Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.



The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

But that's not the point. Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
business. The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
43rd Law of Computing:
Anything that can go wr
fortune: Segmentation violation -- Code dumped

 

[Copacetic]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:30:53 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<Paul@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Because the chance that it will bring down whole world markets is too
high.

The needs of the many.

Put me in office, and I will bring it back, and make sure it gets
carried out (people and companies). In fact, there are several bad cops
that would end up on that wagon train.

AMybe one day, they will figure out what they are doing wrong and some
of them can regain their honor.

As it stands, we are heading for a PIG nation.

I think it should be criminal when I see a cop pull someone over (a
teenager), and five minutes later four cruisers are there, wasting the
tax payer's dollars at a rate 3 times greater than it should be.

The goddamned supreme court decision that allows them to illicitly
search a car or person should be thrown out, and that judge should be
retired.

 

[Winston]

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

--Winston

 

[Bill Bowden]

On Jun 19, 2:26 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com....
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

   And fully owned by British petroleum.  That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation.  BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off.  The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages.  At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.

The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

 Ya, the government  should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

But that's not the point.  Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
business.  The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.

They want more than that. Obama wants BP to go out of business and to
continue to pay laid off oil workers after they do so.

http://nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com/2010/06/wait-who-pays-for-laid-off-oil-rig.html

"Wait, who pays for laid off oil rig workers?

After meeting with President Obama, BP agreed to set aside a special
$100 million to compensate oil workers laid off as a result of
President Obama's six month moratorium on deep water drilling. Why
does it feel more and more like the United States is operating at the
whims of an emperor?"

-Bill

 

[Grumps]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0sCdnWCh_dNASIHRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon111@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
company?


And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

And do you know who "owns" BP?

 

[amdx]

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-9262604bbd4a@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...



On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture.
Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.
The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
less than
they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
tiny
fraction of the total cost of the clean up.

Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
company was worth $180 billion.
The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP gets
that $20B, it will
make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
into bankruptcy, "we want
BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
use those profits to pay
citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .
I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.
Mike

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...



On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.
The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
less than
they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
tiny
fraction of the total cost of the clean up.

Mike

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 20, 10:30 am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <P...@Hovnanian.com> wrote:

BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

The new guy (Tony WhatsHisName) has made great improvements in BPs
safety record. We can't really blame him for the truly awful safety
record
of BP. He took charge of a company that was just plain dangerous to
work for and has worked to improve it.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

BP actually has only a smallish set of physical assets. They have
some
contracts and drilling rights and the like that have great value but
aren't
things you can touch. They have been working their way largely out of
the oil business for some time now. These days, their oil operations
work
mostly by bankrolling others.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

These days corporations live forever. In the past, they always had a
finite life. At the end of the time, their assets were broken up and
distributed. It used to be that corporations were formed for specific
tasks. This is no longer true.

Corporations are gradually replacing the state as the organizing
principle of the word. They have assets larger than many states,
their own armies and in effect their own laws and police forces.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress@att.net>
wrote:

On Jun 19, 2:26 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 15:41:14 -0500, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

   And fully owned by British petroleum.  That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation.  BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off.  The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages.  At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.

The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

 Ya, the government  should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

But that's not the point.  Obama *wants* BP (and all others) to go out of
business.  The Demonicrats want the $20B to pay for Obamacare.

They want more than that. Obama wants BP to go out of business and to
continue to pay laid off oil workers after they do so.

http://nonsensibleshoes.blogspot.com/2010/06/wait-who-pays-for-laid-off-oil-rig.html

"Wait, who pays for laid off oil rig workers?

After meeting with President Obama, BP agreed to set aside a special
$100 million to compensate oil workers laid off as a result of
President Obama's six month moratorium on deep water drilling. Why
does it feel more and more like the United States is operating at the
whims of an emperor?"

Maybe it is time for BP to go under. The weak shouldn't survive.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

 

[amdx]

"MooseFET" <kensmith@rahul.net> wrote in message
news:1cefe7a4-ddd0-422b-a51a-f78988489231@s6g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 20, 11:21 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-9262604bbd4a@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...



On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why
BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole
picture.
Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for
the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.
The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can
continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in
assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had
$7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to
get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
less than
they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
tiny
fraction of the total cost of the clean up.

Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
company was worth $180 billion.
The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP
gets
that $20B, it will
make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
into bankruptcy, "we want
BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
use those profits to pay
citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."

Your numbers are wrong:
http://ycharts.com/companies/BP/assets

I did read that the book value was higher than the stock market value.

I did not think it was that much higher. I've read that analysts so it is
not
a takeover candidate, but to buy $240 B in assets for $91 looks good
to me. The trick would be to buy the assets without the liabilities.
The $91B was the value of BPs stock, a little higher today.
Thanks for the info, it makes me think that when my losses come
will be assets left to make me whole again.

There is no risk of the international part of BP going bankrupt.
Companies set aside money for purposes all the time. This does not
make BP any weaker than it naturally would be. They are facing
truly massive law suits. This is the biggest problem they have.

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost
that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
of money
because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
the claims.

I don't think that will save BP money unless you think that the third party
will pay out less in claims. I think the third party will just use part of
the $20M as operating expenses.

I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.

I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
looked for evidence to support it.

No that's not true, I am not one to go with any conspiracy nonsense, but
just
as of recently I'm starting to believe that Obama does want to fundamentally
change
the type of government that we have. In fact the statement above which I did
put some
thought into before I wrote it, was the start of a turning point for me.
With the
Healthcare bill that included the takeover of the college loan program, the
ownership of
a large part of GM and Chrysler, Cash for clunkers, the $8,000 to first time
home buyers,
his stance on the boarder and comprehensive immigration reform and I'm sure
there is more,
I just think he is so against what America stands for that we need to stop
his agenda.
Mike

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 09:30:30 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, "Grumps" <gru...@nothere.com> wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0sCdnWCh_dNASIHRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com...





Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

And do you know who "owns" BP?

Does my BP stock mean that I do?

About 1000th the amount of market share that Sam sells beer here.

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 20, 11:21 pm, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:

"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:cf53d867-b841-4f9d-9397-9262604bbd4a@h37g2000pra.googlegroups.com...



On Jun 20, 4:41 am, "amdx" <a...@knology.net> wrote:
"MooseFET" <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote in message

news:3dc8cf08-35f0-4778-a677-570da7141661@t26g2000prt.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 19, 10:36 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP
would go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture.
Cap
n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US
registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their
spokesweasel
is returning to England.

Multinational corporations are not really part of any nation. BP is
largely but
not completely owned by the British.

The US registered part could be used as a way to duck out from the
responsibility after things cool off. The main part of BP can pump
the
money out of the US part while making the US part responsible for the
damages. At some point the US part goes bankrupt leaving the US
stuck with the remaining costs.
The 20 Billion set aside doesn't even begin to cover the likely long
term costs.

Ya, the government should have let BP keep their $20 billion.
We all need to keep the company financially strong, if they can continue
making $15 billion in profits the next 10 or 20 years they can pay the
losses caused by the oil leak.
But taking $20B form a company that has already lost over $70B in assets
is just weakening them and pushing them toward bankruptcy Bp only had $7B
in cash when the shakedown occurred. Now they need to find a way to get
$13B plus a little more for operating capital.

BP (international) is at no risk of going bankrupt the 20 Billion is
less than
they lose into the seat cushions on a Friday night. It is also only a
tiny
fraction of the total cost of the clean up.

Today, (June 9, 2010) BP is worth $91.4 billion. In mid-April, the
company was worth $180 billion.
The government just did a shakedown of 22% of the company. However BP gets
that $20B, it will
make for a weaker company. I will say it till the government drives them
into bankruptcy, "we want
BP to be financially strong, so they can continue to make big profits and
use those profits to pay
citizens for losses and to clean up the oil."

Your numbers are wrong:
http://ycharts.com/companies/BP/assets

There is no risk of the international part of BP going bankrupt.
Companies set aside money for purposes all the time. This does not
make BP any weaker than it naturally would be. They are facing
truly massive law suits. This is the biggest problem they have.

The choice is, do you want the profits from BP to pay the costs or do you
want the taxpayers to pay the costs .

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost
that the profits from BP will cover. It actually saves a fair chunk
of money
because a third party will be handling much of the work on paying out
the
claims. The escrow account will be managed by the third party and
thus
the denied claims will be denied by that third party. In large
measure,
neither BP nor the government will get the blame for the denials.

I have come to believe that Obama wants it to be a government program.

I think it more likely that you started off with that belief and then
looked
for evidence to support it. The last thing Obama would want is to be
involved in the denials of claims and to constantly have his name
attached
to the oil spill. He may have to learn to live with it but it is a
major political
drag.

> Mike

 

[MooseFET]

On Jun 20, 3:45 pm, "Grumps" <gru...@nothere.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:0sCdnWCh_dNASIHRnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@earthlink.com...





Grumps wrote:

"George Jefferson" <phreon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hvg8j6$4ie$1@news.eternal-september.org...
snippy snip snip

If there is a conspiracy then it's not necessarily obvious why BP would
go
along with such a thing until you think about the whole picture. Cap n
trade, a foreign company

Foreign company? Was the DWH not operated by BP America, a US registered
company?

And fully owned by British petroleum. That's why their spokesweasel
is returning to England.

And do you know who "owns" BP?

Does my BP stock mean that I do?

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:46:43 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:53:19 -0700, Winston <Winston@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Nonsense.

What he stated is a truism, whether you choose to believe it or not.

What color are those glasses, idiot?

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 1:53 am, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:
On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Not true. In both cases you can sue them, and if they're too poor to
pay they go bankrupt.

Only if you win the suit, and only then if you live long enough for the
decision, and then you have to get the remuneration in your hand, which
also does not always happen at once. I am not saying that it is right, I
am just saying that this is how things are.

Try suing a cop, or having one criminally charged some day, and see
just how the fuckers make laws that allow them to fuck you, but not for
you to get them for doing it.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 12:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:

Setting aside the 20 Billion makes no change to the portion of the
total cost that the profits from BP will cover.  It actually saves a
fair chunk of money because a third party will be handling much
of the work on paying out the claims.

It saves money in the same way that giving Michele Obama your credit
card to buy your clothes saves you money.

It is not about money, dumbfuck. It is about PROCESSING efficiency. A
barge full of contaminant is more effective at timely clean-up than a
barge that is filled, but 40% of that fill is water.

It mostly just means that the payments will be made without concern to
their effectiveness or merit,

You are a goddamned idiot. The device states what it does. The crews
DO need separation processes, and his centrifugal device does that in a
smaller package than the big platforms utilize, which allows them to be
mounted on the barges themselves.

Do you retarded little pussies have ANY fucking common sense?

by someone who has no interest in
either: Mr. Obama's pay czar. The pay czar's interest is to pay
quickly, often, and to as many people as possible, deserving or not.

Who are you saying does not deserve 'pay'?

The really good thing about Mr. Obama extorting $20B from BP is that
the government gets control of the $20B, and so can spend it faster,
and buy more votes.

That is a "good thing"? Wow, dude, you really are retarded. Learn that
dumb shit from your daddy, did ya?

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.

A bad loan debt can stay on you CR for about 3 to 7 years. A bad renter
debt stays on there for 9, just like a bankruptcy does, but it has far
worse consequences.

 

On Jun 20, 1:53 am, Winston <Wins...@bigbrother.net> wrote:

On 6/19/2010 7:30 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

BP has had 760 OSHA violations to Exxon's one. With a safety record that
bad, perhaps it would be better to shut them down and let the other oil
companies (the ones that have better operating records) bid for their
assets.

Even if the liquidation sale doesn't cover the damages they have caused,
getting them out of the natural resources business would be worthwhile.

Why is it that so few people raise an eyebrow over a death penalty
sentence for an individual but scream about rights and justice when a
corporate death penalty is considered?

Corporations are only considered people WRT rights,
not responsibilities.

Not true. In both cases you can sue them, and if they're too poor to
pay they go bankrupt.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur