The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

Use everyone who is poor to clean up the Gulf coast and then let them die from the fumes.

 

Solves on unemployment, welfare, and social security,

[kapkomet]

Solves on unemployment, welfare, and social security,

 

It should be considered... just as long as people sign on the dotted line to not sue the government for the cancer. Make BP pay. Comrade Barackus, Chairman of BP, says "make it so".

[southsider2k5]

It should be considered... just as long as people sign on the dotted line to not sue the government for the cancer. Make BP pay. Comrade Barackus, Chairman of BP, says "make it so".

 

The best part is that the federal government can do whatever they want, so they are pretty much impossible to sue... BONUS!

[Balta1701]

It should be considered... just as long as people sign on the dotted line to not sue the government for the cancer. Make BP pay. Comrade Barackus, Chairman of BP, says "make it so".

so, are you still telling people how you have never defended BP?

[kapkomet]

so, are you still telling people how you have never defended BP?

 

Oh, yea, I'm "defending them" all over the place by mocking our sit-n-spin Comrade new Chairman of the Board of BP.

 

Show me, still, where I've "defended" BP.

[southsider2k5]

Oh, yea, I'm "defending them" all over the place by mocking our sit-n-spin Comrade new Chairman of the Board of BP.

 

Show me, still, where I've "defended" BP.

 

Its the tactic. Dissent isn't patriotic anymore, it means you are a corporate shill.

[Balta1701]

Oh, yea, I'm "defending them" all over the place by mocking our sit-n-spin Comrade new Chairman of the Board of BP.

 

Show me, still, where I've "defended" BP.

If that's not defending BP's virgin honor from that horrible rapist Obama, I don't know what is.

[Balta1701]

Its the tactic. Dissent isn't patriotic anymore, it means you are a corporate shill.

"I dissent! The Federal Government should be doing all it can to encourage oil spills. It is our only way to protect us from the dolphins! And they're coming, we all know they're coming!"

[southsider2k5]

If that's not defending BP's virgin honor from that horrible rapist Obama, I don't know what is.

 

Exactly. That is a cheap tactic that isn't at all true. Its a strawman at its finest. Kap is very proud.

[Balta1701]

Exactly. That is a cheap tactic that isn't at all true. Its a strawman at its finest. Kap is very proud.

Yup.

 

"I dissent, I don't think invading Iraq, losing several thousand american lives and spending a couple trillion dollars is a good idea".

 

"I dissent, I think the Vuvuzela is a great invention".

 

"I dissent, BP has every right to destroy the gulf coast".

 

You have every right to dissent. Just don't expect to avoid ridicule when you're defending an oil spill from those horrible fishermen and bed and breakfast owners.

[southsider2k5]

Yup.

 

"I dissent, I don't think invading Iraq, losing several thousand american lives and spending a couple trillion dollars is a good idea".

 

"I dissent, I think the Vuvuzela is a great invention".

 

"I dissent, BP has every right to destroy the gulf coast".

 

You have every right to dissent. Just don't expect to avoid ridicule when you're defending an oil spill from those horrible fishermen and bed and breakfast owners.

 

Again, another strawman.

[Balta1701]

Again, another strawman.

So, you'd argue that the way this should be dealt with is the way the Valdez was dealt with; 20 years of court battles and about $8000/person payout 20 years later to the survivors?

[mr_genius]

"I dissent, I think the Vuvuzela is a great invention".

 

2 words: Vuvuzela tax

[Balta1701]

2 words: Vuvuzela tax

I think the 2nd amendment comes into play there somewhere...

[southsider2k5]

So, you'd argue that the way this should be dealt with is the way the Valdez was dealt with; 20 years of court battles and about $8000/person payout 20 years later to the survivors?

 

 

Sure, because there is no middle ground. If you don't find 100% agreement with Barack, you are in favor or a 20 year court battle.

 

Seriously don't ever make fun of Kap again. You have lost all rights to the high moral ground.

[kapkomet]

 

Sure, because there is no middle ground. If you don't find 100% agreement with Barack, you are in favor or a 20 year court battle.

 

Seriously don't ever make fun of Kap again. You have lost all rights to the high moral ground.

 

Whaddayah know. I think after about two years of this nonsense, my point has FINALLY been made.

[Balta1701]

 

Sure, because there is no middle ground. If you don't find 100% agreement with Barack, you are in favor or a 20 year court battle.

 

Seriously don't ever make fun of Kap again. You have lost all rights to the high moral ground.

Actually, yes, if you oppose the idea of some sort of escrow account, then you are in favor of a 20+ year court battle.

 

The reasoning is quite simple, it's all about BP's motivations. Hypothetically, let's say that BP wants to minimize the costs of this spill to maximize their long-term profits.

 

If there is no escrow account, then the logical move for BP is to do exactly what Exxon did. Pay enough that you get off the front page, then drag out the court proceeding as long as humanly possible, because people will start dying and the courts will slowly chop away at the settlement, especially if you can control the discovery process as well as Exxon did.

 

Now, basically anything other than an escrow account will have the same response. If you want the government to impose fines, or send them a bill, whatever, the motivation for BP is the same; the longer they drag things out in the courts, the more they make.

 

Now, instead, you put $20 billion in an escrow account. You've totally changed BP's motivations, because you've created a disincentive for them to fight for 20 years a-la Exxon. If the total cost is going to come to $18 billion, then there is a $2 billion reward available for BP to get their bills paid early rather than late. If BP spends their time fighting, then they have to wait longer to get their money back.

 

So yeah, if you think that the escrow account is a horrible shakedown, then you're advocating for the process that Exxon went through. And we saw quite well how easy it was for them to screw over tens of thousands of people with that process. The laws that changed after Exxon actually made something like their court fight even more likely, not less, frankly, if it does go to the courts.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, yes, if you oppose the idea of some sort of escrow account, then you are in favor of a 20+ year court battle.

 

The reasoning is quite simple, it's all about BP's motivations. Hypothetically, let's say that BP wants to minimize the costs of this spill to maximize their long-term profits.

 

If there is no escrow account, then the logical move for BP is to do exactly what Exxon did. Pay enough that you get off the front page, then drag out the court proceeding as long as humanly possible, because people will start dying and the courts will slowly chop away at the settlement, especially if you can control the discovery process as well as Exxon did.

 

Now, basically anything other than an escrow account will have the same response. If you want the government to impose fines, or send them a bill, whatever, the motivation for BP is the same; the longer they drag things out in the courts, the more they make.

 

Now, instead, you put $20 billion in an escrow account. You've totally changed BP's motivations, because you've created a disincentive for them to fight for 20 years a-la Exxon. If the total cost is going to come to $18 billion, then there is a $2 billion reward available for BP to get their bills paid early rather than late. If BP spends their time fighting, then they have to wait longer to get their money back.

 

So yeah, if you think that the escrow account is a horrible shakedown, then you're advocating for the process that Exxon went through. And we saw quite well how easy it was for them to screw over tens of thousands of people with that process. The laws that changed after Exxon actually made something like their court fight even more likely, not less, frankly, if it does go to the courts.

 

This would be great if it wasn't a 100% made up strawman.

 

Let's say hypothetically it was in Barack Obama's best interest to have the worst diaster possible, aided by the government ignoring it for two months, so that he could pass things like Cap and Trade based on the outrage from the general public.

 

See, now we have to impeach Barack Obama.

[Balta1701]

This would be great if it wasn't a 100% made up strawman.

 

Let's say hypothetically it was in Barack Obama's best interest to have the worst diaster possible, aided by the government ignoring it for two months, so that he could pass things like Cap and Trade based on the outrage from the general public.

 

See, now we have to impeach Barack Obama.

So, you've basically adopted Kap's position?

 

Anyway, please tell me where I'm wrong. BP has $7 billion or so cash on hand right now. They've already spilled enough oil that the U.S. could fine them enough to push them into bankruptcy, and the only thing that would protect them is delays in the court system. $4300/barrel in fines for negligence, plus the couple billion in extraction fees that they should owe to the government, plus cleanup costs. BP would fight that tooth and nail, because if they didn't, they'd be in chapter 11.

[southsider2k5]

So, you've basically adopted Kap's position?

 

No, I have adopted yours. Make up a worst case hypothetical situation, and treat it as reality.

[Balta1701]

No, I have adopted yours. Make up a worst case hypothetical situation, and treat it as reality.

A hypothetical worst case scenario = BP doing Exactly what Exxon did.

 

Pretty remarkable for something to be hypothetical when it happened exactly that way the last time.

 

That's like me saying "it's going to be colder 6 months from now than today" and you saying "That's a worst case hypothetical".

[southsider2k5]

A hypothetical worst case scenario = BP doing Exactly what Exxon did.

 

Pretty remarkable for something to be hypothetical when it happened exactly that way the last time.

 

That's like me saying "it's going to be colder 6 months from now than today" and you saying "That's a worst case hypothetical".

 

So when are we impeaching Barack Obama?

[Balta1701]

So when are we impeaching Barack Obama?

When does the next Congress take office? Jan 3? I'd expect it wouldn't take too long afterwards for the first articles to be filed.

[southsider2k5]

When does the next Congress take office? Jan 3? I'd expect it wouldn't take too long afterwards for the first articles to be filed.

 

Presidents have historical manipulated situations, including this one, for their own benefit, and lied to the public about it. That means since this has happened before, they obviously need to react with a worst case scenario in mind, so I await the Democratic Congress doing this on Monday.

[Balta1701]

Presidents have historical manipulated situations, including this one, for their own benefit, and lied to the public about it. That means since this has happened before, they obviously need to react with a worst case scenario in mind, so I await the Democratic Congress doing this on Monday.

Huh?