Right-wing media agree: BP relief fund result of a White House "shakedown"
Numerous right-wing media have agreed with Rep. Joe Barton's (R-TX) claim that the BP escrow account fund designed to aid Gulf residents affected by the oil spill resulted from a White House "shakedown," despite the fact that the plan was "mutually agreed to" by both the administration and BP.
Right-wing media echo Barton's attack of the BP Gulf relief fund, calling it a "shakedown"
Barton apologized to BP CEO for Obama's "shakedown." During BP CEO Tony Hayward's June 17 testimony before Congress, Barton apologized to BP for what he described as Obama's "shakedown," saying: "I'm not speaking for anybody in the House of Representatives but myself, but I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown ... I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words -- amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."
Erickson: "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." In a June 17 RedState post, Erick Erickson echoed Barton's claim that the deal was a "shakedown," saying, "Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown." From RedState:
Let's be honest. The White House meeting with British Petroleum was a shakedown.
The White House threatened criminal prosecution of BP, the President gave a miserably received speech, then he hauled BP into the White House and put the Attorney General in the room with the CEO to stare at him, then the President demanded $20 billion.
It was a shakedown.
Big Journalism: Barton's comments were a "relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively."A June 17 Big Journalism post highlighted Barton's comments and criticized the GOP for not defending him, calling his statement "[a]relatively mild statement of fact, expressed inoffensively."
WSJ: Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown.In a June 18editorial, The Wall Street Journal stated that, while BP "does not deserve the apology" offered by Barton, it agreed that Barton "rightly called" White House "pressure" on BP "a shakedown. From the WSJ editorial:
There was in particular no reason for BP to compound its error and agree to spend another $100 million to compensate the oil workers sidelined by the Administration's policy choice to impose a drilling moratorium. BP had no liability for these costs, and its concession further separated its compensation from proper legal order. BP deserves to pay full restitution for the damage it has caused, but it ought to do so via legal means, not under what Texas Republican Joe Barton rightly called the pressure of "a shakedown" yesterday. On the other hand, BP does not deserve the apology that Mr. Barton also offered, though he quickly backtracked when the White House pounced on his comments.
Gingrich: Obama "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP. On the June 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich responded to Barton's comments by claiming that the Obama administration "is directly engaged in extorting money" from BP.
Hoft: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way." In a June 17 Gateway Pundit post, Jim Hoft wrote: "Of course it was a shakedown. It's the Chicago way. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) apologizes to BP for the Barack Obama's '20 Billion Dollar Shakedown.' Well said, Congressman."
Napolitano: "That is a classic shakedown." On the June 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano stated: "The government doesn't have the right -- we don't know what happened in the Oval Office, but you guys reported, and the vice president did not deny, that he walked in and basically said give us the $20 billion or we will take it from you. That is a classic shakedown. The threat to do something that you don't have the right to do." Napolitano also falsely claimed that "the White House is going to distribute" the money in the escrow account, when, in fact, the fund is to be administered by an independent third party.
Ingraham: "Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point." On the June 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham claimed: "I think that Joe Barton, before he apologized, had a legitimate point. First of all, this administration has taken a very aggressive, and I would say strong-arm approach, to private industry across the board. ... I would rather have this fund ... administered by the local authorities."
Limbaugh: Obama taught students "how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations ... much like he's doing to BP." On the June 17 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, "In reality, [Obama] didn't teach constitutional law. ... What Obama taught was Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, and how to use the Constitution to shake down corporations through race and grievance lawsuits. That's what he taught students at the University of Chicago. Much like he is doing to BP."
JammieWearingFool: "Aww, the poor babies can't handle the truth." In a June 17 post, JammieWearingFool wrote: "As an American, I'm ashamed of what's been going on at the White House for the past 17 months. Let's hear it for Rep. Joe Barton of Texaswho, I'll remind people, is speaking for himself." He posted a Dallas Morning News article on the statement and wrote, "Aww, the poor babies can't handle the truth."
The escrow fund was a "mutually agreed to" deal
The $20 billion deal was reportedly a mutually agreed to deal. On the June 18 edition of Fox & Friends, after co-host Brian Kilmeade asked him if he was worried "about the government getting too involved," Fox News contributor Geraldo Rivera defended the plan as "mutually agreed to" and "an excellent deal." From Fox & Friends:
RIVERA: The $20 billion deal was a mutually agreed to deal. It settled the market. The stock price of BP went up. It was recognized by everybody as a solution for right now that does not imperil the fate of the company. Eminently reasonable. The amount big enough so that people have some confidence that I've lost my job for three weeks, that I'm going to get paid, I'm going to be able to pay my mortgage, be able to pay the note on my shrimp boat. I think it was an excellent deal, and those that are picking at it now are people who just have to say no to anything that Obama does.
The Washington Post also reported that the deal was mutually agreed upon, reporting that "[b]oth sides got what they wanted out of the encounter." From the Post:
Both sides got what they wanted out of the encounter. The administration, under fire for how it has responded to the environmental calamity, can boast of creating a huge pot of money for easing the pain of Gulf Coast residents. BP, though poorer on paper in the short run, got some much-needed clarity on its long-term liability, plus an explicit statement from Obama that the administration doesn't want to see BP driven into bankruptcy.
WSJ: "BP's agreement to set up the fund is" a sign "that it has no intention of waging an aggressive legal battle." A June 18 Wall Street Journal article said of the plan: "The arrangement initially appeared to be a capitulation to the White House. But setting a figure has the benefit of establishing estimated boundaries for the avalanche of claims the company now faces from individuals, municipalities, states and the federal government." The article continued:
BP's agreement to set up the fund is another in a series of signs that it has no intention of waging an aggressive legal battle, said Richard Squire, a law professor at Fordham University. "BP has always tried to have a good public image," Mr. Squire said. "But to me they're signaling that they don't think they have a very good legal case.
However, your point about civil or criminal liability is well taken.
But I would ask you, in the spirit of fairness and equity whether it is reasonable to require all the victims of this spill to litigate their cases in order to be compensated. It might take years to even identify all of them. And if the Exxon Valdez is an example, the case could drag on for decades while the victims receive nothing.
I do not think this can be repeated enough.
Otherwise, commentators -- including David Brooks -- will think and act as though we have a fair and just claims process in this country. Apparently, he has forgotten what the Supreme Court did to those unfortunates who had valid Exxon Valdez claims.
As an attorney, I believe in the system, the process. However, our system simply cannot accommodate the number of claimants this spill will entail. The lawyerly answer is "this is why class action suits exist." Which I also believe.
But the problem is, these things take time. And given the extraordinary number of plaintiffs here, just getting the claim certified as class action will drag on far too long.
What are those people to do in the meantime? Live on platitudes? Listen to AM radio, fulminating their hate for the people trying to help them? Maybe even vote them out?
In the end, I do believe that our claims process is fair and just. Unfortunately it's also very slow. And that is small comfort to someone facing bankruptcy.
I don't have an answer. Wish to God I did. Which is why I support measures like the relief fund.
Putting this money in limbo guarantees that BP won't have a chance to hide it, move it, or spend it.
You don't really think that one small group of folk will be who make the difference in any election do you? Unless you're saying you expect democrats AND republicans "to lose far into the future" because of their "care nothing" attitude about the small guy. Then I would understand your statements.
The predictable reactionary conservative rhetorical formula is:
Obama not.
It's that simple. Even if/when Obama takes a position that is more or less right in line with conservative ideology, which is rather often. He must not be allowed to win on any point no matter how internally inconsistent, incongruous and hypocritical it makes the GOP appear. The gullible public, who also has amnesia, will buy anything.
They keep making junk up, and when it backfires, they get even angrier and more determined to bring the work of Congress to a standstill.
Evil cesspool is an apt description of the current crop of "conservatives" in Congress and in the media.
I was on DailyKos yesterday where I read a diary about RedState's reaction to the escrow account. What I discovered was that many of the posters were very upset that their meme of "Obama is incompetent" would be damaged by Barton's apology to BP. This was a type of admission, imo, that this has been a goal of some on the right since before Obama was sworn into office. Yep, it is an evil cesspool.
There are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle, undoubtably - but that doesn't change that fact that it's an integral part of the Republican political pathway right now and has been for the past 20 years, and the same cannot be said about those on the left.
Only those so knee deep in partisanship would stupidly ask for an example. Hmm, maybe he was speaking to you.
It wasn't a controversial idea, but whatever...
Where's the outrage about any of these things?, it's nowhere near where it was pre 2009 so stop your nonsensical blather.
That's a valid question with no easy answers. Let's take a brief objective look at them, even though it's a total off-topic troll statement.
Afghanistan: The unconquerable quagmire. Progress is slow and every victory hard fought. Our brave men and women are doing what they can to bring order and hunt down Tali-ban militia when they are able. Too bad we got in bed with the wrong leadership while President Bush was in office. I hate to bring up mistakes of the last administration, because I know you right wing media consumers have a 2 minute statute of limitations on what you can blame a rebuplican for. Now we just have to be tough, and remain supportive of the effort to bring some kind of stability to that country, despite all the diplomatic errors created by the Bush Administration.
Iraq: Wow, if you're a right wing troll, you may have been brainwashed into assigning the blame for this on Obama, but for the rest of the world and anyone with a tiny shred of critical or analytical capability, you really shouldn't bring this up. No matter how hard your leaders spin this, only the gullible right wing base will ever believe this is anything but a GWB disaster.
Corporate power on Wall Street: Alright, fair enough, Obama could have been tougher on them. Obama could have been a LOT tougher on them. Too bad the republicans and their failed economic supply side and free trade theories have been a complete disaster for anyone BUT the wall street tycoons. You can thank forty years of non stop propaganda and consolidation of wealth from our republican friends. Sure some democrats enabled and assisted, unlike right wing media consumers, most liberals can make an honest assessment of things. Trouble is, we've been enabling these Wall Street con men for decades and they have been growing more and more powerful, and it's not the democrats and liberals crying for less regulation and "free markets".
It's very easy and shortsighted to blame Obama for these things. It's also really off-topic and easily disputed. Too bad you have nothing insightful to add on the actual topic. You did give some of us an opportunity to "refresh" our republican talking point rebuttals though, so not a total waste I guess. I'm sure after they're done blaming Obama for BPs failures, they'll go right back to the talking points Bruce1ace regurgitated.
To be fair Obama never said anything about pulling out of Afghanistan. In fact he made it his war during his campaign. he was going to roll up his sleeves and defeat those sexist evil Taliban and rebuild Afghanistan. And yet we show very little if an progress with no major shift in policy to assist in these lofty goals.
Capitalism and free trade did not fail. It was never given a fair shake. Almost immediately socialist ideology has been permeating every aspect of our country and poisoning any chance free trade and Capitalism ever had.
He's doing what he campaigned on.
YOU said that he was NOT doing what he campaigned on, and you LIED when you did so!
And are YOU one of the fools who thinks we can't SEE your previous posts? You MUST be if you think you're getting away with claiming that you DIDN'T talk about what Obama did when he was running for President!
Go back and re-read your post, doofus! I swear, it's not rocket science.
I'm not blaming Obama for Iraq. Clearly it was a Bush failure that should have cost him the 2004 election. But Obama said we were getting out, we're NOT out and even when combat missions are officially "over" we are going to have 50,000 troops in Iraq in some capacity. Is that "getting out"? Not in my book.
Crickets on Iraq, that's what I hear.
Here's a link to what he said in July of 2008, which is consistent with what he is DOING in Iraq, which is consistent with what he said he wanted to do in 2007 and 2006!
You think that the people who were upset about troops in Afghanistan aren't STILL opposed to troops in Afghanistan? You're wrong (or lying). You think that the people who wanted an immediate withdrawl from Iraq still don't want that? You're wrong, or lying.
And the same people who complained about Bush being too buddy-buddy with corporations are STILL upset about Obama behaving in a similar way!
Your "point", that Democrats are hypocrites, was bogus when you made it, and you didn't support it above with your bogus examples!
Massive fail.
But thanks for providing examples of those things that YOU think fill that criteria - oops, you totally failed to even provide a SINGLE example of anything that fits that definition!
The reverse, that the Republican party and its supporters are hypocrites, gets covered here every week, so there are plenty of examples of that behavior. The obligation is on the person making the accusation to back it up, and neither you nor Bruce did that. What a shock!
I have been reading your posts for a while, and oftentimes you provide links, rebuttals and other well thought out responses to the republican talking points and silly gotchas.
I often wonder if these right wing media consumers are literally brainwashed. If they are somehow through all the hate radio and Fox news misinformation, literally programmed to block out any facts that contradict their world view. I know willful ignorance is a powerful force, but these people are like single hive-minded drones.
But, there are many on the left who railed against the excesses of Bush who are no longer making an issue of it when Obama continues these same policies. I agree that the left clearly has shown to be more principled than the right, but that's a heck of a curve to be grading on.
So, for YOU to suggest that the fact that some of the issues you mentioned don't get the same exposure now means that Dems aren't willing to attack Obama over the same issues that they attack Republicans for - that doesn't hold up when examined realistically!
She says after vehemently whining about a right-winger not providing any examples. You failed to bring a single example of your whiney posting.
How can you POSSIBLY think that the examples that are provided by MMFA here aren't readily available to regular posters on this site is beyond me! And since those examples ARE readily available, AND the issue was someone ELSE making assertions without backing them up with ANY examples, there was NO reason for ME to bring up ANY examples on my own!
Yes there is. Because YOU said it as fact. Yet, YOU brought no proof of your FACTS. Typical of your posting pattern.
When was the last time you saw a right wing blowhard apologize because of something the White House said???
BP is not responsible and the taxpayers should pay for everything. That actually is right in line with mainstream conservative thinking.
Of course, prior to the "shakedown" we heard quite a bit of smug declarations about how "Obama was in BP's pocket".
Yep, example #10,001 of conservative strategy of attack Obama for everything no matter how much it contradicts other recent attacks.
My thought EXACTLY!!
And then there's the other point - that contributions from the oil industry to Republicans makes the Republicans love them even more. Contributions from the oil industry to Democrats makes the Democrats hate the oil industry a little less!
I hate to break it to you but corporations are a part of society and they should pay their share to help maintain the infrastructure that supports a level of civilization that allows them to keep making profit.
Maybe someday we will all drive corporate roads, go to corporate schools, and be protected by corporate security and mercenary corporate militias. I am sure many conservative libertarians would have no problem with this kind of arrangement. Meanwhile, a healthy society and ecosystem is vital for corporations to make money...
Or is making profit without paying for the maintenance of society just another entitlement, one that conservatives support?
But liberals, who demonize faceless nameless corporations for sport because it sells good, never shrink away from wanting more of their profits? How much is enough for you?
Conservatives have said repeatedly that all taxation is left.
But liberals, who demonize faceless nameless corporations for sport because it sells good, never shrink away from wanting more of their profits? How much is enough for you?
Corporations are organized to make profit for their shareholders. They are by design, not accountable to society at large unless and until it effects their profit. This makes them by nature, more focused on short term decision making. We the people, through our democratically elected government have a responsibility to look after the long term interest and provide checks and balances on corporate behavior.
How is that unreasonable or demonizing them
Huh? Ya, every serious proposal from a serious conservative is that we do away with all taxes.
Maybe serious conservatives should speak out more to distance themselves from Sean hannity, Beck, Rush, Fox, Tea Parties, various pauls etc..
Instead they seem to enjoy the benefits of the carnage left behind from the media conservatives.
The only talk I hear of "hating" and "demonizing" corporations, the only place I hear the term "Evil corporations" is from the right.
Corporations are no more evil than a shark that eats a swimmer or a dog that craps on your lawn. They do what they're designed to do.
Wanting B/P to pay it's fair share is demonizing corporations? Wanting to regulate the banking industry is picking on Wall. St.? Those sound like regurgitated talking points spewed by any Faux reporter and far from what progressives or liberals are saying.
Government regulation is required because businesses won't behave themselves without it.
funny how everyone seems to forget that giving the rich and corporations obscene tax cuts and credits was suppose to be the answer to ALL the economic issues in the world..and hey hows all that reaganomics and dereulation crap working out for ya..
http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/8/22/20-reasons-to-kill-corporate-taxes.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/30/20041130-084445-1131r/
http://debtism.com/social-security/eliminate-corporate-income-tax-art4.htm
OK, the last one they argue it may be alright to eliminate or reduce corporate income taxes to 2%.
Took about 2 minutes of googling, and those were just some of the first few examples that jumped out at me.
I know I have heard many libertarians and republicans argue in favor of this. I know Sean Hannity has made such ridiculous claims and that Limbaugh and other conservative commentators have made it a point to argue that lowering corporate taxes always creates more revenue, with no proof to back it up.
Right On, no offense...seriously, I say this for your benefit...you need to look at the sort of people and philosophies that are REALLY running the right wing establishment in this country. The pro-christian, anti gay, and anti-welfare bits that you right wing media consumers gobble up to feel good about yourselves are just a smokescreen to keep you voting for the real agenda.
When you talk about entitlements, oil is the mother of all entitlements for all of us. We feel our current modern lifestyle is our birthright and it is built on oil.
Conservatives seem to be ok with letting the oil industry do whatever it takes to get the oil, side effects be damned. Progressives believe that vital industries need supervision to prevent or minimize the side effects of their operations.
If you want to see cuts to entitlements, just wait for oil production declines to set in, as they will eventually will, due to the fact that we have extracted much of the easy to get oil... And don't listen to Sean and Rush, oil shale is not easy to get.
Democrats have been bipartisan about the idea of alternative energy policy.
The result is nothing gets done. Corporations and the private sector have done nothing either.
Regulation is necessary, no argument there. But you won't find a more regulated industry than oil, or more taxed. Never mind one that is held in lower regard. Is it the taxpayer's fault that MMS employees were wacking off instead of manning their posts?
I agree, but leadership has been lacking for years to prevent us from being stuck with no alternatives. Remember the market was supposed to take care of all our problems. According to conservatives the government just gets in the way.
it the taxpayer's fault that MMS employees were wacking off instead of manning their posts?
I find it hard to feel sorry for big oil. They acted irresponsibly and were able to get away with it because the regulatory environment failed.
I obey the law even when there are no cops around or if they are around but wacking off. MMS behavior is another reason why the industry and the the regulation of the industry need a lot of attention - not our blind trust.
There is a market clean energy which has in turn employed people like my friend who have the knowledge and ability to advance the field. My point is only that it will be a while; they simply need more time. You don't need to confuse me for a hard capitalist - I see the need for free enterprise as well as meaningful regulation.
But it isn't just about more regulation and a bigger more bureaucratic agency to do it. It's about efficient government and efficient regulatory agencies free of corruption and cronyism. That holds true at every level of government.
Agreed, but what you are saying is not the message of Fox, Rush, Beck & Co. Their message is that government is to blame, environmentalist are to blame, Obama doesn't care...
Why is the governments attempt to secure funds only considered a shakedown by these people? Well what do expect from someone who thinks all taxation is theft.
Meet the republican party! They don't need no stinkin' reasonable!
This argument falls flat because:
A)Regulation and enforcement of regulation has been dismantled, rather then being increased for the last few decades. Lobbying power and money is at an all time high, and the lobbyists who get their people in power get to write the regulations for their own industry. This reached it's pinnacle under the GW Bush administration. Liberals back then were yelling about "fox in the henhouse" regulation and it fell on deaf ears then as it does now.
b) It's better to do nothing? It's better to just throw out hands up because of broad mantra's about how much the American government "sucks"? So you hate America and don't have any desire to see it improve or change for the better? Giving up on America is very un-american, and I hope you right wingers can one day learn to find some faith in this imperfect yet great experiment in democracy we call The United States of America.
I agree, however many observers are concerned that renewables will never be able match the energy we get from oil and at this late stage in the game there is not much time to make a smooth transition.
I explained that both sides get contributions from those who have money and hope to influence whoever they give money to.
RightON and others have previously tried to claim that contributions from the oil industry corrupts/controls both sides equally, and of course that's not true.
And they couldn't refute what I said, and so they tried to derail that thread.
Their position gets worse when people like Hannity go on and on about the human toll from the spill "we've lost a generation of fishermen" and then launch into a tirade about Obama's imaginary mishandling of the spill. Never once pointing out the 50,000 gallon per day elephant in the room.
I guiltily admit to some schadenfreude listening to the talking heads tie themselves in knots about the spill while being utterly incapable of placing the blame where it belongs.
Let's do a little comparison. An 5th grader is described as 'small'. A 6th grader is described as a 'bully'. Each day before lunch the bully tells the small kid to 'give me your lunch money, or I'll beat you up'. After a couple weeks of that the small kid just agrees to give up his money. End result: "mutually agreed to" money transfer.
I do believe, that example would still be considered a "shake down". Probably quite similar to the current situation. BP knows they will have to pay something, Obama told what was the expected amount, BP agreed.... shake down (political style)
Second, BP has not been found responsible for anything. You know that whole pesky innocent until proven guilty thing that is so inconvenient for people who are quick to judgment.So far this is an accident that was allegedly foreseeable and allegedly caused by corner cutting.
Wow.
First, they don't know for sure if this is the worst environmental disaster in history. We have only been keeping records a relatively short time. - loki
That's my favorite part. Truly priceless campaign strategy.
I am glad that is your favorite part since it is true. I like how you ignore the later argument. For all we know this has happened before without our even knowing about it, nature is a funny thing.
What is the later argument? That BP is not responsible? That is actually the same argument over and over again. And it is priceless. I especially love how you try to pretend like BP wouldn't be in this mess without Obama. How very "independent" of you. You should stop selling your nonsense, even the tourists ain't buying it.
Yes. Yes! I absolutely love it. All those natural oil rigs out there that have exploded and killed people.
Now, tell me. Do you think Obama is the reason that those men are dead and not BP? How far are you willing to take this lunacy in the name of partisanship?
There is already established legal procedures for just this sort of thing and the President does not have the Constitutional authority to use the power of his office to demand money from a private company, and a foreign one at that. It is not only a shakedown it is a black spot on the Office of the President, a disgrace.
Lets be clear Obama did not request it he demanded it and gave a deadline with a threat if they did not do what he said. BP has had claims centers open since almost day one in the affected areas processing claims and paying out. Does it it take awhile, sure, but how long do you think it is going to take now that government is involved?
Second, he threatened to use the full weight of his office to force them to do it. He had his lawyers already looking into how to do just that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/white-house-turns-up-heat-on-bp-with-flurry-of-new-demands-1999651.html
BP has been nothing but upfront and honest since this thing started. The administration on the other hand is the one hampering the efforts to contain this spill.
Who will stand up for the weakest among us!
note: I may have broken the sarcasm-o-meter on this one!
And no company no matter how large can easily separate with that much money all at once without it hurting everyone from the top all the way down to the bottom.
I'm pretty sure this story has been covered on the news, might want to check the google on it though, I can't imagine it's gotten enough press attention if you have to ask that question.
What I am saying is that the president and his administration have done nothing but hamstring BP and the affected Sates from doing a proper response.
I never said the President was responsible. The truth is a full investigation has yet to be made so we don't really know who or what is responsible. - loki
Do you even see the cognitive dissonance there, loki?
People loved Microsoft when it was growing now it is seen as evil. Same for Wal Mart and any other number of companies. We encourage people to take risk and become successful and then when they do we hate them.
So, the reason everyone is after BP is because they are so large and successful. Tell, which part of that fantasy in your mind do you use to incorporate the massive oil spill and the men who lost their lives because of it? Or the men who continue to lose their livelihoods because of it. Is that part of their success that everyone is so jealous of? You are an amazingly pathetic apologists for corporate malfeasance at its worst.
Which means exactly what in your imaginary reality? I just love to see where this thought process comes from. How far are you willing to go to attempt to make a victim out of BP? Now, it is actually BP that is being kept from stopping the spill by the administration. You are incredible. Please, do go on. You should be a case study in cognitive dissonance.
It's kind of telling actually, because I think he just explained why so many on the hard right feel the need to buy into and help spread malicious attacks on the current President, rather then engage in substantive debates over his actual policy and positions.
Also Mikehuck, the "full weight" of the office of the POTUS is being used by someone he didn't vote for, so it's been pre-determined to be a bad thing. Fox news and Limbaugh told him he is entitled to a permanent republican majority so Obama's very presence is cheating him of his rights!
Side Note: I hate Limbaugh, he gives conservatives a bad name. And I get my news from a multitude of sources to include all the major networks plus foreign outlets.
I am not making a 'victim" out of BP I am simply stating fact.
I wonder if those fishermen and resort owners, and tourist industry people, and landowners feel the President is unfairly putting a "stranglehold" on BP as they watch their industries suffer and land values decrease?
I can only conclude, insaneloki20024664, that you believe the people who make a livelihood from the gulf coast waters, as well as the taxpayers across this country should feel sympathy for the multi billion dollar corporation at the thought of taking responsibility for it's profit making venture* causing a major environmental disaster.
*I am not saying the profit making is bad, but let's be honest, those oil platforms aren't there for decoration, they are there for the profit of BP corporation.
Repeat the talking point all day, insaneloki20024664, it still sounds ridiculous when you bring into the equation who the REAL victims of this disaster are.
Um, when was BP given the chance? Everything they have done since this started has had to be checked and double checked through the White House. Plans have been rejected and offers of assistance from experts and resources worldwide have been rejected by the administration.
"I wonder if those fishermen and resort owners, and tourist industry people, and landowners feel the President is unfairly putting a "stranglehold" on BP as they watch their industries suffer and land values decrease?" -CoolSlaw
They are not in anyway in the state of mind to be making that sort of decision. It is the same principle we do not let victims families be the ones that decide the fate of the guilty party.
"I can only conclude, insaneloki20024664, that you believe the people who make a livelihood from the gulf coast waters, as well as the taxpayers across this country should feel sympathy for the multi billion dollar corporation at the thought of taking responsibility for it's profit making venture* causing a major environmental disaster." -CoolSlaw
They have taken responsibility. They had already pledged to pay for the cleanup and compensate those affected.
"*I am not saying the profit making is bad, but let's be honest, those oil platforms aren't there for decoration, they are there for the profit of BP corporation.
Repeat the talking point all day, insaneloki20024664, it still sounds ridiculous when you bring into the equation who the REAL victims of this disaster are. "-CoolSlaw
Their profit margins have nothing to do with this their responsibility level. Their profit margin is what is being affected right now which is making victims of hundreds of thousands of people all over the world and not just the Gulf Coast.
That's a flat out incorrect statement. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and label it that instead of a flat out lie.
Strawman alert! Strawman alert! They are not in charge of reprimanding BP, no has suggested they should be. I only suggested you consider all those actual people...fellow American citizens...who have been or will be impacted by this disaster. You do realize that people live and work along the Gulf Coast, right? Flesh and blood human beings with families to feed and mortgages to pay. Nice try though!
It is not a Strawman argument. You brought them into this by suggesting they would not agree with me. I was merely pointing out that their judgment in this situation is clouded. And of course I know there are real people and it was a real 11 people who died on the rig when this happened. The problem is they are now being used to justify actions by the administration that fly in the face of this countries founding principles.
What is your deal anyway?
You just said 11 people died on that rig...that's 11 people with friends and families mourning a tragic loss as we type.
Don't you see how you weaken your own argument?
And yes, it is a strawman, because you suggested that I wanted the people impacted by this disaster to be in charge of doling out the penalties. I never said that, no matter how much you think it would help your argument, you can just make stuff up when you are losing a debate that you shouldn't have gotten yourself into in the first place.
I think I've addressed all your points, and clearly shown that you are acting as a pure concern troll for poor victimized BP. Each post just makes your position seem weaker and more transparent.
You need to find a reason to attack Obama because he has created an escrow account for addressing the mess created by BP, we get it.
a statement where Obama says he has been in charge of this situation since day one - loki
Cause, if that is what you got for proof we are all wasting our time with you. You have no intention of having an adult debate.
Just a side note, "augment" means to add to or enhance, if the administration augmented BPs plans, it means they added more resources, or expertise, or manpower to them.
I know what you meant from the context of your argument, but you should double check your standard issue talking points before posting them.
Not to mention the pressure the administration could put on our allies when it comes to doing business with BP.
It is not imaginary it is reality.
Hopefully those contracts would go to a corporation that can keep their rigs from exploding and causing massive environmental and economic damage.
See, this is the free market bub. You want the ability to make enormous profits? Then you have to face the consequences when something goes wrong, especially when that something effects millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and the health and livelihood of American citizens.
Since when is BP...a foreign company...ENTITLED to operate in the gulf and make profits there? If they can't safely deliver the goods and services, then let someone who can do it step up and have a shot.
Each year hundreds of thousands of small businesses go under for a multitude of reasons. Do you cry for each of them to be subsidized? Even if it's through thier own negligence or incompetance that they went under? If a food vendor is found to be serving contaminated or unsafe food to it's customers, do you cry foul on the mean health inspector for holding them responsible?
Do you work for BP, or it's PR firm?
And BP has done nothing but take responsibility and pledge to make things right. And if they don't there are legal ways to pursue them. However, what the President did is not legal.
I never said they were entitled, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. It saves me the trouble of having to think.
Where do you think I am saying BP needs to be subsidized? No business no matter how big should be subsidized by the government. What thread are you reading?
I do not work for BP. I simply dislike the government trying to
I can play that too!
"No matter how badly Johhny behaves, I'm going to buy him an ice cream sundae."
Hey look, I didn't use the word ENTITLED either! But guess what? I just ENTITLED Johhny to an Ice cream sundae! Wheeee Word parsing* sure is swell!
Word parsing: Desperation tactic used by the right when their arguments are shown to be hollow and transparent.