• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Nuke the damn oil leak!!

From reading the original decision and from what Thom Hartmann has cited from the writings of the Chief Justice at the time of the decision, I conclude that the law clerk, a corporate shill heavily vested in the railroad industry, took some serious liberties with the head notes when the decision was recorded.

The court specificly refused to discuss whether corporations were persons under the 14th Ammendment and thus entitled to due process of the law. The court assumed that they were entitled to due process but did not tie that in any way to the 14th Ammendment. No rational human being could do so. But, because corporations are people's property, other provisions of the consttitution require due process before siezing or taxing them. Thus, I would conclude that any subsequent decision based upon the notion that corporate personhood is stare decisus was made in error.

If corproations are, for now, to enjoy the advantages of personhood, they need also to face the possibility of utter ruin when they commit heinous violations of the law. Fining them does not seem to stop them from doing things that must inevitably lead to the loss of human lives. The fact that some of the BP scum have ordered people not to wear respirators is proof of that. Obviously, the supervisors should be charged unless they roll over on whoever gave them the order, and those people should be arrested and charged as well, no matter how high up the food chain it goes. The penalties obviously need to be more severe as you go up the chain of command because of greater culpability and reduced vulnerability of the actors. If it becomes an obvious feature of the corproate culture, then the corporation must, in the interest of public safety, be forced to comply with the regulations or cease operation and be criminally charged wirth any crimes against individuals harmed. An affirmative order not to wear protective gear is not negligent. It is intentional, and constitutes depraved indifference to life. Obviously, these corporate fools are not going to get the point until people start going to jail, and if the suits are making first-line supervisors dfo this to workers, then it is the suits who should be waving bye-bye to the first line supervisors from INSIDE the razor wire.

And when the corporation so mangaes to infiltrate and cortrupt a government regulatory body as BP and like companies did, at cost of human lives, it is essential to the survival of a democratic nation that that corporation cease to exist. Nothing short of the possible extinguishment of their treasure is going to impress these idiots and make them act like decent human beings.
Just out of curiosity do you have me on ignore or do you just want live in your own little fantasy world. I told you who is legally liable from a stance if fraud is committed. I wonder why you ignored that.
 
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity do you have me on ignore or do you just want live in your own little fantasy world. I told you who is legally liable from a stance if fraud is committed. I wonder why you ignored that.

The maggots in the board room intimidate everyone. They can screw up the carreer of a whistleblower. That the law seems to shrug off their crimes makes it worse. The executive scum pushed them to get this job done in a hurry. Ther executives are obviously behind the murderous decision to tell workers not to wear respirators.

Put the executives in jail and get them out of the way of the engineers and out of the working people's lungs.

I doubt that engineers were behind the lobbying effort to take the company off the hook for a remote BOP like they would have to use in Europe. It would have meant fatter paychecks for the engineers and workers.

The executives are worthless. Get them out of the way.
 
I doubt that engineers were behind the lobbying effort to take the company off the hook for a remote BOP like they would have to use in Europe. It would have meant fatter paychecks for the engineers and workers.
Wow. You really are that naively dumb aren't you. Engineering isn't the bastion of sanctity that you think it is.
 
Last edited:
Wow. You really are that naively dumb aren't you. Engineering isn't the bastion of sanctity that you think it is.

The engineers did not corrupt the MMS. The suits did. The suits are useless. I just heard thetop suit on Ed Schultz' show snivelling about wanting his life back and trying to blame the sick clean up workers on food poisoning. This idiot is of no further use to civilization. If anybody finds a way to fix the well it will be an engineer and not a suit.
 
Not really, no. You note the U.S. military budget as being indicative of a society committed to warfare, but you have no moral stance on this? Why bring it up then?

It's interesting that the nations whose military budgets are, supposedly, not indicative of commitment to warfare are either nations committed to being-run-over-fare, or were put in a low military state forcibly, and at great cost, by the US the last time they were uppity*.

So I find the GP observation silly. And that doesn't even address the strategic value of being the best military. It could be a much bigger, more advanced military were there "a challenger appears!". We don't have to be the best balls-out possible, just significantly better than anyone else.






* I find it incredibly ironic that the evolved meme of "military bad!" that the US deliberately fostered there is coming back to bite us in rhetoric. Anyone who doesn't believe in the memetic theories of the evolution of ethics and morals really needs a slap in the face.
 
Last edited:
So I find the GP observation silly. And that doesn't even address the strategic value of being the best military. It could be a much bigger, more advanced military were there "a challenger appears!". We don't have to be the best balls-out possible, just significantly better than anyone else.

So why spend 7-8 times as much as our main competitor (China)?

If we just wanted to be able to kick anyone's ass, we'd spend, say, twice as much. Not even factoring the cash and resources we have on hand to crank that way way up during time of crisis.

No, we put this much in because it's a business. Weapons and weapons development is big business, and then we use those resources to strong arm whatever we want globally, which is also good for business.

We went from a nation that just wanted to be able to protect ourselves to one that wants to run world policy, and we have the muscle to throw that weight around.

It's smart to have more guns that the other guy, and America has generally done fantastically well from this tactic.


My 2 issues are:

1) When you can't afford to pay other government programs, but keep pouring insane amounts of cash in to armaments, that industry has too much power over the government.

2) Let's be honest with ourselves America. I can tell you from personal experience that a HUGE chunk of foreign negativity about America comes from it's insistence that it's a peace loving force for benevolence around the world at all times. *

Of course a lot of this comes down to the cultural divide. Europeans are a lot more cynical about everything than Americans, and can find cheery optimism grating. That's a can of worms for another time though :D
 
* I find it incredibly ironic that the evolved meme of "military bad!" that the US deliberately fostered there is coming back to bite us in rhetoric. Anyone who doesn't believe in the memetic theories of the evolution of ethics and morals really needs a slap in the face.

Militarism is bad. Militartism breaks ecconomies and eventually leads people to start wars that they cannot win. Happened to Rome, Japan and Germany. Go back and read what Eisenhower said about that crap. You're outside your area of expertise.
 
Just how much worse could it make the problem? How much more toxic would the release of nuclear material (which would likely be slow, since it'd be buried under a LOT of rock) be compared to tens to hundreds of thousands of tons of crude oil from a continued spill? Of course, there is the possibility that it could cause the spill to intensify dramatically, which would release so much crude it'd likely dwarf both a slow-leaking well and a release of nuclear fallout in terms of eco. damage. Would this be what you're concerned about?
 
Last edited:
Of course, there is the possibility that it could cause the spill to intensify dramatically, which would release so much crude it'd likely dwarf both a slow-leaking well and a release of nuclear fallout in terms of eco. damage. Would this be what you're concerned about?

That's the worst case scenario.

We're in this mess becauise corrupt oil company officals and corrupt paper-shufflers did not plan for the worst-case scenario.

Forget the nukes.
 
The maggots in the board room intimidate everyone. They can screw up the carreer of a whistleblower. That the law seems to shrug off their crimes makes it worse. The executive scum pushed them to get this job done in a hurry. Ther executives are obviously behind the murderous decision to tell workers not to wear respirators.

Put the executives in jail and get them out of the way of the engineers and out of the working people's lungs.

I doubt that engineers were behind the lobbying effort to take the company off the hook for a remote BOP like they would have to use in Europe. It would have meant fatter paychecks for the engineers and workers.

The executives are worthless. Get them out of the way.

I think you've been bitten by a bat.
 
Like America in WW2?

Don't get me wrong. Militarism is really scary sometimes but war can actually help the economy.
No. The Second World War slowed recovery from the First Republican Depression. It was only good for the ecconomy when we were selling war materiel to other countries. You know what happens to a crack dealer when he becomes his own best customer?

Eisenhower called it right.
 
Of course he has the right to stand trial for murder one before they throw him in the hole.

That he does, he also has protection from excessive punishment.

Corporations have no rights. Some law clerk diddled a SCOTUS ruling and some right-wing idiots thought it was part of the decision and we have been getting screwed ever since.

Stay on topic please.

Criminal coproations need to be liquidated and those who make the decisions that cause human deaths need to go down with the corporations.

Not every corporation that does business in the US is an American corporation, all you're really going to do is steal their American assets and leave their nation of origin looking at you like you're a giant douchebag. Besides, liquidating a corporation kills one hell of a lot of jobs. If you're looking for a way to raise unemployment in the most counter-productive fashion humanly possible you've found it.

If the next BP effort fails, they should be kicked out of the way of anyone else who has an idea.

How much time do you imagine that would take?

You know what happens to a crack dealer when he becomes his own best customer?

Not sure what your point is here. The US shouldn't be developing its own weapons and require exclusivity agreements with its contractors?

A capitalist one, naturally. Socialists bats never hurt anyone.

Why do I always found you with the weirdest interjections in the thread?
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom