Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 It "speaks badly of me" that I dont want to see fraud carried out on a mass scale, with "ambulance chasers" leading the parade into BP's headquarters? You got issues. Seriously. Again....DEFINE DAMAGES. And do better than "anyone who lost wages." Beacuase as I pointed out, any shitbag can make that claim if they try hard enough. No you idiot. I said legally provable in the court of law, not just anyone who makes "claims". Lern to Reed Ok?
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Nothing will also drive them right out of the USA or out of business, either. FAIL!!! This is even dumber than your other comments. They aren't going to leave you moron, there is a market for them to sell to over here. Nice try though And in regards to going out of business, someone else will take over BP's operations if they were to go under, there's bankruptcy courts for that you know.
RkFast Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 I had an interesting conversation the other day regarding this topic. There is a lot of hooting and hollering going on out there regarding the Chinese and how they have been investing more money than us or for that matter anyone in the wind and solar energy projects. Well, there is a reason for that, the Chinese can afford to make a more meaningful investment because they have over $3 trillion in reserves. They can afford to be patient, this is not a profitable business, and if isn't profitable or economically feasible, then the growth in this area will be heavily dependent on government help. The only way this business moves forward is with federal subsidies, so if you have a very very long view, then it does make sense. But the notion that all of a sudden we can start building for tomorrow with the hopes of creating lots of jobs in the short to medium term is ridiculous. I do believe that we should invest in this area, but not at the expense of hurting our economy. China will undoubtedly lead the world in Alternative energies, simply because they have the money and patience to do so, whereas we have a $13 Trillion National debt (and climbing rapidly), and we don't have the flexibility to continue to heavily subsidize these projects. You dummy.....the energy companies have already looked into this. They have smashed their heads together for YEARS trying to determine if they can come up with the replacement for petroleum, even WITH Govt. help. You know what they came up with? They need to stick to petroleum.
RkFast Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 FAIL!!! This is even dumber than your other comments. They aren't going to leave you moron, there is a market for them to sell to over here. Nice try though Go ahead...open a business without insurance. I dare you.
RkFast Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 No you idiot. I said legally provable in the court of law, not just anyone who makes "claims". Lern to Reed Ok? You want every claim to go before a Court? Youre not just insane....youre certifiable.
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You dummy.....the energy companies have already looked into this. They have smashed their heads together for YEARS trying to determine if they can come up with the replacement for petroleum, even WITH Govt. help. You know what they came up with? They need to stick to petroleum. Please stop posting. You didn't understand a single word I said.
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Yes you can, and it will happen, you can bank on that. And the fact that you are suggesting that they shouldn't be liable for ALL damages and lost wages that they are connected to speaks pretty badly about you. You're both right, you know...because there are losses that are second-, third-, and fourth- order effects that get very hard to "prove" are BP's responsibility (e.g. should BP be responsible for making up the lost tax revenue of the states?) What's more, the simplistic nature of a "make them liable for all damages" statement belies a lot of potential complexity in the situation: if BP charters a fishing boat to support their capping operations, does that charter reduce their liability w/r/t the lost fishing revenue or not? Or, writ large, is BP's liability offset by the roughly billion dollars they've already pumped into some of the local economies over the past five weeks or so? And what's more...who do you really trust to make BP liable for "all" "damages"? What constitutes "damages"? You're going to get situations such as some professional artist who paints watercolors of sea-scapes, who'll argue that he can either no longer paint, or has suffered irretrievable emotional trauma and PTSD because of the damage to his livelihood. Is that a real damage? Who decides?
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You want every claim to go before a Court? Youre not just insane....youre certifiable. You're still an idiot
RkFast Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You're both right, you know...because there are losses that are second-, third-, and fourth- order effects that get very hard to "prove" are BP's responsibility (e.g. should BP be responsible for making up the lost tax revenue of the states?) What's more, the simplistic nature of a "make them liable for all damages" statement belies a lot of potential complexity in the situation: if BP charters a fishing boat to support their capping operations, does that charter reduce their liability w/r/t the lost fishing revenue or not? Or, writ large, is BP's liability offset by the roughly billion dollars they've already pumped into some of the local economies over the past five weeks or so? And what's more...who do you really trust to make BP liable for "all" "damages"? What constitutes "damages"? You're going to get situations such as some professional artist who paints watercolors of sea-scapes, who'll argue that he can either no longer paint, or has suffered irretrievable emotional trauma and PTSD because of the damage to his livelihood. Is that a real damage? Who decides? Ive been asking Magox to answer this. He wont answer.
RkFast Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You're still an idiot I may be an idiot, but at least I have a basic understanding of how business runs. Unlimited liability.....lololololol.
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Ive been asking Magox to answer this. He wont answer. No, you haven't. Quite frankly: you're being conner. Stop being conner. Okay, conner?
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You want every claim to go before a Court? Youre not just insane....youre certifiable. That's not what he said, conner. He said "provable", not "proven". Some (most, I expect) claims are so obvious that they won't need to go to court. Likewise, some are such obvious bull **** that they'll never see a courtroom. A few will be in a grey area where no one's sure, those should go to court. And you're both forgetting that this populist administration is perfectly happy to just browbeat BP (and all the other oil companies, for that matter. May as well mae it "collective guilt") into paying everything anyone claims. It's not like they haven't !@#$ed over corporations "for the people" before this.
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 You're both right, you know...because there are losses that are second-, third-, and fourth- order effects that get very hard to "prove" are BP's responsibility (e.g. should BP be responsible for making up the lost tax revenue of the states?) What's more, the simplistic nature of a "make them liable for all damages" statement belies a lot of potential complexity in the situation: if BP charters a fishing boat to support their capping operations, does that charter reduce their liability w/r/t the lost fishing revenue or not? Or, writ large, is BP's liability offset by the roughly billion dollars they've already pumped into some of the local economies over the past five weeks or so? And what's more...who do you really trust to make BP liable for "all" "damages"? What constitutes "damages"? You're going to get situations such as some professional artist who paints watercolors of sea-scapes, who'll argue that he can either no longer paint, or has suffered irretrievable emotional trauma and PTSD because of the damage to his livelihood. Is that a real damage? Who decides? I'm not going to quantifiably define what "damages" are, I'll leave that up to the courts, but any damages that are legally proved by the court system is something that I'm all for. The cost of oil will go up as a result of this, as it rightfully should. This Oil spill has changed my perspective on the entire industry. Not so much that I believe that we should get off of oil, because that is unrealistic, I do believe that we should continue to keep drilling for oil. The way it's changed my view of things is that I now realize that the cost of oil and extracting it safely means that the price of my gasoline should be higher. Insurance on liabilities will go up tremendously and that will get passed on to the oil companies which of course gets passed on to us, and I'm ok with that, because thats just the way it is. Without holding them 100% accountable for all JUSTIFIABLE liabilities increases the odds of another spill like this happening. As far as I'm concerned, all these deep water wells should all have these other emergency wells built along with them just in case something like this happens. So that will be another additional cost that would be tacked on to the price of oil. The environmental and economic damage that is occuring here is tragic on so many levels, and it's amazing to me that there are idiots out there who don't want to hold these companies 100% liable for their gross and reckless incompetence.
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 And you're both forgetting that this populist administration is perfectly happy to just browbeat BP (and all the other oil companies, for that matter. May as well mae it "collective guilt") into paying everything anyone claims. It's not like they haven't !@#$ed over corporations "for the people" before this. In regards to this administration, I am offering very little defense for their part. That's what they do best, demonize companies to push through their agenda, without fail. Obama is proving to be a litigator not a leader. All that talk on the campaign trail from his critics regarding his lack of executive experience is coming home to roost. Really, was there ever a doubt?
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 In regards to this administration, I am offering very little defense for their part. That's what they do best, demonize companies to push through their agenda, without fail. Obama is proving to be a litigator not a leader. All that talk on the campaign trail from his critics regarding his lack of executive experience is coming home to roost. Really, was there ever a doubt? No, there was no doubt. And I know you're not defending them. But the simian wrench in your argument is that claims will be judged either honestly, or independently. Or by courts, for that matter: Obama's rhetoric of the past weeks (and actions of the past days) have been specifically intended to avoid having claims going through the legal system, to avoid the litiginous gridlock that keeps "the people" from getting paid "what they're owed". "The courts" are never going to judge on any of these payouts, not when they're coming out of a trust managed by the very same people who have already shown a distinct tendency to demonize the rich and the corporate in some misaligned definition of social justice.
Magox Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 No, there was no doubt. And I know you're not defending them. But the simian wrench in your argument is that claims will be judged either honestly, or independently. Or by courts, for that matter: Obama's rhetoric of the past weeks (and actions of the past days) have been specifically intended to avoid having claims going through the legal system, to avoid the litiginous gridlock that keeps "the people" from getting paid "what they're owed". "The courts" are never going to judge on any of these payouts, not when they're coming out of a trust managed by the very same people who have already shown a distinct tendency to demonize the rich and the corporate in some misaligned definition of social justice. Unfortunately, this probably will play out the way you are suggesting. I don't have the answers in the best way in how to hold them accountable in a fair manner. All I know is that they should be be completely liable for all damages and lost compensation due to their negligence. They have to be held accountable, and I can't think of a better self-regulating way of ensuring that more proper safety measures are taken from these oil companies than the fear of being sued out their ass.
DC Tom Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Unfortunately, this probably will play out the way you are suggesting. I don't have the answers in the best way in how to hold them accountable in a fair manner. All I know is that they should be be completely liable for all damages and lost compensation due to their negligence. They have to be held accountable, and I can't think of a better self-regulating way of ensuring that more proper safety measures are taken from these oil companies than the fear of being sued out their ass. I forgot to add to my previous post that I thought you've been arguing idealistically with conne - er, rk - and not realistically, and what's more you knew you were doing so. I'm reasonably sure BP's going to get !@#$ed in the ass by the administration - and frankly, I'm surprised they let themselves be browbeat into this idea. I would have liked to see the executives tell Obama "Y'know, that trust idea is a pretty good one [which is it]...but hell if we'll let you and your cronies manage it. We'll get right on that, as soon as we stop the leak, because we are not taking one damn resource away from stopping that leak. Now stop being part of the problem, you finger-pointing troll, and let us do our jobs." I mean, really...for all Obama's useless and ineffectual "I'm on top of this ****, because I'm wagging my finger at BP" rhetoric, you could take all that rhetoric, wad it up in a great big ball, and effectively plug the well with it.
stuckincincy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 It would have been nice if he noted that BP was a top contributor to his campaign, that they had something like 700 safety citations vs. other oil companies weighing in at under ten, or that his Interior Dept. had a gala planned to honor BP the day before the disaster, or that their review of BP's drilling plans got a whitewash (Blackwash?) treatment .
stuckincincy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 $20 Billion Dollar "Victim Fund" Yeah - run by and through federal workers. I can see agencies now, rubbing their foreparts together and figuring out how many FTE's they can hire and planning all the travel expenses to do this good work. 20B = 10B once our protected class extracts their cut...
Recommended Posts