As much as the Chicago mafia wants BP to do so. BP is now their bitch.
"Yes, all of which has yet to occur. BP has yet to face those consequences. "
In a predictable legal framework, the necessary environment for successful businesses, BP knows the consequences and has given indication to live up to them. No more is needed. The administration strong-arming companies outside of that framework is detrimental to business in this country. Just the thought they can do it is scary.
And after that you again described a shakedown.
Do what we want whether the law says you have to or not, and we may go easy on you. Not easy just in the legal and regulatory world, but now we can use our pulpit to tell the world you're not so bad a guy. Don't play ball and we'll use our position to demonize you daily, which can affect your stock, and get CEOs fired once they become too hot. We've handled this so badly so far, we need a clear victory. Pay up to make it look like we're really running the show and on top of things, or it will be bad for you.
Shakedown, quite simply.
"like this isn't a direct consequence of their own negligence and cutting of corners on safety and ignoring signs of danger all in the name of saving a few bucks, is beyond stupid, it's disgusting."
The investigation isn't even over, and you have them convicted. No wonder you are buying the administration's BS.
And BP is complying with the law, said it would from the beginning. Anything extra is a shakedown. The administration doesn't consider the current law adequate. Too bad. That's the law. But the administration thinks it can arbitrarily go above the law. And BP will comply because it is in an industry that is beholden to the government for its very existence.
he government will pursue the maximum legal penalties against them, which of course still means the government has to win their case in court which makes this completely unlike actual shakedowns
The consequence of not going above and beyond the law is carried out through the court system AND various executive regulatory actions. The full power of the federal government would be against them through "difficulties" in getting past all regulatory hurdles, through moratoriums on drilling (already flexed a little of that muscle), through the likely expense of hundreds of millions of dollars to defend against even baseless prosecution by the government.
You make those after there has been a legal finding of actions, such as a grand jury indictment. There has been no such finding here. Way in the beginning BP said it would pay for the legal consequences of its actions. As far as the law is concerned, no more pressure was necessary.
But Obama wanted more than the law.
Obviously they think their chances are better with a happy government than with a pissed one.
Legal and illegal is not the same as the administration being happy or unhappy. You again described the extralegal shakedown.
Before this BP had done everything legally required. The administration wanted more than that and used the threat of persecution to make BP pay up more.
It is clearly a shakedown, and of course BP thinks it's unfair. However, BP has a responsibility to the shareholders. If management thinks paying off a shakedown is cheaper than the full might (legal and extralegal) of the US government being brought to bear on them, then management won't risk going to court no matter how far outside the law the shakedown is.
And people complained about GW Bush abusing his power as executive.
The idiot or apathetic Democratic voters nominated this unelectable guy, and now they want a re-do so they can put in an establishment candidate who has a chance in hell of winning.
That does mean bringing back slavery, as slavery was a core institution at the time the US were founded.
A constitutional amendment has since outlawed that. Thus any enforcement of the prohibition at a federal level is constitutional.
We don't want federal programs (except Medicare! And agricultural subsidies! And small-business loans!)
True. They also want "smaller government" but want that government to be able to force their morality down the throats of everyone. See the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A religious conservative for small federal government is usually a contradiction in terms.
don't want the federal government involved in schools (but we want school prayers! And no evolution!)
Most of the action about that is on the state level.
We don't want environmental regulations (but now the Louisiana governor wants the government involved in cleaning the oil spill!)
The sand bars that were just approved are in federal waters, not within Jindal's jurisdiction. The spill also happened outside of Jindal's jurisdiction.
Massive upheaval of the world's economies, redirection of funds from current humanitarian efforts, the proposed effort to stop global warming has serious consequences in itself. Many will die.
"president must have birth certificate" (Hmm, yes I'm SURE AZ has the authority to make federal election laws)
The states run the presidential elections, which choose the state electors, who then choose the president. Any state has the power, I'd say the duty, to ensure candidates are qualified before allowing them on the state's ballots.
It's the politicians, as you mentioned. They can't resist the power that comes with greater control. They can't resist the spending that comes with more taxes.
For example, remember TARP paybacks? They were supposed to pay back to the treasury the money lent.
Not long after the ink was dry Kennedy was already working to spend money that got repaid.
The rank and file will dutifully do its job with this health care system, and the politicians will screw it up.
It may or may not take as long for them to screw it up as they did with social security, but they will do it.
Anybody who doesn't believe that needs to learn some history.
My problem is that people idolize Kennedy for his work in the health care arena, while damning HMOs as evil, while conveniently forgetting that Kennedy was the architect of that very HMO system.
If the HMO system had been authored by Republicans, it'd probably be all over the news that the Democrats were trying to reign in this Republican-created horror.
Let's see, how do I support the idea that a large government healthcare system would fail due to precedent? Let us look at previous things the government sought to fix yet screwed up. Education, no child left behind, disaster. Medicare/Medicaid, working so far but about to run out of money. Social security, working so far but also about to run out of money. Both due to gross mismanagement of the funds (they can't help but spend it on other things). When it comes to big things like this the only thing the government knows how to do is throw money at it in the form of a giant, unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
"As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine. And just a few years ago, congressional advocates of HMOs faced an administration which was long on HMO rhetoric, but very short on action. "
Mac also has a different order of buttons, with the close window button on the left, just as Windows has the close button on the right. Both are at the outside of the window, a good place. This puts the Windows order of buttons on the left -- doesn't work.
Mac also doesn't have a menu right underneath the buttons to accidentlly hit.
Mac has a complete user interface thought of to work together. Taking one element from it is a risky proposition, because unless you did your homework you don't know what other elements you also need to bring over in order for the first element to work right.
It's funny so many are complaining how HMOs are one of the biggest problems, then pass this health care bill with nods to Edward Kennedy, crusader of health care for the people.
They forget it's Kennedy who championed the creation of HMOs in the first place.
Monopolies are antithetical to an effective economy and thus will not be a foundation, but a burden.
The Founders understood this. But they decided in the end that a light burden such as this would in the balance spur more creation than the burden would have hindered. Madison figured this monopoly power could be reigned in by the will of the people should it be abused. Sadly, Madison was a bit naive. Maybe he should have listened to Jefferson more and either abolished this clause or made it much more limited.
You need a prescription, right? So that means you've seen a doctor and a pharmacist if you're taking it, and it was the responsibility of one or both of them to explain all of the risks to you. Too damn bad if you're taking prescription meds without a prescription, you deserve what you get.
The disclaimer is effectively inherent in any legally prescribed medication.
It seems that Global Warming has a model to predict pretty much anything.
The different models together predict pretty much everything, often contradictory, so whenever anything happens you just trot out the appropriate predictive model to prove Global Warming is right.
And hope people forget you used a contradictory model six months ago to explain something else.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as the Chicago mafia wants BP to do so. BP is now their bitch.
"Yes, all of which has yet to occur. BP has yet to face those consequences. "
In a predictable legal framework, the necessary environment for successful businesses, BP knows the consequences and has given indication to live up to them. No more is needed. The administration strong-arming companies outside of that framework is detrimental to business in this country. Just the thought they can do it is scary.
And after that you again described a shakedown.
Do what we want whether the law says you have to or not, and we may go easy on you. Not easy just in the legal and regulatory world, but now we can use our pulpit to tell the world you're not so bad a guy. Don't play ball and we'll use our position to demonize you daily, which can affect your stock, and get CEOs fired once they become too hot. We've handled this so badly so far, we need a clear victory. Pay up to make it look like we're really running the show and on top of things, or it will be bad for you.
Shakedown, quite simply.
"like this isn't a direct consequence of their own negligence and cutting of corners on safety and ignoring signs of danger all in the name of saving a few bucks, is beyond stupid, it's disgusting."
The investigation isn't even over, and you have them convicted. No wonder you are buying the administration's BS.
And BP is complying with the law, said it would from the beginning. Anything extra is a shakedown. The administration doesn't consider the current law adequate. Too bad. That's the law. But the administration thinks it can arbitrarily go above the law. And BP will comply because it is in an industry that is beholden to the government for its very existence.
he government will pursue the maximum legal penalties against them, which of course still means the government has to win their case in court which makes this completely unlike actual shakedowns
The consequence of not going above and beyond the law is carried out through the court system AND various executive regulatory actions. The full power of the federal government would be against them through "difficulties" in getting past all regulatory hurdles, through moratoriums on drilling (already flexed a little of that muscle), through the likely expense of hundreds of millions of dollars to defend against even baseless prosecution by the government.
it's a bargain, plea deal,
You make those after there has been a legal finding of actions, such as a grand jury indictment. There has been no such finding here. Way in the beginning BP said it would pay for the legal consequences of its actions. As far as the law is concerned, no more pressure was necessary.
But Obama wanted more than the law.
Obviously they think their chances are better with a happy government than with a pissed one.
Legal and illegal is not the same as the administration being happy or unhappy. You again described the extralegal shakedown.
Before this BP had done everything legally required. The administration wanted more than that and used the threat of persecution to make BP pay up more.
It is clearly a shakedown, and of course BP thinks it's unfair. However, BP has a responsibility to the shareholders. If management thinks paying off a shakedown is cheaper than the full might (legal and extralegal) of the US government being brought to bear on them, then management won't risk going to court no matter how far outside the law the shakedown is.
And people complained about GW Bush abusing his power as executive.
Give us the money now or things could get hard for you later.
The Constitution established that you can have monopoly rights through copyright.
The government defined those rights through copyright law.
Historically, it has then been your responsibility to protect your own rights through civil suit.
That is until relatively recently when the copyright cartel paid off our lawmakers to turn the government into their enforcement arm.
The idiot or apathetic Democratic voters nominated this unelectable guy, and now they want a re-do so they can put in an establishment candidate who has a chance in hell of winning.
A constitutional amendment has since outlawed that. Thus any enforcement of the prohibition at a federal level is constitutional.
True. They also want "smaller government" but want that government to be able to force their morality down the throats of everyone. See the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A religious conservative for small federal government is usually a contradiction in terms.
Most of the action about that is on the state level.
The sand bars that were just approved are in federal waters, not within Jindal's jurisdiction. The spill also happened outside of Jindal's jurisdiction.
Massive upheaval of the world's economies, redirection of funds from current humanitarian efforts, the proposed effort to stop global warming has serious consequences in itself. Many will die.
They believe Palin is an idiot. Period.
They believe what they have been fed according to their beliefs.
Any amount of factual evidence will not change this.
Especially when the evidence shows that they themselves are the idiots.
The states run the presidential elections, which choose the state electors, who then choose the president. Any state has the power, I'd say the duty, to ensure candidates are qualified before allowing them on the state's ballots.
We've been promised that for a while, typing in a term being equal to the site you want to go to.
I start typing "news for nerds" and I end up with an item for Slashdot right there.
Now it's close to being here thanks to technology like this.
He had a lot of direct Soviet help.
He also was heading towards dictatorship.
You have to do that in a communist system, because otherwise the people will rebel.
It's the politicians, as you mentioned. They can't resist the power that comes with greater control. They can't resist the spending that comes with more taxes.
For example, remember TARP paybacks? They were supposed to pay back to the treasury the money lent.
Not long after the ink was dry Kennedy was already working to spend money that got repaid.
The rank and file will dutifully do its job with this health care system, and the politicians will screw it up.
It may or may not take as long for them to screw it up as they did with social security, but they will do it.
Anybody who doesn't believe that needs to learn some history.
Kennedy is, quite unfairly, since he himself caused many of the current problems.
He didn't settle. He created it. If it's as bad as people say, better not to have created it.
Face it, Kennedy was your standard elitist career politician, looking out for #1 which was him and his continual reelection.
Either that or he was just incompetent.
Remember, he also helped author No Child Left Behind, another disaster.
He is also idolized for his stance on the environment. Yet he voted against an off-shore wind farm because it would block his scenic view.
He is a politician of convenience, as highlighted by him switching from pro-life to pro-choice only after Roe v. Wade.
My problem is that people idolize Kennedy for his work in the health care arena, while damning HMOs as evil, while conveniently forgetting that Kennedy was the architect of that very HMO system.
If the HMO system had been authored by Republicans, it'd probably be all over the news that the Democrats were trying to reign in this Republican-created horror.
Let's see, how do I support the idea that a large government healthcare system would fail due to precedent? Let us look at previous things the government sought to fix yet screwed up. Education, no child left behind, disaster. Medicare/Medicaid, working so far but about to run out of money. Social security, working so far but also about to run out of money. Both due to gross mismanagement of the funds (they can't help but spend it on other things). When it comes to big things like this the only thing the government knows how to do is throw money at it in the form of a giant, unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
I see you are a Kennedy apologist. First trying to distance him from it, then saying this when shown he proudly took whole credit for it.
Most people who want single-payer don't think the new law creates the ideal system.
Will it make things better, or become the bane of the existence many that Kennedy's HMOs did?
We know the track record, so it is more likely the latter.
"As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. Just a few years ago, proponents of health maintenance organizations faced bitter opposition from organized medicine. And just a few years ago, congressional advocates of HMOs faced an administration which was long on HMO rhetoric, but very short on action. "
He authored it. I think we can blame him.
Mac also has a different order of buttons, with the close window button on the left, just as Windows has the close button on the right. Both are at the outside of the window, a good place. This puts the Windows order of buttons on the left -- doesn't work.
Mac also doesn't have a menu right underneath the buttons to accidentlly hit.
Mac has a complete user interface thought of to work together. Taking one element from it is a risky proposition, because unless you did your homework you don't know what other elements you also need to bring over in order for the first element to work right.
It's funny so many are complaining how HMOs are one of the biggest problems, then pass this health care bill with nods to Edward Kennedy, crusader of health care for the people.
They forget it's Kennedy who championed the creation of HMOs in the first place.
Yes, HMOs, a Democrat creation.
Will they do better this time?
The Founders understood this. But they decided in the end that a light burden such as this would in the balance spur more creation than the burden would have hindered. Madison figured this monopoly power could be reigned in by the will of the people should it be abused. Sadly, Madison was a bit naive. Maybe he should have listened to Jefferson more and either abolished this clause or made it much more limited.
You need a prescription, right? So that means you've seen a doctor and a pharmacist if you're taking it, and it was the responsibility of one or both of them to explain all of the risks to you. Too damn bad if you're taking prescription meds without a prescription, you deserve what you get.
The disclaimer is effectively inherent in any legally prescribed medication.
Have it use the firewall to randomly restrict and allow access from his computer. He'll intermittently get to do what he wants.
When asked what's going on, "I don't know."
It's hard to track down seemingly random problems.
It seems that Global Warming has a model to predict pretty much anything.
The different models together predict pretty much everything, often contradictory, so whenever anything happens you just trot out the appropriate predictive model to prove Global Warming is right.
And hope people forget you used a contradictory model six months ago to explain something else.
With race cars, the lighter the better -- better braking, better turning, better acceleration.
With flywheels it's the opposite, the more mass the better (the more energy it will hold at a given speed).
It looks like the flywheel will rectify only one of the above performance components that its extra mass hurts -- acceleration.
Evolution belongs in science schoolbooks.
Creation belongs in myths and religions schoolbooks.