Deepwater Oil Spill - Oh Shit...

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:28:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:eek:r6t16hjru985gkko7stmns6blrg02444p@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.
Please document this legal liability cap. I have never heard of it
before.
 
On Jun 21, 5:50 am, MooseFET <kensm...@rahul.net> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2:36 am, 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 save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
[ of ] lawyers.



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.
MooseFart > The folks doing it are not
MooseFart > "Obama's pay czar".  IIRC
MooseFart > they are the same folks that did it after 911.

You think that was a GOOD THING?
Red Cross almost got shut down by Congress
for collecting billions and not paying it out.
They were going to use the money to ENLARGE
their ""non-profit"" massively rather than pay it out.

FoxNews O'Reilly caught onto that and
soon the US Congress was dragging their
asses in before a subcommittee.

The point was that the BILLIONS were
donated FOR 9/11, not for Red Cross
to bankroll for enlargement or future
disasters.

Collecting BILLIONS for 9/11 and
using it otherwise would be a SCAM.

The PR disaster forced Red Cross to
start paying out the money.

MooseFart > These are folks who know how
MooseFart > to do this sort of thing.

What a giant brain fart!

WHO the hell are you talking about, specifically?

FEMA ???? LOL


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.

Obama doesn't end up controlling it.  He may get some extra votes
for having put adults in charge but nothing more.
Did you know that our government passed
a law LIMITING PAYOUTS FOR OIL SPILLS?

BP is immune beyond that figure.

Did you know that BP is VOLUNTARILY
paying settlement money BEYOND the
liability cap law passed by our Congress?

Congress is now himming and hawing about
removing that liability cap.
 
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:29 pm, krw wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:42:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

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?

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
the result of “gross negligence or willful misconduct.” So yes,
they're being generous. OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.
I read it, and it reads much more like "real damages" (as presented to an
adjudicator and approved) plus a $75M "fine". With the negligence /
misconduct stuff in force.
What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
even though they weren't drilling the hole.
The lawyer term involved is "several and multiple" or something like that
and then they name every possibly involved party, as they can then
collect form any one or all of them.

There were 126 people on
board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
BP. ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt. If
they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
they did something dangerous, knowingly. That's reckless disregard.

If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary. Who at this
government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it? What managers
supervised it? Were procedures followed? Why weren't they being
grilled at Congress' hearings?
See "several and multiple" above.
 
On Jun 21, 6:13 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:20:28 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:53 pm, krw wrote:

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?

Under 33 U.S.C. 2702, BP's liable for removal costs + $75M, unless
the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct.  So yes,
they're being generous.  OTOH, our confiscatorial Congress was huffing
about passing an ex post facto law to eliminate that limit.

How long would that be in the courts?
It's been reported in the $20B "shakedown" meeting that Biden told BP
CEO Hayward "You have no choice. If you don't, we'll force you."

With that kind of intimidation, BP'd probably just fold.

Joe Chisolm has a point--BP's a big Democratic supporter. They spent
millions for cap-n-trade, gave the President's chief of staff 5 years
in a rent-free apartment, a major campaign contributor, etc. For
whatever reason they thought they'd do better under Obama than McCain.

So, it could all be theater--they get their symbolic whipping, then a
bunch of special treatment to make it all back over time.

What surprises me is the lawyerly assumption that BP is 100% liable
even though they weren't drilling the hole.  There were 126 people on
board the Deepwater Horizon when it blew, only 6 of whom worked for
BP.  ISTM the driller and cementing contractors bear the brunt.  If
they protested the procedure was unsafe, all the more so--that'd mean
they did something dangerous, knowingly.  That's reckless disregard.

Deep pockets.
Yep. That's still wrong.

If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary.  Who at this
government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it?  What managers
supervised it?  Were procedures followed?  Why weren't they being
grilled at Congress' hearings?

Why did they just get a safety award from Obama?
Because Obama's appointees are full of sunshine and song, but can't
tie their own shoes.

James
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:19:14 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:04:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> 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.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

Please describe how the corporations were "punished", when and in what
legal proceeding.
Civil fines.
Bankruptcy ~= death.
No the Obamanation (stolen from the owners and given to the "workers")

Provide backup for any claim that the corporations got
so much as a fine that they actually paid.
UC has paid fines/restitution for Bohpal. There is still the possibility of
sabotage there.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:03:59 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:28:23 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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


krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:eek:r6t16hjru985gkko7stmns6blrg02444p@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.

Please document this legal liability cap. I have never heard of it
before.
$75M cap for compensation, after the Exxon Valdez.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:13:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

If you want to argue BP approved the work, well, so did Obama's
Mineral Management Services under his MMS secretary. Who at this
government's MMS approved this well, who inspected it? What managers
supervised it? Were procedures followed? Why weren't they being
grilled at Congress' hearings?

Why did they just get a safety award from Obama?
And with a safety record that clearly shows that they did not deserve it.
It is almost like karmic retribution on both their houses.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 03:50:18 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith@rahul.net>
wrote:

On Jun 21, 2:36 am, 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 save money to not have the situation burn up money on an army
or lawyers.


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 folks doing it are not "Obama's pay czar". IIRC they are the same
folks
that did it after 911. These are folks who know how to do this sort
of thing.
That is a damn bold thing to say considering the foul-ups that system
engendered.
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.

Obama doesn't end up controlling it. He may get some extra votes
for having put adults in charge but nothing more.
Wrong and wrong.
 
Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

What kind of role models did you have?
The Tazmanian Devil?

Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
all but they have absolutely NO practical real
world experience and no people skills so they
are bitter at people in general.

Where along the spectrum from ADHD
to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
does your condition fit in?
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:23:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?


Is his name really Archie?
Archi(medes). He goes by "Archie" in other groups, rather than "DimBulb",
"AlwaysWrong", or "Nymbecile".


Does he have a last name?
He's ashamed of it. Wouldn't you be?
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 06:47:20 -0500, "amdx" <amdx@knology.net> wrote:

Yo Mike. The fall in stock prices is damages to the stockholders, not
the company.

Let's see, if I have a company with $180B in stock market assets and
you have a company with $10B in stock market assets, which of use
could issue $10B in new stock without harming the company.
I bet I could get the $10B long before you, that should tell you that
a fall in stock prices damages the company. Especially one under pressure
from increased expenses.
Mike
Chimera and balderdash. BP book value is over $200B, and market (stock)
value (i heard about $70B)(which may be well less than 100% of investment
value) changes are measures of the public expectation that BP will
continue to be profitable (produce dividends or increase in market
value). They do not become a takeover candidate because of the sheer
size of the market "value" of the stocks. Nobody short of a G10 economy
is big enough to try it, and they couldn't take the backlash.
 
G > Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

Archie > I think that you act like a total retard,
Archie > and examination of your posts of late
Archie > would make for easy proof, you
Archie > immature little wussified bitch.

G > What kind of role models did you have?

Archie > The best.

G > The Tazmanian Devil?

Archie > Him too.  :)  Don't expect a retarded
Archie > twit like you to understand, however.
Archie > I also like The Tex Avery collection.

G > Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
G > idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
G > all but they have absolutely NO practical real
G > world experience and no people skills so they
G > are bitter at people in general.

Archie > Sounds like projection to me.

G > Where along the spectrum from ADHD
G > to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
G > does your condition fit in?

Archie > Sounds like projection to me.  Have you
Archie > completed you stalking regimen
Archie > yet today?
Archie >
Archie >   Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!

Is it projection or stalking when I ask
what your brain disorder is?

Make up your mind, if you can.
 
On Jun 21, 9:34 pm, DrParnassus <DrParnas...@hereforlongtime.org>
wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:08:38 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com
wrote:

Did you know that our government passed
a law LIMITING PAYOUTS FOR OIL SPILLS?

BP is immune beyond that figure.

 No, idiot.  There are all kinds of things that they ARE responsible for
over and above the $75M figure, you are too goddamned stupid to grasp the
fact that it goes beyond the direct, up front dollar liability.
Why are you being so vague?

Please be more precise in your assertions.

If what you said was true, then what was the
point of a liability cap law?
 
On Jun 21, 11:29 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:03:59 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:28:23 -0500, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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

k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:eek:r6t16hjru985gkko7stmns6blrg02444p@4ax.com...
On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:12:22 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...@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.

Please document this legal liability cap.  I have never heard of it
before.

$75M cap for compensation, after the Exxon Valdez.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=oil+spill+liability+cap

Interestingly, many Republicans are AGAINST raising
this liability cap, and many Democrats are for jacking
it up to varying degrees or eliminating it entirely.

The BP spill makes it clear to lots of
US Citizens that oil companies need
to be fully liable with no limit.

As far as I am concerned, if the Republicans
want to maintain this liability limit, they
are doomed in November as much as
the Democrats.

WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
every bit of cleanup and lost income?

A point in their favor is that the location
of this oil rig was determined by the
US Government. BP wanted to drill in
shallower water, but the US Government
refused.

I'd like to know more about who and why.
 
G > Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?

Archie > I think that you act like a total retard,
Archie > and examination of your posts of late
Archie > would make for easy proof, you
Archie > immature little wussified bitch.

G > What kind of role models did you have?

Archie > The best.

G > The Tazmanian Devil?

Archie > Him too. :) Don't expect a retarded
Archie > twit like you to understand, however.
Archie > I also like The Tex Avery collection.

G > Your style is much like a neurotic, precocious
G > idealistic teenager who thinks they know it
G > all but they have absolutely NO practical real
G > world experience and no people skills so they
G > are bitter at people in general.

Archie > Sounds like projection to me.
G > Where along the spectrum from ADHD
G > to Autism to Aspergers to Schizophrenia
G > does your condition fit in?

Archie > Sounds like projection to me. Have you
Archie > completed you stalking regimen
Archie > yet today?
Archie >
Archie > Bwuahahahahahahahahahaha!

G > Is it projection or stalking when I ask
G > what your brain disorder is?
G >
G > Make up your mind, if you can.



JL > Is his name really Archie?

krw > Archi(medes).  He goes by "Archie" in
krw > other groups, rather than "DimBulb",
krw > "AlwaysWrong", or "Nymbecile".

75 different nyms but his IP address is
Cox cable internet in El Cajon California
Prior to June it was Cox Cable Oceanside.

JL > Does he have a last name?

krw > He's ashamed of it.  Wouldn't you be?

I have no idea what his name or address is.
 
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:vpe0261a3u79h4ecqgm8un9s80tevsn7cc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:19:14 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:04:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
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.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

Please describe how the corporations were "punished", when and in what
legal proceeding.

Civil fines.
Bankruptcy ~= death.
No the Obamanation (stolen from the owners and given to the "workers")

Provide backup for any claim that the corporations got
so much as a fine that they actually paid.

UC has paid fines/restitution for Bohpal. There is still the possibility
of
sabotage there.
That's right, I remember it was about $2000 for the employees and about
$10000 for the company. That's correct, $2k not $2B.
And Warren Anderson still refuses to go to trial. We should extradite him to
India. Life for life, UC needs to cough up $100T for the Bhopal mess, and as
UC is wholly owned by a US based company, our govt should pay reparations.
 
"Greegor" <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2a9dc01a-86dd-4981-a9d9-ef033d6f3615@c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

WHO doesn't think that BP should pay for
every bit of cleanup and lost income?
Me. I'd like to see other responsible partners put their hands up. We could
start with the owners, the workers, the regulators, the BOP manufacturers,
the BOP service team...
 
"Grumps" <grumps@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:hvq2lv$8ba$1@news.eternal-september.org...
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:vpe0261a3u79h4ecqgm8un9s80tevsn7cc@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:19:14 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:04:51 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:54:40 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue@yahoo.com
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.

Really? Consider Love Canal. Consider Bhopal.

Considered. Next?

Please describe how the corporations were "punished", when and in what
legal proceeding.

Civil fines.
Bankruptcy ~= death.
No the Obamanation (stolen from the owners and given to the "workers")

Provide backup for any claim that the corporations got
so much as a fine that they actually paid.

UC has paid fines/restitution for Bohpal. There is still the possibility
of
sabotage there.

That's right, I remember it was about $2000 for the employees and about
$10000 for the company. That's correct, $2k not $2B.
And Warren Anderson still refuses to go to trial. We should extradite him
to India. Life for life, UC needs to cough up $100T for the Bhopal mess,
and as UC is wholly owned by a US based company, our govt should pay
reparations.
" our govt should pay reparations"
Meaning me and 50% of my hard working neighbors should pay reparations.
Might not matter to you, you probably don't pay federal income taxes, and
are
to the point where you are collecting SS dollars you never paid into the
system.
Just a wag, Mike
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:23:04 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

Archie: Do you THINK you act like a mature adult, or a spaz?


Is his name really Archie?

Does he have a last name?

John

No, dumbfuck. Just like you, there are other retards that cannot seem
to address someone right.

You goddamned retards fell the hoard mentality stupidity that makes you
make up names for folks. It is a common Usenet posting convolution.

The dumbfuck used "Archie" to be 'short for' my Archimedes' nym.

You really are pretty thick, John.
 
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:42:05 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Does he have a last name?

He's ashamed of it. Wouldn't you be?

I'm related to former US Presidents. You?
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top