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

[ConHog]

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

and what part of UNDER OPA AMENDMENTS do you not understand?

 

[sangha]

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

and what part of UNDER OPA AMENDMENTS do you not understand?

So now you don't understand english?

It says that OPA includes language that makes violations of sec311.b.3 of CWA a criminal act. Unfortunately for you, no one is accusing BP of violating sec311.b.3 of CWA.

BP is accused of violating sections of OPA, which are civil offenses

You're such an idiot, you can't even read english and understand it.

 

[txlonghorn]

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?

No...I'm waiting for your sorry ass to prove ******* negligence. What is your big deal about trying to get people to admit things that aren't true. I saw the exception. I simply don't agree with your opinion of the negligence you claim exists. If it were so obvious, then the investigation would be concluded already. But, that's really not even the issue. Which you already know and are having a damn hard time tapdancing around.

That's right sparky...the explosion.

Would we be in this predicament if there hadn't been an explosion on that platform? A simple yes or no will do.

Remember the explosion that ended the lives of 11 workers? The explosion that sent parts of the platform to the bottom and resulted in the massive leak?

Is there negligence in that? Find it and prove it and I'll admit you're bigger than Elvis.

Is there negligence in how BP constructed this well? Maybe. That hasn't been fully determined yet, has it? If you know something that the investigators don't know, then I suggest you hop on your bike and ride down there to the Gulf Coast and set them straight!!

Are you willing to admit that you can't fight your way out of a wet paper bag or are you just hoping that everybody already knows that you're mentally impotent and that you prefer the wet paper bag?

If you could have proved negligence, you would have done so when I challenged you. Instead, you fling mud and act like you can insult your way around it. But I'm not gonna let you dodge this one.

PROVE NEGLIGENCE IN THE EXPLOSION OR ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW OR GO AWAY.

 

[ConHog]

and what part of UNDER OPA AMENDMENTS do you not understand?

So now you don't understand english?

It says that OPA includes language that makes violations of sec311.b.3 of CWA a criminal act. Unfortunately for you, no one is accusing BP of violating sec311.b.3 of CWA.

BP is accused of violating sections of OPA, which are civil offenses

You're such an idiot, you can't even read english and understand it.

§311(b)(3)&(4) Prohibits discharging oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, except where permitted under international protocol or under conditions that the President determines not to be harmful. The President will issue regulations as to the quantities of oil and hazardous substances that may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment.


Strange, that seems to me to be EXACTLY what they are being accused of doing.

 

[sangha]

So now you don't understand english?

It says that OPA includes language that makes violations of sec311.b.3 of CWA a criminal act. Unfortunately for you, no one is accusing BP of violating sec311.b.3 of CWA.

BP is accused of violating sections of OPA, which are civil offenses

You're such an idiot, you can't even read english and understand it.

§311(b)(3)&(4) Prohibits discharging oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, except where permitted under international protocol or under conditions that the President determines not to be harmful. The President will issue regulations as to the quantities of oil and hazardous substances that may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment.


Strange, that seems to me to be EXACTLY what they are being accused of doing.

Strange, but you're ignoring how we've been accusing BP of negligence which occurred before the explosion.

Actually, not so strange. You have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, like how concentrating on the cleanup means the people of the Gulf will suffer financially. Now you're ignoring the charges of negligence, even though the exception I cited was clearly for negligence, and not for discharging oil.

 

[ConHog]

§311(b)(3)&(4) Prohibits discharging oil or hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, except where permitted under international protocol or under conditions that the President determines not to be harmful. The President will issue regulations as to the quantities of oil and hazardous substances that may be harmful to the public health or welfare or the environment.


Strange, that seems to me to be EXACTLY what they are being accused of doing.

Strange, but you're ignoring how we've been accusing BP of negligence which occurred before the explosion.

Actually, not so strange. You have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, like how concentrating on the cleanup means the people of the Gulf will suffer financially. Now you're ignoring the charges of negligence, even though the exception I cited was clearly for negligence, and not for discharging oil.

You're a fool.

1) How will concentrating on the clean up make anyone suffer? You think a criminal investigation is necessary to get those people help? It obviously isn't.

2) The leak is the potential crime, neglect isn't a crime in of itself. They could have neglected that site forever and if it didn't have any problems well then who cares, same with an explosion. They can blow their ******* rig up if they want, as long as it doesn't violate the law. Which law? Oh that's right the Clean Water Act that I posted above that YOU claim has nothing to do with this.

3) Any investigation will certainly have to include an investigation into what killed those eleven oil workers which is certainly a criminal offense if caused by neglect.


But please, feel free to post the criminal violations they are being accused of committing through their neglect.......................

No more mumbo jumbo bullshit fool, You're evading Tx and now you're evading me, just answer the questions and prove the neglect.

 

[txlonghorn]

what negligence led to the explosion?

 

[ConHog]

what negligence led to the explosion?

He doesn't understand that the laws broken were

A) leaking oil into US territorial water
B) killing 11 men

and that any investigation will be focused on those two events for criminal components, blowing up your own shit isn't a civil or criminal offense.

 

[ConHog]

Here you go Sangha, the NY Times and a law professor talking about CRIMINAL charges as well civil penalties being levied against BP

With Criminal Charges, Costs to BP Could Soar - NYTimes.com

 

[oreo]

Quite an accomplishment.

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

59 DAYS of oil gushing in the GULF is NOT an accomplishment--it's a disaster--and it's a disaster for this President.

This according to MSNBC---the long time CHEERLEADERS of this administration are now falling apart---

In the below video we have Criss Mathews--"the tingley leg feeling guy"--stating that Obama DOES NOT HAVE the authority to make BP pay 20 Billion dollars--and the offer was made by the CEO--and not Obama. Mathews also compares Obama to Jimmy Carter--and that is an enormous INSULT.

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"

 

[sangha]

Strange, but you're ignoring how we've been accusing BP of negligence which occurred before the explosion.

Actually, not so strange. You have a habit of ignoring inconvenient facts, like how concentrating on the cleanup means the people of the Gulf will suffer financially. Now you're ignoring the charges of negligence, even though the exception I cited was clearly for negligence, and not for discharging oil.

You're a fool.

1) How will concentrating on the clean up make anyone suffer? You think a criminal investigation is necessary to get those people help? It obviously isn't.

If you ignore the people who are losing their jobs, then they will suffer. You support ignoring them.

2) The leak is the potential crime, neglect isn't a crime in of itself. They could have neglected that site forever and if it didn't have any problems well then who cares?

Actually, they get fined all the times for violations even when there aren't any leaks. In fact, BP received more of these fines than any of its competitors in the industry

And again, since it takes a while to sink in, no one but you is saying the negligence is criminal. Remember? You gave that song and dance about "innocent until proven guilty" because you mistakenly thought that we were talking about criminal activity even though we clearly accused them of negligence which is a civil matter.

Or did you forget about your own words? How convenient.

3) Any investigation will certainly have to include an investigation into what killed those eleven oil workers which is certainly a criminal offense if caused by neglect.

So what? Even if this were true, which it's not, this is just another attempt by you to distract attention from your mistakes. You foolishly argued that the constitution requires "innocence until proven guilty" in deciding negligence, which is a civil issue.

If "negligent manslaughter" becomes an issue, it doesn't change the fact that the negligence BP perpetrated BEFORE the explosion, and the effect it has on the liability cap, is still a civil matter.

Remember? We were talking about the liability cap. Surely you didn't forget about that also. How very convenient.

But please, feel free to post the criminal violations they are being accused of committing through their neglect.......................

Once again, we have been clear in accusing BP of civil violations resulting from BP's negligence which are a civil matter. It was *YOU* who is being the fool and insisting negligence is a criminal matter.

 

[sangha]

what negligence led to the explosion?

He doesn't understand that the laws broken were

A) leaking oil into US territorial water
B) killing 11 men

and that any investigation will be focused on those two events for criminal components, blowing up your own shit isn't a civil or criminal offense.

You don't understand that the negligence includes, but is not limited to

1) installing less safe eqiuipment in order to save time and money
2) other oil companies have testified that they don't and they wouldn't do what BP did
3) Employees within BP and the companies BP contracted out work too warned BP about the dangers and BP ignored the warnings
4) BP did not perform the proper tests before going ahead with the drilling

ANd of course, conjob has no facts to back him up; just another of his boneheaded predictions about the investigation. Earlier, he had argued the investigation into the explosion would interfere with the cleanup, because the people involved in the cleanup would have to be questioned, taking time away from their work

When I pointed out the investigators had no reason to question the people who working on the cleanup because they had no special knowledge of the explosion (the people working on the rig before the explosion have been evacuated and are no longer working on the rig or on the cleanup) conjob stopped posting in that thread,

Since prosecuting an employee of a company for murder due to negligence requires more than just showing that BP was negligent, why don't you explain why the investigation will become a criminal investigation that focus eson the deaths of the 11 workers?

Or will you dodge this one too?

 

[txlonghorn]

Quite an accomplishment.

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

59 DAYS of oil gushing in the GULF is NOT an accomplishment--it's a disaster--and it's a disaster for this President.

This according to MSNBC---the long time CHEERLEADERS of this administration are now falling apart---

In the below video we have Criss Mathews--"the tingley leg feeling guy"--stating that Obama DOES NOT HAVE the authority to make BP pay 20 Billion dollars--and the offer was made by the CEO--and not Obama. Mathews also compares Obama to Jimmy Carter--and that is an enormous INSULT.

RealClearPolitics - Video - MSNBC Trashes Obama's Address: Compared To Carter, "I Don't Sense Executive Command"


View attachment 10630

Oh boy..you've done it now. You've probably sent several of the libs into cardiac arrest.

 

[ConHog]

You're a fool.

1) How will concentrating on the clean up make anyone suffer? You think a criminal investigation is necessary to get those people help? It obviously isn't.

If you ignore the people who are losing their jobs, then they will suffer. You support ignoring them.



Actually, they get fined all the times for violations even when there aren't any leaks. In fact, BP received more of these fines than any of its competitors in the industry

And again, since it takes a while to sink in, no one but you is saying the negligence is criminal. Remember? You gave that song and dance about "innocent until proven guilty" because you mistakenly thought that we were talking about criminal activity even though we clearly accused them of negligence which is a civil matter.

Or did you forget about your own words? How convenient.




So what? Even if this were true, which it's not, this is just another attempt by you to distract attention from your mistakes. You foolishly argued that the constitution requires "innocence until proven guilty" in deciding negligence, which is a civil issue.

If "negligent manslaughter" becomes an issue, it doesn't change the fact that the negligence BP perpetrated BEFORE the explosion, and the effect it has on the liability cap, is still a civil matter.

Remember? We were talking about the liability cap. Surely you didn't forget about that also. How very convenient.

But please, feel free to post the criminal violations they are being accused of committing through their neglect.......................

Once again, we have been clear in accusing BP of civil violations resulting from BP's negligence which are a civil matter. It was *YOU* who is being the fool and insisting negligence is a criminal matter.

no, it is YOU who is trying to argue that the only investigation going on will be civil, and ot criminal. clearly that is not the case, and now you are trying to back peddle

I'm completely done with you. please someone slap me from now on when I start to argue with this idiot. I'm sick of dishonest debate.

 

[sangha]

Here you go Sangha, the NY Times and a law professor talking about CRIMINAL charges as well civil penalties being levied against BP

With Criminal Charges, Costs to BP Could Soar - NYTimes.com

Once again, *YOU* are the only one talking about a criminal investigation into the 11 deaths. If there ever is such a criminal investigation, it will be seperate from any civil action against BP that seeks to remove the $75mm liability cap due to BP's negligence.

Do you understand what "seperate investigations" means? It means different lawyers, from different govt agencies, with different powers, pursuing legal remedies in different court rooms, in different court buildings.

Don't you remember that we were talking about the liability cap, which can be removed if BP is proven to have acted negligently? Removing the cap would be a civil action, and any legal wrangling over it would occur in a civil court.

If anyone is ever tried for the deaths of the 11 workers, it will occur in a criminal court. "Innocent until proven guilty" will apply in this case, which we weren't talking about. It will not apply in the civil case to lift the liability cap, which is what we were talking about

Does any of this ring a bell? Or is it lost in the fog you call thought?

 

[txlonghorn]

what negligence led to the explosion?

He doesn't understand that the laws broken were

A) leaking oil into US territorial water
B) killing 11 men

and that any investigation will be focused on those two events for criminal components, blowing up your own shit isn't a civil or criminal offense.

You don't understand that the negligence includes, but is not limited to

1) installing less safe eqiuipment in order to save time and money
2) other oil companies have testified that they don't and they wouldn't do what BP did
3) Employees within BP and the companies BP contracted out work too warned BP about the dangers and BP ignored the warnings
4) BP did not perform the proper tests before going ahead with the drilling

ANd of course, conjob has no facts to back him up; just another of his boneheaded predictions about the investigation. Earlier, he had argued the investigation into the explosion would interfere with the cleanup, because the people involved in the cleanup would have to be questioned, taking time away from their work

When I pointed out the investigators had no reason to question the people who working on the cleanup because they had no special knowledge of the explosion (the people working on the rig before the explosion have been evacuated and are no longer working on the rig or on the cleanup) conjob stopped posting in that thread,

Since prosecuting an employee of a company for murder due to negligence requires more than just showing that BP was negligent, why don't you explain why the investigation will become a criminal investigation that focus eson the deaths of the 11 workers?

Or will you dodge this one too?

I don't give a damn how long the list of suspected negligence is, I just want to see what negligence has been proven already. Is it out there? I can't find it. I see accusations. I read reports of what people have said in witness accounts. But I haven't seen a conclusive, end all - be all, point of fact statement of what BP did that has been proven to be negligent.

For the record, I'm not a cheerleader for BP. I am, however, a cheerleader of the process of legal justice. LEGAL justice. There are many kinds of justice. But I'm only concerned with doing it LEGALLY. Not to protect BP...but to protect ANYBODY who finds themselves in a position where the authorities are looking for someone to blame or pin a crime on.

So I'll wait for the investigation to close...and so should the government.

 

[ConHog]

He doesn't understand that the laws broken were

A) leaking oil into US territorial water
B) killing 11 men

and that any investigation will be focused on those two events for criminal components, blowing up your own shit isn't a civil or criminal offense.

You don't understand that the negligence includes, but is not limited to

1) installing less safe eqiuipment in order to save time and money
2) other oil companies have testified that they don't and they wouldn't do what BP did
3) Employees within BP and the companies BP contracted out work too warned BP about the dangers and BP ignored the warnings
4) BP did not perform the proper tests before going ahead with the drilling

ANd of course, conjob has no facts to back him up; just another of his boneheaded predictions about the investigation. Earlier, he had argued the investigation into the explosion would interfere with the cleanup, because the people involved in the cleanup would have to be questioned, taking time away from their work

When I pointed out the investigators had no reason to question the people who working on the cleanup because they had no special knowledge of the explosion (the people working on the rig before the explosion have been evacuated and are no longer working on the rig or on the cleanup) conjob stopped posting in that thread,

Since prosecuting an employee of a company for murder due to negligence requires more than just showing that BP was negligent, why don't you explain why the investigation will become a criminal investigation that focus eson the deaths of the 11 workers?

Or will you dodge this one too?

I don't give a damn how long the list of suspected negligence is, I just want to see what negligence has been proven already. Is it out there? I can't find it. I see accusations. I read reports of what people have said in witness accounts. But I haven't seen a conclusive, end all - be all, point of fact statement of what BP did that has been proven to be negligent.

For the record, I'm not a cheerleader for BP. I am, however, a cheerleader of the process of legal justice. LEGAL justice. There are many kinds of justice. But I'm only concerned with doing it LEGALLY. Not to protect BP...but to protect ANYBODY who finds themselves in a position where the authorities are looking for someone to blame or pin a crime on.

So I'll wait for the investigation to close...and so should the government.

Life's too short bro..........

 

[sangha]

If you ignore the people who are losing their jobs, then they will suffer. You support ignoring them.



Actually, they get fined all the times for violations even when there aren't any leaks. In fact, BP received more of these fines than any of its competitors in the industry

And again, since it takes a while to sink in, no one but you is saying the negligence is criminal. Remember? You gave that song and dance about "innocent until proven guilty" because you mistakenly thought that we were talking about criminal activity even though we clearly accused them of negligence which is a civil matter.

Or did you forget about your own words? How convenient.




So what? Even if this were true, which it's not, this is just another attempt by you to distract attention from your mistakes. You foolishly argued that the constitution requires "innocence until proven guilty" in deciding negligence, which is a civil issue.

If "negligent manslaughter" becomes an issue, it doesn't change the fact that the negligence BP perpetrated BEFORE the explosion, and the effect it has on the liability cap, is still a civil matter.

Remember? We were talking about the liability cap. Surely you didn't forget about that also. How very convenient.




Once again, we have been clear in accusing BP of civil violations resulting from BP's negligence which are a civil matter. It was *YOU* who is being the fool and insisting negligence is a criminal matter.

no, it is YOU who is trying to argue that the only investigation going on will be civil, and ot criminal. clearly that is not the case, and now you are trying to back peddle

Now you're changing your argument

First, you argued "the civil investigation will definitely focus on the deaths and will turn into a criminal investigation"

Now, instead of the civil investigation turning into a criminal one, you are claiming I said there will only be one investigation and it will be civil, when I clearly stated that if there is a criminal investigation, it would be seperate from the civil one, and tried in a different court, by different lawyers.

But at least you're agreeing with my argument, which is that the legal decision of whether BP's liability cap should be lifted due to negligence will be a civil matter decided in a civil court, which is what I've been saying all along. Therefore, "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply in a civil court, no matter what your "vast knowledge" (and by that I mean your complete stupidity) of the Constitution is telling you.

But I know you won't admit you were wrong for saying that the Constitution requires "innocence until proven guilty" in this civil matter. You don't have the guts to admit to making a mistake

I'm completely done with you. please someone slap me from now on when I start to argue with this idiot. I'm sick of dishonest debate.

THIS IS THE THIRD TIME YOU'VE MADE THIS PROMISE

And it's just as much a lie as it was the other two times. You're a child. You can't control yourself.

 

[sangha]

I don't give a damn how long the list of suspected negligence is, I just want to see what negligence has been proven already.

I never expected you to give a damn about the facts

 

[txlonghorn]

Here you go Sangha, the NY Times and a law professor talking about CRIMINAL charges as well civil penalties being levied against BP

With Criminal Charges, Costs to BP Could Soar - NYTimes.com

Once again, *YOU* are the only one talking about a criminal investigation into the 11 deaths. If there ever is such a criminal investigation, it will be seperate from any civil action against BP that seeks to remove the $75mm liability cap due to BP's negligence.

Do you understand what "seperate investigations" means? It means different lawyers, from different govt agencies, with different powers, pursuing legal remedies in different court rooms, in different court buildings.

Don't you remember that we were talking about the liability cap, which can be removed if BP is proven to have acted negligently? Removing the cap would be a civil action, and any legal wrangling over it would occur in a civil court.

If anyone is ever tried for the deaths of the 11 workers, it will occur in a criminal court. "Innocent until proven guilty" will apply in this case, which we weren't talking about. It will not apply in the civil case to lift the liability cap, which is what we were talking about

Does any of this ring a bell? Or is it lost in the fog you call thought?

hasn't the liability cap, which you said earlier didn't exist, already been removed with the demand of 20 billion from Obama? Seems to me they aren't waiting for any proof. They are just going to go ahead and find them guilty and deliver verdict and sentencing now.

God I love our justice system! Don't you?!?!