The libertarian's guide to externality costing. What do we do about the oil spill?

[quote name='thrustbucket']The Constitution is short, as the governing document of our nation. It was written to be intelligible and accessible enough for any lay-person to read it. It was written to be consulted before making laws.

You are telling me I don't know a dang thing about the Constitution, and what it allows, because I have not read a $146 book of interpretations about the Constitution? That, my friend, illustrates best the problem I have been talking about.[/QUOTE]
Right. The problem is the "elites" (like me, a city IT worker) that bother to actually do scholarly work and readings of the Constitution are ruining the country. It's a very small investment to truly become versed in Con Law. A couple of weeks worth of reading will fundamentally change your view from a lay person to a intermediate reader, which vastly changes your understanding. But that's not fair right? Thrust, don't you dare let me steam roll the right of the ignorant to announce it and proudly remain so. Ignorant-Americans have gone unprotected for far too long.

Field preemption for the mother fucking win.

Wait. What? You have never even heard of field preemption? Maybe you should... you know... like learn about our Constitution and interpretation of laws then.

I know. Iz hard n spensive.

edit: I'm not throwing stones at all readers. I realize we have lives and shit. The Constitution, law, and team fortress 2 are my hobbies. Nobody can know it all. I sure as shit don't. But maybe, JUST MAYBE, if someone isn't going to take the time to put forth even a minimum of effort to learn the ins and outs of our legal standards, well, maybe they shouldn't be throwing stones. The Constitution is not an idiot's guide to law and idiots shouldn't be ruing the fact that they choose to remain idiots while scorning those that choose education as a way of respecting American's legal heritage.

In conclusion, your mom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heh, thanks. Had a meeting yesterday with the head of the department and my boss that pissed me off royally, seemed appropriate.
 
But conservatives said it wasn't bad. The environmentalists just exaggerated so America would seriously start to consider Big Oil as evil.
 
Rush is the defacto leader of the Republican party.

Any Republican politician who has crossed him so far has been forced to grovel at his feet within three days.
 
Though he did eventually change his tune, Gov Haley Barbour downplayed it early on. He said that they get some amount of tar and oil seepage naturally, so it wasnt a big deal.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']eh, i thought you meant an actual republican said it, not a talking head.[/QUOTE]

I insist that Strell make you an avatar of "rope-a-dope" Homer Simpson.
 
From now on, I'm going to claim to be a democrat and talk about how the moon landing was faked and Bush and the Jews planned 9/11.

And then, all democrats will have to agree with me. Because I said I was a democrat.
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hSsGsiZ18JYxHwuLGeC7Tu4T2nLwD9HCTPUO0

Kinda sorta good thing. Now to clean up the shit.

Apparently right wing Bushies are laughing at Obama's 'Mission Accomplished' moment (declaring it's over before it's over.)

I think Jon Stewart mentioned this before, but it's funny that the best example of failure is Bush.

'Is this Obama's Katrina?'
'Is this Obama's Abu Ghraib?'
'Is this Obama's 9/11?'
'Is this Obama's Mission Accomplished moment?'

All this despite the phalynx the Bushies formed around Bush when he was being criticized for the shit in the 1st place.

EDIT: Stewart puts it very eloquently:
“Remember that terrible thing that Bush did that we fought for eight years to convince you wasn’t bad, but actually good? Well now we use those very incidents as the low water mark for your guy…”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']From now on, I'm going to claim to be a democrat and talk about how the moon landing was faked and Bush and the Jews planned 9/11.

And then, all democrats will have to agree with me. Because I said I was a democrat.[/QUOTE]
You are a strange person.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yes, obviously Rush speaks for all conservatives everywhere.[/QUOTE]

Yes, he does. How many Repubs have gone against him and lived to be re-elected?

He speaks for the right as much as John Stewart speaks for the left. Neither are elected but hold much power over the hearts and minds of their "constituencies". I don't see how that's a stretch.
 
To be honest, I love Jon Stewart.

Last night he summed up the state of American Politics well:

Republicans are assholes
Democrats are pussies
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwRsJv8yGKE[/video]
 
A PR push by the government talking about how great a job BP is doing?

Wonder how much BP paid for that.

Probably about $20 Billion...
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] A PR push by the government talking about how great a job BP is doing?

Wonder how much BP paid for that.

Probably about $20 Billion... [/QUOTE]

Here ya go Bob, this'll go well with your milkshakedown...


tin_foil.jpg
 
...From the uber-pro business Clusterstock:
Two months ago BP was reassuring everyone it would pay for all damages related to the oil spill.

Now the real strategy is leaking out.

New York Times obtained this letter from a BP lawyer saying Transocean employees -- which include the only casualties from the disaster -- would have to settle all claims with Transocean. Many of them, BP will argue, have already signed away the right to sue:

“To be clear, it is BP’s position, consistent with this indemnification, that any settlement between Transocean and any of its injured or deceased employees must include a full release of all BP entities from any and all claims or liability in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident,” said the letter, from John T. Hickey, a lawyer for BP. “This full release of all BP entities would indeed bar any subsequent claims against the fund being established by BP and the claims facility that will be administered by Mr. Feinberg.”

The NYT also talks about hidden benefits of that $20-billion claims fund, which defines eligibility by proximity, thus shielding BP from claims from indirectly screwed businesses.

Businesses that are eligible for claims will have to sign away the right to sue BP.

Think BP's interpretation of the law will hold? Expect the biggest legal battle in US history.
Click to expand...
 
So, wait - the $20 Billion that BP gleefully handed over to the government to pass out is being passed out by the government with the strings attached that recipients of that money cannot sue BP for damages?

Now the other shoe is dropping. That's a pretty sweetheart deal BP got - I might have to take back everything I sad about extortion. Basically, BP and the Federal government came up with a pretty good plan - set aside the $20 Billion to pay some people whatever the government decided they were worth. Make all these stories and headlines about how BP is going to go bankrupt and end up not paying much of anyone else. Make other stories about how quick and easy it is to get (legitimate) reimbursement from this government fund. Everyone rushes to be a part of the $20 Billion out of court settlement and they lose any rights to go after BP for further damages.

Sounds pretty awesome.
 
[quote name='NYT'] The eligibility requirements for compensation from the fund are similar to those of the 9/11 victims compensation fund, which Mr. Feinberg also handled. People affected by the spill seeking final settlements face a choice similar to that faced by the 9/11 victims: If they decide to sue instead of accepting a settlement, they could face years of litigation; and if they decide to accept the settlement, it could come before the full damage from the spill is known.
A key difference between the spill fund and the Sept. 11 victim compensation fund is the matter of geographic proximity. The 9/11 fund took that issue into account, but it was less controversial because that fund focused on compensating people injured in the terrorist attacks and families of those killed rather than adversely affected [/QUOTE]

Yeah that's a pretty horrible situation to be placed in.
 
What was that I was hearing about Obama not carrying water for BP in this one? Planning to hold them accountable?

I suppose it's still not too late...
 
What was that I hearing about the $20 billion 'shakedown'? Shedding a tear for poor BP, the government accosting them for $?

I suppose it's still not too late...
 
I already said, that perhaps I was wrong - perhaps Obama did give BP a pretty sweet deal. Looks like all that money they gave his campaign came in handy after all.
 
Well I support the $20 billion escrow fund, I don't support any immunity strings attached to it.

We already acknowledge and criticize the idea that the government has been trying to downplay the amount of oil still there. Similarly the aid they're giving to BP to prevent reporters from taking pictures and such has been and should be criticized.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Well I support the $20 billion escrow fund, I don't support any immunity strings attached to it.[/QUOTE]

I'd be highly interested in knowing where the seed for that idea came from and who's approval was put on it.
 
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44828.html

The federal investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has found no proof that BP, Halliburton and other companies associated with the drilling disaster put profits ahead of safety, a lead investigator said Monday.
Click to expand...


The federal investigation of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill has found no proof that BP, Halliburton and other companies associated with the drilling disaster put profits ahead of safety, a lead investigator said Monday.
Click to expand...


no proof
Click to expand...
 
Oh well that's a relief to hear. I guess that means all the oil destroying the environment is going to evaporate any second now.
 
You guys need to do a public service announcement commercial reassuring everyone "Don't worry, the only way you can be this stupid is on purpose."
 
wasn't your guys whole argument against capitalism the fact tha BP caused this oil spill because they wanted to make a few extra bucks by cheaping out on the necessary safety protocols?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top