[OAW]

So the Congressional hearings with BP's CEO started today, and the first thing out of the ranking GOP member's mouth on the House Energy and Commerce Committee was an apology to BP ....

Republican Rep. Joe Barton had some harsh words for the White House at a key hearing Thursday on the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster: "I am ashamed of what happened at the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation would be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown - in this case a $20 billion dollar shakedown." Barton was referring to BP's establishment - at the behest of the administration - of an escrow account to pay for claims.

Other GOP House members immediately ran for cover .....

"Mr. Barton’s remarks are out of touch with this tragedy and I feel his comments call into question his judgment and ability to serve in a leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He should step down as Ranking Member of the Committee, "said Rep. Jeff Miller, a Republican who represents portions of the Florida coastline significantly impacted by the BP oil spill.

Meanwhile, Rep. Adam Putnam, another Florida Republican, said Barton "owes the people of the gulf coast an apology, not the CEO of the company that caused this mess."

On Miller's call for Barton step down from the committee post, Putnam didn't outright call for the Texas Republican to resign, but said," There are a lot of conversations going on right now."

Rep Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, also said he disagreed with the comments and added he was informed Barton was going to retract them. Scalise also said that "it's not my decision to make" if Barton remains in his leadership position.

House Minority Leader John Boehner also added his voice to the GOP chorus disagreeing with Barton's comments.

"I have said since the beginning that BP ought to be held responsible for every dime of this tragedy," the Ohio Republican said. "They ought to be held accountable to stop the leak and get it cleaned up as soon as possible."

Then the House GOP leadership went further and forced Rep. Barton to cry uncle .....

Under fire for appearing to shield BP from criticism Thursday morning, Rep. Joe Barton was told by House GOP leaders later in the day to apologize "immediately" or lose his position as the senior Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, several Republican sources tell CNN.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, delivered the pointed demand to Barton, a Texas congressman.

"He was told apologize immediately or you will lose your position immediately," said a Republican leadership aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Rep. Barton, recognizing the writing on the wall, then came out and apologized for his earlier apology ....

Rep. Joe Barton apologized Thursday for using the term 'shakedown' regarding the the $20 billion fund BP agreed to establish for damage compensation, and retracted his apology to BP:

"I apologize for using the term 'shakedown' with regard to yesterday's actions at the White House in my opening statement this morning, and I retract my apology to BP. As I told my colleagues yesterday and said again this morning, BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico. BP should fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident. BP and the federal government need to stop the leak, clean up the damage, and take whatever steps necessary to prevent a similar accident in the future.

"I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident."

So the question now becomes .... is this anti-government sentiment run amok? The thoughts of a single GOP congressman? Or a sentiment shared by other GOP elected officials who simply have sense enough not to express it publicly at this time?

OAW

[BadKosh]

Except that the president has no power to force BP to do anything. NONE. It was a political shake down. Mob tactics. Typical.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except that the president has no power to force BP to do anything. NONE. It was a political shake down. Mob tactics. Typical.

Well it seems to me that there are a few possibilities that could be at play here ....

1. BP decided that it was in its financial interest to pony up 20 billion into an escrow fund to pay for the damage that it has caused and not try to hang its hat on the 75 million dollar cap presently in federal law. In an attempt NOT to be "penny wise and pound foolish".

or .......

2. You are apparently mistaken.

or ....

3. It's a little bit of both.

In any event, President Obama has said from the beginning that his administration was going to hold BP accountable and that they would pay for this mess. Not the American taxpayer. In his speech the other day from the Oval Office he said ...

Originally Posted by President Obama

I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness.

And the next thing we hear is that BP is setting aside 20 billion into an escrow fund to be managed by an independent party to adjudicate claims for damages. Which is a good thing for the American people any way you slice it. But feel free come to the defense of BP if you like.

So I suppose you have answered my question ... at least from your own personal perspective. The comments of Rep. Barton aren't his alone. They apparently have some support on the right.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Didn't Europe fine Microsoft $613 million?

Didn't the US government fine Toyota $16.4 million recently?

Citigroup - fined $400 million in 2003
AIG - fined $126 million in 2004
Exxon - fined $125 million in 1991 to settle oil spill damages
Enron - fined $1.5 billion in 2005
Dominion Virginia Power - Agreed to $1.2 billion to clean up pollution

Many corporations have been fined and/or forced to settle civil claims and damages.

[CreepDogg]

Wait, so the government can fine me for freaking jaywalking, but they can't fine a corporation for destroying a good chunk of the country's coastline? Only in right-wing loony-land...

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Wait, so the government can fine me for freaking jaywalking, but they can't fine a corporation for destroying a good chunk of the country's coastline? Only in right-wing loony-land...

Classic case of cognitive dissonance IMO.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Corporations are above the law.

You can't put them in jail.
You can't fine them.
You can't tell them what to do.

I'm am now a corporation.


I bet BadKosh thinks it's okay for corporations to sell nuclear weapons technology to Korea and Iran too.

Bad Obama!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Corporations are above the law.

You can't put them in jail.
You can't fine them.
You can't tell them what to do.

I'm am now a corporation.


I bet BadKosh thinks it's okay for corporations to sell nuclear weapons technology to Korea and Iran too.

Bad Obama!

Do you ever get tired of spouting your incessant bullshit?

No one has said anything like this. You're a walking strawman.

Seriously. Grow up. Get a life.

greg

[mduell]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Didn't Europe fine Microsoft $613 million?

Didn't the US government fine Toyota $16.4 million recently?

Citigroup - fined $400 million in 2003
AIG - fined $126 million in 2004
Exxon - fined $125 million in 1991 to settle oil spill damages
Enron - fined $1.5 billion in 2005
Dominion Virginia Power - Agreed to $1.2 billion to clean up pollution

Many corporations have been fined and/or forced to settle civil claims and damages.

This $20b isn't a fine. It's an escrow account so the Obama administration can control the payments rather than BP. I wonder how much Acorn will get for organizing the affected communities.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

This $20b isn't a fine. It's an escrow account so the Obama administration can control the payments rather than BP. I wonder how much Acorn will get for organizing the affected communities.

Stop smoking weed.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Do you ever get tired of spouting your incessant bullshit?

No one has said anything like this. You're a walking strawman.

Seriously. Grow up. Get a life.

greg

Sure BadKosh did. He said the president can't force BP to do anything.

This means if BP wants to sell nuclear weapons to North Korea, the president can't force BP to stop.

So why don't you grow up and get a life.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Didn't Europe fine Microsoft $613 million?

Didn't the US government fine Toyota $16.4 million recently?

Citigroup - fined $400 million in 2003
AIG - fined $126 million in 2004
Exxon - fined $125 million in 1991 to settle oil spill damages
Enron - fined $1.5 billion in 2005
Dominion Virginia Power - Agreed to $1.2 billion to clean up pollution

Many corporations have been fined and/or forced to settle civil claims and damages.

OK so let it go through the courts, not the oval office. Due process and all, or is that to tough of a concept for you to understand? Thats right Libs don't read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK so let it go through the courts, not the oval office. Due process and all, or is that to tough of a concept for you to understand? Thats right Libs don't read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Bill of Rights?

Protects citizens in the US, not foreign corporations.

What's next? BP has the right to vote in the US?

[ironknee]

defending bp...typical hick

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

OK so let it go through the courts, not the oval office. Due process and all, or is that to tough of a concept for you to understand? Thats right Libs don't read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

It appears that you aren't reading the news reports.

BP has reached an agreement with the federal government to place $20 billion in an escrow fund to pay for claims in the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster, President Barack Obama announced at the White House on Wednesday. The amount does not represent a total cap on the amount the oil giant may ultimately have to pay, the president said.

Obama's announcement came at the conclusion of a lengthy White House meeting between top administration and BP officials.

The $20 billion fund will be administered by an independent third party, Obama said. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg -- who oversaw the compensation fund for victims of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks -- will oversee the claims process, he added.

The fund "will not supersede individuals' or states' rights to present claims in court," he said. BP, he asserted, will remain liable for the environmental disaster in the Gulf.

So the escrow fund and the payments made will NOT be administered by the "Oval Office" or BP. If Bush had jawboned BP into establishing this fund our good friends on the right would be praising him for "cutting the red tape" and "standing up for the American people" and "getting things done". But because Obama did it now it's a "shakedown".

But I understand. There are those who's first instinct is to look out for the interests of corporations and the wealthy. And there are those who's first instinct is to look out for the interests of the people at large. It's pretty clear which group Rep. Barton belongs to. As well as these other GOP / Tea Party favorites ....

But Barton was not alone among Republicans who question the $20 billion fund.

Georgia Representative Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House members, issued a statement arguing the same point.

Price said BP's willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is "hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics."

And former Texas Republican Representative Dick Armey, who was House majority leader and is a leading voice in the conservative Tea Party movement, told a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that Obama lacks the constitutional authority to set up such a fund.

In addition, conservative Republican Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota told the Heritage Foundation think tank that the escrow account was a "redistribution-of-wealth fund."

Barton is the biggest recipient of oil and gas industry campaign contributions in the House of Representatives, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Its data showed that Barton has collected $1,447,880 from political action committees and individuals connected with the oil and gas industry since 1989.

Apology to BP's Hayward triggers uproar | Reuters

This is what I mean by anti-government sentiment run amok. Anti-Obama sentiment run amok. These people are blathering on about "due process" and "going through the courts" simply because it was the Obama administration that pressured BP into setting up this fund. But any other time they would be b*tching about the "trial lawyers" that would inevitably be involved in a class action suit against BP. So now I suppose they would rather the people in the Gulf Coast get nickeled and dimed by BP. I suppose they would rather the people of the Gulf get to split 60% of the eventual judgement in a class action lawsuit ... because the attorneys will take 40% off the top. A process that will undoubtedly drag on for years as it wound its way through the court system. Split 60% of that 75 million dollar cap for economic damages that currently exists in federal law ... rather than be compensated on an expedited basis from a fund with nearly 300 times as many resources.

Yeah. Poor BP ... a company with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars ... needs its right-wing apologists looking out for its corporate interests ahead of the interests of the people of the Gulf Coast.

Originally Posted by Rep. Michelle Bachmann

But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there -- 'We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced.' And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest -- they've got to be legitimate claims.

Right Now - Bachmann to BP: Don't 'be chumps'



OAW

[hyteckit]

Oil Spill Trust Fund isn't new.

In August 1990, when President George H. W. Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) into law and authorized use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), the Fund was already four years old. Congress created the Fund in 1986, but did not pass legislation to authorize the use of the money or the collection of revenue necessary for its maintenance. It was only after the Exxon Valdez grounding and the passage of OPA that authorization was granted.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Bill of Rights?

Protects citizens in the US, not foreign corporations.

What's next? BP has the right to vote in the US?

Again you miss the point. OBAMA can't do anything but ask. He does not legally have the power to make any corp do anything. A fact you seem to miss because you are not reading.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It appears that you aren't reading the news reports.

And you obviously believe all the leftwing hacks who lie to you every day.

Originally Posted by OAW 

So the escrow fund and the payments made will NOT be administered by the "Oval Office" or BP. If Bush had jawboned BP into establishing this fund our good friends on the right would be praising him for "cutting the red tape" and "standing up for the American people" and "getting things done". But because Obama did it now it's a "shakedown".

So is that why the lawyers showed up before any cleanup aid? Where did you get your news again?

Originally Posted by OAW 

But I understand. There are those who's first instinct is to look out for the interests of corporations and the wealthy. And there are those who's first instinct is to look out for the interests of the people at large. It's pretty clear which group Rep. Barton belongs to. As well as these other GOP / Tea Party favorites ....

And then those who follow due process and don't agree with the illegal BS the wimp president has been wssting his time on.



Apology to BP's Hayward triggers uproar | Reuters

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is what I mean by anti-government sentiment run amok. Anti-Obama sentiment run amok. These people are blathering on about "due process" and "going through the courts" simply because it was the Obama administration that pressured BP into setting up this fund. But any other time they would be b*tching about the "trial lawyers" that would inevitably be involved in a class action suit against BP. So now I suppose they would rather the people in the Gulf Coast get nickeled and dimed by BP. I suppose they would rather the people of the Gulf get to split 60% of the eventual judgement in a class action lawsuit ... because the attorneys will take 40% off the top. A process that will undoubtedly drag on for years as it wound its way through the court system. Split 60% of that 75 million dollar cap for economic damages that currently exists in federal law ... rather than be compensated on an expedited basis from a fund with nearly 300 times as many resources.

Yeah. Poor BP ... a company with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars ... needs its right-wing apologists looking out for its corporate interests ahead of the interests of the people of the Gulf Coast.



Right Now - Bachmann to BP: Don't 'be chumps'



OAW

Washington liberal agenda Post?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again you miss the point. OBAMA can't do anything but ask. He does not legally have the power to make any corp do anything. A fact you seem to miss because you are not reading.

The President has no power to make any corp do anything?

Really? Because corps are above the law?

What if we classified BP as a terrorist group?

I'm pretty sure the President has the executive power to regulate international trade, impose embargoes, impose tariffs, and so forth.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The President has no power to make any corp do anything?

Really? Because corps are above the law?

What if we classified BP as a terrorist group?

The President isn't "the Law". The courts are. Due Process. Again with that lack of reading the Constitution to see where the presidents powers are limited.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The President isn't "the Law". The courts are. Due Process. Again with that lack of reading the Constitution to see where the presidents powers are limited.

The law is the law.

The law isn't the President or the courts. Courts don't make up the law. Congress does. Courts just determine if the laws were violated, and if there were any violations, what the punishment or fine will be.

Legislative Branch - makes the laws
Executive Branch - enforces the laws
Judicial Branch - interprets the laws

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

And you obviously believe all the leftwing hacks who lie to you every day.

So is that why the lawyers showed up before any cleanup aid? Where did you get your news again?

And then those who follow due process and don't agree with the illegal BS the wimp president has been wssting his time on.


Washington liberal agenda Post?

I'll just note for the record that none of these responses refute what I said by any stretch of the imagination. But hey ... what else could you do except be argumentative when the facts simply don't support your position?

And to put a final nail in your proverbial coffin, let's see what BP itself had to say about it with their own press release since we've all apparently been deluded by "leftwing hacks" and the "Washington liberal agenda Post"?

Release date: 16 June 2010

Following a meeting with the President of the United States, the BP Board announces an agreed package of measures to meet its obligations as a responsible party arising from the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Agreement was reached to create a $20bn claims fund over the next three and a half years on the following basis:

- BP will initially make payments of $3bn in Q3 of 2010 and $2bn in Q4 of 2010. These will be followed by a payment of $1.25bn per quarter until a total of $20bn has been paid in.

- While the fund is building, BP's commitments will be assured by the setting aside of U.S. assets with a value of $20bn. The intention is that this level of assets will decline as cash contributions are made to the fund.

- The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

- The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

- Any money left in the fund once all legitimate claims have been resolved and paid will revert to BP.

And that part in blue above? That's called "due process" in away you slice it. But feel free to continue letting little things like facts get in the way of your opinion.

OAW

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except that the president has no power to force BP to do anything. NONE. It was a political shake down. Mob tactics. Typical.

soooo.... the president has no power to FORCE bp into doing anything...

however bp has agreed to the 20 billion dollars fund...

because obama is a mob who threatened bp with _(______)_ fill in the bank please

what could obama have done? what do you mean by shakedown?

what? more bad pr? more americans upset with the disaster? like liberals are holding back their anger until obama says ok go and protest them?

"a political shake down"... what do u mean by that exactly? bp is not a political entity. right? so how could it be political?

please show your work my muffin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yeah. Poor BP ... a company with a market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars ... needs its right-wing apologists looking out for its corporate interests ahead of the interests of the people of the Gulf Coast.

Dude, you gotta spare me this shameless bs. Seriously. I've seen Barton's $1.4 million for an apology being highlighted in a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that your boy wonder declined foreign assistance in the gulf because his campaign coffers were lined with over $60 million from Big Labor. Trust me, Obama couldn't give a rat's ass about the people in the gulf. If he had, that escrow fund would be administered by a council of governors in the affected states. It's their loss, their money, not the Federal government's. After all, they're not doing anything to mitigate the shoreline damage, but they'll damned-sure keep their piece of the pie claiming they're due. This fund will be Federally managed and if you think BP is nickeling and diming people to death, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

No one is saying poor BP. Absolutely zilch, zip, zero, nada, no one. They're also not saying "YAYY OBAMA" for setting up an escrow account that will disappear into the bureaucratic abyss as we get to endure the inevitable reports of people not getting the requested funds and being stonewalled in Federal paperwork. Don't take my word for it, watch and see. Now they'll have to sue BP and the Federal government. YAYYY.

GOP... GOP... GOP... man, this has got nothing to do with the GOP. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it's a relief that Barton stopped the feeding frenzy of Dems eating their own over this thing, but...

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'll just note for the record that none of these responses refute what I said by any stretch of the imagination. But hey ... what else could you do except be argumentative when the facts simply don't support your position?

And to put a final nail in your proverbial coffin, let's see what BP itself had to say about it with their own press release since we've all apparently been deluded by "leftwing hacks" and the "Washington liberal agenda Post"?



And that part in blue above? That's called "due process" in away you slice it. But feel free to continue letting little things like facts get in the way of your opinion.

OAW

So just connect what obama says he did with reality. Where is HIS authority here? Why is it 'or'? Don't they know?

"Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

So there isn't the absolute guarantee that the courts will allow payments?

[BadKosh]

Political hacks not engineers!!
Obama spill panel big on policy, not engineering - Yahoo! News

[finboy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Didn't Europe fine Microsoft $613 million?

Didn't the US government fine Toyota $16.4 million recently?

Citigroup - fined $400 million in 2003
AIG - fined $126 million in 2004
Exxon - fined $125 million in 1991 to settle oil spill damages
Enron - fined $1.5 billion in 2005
Dominion Virginia Power - Agreed to $1.2 billion to clean up pollution

Many corporations have been fined and/or forced to settle civil claims and damages.

Shakedowns, all. $20B is just the biggest yet.

I think we can differentiate between fines and settlements AFTER damage determination and those wrung out BEFORE damage determination. Those done BEFORE are "slush funds" for ATLA and other political powers.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So just connect what obama says he did with reality. Where is HIS authority here? Why is it 'or'? Don't they know?

"Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

So there isn't the absolute guarantee that the courts will allow payments?

Again, the Obama Administration isn't managing the escrow fund. So "his authority" to do what exactly?

As for "Why is it 'or'?" .... well that's simple. The payments from the escrow fund to an affected party may be adjudicated in one of 3 manners.

Independent Claims Facility- think of this as the affected party seeking remedy via a private mediator. Often disputes are settled in this manner in order to avoid costly and dragged out court proceedings.

Court system - this is a traditional lawsuit filed by the affected party.

Agreed by BP- this is simply a settlement between the affected party and BP.

OAW

[BadKosh]

Who cares...Lets play some golf!

Obama hits golf course with Biden on another hot, humid weekend - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

[chabig]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm pretty sure the President has the executive power to regulate international trade, impose embargoes, impose tariffs, and so forth.

There is no executive power to force people to do things. This is not a dictatorship. The President is no more able to order you to purchase a blue car than he is to order BP to escrow money.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Dude, you gotta spare me this shameless bs. Seriously. I've seen Barton's $1.4 million for an apology being highlighted in a pathetic attempt to deflect from the fact that your boy wonder declined foreign assistance in the gulf because his campaign coffers were lined with over $60 million from Big Labor.

Trust me, Obama couldn't give a rat's ass about the people in the gulf. If he had, that escrow fund would be administered by a council of governors in the affected states. It's their loss, their money, not the Federal government's. After all, they're not doing anything to mitigate the shoreline damage, but they'll damned-sure keep their piece of the pie claiming they're due. This fund will be Federally managed and if you think BP is nickeling and diming people to death, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Well let's see about that ...

By the Numbers to Date:

-The administration has authorized the deployment of 17,500 National Guard troops from Gulf Coast states to respond to this crisis; to date, 1,612 have been activated.

-Approximately 33,700 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and wildlife and cleanup vital coastlines.

-More than 6,300 vessels are currently responding on site, including skimmers, tugs, barges, and recovery vessels to assist in containment and cleanup efforts—in addition to dozens of aircraft, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units.

-Approximately 2.47 million feet of containment boom and 3.91 million feet of sorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill—and approximately 50,000 feet of containment boom and 1.91 million feet of sorbent boom are available.

-Approximately 23.5 million gallons of an oil-water mix have been recovered.

-Approximately 1.39 million gallons of total dispersant have been applied—939,000 on the surface and 454,000 subsea. More than 470,000 gallons are available.

-250 controlled burns have been conducted, efficiently removing a total of more than 6.32 million gallons of oil from the open water in an effort to protect shoreline and wildlife.

-17 staging areas are in place to protect sensitive shorelines.

-Approximately 59 miles of Gulf Coast shoreline is currently experiencing impacts from BP’s leaking oil—approximately 34 miles in Louisiana, four miles in Mississippi, nine miles in Alabama, and 12 miles in Florida.

-Approximately 80,800 square miles of Gulf of Mexico federal waters remain closed to fishing in order to balance economic and public health concerns. More than 66 percent remain open. Details can be found at NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office.

-To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization and the European Union's Monitoring and Information Centre.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/...d-june-20-2010

Those items in red would seem to be at odds with that "declined foreign assistance in the gulf because his campaign coffers were lined with over $60 million from Big Labor" part.

And those items in blue would seem to be at odds with that "they're not doing anything to mitigate the shoreline damage" part.

As for the escrow fund itself, I'll just reiterate what the Administration and BP have both said. It will be independently managed. IOW, it won't be run by the federal government nor BP. If you insist on claiming that it will be "federally managed" despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary then ... OK.

I mean it's one thing to say that the escrow fund once implemented won't be administered in the manner as has been described. It's quite another to say that the description doesn't say what it says.

OAW

[OAW]

Looks like Rush Limbaugh has decided to put his 2 cents in ....

Conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh is taking aim at Republican leaders for rushing to demand Texas Rep. Joe Barton retract his controversial apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward during last week's congressional hearing.

On his radio show Monday, Limbaugh suggested the GOP leadership likely agrees with Barton's sentiments, but are driven by recent national polls which suggest the majority of Americans support President Barack Obama's push for BP to set aside $20 billion for future liability claims.

"It was a shakedown pure and simple," said Limbaugh, echoing the words for which Barton later apologized. "And somebody had the audacity to call it what it was and now everybody's running for the hills."

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Limbaugh bashes GOP for Barton response « - Blogs from CNN.com



OAW

[ironknee]

what does a shakedown mean?

"pb you must pay this money or else we'll send hillary!"??

lot of words and hot air but no meaning

dumb hicks

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by chabig 

There is no executive power to force people to do things. This is not a dictatorship. The President is no more able to order you to purchase a blue car than he is to order BP to escrow money.

I guess negotiating with foreign countries and foreign companies is not a concept very familiar to conservatives.

Negotiating? WTF is that? SHAKEDOWN!

Conservatives solves everything with guns and bombs.

Foreign countries and foreign companies don't listen to us? Lets kill them! Nuke those bastards! Put the mutherf*ckers in jail and torture them.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

what does a shakedown mean?

"pb you must pay this money or else we'll send hillary!"??

lot of words and hot air but no meaning

dumb hicks

What shakedown means.

To a conservative:
Shakedown means negotiating with foreign countries and foreign companies.
Something that only liberal wussies do by kowtowing to these foreign nations and companies.


To a liberal:
Shakedown means demanding foreign countries and foreign companies to do something with threats of violence, death, invasion, and torture.
Someone conservatives do on a standard basis because it's easier than negotiating.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I guess negotiating with foreign countries and foreign companies is not a concept very familiar to conservatives.

Negotiating? WTF is that? SHAKEDOWN!

Conservatives solves everything with guns and bombs.

Foreign countries and foreign companies don't listen to us? Lets kill them! Nuke those bastards! Put the mutherf*ckers in jail and torture them.

So much for your grasp on reality.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well let's see about that ...OAW

What of your list was not produced sorrowfully late is basically uncorroborated and meaningless. 33,000 people is hardly meaningful considering the area of shoreline to address. Another example; To date, the administration has leveraged assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as part of this historic, all-hands-on-deck response, including Canada, Germany, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization and the European Union's Monitoring and Information Centre.

You mean, last week? I mean, that's all gibberish and .gov propaganda talk. It doesn't mean anything. Have you been listening to the people in the region? They're not encouraged by your list. i.e. far too little too late. For example, the offer of four Dutch skimmers that were initially declined under the auspice of EPA regulation mere days into the event could've been collecting more than 146,000 barrels a day from the Gulf. They weren't dispatched to the region until after the 5th week into the spill. The Dutch have been doing this a long time. The EPA regulation that does not allow any ship to pump water with any oil back into the sea is poppycock. I don't care what they're "leveraging" if it doesn't extract oil.

fire booms neglected in spill response
Booms were to have already been available from a 1994 response plan, yet the Coast Guard was still testing small-scale burns on April 28th, 6 days after the spill had begun pumping oil into the gulf. Of course, there's nothing inherently complicated about them, they were tested in the Exxon Valdez spill in '89 and used in Texas in the San Jacinto spill in '94. When called upon to be delivered, they weren't available. I notice no deployment dates were listed in your .gov link.

Of course, this isn't to mention the misappropriation of resources (i.e. lawyers instead of engineers, SWAT instead of the Coast Guard, etc...) and the silly "kickin' ass" dog and pony show illustrating the absolute worst knee-jerk reactionary leadership response to a disaster of any I've seen.