Tyranny? Or rule of law?

[Mott the Hoople]

U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
By THOMAS SOWELL
Posted 06/21/2010 06:13 PM ET



When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

Such people were a valuable addition to his political base, since they were particularly susceptible to Hitler's rhetoric and had far less basis for questioning his assumptions or his conclusions.

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Put differently, a democracy needs informed citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere.

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Many among the public and in the media may think that the issue is simply whether BP's oil spill has damaged many people, who ought to be compensated.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure. There will always be a "crisis" — which, as the president's chief of staff has said, cannot be allowed to "go to waste" as an opportunity to expand the government's power.

That power will of course not be confined to BP or to the particular period of crisis that gave rise to the use of that power, much less to the particular issues.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?


Good Question I particularly like the unthinking part.

[Downbound Train]

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

With vastly expanded powers of government available at the discretion of politicians and bureaucrats, private individuals and organizations can be forced into accepting the imposition of powers that were never granted to the government by the Constitution.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you don't believe in constitutional government.

And, without constitutional government, freedom cannot endure.

Looks like Sowell was reading my posts again.

[Summit]

Why must all criticisms of Bush/Obama conclude that they are really Hitler reincarnated?

It makes a Jew nervous...

[Rip'nStick]

hahahaha you have to be kidding me.

Hold on which on is it? Obama didn't do enough or did to much? Or is he just wrong no matter what?

Whiners... it never gets old

[nutcase]

Oh No!! really!!!!???!!!

[Mathematics]

It'd be one thing of the gov forcibly seized 20 billion in BP's assets, but all they did was pressure BP to put the money up on their own...which, in the midst of this PR debacle, BP willingly did. And then immediately issued statements bragging about it.

Sowell's a smart dude, I agree with some of his positions, but I'm sorry the free market will not fix this problem on it's own.

[Hugh Conway]

Why must all criticisms of Bush/Obama conclude that they are really Hitler reincarnated?

So you can immediately discount them. This one was nice because you knew after the 3rd word you didn't have to read any more.

[Thrill Hammer]

It'd be one thing of the gov forcibly seized 20 billion in BP's assets, but all they did was pressure BP to put the money up on their own...

Hey Hey! Stop pointing this out, it robs the Hitler comparison of any validity. Same thing as when GM went to the Gov't with it's hat in it's hand.....all of a sudden, OBAMA IS NATIONALIZING TEH AUTO INDUSTRIEZ!!!!!

[Rubicon]

It'd be one thing of the gov forcibly seized 20 billion in BP's assets, but all they did was pressure BP to put the money up on their own...

You're kidding, right? How exactly did they do that? Did the administration 'pressure' them with kind words, or with threats(veiled or otherwise) of things that BP would find unpleasant?

If the latter, could you explain how that is not, by definition, extortion?

[Tye 1on]

You're kidding, right? How exactly did they do that? Did the administration 'pressure' them with kind words, or with threats(veiled or otherwise) of things that BP would find unpleasant?

If the latter, could you explain how that is not, by definition, extortion?

Where the hell you been homie? Pretty boring around here with only DBT re-inventing the Constitution...;)

[Rubicon]

Where the hell you been homie? Pretty boring around here with only DBT re-inventing the Constitution...;)

hahaha, I've been around. A girl has been taking up all my time. Those things are like time vampires, they just suck it all out of you. :cool:

[toast2266]

2008 - "we want government officials who aren't beholden to corporate interests and who will stand up for the people."

2010 - "we want government officials to stop bullying big corporations and let the forces of the free market dictate corporate action."

[Rubicon]

2008 - "we want government officials who aren't beholden to corporate interests and who will stand up for the people."

2010 - "we want government officials to stop bullying big corporations and let the forces of the free market dictate corporate action."

You want to take a swing at it toast? How is what happened not extortion? Do a little compare and contrast. Should be easy, right?

[Rip'nStick]

You're kidding, right? How exactly did they do that? Did the administration 'pressure' them with kind words, or with threats(veiled or otherwise) of things that BP would find unpleasant?

If the latter, could you explain how that is not, by definition, extortion?

I don't know and obviously you don't either so let us wildly speculate. I bet Obama himself...

Put a hold on deepwater drilling. Check.

Restructured the Mineral Management Service, fired the former director and put in Michael R. Bromwich, a former federal prosecutor and inspector general for the Justice Department. Check.:yourock:

Boring, let's get creative. I have to run.

Welcome back rubi

[gonehuckin]

welcome back rubi-con


oh and BP agreed to the 20b fund. Now if only tx repubs would stop sticking their feet in their mouth.

The funniest interview was a guy the other day who was a 15k$ share holder in BP and he thought that the govt should be reimbursing him for his lost paper gains....hahaha idiots all around, oh and again, welcome back rubister....

[Summit]

welcome back rubicon!


So you can immediately discount them. This one was nice because you knew after the 3rd word you didn't have to read any more.

indeed

[Dexter Rutecki]

You want to take a swing at it toast? How is what happened not extortion? Do a little compare and contrast. Should be easy, right?

You need to first understand what extortion actually means, then realize that BP freely did what's in its own best interest.

Neither of those will advance the partisan narrative of Fuhrer 'Barry' you like so much, but sadly facts don't exist to service paranoid right wing fantasies.

[Alaskan Rover]

This country has been slowly slipping downward on that "slippery slope to tyranny" for years now...but the action against BP is not an example that.

In my eyes, the "slippery slope" really pertain to matters of domestic security and descipicable pieces of legislation such as the Patriot Act....not the holding of corporations legally and fiscally responsible for the damage they do.

Also, take note that there is information coming about that shows BP may have been FAR more culpable in this gulf diaster than originally thought...in that they had had pre-knowledge of a problemwith that well-head and chose not to act on that knowledge. In my book, that makes them negligent and thus culpable.

I also wonder why NO ONE speaks of the culpability of TransOcean and Halliburton on this matter??? I realize they are going after BP because they have the deepest pockets of the three companies involved. But Halliburton was responsible for the logistics of capping that well-head and it was TransOceans rig and personnel that were involved...they should share fiscal responsibility in rectifying this mess.

Is it because Cheney still wields power in DC (Cheney,of course is heavily involved with Halliburton)????

[Summit]

I've got to say that BP doing it voluntarily WOULD be in character for them.

[Rubicon]

I don't know and obviously you don't either




oh and BP agreed to the 20b fund.



You need to first understand what extortion actually means, then realize that BP freely did what's in its own best interest.


All three of you are operating on bad information.

"and it [B]had to be forced to establish a $US20 billion ($A23 billion) escrow account to pay off claims." -Rahm Emanuel

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/20/151737/215

[toast2266]

You want to take a swing at it toast? How is what happened not extortion? Do a little compare and contrast. Should be easy, right?


extortion - The offense committed by a public official who illegally obtains property under the color of office; esp., an official's collection of an unlawful fee.
-Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.

1) the definition of extortion requires that the extorted funds be taken in by the government. That didn't happen here; as has been said repeatedly, the government is not now $20b richer - the money goes to private claimants. Some may call that a technicality, but that technicality means that its not extortion.

2) the definition of extortion also requires that the extorted funds were gained by illegal means. Even ignoring the fact that the funds weren't paid to the government, what law was broken?

[13]

Dude needs to get a grip. We're a long way from tyranny.

[buckethead]

and here i thought the story was gonna talk about own country's ill-informed, but very fanatical "useful idiots"

the gulf of mexico is being destroyed more every day and folks worry about BP being compelled to actually make good on their declaration to compensate those (americans) harmed by the blowout?

$20B is a pittance next to any dollar amount that can be attached to this catastrophe - which has only just begun.
oh that poor, poor megacorporation - being forced to make a small gesture of goodwill against the trillions it has made over the past century.

genuinely hope it can be plugged before hurricane season...

[13]

You're kidding, right? How exactly did they do that? Did the administration 'pressure' them with kind words, or with threats(veiled or otherwise) of things that BP would find unpleasant?

If the latter, could you explain how that is not, by definition, extortion?

Yeah, the US government extorted $20b to put it in escrow. :rolleyes:

[Dexter Rutecki]

-Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.

1) the definition of extortion requires that the extorted funds be taken in by the government. That didn't happen here; as has been said repeatedly, the government is not now $20b richer - the money goes to private claimants. Some may call that a technicality, but that technicality means that its not extortion.

2) the definition of extortion also requires that the extorted funds were gained by illegal means. Even ignoring the fact that the funds weren't paid to the government, what law was broken?

You don't really think that the above is going to keep him from making some ridiculous semantic argument and changing the terms of the debate, per his usual SOP, do you?

[Rubicon]

-Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.

1) the definition of extortion requires that the extorted funds be taken in by the government. That didn't happen here; as has been said repeatedly, the government is not now $20b richer - the money goes to private claimants. Some may call that a technicality, but that technicality means that its not extortion.

The money is in the hands of the 'pay czar', who is taking orders from Obama.



2) the definition of extortion also requires that the extorted funds were gained by illegal means. Even ignoring the fact that the funds weren't paid to the government, what law was broken?

Was due process followed in order to deprive BP of these funds?


But if the legal definition of extortion gives you problems, then it is just as easy to view this through the lens of organized crime and call it a shakedown. Either way it is activity that is extra-legal, if not outright illegal, and should not be tolerated in our government regardless of the guilt of BP.

[Maurice Ballstein]

You need to first understand what extortion actually means, then realize that BP freely did what's in its own best interest.

Neither of those will advance the partisan narrative of Fuhrer 'Barry' you like so much, but sadly facts don't exist to service paranoid right wing fantasies.

Did you just type that? Hahahaha. I have heard that defense to extortion before.

It's always perceived to be in your best interest to comply in cases of extortion, dumbphuck. Thats the quid pro quo in extortion. Its basically extortion defined. I give you two options. One sucks, one sucks less but you want to do neither.

Holy Shit.

[toast2266]

But if the legal definition of extortion gives you problems, then it is just as easy to view this through the lens of organized crime and call it a shakedown. Either way it is activity that is extra-legal, if not outright illegal, and should not be tolerated in our government regardless of the guilt of BP.

So should the government be prohibited from doing anything that can be construed as exerting pressure on private interests?

[Dexter Rutecki]

Did you just type that? Hahahaha. I have heard that defense to extortion before.

It's always perceived to be in your best interest to comply in cases of extortion, dumbphuck. Thats the quid pro quo in extortion. Its basically extortion defined. I give you two options. One sucks, one sucks less but you want to do neither.

Holy Shit.

Wow. You too need to remove the idiot hat and figure out the meaning of the words you're trying to use.

Some of you dipshits are trying way too hard to appear even more brain damaged than usual--not an easy task.

[Rubicon]

So should the government be prohibited from doing anything that can be construed as exerting pressure on private interests?

The government should absolutely exert pressure on private interests when it is appropriate, and I would argue that in this case it is very appropriate. But it should be done within the framework of the legal system.

[leroy jenkins]

You want to take a swing at it toast? How is what happened not extortion? Do a little compare and contrast. Should be easy, right?

In order to do business, companies that do things that can hurt the environment (mining, drilling, logging, etc) are supposed to take certain precautions and if they fuck up are supposed to be fined, on par with the level and effect of said fuckup.

Tell me again how that's extortion?

Ok, I think the methodology is scary and not the best, the moratorium on new drilling is retarded, no way that can last, it would be a pissing match cus this country NEEDS oil. If it had been an EPA mandated fine, would that change things? What if when BP failed to pay it, the government just started repossessing BP's property?



I am pretty libertarian, and usually err on the small government side, but I think corporate tyranny is far more of a threat than government tyranny in this country, and it is unfortunately the aspect the founding fathers had no way of predicting and left very little framework in place to combat it, unlike the checks and balances of the government.




Why must all criticisms of Bush/Obama conclude that they are really Hitler reincarnated?

It makes a Jew nervous...

Were Jews very well armed in 1930's Germany? ;)

[Maurice Ballstein]

Wow. You too need to remove the idiot hat and figure out the meaning of the words you're trying to use.

Some of you dipshits are trying way too hard to appear even more brain damaged than usual--not an easy task.

Way to deflect. Extortionists make it in your best interest to do X, abstain from Y, etc. Of couse the 20B shake-down was in BP's best interest. The alternative was worse.

Then again, we all know that private corporations love to give away billions of dollars because they are generous.

[commonlaw]

I am going to quote myself from another thread, as this is the same discussion with a different flavor (surprising in Poli Ass):

What BP did is despicable, and frankly I havent read enough of the facts on this "money" to know shit, but if any money is collected, it must be done with mechanisms, as OSECS said, and in trust. Much like civil suits, liability may not be an issue during investigations, or even at trial, but ascribing damages to the liability is still a "process" that must be respected and not performed through unsupported mandate.

Likewise, the common concept of damages is to make the harmed party whole. The harmed party here is the environment, not the government. That money needs to be ear-marked for clean-up, not rolled into some other some such thing. The people and the planet are entitled to the clean-up, not the administration.

Duty (yes)
Breach (yes)
Causation (yes)
Damages (how much? To whom? In what manner?)

3 outta four doesn't get you home.

[toast2266]

The government should absolutely exert pressure on private interests when it is appropriate, and I would argue that in this case it is very appropriate. But it should be done within the framework of the legal system.

What is happening outside of the framework of the legal system? As you say, the government appropriately exerted pressure on private interests to set aside money for the settlement of claims. Those claims will be heard / litigated / mediated individually; no one is bypassing anything. Fundamentally, this is pretty similar to an interpleader action, which happens all the time.

[Rubicon]

In order to do business, companies that do things that can hurt the environment (mining, drilling, logging, etc) are supposed to take certain precautions and if they fuck up are supposed to be fined, on par with the level and effect of said fuckup.

Tell me again how that's extortion?

Ok, I think the methodology is scary and not the best, the moratorium on new drilling is retarded, no way that can last, it would be a pissing match cus this country NEEDS oil. If it had been an EPA mandated fine, would that change things? What if when BP failed to pay it, the government just started repossessing BP's property?


If the $20b had been mandated by federal law then there would be no problem with it. But it isn't. There is already federal law governing BP's liability in this situation. The $20b is not based on that federal law. It is based on the judgment of Obama, nothing more.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Way to deflect. Extortionists make it in your best interest to do X, abstain from Y, etc. Of couse the 20B shake-down was in BP's best interest. The alternative was worse.

Then again, we all know that private corporations love to give away billions of dollars because they are generous.

Still not extortion--I suspect you know that, actually.

Not a shakedown, either, but take another shot if you must.

Simply because a choice is made between two less than ideal options doesn't mean extortion happened.

[Rubicon]

What is happening outside of the framework of the legal system?

Can you cite the law that provided Obama with the authority to do this?

[Triage]

Thomas Sowell has Nazi Tourettes too?


Regarding the so called "shakedown" from Rubi's earlier cited source:


"A lot of things that they had to be pushed to do, and pushed to do faster," said Emanuel in an interview with ABC television's This Week show last night.

He said BP had to be forced to drill two relief wells, not just one; it had to be forced to increase the rate at which it was capturing oil flowing into the Gulf; and it had to be forced to establish a $US20 billion ($A23 billion) escrow account to pay off claims.

Over the past week, the British energy giant has called in more ships and equipment from other locations, announced that it was ahead of schedule in drilling the relief wells, and said it would significantly boost the capture of oil leaking from its busted well.

But Mr Emanuel credited US administration pressure for obtaining those gains.

"They had a system in place, not extensive enough. Not fast enough," he said.

"So we've made them go from 25,000 to 50,000 barrels by the end of this month. And we think by mid-July force - basically making them pick up their game - they can get to 90 per cent," he said.


Where appropriate, these things should be left to courts but the courts are slow and there is a pressing necessity now. A pressing necessity to capture as much oil as possible until the spill is stopped and a pressing necessity to ensure the spill is stopped through a second relief well should the first one fail.





Likewise, the common concept of damages is to make the harmed party whole. The harmed party here is the environment, not the government. That money needs to be ear-marked for clean-up, not rolled into some other some such thing. The people and the planet are entitled to the clean-up, not the administration.

Duty (yes)
Breach (yes)
Causation (yes)
Damages (how much? To whom? In what manner?)

3 outta four doesn't get you home.

The damages are real and quantifiable now for the folks who make their living along the gulf coast, not just the lingering damage to the environment:


The use of the BP escrow fund is intended to avoid a repeat of the painful aftermath of 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, when the fight over money dragged out in courts over roughly two decades.

In creating a victims compensation fund, BP will use noncore U.S. assets as security for its $20 billion obligation (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37725103/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf/).


Prior to $20b escrow account, BP had already stated that it would pay for immediate losses to peoples' livelihood in a timely manner.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Does anyone here understand what escrow is?
Go fuck yourselves.

[toast2266]

Can you cite the law that provided Obama with the authority to do this?

33 USC 2702


Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject to
the provisions of this Act, each responsible party for a vessel or a
facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial
threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone is liable for the
removal costs and damages specified in subsection (b) of this section
that result from such incident.

I didn't copy the whole thing because its long.

While I'll readily admit that the law does not permit Obama to unilaterally adjudicate BP's liability in the matter, I think it does give Obama grounds to sit down with BP and say "you guys are totally fucked under this law, and it'll certainly be in you best interest to set aside a large sum of money for the settlement of claims and cleanup of the spill."

[gonehuckin]

The government should absolutely exert pressure on private interests when it is appropriate, and I would argue that in this case it is very appropriate. But it should be done within the framework of the legal system.

It is. I see no legal challenge from the effected party (BP)....do you?



What is happening outside of the framework of the legal system? As you say, the government appropriately exerted pressure on private interests to set aside money for the settlement of claims. Those claims will be heard / litigated / mediated individually; no one is bypassing anything. Fundamentally, this is pretty similar to an interpleader action, which happens all the time.


And there ya go.....

[Rubicon]

33 USC 2702


While I'll readily admit that the law does not permit Obama to unilaterally adjudicate BP's liability in the matter,

Yet that is exactly what he did, even as BP was in the process of paying out reimbursement to those who had immediate need, fulfilling their obligation under the law.

Obama had no legal authority to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, 'force' BP to surrender $20b to this fund. Do you still disagree?

[gonehuckin]

Yet that is exactly what he did, even as BP was in the process of paying out reimbursement to those who had immediate need, fulfilling their obligation under the law.

Obama had no legal authority to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, 'force' BP to surrender $20b to this fund. Do you still disagree?

If BP feels like they are being unfairly treated or anythign else, they can go ahead and fight it in a court of law. Thats much better then the reverse....

[Rubicon]

It is. I see no legal challenge from the effected party (BP)....do you?


Hahaha! That's funny.

You are asserting that the lack of a legal challenge from BP indicates that Obama had the legal authority to do what he did? HAHAHA! You crack me up!

I love this place!

[jfost]

Welcome back Rubi!!!

$75 million is all they need to pay, why are they setting up a $20B "trust fund"?!?

Maybe they have extra $$$ and want to do what is in the best interest of their business? Nah, they are being SINGLEHANDEDLY shaken down by Obama - who continues to act alone in matters displeasing to TGR righties.

edit: here's the defining quote from your mouthpieces' article:


...Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference. ...

[Dexter Rutecki]

Too bad he didn't learn to read during his time off.

[toast2266]

Yet that is exactly what he did, even as BP was in the process of paying out reimbursement to those who had immediate need, fulfilling their obligation under the law.


All of your arguments are contingent on the assumption that BP had no interest in putting forward the money and agreeing to the terms of the agreement, when that's clearly not the case. BP admitted liability for a broad range of claims. For lots of claims, the only remaining issue was that of damages.

BP's options were:
1) Litigate every claim through the legal system. Outcome: attorney fees alone would bankrupt them (yes, that is an exaggeration. Fees would be a substantial and unnecessary expense though).
-or-
2) Work with the government to set aside funds that would be used for settlement. Outcome: claimants get paid efficiently, amount of payments will be similar to what would have been achieved in court, and BP saves a bundle of money by not having to litigate everything. Appeals still go through the court system as needed.

Like I said earlier, this is similar to an interpleader. In an interpleader action, it is usually the party in BP's position that asks for supervisory control over the funds in question.

As easily as you can characterize Obama's actions as extortion, I can characterize them as a helpful offer that benefits both BP and claimants against BP. BP should be thanking Obama for the governments help in this mess that they created.

[OSECS]

Rube, Good top see you back !! It's been a little more boring around here without your take on things.

[irul&ublo]

And don't forget his middle name is Hussein!!!!!!

[woodstocksez]

Way to deflect. Extortionists make it in your best interest to do X, abstain from Y, etc. Of couse the 20B shake-down was in BP's best interest. The alternative was worse.

Then again, we all know that private corporations love to give away billions of dollars because they are generous.

I haven't followed this particular story enough to have an opinion on it, but the above reasoning fails. Corporations frequently give away money because they perceive it to be in their best interest (usually, I'd say, because they perceive it buys them goodwill), without any action taken against them that could be construed as extortion.

Edit to add ...

And, noting again that I haven't been following this, Rubicon, why couldn't you reasonably characterize the administration's and BP's actions as equivalent to those that regularly result in settlement of litigation (or anticipated litigation)? (I assume this is what toast2266 was getting at.)

[Rip'nStick]

From that article posted by Rubicon, I am convinced that once again Obama and his crew are doing EXACTLY what I want my government to do, protect it's citizens.

How is it against the law for my government to suggest something that will make it easier and better for everyone? Where is the law that says that is illegal? The government isn't getting the money; the citizens are from an escrow account.

What would you rather have happen? How was government suppose to respond. Have NASA start building subs?

The whining is once again amazing.

First its
"Obama has taken over the auto industry (who asked for help) and healthcare (actually a legal law about health insurance)"

Then its "Obama isn't doing enough to help out a private industry when they fail from NEGLIGENCE. He should shoot rainbows out his arse and stop the Leak!"

Now its "I can't believe he used some influence hold a multinational corp responsible for compensating US citizens by arranging to help manager an escrow account"

[Rip'nStick]

I asked this in another thread and didn't get a response. Let's say they heard the cries and lamentations of the people and Obama gave up executive power in this matter to.... Rubicon.

What exactly would you do?

Because right now they are doing exactly what I would want them to do. I feel like I made a decent choice for president.

I am just amazed at how this has gotten the "conservatives" into a tizzy. It is this hypocritical nonsense that makes the republicans look like a joke. That and pandering to religious right and dumbasses that eat stuff like Glenn Beck up. Until the republican can change a few things like that, they are the “party of dumb” and can only hope on dumb supporters.

So what would you do?

[woodstocksez]

And don't forget his middle name is Hussein!!!!!!

Worse, he's a really bad bowler. Short trip from that to Adolph Hitler, IMHO.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I asked this in another thread and didn't get a response. Let's say they heard the cries and lamentations of the people and Obama gave up executive power in this matter to.... Rubicon.

What exactly would you do?

Because right now they are doing exactly what I would want them to do. I feel like I made a decent choice for president.

I am just amazed at how this has gotten the "conservatives" into a tizzy. It is this hypocritical nonsense that makes the republicans look like a joke. That and pandering to religious right and dumbasses that eat stuff like Glenn Beck up. Until the republican can change a few things like that, they are the “party of dumb” and can only hope on dumb supporters.

So what would you do?


He would obey his corporate masters. Just like Bush/cheney did. You STFU and do the same--fascist marching orders are in, Rubi is just a conduit. Along with DBT.

[Downbound Train]

Some of you dimwits need a history lesson. No one on the side of the government intervention ever thinks the government is moving toward tyranny. They think the government is protecting them from the bogieman of the day. Then......Oh shit, wah happened.

[Rip'nStick]

SO what would you do?

[Rip'nStick]

Some of you dimwits need a history lesson. No one on the side of the government intervention ever thinks the government is moving toward tyranny. They think the government is protecting them from the bogieman of the day. Then......Oh shit, wah happened.

Conspiracy theorists always say this bu tI am having a bit of trouble coming up with examples. Most tyranny in modern history has been a result of voilent revolutions (opposite of govt tyranny) or has been quite obvious (1930's Germany)

So DBT, do you have any examples or is that just a saying?

[Summit]

Remember back in 1999 when conservatards thought Bill Clinton was going to use the 2000 computer crisis to declare a state of emergency and stay in power indefinitely and avoid term limits?

Remember when the librodouches thought W was going to do the same?

Guess what? OBAMA IS GONNA DO IT FUR SHUR! (that rhymes with fuhrer, btw)

before-the-2012-election-obama-will-declare-a-state-of-emergency/ (http://obamatalk.org/political-news/do-you-think-that-before-the-2012-election-obama-will-declare-a-state-of-emergency/)

I'm going to give this thread to the librodouches. I award 3 internats. Of course we'll eventually have another conservatard president, and then the librodouches will lose their intranets when they start theorizing conspiracy once again.

[ilikecandy]

can we discuss this idea that has been brought up twice in this thread that obama is somehow not responsible for nationalizing the auto companies because "they asked for it"?

how does that work?

[Mathematics]

You're kidding, right? How exactly did they do that? Did the administration 'pressure' them with kind words, or with threats(veiled or otherwise) of things that BP would find unpleasant?

If the latter, could you explain how that is not, by definition, extortion?

political pressure? I think considering how well Exxon Mobil laywer'ed up to game the system and get out of 98% of what they should've paid for Exxon-Valdez, a little political pressure here to ensure the same thing doesn't happen is more than fair.

You can call it extortion if that makes it fit with whatever ideology you want to use. I dont think pressuring a global company to pay for its sin's in our country is a bad thing...letting these global companies get off the hook with what amounts to a physical attack on our countries enviroment & economy is...how to say...unpatriotic?

:fmicon:

[Rip'nStick]

can we discuss this idea that has been brought up twice in this thread that obama is somehow not responsible for nationalizing the auto companies because "they asked for it"?

how does that work?

He or his advisors are responsible all right, and hopefully it will save the industry. The thinking was that there was no way for it to be saved without govt investment.

[Rubicon]

All of your arguments are contingent on the assumption that BP had no interest in putting forward the money and agreeing to the terms of the agreement,

No, you misunderstand. My one(and only) argument is that the administration did not have the legal authority to force BP to give this money over to one of the administration's czar's. It doesn't matter if it is a good idea, it doesn't matter if it is in BP's best interest to set up this fund, it doesn't matter if people will be helped by it. All these issues are ancillary to the fact that the executive branch of our federal government does not have the legal authority to deprive BP of it's money without due process, which is exactly what it did.




As easily as you can characterize Obama's actions as extortion, I can characterize them as a helpful offer that benefits both BP and claimants against BP. BP should be thanking Obama for the governments help in this mess that they created.

Once we begin using good intentions or good outcomes to excuse extra-legal behavior on the part of our leaders, then we are no longer a nation governed by the rule of law. Rather, we have become a nation governed by the rule of men. If you don't understand the inherent dangers in such a situation, then there is no hope for you.

[Rubicon]

So what would you do?

Follow the rule of law. Why is that such an untenable concept to you?

[ilikecandy]

He or his advisors are responsible all right, and hopefully it will save the industry. The thinking was that there was no way for it to be saved without govt investment.

how does that address why it matters whether or not they asked for it? why qualify it?

pretty interesting scenario as well. in your world, what happens to ford, and all the assets of gm/chrysler, and all the people who want to buy cars? they just disappear?

[Rip'nStick]

Follow the rule of law. Why is that such an untenable concept to you?

I am fine with following the rule of law but

What law was broken?

Does it have to be written in the constitution that the president consult his wife before going to the bathroom? If he doesn't has he broken the law?

[archer]

Rube, Good top see you back !! It's been a little more boring around here without your take on things.

Abso-fuckin-lutely agree !! But Mr. Rubicon doesn't deserve all the credit for his unique take. The honorable Texas Rublican Rep. Joe Barton makes the case almost as well when he apologizes to BP for the commies in Washington. Barton is not a talented but he still makes a very strong appeal for the rule of law. So watch !!

Gv0siXm2cpc

[toast2266]

No, you misunderstand. My one(and only) argument is that the administration did not have the legal authority to force BP to give this money over to one of the administration's czar's.


How do you know they did force them to give the money? The fact that BP gave over the money doesn't necessarily mean that they were forced to do so. As I stated above, there are plenty of reasons for them to do it voluntarily.

[ilikecandy]

I am fine with following the rule of law but

What law was broken?

Does it have to be written in the constitution that the president consult his wife before going to the bathroom? If he doesn't has he broken the law?

its called due process. read the constitution

[Rip'nStick]

how does that address why it matters whether or not they asked for it? why qualify it?

pretty interesting scenario as well. in your world, what happens to ford, and all the assets of gm/chrysler, and all the people who want to buy cars? they just disappear?

Same answer, was there a law broken? If congress approves it, where does it say in the constitution that it can't be done.

Jeez, you guys thing your the cheif justice or something. That position is currently filled.

[Rubicon]

What law was broken?



What law gave him the authority to do what he did? I keep asking this and everyone keeps ducking the question or changing the subject. That's very telling, me thinks.

[gonehuckin]

Rubi-

First off, the administration didn't break any law. So the "rule of law" argument is out. And if BP thinks they did, they have recourse, in a court of law, which they've chosen not to advance.

Bernie Madoff's cash was frozen when he was charged, not when he was convicted. Was that wrong in your opinion? I can show you an ocean filling full of oil if you think there lacks cause.

And more importantly, BP is not protected by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or anything else. BP doesn't have the right not to have its assets frozen. BP does not have the right to due process. BP is not human. BP does not hold any inalienable rights at all.

[Rip'nStick]

WHAT DID HE DO????

<talking to a brick wall>

Where does it have to be written that he has authority to talk to executives? Again: Does it have to be written in the constitution that the president consult his wife before going to the bathroom? If he doesn't has he broken the law?

[Rip'nStick]

Not to call anyone names but....you guys are nutcases

[gonehuckin]

What law gave him the authority to do what he did? I keep asking this and everyone keeps ducking the question or changing the subject. That's very telling, me thinks.

You're trying to get others to prove a negative.......

[Rubicon]

But Mr. Rubicon doesn't deserve all the credit for his unique take.

It's a sad day when following the rule of law is considered a 'unique take'. :wink:




How do you know they did force them to give the money?

You must have missed this earlier:



"and it [B]had to be forced to establish a $US20 billion ($A23 billion) escrow account to pay off claims." -Rahm Emanuel

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/20/151737/215


So do you believe Rahm was lying when he said this?

[toast2266]

What law gave him the authority to do what he did? I keep asking this and everyone keeps ducking the question or changing the subject. That's very telling, me thinks.

I gave you a citation for the law, but then you made up fictitious events as to "what he did." We're not going to keep giving you a basis in law for the farcical course of events that you've somehow convinced yourself occurred.

[Rubicon]

You're trying to get others to prove a negative.......

How so?


.....

[Rip'nStick]

How did they force them? Gunpoint?

[gonehuckin]

How so?


.....

You're asking what law gave him the authority to do something.


So I ask, what law gives the President the authority to breath? Or you?

[Rubicon]

I gave you a citation for the law, but then you made up fictitious events as to "what he did." We're not going to keep giving you a basis in law for the farcical course of events that you've somehow convinced yourself occurred.

The citation you provided said nothing about the authority of the executive branch, which is what is at issue here.

[Rubicon]

You're asking what law gave him the authority to do something.


Yes, I am. How is that


...trying to get others to prove a negative.......


???

[toast2266]

The citation you provided said nothing about the authority of the executive branch, which is what is at issue here.

The executive branch has authority to encourage BP to set aside funds for payment under the law I cited. Because the executive isn't legally requiring BP to do anything, no further legal authority is required.

[gonehuckin]

Yes, I am. How is that




???

You're just arguing for arguments sake. I'm off to bump an old thread....

[Rubicon]

The executive branch has authority to encourage BP to set aside funds for payment under the law I cited.

Funny, I didn't see that provision anywhere in the link you provided. Can you point me to the specific section where it states that?



Because the executive isn't legally requiring BP to do anything, no further legal authority is required.

That is the most god-awful piece of twisted thinking I think I have ever seen come out of you. 'They are not legally requiring BP to do anything so they don't need legal authority to do what they did'? Really?





You're just arguing for arguments sake. I'm off to bump an old thread....

Like I said, everybody keeps ducking the question and changing the subject.

[OSECS]

And more importantly, BP is not protected by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or anything else. BP doesn't have the right not to have its assets frozen. BP does not have the right to due process. BP is not human. BP does not hold any inalienable rights at all.

BP is due the same legal process as an individual citizen where law is concerned. The gov't can't freeze anyones assets without due process in most instances. I know DEA seizes drug proceeds without court proceedings, but this certainly doesn't fall into that category.

[Rip'nStick]

You're asking what law gave him the authority to do something.


So I ask, what law gives the President the authority to breath? Or you?

Exactly. He is the fricking president, not a low paid clerk!!!

What the hell do you think his job is? Make it happen that is what!

Rubi/DBT,

Once again, youunbelievably partisan hacks waffle between

"He is overstepping his bounds"
to
"He is a wimp and sits back while the world burns"

The fact o fthe matter is he couldn't do anything right in your eyes, no matter what he did because you are opposed to his very existence.

You got your ass handed to you in the election, by the likes of me and others tired of the incompetence, and now you have nothing to do but whine. IT IS PATHETIC.

The reason I have trouble thinking about voting republican is because the party has a bunch of snivelers with no ideas in it. And it panders to religious right and just plain idiots.

I wish there was another alternative for me, but the republicans have made their bed and don't seem to see the problem. ITS PATHETIC.

[Rip'nStick]

They are not legally requiring BP to do anything so they don't need legal authority to do what they did'? Really?


YES, that is the whole point! It is not against the law, there were no "freezing of assets", this whole arguement is based on nothing.

Again what did "he" do to force them?

[gonehuckin]

BP is due the same legal process as an individual citizen where law is concerned. The gov't can't freeze ANYONES assets without due process in most instances. I know DEA seizes drug proceeds without court proceedings, but this certainly doesn't fall into that category.

Nope. And I highlighted the relevant part for you.

[Rip'nStick]

Nothing was frozen....

[OSECS]

Nope. And I highlighted the relevant part for you.

Shit, I'm hung over, my reading comprehension is shot to hell today. W. Va. on a Tuesday night can be dangerous.

I'm just so used to you being wrong and all, I guess I just jumped to the (logical) conclusion you were wrong here as well. :redface: :D

[Rubicon]

Nothing was frozen....

You are trying to change the argument. Stop it.

[toast2266]

Funny, I didn't see that provision anywhere in the link you provided. Can you point me to the specific section where it states that?


The statute gives rise to liability and BP has acknowledged that. Obama has encouraged a means by which to pay damages for which BP is liable. By creating liability for BP, the statute "forces" BP to pay. Obama has facilitated an efficient means for that payment. BP has agreed to that means, as it will ultimately save them money and it looks good from a PR stand point.

[gonehuckin]

Youre accusing him of "breaking the rule of law". But you're not showing a law he has broken...... /argument until you do

[Rip'nStick]

How am I changing the subject? BP was not legally forced to do anything otherwise it would have gone through due process of law

"and it[BP] had to be forced to establish a $US20 billion ($A23 billion) escrow account to pay off claims." -Rahm Emanuel

How exactly did it force BP? Probably by threatening to go through due process of law in which case BP would not only have lost, but the PR would have been terrible. Sound like Mr Emanuel is jsut trying to claim credit.

Nothing was frozen, the govt did a little threatening to bring the law, BP folded.

How exactly is that unconstitutional? What law is broken?

That is EXACTLY what I want my govt to do. Protect it's citizens. You just don't like it because ITS OBAMA.

Partisan nitwit.

[gonehuckin]

The anti-gov crowd here would like the gov to foot the bill of cleanup and damages until BP can be sued into doing what they should to fix the mess. These are the same people who argue for malpractice lawsuits to be gone. These are the same people who dont get it that the fisherman of the gulf coast have to feed their families and a long drawn out legal process only makes the problem worse and lines the pockets of lawyers.


The worst part is that BP gets it, yet you dont.

[Rip'nStick]

You're wrong Rubicon, just wrong though you will never admit it.

With a recovering economy and hopefully a decent exit from the middle east, I hope to watch as your fantasy world crumbles again in 2012. More whining to come.:p

[OSECS]

You're wrong Rubicon, just wrong though you will never admit it.

With a recovering economy and hopefully a decent exit from the middle east, I hope to watch as your fantasy world crumbles again in 2012. More whining to come.:p

I wouldn't get my hopes up on a recovering economy Rip. Housing is off 30%. We will not be out of the Middle East by 2012. Un employment is gonna spike after the gov'ts fudged numbers for temp. census workers comes out. We are nowhere near a recovery unfortunately, IMO.

I hope I'm friggin' wrong.

[Jer]

Like I said a week ago: Bama and BP worked this deal out before Bama's ridiculous speech. BP pays a pittance in the grand scheme of things (BP actually has more $$ than god) and sends their boy over to be ass-reamed for an hour or two, Bama looks like a hard-ass who get's the job done. It's a win-win for both parties.

There was no "intimidation" or anything. It was all smoke-and-mirrors.

Dipn'shit - get help brah.

[Rubicon]

Youre accusing him of "breaking the rule of law". But you're not showing a law he has broken...... /argument until you do

I have said he has no legal authority to do what he did. Neither you nor anyone else, who seems to disagrees with me on this, has been able to produce the law that gives the executive branch the legal authority to force BP(something the administration proudly proclaimed they had done) to give over $20b to one of the administration's czars.

If it is your assertion that the powers of the executive branch are unlimited in areas where they are not constrained by law then your argument is in direct conflict with the enumerated powers clause of the constitution.

So which is it; are the powers of the executive branch unlimited in areas where they are not constrained by law, or is there specific law you can point to that affords the president the power to do what he did?

[Rubicon]

I wouldn't get my hopes up on a recovering economy Rip. Housing is off 30%. We will not be out of the Middle East by 2012. Un employment is gonna spike after the gov'ts fudged numbers for temp. census workers comes out. We are nowhere near a recovery unfortunately, IMO.

I hope I'm friggin' wrong.

Sad to say, but I don't think you are.

[Rip'nStick]

Like I said a week ago: Bama and BP worked this deal out before Bama's ridiculous speech. BP pays a pittance in the grand scheme of things (BP actually has more $$ than god) and sends their boy over to be ass-reamed for an hour or two, Bama looks like a hard-ass who get's the job done. It's a win-win for both parties.

There was no "intimidation" or anything. It was all smoke-and-mirrors.

Dipn'shit - get help brah.

This is far more likely.

Oh and I need to get help. Riigghht...

Rubicon is by far the most entertaining poster in this forum, though you still hold the crown for being an asshat

[archer]

It's a sad day when following the rule of law is considered a 'unique take'.

That's right, it is sad. Don't let these traitor hippie lefty feminazi anti-American slanderers who are misconstruing Republicans' for handing out handies to Big Oil get you down... it IS about the rule of law and nothing more. Even if the process takes decades to sort, the process must be served or else freedom will give way to fascism. The way things are going now it's only a matter of time before the undeserving poor show up in leaky canoes to dip their beaks without any sort of due process and then BP's socialist shakedown will be complete.

BP is being treated worse than Al Qaeda would be under the Obama administration. If BP tried to blow something up, BP would have received a fairer legal process, a court appointed attorney instead of facing enormous legal bills, plus Miranda rights and no congressional interrogation. This was nothing more than a Communist kangaroo court other than the CEO of British Petroleum was able to walk away instead of spending twenty years in a Gulag.

Fortunately some people still stand for principles and the rule of law. The rest of you libdopes owe BP an apology.

[woodstocksez]

I have said he has no legal authority to do what he did. Neither you nor anyone else, who seems to disagrees with me on this, has been able to produce the law that gives the executive branch the legal authority to force BP(something the administration proudly proclaimed they had done) to give over $20b to one of the administration's czars.

Politicians make claims all the time that are inaccurate, as you well know. And if didn't suit you, you'd certainly not take the administration's characterization of events as unquestionably accurate. Moreover, Rahm Emanuel's use of "forcing" may simply reflect his characterization of the state of affairs as outlined by toast2266.

How, exactly, did the administration force BP to provide this money? I may be serving an easy one up for you since I haven't followed things myself to know what the answer may be, but the fact that you've been asked repeatedly and have chosen to ignore the question suggests that they did nothing. Or, they made a "threat" which was mostly or entirely comprised of pointing out to BP its inevitable liability. So, be specific. How was the forcing accomplished?

[Downbound Train]

How, exactly, did the administration force BP to provide this money? I may be serving an easy one up for you since I haven't followed things myself to know what the answer may be, but the fact that you've been asked repeatedly and have chosen to ignore the question suggests that they did nothing. Or, they made a "threat" which was mostly or entirely comprised of pointing out to BP its inevitable liability. So, be specific. How was the forcing accomplished?

I'll answer it. How the fuck would we know? When someone extorts $20B from a major company they don't exactly tell how they did it to the NY Times. One thing is for sure, BP didn't give $20B to Obama because they think he's a swell guy.

[OSECS]

Maybe they gave it to them cause they know they fucked up royally. Maybe this is PR damage control. I really don't think if BP thought it could get away from this without paying they would attempt it. Maybe this $20B loss will be a nice write off against the staggering profits they made the last 8 years or so.

The admin. used it's position of power to make this happen now. I really don't think they could use illegal efforts to extort money from a corp. that probably has hundreds flesh eating lawyers ready to fight the case.

Exxon has still not paid litigants whose way of life they are responsible for destroying. I don't think that was gonna be allowed to happen on this one.

[Rip'nStick]

Willful ignorance.

No dumbdumb, they did it because the Feds would sue, due process of law and all, and if BP fought it it would be terrible PR. So, so simple even you can get it. Get it?

Emanuel is simply trying to make it look like the administration played hardball and took BP to task.

So what exactly is wrong with what they did? Is it not Ok for an administration and maybe even a president to take a company that just did what BP did with negligence to task.

You guys want a real wuss in office huh. Figures...

Quite simply, it is Obama and he is not American so he can't do anything right. Y'all are so full of it.

[Rip'nStick]

Maybe they gave it to them cause they know they fucked up royally. Maybe this is PR damage control. I really don't think if BP thought it could get away from this without paying they would attempt it. Maybe this $20B loss will be a nice write off against the staggering profits they made the last 8 years or so.

The admin. used it's position of power to make this happen now. I really don't think they could use illegal efforts to extort money from a corp. that probably has hundreds flesh eating lawyers ready to fight the case.

Exxon has still not paid litigants whose way of life they are responsible for destroying. I don't think that was gonna be allowed to happen on this one.

Once again the reasonable, yet conservative voice. I assume that despite reservations of overstepping its power, you agree with the administation on this one.

[OSECS]

Once again the reasonable, yet conservative voice. I assume that despite reservations of overstepping its power, you agree with the administation on this one.

Provided the arm twisting didn't trample any real law, yes I do support them. BP was/is so negligent on this issue. I cannot believe their actions of ignoring the engineers (who historically are a little too worried about about every detail).

One of the nice things about being President of the U.S.A. is you get to make things happen because of the power the position conveys. Every president has done it, pres. Obama isn't the first to use his power to make things happen in a "speedy " manner.

The $20 Billion better friggin go to the correct and rightful claimants and not get tied up in politics though. They also need this to be so transparent that a 3rd grader could follow the money trail and depleting fund.

[woodstocksez]

I'll answer it. How the fuck would we know? When someone extorts $20B from a major company they don't exactly tell how they did it to the NY Times.

You don't know, but you do know it was "extorted."


One thing is for sure, BP didn't give $20B to Obama because they think he's a swell guy.

Who said they did? Several possible reasons have been given in this thread by others. You're too dishonest to acknowledge those.

Stupid and dishonest. Not a good way to go through life, son.

[OSECS]

Stupid and dishonest. Not a good way to go through life, son.

It's "drunk and stupid" remember your "Animal House" !!

[ilikecandy]

WHAT DID HE DO????

<talking to a brick wall>

Where does it have to be written that he has authority to talk to executives? Again: Does it have to be written in the constitution that the president consult his wife before going to the bathroom? If he doesn't has he broken the law?

no. he has the powers granted to every citizen, as well as the powers given to his office explicitly. And no more

have you ever read the tenth amendment? do you think he was acting as a citizen here, or as an agent of the government?

[RootSkier]

Going on 6 pages from a Thomas Sowell column...

epic retardation.

[OSECS]

Going on 6 pages from a Thomas Sowell column...

epic retardation.

Doubtful. One of the most insightful guys out there.

[toast2266]

Maybe they gave it to them cause they know they fucked up royally. Maybe this is PR damage control. I really don't think if BP thought it could get away from this without paying they would attempt it. Maybe this $20B loss will be a nice write off against the staggering profits they made the last 8 years or so.

The admin. used it's position of power to make this happen now. I really don't think they could use illegal efforts to extort money from a corp. that probably has hundreds flesh eating lawyers ready to fight the case.

Exxon has still not paid litigants whose way of life they are responsible for destroying. I don't think that was gonna be allowed to happen on this one.

Thank you.

[RootSkier]

Doubtful. One of the most insightful guys out there.

I just read the first paragraph of his ten most recent columns: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/archive.shtml

and I stand by my opinion. Maybe he can share the throne of the conservatard monarchy with Mona Charen.

[gonehuckin]

have you ever read the tenth amendment??

have you read the first amendment? familiar with the necessary and proper clause?

No single state is opposing this. Congress isn't opposing this. No one is fighting the constitutionality of it. Rule of Law hasn't been broken as all sides have agreed to this and no one can point to a law being broken. The Founders have no specific language addressing this. There is precedent.

So wtf are ya'll fighting?


So on theory, your argument makes no sense. How about pragmatically? Can anyone point to a downside in making BP pay for the clean up and damages out of an escrow fund? Does that downside even remotely contend with the upside in making sure that BP pays for it all? This isnt even punitive....BP made profits of somewhere between 5 and 7 billion every qrtr over the last few years. This is one years profit.

[gonehuckin]

I just read Sowells recent article on the great depression. I love how he makes up facts. Kinda funny. His dates arent even correct and the timeline is his entire argument. Amazing that he has the academic pedigree that he does and yet doesn't have the ability to fact check himself.

[Downbound Train]

The $20 Billion better friggin go to the correct and rightful claimants and not get tied up in politics though. They also need this to be so transparent that a 3rd grader could follow the money trail and depleting fund.

O, I appreciate your reasonableness but what you said there^^^^ is exactly why you are wrong. How many times do you have to let this government kick you in the balls before you say enough and STOP trusting and believing these people.

$20 Billion that's not even accountable to the taxpayer will be spent responsibly, non-politically and transparently? By the Obama administration?? I hope at least some of goes to help feed your unicorn.

[OSECS]

O, I appreciate your reasonableness but what you said there^^^^ is exactly why you are wrong. How many times do you have to let this government kick you in the balls before you say enough and STOP trusting and believing these people.

$20 Billion that's not even accountable to the taxpayer will be spent responsibly, non-politically and transparently? By the Obama administration?? I hope at least some of goes to help feed your unicorn.

Hey, I can dream man !

[OSECS]

I just read Sowells recent article on the great depression. I love how he makes up facts. Kinda funny. His dates arent even correct and the timeline is his entire argument. Amazing that he has the academic pedigree that he does and yet doesn't have the ability to fact check himself.

OK, lay out your evidence of what he's incorrect about.

[gonehuckin]

OK, lay out your evidence of what he's incorrect about.

Here is the article I'm refering to: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/06/17/a_mind-changing_page




A few immediately glaring facts:

He compares the reaction of FDR to the crash of 1929 to the reaction by Reagan to the crash of 1987. First thing he purposely omits is that FDRs New Deal was 4 years after the crash of 1929 when unemployment had reached 20%. Reagan had been president for 6 full years prior to the crash of 1987. Then he falsely attachs Hoover to FDR as one in the same. Thats like saying that Bush and Obama had the same role in the reaction to the most recent recession. Then he claims that Reagan had no reaction to the crash of 1987 and that saved us. Well thats not true either. At the end of 1986 the U.S. had a national debt of $269 billion, at the end of 1987 it was $368 billion, but by 1992 it was $3.5 trillion. For the first time since the depression a majority of Americans by 1989 could not afford to buy a home.

The development of Keynesian economics contributed to 3+ decades of relative balance. We made it about three years after the crash of 87 till another major recession. Two of which the economy hadn't fully recovered. "Read my lips".....

[Dexter Rutecki]

How am I changing the subject?

You haven't--ironically, he already has.

He does this every fucking thread he's in--changes the terms of the argument, misstates what others post, and then accuses everyone of deliberately misunderstanding his poor/changed word choice.

Obviously there is no law that was broken, as Obama never 'seized' anything (nor did he coerce or extort). And obviously there is no need for a legal citation allowing Obama to speak to the head of a company that is probably guilty of criminal negligence. There's nothing in the Constitution that allows Obama to hold press conferences, but he does (shit, I probably just gave them an idea--he's trying to control the media!!!!).

Let's try one time with this guy: by telling BP to create an escrow account for claims, what law did Obama break?

[Rubicon]

That's right, it is sad. Don't let these traitor hippie lefty feminazi anti-American slanderers who are misconstruing Republicans' for handing out handies to Big Oil get you down... it IS about the rule of law and nothing more. Even if the process takes decades to sort, the process must be served or else freedom will give way to fascism. The way things are going now it's only a matter of time before the undeserving poor show up in leaky canoes to dip their beaks without any sort of due process and then BP's socialist shakedown will be complete.

BP is being treated worse than Al Qaeda would be under the Obama administration. If BP tried to blow something up, BP would have received a fairer legal process, a court appointed attorney instead of facing enormous legal bills, plus Miranda rights and no congressional interrogation. This was nothing more than a Communist kangaroo court other than the CEO of British Petroleum was able to walk away instead of spending twenty years in a Gulag.

Fortunately some people still stand for principles and the rule of law. The rest of you libdopes owe BP an apology.

You are a very clever troll.

[Rubicon]

Politicians make claims all the time that are inaccurate, as you well know. And if didn't suit you, you'd certainly not take the administration's characterization of events as unquestionably accurate. Moreover, Rahm Emanuel's use of "forcing" may simply reflect his characterization of the state of affairs as outlined by toast2266.


We can play 'what if' till the cows come home but it won't change what happened.



How, exactly, did the administration force BP to provide this money? I may be serving an easy one up for you since I haven't followed things myself to know what the answer may be, but the fact that you've been asked repeatedly and have chosen to ignore the question suggests that they did nothing.

It suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that I am not taking the bait as you try to subtly redirect the discussion to an area where we have less information and is therefor more susceptible to your imaginative speculations.

What we know is that this administration is taking credit for forcing a private company to surrender a staggering sum of money to an unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable individual occupying an extra-constitutional position of authority within, and under the control of, the administration.

To date, nobody in this thread(including you) has been able to show or even explain where the executive branch of the federal government derives the authority to do this.



Or, they made a "threat" which was mostly or entirely comprised of pointing out to BP its inevitable liability. So, be specific. How was the forcing accomplished?

See above about not taking bait.

[Mathematics]

What we know is that this administration is taking credit for forcing a private company to surrender a staggering sum of money to an unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable individual occupying an extra-constitutional position of authority within, and under the control of, the administration.

Which BP has also taken credit for. I work for them, and get to see all the internal company emails patting each other on the back. Which is far more intense than the small PR campaign they did with the US public taking credit for it.

Also, while $20B may be staggering to people like you and I, it is not at all staggering to BP, or in light of the scale of whats happening in the GoM right now. Financially, thats a drop in a very very large bucket for them.


To date, nobody in this thread(including you) has been able to show or even explain where the executive branch of the federal government derives the authority to do this.

I am no constitutional scholar, but there has got to be something in there about executive authority getting more power, or atleast more leeway in times of emergency. Like when our country's environment & economy has come under attack by a foreign entity. I also don't think its avoiding/changing the subject to ask where it says the president can't sit down with a CEO of a company and ask them to atone financially for what they've tone. It's a counter point, or counter question, to your question. If you cant point out where it's illegal, pointing out where it's legal is moot.

I understand what you're getting at about whether or not this is set-out-in-the-consititution legal...but the closest thing legally to come to this event in the US is Exxon-Valdez, and the legal precedent there is the company that did the damage get's off with a slap on the wrist, without proper restitution to the environment or the folks whose livelihoods were harmed by that spill. I hardly doubt thats what the authors of our precious constitution had in mind.

good to see you back rubi. even if you are an un-patriotic, anti-enviroment, blindly pro-global business kook.

[SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop]

Did you just type that? Hahahaha. I have heard that defense to extortion before.

It's always perceived to be in your best interest to comply in cases of extortion, dumbphuck. Thats the quid pro quo in extortion. Its basically extortion defined. I give you two options. One sucks, one sucks less but you want to do neither.

Holy Shit.

FUCKING BULLSHIT COAST BODY WASH AD THAT JUST SPRUNG UP /rant

The quid pro quo in extortion has to be something illegal. "You pay us $10 a hour and we will have a security guard watch your store" - legal
"You pay us $xxx or your store will be torched" - illegal

If you have a problem with what Obama did, you are going to have a world of hurt with how police and DA's act.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH ROLLOVER ADS WITH SOUND?!?!?

[SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop]

Yet that is exactly what he did, even as BP was in the process of paying out reimbursement to those who had immediate need, fulfilling their obligation under the law.

Obama had no legal authority to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, 'force' BP to surrender $20b to this fund. Do you still disagree?

Look, we do not know how Obama "forced" BP. The government could nitpick every little bp operation for fines of trillions of dollars. BP's documents on emergency's mention animals that aren't even in the area and people that aren't even alive. If the administration said, look, you better have all your appropriate documentation on all your other wells fully dotted and crossed, or we will take full action under the law. This will cause you to lose x billion dollars, plus how will this look to stockholders?

Government does this all the time. If you dont testify against X we will charge you with these nitpicky crimes (which would never be filed, but are crimes)

[SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop]

All these issues are ancillary to the fact that the executive branch of our federal government does not have the legal authority to deprive BP of it's money without due process, which is exactly what it did.



How do you know the executive branch took the money? As far as you know Obama said look, put up $20b and we wont be as nitpicky as we could be.

He could of said "you guys really need to get on the ball, or we are going to really have to blast you in the press for A B C D E F G H I J K L M " (BP thinks what that will do to their share price, and says ok how about we ...). Totally within the law, in fact constitutionally protected!

[woodstocksez]

We can play 'what if' till the cows come home but it won't change what happened.




It suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that I am not taking the bait as you try to subtly redirect the discussion to an area where we have less information and is therefor more susceptible to your imaginative speculations.

What we know is that this administration is taking credit for forcing a private company to surrender a staggering sum of money to an unelected, unconfirmed, unaccountable individual occupying an extra-constitutional position of authority within, and under the control of, the administration.

To date, nobody in this thread(including you) has been able to show or even explain where the executive branch of the federal government derives the authority to do this.




See above about not taking bait.

:nonono2::nonono2::nonono2::nonono2::nonono2: As usual.

You're worthless. I'm not trying to be gratuitously mean or insulting, as is common in this forum. You really are worthless.

I rarely respond to anything you post, but occasionally I delude myself that you'll address something forthrightly and honestly. I guess I'm insane because that certainly fits that definition people sometimes trot out.

[Downbound Train]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/48_see_government_today_as_a_threat_to_individual_ rights

Nearly half of American Adults see the government today as a threat to individual rights rather than a protector of those rights.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Adults see the government today as a threat to rights. Thirty-seven percent (37%) hold the opposite view. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

[Dexter Rutecki]

We can play 'what if' till the cows come home but it won't change what happened.


There was no 'what if' about it, you retard. He explained the obvious to you, and pointed out that you were (yet again--as you did for pages in a thread last year!) using a questionable statement from the administration as fact (when it isn't) simply because it suits your argument.




It suggests nothing of the sort. What it does suggest is that I am not taking the bait as you try to subtly redirect the discussion to an area where we have less information and is therefor more susceptible to your imaginative speculations.

Funny how EVERY SINGLE TIME someone points out a flaw or fallacy in your argument (which happens a lot) they're suddenly 'redirecting' or changing something.

Sorry, wrong again--that hasn't happened.

And you have yet to answer the very simple questions asked of you (because the answers will prove your logic to be worthless).



What we know is that this administration is taking credit for forcing

And here's your problem. BP was never forced, regardless of what you (or Rahm, your apparent definitive source, along with Pelosi's representatives, as I remember) claim.

Prove BP was forced, and show that a law was broken, or STFU. I suggest the second option, since you can't do the first.

[OSECS]

Rubicon is correct. An administration taking funds directly (so to speak) from a private company is certainly not the normal Constitutionally granted power of the executive branch. The purse strings have been established in the Constitution as Congressional domain.



Exactly who (person, committee, czar, Congress, blind trust) is going to control this fund ??

What is the mechanism for claim reporting and payment ??

How is accounting going to be verifiable ??

This is a great time for Pres. Obama to make good on the "transparency of his administration" campaign promise/pledge !!!

This fund is not for campaigning renewable fuels research, or PR campaigns for such activity or setting up commissions to watch dog future drilling, or exporatory committees for any purpose, or hiring gov't claims workers to deal with the claims (there are plenty of private company claims workers already). It is for physical damage caused by BPs negligence plain and simple. Any other use of the fund would be criminal in my opinion.

[Downbound Train]

Rubi, Bet you are glad to be back. They won't answer your question because they don't even understand it. They think Obama is a King - above the law. They think the law is whatever Obama can get away with.

[toast2266]

Exactly who (person, committee, czar, Congress, blind trust) is going to control this fund ??


Ken Feinberg - basically acting as settlement master. It seems that (before this) he's best known for overseeing the 9/11 victims compensation fund.

[Dexter Rutecki]

I thought he was best known for being in the pocket of a tyrannical, power crazed, communist, foreign born, despot?

[Rip'nStick]

Rubi, Bet you are glad to be back. They won't answer your question because they don't even understand it. They think Obama is a King - above the law. They think the law is whatever Obama can get away with.

What question? What law has been broken?

Y'all have nothing but the tired "I don't trust Obama". PATHETIC.

BTW I have a few questions you haven't answered.

[Rip'nStick]

DBT
"Some of you dimwits need a history lesson. No one on the side of the government intervention ever thinks the government is moving toward tyranny. They think the government is protecting them from the bogieman of the day. Then......Oh shit, wah happened."

RnS
"Conspiracy theorists always say this but I am having a bit of trouble coming up with examples. Most tyranny in modern history has been a result of violant revolutions (opposite of govt tyranny) or has been quite obvious (1930's Germany)"




So DBT, do you have any examples or is that just a saying?

[ilikecandy]

DBT
"Some of you dimwits need a history lesson. No one on the side of the government intervention ever thinks the government is moving toward tyranny. They think the government is protecting them from the bogieman of the day. Then......Oh shit, wah happened."

RnS
"Conspiracy theorists always say this but I am having a bit of trouble coming up with examples. Most tyranny in modern history has been a result of violant revolutions (opposite of govt tyranny) or has been quite obvious (1930's Germany)"




So DBT, do you have any examples or is that just a saying?
you just gave a pretty good example

[Rip'nStick]

Everyone could see it coming in Germany. 1930's Germany looked NOTHING like USA today. NOTHING.

It wasn't a slow erosion. It was thugs in the street.

Try again....

[13]

Rube's #1 hobby is apparently Conservative interpretations of Constitutional Law. It's abundantly clear that he doesn't hold a JD; at best he may be 1L.

For his sake, I hope he's better with women than his inflexible arguing style.

[woodstocksez]

Rubicon is correct. An administration taking funds directly (so to speak) from a private company is certainly not the normal Constitutionally granted power of the executive branch.

OK, but even accepting that as accurate (regulatory bodies within the executive branch commonly take funds directly from private entities, but I'm not going to offer up any opinion as to how setting up a fund of this sort fits with respect to that activity), that doesn't seem to be his primary concern.


All these issues are ancillary to the fact that the executive branch of our federal government does not have the legal authority to deprive BP of it's money without due process, which is exactly what it did.

[13]

Rubi, Bet you are glad to be back. They won't answer your question because they don't even understand it. They think Obama is a King - above the law. They think the law is whatever Obama can get away with.

Eh, not really. Some understand it, they just choose not to swing at balls thrown by a shitty pitcher.

[ilikecandy]

Everyone could see it coming in Germany. 1930's Germany looked NOTHING like USA today. NOTHING.

It wasn't a slow erosion. It was thugs in the street.

Try again....

it doesnt have to look exactly the same. do you think the people on the side of government saw it as tyranny or not?

good thing there are no thugs in the street here
YouTube- "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly

[Rip'nStick]

That's right, it is sad. Don't let these traitor hippie lefty feminazi anti-American slanderers who are misconstruing Republicans' for handing out handies to Big Oil get you down... it IS about the rule of law and nothing more. Even if the process takes decades to sort, the process must be served or else freedom will give way to fascism. The way things are going now it's only a matter of time before the undeserving poor show up in leaky canoes to dip their beaks without any sort of due process and then BP's socialist shakedown will be complete.

BP is being treated worse than Al Qaeda would be under the Obama administration. If BP tried to blow something up, BP would have received a fairer legal process, a court appointed attorney instead of facing enormous legal bills, plus Miranda rights and no congressional interrogation. This was nothing more than a Communist kangaroo court other than the CEO of British Petroleum was able to walk away instead of spending twenty years in a Gulag.

Fortunately some people still stand for principles and the rule of law. The rest of you libdopes owe BP an apology.

Archer,
This was your best analysis yet. Your conservative viewpoints are well thought out and presented with clarity and purpose. Keep up the good work.
-RnS

[OSECS]

OK, but even accepting that as accurate (regulatory bodies within the executive branch commonly take funds directly from private entities, but I'm not going to offer up any opinion as to how setting up a fund of this sort fits with respect to that activity), but that doesn't seem to be his primary concern.

Can you give some examples ??

I have strong reservations about the exec. branch handling any money, ever. Too easy for exec. priviledge to be hauled out when funds go missing.

[Rip'nStick]

it doesnt have to look exactly the same. do you think the people on the side of government saw it as tyranny or not?

good thing there are no thugs in the street here
YouTube- "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU)

HAHAHAHA That video. Those definitely look like state sanctioned uniforms:eek:

You are displaying a blatant disregard of reality or more likely, dishonesty to support a very flawed position. You're just wrong. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Yeah, the US is turning into a fascist dictatorship, just like NAZI Germany!:rolleyes:

Get a grip man, the TV is eating your brain:nonono2:

[ilikecandy]

You are displaying a blatant disregard of reality or more likely, dishonesty to support a very flawed position. You're just wrong. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Yeah, the US is turning into a fascist dictatorship, just like NAZI Germany!:rolleyes:

Get a grip man, the TV is eating your brain:nonono2:

once again, why would it have to be just like nazi germany in order to be moving toward tyranny?

[Rip'nStick]

It doesn't have to be. But are we currently moving toward tyranny? You have no idea of what you are talking about. Besides the Patriot Act, no not really much at all.

BTW the extension of the "Patriot Act" by Obama is my biggest gripe and somewhat is unforgivable. If there is one reason to not trust the guy, that would be it. WTF would he not even suggest that some of the terms get changed.:cussing::nonono2::cussing:


oh and once again that video you posted was ridiculous in support of your point:p

[Dexter Rutecki]

WTF is wrong with you people seriously talking about tyranny? What power that didn't exist before has been seized? What threat is there to representative democracy?

If there is the possibility of something extraconstitutional happening it can be addressed through the courts. There isn't even a hint that the executive branch controls either of the other branches--if there's a challenge the courts will properly rule on it and the ruling will be respected.

So enough with the Hitler/tyranny hysterical arguments. You're just making yourselves sound tinfoil hat stupid.

[Rip'nStick]

WTF is wrong with you people seriously talking about tyranny?

So enough with the Hitler/tyranny hysterical arguments. You're just making yourselves sound tinfoil hat stupid.

But I come to PoliAssHat to tease the tinfoil hat stupid people here:( I don't see this diverse of a spectrum of stupidity in my own life. It is like going to the zoo.

And you want to take the animals away:confused:

[archer]

You are a very clever troll.
A troll? I’m not sure what you mean but that seems harsh since we seem to agree with the Great Texas Rublican Rep. Joe Barton when he says that BP is owed an apology for the way BP is being treated.

Maybe I’m missing something? But unlike my fellow card carrying Republicans like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Pallin and Michael Steele who backed away from Joe’s statement, I have always agreed with Joe that this is a Chicago style, whatever that means, shakedown ..especially when Rush Limbaugh made Representative Joe Barton a hero to those of us on the right.

So that you can see how closely my postion aligns with yours:

[√] BP is owed an apology for the way BP is being treated

[√] Joe Barton should keep his postion as the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee so that he can provide oil company “oversight” when Republicans regain congressional control in January 2011

[√] The BP oil spill is NOT necessarily an unprecedented environmental disaster that calls for unprecedented solutions and so the rule of law must be followed no matter how long that might take

[√] Even though BP and the Obama administration have claimed to set up an independent victims fund overseen by three judges and run by the same dude who ran than 9/11 victims fund, I know because Rush said so, that it is really just a Chicago style government slush fund

[√] This shakedown might even be further proof of a socialist plot between BP and the federal government working together to blow up the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig as was suggested by Bill Randall, a tea partier, and recent winner of the North Carolina Republican congressional primary

[√] Thomas Sowell comparing the Obama administration to Nazi Germany makes perfect sense

[leroy jenkins]

What law gave him the authority to do what he did? I keep asking this and everyone keeps ducking the question or changing the subject. That's very telling, me thinks.

I dont think you understand how the law works. Congress does not possess any power not specifically granted to them. That seems to be the idea you have about the president, but the executive branch doesnt work that way, the pres has the power to do whatever he wants as long as it isn't illegal.

So, show us what law he has broken. We dont show you what law gives him the right to do this.


The anti-gov crowd here would like the gov to foot the bill of cleanup and damages until BP can be sued into doing what they should to fix the mess. These are the same people who argue for malpractice lawsuits to be gone. These are the same people who dont get it that the fisherman of the gulf coast have to feed their families and a long drawn out legal process only makes the problem worse and lines the pockets of lawyers.


The worst part is that BP gets it, yet you dont.

Yea, BP could choose to fight this in a court of law but they aren't and they wont because everyone involved realizes that circumventing certain legal processes is really just cutting through red tape. BP knows they're going to have to pay, and this is the best course of action for everyone. None of the parties involved have a problem with this. The only way this would go differently if Rubicon were in charge would be that it would take a lot longer, a lot of bureaucrats and lawyers would get paid for it, and a lot of people that need this money right now wouldnt get it.



I usually fall into the paranoid small government crowd, but come on, all this amounts to is cutting through red tape. I actually see the post exon valdez fight as a much better example of over bloated government not being able to effectually do what it is supposed to. If I remember right the government STILL has not been paid back for its cleanup efforts for, something the private sector should have taken care of. That is because of all the red tape/haggling/bullshit involved.

I have not been a huge fan of Obama, but I see no wrongdoing in this matter, and I admire is clear sightedness to see the red tape for what it is.

[Rip'nStick]

A troll? I’m not sure what you mean but that seems harsh since we seem to agree with the Great Texas Rublican Rep. Joe Barton when he says that BP is owed an apology for the way BP is being treated.

Maybe I’m missing something? But unlike my fellow card carrying Republicans like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Pallin and Michael Steele who backed away from Joe’s statement, I have always agreed with Joe that this is a Chicago style, whatever that means, shakedown ..especially when Rush Limbaugh made Representative Joe Barton a hero to those of us on the right.

So that you can see how closely my postion aligns with yours:

[√] BP is owed an apology for the way BP is being treated

[√] Joe Barton should keep his postion as the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee so that he can provide oil company “oversight” when Republicans regain congressional control in January 2011

[√] The BP oil spill is NOT necessarily an unprecedented environmental disaster that calls for unprecedented solutions and so the rule of law must be followed no matter how long that might take

[√] Even though BP and the Obama administration have claimed to set up an independent victims fund overseen by three judges and run by the same dude who ran than 9/11 victims fund, I know because Rush said so, that it is really just a Chicago style government slush fund

[√] This shakedown might even be further proof of a socialist plot between BP and the federal government working together to blow up the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling rig as was suggested by Bill Randall, a tea partier, and recent winner of the North Carolina Republican congressional primary

[√] Thomas Sowell comparing the Obama administration to Nazi Germany makes perfect sense

I guess we just fundamentally disagree:rolleyes2


:biggrin:

[ilikecandy]

WTF is wrong with you people seriously talking about tyranny? What power that didn't exist before has been seized? What threat is there to representative democracy?

If there is the possibility of something extraconstitutional happening it can be addressed through the courts. There isn't even a hint that the executive branch controls either of the other branches--if there's a challenge the courts will properly rule on it and the ruling will be respected.

So enough with the Hitler/tyranny hysterical arguments. You're just making yourselves sound tinfoil hat stupid.

if you have such faith in the courts, why are you against due process when it comes to bp's liability?

[Rip'nStick]

if you have such faith in the courts, why are you against due process when it comes to bp's liability?

Trolling? Stupid? Didn't bother to read other posts?

Due process happens when a law is broken right? Make with the law that was broken or STFU

[ilikecandy]

I dont think you understand how the law works. Congress does not possess any power not specifically granted to them. That seems to be the idea you have about the president, but the executive branch doesnt work that way, the pres has the power to do whatever he wants as long as it isn't illegal.

So, show us what law he has broken. We dont show you what law gives him the right to do this.


once again, read the 10th amendment. its very clear

[ilikecandy]

Trolling? Stupid? Didn't bother to read other posts?

Due process happens when a law is broken right? Make with the law that was broken or STFU

no, due process has little to do with criminal prosecution, and everything to do with abrogation of rights

seriously, we should all reread the constitution. it is an amazing document, and clearly poorly understood

[Dexter Rutecki]

if you have such faith in the courts, why are you against due process when it comes to bp's liability?

Where did I say anything about opposing due process to assess BP's liability? That is exactly what I expect will happen. The escrow money doesn't affect that--it only indicates that BP (apparently) accepts that they are liable, and that they probably won't fight some of the obviously valid claims that will be made.

Why are you against BP paying restitution without needless, expensive, time consuming litigation? Are you just against the 'little people' getting their due? Do you have such a desire to see attorneys profit from this, and courts to be tied up for years deciding matters that need no litigation?

[Dexter Rutecki]

no, due process has little to do with criminal prosecution, and everything to do with abrogation of rights

seriously, we should all reread the constitution. it is an amazing document, and clearly poorly understood

By you especially and the others who think the escrow fund somehow is unconstitutional. There is a method we have for determining constitutionality--you should learn about it.

[toast2266]

no, due process has little to do with criminal prosecution, and everything to do with abrogation of rights

seriously, we should all reread the constitution. it is an amazing document, and clearly poorly understood

irony...

There's no due process violation if BP agrees to it.

[ilikecandy]

Where did I say anything about opposing due process to assess BP's liability? That is exactly what I expect will happen. The escrow money doesn't affect that--it only indicates that BP (apparently) accepts that they are liable, and that they probably won't fight some of the obviously valid claims that will be made.

Why are you against BP paying restitution without needless, expensive, time consuming litigation? Are you just against the 'little people' getting their due? Do you have such a desire to see attorneys profit from this, and courts to be tied up for years deciding matters that need no litigation?

Assuming for the sake of argument that the administration is being truthful when they say that they forced bp into this, you really dont see how that violates their right to due process?

[ilikecandy]

By you especially and the others who think the escrow fund somehow is unconstitutional. There is a method we have for determining constitutionality--you should learn about it.

the fund itself is not the part that would be unconstitutional.

there is a method we have for determining liability - you should learn about it

either you have faith in the courts or you dont. you cant have it both ways

[ilikecandy]

irony...

There's no due process violation if BP agrees to it.

theres no violation if bp volunteers it

[toast2266]

there is a method we have for determining liability - you should learn about it


...which is completely irrelevant when the defendant has admitted liability.

[ilikecandy]

...which is completely irrelevant when the defendant has admitted liability.

which claims have they admitted liability to?

[toast2266]

Chief Executive Tony Hayward said: "From the outset we have said that we fully accepted our obligations as a responsible party. This agreement reaffirms our commitment to do the right thing. The President made it clear and we agree that our top priority is to contain the spill, clean up the oil and mitigate the damage to the Gulf coast community. We will not rest until the job is done."

from BP's press release regarding the $20B settlement (http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062966).

[toast2266]

which claims have they admitted liability to?

all valid claims; validity is determined by settlement master Feinberg. If BP disagrees, they can appeal through the court system. No violation of due process there.

[ilikecandy]

all valid claims; validity is determined by settlement master Feinberg. If BP disagrees, they can appeal through the court system. No violation of due process there.

right

unless of course they were pressured in any way to set up the fund, which would be a violation

[Rip'nStick]

Let's say I run my truck into a neighbors yard and run over his fence. He comes out and says WTF. I say "sorry, I thought it was in reverse and I was in a hurry so I punched it". He says "well you better do something about it". I say "I'm really in a hurry can we talk about it after my vacation" He says "hell no, I'm going to need $20B to even start working on this". I go alright, I have $20B, I'll make sure that it is set aside". He says well right a check to my wife then, she'll make sure the fence gets fixed before the dogs get out". I say "alright then, sorry about he fence".

Worst analogy ever but you'll notice, no judges, no lawyers.


Did anyone read Mathematics post? Guy works for BP and has seen the inside emails.

Why the outrage. Oh yeah, Obama. That guy is either a Muslim infiltrator, or he is a socialist statist trying to take over the country for.... Ernst Blofeld!

[ilikecandy]

Let's say I run my truck into a neighbors yard and run over his fence. He comes out and says WTF. I say "sorry, I thought it was in reverse and I was in a hurry so I punched it". He says "well you better do something about it". I say "I'm really in a hurry can we talk about it after my vacation" He says "hell no, I'm going to need $20B to even start working on this". I go alright, I have $20B, I'll make sure that it is set aside". He says well right a check to my wife then, she'll make sure the fence gets fixed before the dogs get out". I say "alright then, sorry about he fence".

Worst analogy ever but you'll notice, no judges, no lawyers.


Did anyone read Mathematics post? Guy works for BP and has seen the inside emails.

Why the outrage. Oh yeah, Obama. That guy is either a Muslim infiltrator, or he is a socialist statist trying to take over the country for.... Ernst Blofeld!
the biggest problem(among many) with this analogy is that you gave the money to your wife. the proper analogy in this case is for the mayor to take it from you

a)what outrage have i shown?

b)if you dont agree with me, it must be because you have an irrational hatred of ___

[Rip'nStick]

right

unless of course they were pressured in any way to set up the fund, which would be a violation

Read back a few pages. The "pressure" was likely saying "pay up or well go to court and you won't want to defend your actions as they are clearly wrong and it will be a PR disaster"

Give it up candyass, we've been through this. You are just off base and taking an undefendable position, making you look like an ass. Following suit with many here.

Say it with me "OK maybe it is not a big deal"

[Rip'nStick]

the biggest problem(among many) with this analogy is that you gave the money to your wife. the proper analogy in this case is for the mayor to take it from you

So govt should stay all the way out of this? They better not, I elected the bums. I want them to represent the citizens of the US of A.

[Rip'nStick]

the biggest problem(among many) with this analogy is that you gave the money to your wife. the proper analogy in this case is for the mayor to take it from you

a)what outrage have i shown?

b)if you dont agree with me, it must be because you have an irrational hatred of ___

Ok outrage might be a strong word

if you dont agree with me, it must be because you have an irrational hatred of....STUPIDITY!!!

Seriously makes me sad how many in this country are completely off their rocker because of.... OBAMA

[ilikecandy]

Read back a few pages. The "pressure" was likely saying "pay up or well go to court and you won't want to defend your actions as they are clearly wrong and it will be a PR disaster"

Give it up candyass, we've been through this. You are just off base and taking an undefendable position, making you look like an ass. Following suit with many here.

Say it with me "OK maybe it is not a big deal"
thats speculation, and considering that someone at the top of the administration claimed something completely contradictory, i would say it is baseless speculation at best

i never said its a big deal, the constitution, due process and the rule of law get violated all the time, for much more nefarious reasons and with much more heinous outcomes

[Rip'nStick]

Which BP has also taken credit for. I work for them, and get to see all the internal company emails patting each other on the back. Which is far more intense than the small PR campaign they did with the US public taking credit for it.

Also, while $20B may be staggering to people like you and I, it is not at all staggering to BP, or in light of the scale of whats happening in the GoM right now. Financially, thats a drop in a very very large bucket for them.



I am no constitutional scholar, but there has got to be something in there about executive authority getting more power, or atleast more leeway in times of emergency. Like when our country's environment & economy has come under attack by a foreign entity. I also don't think its avoiding/changing the subject to ask where it says the president can't sit down with a CEO of a company and ask them to atone financially for what they've tone. It's a counter point, or counter question, to your question. If you cant point out where it's illegal, pointing out where it's legal is moot.

I understand what you're getting at about whether or not this is set-out-in-the-consititution legal...but the closest thing legally to come to this event in the US is Exxon-Valdez, and the legal precedent there is the company that did the damage get's off with a slap on the wrist, without proper restitution to the environment or the folks whose livelihoods were harmed by that spill. I hardly doubt thats what the authors of our precious constitution had in mind.

good to see you back rubi. even if you are an un-patriotic, anti-enviroment, blindly pro-global business kook.

Personally I think this is about all there is to this.

[ilikecandy]

Ok outrage might be a strong word

if you dont agree with me, it must be because you have an irrational hatred of....STUPIDITY!!!

Seriously makes me sad how many in this country are completely off their rocker because of.... OBAMA

you do a disservice to critical thinking by dismissing anyone who challenges your worldview by ascribing to them some sort of irrationality

[Rip'nStick]

thats speculation, and considering that someone at the top of the administration claimed something completely contradictory, i would say it is baseless speculation at best

i never said its a big deal, the constitution, due process and the rule of law get violated all the time, for much more nefarious reasons and with much more heinous outcomes

Speculation is calling it extortion. Stupidity is demanding it go to court when BP essentually said, "OK we'll open an escrow acct"

[Rip'nStick]

you do a disservice to critical thinking by dismissing anyone who challenges your worldview by ascribing to them some sort of irrationality

OSECS and I don't agree on many things but he is rational. You are not being rational.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Assuming for the sake of argument that the administration is being truthful when they say that they forced bp into this, you really dont see how that violates their right to due process?

They weren't forced--not in the sense that you mean. Bluster from Rahm aside, BP stated in advance of the meeting that they would do this.


the fund itself is not the part that would be unconstitutional.

there is a method we have for determining liability - you should learn about it

either you have faith in the courts or you dont. you cant have it both ways

There's no both ways about it.

Why don't you understand that BP can admit liability and fund claims without the courts? And that their decision to do so, regardless of what big bad Obama says he thinks they should do, is lawful?
Do you understand this?


which claims have they admitted liability to?

All of them. All valid claims.


right

unless of course they were pressured in any way to set up the fund, which would be a violation

No it wouldn't. There are plenty of ways to lawfully pressure a person or company.
Rubicon won't answer it, but what violation are you referring to? What law was broken?

This is still just a whole bunch of anti-Obama bullshit. Nothing new, and even less substantial than usual.

[ilikecandy]

Speculation is calling it extortion. Stupidity is demanding it go to court when BP essentually said, "OK we'll open an escrow acct"
of course it is, although much more founded as it is supported by witness statement. i'll agree that this is somewhat of a thought exercise, but again, to most of you who support this, it doesnt matter how it came about

[Dexter Rutecki]

you do a disservice to critical thinking by dismissing anyone who challenges your worldview by ascribing to them some sort of irrationality

How is it rational to claim that BP funding an escrow fund for claims is unconstitutional? How is it rational to claim, with no basis in fact, that Obama is trampling BP's rights? How is it rational to think that the only way claims should be paid is through the courts?

Answers, please.

[Rip'nStick]

This will probably go in circles some more, I think you can just quote responses since it all has been said.

In summary:

- The usual conservatard, tinfoil hat wearing, OBAMA is a SATAN crowd objected to something they saw in the news that had Obama's name attached to it

- This particular time it was "he has no right under the constitution to talk to middle schoolers let alone company executives"

- The clichés come out like "this is a step towards tyranny. it will get you in your sleep, it is sneaky like that"

- The usual libdopes chime in with WTF? Again with you kooks!

- Rubicon comes back and with his usual flare takes a ridiculous position and defends it with all kinds of misdirection and avoidance of key questions. His proclivity for ridiculous positions that are completely off are only matched by his stamina in defending his obviously off base opinions

- RipnStick goes off on multiple tirades and attacks all within reach. Like a frothing rottweiler

- OSECS sounds reasonable

- Archer also presents conservative arguments with clarity

- Mathematics summs it all up and gives inside perspective

- The obvious fallacies in the Obama-hating conservatards are pointed out

- Trolling by some, open stupidity by other

Yep, standard fare for this place. Have a good day.

[ilikecandy]

How is it rational to claim that BP funding an escrow fund for claims is unconstitutional? How is it rational to claim, with no basis in fact, that Obama is trampling BP's rights? How is it rational to think that the only way claims should be paid is through the courts?

Answers, please.

wow, you really missed it didnt you?

bp setting up the fund isnt unconstitutional

what would be unconstitutional would be the executive branch overstepping its clearly defined authority to force them to, denying them due process of the law

[Dexter Rutecki]

wow, you really missed it didnt you?

Not at all...but now you've made it conditional, apparently admitting that what you claimed happened didn't happen at all--which is why there's no constitutional issue:




bp setting up the fund isnt unconstitutional

what would be unconstitutional would be the executive branch overstepping its clearly defined authority to force them to, denying them due process of the law

Your new conditional phrasing highlighted above. BP wasn't forced=you have no argument.

[ilikecandy]

Not at all...but now you've made it conditional, apparently admitting that what you claimed happened didn't happen at all--which is why there's no constitutional issue:



Your new conditional phrasing highlighted above. BP wasn't forced=you have no argument.

What new phrasing? Im pretty sure it has always been conditional for me. The only ones who claim to know what happened are the supporters(you included), and rubicon. i dont think i would be so presumptuous

but there is powerful evidence that indeed they were forced. why are you so sure they werent? where is the evidence?

[woodstocksez]

seriously, we should all reread the constitution. it is an amazing document, and clearly poorly understood

Including you, no doubt, if you think all you need to do is re-read the constitution.

[Rip'nStick]

What new phrasing? Im pretty sure it has always been conditional for me. The only ones who claim to know what happened are the supporters(you included), and rubicon. i dont think i would be so presumptuous

but there is powerful evidence that indeed they were forced. why are you so sure they werent? where is the evidence?

Maybe that is the last remaining ambiguity.

What do you mean by "forced"?

What would be illegally forcing and what would be legal?

[woodstocksez]

there is a method we have for determining liability - you should learn about it

either you have faith in the courts or you dont. you cant have it both ways

A very small percentage of legal disputes ever make it to court. You should learn about that.

[ilikecandy]

Including you, no doubt, if you think all you need to do is re-read the constitution.

yes, we generally includes the speaker

not sure what you mean with the main clause

[Dexter Rutecki]

What new phrasing? Im pretty sure it has always been conditional for me. The only ones who claim to know what happened are the supporters(you included), and rubicon. i dont think i would be so presumptuous

but there is powerful evidence that indeed they were forced. why are you so sure they werent? where is the evidence?

How were they forced? What evidence is there for that? If they were forced (how, again?) then why wouldn't they pursue redress in the courts?

That post was the first one in which you said it might be unconstitutional, if there was something done to force them. I'm not going to sit here and run through imaginary hypotheticals--there's no more reason to imagine that Obama figured out a way to make BP create the fund against its will than there is to believe 100 other internet rumors.

[ilikecandy]

A very small percentage of legal disputes ever make it to court. You should learn about that.

sure. and what specific legal dispute are you referring to in this case? while youre at it, let me know what tactics are generally used by the executive branch in these disputes

this fund is in no way equal to the out of court settlements you are talking about

[woodstocksez]

Why the outrage. Oh yeah, Obama. That guy is either a Muslim infiltrator, or he is a socialist statist trying to take over the country for.... Ernst Blofeld!

You apologists keep forgetting bad bowler. I guess I would too. That's pretty shameful.

SPECTRE.

[ilikecandy]

How were they forced? What evidence is there for that? If they were forced (how, again?) then why wouldn't they pursue redress in the courts?

That post was the first one in which you said it might be unconstitutional, if there was something done to force them. I'm not going to sit here and run through imaginary hypotheticals--there's no more reason to imagine that Obama figured out a way to make BP create the fund against its will than there is to believe 100 other internet rumors.

the strongest evidence is the emanuel quote. and common sense - if this was bp's idea, why did it come out of a meeting with obama?

[ilikecandy]

Maybe that is the last remaining ambiguity.

What do you mean by "forced"?

What would be illegally forcing and what would be legal?

legal is anything allowed by article 2 that doesnt violate bp's rights. illegal is anything else

[Dexter Rutecki]

the strongest evidence is the emanuel quote. and common sense - if this was bp's idea, why did it come out of a meeting with obama?

It doesn't matter whose idea it was--it could have been entirely his idea, and maybe BP hates the idea. Still doesn't indicate a constitutional problem, and they still weren't illegally forced (Rahm could be right, in a sense, that they were forced--you can be forced to do something in a lot of different ways, but it can still be legal/constitutional).

I think that's the end of this story.

[Rip'nStick]

What do you mean by forced? If I ask you to do something and you say "Ok" have you been forced?

[woodstocksez]

but there is powerful evidence that indeed they were forced. why are you so sure they werent? where is the evidence?

What is that evidence? Rahm Emanuel's statement? Because that doesn't seem very powerful to me, certainly not in the context of what can probably reasonably be characterized as settlement negotiations between powerful entities.

[ilikecandy]

What is that evidence? Rahm Emanuel's statement? Because that doesn't seem very powerful to me, certainly not in the context of what can probably reasonably be characterized as settlement negotiations between powerful entities.
it is certainly much more powerful than any evidence i have seen to the contrary

[woodstocksez]

not sure what you mean with the main clause

Yeah, that was my point. There is a large body of jurisprudence regarding the meaning of various parts of the Constitution. If you think simply reading the Constitution enables you to draw legal conclusions regarding its content, then you really don't have a clue and you're obviously not a lawyer (and I don't mean that last disparagingly at all). commonlaw had a reasonably good post on just this in some thread a while back. Maybe I'll try to find it. Or not. The basic point is clear enough and not at all controversial.

[leroy jenkins]

once again, read the 10th amendment. its very clear


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Umm ok? How is this about states rights again? That isn't saying that anything the potus does must be spelled out as being legal, that is saying that any GOVERNMENTAL powers not relegated to the fed are given to the states.

Nothing to do with this. The is the fedgov holding a corporation responsible, not trampling on states rights.

Are you saying it should be the states that are going after BP? I can't beleive that you are, this crosses state and even international lines, the fed should handle it, not the states.

So yea, whats your point again?

[OSECS]

We all know they were forced to cough up the money. I mean really, they didn't waltz into the oval office with an ATM card to hand over to the pres. without looking at all their options first.

If the pres. tried to do something beyond the bounds of reasonable pressure, I'm betting BP would have walked and made public any untoward arm twisting, and used it as additional legal fodder down the road.

I'm also sure if BP thought hey could get away without paying they would. Obviously they know they're screwed. Why not be pro active (for now at least). As I understand it, they've given a lump sum % of the $20B now, and have agreed to paying the remaining over the next 4 years ? They could at any time stop making payments and try to fight this thing.

I'm sure the pres. went down a long laundry list of nasty, expensive troubles, that God forbid, could potentially happen to BP if BP didn't get out in front on this thing.

[ilikecandy]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Umm ok? How is this about states rights again? That isn't saying that anything the potus does must be spelled out as being legal, that is saying that any GOVERNMENTAL powers not relegated to the fed are given to the states.

Nothing to do with this. The is the fedgov holding a corporation responsible, not trampling on states rights.

Are you saying it should be the states that are going after BP? I can't beleive that you are, this crosses state and even international lines, the fed should handle it, not the states.

So yea, whats your point again?
my point is that the powers of the federal government (and contrary to what you posted, this includes the executive branch) are limited to what is explicitly laid out in the constitution. if it doesnt explicitly say they can do it, they cant do it

[toast2266]

it is certainly much more powerful than any evidence i have seen to the contrary

Like BP's statement that says they weren't forced?

why do you believe Rahm over BP?

[ilikecandy]

Like BP's statement that says they weren't forced?

why do you believe Rahm over BP?

i havent seen any such statement. if it exists, you would have been wise to use it to refute rubicon

[woodstocksez]

yes, we generally includes the speaker

Sure. So? My comment referred to the bit about understanding the Constitution, not the bit about reading it. It's not at all clear that you meant "we" with respect to that. In fact, just the opposite seems more likely. (Edit - That's what I meant, but I should've said "including by you," rather than "including you" to convey that.)

[OSECS]

my point is that the powers of the federal government (and contrary to what you posted, this includes the executive branch) are limited to what is explicitly laid out in the constitution. if it doesnt explicitly say they can do it, they cant do it

That has not been the case with the executive branch. They have almost from day one pushed the limits of what they can and can't do. Executive orders, executive priviledge. Shit half the stuff we don't see relating to military/national defense probably exceeds Constitutional bounds.

[woodstocksez]

if it doesnt explicitly say they can do it, they cant do it

The problem is that you seem oblivious to the large gray area that nevertheless exists.

[ilikecandy]

The problem is that you seem oblivious to the large gray area that nevertheless exists.

????

the question has been asked many times, what gives him the right? feel free to answer it, but "he can do whatever he wants", which is all that has been presented thus far, isnt going to cut it

[ilikecandy]

That has not been the case with the executive branch. They have almost from day one pushed the limits of what they can and can't do. Executive orders, executive priviledge. Shit half the stuff we don't see relating to military/national defense probably exceeds Constitutional bounds.

Of course. i've already said this wouldnt be the first, or the worst breach of the constitution, by far

[woodstocksez]

????

the question has been asked many times, what gives him the right? feel free to answer it, but "he can do whatever he wants", which is all that has been presented thus far, isnt going to cut it

That is not all that has been presented and you still are not understanding my point. Constitutional law comprises a rich body of jurisprudence. Maybe the administration has engaged in unconstitutional activity. Maybe not. It would be silly of me to offer up an opinion when that's not my area of expertise. It's also most likely silly of pretty much anyone posting here, but that doesn't stop some from doing it.

[toast2266]

????

the question has been asked many times, what gives him the right? feel free to answer it, but "he can do whatever he wants", which is all that has been presented thus far, isnt going to cut it

I've taken the liberty of copying the relevant portions of the constitution you're tangentially referring to. Do you contend that if something is not explicitly stated in these sections, that the president cannot do it?



(Doesn't grant any explicit powers)



The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.



He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.



(Doesn't grant any explicit powers)

[ilikecandy]

That is not all that has been presented and you still are not understanding my point. Constitutional law comprises a rich body of jurisprudence. Maybe the administration has engaged in unconstitutional activity. Maybe not. It would be silly of me to offer up an opinion when that's not my area of expertise. It's also most likely silly of pretty much anyone posting here, but that doesn't stop some from doing it.

Thats a cop out

Many here are claiming that what he is accused of doing would be constitutional. What is the basis?

I have said that, if he did something beyond what is contained in article 2, that would be unconstitutional. My basis is the 10th amendment, which is pretty much unambiguous

And its not like article 2 is really all that nebulous

[ilikecandy]

I've taken the liberty of copying the relevant portions of the constitution you're tangentially referring to. Do you contend that if something is not explicitly stated in these sections, that the president cannot do it?

yes, i am. once again, that is made pretty clear in the 10th amendment

[woodstocksez]

sure. and what specific legal dispute are you referring to in this case?

I'm referring to BP's anticipated liability, and the lawsuits and possible government sanctions likely associated with that. I expect that both sides have engaged in significant (and wide-ranging, including other than strictly legal considerations) cost/benefit analysis regarding this matter.


while youre at it, let me know what tactics are generally used by the executive branch in these disputes

I don't know. I don't know what tactics were used here. Do you?


this fund is in no way equal to the out of court settlements you are talking about

"Equal" is the wrong word to use and I didn't. I don't see anything odd in thinking that what happened here may be accurately characterized as similar to settlement of any other (actual or possible) liability claim at some stage short of proceeding with litigation through completion of a trial.

[woodstocksez]

Thats a cop out

No, it's not. I hope you're not a lawyer.

[ilikecandy]

you dont see the difference between settling with a party who has brought a claim against you in court, and the executive branch forcing you to set up a fund in advance of any claims? pretty significant difference if you ask me

[woodstocksez]

it is certainly much more powerful than any evidence i have seen to the contrary

Really? Coming from a guy with a well-known reputation for either being a political tough guy or, at least, posing as one? No, sorry, that isn't powerful evidence.

[woodstocksez]

you dont see the difference between settling with a party who has brought a claim against you in court, and the executive branch forcing you to set up a fund in advance of any claims? pretty significant difference if you ask me

Forcing?

[ilikecandy]

No, it's not. I hope you're not a lawyer.

far from it. but if people are claiming that he definitely has the power to do whatever he may have done, then they should be able to support that

saying "i know he definitely has the power, im not qualified to say why, so i dont have to"
is a cop out

[ilikecandy]

Forcing?

yes. thats the assumption on which all of this has to be based. if bp created this fund of their own volition, with no impetus from obama, this whole argument is moot. duh

[ilikecandy]

Really? Coming from a guy with a well-known reputation for either being a political tough guy or, at least, posing as one? No, sorry, that isn't powerful evidence.
whether it is powerful or not, it is certainly more powerful than any evidence to the contrary that i have seen in this thread

[woodstocksez]

whether it is powerful or not, it is certainly more powerful than any evidence to the contrary that i have seen in this thread

Even if that is true, so what? 3 is larger than 2, but neither is "large" if, in context, what constitutes "large" is on the order of, say, 1000.

[woodstocksez]

yes. thats the assumption on which all of this has to be based. if bp created this fund of their own volition, with no impetus from obama, this whole argument is moot. duh

Yeah, duh.

Maybe re-read the earlier part of this thread. And make some effort to understand it. Maybe even just re-read some of the recent posts by Rip'nStick or Dexter on just this point.

[ilikecandy]

Even if that is true, so what? 3 is larger than 2, but neither is "large" if, in context, what constitutes "large" is on the order of, say, 1000.

now you are parsing

and even 1 is infinitely more than 0

[ilikecandy]

Yeah, duh.

Maybe re-read the earlier part of this thread. And make some effort to understand it. Maybe even just re-read some of the recent posts by Rip'nStick or Dexter on just this point.

not sure what your point is. no one has argued that bp is not free to set up all the escrow funds thay want to

[Rip'nStick]

That has not been the case with the executive branch. They have almost from day one pushed the limits of what they can and can't do. Executive orders, executive priviledge. Shit half the stuff we don't see relating to military/national defense probably exceeds Constitutional bounds.

Was it illegal? NOT THAT ANYONE KNOWS OF

Was it a breech of constitutionally granted powers? NOT THAT ANYONE KNOWS OF

Did Obama and his administration do what every decent president would have done? YES

Is there a precedent? YES

Are a bunch of conservatards taking a retarded position because OBAMA did something? YES

Has all reasonable analysis pointed to the fact that this is no big deal and certainly not a big step towards TYRANNY? YES

Are a bunch of conservatards afgueing their retarded position? YES

Do they look like partisan idiots? MOST DEFINITELY

Is Rip'nStick just as much of an idiot for continueing to post in thread that's premise is finished. CLOSE BUT NOT AS MUCH OF AN IDIOT

[Rip'nStick]

yes. thats the assumption on which all of this has to be based. if bp created this fund of their own volition, with no impetus from obama, this whole argument is moot. duh

give it up already:rolleyes:

The president is the president, not some eunuch who has to ask... I don't kniow his wife, for permission to make some suggestions to BP. They admit they volunteered.

Would you rather the administration not take whatever suggestive actions you are considering as "forcing"? That would make you look pretty silly.

[woodstocksez]

far from it. but if people are claiming that he definitely has the power to do whatever he may have done, then they should be able to support that

Without going back to check, my recollection is that constitutionality came up as a result of an assertion by one or more that what the administration did is unconstitutional. I am aware that proper constitutional analysis is, in general, sufficiently complex (and draws on a relatively extensive body of law) that I won't take that assertion (or the converse) at face value. Nor am I likely, in general, to put much faith in the analysis of people posting here, particularly if their answer is to "read the Constitution."


saying "i know he definitely has the power, im not qualified to say why, so i dont have to"
is a cop out

Show me where I said that.

[woodstocksez]

now you are parsing

and even 1 is infinitely more than 0

Parsing? How was that parsing?

Once again, you apparently didn't get the point. Let me try again. A weak piece of evidence does not become strong just because it is stronger than another weak piece of evidence. Conceptually, this is pretty simple, man.

[ilikecandy]

Without going back to check, my recollection is that constitutionality came up as a result of an assertion by one or more that what the administration did is unconstitutional. I am aware that proper constitutional analysis is, in general, sufficiently complex (and draws on a relatively extensive body of law) that I won't take that assertion (or the converse) at face value. Nor am I likely, in general, to put much faith in the analysis of people posting here, particularly if their answer is to "read the Constitution."



Show me where I said that.

right. they made that assertion based on the evidence that bp had been forced to cooperate

so you agree that whoever claimed that whatever he might have done was constitutional, must then support that claim?

[ilikecandy]

Parsing? How was that parsing?

Once again, you apparently didn't get the point. Let me try again. A weak piece of evidence does not become strong just because it is stronger than another weak piece of evidence. Conceptually, this is pretty simple, man.

i would say that one of the top members of the administration declaring that they forced bp into something is powerful evidence that they forced bp into something. you would not. to argue over whether it meets the qualifications to be powerful is parsing

[gonehuckin]

BP HAS NO RIGHTS, WHEN THE FUCK WILL THIS GET THROUGH YOUR THICK ASS SKULLS? NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. Not a single piece of the Constitution changes that.

There is not even a Constitutional challenge by anyone.

End of story.

[toast2266]

yes, i am. once again, that is made pretty clear in the 10th amendment

So just to be clear, the only things that the president can do are:
1) ask for opinions for the heads of government departments
2) grant reprieves / pardons for federal offenses
3) make treaties
4) appoint ambassadors, judges, and other positions established by Congress
5) give recommendations to Congress
6) meet with people from other countries

Since its apparently so abundantly clear that the president is confined to that narrow list of powers, I'm surprised that anyone even pays attention to the guy. He really doesn't have the power to do much of anything.

-or-

maybe your interpretation is just asinine.

[Dexter Rutecki]

not sure what your point is. no one has argued that bp is not free to set up all the escrow funds thay want to

You still keepclaiming bp was forced to do something, and that this was unconstitutional. How did Obama force them, and how do you know (aside from Rahm's statement, which also doesn't clarify how such forcing would be possible) that they were forced?

You also seriously misunderstand how constitutional law works if you believe the executive has no powers beyond those explicitly listed.

[Jer]

Is Rip'nStick just as much of an idiot for continueing to post in thread that's premise is finished. CLOSE BUT NOT AS MUCH OF AN IDIOT

Don't underestimate yourself.


BP HAS NO RIGHTS, WHEN THE FUCK WILL THIS GET THROUGH YOUR THICK ASS SKULLS? NONE. ZERO. ZIP. ZILCH. Not a single piece of the Constitution changes that.

There is not even a Constitutional challenge by anyone.

End of story.

Get a grip, calm the hell down and enjoy life a little - I'm going mountainbiking right now, then I'm going fishing tomorrow.

[woodstocksez]

Can you give some examples ??

I have strong reservations about the exec. branch handling any money, ever. Too easy for exec. priviledge to be hauled out when funds go missing.

IRS. PTO, EPA, SEC, any agency that can collect fines or fees from private entities. I'd assume that the normal operation of many, most or all executive branch agencies involves taking money directly from private entities.

[Jer]

Exactly. He is the fricking president, not a low paid clerk!!!

What the hell do you think his job is? Make it happen that is what!

Rubi/DBT,

Once again, youunbelievably partisan hacks waffle between

"He is overstepping his bounds"
to
"He is a wimp and sits back while the world burns"

The fact o fthe matter is he couldn't do anything right in your eyes, no matter what he did because you are opposed to his very existence.

You got your ass handed to you in the election, by the likes of me and others tired of the incompetence, and now you have nothing to do but whine. IT IS PATHETIC.

The reason I have trouble thinking about voting republican is because the party has a bunch of snivelers with no ideas in it. And it panders to religious right and just plain idiots.

I wish there was another alternative for me, but the republicans have made their bed and don't seem to see the problem. ITS PATHETIC.

You do realise that your whole post here was just you whining about all the whiners, right?

[OSECS]

IRS. PTO, EPA, SEC, any agency that can collect fines or fees from private entities. I'd assume that the normal operation of many, most or all executive branch agencies involves taking money directly from private entities.

The IRS and EPA are part of the exec. branch ?? Didn't know that. You sure ??

[ilikecandy]

So just to be clear, the only things that the president can do are:
1) ask for opinions for the heads of government departments
2) grant reprieves / pardons for federal offenses
3) make treaties
4) appoint ambassadors, judges, and other positions established by Congress
5) give recommendations to Congress
6) meet with people from other countries

Since its apparently so abundantly clear that the president is confined to that narrow list of powers, I'm surprised that anyone even pays attention to the guy. He really doesn't have the power to do much of anything.

-or-

maybe your interpretation is just asinine.

read closer. again, this is am important exercise for all of us. most of what the president does in this regard is covered by the phrase about enforcing the laws. plus veto power is covered somewhere

[ilikecandy]

You still keepclaiming bp was forced to do something, and that this was unconstitutional. How did Obama force them, and how do you know (aside from Rahm's statement, which also doesn't clarify how such forcing would be possible) that they were forced?

You also seriously misunderstand how constitutional law works if you believe the executive has no powers beyond those explicitly listed.
i never said they were forced

feel free to explain how you interpret the constitution

[ilikecandy]

IRS. PTO, EPA, SEC, any agency that can collect fines or fees from private entities. I'd assume that the normal operation of many, most or all executive branch agencies involves taking money directly from private entities.

jumping into this line of argument, i would point out that the important takeaway is that the executive branch collects fines, taxes, etc that congress has clearly laid out in laws

[woodstocksez]

The IRS and EPA are part of the exec. branch ?? Didn't know that. You sure ??

http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html

[woodstocksez]

jumping into this line of argument, i would point out that the important takeaway is that the executive branch collects fines, taxes, etc that congress has clearly laid out in laws

I agree that what matters is authorization. As to whether the executive branch only collects what is clearly laid out in laws, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "clearly laid out in laws." Regulatory bodies are commonly given some latitude in making rules to effect their mission and I imagine that sometimes includes setting fees and, perhaps, fines. For instance, checking on the PTO, it looks like the PTO has (or had - my source was the online version of the MPEP and that was unclear) authority to establish fees for some administrative services.

But I assume the line of argument here is that the fund that has been set up is not one controlled by government. I don't know. Maybe not. I admit speculating from a position mostly of ignorance, since (again) I haven't really read much about this whole thing.

So, I did some searching. Here's a WSJ article from a few days ago:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704256304575321072301455004.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

From the article:


As soon as the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank and triggered a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April, Mr. Feinberg started mulling how an avalanche of claims by economic victims could be handled. Less than two weeks ago, BP PLC called to offer him a job doing just that. Last week, BP and President Barack Obama jointly chose him as administrator of an unprecedented $20 billion compensation fund.

...

The fund he is set to administer has a number of oddities. It was created as a voluntary compact between the U.S. government and BP, but without any act of Congress, executive order or other legal anchor. Mr. Feinberg will have complete latitude to determine the fund's operations, including all key decisions as to who gets money and in what amounts.

Since his appointment, Mr. Feinberg has said repeatedly that he would neither take orders from the White House nor BP. But he said that Mr. Obama did give him one instruction: to get payments out quickly.

Another interesting excerpt from the article:


As a rule, Mr. Feinberg said, he will turn to state law for guidance on which types of claims to honor and which to dismiss.

In the end, one aim of the fund—and a prime reason BP agreed to it—will be to minimize lawsuits against the company. To do that, Mr. Feinberg will offer big lump-sum payments to workers and businesses as an enticement to stay out of court.

"At some point, I will have to make an offer—'You take this amount in full satisfaction of your claim, but only if you waive your right to future litigation,'" Mr. Feinberg said. "And if I package it right, people will see that it makes no sense to fight it out in court."

[Dexter Rutecki]

i never said they were forced

Oh really??


you dont see the difference between settling with a party who has brought a claim against you in court, and the executive branch forcing you to set up a fund in advance of any claims?

[my bold]

So we WERE discussing them being forced, as everyone knows.

And if Obama didn't make them do it, if they weren't forced, if there was no extortion/coercion (I guess you guys gave up on the extortion part, not sure), THEN WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????????????

For the last time, WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN?????

Never mind--I think by now you realize that Obama could tell BP to do anything, but since he didn't force them and didn't have the power to force them there's nothing to discuss.



feel free to explain how you interpret the constitution

Christ, that's not at issue. What's at issue is what is or is not constitutional, and neither you nor I decide that. You or I can interpret the Constitution any fucked up way you want, but it has no bearing on what is legally constitutional.

Obama didn't force BP to do anything, there's no constitutional issue, no law was broken, he still isn't Hitler, end of story.

Maybe you guys should jump back on the 'he was born in Zaire' train, or the 'he associates with terrorists' deal. Both just as stupid lines of reasoning, but slightly more amusing.

[Dexter Rutecki]

The IRS and EPA are part of the exec. branch ?? Didn't know that. You sure ??

Yes, all those agencies are under various executive branch departments--in this case I think Dept. of Commerce and Interior. They weren't created by Congress and they're obviously not part of the judiciary...

[OSECS]

Yes, all those agencies are under various executive branch departments--in this case I think Dept. of Commerce and Interior. They weren't created by Congress and they're obviously not part of the judiciary...

You're late, I've already been schooled.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Missed that post/link. Thought I checked the posts following yours...

[SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop]

you dont see the difference between settling with a party who has brought a claim against you in court, and the executive branch forcing you to set up a fund in advance of any claims? pretty significant difference if you ask me

ilikecandy and rubicon are being either retards or sophists regarding the use of the word "force". If you weren't such retards (or trolls) you would understand there are other meanings of the word "force" than how you are using the term. That is basically what this whole argument is about. You are using the definition of force as something like "to take by power".

What are some other definitions of "force"? (from dictionary.com)

4.
power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
6.
persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.

Does not the 1st ammendment, freedom of speech, allow the president to give arguments to convince BP it is in their best interest?

[SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop]

You still keepclaiming bp was forced to do something, and that this was unconstitutional. How did Obama force them, and how do you know (aside from Rahm's statement, which also doesn't clarify how such forcing would be possible) that they were forced?

You also seriously misunderstand how constitutional law works if you believe the executive has no powers beyond those explicitly listed.

These retards that are saying that BP was forced, need to look at a dictionary.
"persuading someone with arguments" is a definition of force.

They are either retarded, or engaging in sophistry.

[Captain Awesome]

These retards that are saying that BP was forced, need to look at a dictionary.
"persuading someone with arguments" is a definition of force.

They are either retarded, or engaging in sophistry.

Wait... So, um, the people that are saying that BP was forced are, according to your definition, correct?

Good post.