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

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

Oh believe me - I'm furious that those that are trying to run as "Conservatives" aren't ripping this to shreds. It's a clear cut case of the Fed overstepping the powers granted to it by the Constitution. I've been railing about these sorts of things for years and it's just sickening that people are just lapping this one up because it's a "crisis".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

Read my post you moron. My post was quite clear and your little questions don't need to be answered by me to defend what I have posted. Just because I don't provide a differing solution doesn't mean the one put in place by BHO and his merry band of thugs is correct or Constitutional. Silly libs...

 

[Jhhnn]

Read my post you moron. My post was quite clear and your little questions don't need to be answered by me to defend what I have posted. Just because I don't provide a differing solution doesn't mean the one put in place by BHO and his merry band of thugs is correct or Constitutional. Silly libs...

Yeh- you got nothin', but seem to feel the need to emphasize that repeatedly, as if that nothin' signifies something other than Lib-hate and the need to vent your frustration.

Got whupped in the last general election? Want to change that? Then come up with something other than derision for the other side, because that's not really a very good seller...

 

[spittledip]

Read my post you moron. My post was quite clear and your little questions don't need to be answered by me to defend what I have posted. Just because I don't provide a differing solution doesn't mean the one put in place by BHO and his merry band of thugs is correct or Constitutional. Silly libs...

Well I do not think the govt can be trusted too much either with this money, but there seems to be no other way. Obviously as much as you insult me, you have no good ideas either, so you very well prove yourself to be a digital tiger. So the money will not be used efficiently-oh well- as long as some of it is used appropriately b/c there are no other good solutions in place at this time.

My concern is for the people and the environment, politics be damned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Well I do not think the govt can be trusted too much either with this money, but there seems to be no other way. Obviously as much as you insult me, you have no good ideas either, so you very well prove yourself to be a digital tiger. So the money will not be used efficiently-oh well- as long as some of it is used appropriately b/c there are no other good solutions in place at this time.

My concern is for the people and the environment, politics be damned.

And that's the problem - emotion instead of logic. I don't care how touchy feely this BP slushfund for BHO is - it goes against everything the Constitution and our gov't was founded upon. Principles aren't principles if you ignore them just to feel good.

 

[Jhhnn]

And that's the problem - emotion instead of logic. I don't care how touchy feely this BP slushfund for BHO is - it goes against everything the Constitution and our gov't was founded upon. Principles aren't principles if you ignore them just to feel good.

Still nothin', over and over, ad nauseum...

And you're so cute, raving around and about the constitution, as if you've somehow risen to the repeated challenge of supporting your argument with an actual constitutional reference.

So, uhh, step right up and do it- quote the constitution or any existing statue actually prohibiting the govt from acting in this fashion. I mean, you're all in favor of strict interpretation of the constitution, right? So give it to us, show us how dumb we are...

 

[Sclamoz]

And that's the problem - emotion instead of logic. I don't care how touchy feely this BP slushfund for BHO is - it goes against everything the Constitution and our gov't was founded upon. Principles aren't principles if you ignore them just to feel good.

I would love to hear your logical explanation of how the escrow fund violates the constitution.

 

[First]

And that's the problem - emotion instead of logic. I don't care how touchy feely this BP slushfund for BHO is - it goes against everything the Constitution and our gov't was founded upon. Principles aren't principles if you ignore them just to feel good.

Except you keep wimping out by pretending like the Constitution exists in a vacuum with static variables. If you had to violate the Constitution to save 300M Americans you'd do it, so this notion that principles trump common sense is, well, exactly the sort of stupid we except from you CAD. Way to beat even P&N's lowered expectations of you buddy!

EDIT: Not to mention the reality that this is nowhere near unconstitutional. I mean seriously, you don't have a fucking clue what this document says, please stop pretending you're a learned Constitutional scholar.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I would love to hear your logical explanation of how the escrow fund violates the constitution.

Care to show where it give's the federal gov't to power to distribute a companies monies?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Except you keep wimping out by pretending like the Constitution exists in a vacuum with static variables. If you had to violate the Constitution to save 300M Americans you'd do it, so this notion that principles trump common sense is, well, exactly the sort of stupid we except from you CAD. Way to beat even P&N's lowered expectations of you buddy!

EDIT: Not to mention the reality that this is nowhere near unconstitutional. I mean seriously, you don't have a fucking clue what this document says, please stop pretending you're a learned Constitutional scholar.

Yeah, because we all know that the lib's feelings are more important than the Constitution. I mean who really cares that the Constitution was put in place to limit the gov't...
Silly libs...

 

[Sclamoz]

Care to show where it give's the federal gov't to power to distribute a companies monies?

I never claimed it did, you claimed to know otherwise. Now back that up or be quiet.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I never claimed it did, you claimed to know otherwise. Now back that up or be quiet.

The problem is - I don't have to. If you can't find Constitutional authority for it... well then... guess what? Oh wait... emotional wants trump that so daddy barack please make it better.... please?

 

[Sclamoz]

The problem is - I don't have to. If you can't find Constitutional authority for it... well then... guess what? Oh wait... emotional wants trump that so daddy barack please make it better.... please?

You really think the government doesn't have the authority to administer an Escrow account?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

You really think the government doesn't have the authority to administer an Escrow account?

Didn't find it in here, but maybe I missed it.

 

[Sclamoz]

Didn't find it in here, but maybe I missed it.

Uhh I'm not expert on the constitution but why the hell do you think there would be a specific clause regarding escrow accounts in the constitution? I'm guessing escrow accounts are considered legal and the laws regarding them were established by congress, which the constitution outlines gives them power to do so.

To jump to the conclusion that x,y,z is illegal because it isn't mentioned in the constitution is idiotic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Uhh I'm not expert on the constitution but why the hell do you think there would be a specific clause regarding escrow accounts in the constitution? I'm guessing escrow accounts are considered legal and the laws regarding them were established by congress, which the constitution outlines gives them power to do so.

To jump to the conclusion that x,y,z is illegal because it isn't mentioned in the constitution is idiotic.

Only a moron would try to argue against what I said by doing as you did. Nowhere did I say or even suggest that the work "escrow" had to be in there you twit. Now can you or anyone else please show me where the Fed's power to do such things is derived from? I'd love to know because I've yet to find anything allows the President to appoint a person to oversee a company's monies like this.
Yes, yes, we know people don't want to not support this because they don't want to look "mean" or "unconcerned" or some other emotional BS but it doesn't mean it's correct.

 

[Throckmorton]

General defense and welfare

 

[Sclamoz]

Only a moron would try to argue against what I said by doing as you did. Nowhere did I say or even suggest that the work "escrow" had to be in there you twit. Now can you or anyone else please show me where the Fed's power to do such things is derived from? I'd love to know because I've yet to find anything allows the President to appoint a person to oversee a company's monies like this.
Yes, yes, we know people don't want to not support this because they don't want to look "mean" or "unconcerned" or some other emotional BS but it doesn't mean it's correct.

Why don't you actually explain what your fucking argument is instead of making me guess?

Oh, I see you're claiming the president appointed someone to oversee BP's money out of the blue. You're even dumber than I thought. Did you miss the part where BP agreed to this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061602614.html

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Why don't you actually explain what your fucking argument is instead of making me guess?

Oh, I see you're claiming the president appointed someone to oversee BP's money out of the blue. You're even dumber than I thought. Did you miss the part where BP agreed to this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061602614.html

I've already covered that... you would have known that if you'd have actually read my posts. Them agreeing to it changes nothing.
Oh and if you think you have to "guess" then you haven't even attempted to read my posts to understand the argument.

 

[Sclamoz]

I've already covered that... you would have known that if you'd have actually read my posts. Them agreeing to it changes nothing.
Oh and if you think you have to "guess" then you haven't even attempted to read my posts to understand the argument.

I just got out of surgery today, I'm not interested in going through your dumbass posts. If BP agrees to it than tough shit. Or are you seriously arguing that BP and the government can't enter into a contract because it somehow violates the constitution in a way that you have yet to explain?

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem is - I don't have to. If you can't find Constitutional authority for it... well then... guess what? Oh wait... emotional wants trump that so daddy barack please make it better.... please?

You are sooo lame, CSG. It's your assertion that this whole thing is *against* the constitution and everything this country is founded on. At his point, you're claiming that, well, that you don't have to back that up, because you can't... but you're still "right*, anyway, just because you say so...

 

[SP33Demon]

CSG is a nutjob along with the other constitutionalist loonies. Don't feed the troll.

BP agreed to a contract with the Feds to try to save their stock price, it's as American as apple pie.

 

[jackschmittusa]

This "not mentioned in The Constitution" crap is getting old.

CAD, would you please link to where you bitched about the government interfering in all of those other things not mentioned in The Constitution like: the broadcast spectrum, the interstate highway system, the internet, USDA inspections, etc. that interfere with the businesses in this country.

 

[werepossum]

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?

This is pretty much my understanding, that BP is voluntarily putting the money in escrow and a third party is administrating the payouts under the rules of arbitration rather than fighting it out in court. I support that completely.

I would be very much opposed to Obama extorting BP to put that money into government control. Thomas Sowell in fact just wrote an excellent column asking if the USA is on the path to tyranny, and it certainly bears continual scrutiny. But I'm very much in favor of Obama leaning on BP to establish this escrow account and handle things in arbitration, before people's lives are destroyed, rather than fighting it out in the court system with the inevitable delays and money wasted in litigation. Kudos to Obama and to BP.