Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

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

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.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[John O'Flaherty]

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.

That's not fair! He had a yacht race to attend, after all!

And do you know who "owns" BP?

Does my BP stock mean that I do?

According to their website, about 40% of stock ownership is in the UK,
and about 39% in the US.

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9010453&contentId=7019612

http://tinyurl.com/2blagkw

--
John

 

On Jun 20, 2:57 pm, Perenis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:03:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Same for both. Try suing a deadbeat for back rent.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:30:41 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

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.

I don't need any more proof of my position than the previous sentence.

What color are those glasses, idiot?

Clear, actually. We all know your's are black, since you're blind to all
logic, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

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.

....and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:34:03 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

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

<snip>

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.

Make that $20B. Certainly, Obummer's cronies will come out very well off
indeed. Were I BP, I'd wash my hands at $20B and let the courts go after more
(it will take forever, if it can even be done). Government wants to handle
it, let them.

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.

Quite obviously true. However, Moose can't see what's happening any better
than can DimBulb.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

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

....while taking the government's, Obummer's cronies, and his cut.

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.

If any money ever comes out the other end[*]. They need to do something fast,
obviously.

[*] BP should demand a full and accurate accounting, including SSNs of anyone
getting a check, before turning over another dime.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

 

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?


James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it?  It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you, Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?

 

[linnix]

On Jun 20, 1:42 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

How much does a barge cost anyway, a few hundred K? Just surround the
well with the whole fleet and some more to move the cargo to shore.
Land based proccessing plant can filter the water in no time. It
might burn a few more barrels of oil by the ships to move the barge,
but they are burning much more over water anyway.

Alternatively, just build a 80 miles pipe-line to shore. I will do it
for a billion.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dickeatingoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?


James Arthur

Only a fucktard like you would inject a figure into it that is not even
realistic.

Try running numbers on about 1000 or 500 GPM.

Also, NO processing takes place AT THE BARGE currently, so the
efficiency is 100% in EVERY case where processing AT THE BARGE does take
place, you fucking total moron. Likely faster than the skimmers pull the
contaminant bulk out of the water.

Come back when that Karma Factor of yours comes back onto the positive
side.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

Just surround the
well with the whole fleet and some more to move the cargo to shore.

If 40% of their hold is water, then processing it AT the extraction
point is the right way to go. That way, ALL the hold's contents get
offloaded at shore, and the number of trips is lower.

We do not need to burn all the fuel we would have refined from the stuff
we collect. That would be nearly as bed as the spill, and certainly adds
to the pollution of it.

Want to get weird? String high tension (not power lines)cabling across
the gulf, suspend it, and use paddles to push the slick back toward the
spill point. The collection fleet can remain more tightly packed that
way, along with the contaminant being kept from shores.

Too late for that stuff now though. Maybe a hurricane will come
through, pick it all up, and dump it with the rain all over the south.
Then, MAYBE we will realize that we ALL need to be reducing our carbon
footprints.

The standard of living in the US has gone WAY down. Do not expect it
to get back up to that old comfort zone any time soon, if ever.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:55:02 -0700 (PDT), linnix <me@linnix.info-for.us>
wrote:

Alternatively, just build a 80 miles pipe-line to shore. I will do it
for a billion.

Barges float pipe strings just fine. There are mobile dredgers that
operate just off the shores of Carlsbad. They pump the extraction back to
the inlet. about 2000ft, and they only use floats for the pipes. They
also drag the whole set back into the inlet pretty often as well. The
flex links in the pipe handle high surf just fine.

 

[Perenis]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:19:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org
wrote:

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.

...and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.

The bankruptcy reference was PART of the reference about one's PERSONAL
credit rating, idiot.

A personal bankruptcy can damage your credit for nine years.

We already know that is NOT the case in industry. Just ask Chrysler
Corp.

 

On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP.  Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the government to
pay the first dime to those who need it?  It's been a couple of months now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

James Arthur

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:55:12 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:19:52 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 12:23:02 -0700, Perenis <Perenis@hereforlongtime.org
wrote:

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.

...and a corporation is dead. They're not exactly the same, but you're
wrong, as always, AlwaysWrong.

The bankruptcy reference was PART of the reference about one's PERSONAL
credit rating, idiot.

Once again, you demonstrate your illiteracy.

A personal bankruptcy can damage your credit for nine years.

....or not, AlwaysWrong.

We already know that is NOT the case in industry. Just ask Chrysler
Corp.

Try remedial reading, DimBulb. I'm sure they have classes for those older
than three somewhere in Kalifornica.

 

[amdx]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
newsr6t16hjru985gkko7stmns6blrg02444p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the
government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months
now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you,
Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?

Last numbers I saw they had already paid out $1.35 Billion and

that was a week or two ago.

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:42:09 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
newsr6t16hjru985gkko7stmns6blrg02444p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Jun 20, 3:11 pm, Penis <Pere...@hereforlongtime.org> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:36:17 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

We're talking about the $20B fund Obama extracted from BP. Not
Costner's centrifuge.

But speaking of processing efficiency, how long will it take to fill a
barge at 50-100GPM?

Speaking about processing efficiency, how long will it take the
government to
pay the first dime to those who need it? It's been a couple of months
now,
and Obummer still can't come to skipping a round of golf.

That's a good point. Mr. Obama prevented LA Gov. Bobby Jindal
building his berms for at least a month, a month when the oil was
still offshore. Those berms could've prevented a lot of damage,
saving wildlife and cleanup money too. Mr. Obama still hasn't
suspended the Jones Act. He's the slow one, not BP.

Re: efficiency, it depends what you're optimizing. I have every
confidence the government can spend any amount of money faster than BP
and get far less for it. But, they'll buy votes with BP's money, BP
will still be liable for the rest, and blamed for the government's
failings. To a politician, that's very efficient. It's awful.

But *will* BP be liable for the rest? AIUI, their liability is capped at
something ridiculous like $75M. If BP decides to say "screw you,
Obummer",
how long would it take to get another dime?

Last numbers I saw they had already paid out $1.35 Billion and
that was a week or two ago.

That's already 20x their legal liability cap. I'm really surprised that
they're being so generous, given the thrashing they're getting anyway.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Copacetic wrote:

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.

Doubtful. Liquidate the company and let others pick up the assets and
continue to operate them. Life and production goes on.

The needs of the many.

You could call that socialism or the ends justify the means. Either way,
not what I'd expect from anyone serious about market economies and law
and order.

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.

Methinks he doth protest too much. You or one of your friends got caught
holding? ;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
At some point it becomes necessary to behead all the architects and
begin construction. -- Abi-Bar-Shim (Project Mgr. - Great Pyramid)