Joe Barton apologizing to BP

[DiveCon]

i dont know...you have to be pretty heartless or just stupid to defend the people and the corporations responsible for what happened.

He defended no one, he apologized because people like you think that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and has no impact in the real world.

That was your President Bush who said that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

proof Bush ever said that

and no, not some stupid blog claiming he said it

 

[kiwiman127]

Wow, people defending BP,,,unbelievable!
Oh and the slush fund,,,,yeah let's stick the taxpayer. Twenty-one years after the Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon still hasn't fully paid a mere 500 million dollars in court awarded damages. Why would BP act any differently?
I thought you folks were all about "We The People"? It's more like "We The Tools Of The Corporations".


As a side note, I accidently used Enron as the culprit, when I meant Exxon. But thanks to DiveCon, I have now corrected my error. Drinking and typing is sooo hard sometimes.

 

[DiveCon]

Wow, people defending BP,,,unbelievable!
Oh and the slush fund,,,,yeah let's stick the taxpayer. Twenty-one years after the Enron Valdez spill, Enron still hasn't fully paid a mere 500 million dollars in court awarded damages. Why would BP act any differently?
I thought you folks were all about "We The People"? It's more like "We The Tools Of The Corporations".

um, that was EXXON, not Enron

 

[kiwiman127]

Wow, people defending BP,,,unbelievable!
Oh and the slush fund,,,,yeah let's stick the taxpayer. Twenty-one years after the Enron Valdez spill, Enron still hasn't fully paid a mere 500 million dollars in court awarded damages. Why would BP act any differently?
I thought you folks were all about "We The People"? It's more like "We The Tools Of The Corporations".

um, that was EXXON, not Enron

+++++++++++++++++
Thanks, I'll put down my third martini,,,NOW!
Then I'll make the correction.

 

[DiveCon]

Wow, people defending BP,,,unbelievable!
Oh and the slush fund,,,,yeah let's stick the taxpayer. Twenty-one years after the Enron Valdez spill, Enron still hasn't fully paid a mere 500 million dollars in court awarded damages. Why would BP act any differently?
I thought you folks were all about "We The People"? It's more like "We The Tools Of The Corporations".

um, that was EXXON, not Enron

+++++++++++++++++
Thanks, I'll put down my third martini,,,NOW!
Then I'll make the correction.

LOL no biggie

 

[Sallow]

Wow, people defending BP,,,unbelievable!
Oh and the slush fund,,,,yeah let's stick the taxpayer. Twenty-one years after the Enron Valdez spill, Enron still hasn't fully paid a mere 500 million dollars in court awarded damages. Why would BP act any differently?
I thought you folks were all about "We The People"? It's more like "We The Tools Of The Corporations".

um, that was EXXON, not Enron

+++++++++++++++++
Thanks, I'll put down my third martini,,,NOW!
Then I'll make the correction.

It's Friday and that gives me an idea..

 

[Baron]

Who is Joe Barton? He's the guy that apologized to BP on national televsion after they dumped 2 million barrels of oil in the Gulf.

Do you prefer to purchase oil by arabs?

Maybe you know how to get oil without occasional spoils?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i dont know...you have to be pretty heartless or just stupid to defend the people and the corporations responsible for what happened.

He defended no one, he apologized because people like you think that the Constitution is only a piece of paper and has no impact in the real world.

That was your President Bush who said that the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.

And our President Obama, the former Constitutional law professor, is supporting every single position Bush mapped out, and expanding them to give the government even more power.

That is the difference between being a cynic, like me, and a hack, like you. Cynics see that everyone is the same, and that no one can be trusted. Hacks believe anyone with a D, or an R, or even an I, behind their name can be trusted because the other letters are all evil.

 

[8537]

That performance was a national embarrassment. Our representatives treated Hayward like a criminal.

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

And is entitled to every right in the Constitution. Or does that only apply to terrorists? Did I miss another memo?

Mr Hayward is not "entitled to every right in the Constitution."

 

[DiveCon]

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

And is entitled to every right in the Constitution. Or does that only apply to terrorists? Did I miss another memo?

Mr Hayward is not "entitled to every right in the Constitution."

but Al Qaeda terrorists are?

 

[8537]

And is entitled to every right in the Constitution. Or does that only apply to terrorists? Did I miss another memo?

Mr Hayward is not "entitled to every right in the Constitution."

but Al Qaeda terrorists are?

No, clearly they are not. That should be obvious by now.

 

[DiveCon]

Mr Hayward is not "entitled to every right in the Constitution."

but Al Qaeda terrorists are?

No, clearly they are not. That should be obvious by now.

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

 

[8537]

but Al Qaeda terrorists are?

No, clearly they are not. That should be obvious by now.

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

 

[Sallow]

No, clearly they are not. That should be obvious by now.

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

Wait a minute. What constitutional protections are they not entitled too? The 14th amendment covers this:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps that's because, well....Mr Hayward is a criminal? or, more precisely: Mr Hayward oversaw criminal activity?

And is entitled to every right in the Constitution. Or does that only apply to terrorists? Did I miss another memo?

Mr Hayward is not "entitled to every right in the Constitution."

Why not? Are rich people exempt from the Constitution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, clearly they are not. That should be obvious by now.

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

You obviously need to brush up on Constitutional law. The only people in US custody that are not afforded every Constitutional right are enemy combatants. Since most terrorists we actually catch get tried in criminal courts, the Times Square bomber is an example, they obviously have rights.

 

[8537]

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

Wait a minute. What constitutional protections are they not entitled too? The 14th amendment covers this:

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While that might be the law as written, and I might agree with you 100%, the fact is that the current enforcement of the law allows for disparate treatment of citizens and noncitizens. I'm not happy about that, I'm just speaking of what is actually and in practice happening.

 

[8537]

not according to some of your more liberal buddies

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

You obviously need to brush up on Constitutional law. The only people in US custody that are not afforded every Constitutional right are enemy combatants. Since most terrorists we actually catch get tried in criminal courts, the Times Square bomber is an example, they obviously have rights.

You need to brush up on what is actually occurring as opposed to what you would like to have happen. Some noncitizens indeed get access to the courts, but the government has taken very wide discretion deciding who does and doesn't deserve that access - and many, many many conservatives have argued that the 14th only applies to citizens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

According to the reality of the situation, they do not have constitutional rights.

My liberal friends might believe they DESERVE constitutional rights, as they might believe Hayward would deserve constitutional rights (Since constitutional protections refer to persons in most cases, not citizens). But it's obvious that neither Hayward nor AQ members have such rights.

You obviously need to brush up on Constitutional law. The only people in US custody that are not afforded every Constitutional right are enemy combatants. Since most terrorists we actually catch get tried in criminal courts, the Times Square bomber is an example, they obviously have rights.

You need to brush up on what is actually occurring as opposed to what you would like to have happen. Some noncitizens indeed get access to the courts, but the government has taken very wide discretion deciding who does and doesn't deserve that access - and many, many many conservatives have argued that the 14th only applies to citizens.

Before we go any further, I do not give a **** what conservatives, or liberals for that matter, say about rights and who they apply to. If you want to argue with other people, feel free, just do not expect me to defend positions I do not hold.

That said, you are either a total idiot or deliberately and willfully ignorant. The courts have always understood that POWs/Enemy Combatants do not come under the jurisdiction of the court system. The Geneva convention covers their treatment, and their rights. The Constitution actually makes provision for this under the Treaty Clause.

Illegal aliens who commit felonies are fully protected under the Constitution, and have every right a citizen does. Additionally, they also have the right to contact their embassy and speak with a representative of the government of their native country. Since I do not have the right to anything like this, I can easily argue that non citizens actually have more rights than citizens.

You have absolutely failed at even attempting to make your point. The only class of people not protected by the Constitutions are those captured in battle by the military. They are not just non citizens, they are actually enemies.

 

[8537]

You obviously need to brush up on Constitutional law. The only people in US custody that are not afforded every Constitutional right are enemy combatants. Since most terrorists we actually catch get tried in criminal courts, the Times Square bomber is an example, they obviously have rights.

You need to brush up on what is actually occurring as opposed to what you would like to have happen. Some noncitizens indeed get access to the courts, but the government has taken very wide discretion deciding who does and doesn't deserve that access - and many, many many conservatives have argued that the 14th only applies to citizens.

Before we go any further, I do not give a **** what conservatives, or liberals for that matter, say about rights and who they apply to. If you want to argue with other people, feel free, just do not expect me to defend positions I do not hold.

That said, you are either a total idiot or deliberately and willfully ignorant. The courts have always understood that POWs/Enemy Combatants do not come under the jurisdiction of the court system. The Geneva convention covers their treatment, and their rights. The Constitution actually makes provision for this under the Treaty Clause.

The people at GITMO, as an example, were not all "enemy combatants" by any meaningful definition of the term. The only definition by which they were enemy combatants was by the definition that the military or the CIA claimed they were such.

Personally, I don't trust the government to fairly interpret that.

You have absolutely failed at even attempting to make your point. The only class of people not protected by the Constitutions are those captured in battle by the military. They are not just non citizens, they are actually enemies.

No, that's just not true. Many of the people at Guantanamo were not "captured in battle" by the "military".