Obama's Katrina!

[Lurker]

And yet, there you go, trying to create another strawman for me to defend.

I was just making sure that you agree that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly and a host of other conservative talkers are completely wrong about environmentalists being at fault for the spill.

You denied having that position and I just wanted to make it clear. Again, do you deny it?

Here, Lurker ... here's something for you to try and defend:

http://townhall.com/columnists/Stev...expands,_so_does_presidential_power?page=full
So tell me, oh JREF *skeptic*, does the President really have such authority or was Gibbs talking out the side of his mouth (as usual)?
Is the Rule of Obama to replace the Rule of Law?

I am not aware of the legal extent of BP's culpability. I believe they do have to pay for the costs to clean up the spill so Obama can compel them to do so. I think ther is a limit on damages ($75M) which Obama would be overreaching if he compels them to exceed. Luckily it sounds like BP is vontarily ignoring that limit so no big deal. I have no idea whether Gibbs was including more than cleanup costs.

See, I have no problem addressing direct questions. Your turn.

 

[BeAChooser]

You denied having that position

Pardon me but where did I deny that? Link?

I believe they do have to pay for the costs to clean up the spill so Obama can compel them to do so.

Actually, only the judicial system can compel that. At least that was the case in the good old United States. Like I said ... is it now to be the Rule of Obama rather than the Rule of Law?

Furthermore, I don't think Joe Barton was all that wrong. Obama is indeed creating a slush fund that will have one of his cronies distributing 20 billion dollars in funds. And I'll bet it will end up being misused or wasted just like the stimulus money has been misused and wasted. And then who will we blame?

And I think you are witnessing another instance of Chicago-style strong arm tactics (like we did in the automobile, Wall Street and banking arenas). Just look at what Obama stated:

Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.

That bold language comes across like the edict of a dictator. This was a shakedown with Obama threatening criminal prosecution of BP execs if they didn't comply with his demand. BP should not have bowed to any such edict and instead should have forced the government to share responsibility. There is no legal precedent for Obama forcing BP to open such an account for one of Obama’s “czars” to manage. Especially since some of the funds are set aside for union members. BP should have let the court system handle this … as it was intended to do when established. Instead we've become a banana republic with a liar at the helm.

Yes, Obama is a liar when he claims that the fund will be managed by a "independent, third party". He knows full well that the government is not an independent party since the government (and particularly his administration) properly share culpability in this disaster. They had review authority and gave BP the authorization to drill without having the plans and resources in place (as required by law) to deal with a blowout … which they knew was a distinct possibility since blowouts have occurred many times before in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in deep water. Furthermore, the man Obama named to run this fund, Kenneth Feinberg, is a crony of his … his Executive Compensation Czar. He's not by any stretch of the imagination an independent, third party.

 

[Lurker]

Pardon me but where did I deny that? Link?

I was referring to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly and a host of other conservative talkers are completely wrong about environmentalists being at fault for the spill.

It seemed you disagreed with their view and I was and am still trying to confirm that.

Actually, only the judicial system can compel that. At least that was the case in the good old United States. Like I said ... is it now to be the Rule of Obama rather than the Rule of Law?

BP voluntarily did it. I don't see threats by Obama despite what you say. If he tells them it is the right thing to do, what is wrong with that?

Furthermore, I don't think Joe Barton was all that wrong. Obama is indeed creating a slush fund that will have one of his cronies distributing 20 billion dollars in funds. And I'll bet it will end up being misused or wasted just like the stimulus money has been misused and wasted. And then who will we blame?

Pure speculation on your part.

And I think you are witnessing another instance of Chicago-style strong arm tactics (like we did in the automobile, Wall Street and banking arenas).
That bold language comes across like the edict of a dictator. This was a shakedown with Obama threatening criminal prosecution of BP execs if they didn't comply with his demand. BP should not have bowed to any such edict and instead should have forced the government to share responsibility.

1. The government is continuing the legal angle so BP bought nothing thus far.
2. You speculate about an Obama threat aof legal action.
3. Government share responsibility? Why? BP made the mess, not us. They should pay. Why are you standing against personal responsibility? I thought that was a conservative principle?

There is no legal precedent for Obama forcing BP to open such an account for one of Obama’s “czars” to manage. Especially since some of the funds are set aside for union members. BP should have let the court system handle this … as it was intended to do when established. Instead we've become a banana republic with a liar at the helm.

It is BP's choice on how to proceed. From a PR perspective, they made the right choice. Good thing you are not running BP as you would have made BP the most reviled corporation on Earth.

Yes, Obama is a liar when he claims that the fund will be managed by a "independent, third party". He knows full well that the government is not an independent party since the government (and particularly his administration) properly share culpability in this disaster.
They had review authority and gave BP the authorization to drill without having the plans and resources in place (as required by law) to deal with a blowout … which they knew was a distinct possibility since blowouts have occurred many times before in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly in deep water. Furthermore, the man Obama named to run this fund, Kenneth Feinberg, is a crony of his … his Executive Compensation Czar. He's not by any stretch of the imagination an independent, third party.

Regardless of regulation, BP chose to operate the well in the manner that they did. They took the risk in avoiding the normal regulations, they are to blame. If the government tells a driller that they don't have to use a BOP yet the driller knows the risks of doing without a BOP nobody is forcing them to go without the BOP. The driller CHOOSES to go without the BOP. Is the government to blame or the driller? I say the driller. They know the industry and should not rely on government to tell them how to operate safely.

Anyway, I am glad to see you are on the side of proper government oversight and regulation of industry. Glad to see we are on the same side now.

 

[joobz]

3. Government share responsibility? Why? BP made the mess, not us. They should pay. Why are you standing against personal responsibility? I thought that was a conservative principle?

I would certainly love to hear an answer to this.

 

[Lurker]

I would certainly love to hear an answer to this.

Me too. BAC's argument can be distilled down to:

Frank says, "Henry, you don't need wings to fly."
Henry goes and jumps off bridge killing self

BAC says that Frank is at fault. No personal responsibility.

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe BAC would have been happier had Obama just had BP arrested for murder and frozen all their assets and left the board of directors sitting in jail as material witnesses while all the other oil companies came in and sucked up the oil.

 

[BeAChooser]

It seemed you disagreed with their view

Let's see.

First you tell me

You are deluding yourself if you think environmentalists forced us to go to deepwater for oil.

When I inform you that nowhere in this thread have I claimed that, or anything about environmentalists, you switch to saying

I had no idea you hold the environmentalists blameless in this matter. Good to know you and I agree that the environmentalists are blameless.

When I point out this is another strawman, you switch to saying

I was just making sure that you agree that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly and a host of other conservative talkers are completely wrong about environmentalists being at fault for the spill.

You denied having that position and I just wanted to make it clear.

When I ask where have I denied that that position, you switch to saying

It seemed you disagreed with their view and I was and am still trying to confirm that.

I'll let folks decide the veracity and reasonableness of anything else you posted, based on your dishonesty in this exchange alone.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-drilling-is-_absolutely-safe__-96603724.html

Who told Obama drilling is 'absolutely safe'?

By: Byron York

June 18, 2010

There was one particularly striking moment in President Obama's widely panned Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil disaster. About midway through his talk, Obama acknowledged that he had approved new offshore drilling a few weeks before the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20. But Obama said he had done so only "under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe."

Absolutely safe? Even before the Gulf spill, few defenders of offshore drilling would go that far. And when the president announced his drilling plan, on March 31, he said it was "not a decision that I've made lightly" and that he and his advisers had "looked at [it] closely for more than a year." Surely he was told of the possible risks.

… snip …

So how did the president get the idea that new offshore drilling would be absolutely safe? Obama has often said he relies on a "green team" for advice on energy and environmental decisions. The top three members of the team are the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Did Browner, or Salazar or Chu assure the president that new offshore drilling would be "absolutely safe"?

No, says a spokeswoman for Chu. "That is actually a question for the Department of the Interior," says the Energy Department's Tiffany Edwards. "The secretary of energy is not involved in that decision making."

Well, then, perhaps it was Salazar or Browner. But a spokesman for Salazar did not respond to questions. Neither did a spokesman for Browner. So at the moment, we don't know who assured the president that new offshore drilling would be absolutely safe.

But we need to know, don't we? Because at the very least that person should be fired. If not held criminally negligent. Or was Obama lying yet again and was never assured the Deepwater Horizon would be "absolutely safe". In which case, shouldn't he be fired?

 

[joobz]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-drilling-is-_absolutely-safe__-96603724.html



But we need to know, don't we? Because at the very least that person should be fired. If not held criminally negligent. Or was Obama lying yet again and was never assured the Deepwater Horizon would be "absolutely safe". In which case, shouldn't he be fired?

I agree that heads should roll for this.
I just find it interesting that the only heads you are after are those that didn't actually cause the accident.

Perhaps now that you would be willing to answer this question?

BP made the mess, not us. They should pay. Why are you standing against personal responsibility? I thought that was a conservative principle?

Yet, for some reason you keep shying away from this.... curiouser and curiouser.

 

[BeAChooser]

I just find it interesting that the only heads you are after are those that didn't actually cause the accident.

You're no different than Lurker. It's just one strawman after another. One dishonesty after another. Which is why I have very little to say to you anymore. Conversing with you is mostly a complete waste of time.

But, for the record, I haven't said one word on this thread about not going after folks in BP who have culpability in this accident. But I'd like to see the staff at MMS and the Whitehouse get questioned by Congress and the MSM with the same ferocity they've questioned BP. When is that going to happen? Hmmmmmm?

 

[joobz]

You're no different than Lurker. It's just one strawman after another. One dishonesty after another. Which is why I have very little to say to you anymore. Conversing with you is mostly a complete waste of time.

Your real complaint with me is that I hold you accountable for the things you post. You have nothing to say to me, becuase you have no counter argument.

But, for the record, I haven't said one word on this thread about not going after folks in BP who have culpability in this accident.

Neither have you held them responsible. You have only gone after MMS. Indeed, you have continuously defended BP from the big bad government.

But I'd like to see the staff at MMS and the Whitehouse get questioned by Congress and the MSM with the same ferocity they've questioned BP. When is that going to happen? Hmmmmmm?

I hope they do. I want the truth out and if Obama is responible, then he should be held accountable. I am all for that.

But lets not pretend that this is all started since Obama became president. This lax behavior with drilling has been going on for years. this is merely par for the course and a perfect example of why regulation IS needed, because companies CAN'T be trusted.

Like I said, I am at least glad we agree on this point: Free market fails and government oversight is needed. Where we differ is in the degree to which government should be involved.

 

[BeAChooser]

By the way … joobz … do you want to know why we can be certain BP has culpability?

Because they've chosen Jamie Gorelick as their lawyer.

Recall that Gorelick worked for the Clinton administration as Deputy Attorney General. She erected the "Chinese Walls" that ultimately led to 9/11. The purpose of those walls was to keep investigators from putting two and two together regarding the Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate illegalities of the Clinton administration.

Recall that Gorelick then went to work as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, earning $26 million while Fannie Mae cooked the books and sold hundreds of billions in mortgages that should never have been sold because they were sure to fail at the first economic downturn.

And don't forget that her name was floated as a possible Attorney General for Obama, before they chose Eric Holder, another corrupt Clinton administration member.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21

… snip …

Overall, 41% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. That’s the lowest level of approval yet recorded for this president. Fifty-eight percent (58%) now disapprove.

Guess he didn't get any bounce from his Oval Office speech.

 

[joobz]

By the way … joobz … do you want to know why we can be certain BP has culpability?

Because they've chosen Jamie Gorelick as their lawyer.

Recall that Gorelick worked for the Clinton administration as Deputy Attorney General. She erected the "Chinese Walls" that ultimately led to 9/11. The purpose of those walls was to keep investigators from putting two and two together regarding the Chinagate and CampaignFinanceGate illegalities of the Clinton administration.

Recall that Gorelick then went to work as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, earning $26 million while Fannie Mae cooked the books and sold hundreds of billions in mortgages that should never have been sold because they were sure to fail at the first economic downturn.

And don't forget that her name was floated as a possible Attorney General for Obama, before they chose Eric Holder, another corrupt Clinton administration member.

you know I how know BP is culpable?
BECUASE IT WAS THEIR WELL!!!
They were the ones who were negligent.
They are the ones directly and 100% responsible.


Now what we must wait to find out is how much responsibility the MMS and government has for being negligent in their over sight.

 

[BeAChooser]

Now what we must wait to find out is how much responsibility the MMS and government has for being negligent in their over sight.

LOL! Why do we need to do that if, as you say, BP is "100% responsible"? Because 100% doesn't leave any room for anyone else to be responsible.

And by the way, do you know that if a building collapses and the designer/builder followed codes established by the government and plans approved by the government, the builder is unlikely to be at fault unless it can be shown the builder knew the government codes and their plans were inadequate ahead of time? How does that differ from BP using government approved shut off valves, materials, and emergency response plans?

 

[BeAChooser]

And besides, this thread isn't about whether BP has responsibility, but whether the Obama administration acted in a way similar to the way Bush's did in Katrina. And every day we hear one more story that confirms that's true. Hence, this is Obama's Katrina. And the democrats that demanded Bush be impeached over Katrina would now be demanding Obama be impeached ... if they weren't such partisan hypocrites.

 

[leftysergeant]

And besides, this thread isn't about whether BP has responsibility, but whether the Obama administration acted in a way similar to the way Bush's did in Katrina. And every day we hear one more story that confirms that's true. Hence, this is Obama's Katrina.

No. Clinton left the Shrub a functioning FEMA and the Shrub screwed it up.

And the democrats that demanded Bush be impeached over Katrina would now be demanding Obama be impeached ... if they weren't such partisan hypocrites.

Obama did not fill MMS with worthless trash who bent over to kiss BP butts at every offer of a bribe. Shrubby did.

 

[joobz]

LOL! Why do we need to do that if, as you say, BP is "100% responsible"? Because 100% doesn't leave any room for anyone else to be responsible.

You do understand there is a difference between being at fault for negligent oversight and being responsible for the spill, right?

Even if there wasn't a spill, MMS could still be guilty of negligent oversight.

And by the way, do you know that if a building collapses and the designer/builder followed codes established by the government and plans approved by the government, the builder is unlikely to be at fault unless it can be shown the builder knew the government codes and their plans were inadequate ahead of time? How does that differ from BP using government approved shut off valves, materials, and emergency response plans?

I'm confused. So you don't believe BP is responsible?
Personal responsibilty, Where are you!

 

[theprestige]

You do understand there is a difference between being at fault for negligent oversight and being responsible for the spill, right?

Even if there wasn't a spill, MMS could still be guilty of negligent oversight.

I'm confused. So you don't believe BP is responsible?
Personal responsibilty, Where are you!

Holding Carthage responsible didn't really do much to solve the problem Hannibal's elephants rampeding all over northern Italy. Sallying forth, however, and delivering savage beatings to Hannibal and his pachyderms made a huge difference to the survival and well-being of Rome.

And of course Rome later went on to sack Carthage, raze it to the ground, and salt the earth there, all because of its well-established and clearly-recognized responsibility for perpetrating shenanigans against the Republic.

So it's not like a national government can't take matters into its own hands and spend its own blood and treasure to solve problems not of its own making. And it's not like they can't also at the same time hold somebody else responsible for making the trouble, and extract their pound of flesh from the troublemakers by and by.

It's like nobody here has ever heard of the concept of "reparations". Everybody agreed that the Axis was responsible for invading Western Europe in WWII. And yet, strangely enough, nobody wasted a lot of time saying "well, it's Germany's fault, let them fix it".
They did what needed to be done at the time, and made Germany accountable later.

 

[johnny karate]

It's like nobody here has ever heard of the concept of "reparations". Everybody agreed that the Axis was responsible for invading Western Europe in WWII. And yet, strangely enough, nobody wasted a lot of time saying "well, it's Germany's fault, let them fix it".
They did what needed to be done at the time, and made Germany accountable later.

Yes, very apt analogy.

Remind me again, how many billions of dollars in profits did Germany earn in the financial quarter previous to the end of the war? And what specialized knowledge did Germany have to fix the problems that needed fixing?