1

 

is it true Rahm is living in a free apartment courtesy of BP or a lobbyist?

2 Whaddaya mean "just bought on"?

3 So basically BP is exactly like GE.  They're being good little corporate whores for the democrats.  Getting all the nice kickbacks and contracts.

4
is it true Rahm is living in a free apartment courtesy of BP or a lobbyist?

He did for 5 years, yes.  Rent-free apartment of a BP lobbyist, but there aren't any tax implications at all. 

5

 

I'm still curious as to why the rig exploded, in the first place.

If we want to prevent this type of accident in the future wouldn't that be a good place to start?

6 And the wolves are voting on the dinner menu.

7 Think of it as "subscribing to the program"

8

signpost - I think it is slightly more convoluted (slightly less blatant) than that, but yes, it is accurate.  IIRC, it's an apartment owned by the spouse of a BP exec, or something like that.

9

I've mentioned this before BP has a notoriously bad safety record.

They had an oil refinary explosion in 2005 that earned them the largest fine in OSHA's history.

You can read all about it in the Baker Report.

10

I'm still curious as to why the rig exploded, in the first place.

If we want to prevent this type of accident in the future wouldn't that be a good place to start?

Well they were pouring the cement for the well casing, and I have read that the heat from the cement curing caused a large volume of natural gas to expand and blow out.

11 This explains why Obama hasn't met with them and said that he knew all about them. It explains his 20 min meeting, He doesn't want to look to chummy because he is.

12 The lies people tell ... Why not search for Al Gore's warm CO2 blanket? The last 6 science teams that went looking didn't find anything. And the bad news, the missing CO2 blanket is Al Gore's greenhouse roof. Of course greenhouses require solid impermeable membranes over them, and air of any kind does not work? No, then take the roof off the local greenhouse and see for yourself.

13 Everybody knows the 'splosion was completely due to TEH EVIL BUSHCO!!!111!!evil-leventy11!!11!

14

I was at first surprised to find out that BP of all companies, would be the chief backer of cap and trade legislation.  It doesn't make sense if you think about it logically; a law that is supposed to hurt energy companies through massive taxation and artificial rationing of "carbon credits".

Then I found out why BP was so keen on the deal.  They would end up getting massive subsidies from the gov for various projects, most likely far in excess of whatever taxes they would end up having to pay.

Yeah, BP....you fucked yourself.

15 yeah, and they of course lobbied to have no law passed requiring them to have clean-up machinery handy, and to have the Blow Out Protector and its backup the only safety measures for this kind of well, etc.

16 BP will get some good PR and will just pass the costs on to the consumer. no big shock that they're supporting this monstrosity.

17
Everybody knows the 'splosion was completely due to TEH EVIL BUSHCO!!!111!!evil-leventy11!!11!

And Dick Cheney.

18 A nuclear physicist told me that they had poured the cement which needed a substantial amount of time to dry. An exec at BP decided that it was too long and with the permission of the feds went ahead and opened the valve. The engineers objected. Because the cement wasn't dry it buckled, caused the gas to build up outside in and around the buckled cement and explode.

19

So basically BP is exactly like GE.  They're being good little corporate whores for the democrats.  Getting all the nice kickbacks and contracts.

 

It verked vor us.

20 Don't Cry for BP Too Much

"Too much"? I don't cry for them at all.

If they did cut corners, then they should pay. If that means going belly up...oh well.

They weighted the costs/benefits of not fulfilling their safety obligations and if they came up with the wrong answer, too bad. Sometimes you rely on the "it would take a one in a million chance for something to go wrong" theory but when it is that one in a million, pay up suckers.

21
Ben Stein is a little off on this one.

We shouldn't be defending BP. We should be opposing Obama for what he wants to do to BP. There's a difference.

22
Drudge: Obama darting in and out of room

COKEHEAD!

23 Just what this president needs, a $20 billion slush fund.

24

Then an EPA lawyer told me this morning that the Canadians require a relief valve to be installed before or at the same time as the main valve. She seems to think that this lack of valve (regulation) was the reason it couldn't be contained.

In effect, there are a lot of supositions.

25

Normally, being the good little capitalist that I am, I'd be defending BP right about now. However, given that they're the driving force behind Cap-and-Tax, they are now on my shit list, big time. How dare they promote legislation that reduces my standard of living? Just because they're used to that shit in England doesn't mean we want it here.

I truly hope they go under, and fast. And that a few enterprising Americans pick up the pieces to form the world's largest oil company.

26 The ironic thing here is that just as our current pres is unprecendented, so was Deep Water Horizon.

I do believe that it is the deepest well ever ever drilled.
Kinda makes you wonder what safety procedures were developed for going this deep.

27 "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini Scratch a leftist, find a fascist; scratch a multinational corporation, find an accommodationist. It's a toxic combination for democracy.

28 Obama is just using Alinsky's playbook.

29 >>>Then an EPA lawyer told me this morning that the Canadians require a relief valve to be installed before or at the same time as the main valve. She seems to think that this lack of valve (regulation) was the reason it couldn't be contained. right, keith hennessey mentioned this... this is the sort of thing I would have assumed was being done. It wasn't, because BP bought people off and people in government allowed thmselves to be bought off. And I have to say this exposes a blind spot conservatives have, where we fail to properly distinguish between good regulation and bad, so opposed to all of it we are; and we cannot be so stupid or arrogant as to double-down on our mistakes. We let these guys argue that only a bop was needed and that clean-up equipment and relief wells were unnecessary.

30
Leftwingnut democrat thought vacuum:  Every crisis is an excuse to layer on more taxation.

31 Drudge: Obama darting in and out of room

COKEHEAD!

Posted by: IreneFingIrene at June 16, 2010 03:26 PM (JKe0g)

Article @ Drudge is dead.  Could you give us a summary?

32 Conservatives need to get away from the idea that multinational corporations need to be defended because the are capitalists. Once a corporation reaches a certain size it almost inevitably begins to make accommodations, frequently even alliances, with government in order to guarantee its position. It's profoundly destructive to the health of the market. The closer large corporations get to government, the closer we get to fascism. Which, if you recall, is merely national socialism.

33 Yeah, BP....you fucked yourself.

How are they fucked? They put a few billion in the slush fund, and they get probably a 10000% return in your money.

We're fucked. They're rollin'.

The Corner suggests they just bought on as Obama's new best friends in the cap and tax fight.

Not quite. Cap-and-trade was their idea. A BP/Enron/miscellaneous commies collaboration. They sold it (metaphorically) to the government. They're buying its passage in the form they prefer—the one where they get all your money.

Ben Stein is a late-onset retard.

34
There's a lot more to than this explosion/leak than we'll ever know. There are a lot of things happening that make no sense at all.

Namely, the listless reaction by both BP and Obama. Plus you'd think the other oil giants have a vested interest in chipping in and minimizing the damage caused by the leak because Obama is coming after the entire industry, not just BP.

I'm not saying there's a conspiracy afoot. I'm saying there's a cover-up afoot and lots of secret negotiations going on.

35

For a Contrary Opinion... suggesting that BP must be defended to preserve basic rights, see Ben Stein.

I'm not really loving this argument.

Well, Ben does make some pretty persuasive arguments.

Without any new legislation, President Obama has used returned TARP money as a political slush fund to prop up favorite industries. This is the same problem: serious executive action without legislative authority.

The same goes for Mr. Obama's demand that BP pay the lost wages of oil and gas workers suspended from work because of the moratorium on Gulf of Mexico underseas drilling. There simply was no legislation allowing this kind of specific demand. Mr. Obama's demand was in the nature of a threat, more than a Constitutional act.

Is there anyone in Congress to stop him? Is there anyone in a black robe to stop him? Or is everyone already too scared to challenge the Duce in the White House?

But that last paragraph is the wrong question. Yes there is a congress but they have no intention of trying to stop him. He is doing exactly what they want.

I just want the Dems to remember all this hen we get a Republican in office and a Republican congress. We'll love the squeals when congress passes ex-post facto laws against ACORN or when the Republican President demands that some libtard group pay 20 billion dollars to make conservatives "whole". 

36 I worked for BP for most of the 1990s, and let me tell you, the culture there was typical liberal PC dumbassedness.

I'm sure that won't surprise many.

37 Stein is half correct, as usual. He makes a good point that Obama is operating outside of the law , but then he extrapolates, as usual, to make a point that isn't reasonable. Obama can demand anything he wants of BP, and if BP doesn't mind being bullied, then everything is fine.

I don't want my president to behave that way, I don't think that it is productive in the long term, and I certainly don't think that the $20B will be much more than a slush fund to reward the "good" oil folk and screw the "bad" ones. But that doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional.

38

Sorry. Loop >>> Me today

Can someone clue me in here--is the $20 billion escrow fund a cap on what they will offer? There are no waivers attached to this are there?

39

I posted this on the previous thread before I realized everyone moved.

I am inclined to call bs on the urge to act protective of BP... can someone tell me why I'm wrong?

Posted by: ace at June 16, 2010 02:58 PM (66DVY)

IMO what happened today was that the government just took over BP. They are now owned by the government. In Obama's speech after the meeting he announced that the meeting will enable them to set up a legal framework. Trouble is we already have a legal framework, one that was ignored with GM, Chrysler and now BP.

I could care less about BP, I do care that as soon as a company gets in trouble these days all reference to our current form of government is ignored and a new one pops up.

Where exactly does it stop?

40
20 billion into democrat coffers - that's the bet.

41

Can someone clue me in here--is the $20 billion escrow fund a cap on what they will offer? There are no waivers attached to this are there?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 16, 2010 03:37 PM (pLTLS)

No there is no cap. The $20 Billion is a floor not a cap.

42

It wasn't, because BP bought people off and people in government allowed thmselves to be bought off.

You can expect corporate interests to spend money to save themselves money and have influence. That's a given. It doesn't  make the corporation evil, just a business entity.

The politicians and the mixing of the politicians/lobbyists/corporation careers, being bought is the issue. This has been going on forever too.

How do you actually make it transparent?

43

"I'm the only thing standing between you and the Pitchforks...err, uh..."

"I need to kick someone's ass and you are...um,  most definitely, someone."

"I need a little more of that Peruvian Blue you guys got me during the Campaign.  Michelle's a reasonable girl and all that, but the Columbian shit that Calderon dropped off just makes her angrier!?!"

"What's your Handicap?"

"The 'Safeword'? Er, um, how about... 'Oil Spill'?"

 

44

...this exposes a blind spot conservatives have, where we fail to properly distinguish between good regulation and bad...

Actually, it highlights what conservatives have really been saying about regulation. The big guys game the system, regulations are ignored with a wink from inbred regulators and the government's power to regulate has caused this inbreeding with industry. You don't need to look farther than the Gulf to see the result.

If I really believed regulations could be made honestly and in the best of faith for the citizenry, I'd be all up for tons and tons of wonderful regulations. But we've seen this story play out again and again--it don't work worth a shit.

45 I worked for BP for most of the 1990s, and let me tell you, the culture there was typical liberal PC dumbassedness.

I'm sure that won't surprise many.

Posted by: Kensington at June 16, 2010 03:36 PM (aDdAT)

Nope - liberals tend to gravitate towards money & power.  Everything they accuse conservatives of they are guilty of 100 times over.  Lies, greed, corruption, collusion, conspiracy all stemming with love of money.

46

Then I found out why BP was so keen on the deal.  They would end up getting massive subsidies from the gov for various projects, most likely far in excess of whatever taxes they would end up having to pay. Yeah, BP....you fucked yourself.

Nah, its more kabuki theatre.  They play the whipping boy like good little boys and they get more goodies on the taxpayers.

47 Article @ Drudge is dead.  Could you give us a summary?

This is the linked article.  It is still up on Drudge for me.

But it does not reference any darting in and out of the room.  Though Drudge does report things like this before he can find an MSM article that will report the whole story.

48 I've always considered myself a "process conservative".  I have my own ideas of what is the ideal outcome of policy disputes, but I'm most concerned that the process outlined in our Constitution be followed, even if my side loses.

Stein articulated my worries about the lawlessness of this regime perfectly.

49 Crony capitalism- BP GE GM.

50 Then an EPA lawyer told me this morning that the Canadians require a relief valve to be installed before or at the same time as the main valve. She seems to think that this lack of valve (regulation) was the reason it couldn't be contained.

right, keith hennessey mentioned this... this is the sort of thing I would have assumed was being done.

It wasn't, because BP bought people off and people in government allowed thmselves to be bought off.

And I have to say this exposes a blind spot conservatives have, where we fail to properly distinguish between good regulation and bad, so opposed to all of it we are; and we cannot be so stupid or arrogant as to double-down on our mistakes.

We let these guys argue that only a bop was needed and that clean-up equipment and relief wells were unnecessary.

Posted by: ace at June 16, 2010 03:3

 

And the difference between a bribe followed by a regulation not being written and a bribe followed by a regulation being ignored or not enforced is?

51 My Friends, we have nothing to fear of an Obama presidency. 

NOW BUILD THAT FUCKING FENCE, ALREADY.

Vote McCain!

52 42  Thx!

53
Now the Drudge link is going to a different story which still says nothing about "darting in and out".

54 "In 2008 ShellÂ’s 22,000-tonne Perdido spar was towed from its construction site in Finland to its new home 320km off the Texas coast. Standing nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the Perdido rig is chained to the seabed 2,400 metres below, and is connected to nearby subsea wells in even deeper water, at a depth of 2,900 metres."

55

The Loss of the Gulf Rigs and the Supporting industry are going to hurt Bio-Diversity in the Gulf Region. 

The Rigs and the Support Structures both in the inter-coastal waterways and in the Gulf proper are hotspots for fisheries.  Tens of thousands of Sport and Professional Fisherman rely on these structures as do the breeding populations of many species.

56 And I have to say this exposes a blind spot conservatives have, where we fail to properly distinguish between good regulation and bad, so opposed to all of it we are; and we cannot be so stupid or arrogant as to double-down on our mistakes.

Having worked in an over-regulated industry for 30 years I can explain why conservatives have this "blind spot".

It is because we NEVER get "good" regulation out of congress, or at least almost never. If by some fluke we do get a reasonable safety regulation it is not enforced. The government never audits anything but paper.

If we had a government regulation requiring the installation of this "Canadian Safety Device" what the government would require is a piece of paper signed by an Engineer saying that it was installed and 600 pages of purchase order information certifying the device.

The cost of the device would "necessarily skyrocket" and the shitty companies with political pull (like BP) would simply falsify the paperwork.

After the accident happened and someone found the paper work was phony congress would simply pass more regulation to punish the honest companies some more. And the Dems would blame Republicans and de-regulation.

 

57

Crusader for green energy: Former BP chairman Lord John Browne

Green issues promoted by Browne

From 1997, Browne sought to recreate BP as a "green" energy company. The company linked itself in its corporate communications with green issues by the overt link of its BP initials with the phrase "Beyond Petroleum". Browne stated that the right to self determination is crucial for people everywhere, and that he sees his company's mission as to find ways to meet current needs without excessive harm to the environment, while developing future, more sustainable sources of energy. He promised that BP would cut its production of CO₂ by 10% by 2010, although it is as yet unclear whether BP will meet this in the wake of his departure.

58 Drudge has linked a story by Ben feller (AP) on chron.com. The last two sentences are: 

"“This is about accountability. At the end of the day, that’s what every American wants and expects,” Obama said after a meeting that stretched more than four hours, with Obama darting in and out of the room.

 

Also: BP announced it will not pay dividends this year[.]"

Anyone surprised?

59 And I have to say this exposes a blind spot conservatives have, where we fail to properly distinguish between good regulation and bad, so opposed to all of it we are; and we cannot be so stupid or arrogant as to double-down on our mistakes.

Onerous regulation created the unhealthy environment that let BP's beancounters evaluate the downside of what they were doing as the $75M liability cap.  They bought this cap when they bought the Obama administration with their push for green bullshit like Cap and Tax.

In retrospect, of course regulations similar to Canada's makes perfect sense.  But the details of what could have worked is not the issue.  The conservative issue is that the power to regulate is an invitation to graft.

60 Oops, left a sock on from another thread. Error on me.

61 #21

Yeah, just like Chrysler and GM had to pay up. 

BP, it's too big to fail.  But don't worry, Obama will find some way to pass the cost of their fees and fines onto the backs of the taxpayers.

62 Oops.  Stupid Sock!

63 So, Lord Browne is largely the one that started the "green energy" push at BP. The current board is just furthering & building on his agenda.

64 I have little sympathy for BP. They'll been one of the worst corporate offenders in the phony eco-pimpin' half-assed "green energy" department. Their TV commercials drove me to irritation.

On the other hand, I'm none to enthused about Barry and his gang finding any excuses to drag another company/industry under Federal govt. control, either.

So I pretty much detest both sides. Plug the damn hole(s), indeed.

65 So I pretty much detest both sides. Plug the damn hole(s), indeed.

BP vs. Obama

I'm rooting for injuries.

66 Their TV commercials drove me to irritation.


Especially that horrid, echoey music.

*Dun-dun-dun DUN _{dun dun dun} Dun-dun-dun DUN _{dun dun dun}*

67 Irene, here's the "darting in and out of the room" article:
Obama says BP will set aside $20 billion for spill

68

Barack Obama and Tony Hayward in Robert Benton's

Beta vs. Beta

69 Barry DumbAss was darting in and out of the room for the same reason car salesmen run back and forth to the sales manager - he was asking the people who REALLY run things what he should say.

70 Barry DumbAss was darting in and out of the room for the same reason car salesmen run back and forth to the sales manager - he was asking the people who REALLY run things what he should say laughing his ass off about the rubes outside and how they were going to rip them off.

FTFY.

71 When Stalin had Trotsky axed to death in Mexico, we didn't have to become Trotsky supporters to call Stalin a monster.

72 67 Their TV commercials drove me to irritation.


Especially that horrid, echoey music.

*Dun-dun-dun DUN _{dun dun dun} Dun-dun-dun DUN _{dun dun dun}*

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at June 16, 2010 04:10 PM (Aqzx6)

And then there were the ones with the cartoon babies driving around in a car...fueled by green energy or something. Someone should probably be in prison for creating those. Or at least flogged a bit.

73 As many know, I'm a New Orleans native, and many of the fishermen being affected by this in Lower Jefferson are patients of my father's. I have zero love for BP, but the notion that any administration is going to punitively absorb any corporation- particularly an international holding- is bullshit. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see anything that even pretends to cover this under the rule of law.

74
Gulf spill = scheme to fill democrat coffers.  Will any of the 20 billion get to the folks who need it?
stay tuned.

75

Ace, regarding your #30, I don't think I've heard conservatives argue against all or most regulations, though I do think some libertarians do. I think conservatives should be willing to consider regulations where absolutely necessary (security regs for nuclear power plants would be an obvious example), but we need to inform the public to have realistic expectations about the effectiveness of regulations. Regulatory capture is a very real and pervasive phenomenon, and this problem was evident at MMS late in the Bush presidency and can be seen throughout the government. Also, people need to know that big firms like lots of regulations because it makes life difficult for their smaller competitors. So, conservatives need to educate the populace that if they think they are sticking it to the fat cats by advancing the cause of more and more regulation, they've got things backward.

But in order to have a low regulatory environment we need to have a functioning tort system (and not the crap shoot we have now). I'm all for tearing BP a new one in the court of law, but we can't have a system where the deepest pockets are always assumed to be liable. We need reasonable caps on non-economic damages, elimination of junk science evidence and reforms like that. Unfortunately, that's a ton of work because most of it has to be replicated across 50 states.

Finally, and this relates more to financial regulation, when an executive commits a crime it should be treated as a crime and the exec should face real jail time. Too many times firms just pay a fine and that's that (maybe that's a sign of a weak government case, but that can't be true all of the time). We don't know if there's criminal negligence involved with BP, but there was sure plenty of outright fraud in the financial meltdown and the years leading up to it.

76

For a Contrary Opinion... suggesting that BP must be defended to preserve basic rights, see Ben Stein.

Ben Stein's an idiot, so I haven't bothered to read his blather, but just because BP is an obnoxious, crapheaded oil company that has been pushing the eco-agenda on the US and should be destroyed doesn't mean that it is okay to let it be killed by the feral government, against all law and reason, which sets up a terrible precedent for other corporations having to come under the jackboot of this third world junta that is running Washington.  BP and the Indonesian Imbecile are not allowed to collude on destroying the limits of the federal government and the responsibilities of private business just because they are both shitheaded weasels who need to follow Joseph Cao's recommendation.

77 BP is your typical pussy PC corporation.AND original pushers of Crap and Tax.They are also British,so yeah,they can fuck themselves.

78 Maybe if BP followed some of the regulations currently on the books, they wouldn't be in the fix they're in now.  As for being 'best buds' with Barry, shit, they're already into him for $1 million.

79 Deny BP due process of law because you are mad? That is suicide. Consider this exchange in A Man for All Seasons Although it is the law that eventually forces More's execution, the play also makes several powerful statements in support of the rule of law. At one point More's future son-in-law, Roper, urges him to arrest Richard Rich, whose perjury will eventually lead to More's execution. More answers that Rich has broken no law, "And go he should if he were the Devil himself until he broke the law!" Roper is appalled at the idea of granting the Devil the benefit of law, but More is adamant. "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

80 Ben Stein is absolutely correct. Obama's demands are nothing more than the demands of a dictator...no authorizing statute or constitutional power to make such demands. That, friends, is the very reason we have a constitution...to protect us from every whim and temper of the chief executive. That you would throw it all away because you are mad at BP.... you do not deserve the liberties, freedoms, and civil rights you enjoy.

81 Ben Stein's an idiot, so I haven't bothered to read his blather

You should, he said exactly the same thing you just did.

82 Haven't been able to read thru all comments (kiddoes everywhere) but need to know== 1. If BP ups and gives the money, once they pay up, they are OUT of this, right? 2. What's to keep all the attorneys from taking liberties with this fund like they did Big Tobacco? 3. After BP pays up their agreed amount, won't they pull out of Gulf drilling, never to be seen in this part of the world again?

83 While I don't like the Administration trying to make political hay out of the disaster (or would that be "petro-koolaid" to serve to the rest of us?).  I've got to say I have just about zero sympathy for BP and Halliburton (not much said about their role in this, but they were the ones at the helm when all heck broke loose).  From what is leaking about all the shortcuts that were taken, and all supposedly industry procedures bypassed, BP and Halliburton will both take a hosing on this disaster.

Unfortunately, our poseur-in-chief still wants to use each and every crisis to its best advantage for his liberal agenda, without ever really taking personal responsibility for any piece.  Under the Bush administration, a cleanup of MMS was well underway.  No real progress was made under the Obama administration, but the evil Bush is obviously to blame because he didn't finish the job before turning it over to our Dear Leader.

84 BP shareholders should sue and have the entire management team removed for egregious violation of their fiduciary duties.  Giving away $20 BILLION to some mysteriously-administered "fund" which does not in any way alleviate future legal liabilities when the statutory limit on federal fines and fees is $75 MILLION is simply unconscionable.

To those who want to beat up BP:  is it somehow your idea they WANTED  this to happen?  Whose money is bleeding out of that well?  BPs's, you idiots!  They don't need anyone to come lecture them about the need to plug it up, especially not some community organizer who voted "present" for the first eight weeks of the disaster.

85 Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

86 test

87

solar panelThe main products we manufacture and export as below:

　　Monocrystalline silicon solar panel, polycrystalline silicon solar panel, solar power system.

　　solar street light, wind solar hybrid street light, solar garden light, solar sensor light, solar lawn light.

LED lamp for solar garden light, solar brick light, solar street lightsolar post cap, solar road stud, other solar lights and accessories