Obama demands/gets $20Billion + public apology from BP

[CrusaderFrank]

for the record, the incident was caused by an explosion which as an accident. So, do whatever you want with that info.

While in surgery, a major blood vessel ruptures in the patient. The surgeon looks at it, and walks away from the situation because he didn't know how to deal with it wasn't his fault it happened. He had no plan for foreseeable disasters, and let's the patient die.

Guess who gets sued for negligence.

Because Dr. Obama sez so...gotcha

 

[ConHog]

You are caught speeding and receive a ticket. You call in to find out how much it is and they tell you $75, but a few weeks later they tell you , oh no we changed our minds we demand that you pay $25 MILLION . How happy would you be then?

That would seem inappropriate for the amount of harm done. However in this case, the penalty appears appropriate, so I don't quite see the analogy.

see, they just don't get it, if it costs $100B I fully agree that BP should pay for ALL of it. But you can't set a rule and then just change it on a whim and demand that someone adhere to your demands just because you got mad.

I agree that rules shouldn't be changed at will, but it looks like sangha has you beat, as it was clearly shown that the established cap does not apply to negligence.

I remember hearing that the dude who was overseeing their disaster plan was dead for the last half decade. I mean, a quick google search shows entire articles written on why their disaster planning was just crap. At what point do you acknowledge that completely botching a disaster plan is negligent? I think it applies. I think BP knows it applies, else they would be fighting it.

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there, and if some of the bullshit that we here was going down went down, I would think MMS is just as responsible as BP

As far as disaster plan, I think BP could make a pretty damned good argument that there disaster plan was every bit as good as the governments. Equal liability there?

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

 

[txlonghorn]

This may very well drive BP out of buisness. People just do not understand the sheer significane this $20 billion debt + $100 million / lack of dividends could do to this company. If they go under, the average joe is paying the bill.

Yep...I hope everyone enjoyed the 2.50 gas we've been seeing of late...it's about to go up.... WAY UP.

But wasn't that what they wanted all along? Now, they have a scapegoat. Never waste a crisis...

 

[ConHog]

This may very well drive BP out of buisness. People just do not understand the sheer significane this $20 billion debt + $100 million / lack of dividends could do to this company. If they go under, the average joe is paying the bill.

Yep...I hope everyone enjoyed the 2.50 gas we've been seeing of late...it's about to go up.... WAY UP.

But wasn't that what they wanted all along? Now, they have a scapegoat. Never waste a crisis...

Who gives a shit about people who can't afford $8/gal gasoline

- Ravi

 

[txlonghorn]

You are caught speeding and receive a ticket. You call in to find out how much it is and they tell you $75, but a few weeks later they tell you , oh no we changed our minds we demand that you pay $25 MILLION . How happy would you be then?

That would seem inappropriate for the amount of harm done. However in this case, the penalty appears appropriate, so I don't quite see the analogy.

see, they just don't get it, if it costs $100B I fully agree that BP should pay for ALL of it. But you can't set a rule and then just change it on a whim and demand that someone adhere to your demands just because you got mad.

I agree that rules shouldn't be changed at will, but it looks like sangha has you beat, as it was clearly shown that the established cap does not apply to negligence.

I remember hearing that the dude who was overseeing their disaster plan was dead for the last half decade. I mean, a quick google search shows entire articles written on why their disaster planning was just crap. At what point do you acknowledge that completely botching a disaster plan is negligent? I think it applies. I think BP knows it applies, else they would be fighting it.

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there, and if some of the bullshit that we here was going down went down, I would think MMS is just as responsible as BP

As far as disaster plan, I think BP could make a pretty damned good argument that there disaster plan was every bit as good as the governments. Equal liability there?

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

it's his idea of being "presidential"

 

[ConHog]

That would seem inappropriate for the amount of harm done. However in this case, the penalty appears appropriate, so I don't quite see the analogy.


I agree that rules shouldn't be changed at will, but it looks like sangha has you beat, as it was clearly shown that the established cap does not apply to negligence.

I remember hearing that the dude who was overseeing their disaster plan was dead for the last half decade. I mean, a quick google search shows entire articles written on why their disaster planning was just crap. At what point do you acknowledge that completely botching a disaster plan is negligent? I think it applies. I think BP knows it applies, else they would be fighting it.

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there, and if some of the bullshit that we here was going down went down, I would think MMS is just as responsible as BP

As far as disaster plan, I think BP could make a pretty damned good argument that there disaster plan was every bit as good as the governments. Equal liability there?

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

it's his idea of being "presidential"

I suppose it is

 

[sangha]

So...I made this up????

Oil Pollution Act Overview | Emergency Management | US EPA

You're a dumb ass. And there is NO debating that fact.

Learn to read, dumbass

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc33.wais&sta rt=4683182&SIZE=13816&TYPE=TEXT

So you ruled that there was gross negligence?

So you ruled that there wasn't?

 

[ConHog]

Learn to read, dumbass



So you ruled that there was gross negligence?

So you ruled that there wasn't?

No, I ruled that we should follow the CON, you know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. So inconvenient..........

 

[sangha]

So...I made this up????

Oil Pollution Act Overview | Emergency Management | US EPA

You're a dumb ass. And there is NO debating that fact.

Learn to read, dumbass

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc33.wais&sta rt=4683182&SIZE=13816&TYPE=TEXT

I'm just not sure if you enjoy acting stupid or just can't help it. Even the Obama administration has referenced this LAW several times. Why do you insist on being so fucking thick skulled and glib?

What was it like sitting in the back of the short bus?

Even your idiot rightwing allies realize that I posted an exception to the 75mm limit that involves negligence. You're even dumber than the avg wingnut

 

[txlonghorn]

Learn to read, dumbass



I'm just not sure if you enjoy acting stupid or just can't help it. Even the Obama administration has referenced this LAW several times. Why do you insist on being so fucking thick skulled and glib?

What was it like sitting in the back of the short bus?

Even your idiot rightwing allies realize that I posted an exception to the 75mm limit that involves negligence. You're even dumber than the avg wingnut

prove negligence...right now. do it. dumbass

 

[sangha]

You are caught speeding and receive a ticket. You call in to find out how much it is and they tell you $75, but a few weeks later they tell you , oh no we changed our minds we demand that you pay $25 MILLION . How happy would you be then?

That would seem inappropriate for the amount of harm done. However in this case, the penalty appears appropriate, so I don't quite see the analogy.

see, they just don't get it, if it costs $100B I fully agree that BP should pay for ALL of it. But you can't set a rule and then just change it on a whim and demand that someone adhere to your demands just because you got mad.

I agree that rules shouldn't be changed at will, but it looks like sangha has you beat, as it was clearly shown that the established cap does not apply to negligence.

I remember hearing that the dude who was overseeing their disaster plan was dead for the last half decade. I mean, a quick google search shows entire articles written on why their disaster planning was just crap. At what point do you acknowledge that completely botching a disaster plan is negligent? I think it applies. I think BP knows it applies, else they would be fighting it.

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there

and you oppose an investigation into the matter in order to prevent anyone from seeing the proof. You even claimed an investigation would interfere with plugging the leak, though you never did explain why the investigation would involve people who had nothing to do with accident.

, and if some of the bullshit that we here was going down went down, I would think MMS is just as responsible as BP

Maybe in wingnut world, the law says "what you would think". In the real world, BP is responsible for all of it if they acted negligently.

As far as disaster plan, I think BP could make a pretty damned good argument that there disaster plan was every bit as good as the governments. Equal liability there?

Nope. Again, the law is clear about this, even if your mind is not

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

And here we go again. Obama was a "bully" for "making" BP do what it was already doing. It must be awful for BP to be forced to do something it has promised to do.

 

[Zona]

Quite an accomplishment.

Obama announces BP's $20B compensation fund - USATODAY.com

How many billion will go toward "administrative" fees ? .......

Its being run by an out side source...the guy who ran the 9/11 claims.


comments on this and him? I dare you to look up his credentials. I DARE YOU.

 

[sangha]

Even your idiot rightwing allies realize that I posted an exception to the 75mm limit that involves negligence. You're even dumber than the avg wingnut

prove negligence...right now. do it. dumbass

So are you admitting you're a complete dumbass for not seeing the exception for negligence, or are you hoping people won't notice you're as dumb as a bag of rocks?

 

[Zona]

Lets all just collectively thank the President for thinking of the victims here. Go Mr. President and God bless america!

You "kicked ass" sir. Unprecedented!

 

[sangha]

So you ruled that there wasn't?

No, I ruled that we should follow the CON, you know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. So inconvenient..........

Idiots think they know the Constitution.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in CRIMINAL COURT.

This is a civil action, moron.

Knowing what I'm talking about is proving inconvenient for you.

 

[ConHog]

That would seem inappropriate for the amount of harm done. However in this case, the penalty appears appropriate, so I don't quite see the analogy.


I agree that rules shouldn't be changed at will, but it looks like sangha has you beat, as it was clearly shown that the established cap does not apply to negligence.

I remember hearing that the dude who was overseeing their disaster plan was dead for the last half decade. I mean, a quick google search shows entire articles written on why their disaster planning was just crap. At what point do you acknowledge that completely botching a disaster plan is negligent? I think it applies. I think BP knows it applies, else they would be fighting it.

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there

and you oppose an investigation into the matter in order to prevent anyone from seeing the proof. You even claimed an investigation would interfere with plugging the leak, though you never did explain why the investigation would involve people who had nothing to do with accident.

Yes I did, and I still do, the government's sole worry right now should be cleaning that fucking mess up. If need be they can bill BP later. Where are they going to go?

Maybe in wingnut world, the law says "what you would think". In the real world, BP is responsible for all of it if they acted negligently.

As far as disaster plan, I think BP could make a pretty damned good argument that there disaster plan was every bit as good as the governments. Equal liability there?

Nope. Again, the law is clear about this, even if your mind is not

The law is clear that the feds were supposed to have a disaster plan to, to assist if something happened, honestly why should BP alone be responsible when any sort of disaster plan on the USG's part would have lessened the disaster?
[/QUOTE]

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

And here we go again. Obama was a "bully" for "making" BP do what it was already doing. It must be awful for BP to be forced to do something it has promised to do.

No, Obama was a bully for getting on TV and talking about kicking someone's ass and t hen talking tough about how he was going to "make BP " do something they already agreed to do.

 

[Zona]

No, I ruled that we should follow the CON, you know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. So inconvenient..........

Idiots think they know the Constitution.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in CRIMINAL COURT.

This is a civil action, moron.

Knowing what I'm talking about is proving inconvenient for you.

This conhog is uh, special...wow.

 

[sangha]

As far as gross negligence, I just don't see the proof there

and you oppose an investigation into the matter in order to prevent anyone from seeing the proof. You even claimed an investigation would interfere with plugging the leak, though you never did explain why the investigation would involve people who had nothing to do with accident.

Yes I did, and I still do, the government's sole worry right now should be cleaning that fucking mess up. If need be they can bill BP later. Where are they going to go?

More proof that you don't care about the people who need financial assistance because of this leak.

And you still haven't given any reason to think an investigation would interfere with the cleanup in any way. You seem to think repeating it makes it more believable

The law is clear that the feds were supposed to have a disaster plan to, to assist if something happened, honestly why should BP alone be responsible when any sort of disaster plan on the USG's part would have lessened the disaster?

Because the law is clear that the FINANCIAL responsibility for the cleanup is BP's if BP was negligent. The law is equally clear that the fed govt (and MMS and any other fed agency) suffers no financial penalties for not having such a plan.

Once again, you confuse your deluded opinions for actual legislation.

Most importantly though, I just don't see why Osama had to be a fucking hard ass about something that BP already said they'd do.

And here we go again. Obama was a "bully" for "making" BP do what it was already doing. It must be awful for BP to be forced to do something it has promised to do.

No, Obama was a bully for getting on TV and talking about kicking someone's ass and t hen talking tough about how he was going to "make BP " do something they already agreed to do.[/QUOTE]

Aww! Poor baby. Tell me where it hurts, and I'll tell you where to kiss off.

But only if you can explain how Obama "bullied" BP into doing something it wanted to do.

 

[ConHog]

Idiots think they know the Constitution.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in CRIMINAL COURT.

This is a civil action, moron.

Knowing what I'm talking about is proving inconvenient for you.

This conhog is uh, special...wow.

I missed Sangha's comment the first time, but I'll smack two for one here you fucking idiots.

Penalties

Under OPA amendments, violation of sec 311.b.3 of CWA is a criminal offense and not a civil one. Various penalties have been specified and prior conviction implies double penalties. Failure to notify also results in penalties. Criminal penalties are also provided for violation of vessel inspection, manning and operation requirements. Class I and class II (civil) penalties are also provided. OPA sets out a number of criteria for assessing level of civil penalties.

https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/rhann/links/laws/opa.asp

Sangha, you will NEVER win against me, how long before you figure that out ?

 

[sangha]

This conhog is uh, special...wow.

I missed Sangha's comment the first time, but I'll smack two for one here you fucking idiots.

Penalties

Under OPA amendments, violation of sec 311.b.3 of CWA is a criminal offense and not a civil one. Various penalties have been specified and prior conviction implies double penalties. Failure to notify also results in penalties. Criminal penalties are also provided for violation of vessel inspection, manning and operation requirements. Class I and class II (civil) penalties are also provided. OPA sets out a number of criteria for assessing level of civil penalties.

https://ceprofs.civil.tamu.edu/rhann/links/laws/opa.asp

Sangha, you will NEVER win against me, how long before you figure that out ?

Umm, we're talking about violations of OPA, not violations of sec 311.b.3 of CWA