they were gaming the system, you said everybody does it, he didn't say they were the only ones to do it. He's just pointing it out, nothing wrong with that.


If you don't know what the term "profit" is, just ask. I'll help you out. It doesn't mean frozen water though.

The analogy went over your head then? It's profit before they spend it, once it's spent, it's no longer profit. Ice is ice before you melt it, but once it's melted it's no longer ice. Seems pretty strait forward to me. You can spend profit, the same way you can melt ice.

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to not know what profit is, but I don't see why you would intentionally dilute a point you claim has substance, unless your original point didn't have substance.

[Cephalopod]

Companies 'buying' scientists... where have I heard this before...

[Clove]

Certainly not the last time you'll hear about it. What's disturbing is that they aren't simply trying to retain a staff of experts, they're attempting to purchase entire scholastic departments effectively removing their expertise on the subject from peer review and public domain.

[Parkbandit]

The analogy went over your head then? It's profit before they spend it, once it's spent, it's no longer profit. Ice is ice before you melt it, but once it's melted it's no longer ice. Seems pretty strait forward to me. You can spend profit, the same way you can melt ice.

I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to not know what profit is, but I don't see why you would intentionally dilute a point you claim has substance, unless your original point didn't have substance.

I didn't think so either, yet that's 2 for 2 posts where you've used the term "profit" incorrectly.

At least Clove admitted he misspoke and amended his post. You continue to make the claim that you can spend profits, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Profit is defined as the positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. Key word is "after".

[Keller]

Certainly not the last time you'll hear about it. What's disturbing is that they aren't simply trying to retain a staff of experts, they're attempting to purchase entire scholastic departments effectively removing their expertise on the subject from peer review and public domain.

And being expert witnesses?

[Keller]

I didn't think so either, yet that's 2 for 2 posts where you've used the term "profit" incorrectly.

At least Clove admitted he misspoke and amended his post. You continue to make the claim that you can spend profits, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Profit is defined as the positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. Key word is "after".

You can aboslutely spend profit.

[Clove]

You can aboslutely spend profit.You know it. I know it. Even yellow dog knows it.

[Clove]

At least Clove admitted he misspoke and amended his post. You continue to make the claim that you can spend profits, which is fundamentally incorrect.

Profit is defined as the positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. Key word is "after".You can spend profit. Hint: A business doesn't always pay expenses with current revenue or leverage. Really PB, this is like when you tried to explain to me that it was legal to write-off time as a charitable expense.

[Parkbandit]

You can spend profit. Hint: A business doesn't always pay expenses with current revenue or leverage. Really PB, this is like when you tried to explain to me that it was legal to write-off time as a charitable expense.

I thought it was more like when you tried to explain that getting right back into the market after the crash was a great idea.

Or even.. when you thought boycotting BP was a brilliant idea. That entertainment is in this very thread..

[Clove]

I thought it was more like when you tried to explain that getting right back into the market after the crash was a great idea.

Or even.. when you thought boycotting BP was a brilliant idea. That entertainment is in this very thread..Out of points so soon?

[Rocktar]

Sorry my mom only does RT Gor RP. She says the VT guys aren't hardcore enough.

So you admit that she told you she likes it in the ass. Good, the truth will set you free. Glad you passed up the references I made to real life experience, it just keeps you being consistent with the rest of your posting here. Ignore whatever doesn't suit you and tap dance around your own failed attempts at humor and logic when they are pointed out.

[Rocktar]

Out of points so soon?

If you can't refute even one, then why bother with more?

[Keller]

If you can't refute even one, then why bother with more?

Why are you such a PB fanboy when even he has called you the Backlash of the PC-conservatives.

Are his nuts that comfortable that you feel the need to have your chin permanantly reside on them?

[Clove]

If you can't refute even one, then why bother with more?I get it. Not only are you unable to distinguish between opportunity cost and time-value of currency, and have a seriously flawed undestanding of supply/demand, but you also believe you can't spend profit. How many lactating monkey's tongues did you have to shoot off before you came to that conclusion?

[Parkbandit]

Out of points so soon?

Simply following your lead..


Really PB, this is like when you tried to explain to me that it was legal to write-off time as a charitable expense.

[Parkbandit]

Why are you such a PB fanboy when even he has called you the Backlash of the PC-conservatives.

Are his nuts that comfortable that you feel the need to have your chin permanantly reside on them?

I have far more respect for Rocktar than I ever had for you. He's more mature, more intelligent and as far as I know.. less gay. He doesn't spend his days begging for a man's attention in every political thread. I doubt he fantasizes about a man's nuts on his chin either.

[Warriorbird]

I have far more respect for Rocktar than I ever had for you. He's more mature, more intelligent and as far as I know.. less gay. He doesn't spend his days begging for a man's attention in every political thread. I doubt he fantasizes about a man's nuts on his chin either.

PB = into bears. The Walmart job and the secret accountant gig on the side just liven it up.

[Clove]

Simply following your lead..Were you really?



No.. you sounded completely ignorant on how businesses run.

Again.. pretty much SOP for any company in their position.How can observing a fact indicate ignorance? I -am- pointing out evidence that BP (just as Exxon before it) will not pay for the cost of their mess, regardless of how much money they make or how much longer they stay in business.


Who's fault is that? If our government told them they have x days to fix whatever violation you believe occurred.. and they are still operating beyond that time period.. don't you think the onus is on OSHA at this point?Oh certainly the government has failed to stop them. However, if BP hasn't fixed their violations it certainly is evidence that they aren't interested in changing their policies and taking on the expenses necessary to operate safely in the future; unless someone holds a gun to their head.


To be honest...You're just interested in trolling.Yet you elected not to follow my lead when I addressed your criticisms with points of my own.

Again. You're only interested in trolling. Out of the gate your comments weren't points at all only: "So? Everyone does that," I can assure you BP is already taking extraordinary measures to avoid responsibility and "LOLZERS you can't spend profit!!1!!" which is laughably ignorant.

BTW you never thanked me for pointing out your tax-filing error and saving you potential interest for past-due taxes. It's okay though, I know you appreciated it.

[Clove]

He doesn't spend his days begging for a man's attention in every political thread. I doubt he fantasizes about a man's nuts on his chin either.LMAO! No, he spends his nights begging for men's attention on a Gor-style BDSM board!

[CrystalTears]

I have far more respect for Rocktar than I ever had for you. He's a Republican.I fixed that for you, because Rocktar is neither intelligent nor mature.

[Parkbandit]

Were you really?

Yet you elected not to follow my lead when I addressed your criticisms with points of my own.

Again. You're only interested in trolling. Out of the gate your comments weren't points at all only: "So? Everyone does that," I can assure you BP is already taking extraordinary measures to avoid responsibility and "LOLZERS you can't spend profit!!1!!" which is laughably ignorant.

BTW you never thanked me for pointing out your tax-filing error and saving you potential interest for past-due taxes. It's okay though, I know you appreciated it.

Your only real point was that you misspoke about the term profit.

BTW you never thanked me for telling you that you were wrong about investing in the stock market after the crash. Oh wait.. you probably don't invest.. you just like giving shitty advice and pretending that is your job.

[Parkbandit]

I fixed that for you, because Rocktar is neither intelligent nor mature.

I was wondering when you would get in this.

It took you a whole 4 hours...

[Keller]

I have far more respect for Rocktar than I ever had for you. He's more mature, more intelligent and as far as I know.. less gay. He doesn't spend his days begging for a man's attention in every political thread. I doubt he fantasizes about a man's nuts on his chin either.

I see, because you don't like the fact that I called you an absentee father, I can't respond to your bullshit posts without you fantasizing about me wanting my chin on your nuts?

Interesting argument.

[CrystalTears]

I was wondering when you would get in this.

It took you a whole 4 hours...
I haven't been spending a lot of time on the PC lately, so I'm not sure what your comment is supposed to mean.

Unless you're talking about how long it took me to come to Keller's defense, or to bash Rocktar?

[Back]

Why are you such a PB fanboy when even he has called you the Backlash of the PC-conservatives.

Hey now... in order to be comparable he would have to be handsome, lovable, stylish, hilarious, witty and just plain right. Sounds like just the opposite IMHO. Just sayin. :)

[Clove]

Your only real point was that you misspoke about the term profit.

BTW you never thanked me for telling you that you were wrong about investing in the stock market after the crash. Oh wait.. you probably don't invest.. you just like giving shitty advice and pretending that is your job.Actually I didn't misspeak the term profit. BP can spend its profits. You're still demonstrating a childish understanding of business, finance and economic terms (careful Rocktar might be rubbing off on you). Since you were being your typical ridiculous self and because I can't know exactly how BP allocates its resources I generalized my statement further.

Since you never provided any specific warnings you didn't necessarily spare me anything (my investments are fine, though, thanks for the concern). On the other hand, it is certain that you intended to claim illegitimate deductions, which I warned you away from. You're welcome.

I noticed you still don't have any interest in discussing points. I gave you two opportunities to "follow my lead".

[Clove]

Hey now... in order to be comparable he would have to be handsome, lovable, stylish, hilarious, witty and just plain right. Sounds like just the opposite IMHO. Just sayin. :)
I don't know about that "women" approached Rocktar online to be his lactating hypno heated slut beasts. In your case they just come here to make fun of your wee-wee.

[Warriorbird]

In Back's defense... he seems to have met more documentable women online for sex.

[Clove]

In Back's defense... he seems to have met more documentable women online for sex.That's why I put "women" in quotes. I agree. At least actual women make fun of Back :)

[Parkbandit]

I see, because you don't like the fact that I called you an absentee father, I can't respond to your bullshit posts without you fantasizing about me wanting my chin on your nuts?

Interesting argument.

You use the term fact... which is hilarious given that you know absolutely zero about my personal life with my family. I can tell you that I spend far more with my children than you ever will with your "wife's" kid. Hopefully, you won't be like your father was... as you have demonstrated how damaging that is to the proper development of a child. It's too late for you.. don't repeat the cycle.

The only fact here is that you lack something in your miserable life that you somehow believe you will get by gaining my favor and attention. Maybe you need a father figure in your life... maybe something more "alternative".... Unfortunately for you, I've already made it crystal clear that your advances are unwelcome.

[Keller]

You use the term fact... which is hilarious given that you know absolutely zero about my personal life with my family. I can tell you that I spend far more with my children than you ever will with your "wife's" kid. Hopefully, you won't be like your father was... as you have demonstrated how damaging that is to the proper development of a child. It's too late for you.. don't repeat the cycle.

The only fact here is that you lack something in your miserable life that you somehow believe you will get by gaining my favor and attention. Maybe you need a father figure in your life... maybe something more "alternative".... Unfortunately for you, I've already made it crystal clear that your advances are unwelcome.

Do you feel better now? Did you get all that rage out?

:)

[Parkbandit]

Do you feel better now? Did you get all that rage out?

:)

Did you get all the attention you needed from me yet?

:)

[Keller]

Did you get all the attention you needed from me yet?

:)

Are you asking if I adequately responded to your unprovoked response to my comment to Rocktar?

I did.

[Parkbandit]

Are you asking if I adequately responded to your unprovoked response to my comment to Rocktar?

I did.

Aw.. now you are a victim?

Call your Daddy up.. ask for a hug.

If you want to play a more believable victim.. you might start by leaving me out of your comments to Rocktar.

Another thing your Daddy never got around to teaching you.

:)

Edited to add the :) because that makes it AOK.

[Back]

I don't know about that "women" approached Rocktar online to be his lactating hypno heated slut beasts. In your case they just come here to make fun of your wee-wee.

What you claim never happened. You don’t realize this because you weren’t even a member of this community when it all happened years ago which makes you a Johnny come lately wanna-be. But, whatev. Keep on being a clueless asshat trying to score cool points with my hate club.

[CrystalTears]

What you claim never happened. You don’t realize this because you weren’t even a member of this community when it all happened years ago which makes you a Johnny come lately wanna-be. But, whatev. Keep on being a clueless asshat trying to score cool points with my hate club.
Because Beth only spoke to PC members? And not possibly, oh, the entire GS population?

[Warriorbird]

Aw.. now you are a victim?

Call your Daddy up.. ask for a hug.

If you want to play a more believable victim.. you might start by leaving me out of your comments to Rocktar.

Another thing your Daddy never got around to teaching you.

:)

Edited to add the :) because that makes it AOK.

The sheer number of times "Daddy" was included in this post is hilarious.

[Clove]

What you claim never happened. You don’t realize this because you weren’t even a member of this community when it all happened years ago which makes you a Johnny come lately wanna-be. But, whatev. Keep on being a clueless asshat trying to score cool points with my hate club.I don't think you mean, what you think you mean Backlash. BTW I played GS with Beth... she wasn't shall we say... discrete? Face it, you're infamous buddy.

[Back]

Because Beth only spoke to PC members? And not possibly, oh, the entire GS population?

Thats not what I am saying and I wasn’t talking to you anyway. You wont find any post of hers here on the PC about it. You and I both know that but Clove makes it his business to drop that untruth whenever he possibly can when he wasn’t even a party to the shennanigans that happened YEARS ago before he even started posting.

[Clove]

Beth talked about your wee wee-wee. You can't unring a bell.

[CrystalTears]

Thats not what I am saying and I wasn’t talking to you anyway. You wont find any post of hers here on the PC about it. You and I both know that but Clove makes it his business to drop that untruth whenever he possibly can when he wasn’t even a party to the shennanigans that happened YEARS ago before he even started posting.
And what I'm saying is that your pee-pee story is not solely contained in the PC. She spoke to people outside of the PC, namely people she was friendly with in GS and told people that she screwed a guy with a little dick. It was only a matter of time until people found out who she was talking about.

I don't even know why you even respond to people regarding that little small problem anyway.

[Back]

Only because that happened a full two years or more before Clove even registered here. Just pointing out how ridiculous he and the whole thing is.

[CrystalTears]

So unless you were "registered" during the time that you barely were able to get past her lips, you're not allowed to joke about it? Good luck with that.

[Celephais]

Can I joke about it? Do I make the cut?

Hey! Look at that, I just passed my 5 year PCaversary!