U.S. attorney general opens criminal probe of Gulf oil spill

[SpidermanTuba]

When did I call this gulf oil leak a natural disaster? I was pointing out the fact that oil naturally seeps out of the ground.

Why?

Because it's a valid point.

No, its merely a fact. You've made no actual point that I'm aware of.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Causing someone to fall is called murder you stupid ****.

Killing a pelican is a crime as well.

Only an idiot like you would compare a human life to that of a bird.

Only an idiot like you would think I was.

 

[sangha]

They certainly don't stop fighting the fire to collect evidence, bub.

I never said they do. And once again, another rightwinger makes stuff up.

The only one suggesting that an investigation hinders solving the problem is one of your fellow wingnuts.

Investigation and interviewing of those persons, systems, data, etc that are still involved with solving the situation does inherently hinder the solution effort... go ask neighbors, secretaries, video cameras from the other oil companies, etc... knock yourself out...

And once again, DD is caught talking out of both sides of his mouth. One side says "GO ahead and investigate. Knock yourself out!!". The other sides "Oh noes!! An investigation will interfere with stopping the leak!!!"

And once again DD is forced to repeat his lie that the investigation will hinder the solution effort. Again, without explanation.

 

[sangha]

Why?

Because it's a valid point.

No, its merely a fact. You've made no actual point that I'm aware of.

As I predicted, you got the "Just saying" defense.

 

[DiamondDave]

You just hop right on in there to ground zero, while it is still burning, to find that Molotov cocktail.... or take away a firefighter from their duties to ask what he directly saw...

As one of the first responders on 9/11, I can tell you that we were instructed that if we were to find anything from the plane, we were to immediately bring it to the police.

Once again, you made something up and got proven wrong.

And again.. a dead pelican, even with oil on it, is not inherently evidence of criminal wrongdoing..

And again, you're wrong. If the oil is tested and shown to have come from BP's leaking well, then that is not just evidence of wrongdoing, it PROOF BP committed a crime.

Since this has already been done, there is no doubt the BP has committed a crime.

So far, you have posted nothing but lies. Let's list a few

1) Fires are not investigated for possible arson until the fire is out
2) Doctors accused of malpractice are allowed to continue treating dying patients
3) Police do not investigate violent crimes until after the victim recovers
4) Bush did not investigate 9/11 until after the WTC towers stopped smoking
5) bush did not invade Iraq because of non-existent WMD's and 9/11 connections
6) And after action report is the same as an investigation.
7) BP has not committed any crimes
8) On 9/11, the first responders were prohibited from collecting evidence
9) DOJ investigators are going to fly out to the leaking oil platform and take the workers off the job of stopping the leak

Not bad for a rightwinger, but I'm sure you could tell more lies

Ahh... yep.. you're going to drop an emergency action as a cop or firefighter just to deliver evidence... indeed wrong... as a soldier, I have been in countless situations to know you are indeed dead wrong

If BP oil is found on a dead pelican, is it not proof... it is indeed circumstantial evidence, but not the proof you claim... I guess you find an old flip flop of yours on a dead pelican, it is proof you did criminal activity to cause the death of the pelican... no need for further info .... but in this case, the pertinent info cannot be had until necessary access to systems, personnel, and data involved in the current solution effort is available

1) Those directly fighting the fire, and the systems involved are not directly investigated while the firefight effort is still going on
2) Doctors who may be found to have committed malpractice in further investigation are not ripped away during the life saving effort, unless you are a proxy is going to take over that action of life saving... and there is no direct evidence that verifies criminal wrongdoing or negligence as of this point.. and see again above where that will not be able to be ascertained until the complete investigation can be done after the existing problem is solved
3) Police do not interrupt the apprehension nor do they interrupt the direct involvement of those in the situation just to interview, unless they are relieved from that current problem situation
4) Show where this was a contention made
5) read the motherfucking complete resolution for the continuation of hostilities against Iraq.... please show where only WoMD and terror were listed in the resolution.... and please show where corroborating evidence by multiple sources did not exist in support of possible WoMD activities, etc...
6) The actions done to create an after action report are indeed investigations...
7) BP has not be proven to commit any crimes.. upon a complete investigation that can only be done with access to persons, equipment, data, etc that are currently involved in the solution effort, it may be found that they were, and it may be found that they were not... but that determination cannot happen until that access is had... either by solution of the problem or someone else taking over the responsibility for the solution of the problem....
8) You stated this... nowhere did I.... nice try, asshole..... but a person digging someone out of rubble or manning a hose or bringing medical aid directly to a person will not inherently drop what they are immediately doing just to bring forth evidence... not until the direct situation they are dealing with is over, or they are relived by someone else in order to deliver that evidence....
9) To properly obtain information directly leading to the determination of cause and/or fault, persons, systems, data, that are currently focused in the solution would indeed have to be taken off of the focus at hand.... other data obtained by sources outside of the sphere of influence can be obtained but are nothing before the corroborating evidence that can only be had after the solution is completed or the persons/systems/data currently working on the solution are relieved of that responsibility

Thank God I don't have you anywhere in a sphere of influence around the problems I work on day and night.... else nothing would get solved.... and critical thinking would be lacking from anything coming from your direction

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why?

Because it's a valid point.

No, its merely a fact. You've made no actual point that I'm aware of.

Are you really as stupid as you appear? The fact that oil seepage is a natural occurance capable of killing endangered species makes it a valid point. And since your entire argument is that BP's responsible for killing a brown pelican, of which I have seen no evidence of, would imply that the earth itself is guilty of committing a strict liability crime.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

DouchebagDave -

its a federal crime to kill a pelican. It doesn't matter if its an accident or if its on purpose. It doesn't matter if you did it trying to sell it to a pet shop, or you did it while trying to rescue a bus full of nuns - its a strict liability crime. Do you understand what that means? Intent is irrelevant.

That being said - if you don't understand how the presence of oil soaked dead pelicans in marshes where oil has washed ashore from the BP oil spill implicates BP as the killer of these pelicans - YOU ARE QUITE SIMPLY A MINDLESS RETARD.

 

[DiamondDave]

And again.. a dead pelican, even with oil on it, is not inherently evidence of criminal wrongdoing.. .

When the oil comes from a man made oil spill it is.

No... it is not... because you contend it is a man made spill... assuming neglect or personal responsibility... neither has been or can be ascertained until access to things that are still directly involved in the repair effort are investigated...

It has still not been determined that this was caused by a negligent or criminal action, or if it is merely an accident... now, as stated, do I think BP will be paying for 'dead pelicans' anyway, even if found to be an accident...? Yep... but that is neither here nor there

But nice try

 

[sangha]

OK... so it is your contention that any info that people outside of the direct sphere of the problem will give you proper insight into the cause of the problem??

WTF are you talking about? Once again, you are trying to play word games with your "direct sphere of the problem". It sounds like your unspecified "cease fire agreement violations".

I'll make it simple for you - None of the people currently working on stopping the leak will be questioned unless it does not interfere with their work

Will the firefighter just leave it there while he is indeed still battling the fire around him?? You bet your sweet ass he will

You just lost your sweet ass. Any firefighter who left evidence behind would be disciplined.

You left wingers are just so taken by the obvious dog and pony show... you want a myth to be there in place of the truth that cannot yet be obtained.... so you can hold on to the myth even if the reality shows your myth to be wrong

Myths? Are you talking about how after action reports are the same as investigations? How our invasion of Iraq was NOT because of mythical WMDs and mythical connections to AQ? How bush didn't investigate 9/11 until the buildings stopped smoking?

I did not claim the fed 'was going to take over' the situation

Yes you did, but I never expected an honest response from you

.... but in order to gain access to the necessary persons, systems, data, etc for a proper investigation BEFORE the solution, that would indeed have to happen....

Again, your claims to be able to predict the future have been undermined by your inability to predict the past.

unless you are willing to wait for those things/persons involved to be finished with the solution implementation.. you are indeed one disingenuous person... and pretty stupid, especially when you have my exact quote contradicting you right above your assertion

Who said anything about not waiting for those people/things to be finished working on the solution?..........................Oh wait....That was YOU!!!!!

That's what happens when you tell so many lies; it gets hard to keep track of all of them

You can question my CIO all you want about details or reasons on the outage... or the secretary down the hall... but their insights are going to get you nowhere without the cold hard facts and data that they do not inherently have because they are not directly involved... and they will not be able to obtain such information to your satisfaction before the solution without interrupting those persons and things involved currently in the solution... which will, by nature, hinder the solution effort... if you cannot grasp this simple concept, you are indeed to far gone in your winger delusion

Again, your claims to be able to predict the future have been undermined by your inability to predict the past.

 

[DiamondDave]

DouchebagDave -

its a federal crime to kill a pelican. It doesn't matter if its an accident or if its on purpose. It doesn't matter if you did it trying to sell it to a pet shop, or you did it while trying to rescue a bus full of nuns - its a strict liability crime. Do you understand what that means? Intent is irrelevant.

That being said - if you don't understand how the presence of oil soaked dead pelicans in marshes where oil has washed ashore from the BP oil spill implicates BP as the killer of these pelicans - YOU ARE QUITE SIMPLY A MINDLESS RETARD.

Again.. you mindless douchebag.. implication is not proof

nice try though....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Again.. you mindless douchebag.. implication is not proof

THAT'S THE POINT OF CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION!

Seriously, how can ONE person have SO MUCH STUPID in him?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

No... it is not... because you contend it is a man made spill... assuming neglect or personal responsibility... neither has been or can be ascertained

NEITHER HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED, because KILLING A PELICAN IS A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME.

Do you understand what the term "strict liability crime" means? If not - I'd suggest you LOOK IT UP - because its one of the terms relevant to this conversation! That way you don't reveal as much of your stupid!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

DouchebagDave -

its a federal crime to kill a pelican. It doesn't matter if its an accident or if its on purpose. It doesn't matter if you did it trying to sell it to a pet shop, or you did it while trying to rescue a bus full of nuns - its a strict liability crime. Do you understand what that means? Intent is irrelevant.

That being said - if you don't understand how the presence of oil soaked dead pelicans in marshes where oil has washed ashore from the BP oil spill implicates BP as the killer of these pelicans - YOU ARE QUITE SIMPLY A MINDLESS RETARD.

What I think Dave is saying is, just because a dead pelican has oil on it does not mean the oil caused it's death. An autopsy would have to be performed.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What I think Dave is saying is, just because a dead pelican has oil on it does not mean the oil caused it's death.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 oi3hgf94he3u3298fgy43hgv34infoimm m LOLLOo1ihr981yr912rih UROTFLMAI(hy9g9m(*UGF!!!!!!!!!!11

OMG NOWAY!!!! 093259832509832705#@@######## You can't be this stupid!!!!!!!


RHAHAHHAHAHHAHHH1!!!!AGHHHHHHH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH1!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[DiamondDave]

OK... so it is your contention that any info that people outside of the direct sphere of the problem will give you proper insight into the cause of the problem??

WTF are you talking about? Once again, you are trying to play word games with your "direct sphere of the problem". It sounds like your unspecified "cease fire agreement violations".

I'll make it simple for you - None of the people currently working on stopping the leak will be questioned unless it does not interfere with their work

Will the firefighter just leave it there while he is indeed still battling the fire around him?? You bet your sweet ass he will

You just lost your sweet ass. Any firefighter who left evidence behind would be disciplined.




Myths? Are you talking about how after action reports are the same as investigations? How our invasion of Iraq was NOT because of mythical WMDs and mythical connections to AQ? How bush didn't investigate 9/11 until the buildings stopped smoking?



Yes you did, but I never expected an honest response from you



Again, your claims to be able to predict the future have been undermined by your inability to predict the past.

unless you are willing to wait for those things/persons involved to be finished with the solution implementation.. you are indeed one disingenuous person... and pretty stupid, especially when you have my exact quote contradicting you right above your assertion

Who said anything about not waiting for those people/things to be finished working on the solution?..........................Oh wait....That was YOU!!!!!

That's what happens when you tell so many lies; it gets hard to keep track of all of them

You can question my CIO all you want about details or reasons on the outage... or the secretary down the hall... but their insights are going to get you nowhere without the cold hard facts and data that they do not inherently have because they are not directly involved... and they will not be able to obtain such information to your satisfaction before the solution without interrupting those persons and things involved currently in the solution... which will, by nature, hinder the solution effort... if you cannot grasp this simple concept, you are indeed to far gone in your winger delusion

Again, your claims to be able to predict the future have been undermined by your inability to predict the past.

You are so disingenuous, it is not funny.... where to start???

1) There is a list of all the violations of the cease-fire agreement... and it is indeed more than just WoMD and terror harboring, as you like to insist are the only reasons behind the continuation of hostilities against Iraq
2) Yeah.. a fire fighter will shut off the hose, put it down, to deliver evidence, while he is still battling the blaze.... my brother being in the FD in NE Baltimore is going to be laughing his ass off when he reads that one later...
3) Actions used to create the AAR are indeed investigations....
4) Pull back the quote again.. my post is still there, asshole... I said you go ahead and pull those people off, knock yourself out.... which is not saying that the investigators nor the government have done so or was going to do so... but in order to gather the necessary information from those directly involved and those things directly involved, they WOULD HAVE TO DO SO.... is English comprehension that difficult for you??
5) So... if you want to interview and investigate those people and things that are directly involved in the situation before the situation is solved... it would be a logical conclusion that it would not hinder or impede anything with the solution effort currently underway??? Am I getting you correctly on this... because it seems to be a pretty logical conclusion that interference with those people and things during the effort would indeed impede progress and take away cycles that would otherwise be used in the solution effort
6) An investigation of those things before the solution (and it is indeed before the solution) would indeed take away from actually working on the solution.... or can you not see this? The government is not calling for this to be investigated after the solution, but they are indeed calling for it now
7) And your claims to understand what is being said, and the evidence shown of your lack of problem solving skills undermine your personal assertions about whether a worthwhile investigation of the pertinent people and things would be a hindrance or not

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What I think Dave is saying is, just because a dead pelican has oil on it does not mean the oil caused it's death.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 oi3hgf94he3u3298fgy43hgv34infoimm m LOLLOo1ihr981yr912rih UROTFLMAI(hy9g9m(*UGF!!!!!!!!!!11

OMG NOWAY!!!! 093259832509832705#@@######## You can't be this stupid!!!!!!!


RHAHAHHAHAHHAHHH1!!!!AGHHHHHHH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH1!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Leave it to an idiot to claim facts are stupid.

Fact is the existence of oil doesn't mean it caused the death.

Government wildlife experts said Tuesday the spill has killed 23 birds, and that 156 sea turtles and 12 dolphins have been found dead, but it's unclear if the turtles and dolphins were killed by the oil.

Oil spill: How much is a pelican worth? - May. 21, 2010

Oh and your claim that each dead animal or water fowl would be an individual charge is utter bullshit.

Just under a year after the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a federal grand jury indicted Exxon and its shipping subsidiary on five criminal violations.

Two felony charges accused Exxon of allowing an incompetent crew to leave port. The others were misdemeanors, charging Exxon with killing waterfowl under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and discharging oil under the Clean Water Act and Refuse Act.

Criminal charges were leveled after Exxon Valdez spill: Exxon Valdez spill | adn.com

 

[sangha]

You just hop right on in there to ground zero, while it is still burning, to find that Molotov cocktail.... or take away a firefighter from their duties to ask what he directly saw...

As one of the first responders on 9/11, I can tell you that we were instructed that if we were to find anything from the plane, we were to immediately bring it to the police.

Once again, you made something up and got proven wrong.

And again.. a dead pelican, even with oil on it, is not inherently evidence of criminal wrongdoing..

And again, you're wrong. If the oil is tested and shown to have come from BP's leaking well, then that is not just evidence of wrongdoing, it PROOF BP committed a crime.

Since this has already been done, there is no doubt the BP has committed a crime.

So far, you have posted nothing but lies. Let's list a few

1) Fires are not investigated for possible arson until the fire is out
2) Doctors accused of malpractice are allowed to continue treating dying patients
3) Police do not investigate violent crimes until after the victim recovers
4) Bush did not investigate 9/11 until after the WTC towers stopped smoking
5) bush did not invade Iraq because of non-existent WMD's and 9/11 connections
6) And after action report is the same as an investigation.
7) BP has not committed any crimes
8) On 9/11, the first responders were prohibited from collecting evidence
9) DOJ investigators are going to fly out to the leaking oil platform and take the workers off the job of stopping the leak

Not bad for a rightwinger, but I'm sure you could tell more lies

Ahh... yep.. you're going to drop an emergency action as a cop or firefighter just to deliver evidence... indeed wrong... as a soldier, I have been in countless situations to know you are indeed dead wrong

You must be hallucinating because no one is dying on that off shore oil platform.

If BP oil is found on a dead pelican, is it not proof... it is indeed circumstantial evidence, but not the proof you claim...

If the oil came from the BP spill (and that easily tested) then it is proof of a crime.

You can't seem to get anything right

I guess you find an old flip flop of yours on a dead pelican, it is proof you did criminal activity to cause the death of the pelican... no need for further info ....

So you think pelicans are dying from exposure to flip-flops?

Really?

but in this case, the pertinent info cannot be had until necessary access to systems, personnel, and data involved in the current solution effort is available

Wrong again. If the pelican died from exposure to oil and test show that the oil came from the BP leak, then there is no need for access to systems personnel.

You just made that up. At least you're consistent

1) Those directly fighting the fire, and the systems involved are not directly investigated while the firefight effort is still going on

Wrong. This may surprise you, but the Fire dept has people whose job it is to investigate ALL fires for possible arson. They are never tasked with fighting the fire, so having them investigate does not take anyone away from fighting the fire. Sort of like the way interviewing BP lawyers will not prevent the engineers from working on a solution.

2) Doctors who may be found to have committed malpractice in further investigation are not ripped away during the life saving effort, unless you are a proxy is going to take over that action of life saving...

You seem to have as little knowledge of medicine as you do of everything else. Doctors are switched out of operations EVERY DAY. "Close for me" is a common expression heard on tv shows of a medical nature.

And no one is being "ripped away" from working on stopping the leak, and no one will. You are a joke

and there is no direct evidence that verifies criminal wrongdoing or negligence as of this point.. and see again above where that will not be able to be ascertained until the complete investigation can be done after the existing problem is solved

Another lie. The crime has been proven

3) Police do not interrupt the apprehension nor do they interrupt the direct involvement of those in the situation just to interview, unless they are relieved from that current problem situation

Apprehending a suspect is part of an investigation, so you just undermined your own argument. Boy, are you a dope.

And again, you dishonestly claim that the DOJ will impede those who are working on the solution without any explanation. You are to cowardly to explain yourself. All you have is your slogans

4) Show where this was a contention made

If you can't keep track of all your lies, why should I?

5) read the motherfucking complete resolution for the continuation of hostilities against Iraq.... please show where only WoMD and terror were listed in the resolution.... and please show where corroborating evidence by multiple sources did not exist in support of possible WoMD activities, etc...

And once again, DD cowardly refuses to deny the invasion of Iraq was due to the mythical WMD and mythical connections to OBL.

6) The actions done to create an after action report are indeed investigations...

And another lie without any explanation. Just another mindless repition of your slogans

7) BP has not be proven to commit any crimes..

Another lie

upon a complete investigation that can only be done with access to persons, equipment, data, etc that are currently involved in the solution effort, it may be found that they were, and it may be found that they were not... but that determination cannot happen until that access is had... either by solution of the problem or someone else taking over the responsibility for the solution of the problem....

Again, your claimed ability to predict the future is undermined by your inability to predict the past

8) You stated this... nowhere did I.... nice try, asshole..... but a person digging someone out of rubble or manning a hose or bringing medical aid directly to a person will not inherently drop what they are immediately doing just to bring forth evidence... not until the direct situation they are dealing with is over, or they are relived by someone else in order to deliver that evidence....

And again you repeat the lie that an investigation will impede those who are working to stop the leak. Again without explanation.

All you can do is repeat your lies. You can't defend them.

9) To properly obtain information directly leading to the determination of cause and/or fault, persons, systems, data, that are currently focused in the solution would indeed have to be taken off of the focus at hand.... other data obtained by sources outside of the sphere of influence can be obtained but are nothing before the corroborating evidence that can only be had after the solution is completed or the persons/systems/data currently working on the solution are relieved of that responsibility

Again, your claimed ability to predict the future is undermined by your inability to predict the past

Thank God I don't have you anywhere in a sphere of influence around the problems I work on day and night

That's true. I'd make a terrible janitor

.... else nothing would get solved.... and critical thinking would be lacking from anything coming from your direction

I'm sorry I don't have the "critical thinking" skills that led you to believe that pelicans are dying from exposure to flip-flops

 

[SpidermanTuba]

What I think Dave is saying is, just because a dead pelican has oil on it does not mean the oil caused it's death.

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 oi3hgf94he3u3298fgy43hgv34infoimm m LOLLOo1ihr981yr912rih UROTFLMAI(hy9g9m(*UGF!!!!!!!!!!11

OMG NOWAY!!!! 093259832509832705#@@######## You can't be this stupid!!!!!!!


RHAHAHHAHAHHAHHH1!!!!AGHHHHHHH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH1!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Leave it to an idiot to claim facts are stupid.

Fact is the existence of oil doesn't mean it caused the death.

Government wildlife experts said Tuesday the spill has killed 23 birds, and that 156 sea turtles and 12 dolphins have been found dead, but it's unclear if the turtles and dolphins were killed by the oil.

Oil spill: How much is a pelican worth? - May. 21, 2010

Where does it say anything about the turtles and dolphins found being soaked in oil?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 oi3hgf94he3u3298fgy43hgv34infoimm m LOLLOo1ihr981yr912rih UROTFLMAI(hy9g9m(*UGF!!!!!!!!!!11

OMG NOWAY!!!! 093259832509832705#@@######## You can't be this stupid!!!!!!!


RHAHAHHAHAHHAHHH1!!!!AGHHHHHHH

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH1!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Leave it to an idiot to claim facts are stupid.

Fact is the existence of oil doesn't mean it caused the death.

Government wildlife experts said Tuesday the spill has killed 23 birds, and that 156 sea turtles and 12 dolphins have been found dead, but it's unclear if the turtles and dolphins were killed by the oil.

Oil spill: How much is a pelican worth? - May. 21, 2010

Where does it say anything about the turtles and dolphins found being soaked in oil?

You are one stupid ****. Where do you think these dead turtles and dolphins were found? At Seaworld?

The National Marine Fisheries Service reported today finding six dead dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama since May 2nd. Officials are saying the deaths could be related to the oil spill or may be due to natural deaths from calving. They are currently testing tissue samples to determine if oil pollution was a cause of death. Dolphins have been observed swimming in oil-stained waters off of Louisiana.
Wildlife death toll from BP oil spill likely includes dolphins

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You are one stupid ****. Where do you think these dead turtles and dolphins were found? At Seaworld?

No, they weren't found at seaworld. Is this another one of your pointless "valid points" ?

The National Marine Fisheries Service reported today finding six dead dolphins in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama since May 2nd. Officials are saying the deaths could be related to the oil spill or may be due to natural deaths from calving. They are currently testing tissue samples to determine if oil pollution was a cause of death. Dolphins have been observed swimming in oil-stained waters off of Louisiana.

Where does it say the dolphin was soaked in oil?