Thread: rubicon, those that think obama abused bp, please reply!

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?

Oh, good luck getting a straight answer--Rubi is especially well known for pointless semantic arguments featuring never ending changes in what he 'actually' means (versus what he actually writes, and what everyone understands him to mean).

They are also deliberately refusing to acknowledge that Obama can legally 'force' (i.e., convince, persuade, influence) BP or any other entity to do lots of things. No law need be broken.

I've already asked in the other thread, many times, for any of these people to state what law was broken, what is unconstitutional about telling BP to create the fund, and how exactly Obama has the power to force BP to do anything--but have not gotten a response.

Based on past Rubi threads, I've given up on him. He doesn't debate honestly, or in good faith.

So, again, good luck with your question, but I don't see it happening.

Obama abuses America. Who gives a fuck about BP.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

I've already asked in the other thread, many times, for any of these people to state what law was broken,

As I said in the other thread, thuggish methods aside, no laws have to be broken in order for the executive branch to exceed it's authority. To assert that the president did not exceed his authority because he did not break any laws is a strawman argument. Stop it.

Originally Posted by SuperDuperGaperWithaCherryOnTop

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

No.


You're an idiot.

No.


You don't understand how escrow works.

We should be giving BP an award or something. I never really like pelicans and sea turtles.

And stupid communist socialist Marxist Muslim Obama shouldn't be making BP pay for their mess. That's what the taxpayer is for. Stupid Obama.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As I said in the other thread, thuggish methods aside, no laws have to be broken in order for the executive branch to exceed it's authority. To assert that the president did not exceed his authority because he did not break any laws is a strawman argument. Stop it.

There's no strawman.

Enough with the endless prevarication and misdirection (for once).

(1)You and others asserted that Obama did something unconstitutional and improper as the executive--so what did he do? (2)And if it wasn't against the law as you now concede (or unconstitutional, if something can be unconstitutional but still legal, in your warped world) then what does it violate? WHAT DID HE DO? AND HOW?

You have yet to answer these questions. We know he didn't force BP to do anything, because he couldn't (and wouldn't). (3)So what are you bitching about?

(4)And what is 'thuggish'?

For once you might have the grace and honesty to admit you're wrong--your idiotic arguments have been so thoroughly dismantled by so many people at this point that it might help you to be taken seriously in the future (if that is still possible).

So please respond to points 1-4, outlined above.

Then maybe you can respond to the half-dozen points I made to you last year that you've been dodging...


edit: to be very clear, here are your initial statements about how Obama broke the law by having BP create a claims fund--I know you'd like to backpedal now and change the terms of this to a (probably very vague) 'exceeded authority,' whatever that means, but you were quite clear at first that you were asserting illegality:

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?

And:

How is what happened not extortion?

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Based on past Rubi threads, I've given up on him. He doesn't debate honestly, or in good faith.

So....

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

There's no strawman.

Enough with the endless prevarication and misdirection (for once).

(1)You and others asserted that Obama did something unconstitutional and improper as the executive--so what did he do? (2)And if it wasn't against the law as you now concede (or unconstitutional, if something can be unconstitutional but still legal, in your warped world) then what does it violate? WHAT DID HE DO? AND HOW?

You have yet to answer these questions. We know he didn't force BP to do anything, because he couldn't (and wouldn't). (3)So what are you bitching about?

(4)And what is 'thuggish'?

For once you might have the grace and honesty to admit you're wrong--your idiotic arguments have been so thoroughly dismantled by so many people at this point that it might help you to be taken seriously in the future (if that is still possible).

So please respond to points 1-4, outlined above.

Then maybe you can respond to the half-dozen points I made to you last year that you've been dodging...


edit: to be very clear, here are your initial statements about how Obama broke the law by having BP create a claims fund--I know you'd like to backpedal now and change the terms of this to a (probably very vague) 'exceeded authority,' whatever that means, but you were quite clear at first that you were asserting illegality:



And:

Originally Posted by Rubicon

no laws have to be broken in order for the executive branch to exceed it's authority. To assert that the president did not exceed his authority because he did not break any laws is a strawman argument. Stop it.

Actually its exactly your argument. Remember we are a land of rule of law, not man. And you did claim that he broke them.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

As I said in the other thread, thuggish methods aside, no laws have to be broken in order for the executive branch to exceed it's authority. To assert that the president did not exceed his authority because he did not break any laws is a strawman argument. Stop it.

Really? I don't think that's quite right. It seems to me that in order for the executive branch (or President) to exceed its (his) authority, law must be transgressed, whether it be the Constitution, a statute, a regulatory rule, or a judicial decision regarding one of those. What else gives the executive branch (President) authority that it (he) might exceed?

Pretty sure that for him, if Rush says so, it is so.

Ergo, it is so.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

For once you might have the grace and honesty to admit you're wrong--your idiotic arguments have been so thoroughly dismantled by so many people at this point that it might help you to be taken seriously in the future (if that is still possible).

I can't imagine it's possible. What you suggest isn't going to happen, anyway. I really do think he's a head case of some sort. The best way I can understand the guy is that he's very deeply invested in perpetuating an image of himself to himself.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

No.


You're an idiot.

Ok, so how does the constitution not give Obama, as a citizen, freedom of speech? A definition of "forced" is "influence through argument". There is nothing illegal about that and that is covered by the constitution. So tell us how the constitution does not apply to Obama to give arguments to BP that it is in their best interest?

Guys - like I said before - nobody forced BP to do anything. This whole deal was set up before the oval office address. Obama looks tough, BP looks like they're taking responsibility, nothing gets done, BP and Obama get green green money, public and environment get the shit end of the stick, Dex is still a mouth-breathing knee jerk moron.

And the government didn't take the money. Usually when you extort money, you take it for yourself (and your boss). In this case, it is being held in legal limbo until proper litigation decides where it goes.
Escrow (basically)

Even with the incredibly stupid shit posted by people like DBT and Jer, Rubi's stated belief that Obama isn't allowed to speak to BP has to be among the most retarded posts here--ever. He is, truly, incomprehensibly dumb. Flat out, inanimate object dumb. A waste of bandwidth and breath.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

There's no strawman.

Stomping your foot and stating what you want to be true doesn't make it so.

(1)You and others asserted that Obama did something unconstitutional and improper as the executive--so what did he do?

This has already been discussed. Stop wasting every bodies time and go read the other thread again.

You have yet to answer these questions. We know he didn't force BP to do anything, because he couldn't (and wouldn't).

"couldn't and wouldn't"?

I'm not sure if you are a hopeless fanboy or just a wordy 'useful idiot'. Either way you aren't worth responding to anymore.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Stomping your foot and stating what you want to be true doesn't make it so.

But stamping your foot and stating what YOU want to believe (even though this thread was created to show you that you're wrong) does make it so?
You really exist in a fantasy world.

This has already been discussed. Stop wasting every bodies time and go read the other thread again.

I have. You and DBT had your misconceptions completely refuted, but wouldn't acknowledge the truth (as usual).


Again, just admit to your mistakes and maybe salvage whatever dignity and credibility you may still have. Otherwise you will prove what I believe about you--that you're a worthless troll, little different from Jer or DBT.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Stop it.

^^ lol ^^

Dex calling me a troll - that's a good one. Nobody could really believe the stuff you believe or be in such a deep state of denial. It must be an act designed to get a reaction. (Troll) Unless of course you have a mental illness of some kind.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Dex calling me a troll - that's a good one. Nobody could really believe the stuff you believe or be in such a deep state of denial. It must be an act designed to get a reaction. (Troll) Unless of course you have a mental illness of some kind.

You and dex are opposite sides of the exact same fucking coin. You're both fucking stupid, in your own whacked out extreme views, and neither of you has the intelligence or ability to understand where anyone with different views is coming from. You both suck.

Originally Posted by Pillsbury

You and dex are opposite sides of the exact same fucking coin. You're both fucking stupid, in your own whacked out extreme views, and neither of you has the intelligence or ability to understand where anyone with different views is coming from. You both suck.

Good, maybe now you can be Sasquatch the insult e-stalker to Dex for awhile.

No, he's about as dimwitted as you, and is probably a bit of a sociopath in real life, but he won't e-stalk me I don't think (if he doesn't like the way you drive, however, then you might have to look out for crazy-boy).

But you, OTOH, did post something funny recently (the white, conservative, male thing), so maybe you're ahead on points at the moment.