Obama to Tax Us 1% More at the Gas Pump!

[VaYank5150]

You are they CG

Only to a brain dead moron, TM. There is no 'they', people are individuals. Except on the left... 'you guys' sacrificed your individuality in favor of the group think of the borg. I choose not to. I remain an independent individual, capable of rational thought and critical analysis of factual information.

I was with you right up to THIS point:

capable of rational thought and critical analysis of factual information.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh ******* please they have already all said they are guilty.

Now they are just trying to get each other to pay the tab.

I say they all pay the tab right up until they dont exsist anymore.

Say whatever you want. Until your a court recognized by the US government, it means nothing. Get a conviction, then you can punish them up to the limits of the law. Currently that is $75m. They already have paid that much.

If 0bama get his way, you can go up to $10b. Of course, then BP will defend your Consitutional right to not be subjected to a law written after your crime.

 

[VaYank5150]

Oh ******* please they have already all said they are guilty.

Now they are just trying to get each other to pay the tab.

I say they all pay the tab right up until they dont exsist anymore.

Say whatever you want. Until your a court recognized by the US government, it means nothing. Get a conviction, then you can punish them up to the limits of the law. Currently that is $75m. They already have paid that much.

If 0bama get his way, you can go up to $10b. Of course, then BP will defend your Consitutional right to not be subjected to a law written after your crime.

Maybe we should try them in a military tribunal and get around that pesky Constitution?

 

[Truthmatters]

You are they CG

Only to a brain dead moron, TM. There is no 'they', people are individuals. Except on the left... 'you guys' sacrificed your individuality in favor of the group think of the borg. I choose not to. I remain an independent individual, capable of rational thought and critical analysis of factual information.

You never vary from the right wing talking points , you defend anything in the name of conservatism.

You are they, plain and simple.

 

[saveliberty]

Oh ******* please they have already all said they are guilty.

Now they are just trying to get each other to pay the tab.

I say they all pay the tab right up until they dont exsist anymore.

Say whatever you want. Until your a court recognized by the US government, it means nothing. Get a conviction, then you can punish them up to the limits of the law. Currently that is $75m. They already have paid that much.

If 0bama get his way, you can go up to $10b. Of course, then BP will defend your Consitutional right to not be subjected to a law written after your crime.

Maybe we should try them in a military tribunal and get around that pesky Constitution?

A terrorist assault on domestic tourism and fishing industries? Since we can't seem to define what a terrorist is, sure, why not? Who gets to slap the cuffs on a corporation?

 

[Truthmatters]

So, if they have all said they are guilty, how come you are looking to 'take over' BP alone? Which is not only illegal, it is ******* communism.

You're an overly emotional, left wing hack so your response hardly surprises anyone.... In fact, if you said anything that demonstrated critical thought instead of hysterical ranting, I'm sure the rest of the board would be impressed.

When you cause a disastor and are made to pay for it and paying fro it causes your company to fold under the weight of the debt that is not communism you little fool.


You are here defending the people who fucked us for money and you defended the people who gave them the power to **** us.

I say we make them all pay right up until they are out of business. They wont pay willing and you and everyone knows it.

You just want MORE corporate bail outs for these companies by making the US pay for the mistakes of a foriegn company, then you want them to be able to buy our next political candidates.

When are you ever going to take the side of the Amerivan people in anything?

I am DEFENDING NO ONE, you ******* moron. I am asking for evidence of guilt - and actual evidence of exactly who is responsible for what.... before I start screaming about it. That's rational.

You are just a ******* hysterical fool.

And, I am always on the side of my country..... I just don't approve of us becoming a communist state because it suits your agenda. ******* idiot.

You are defending people who have already admitted guilt.

They are now trying to put the blame on each other for the lions share of the cash.

You are defending a foreign company over your own country.

There is no way arround it for you is there?

 

[saveliberty]

when you cause a disastor and are made to pay for it and paying fro it causes your company to fold under the weight of the debt that is not communism you little fool.


You are here defending the people who fucked us for money and you defended the people who gave them the power to **** us.

I say we make them all pay right up until they are out of business. They wont pay willing and you and everyone knows it.

You just want more corporate bail outs for these companies by making the us pay for the mistakes of a foriegn company, then you want them to be able to buy our next political candidates.

When are you ever going to take the side of the amerivan people in anything?

i am defending no one, you ******* moron. I am asking for evidence of guilt - and actual evidence of exactly who is responsible for what.... Before i start screaming about it. That's rational.

You are just a ******* hysterical fool.

And, i am always on the side of my country..... I just don't approve of us becoming a communist state because it suits your agenda. ******* idiot.

you are defending people who have already admitted guilt.

They are now trying to put the blame on each other for the lions share of the cash.

You are defending a foreign company over your own country.

There is no way arround it for you is there?

guilt is determined in a court fool.

 

[VaYank5150]

Say whatever you want. Until your a court recognized by the US government, it means nothing. Get a conviction, then you can punish them up to the limits of the law. Currently that is $75m. They already have paid that much.

If 0bama get his way, you can go up to $10b. Of course, then BP will defend your Consitutional right to not be subjected to a law written after your crime.

Maybe we should try them in a military tribunal and get around that pesky Constitution?

A terrorist assault on domestic tourism and fishing industries? Since we can't seem to define what a terrorist is, sure, why not? Who gets to slap the cuffs on a corporation?

I'll volunteer.

 

[boedicca]

Did I hear yesterday or earlier this week, that Congress is going to change the law on how much in damages a company must pay for a spill like this? After the Exxon Valdez spill it was a certain amount and how Congress wants that amount rised to $10b.

It also appeared that they expected this to be retroactive to this spill. How can you change a law after the fact and apply it to that party?

Yes. Menendez is co-sponsoring a bill that would Ex-Post Facto punish BP.

Of course, it's very important to make BP the villain in order to deflect any criticism of the Obama Administration's lack of a real Day One response.

 

[California Girl]

I had no idea that the Constitution outlines the Federal Government is reponsible for cleaning up oil leaks caused by private corporations?

Go back and actually read the ******* posts - get the point - and then comment. No one has suggested that the Constitution outlines that the Fed Gov is responsible. The Constitution does NOT allow for a law to be applied retroactively. Therefore, the Government cannot change the law to increase the dollar amount of corporate responsibility and apply that law to the oil spill. It is unConstitutional. ******* moron.

Wait a minute. Now you're declaring that a law is unconstitutional before you've ever seen the law or before the Supreme Court has even ruled on it?

What was all that you were saying about not hanging someone before you had all the facts?

jeezus you are transparent. And what makes you most repugnant is that you claim not to be partisan.

******* moron. The Constitution is clear.... you cannot apply a law retroactively. There is no need to wait for a ruling. How ignorant are you about the document under which you live?

You appear to think that we need to wait for a SC ruling on every single issue. We don't. I can understand why you find me repugnant..... I'm smarter than you, that must be hard for you to bear.

Which bit of refusing to pass judgement before I have ALL the FACTS is partisan?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What's the problem TM? The passing of a retroactive law raising BP's liability from $75 million to $10 billion not onerous enough for you?

"retroactive" ?

The spill is still happening, its not "retro-active". If BP doesn't want to have the liability limits raised on the oil they will be leaking after the law is passed, I guess they ought to stop the ******* leak then, right?

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. That is weaselly argument. The accident has happened. Do you really want to set a precedent in which liability can be changed after the fact just because the after effects are still being felt?

There is also a Bill of Attainder aspect to this which is quite repugnant.

 

[Eccgmike]

It would be downright unAmerican to force BP to to pay to clean up their own mess.

No one is having to 'force' BP to clean up. They have already stated - in fact they said well before Obama said he would 'force' them - that they would pay whatever clean up costs were necessary.... AND they would pay legitimate claims for compensation. I fail to see what more they are expected to do. Other than stop the leak and it does appear that they are trying to do that.

Additionally, in retrospect it sure is a good thing that BP was making those "obcene" profits, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pay for the clean-up! If anyhing, this should be justification for their profits as to ensure they'll be able to pay for any future spills.

 

[California Girl]

When you cause a disastor and are made to pay for it and paying fro it causes your company to fold under the weight of the debt that is not communism you little fool.


You are here defending the people who fucked us for money and you defended the people who gave them the power to **** us.

I say we make them all pay right up until they are out of business. They wont pay willing and you and everyone knows it.

You just want MORE corporate bail outs for these companies by making the US pay for the mistakes of a foriegn company, then you want them to be able to buy our next political candidates.

When are you ever going to take the side of the Amerivan people in anything?

I am DEFENDING NO ONE, you ******* moron. I am asking for evidence of guilt - and actual evidence of exactly who is responsible for what.... before I start screaming about it. That's rational.

You are just a ******* hysterical fool.

And, I am always on the side of my country..... I just don't approve of us becoming a communist state because it suits your agenda. ******* idiot.

You are defending people who have already admitted guilt.

They are now trying to put the blame on each other for the lions share of the cash.

You are defending a foreign company over your own country.

There is no way arround it for you is there?

I am defending the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Moron. Making this about me having to prove my loyalty to my country is a ******* stupid argument - and one that I am not surprised comes from a ******* stupid person.

 

[Gadawg73]

We could fine BP 20 billion and guess who would be paying it?
Costs are always passed on to consumers. Anyone with a brain knows that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

******* moron. The Constitution is clear.... you cannot apply a law retroactively. There is no need to wait for a ruling. How ignorant are you about the document under which you live?

a
THE OFFENSE IS STILL HAPPENING IT WOULD NOT BE RETROACTIVE.



Besides, ex post facto, like most everything else in the Constitution, does not strictly apply to EVERYTHING. See the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban. It also does not apply to administrative law or taxes. When Clinton was president the tax rate was raised in the middle of the year but it was retroactive to the 1st of January. Companies are also routinely forced to pay to clean up toxic waste that was completely legal to dump at the time they dumped it.

But like I said - as long as the pass the law while the spill is still happened - and the law is applied only to the oil that spills after its passage - it isn't ex post facto.

 

[California Girl]

What's the problem TM? The passing of a retroactive law raising BP's liability from $75 million to $10 billion not onerous enough for you?

"retroactive" ?

The spill is still happening, its not "retro-active". If BP doesn't want to have the liability limits raised on the oil they will be leaking after the law is passed, I guess they ought to stop the ******* leak then, right?

When the spill happened, the cap was $75m. That's a fact. No one can pretend otherwise. You ******* money grabbing little bastards just sitting there waiting to file your illegitimate claims make me sick. You're an embarrassment to your country.

 

[boedicca]

People who support violating The Constitution because the target is unpopular never realize that the same arguments can be used against them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

B'loney. That is weaselly argument. The accident has happened. Do you really want to set a precedent in which liability can be changed after the fact just because the after effects are still being felt?

The "effects" ? The spilling oil isn't the "effect" of the injury - its the injury itself! And its still happening. If BP doesn't want to be liable for oil spill under a law that is passed tomorrow, I'd recommend they stop the leak today.

There is also a Bill of Attainder aspect to this which is quite repugnant.

Bill of Attainder doesn't even apply here, you're an idiot.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I am defending the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Only applies to criminal law.