Some Republicans consider BP deal a U.S. "shakedown"

[Bitek]

All these BP apologist GOPers are disgusting.

This is a perfect example of the problem with the rigid ideological conservative thinking. They are quite good at making their ideas sound good on bumper stickers, but are disastrous in practice.

Where was all this outrage when Bush was "stepping on the necks" of the telcos to force them to handover private data to the govt so they can conduct their secret, unconstitutional and extra-legal spying on US citizens? (for one example)

Dozens of R&D's are indicted every year for real shakedowns for political contributions and jobs. If BP doesn't like it, then sue.

They have forfieted money into an escrow acct rightly owed for the damage they caused due to their negligence and recklessness which will be independently administered. What has BP done to be trusted to do this in a fair and responsive way? Nothing.

Yet the GOP would rather have them lawyer up, and let the Gulf Coast rot as BP drags this through the courts for decades, using their deep pockets to fund armies of lawyers to bury claimants in endless motions, appeals, and settlements for pennies on the dollar, if not just wait them out until they are bankrupt or dead. Oh, but the Ideological Purity they will save!

Part of America may have gotten amnesia to the Republican led debacles that have put this country into disaster, but if the GOP actually wins any power, stupidity like this will quickly remind them why we voted them the fuck out of office no matter how many contributions the GOP is raking in from the oil companies and the banks right now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We are a nation of laws. You need to change the constitution if you don't like the slow process with division of powers. We are not a banana republic where el presidente can seize assets on a whim. Granted in this case BP's actions are voluntary but they certainly were pushed into y Congress and Obama it which goes against spirit of the law.

Edit: I meant we should not be a Banana repulic... with assassination orders on US citizens, no habeus corpus, illegal seizing of freddy and fannie and GM and banks we are well on our way.

Oh, please. BP definitely could have asserted their right to contest each and every damage claim in court. Nobody's disputing that. It's quite common for defendants to offer settlement even before court actions are filed when they believe it to be in their best interests.

The whole notion that this amounts to extortion is just ideological posturing and partisan blather. Had this happened while Bush was in the Whitehouse, I'm sure that those howling the loudest about it would be the ones crowing the loudest about how Dubya was tough on corporate irresponsibility, and how he'd done everybody a favor by facilitating payment for damages.

But since it's Obama, well, that makes everything "different", right?

Yeh, It's all Obama's fault. Everything, including original sin, the inquisition, crashing the economy, you name it.

In general, Righties seem to be deep in denial and have their heads so far up their butts that they now define progress as squeezing their shoulders in, too...

 

[spittledip]

Go ahead, keep claiming that your opinion is "fact", when it's no such thing. While you're at it, cite the statute or constitutional provision for your opinion that the govt lacks the authority to do this. This is the third time I've offered you that opportunity, thinking that maybe there is some basis for your claims. Apparently not.

Hell, you defended the govt's supposed authority to lock people up indefinitely w/o charge, but think that a mere matter of money, of an agreement freely entered, is somehow worthy of raving outrage...

If BP had considered this agreement to be to their detriment, they probably wouldn't have entered into it. They get to burnish their image a little bit by being responsible, and they show good faith wrt the govt in doing so. If anything, the Obama Admin has offered them a way to make the best out of a bad situation, and they took it. They're probably grateful to have it, all things considered, given that theyir orientation is more practical than ideological...

lol, you quoted the wrong person, or you have the wrong person as quoted

 

[Jhhnn]

Thanks for that, spittledip. If I inadvertently grab a quote secondhand, out of somebody else's post, that's what happens. My mistake- I've corrected it, and apologize for having attributed the passage to you. I knew it was CSG all along, just didn't proof read well enough before posting.

 

[theeedude]

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

We are a nation of laws. You need to change the constitution if you don't like the slow process with division of powers. We are not a banana republic where el presidente can seize assets on a whim. Granted in this case BP's actions are voluntary but they certainly were pushed into y Congress and Obama it which goes against spirit of the law.

Edit: I meant we should not be a Banana repulic... with assassination orders on US citizens, no habeus corpus, illegal seizing of freddy and fannie and GM and banks we are well on our way.

Noone is denying BP its right go to have trials by a jury when it is sued by its victims. It has a right to tell Obama to take a hike and not put money aside in escrow for compensation. But guess who is going to sit on these juries? Americans who are going to take into account BP's behavior when deciding guilt and compensatory and punitive damages. That is why BP is doing what it can to make itself look like it is taking responsibility for its actions. Kudos to Obama for using this to secure funds for the cleanup. Republicans need to worry more about America than they do about corporate interests.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Ok, after reading this post I assumed that you had posted somewhere in this thread about how the money should be handled for reparations and cleanup.. the only thing you said in this entire thread was how not to hand out money. You mentioned that there are "systems" in place, but you don't explain what the systems are. What are these systems? Also, you really shouldn't berate people for not understanding what you did not write.

You should also consider that your position very much sounds like you don't think BP should be paying reparations b/c you only talk about how the money shouldn't be handled.

I also hope you treat your children to be more respectful to people than you are, even though it would be somewhat hypocritical.

listen twit. I will berate people for their continued lack of reading comprehension if I wish. My posts were quite clear in what they said. People don't seem to be able to handle it so they ASSume other things and try to put words or positions into my posts that aren't there. It's quite typical of liberals and they whine each and every time I don't play their little games.

Again, you can ASSume based on your own bias that my post "sounds" like whatever but it's quite obvious you have no clue as it's been put in plain english for you.

lol, as if you have any clue who I am or how I raise my kids. You want to take my posts on a political forum and project them on to things like that? Surely you aren't that stupid - really? Oh, and by the way, respect is earned something some people here have not done.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

CADsortaGUY

You keep talking about BP's money. It seems to me that they realized that people they affected were entitled to some compensation without needing a court to tell them. Once this realization occurred, they knew some of the money they held was no longer theirs, but belonged to those affected people. They agreed to an amount to no longer be considered theirs, and agreed to allow the government to assume the role of dispersing it, also palming off all of the inevitable flak that will come with the dispersal.

It doesn't take any mental gymnastics to see that BP made the assumption that they had created a debt, and the funds to pay it would no longer be considered "theirs".

lol, that's quite the spin you have going on there... However it doesn't address the fact that it's the gov't metering out the money. At no point are the monies ever the gov'ts - yet BHO's "czar" has control of it? Do you people really not see the precedent they are setting here?

 

[theeedude]

lol, that's quite the spin you have going on there... However it doesn't address the fact that it's the gov't metering out the money. At no point are the monies ever the gov'ts - yet BHO's "czar" has control of it? Do you people really not see the precedent they are setting here?

It's the way to do it. Who else would you have metering out the money? BP?

 

[HomerJS]

Nice try but that's not even close to what I've said. I'm asserting that it sets bad precedent and goes against all that is American for the gov't to demand a corporation put the money aside and demand that the gov't be the one to meter the money out. So please stick to what I post instead of your asinine ASSumptions and liberal talking points.

Nice try at being clever. Attacking my question as a talking point from the Daily Kos. That way you avoid answering. So far the only thing I've seen from you is go back to the way it was handled during the Exxon Valdez spill. Virtually all rational people agree this is inadequate. So I'll ask again, got any better ideas?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Nice try at being clever. Attacking my question as a talking point from the Daily Kos. That way you avoid answering. So far the only thing I've seen from you is go back to the way it was handled during the Exxon Valdez spill. Virtually all rational people agree this is inadequate. So I'll ask again, got any better ideas?

Any solution that doesn't set the precedent of the gov't demanding to control a corporate piggy bank is better than this shakedown.

BTW, I didn't mention the daily kos, but if that's where you get them - it doesn't surprise me.

 

[HomerJS]

Any solution that doesn't set the precedent of the gov't demanding to control a corporate piggy bank is better than this shakedown.

BTW, I didn't mention the daily kos, but if that's where you get them - it doesn't surprise me.

So basically your answer is "I'm not going to offer any constructive ideas just sit back and bitch about everything Obama does".

Par for the GOP course.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So basically your answer is "I'm not going to offer any constructive ideas just sit back and bitch about everything Obama does".

Par for the GOP course.

No, if BHO or anyone else has a workable idea that doesn't violate the principles of this country, the Constitution, and doesn't destroy industry/commerce then I'd be on board with it.
I have zero problem with working on ways to "fix" the problems with the current systems in place but just because you don't think they are adequate doesn't mean the federal gov't can just demand to bypass them.

 

[HomerJS]

No, if BHO or anyone else has a workable idea that doesn't violate the principles of this country, the Constitution, and doesn't destroy industry/commerce then I'd be on board with it.
I have zero problem with working on ways to "fix" the problems with the current systems in place but just because you don't think they are adequate doesn't mean the federal gov't can just demand to bypass them.

For the record BP agreed to this the government did not comendeer BPs business or take them to court. The fund is being administered by the same person who handled the 9/11 fund.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

For the record BP agreed to this the government did not comendeer BPs business or take them to court. The fund is being administered by the same person who handled the 9/11 fund.

And if you'd have read all my posts you'd see that they are just as wrong to allow such a thing. No corporation should ever allow this to happen. It's embracing abuse.

 

[HomerJS]

And if you'd have read all my posts you'd see that they are just as wrong to allow such a thing. No corporation should ever allow this to happen. It's embracing abuse.

And since they did that means no constitutional violation here. Move along....

 

[nonlnear]

And if you'd have read all my posts you'd see that they are just as wrong to allow such a thing. No corporation should ever allow this to happen. It's embracing abuse.

Corporations are pretty much incapable of being anything but indifferent to "abuse". Their institutional value system is much cruder than an individual's perception of political ethics. Feelings about abuse, right, and wrong are the concern of the citizens, not the corporations. Perceiving right and wrong, and valuing them in corporate decisions are not a matter of size or complexity either; if anything the relationship is inverted. A very small business is much more likely to turn down a profitable venture for ethical reasons than a large publicly held corporation. It's headline news when a company like Google decides to scale back profitable ventures in China for reasons of conscience. That fact ought to be a lot more shocking than the fact that one company decided it actually wants to exercise (in a financially significant way) the values that it wants the public to believe that it operates by! It's not because public corporations are evil or anything, but simply because they are designed with an incentive structure that doesn't include a sense of indignation - except insofar as it affects the morons in marketing.

 

[Jhhnn]

So basically your answer is "I'm not going to offer any constructive ideas just sit back and bitch about everything Obama does".

Par for the GOP course.

Well, Yeh, of course. Dealing with CSG and Righties in general follows the old saying about never arguing with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Which is not to say that CSG is an idiot, at all, but that the ideology he ascribes to is fresh out of ideas, other than dragging everybody else down to their level of incompetence.

They had it all their way, and failed to govern constructively in a spectacular manner. The sad truth is that we'd be re-living 1931 if it weren't for the bank bailout, but they refuse to recognize that, rave about the bailout itself, rather than about their ideology and their idols who created the need for it. And it's just more of the same wrt this oil spill in the gulf. Who the hell was it who fought for more offshore drilling for the last 20 years, anyway?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

And since they did that means no constitutional violation here. Move along....

Uh no. The Fed still has no actual power to do such things even if the corporation ok'd it.

 

[spittledip]

listen twit. I will berate people for their continued lack of reading comprehension if I wish. My posts were quite clear in what they said. People don't seem to be able to handle it so they ASSume other things and try to put words or positions into my posts that aren't there. It's quite typical of liberals and they whine each and every time I don't play their little games.

Again, you can ASSume based on your own bias that my post "sounds" like whatever but it's quite obvious you have no clue as it's been put in plain english for you.

lol, as if you have any clue who I am or how I raise my kids. You want to take my posts on a political forum and project them on to things like that? Surely you aren't that stupid - really? Oh, and by the way, respect is earned something some people here have not done.

Is it just me or does this guy have no idea on how to answer a question asked of him? He still has not posted on how he thinks the money from BP should be distributed. He thinks that answering a direct question is a "liberal game." Stop running away and just answer the question. If you don't have an answer to the question, then just say so.

Hey, I really don't need to "project" anything when your behavior is out in the open for all to see. You are the same person in "real life" as you are on this forum. Also, if you want to talk about respect being "earned", you should consider your own behavior. The idea that respect is something earned is how people attempt to excuse their poor treatment of others... and is also something teenagers say when trying to manipulate adults. It really is an immature and stems from a less-than-adult mentality.

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh no. The Fed still has no actual power to do such things even if the corporation ok'd it.

Funny you'd say so, given that it's been happening all through your disinformational raving...

Essentially, what's happened is that the Obama Admin has assisted BP in obtaining an honest agent to process the claims that will inevitably be filed against them. The govt will hold the funds in escrow for such purposes. The govt will not determine the compensation each claimant receives, if any. That's up to BP's agent. All parties reserve the right to invoke court proceedings, obviously.

Given the magnitude of potential damages and the number of US citizens affected, it's only reasonable that the govt should protect their interests, and those of BP at the same time.

Everybody comes out ahead, except for those who seek to discredit honest efforts to find reasonable solutions. If they had constructive alternatives, I'm sure they would have been put forward by now.

While I can understand the sentiment of attorneys who see the class-action gravy train pulling out of the station w/o them, I'm sure they'll find other cases to pursue.

 

[nonlnear]

Uh no. The Fed still has no actual power to do such things even if the corporation ok'd it.

Power. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

 

[Darwin333]

Oh, please. BP definitely could have asserted their right to contest each and every damage claim in court. Nobody's disputing that. It's quite common for defendants to offer settlement even before court actions are filed when they believe it to be in their best interests.

The whole notion that this amounts to extortion is just ideological posturing and partisan blather. Had this happened while Bush was in the Whitehouse, I'm sure that those howling the loudest about it would be the ones crowing the loudest about how Dubya was tough on corporate irresponsibility, and how he'd done everybody a favor by facilitating payment for damages.

But since it's Obama, well, that makes everything "different", right?

Yeh, It's all Obama's fault. Everything, including original sin, the inquisition, crashing the economy, you name it.

In general, Righties seem to be deep in denial and have their heads so far up their butts that they now define progress as squeezing their shoulders in, too...

The bolded is spot on. Unfortunately the inverse is also true, had Bush been in office the lefties would be screaming about how Bush is fucking up the cleanup effort and how the much more of the Gulf Coast was lost than should have been.

But since it's Obama, well, that makes everything "different".

IMO, the above is the reason for the system we have. Our politicians are so occupied with covering their asses that they can no longer be leaders. This is true for both sides equally, even though I am sure most people will argue that it's only the other side that does it. We have nobody to blame but ourselves either, we allow the "gotcha" bullshit to work.

 

[Darwin333]

Uh no. The Fed still has no actual power to do such things even if the corporation ok'd it.

The Federal Government can not enter into a legally binding contract that all parties involved agree with?

Hell, I am not even sure if the Feds have to sign a contract. Isn't a 3rd party, completely separated from the .gov and BP administering the escrow and claims process? If BP wants to let the government appoint the person who administers it why shouldn't BP be allowed to do so?

 

[CountZero]

lol, that's quite the spin you have going on there... However it doesn't address the fact that it's the gov't metering out the money. At no point are the monies ever the gov'ts - yet BHO's "czar" has control of it? Do you people really not see the precedent they are setting here?

You sure love the word czar, don't you?

I don't agree with the idea that what is being done is bad. What I do find to be disturbing is the way the right is disowning essentially the responses you have given. What is happening is something that is very much so against what the right supposedly stand for and yet they are not or will not stand up and say the unpopular things. It isn't like the right are the only ones guilty of this. In that regards I find it refreshing that there are people (no matter how much I might disagree with them) that take an unpopular stance because it is the stance that fits what they believe.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The Federal Government can not enter into a legally binding contract that all parties involved agree with?

Hell, I am not even sure if the Feds have to sign a contract. Isn't a 3rd party, completely separated from the .gov and BP administering the escrow and claims process? If BP wants to let the government appoint the person who administers it why shouldn't BP be allowed to do so?

lol @ "completely separated". Are you serious? Feinberg the ex pay czar and now BP slush fund check writer said "the message conveyed to me by the president and the administration. We want to get these claims out quicker." But yeah, i guess it's "completely separated"...

lol, did you see how he fumbled around the stripper question? Courts? I thought this wasn't about the courts?