No, he was dead wrong. BP did not have the money seized from they, they willing agreed to put the money in an escrow.
Of course people like you would rather those harmed not to be paid. Look at Exxon Valdez, more than 20 years later and those people still have not been paid.
it's my job to prove it was their fault, not the person who got hurt's fault to prove I was the one to blame.
No, it is the accuser or plaintiff, the person hurt, to prove the person being sued is at fault. Now in your scenario you are responsible for proving you are not at fault but your contractor is.
I believe that BP should pay for everything but I question I question the viability of forcing BP to liquidate assets and set aside $20B - even big evil oil companies need operating revenue.
Boohoo, poor old BP. Poor? HAHA!!! For the quarter ending 31 March 2010 British Petroleum had Gross Profits of $14.817 Billion. The previous quarter? $14.00 Billion, and the previous 2 $13.198 Billion and $12.457. The total profits, profits not revenue, for a year was $54.472 Billion. $100 Billion wouldn't take 2 years to pay.
Which was completely unnecessary, since BP already unequivocally promised to pay for every cent of damaged caused by the spill.
What one promises and what one does can be totally different. Without an escrow account there is no way to be sure BP pays. And even that account will not guaranty BP pays everything.
They did this within days of the spill, by the way, yet somehow Obama is the fucking hero.
They were also saying only 1000 gallons a day were coming out. Scientists have since proven BP lied about it and that many more barrels are coming out. It's just as easy for them to lie about one as it is to lie about the other.
It's forcing them to do something without due process or just compensation.
And where's the due process and just compensation of those who have suffered because of BP? Where are those who suffered the Exxon Valdez spill? They are still waiting to be compensated that's where they are.
Finally, is stopping the rest of the platforms and companies in the Gulf, who have had zero accidents, at major impact to the already very shaky US economic and employment situations, going to reduce or eliminate damage from this Deep Horizon spill? Wouldn't having more resources nearby, at the very least, be worth considering? How about at least signing the waivers to allow foreign marine assistance in the cleanup?
Zero accidents so far does not mean there will not be others. Unlike you and others I see no problem with investigating what happened before more wells are drilled to prevent it from happening again.
Consider this week the news is full of European countries enacting substantial budget cuts. We know that's the wrong thing to do. It times of economic prosperity, we should run balanced budgets or pay down national debt. When faced with a recession so enormous that people invoke the Great Depression as an analog, though we have only about 20% unemployment, rather than 30% or more, this situation is dire. We know that we must run deficits, large ones, in order to create a demand stimulus large enough to moderate this trough of the economic cycle. Nonetheless, we have politicians trying to score political points by railing against deficit spending -- which didn't bother them for the past 8 years when they were in charge.
Many economist, including Nobel winner Milton Friedman disagrees with you. More than one economist believes government made the Great Depression worse and last longer than it would have if the government had done nothing. Heck, there are some who even place the blame for triggering the depression directly on government. When the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 raising import tariffs, other nations passed their own laws raising tariffs on what the US exported. This hurt most people.
Deepwater Horizon was a series of mistakes with known causes, not a tail-end probabilistic event. Future deep-water drilling will likely be more carefully regulated.
How can deep water drilling be better regulated if the cause of this spill isn't investigated? That is what Obama, whom I disagree with on many other things, is calling for. An investigation into the accident, which was not an accident.
"Other upgrades followed" some event that already happened
Except you missed some, "Other upgrades followed, among them a wireless computer system for all patrol cars; video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas;"
Regardless, the statement means that the cameras were already installed, even if after previous events - which was the point of our original little thread divergence.
No it doesn't, it means they were made after not before.
I agree with the judge and his reasoning, saying because this drilling platform blew up, doesn't mean all the other ones will all go up in flames by next Tuesday. How come he hasn't placed a moratorium on planes, cars, electric plants, buildings, even transport ships in the sea like the Exxon Valdez?.. they all blew up at once time or another and caused either environmental damage or loss of human life.
Unlike planes and cars, oil spills can affect many people. Hell, the 911 WTC/Pentagon attack killed only about 3000. This oil spill will affect many more. And not just in the Gulf, but up the East Coast.
America has never recovered from Three Mile Island, not because of the physical effects of the disaster, but because of the regulatory effects.
Why then is it government not markets throughout the world decide what nuclear power plants are build? The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Fucking idiot president knows fuck all about the oil industry, and is making another spill far more likely just to make himself look less like a complete imbecile in this situation.
A fucking oil company caused the problem and you blame the president? That is idiot.
Everybody learned something from this disaster, including the major oil companies.
Yea, we learned something. They said BP was the expert. BP has proven that not only are they not experts but that they're liars too.
Nobody wants to repeat it, although at some point one probably will.
All oil companies care about is their bottom-line. They won't change until they're forced to. Government banks and Detroit. Now it should take over BP and make an example of it.
Crazy I know! We have no idea why one rig failed, so why would we stop all of them? We should just let them continue until we either figure out why it failed or several more fail, that makes more sense.
Yea, the Gulf should be turned into a cesspool first. Would you feel the same if it happened to your home? Would you allow someone to dump radioactive toxic waste next to you also?
I would have liked to have seen all BP assets in the US nationalized until every single American, every single waitress at Denny's who's gonna lose tips because vacationers aren't coming to the Gulf because of the thick crude oozing up on the beaches, is made whole.
We live in a country of laws, not in a communist dictatorship. Our government cannot simply wave a magic wand and begin confiscating property. Instead, there will be due process in a separate court case in which BP will pay for the damage that it caused.
2008 and 2009 calling. The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. I'd rather BP be taken over than have Tesla have to compeat against a government bailed out Detroit. BP deserves it whereas Tesla didn't do anything to cause the problems Detroit has.
In the case of the drilling moratorium, the government wanted to go one step beyond what you want, which was to shut down businesses BEFORE they had done anything wrong.
Yea, we should wait until another oil spill happens. Nah, a dozen more. Do nothing, do nothing, until it's oil in your house.
If you really believe BP will be made to pay, you can learn about the Exxon Valdez spill. More than 20 years later wildlife still has not recovered. Nor have the fishermen been paid. Plus oil is still found on beaches. No, if history is any indication BP will get away with wrecking peoples' lives as well as the environment.
Huge increases in energy costs and enormous job losses aren't exactly what one needs in an economic crisis.
As if oil spills don't cause lost jobs. A bunch if fishermen, hotel workers, and restaurant workers would disagree. So will those who see their energy and fuel bills go up. Do you really think BP will pay for the spill? No, they'll just raise their prices. BP will probably also get a tax write-off on the money they do spend.
This is an example of rampant government corruption
Doing nothing would be "an example of rampant government corruption".
Those employees of BP that are responsible need to be held accountable. Didn't China execute a businessman after he sold bad food?;-)
"Other upgrades followed (past tense, already happened)... video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas"
Not quite. Followed "come after in time, as a result ("A terrible tsunami followed the earthquake")". Another use as a verb is "to bring something about at a later time than". The cameras came after in tyme.
You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).
Not being able to rationally debate with me you resort to accusing me of the wrong use of "I" and "you" as specifically you the person I am replying to and I who is replying, when you yourself gets it wrong in your accusation, I see no reason to continue this conversation. In both cases my use of "I" and "you" are in the third person.
I don't see where TFA says cameras are already there, the only reference I found as to when they were installed was this: "Other upgrades followed, among them a wireless computer system for all patrol cars; video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas; a virtual community patrol system for residents to report crimes via text message; a grid showing patrol cars' locations, and a gunshot detection system that tracks the source of shootings." Video surveillance cameras were installed as an upgrade.
To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period.
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
Quite simply it can be impossible for me to prove you did not give me money.
You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.
See above about not making a deposit. If I don't make one a bank statement will not help me. You have not thought this through obviously. And yes, I know about cashing checks I've been given instead of depositing it. I am on disability but my sister gets the money as my representative, most of the tyme she then writes me a check. Now if that check is from the representative account, it is from the same bank my account is in. Even though the 2 accounts are in the same bank if I deposit a check I still have to wait at least 2 days for the check to clear. However if I cash the check then deposit cash, which is what I do, the cash is available immediately. Or, because my disability income is being messed with, my sister sometimes writes me a check from her own account, in another bank. In that case I go to her bank to cash the check, then again deposit cash into my account. In either case I do not deposit the same amount as the check I cash, I keep some cash then I go grocery shopping and or go make a payment on my cable bill for instance.
Actually, I'm fine with them building small plants.
If that's what you meant, I didn't get that, then I agree. Myself I have said I wanted solar panels installed on roofs, wind turbines in back yards, geothermal and solar thermal heating, and such.
If your goal is to replace coal fired plants with renewables, then you have to think on the scale of a coal fired plant -- 300MW to 1000MW.
Elsewhere I've mentioned how the capacity from wind turbines could replace, or negate the reason to build, nuclear power plants. These power plants take years and years to build. And not just in the US. However if you erect 20 5 megawatt wind turbines, there are bigger ones, a month in 10 months you've added 1 gigawatt of potential capacity. Need more, erect more. Use solar, geothermal, and others as well. Use whatever can be used to generate electricity in a given area.
Why don't we focus on the incarceration rate and seek to lower it to as low as possible? Why don't we seek to decrease the arrest rate for victimless crimes? Anybody have an answer that isn't racist, sexist, or elitist?
Ah but those are the reasons we have victimless crimes, because of elitism, racism, and sexism. Oh, and religion.
all I need to do really is try and build the habit of checking these things and then actually doing something or making a mental note rather than going "Oh yes, ooh, shiny, huh?" and forgetting:)
What I try to do to make sure I use my planner is place it in the chair I sit in when I go to bed. When I get up, after getting a drink I then sit down in the chair and I'll test my blood then take my prescriptions. So it works on days I have to do something but I don't do it every day. However because of my injury I also have trouble with initiation and with follow-through. I used to say that my brain was like those eggs in commercials about your brain on drugs, all scrambled or fried.
Slashdot Mirror
but he is dead right.
No, he was dead wrong. BP did not have the money seized from they, they willing agreed to put the money in an escrow.
Of course people like you would rather those harmed not to be paid. Look at Exxon Valdez, more than 20 years later and those people still have not been paid.
Falcon
it's my job to prove it was their fault, not the person who got hurt's fault to prove I was the one to blame.
No, it is the accuser or plaintiff, the person hurt, to prove the person being sued is at fault. Now in your scenario you are responsible for proving you are not at fault but your contractor is.
Falcon
I believe that BP should pay for everything but I question I question the viability of forcing BP to liquidate assets and set aside $20B - even big evil oil companies need operating revenue.
Boohoo, poor old BP. Poor? HAHA!!! For the quarter ending 31 March 2010 British Petroleum had Gross Profits of $14.817 Billion. The previous quarter? $14.00 Billion, and the previous 2 $13.198 Billion and $12.457. The total profits, profits not revenue, for a year was $54.472 Billion. $100 Billion wouldn't take 2 years to pay.
Falcon
Which was completely unnecessary, since BP already unequivocally promised to pay for every cent of damaged caused by the spill.
What one promises and what one does can be totally different. Without an escrow account there is no way to be sure BP pays. And even that account will not guaranty BP pays everything.
They did this within days of the spill, by the way, yet somehow Obama is the fucking hero.
They were also saying only 1000 gallons a day were coming out. Scientists have since proven BP lied about it and that many more barrels are coming out. It's just as easy for them to lie about one as it is to lie about the other.
Falcon
It's forcing them to do something without due process or just compensation.
And where's the due process and just compensation of those who have suffered because of BP? Where are those who suffered the Exxon Valdez spill? They are still waiting to be compensated that's where they are.
Falcon
Finally, is stopping the rest of the platforms and companies in the Gulf, who have had zero accidents, at major impact to the already very shaky US economic and employment situations, going to reduce or eliminate damage from this Deep Horizon spill? Wouldn't having more resources nearby, at the very least, be worth considering? How about at least signing the waivers to allow foreign marine assistance in the cleanup?
Zero accidents so far does not mean there will not be others. Unlike you and others I see no problem with investigating what happened before more wells are drilled to prevent it from happening again.
Falcon
Consider this week the news is full of European countries enacting substantial budget cuts. We know that's the wrong thing to do. It times of economic prosperity, we should run balanced budgets or pay down national debt. When faced with a recession so enormous that people invoke the Great Depression as an analog, though we have only about 20% unemployment, rather than 30% or more, this situation is dire. We know that we must run deficits, large ones, in order to create a demand stimulus large enough to moderate this trough of the economic cycle. Nonetheless, we have politicians trying to score political points by railing against deficit spending -- which didn't bother them for the past 8 years when they were in charge.
Many economist, including Nobel winner Milton Friedman disagrees with you. More than one economist believes government made the Great Depression worse and last longer than it would have if the government had done nothing. Heck, there are some who even place the blame for triggering the depression directly on government. When the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 raising import tariffs, other nations passed their own laws raising tariffs on what the US exported. This hurt most people.
Falcon
At least until those regulations are repealed because they're stifling innovation in the free market...
Not a free market but a corporate aristocracy. In a free market a business can not pass on external costs, such as this oil spill, off onto others.
Falcon
Deepwater Horizon was a series of mistakes with known causes, not a tail-end probabilistic event. Future deep-water drilling will likely be more carefully regulated.
How can deep water drilling be better regulated if the cause of this spill isn't investigated? That is what Obama, whom I disagree with on many other things, is calling for. An investigation into the accident, which was not an accident.
Falcon
"Other upgrades followed" some event that already happened
Except you missed some, "Other upgrades followed, among them a wireless computer system for all patrol cars; video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas;"
Regardless, the statement means that the cameras were already installed, even if after previous events - which was the point of our original little thread divergence.
No it doesn't, it means they were made after not before.
Falcon
I agree with the judge and his reasoning, saying because this drilling platform blew up, doesn't mean all the other ones will all go up in flames by next Tuesday. How come he hasn't placed a moratorium on planes, cars, electric plants, buildings, even transport ships in the sea like the Exxon Valdez?.. they all blew up at once time or another and caused either environmental damage or loss of human life.
Unlike planes and cars, oil spills can affect many people. Hell, the 911 WTC/Pentagon attack killed only about 3000. This oil spill will affect many more. And not just in the Gulf, but up the East Coast.
Falcon
America has never recovered from Three Mile Island, not because of the physical effects of the disaster, but because of the regulatory effects.
Why then is it government not markets throughout the world decide what nuclear power plants are build? The Nuclear Power Industry is Hooked on Subsidies.
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
Fucking idiot president knows fuck all about the oil industry, and is making another spill far more likely just to make himself look less like a complete imbecile in this situation.
A fucking oil company caused the problem and you blame the president? That is idiot.
Falcon
Everybody learned something from this disaster, including the major oil companies.
Yea, we learned something. They said BP was the expert. BP has proven that not only are they not experts but that they're liars too.
Nobody wants to repeat it, although at some point one probably will.
All oil companies care about is their bottom-line. They won't change until they're forced to. Government banks and Detroit. Now it should take over BP and make an example of it.
Falcon
Crazy I know! We have no idea why one rig failed, so why would we stop all of them? We should just let them continue until we either figure out why it failed or several more fail, that makes more sense.
Yea, the Gulf should be turned into a cesspool first. Would you feel the same if it happened to your home? Would you allow someone to dump radioactive toxic waste next to you also?
Falcon
I would have liked to have seen all BP assets in the US nationalized until every single American, every single waitress at Denny's who's gonna lose tips because vacationers aren't coming to the Gulf because of the thick crude oozing up on the beaches, is made whole.
We live in a country of laws, not in a communist dictatorship. Our government cannot simply wave a magic wand and begin confiscating property. Instead, there will be due process in a separate court case in which BP will pay for the damage that it caused.
2008 and 2009 calling. The US government owns AIG, banks, GM, ad nauseam. It is already on the road to socialism if not communism. And both Democrats and Republicans are responsible. I'd rather BP be taken over than have Tesla have to compeat against a government bailed out Detroit. BP deserves it whereas Tesla didn't do anything to cause the problems Detroit has.
In the case of the drilling moratorium, the government wanted to go one step beyond what you want, which was to shut down businesses BEFORE they had done anything wrong.
Yea, we should wait until another oil spill happens. Nah, a dozen more. Do nothing, do nothing, until it's oil in your house.
If you really believe BP will be made to pay, you can learn about the Exxon Valdez spill. More than 20 years later wildlife still has not recovered. Nor have the fishermen been paid. Plus oil is still found on beaches. No, if history is any indication BP will get away with wrecking peoples' lives as well as the environment.
Falcon
Huge increases in energy costs and enormous job losses aren't exactly what one needs in an economic crisis.
As if oil spills don't cause lost jobs. A bunch if fishermen, hotel workers, and restaurant workers would disagree. So will those who see their energy and fuel bills go up. Do you really think BP will pay for the spill? No, they'll just raise their prices. BP will probably also get a tax write-off on the money they do spend.
This is an example of rampant government corruption
Doing nothing would be "an example of rampant government corruption".
Those employees of BP that are responsible need to be held accountable. Didn't China execute a businessman after he sold bad food? ;-)
Falcon
This part that you quoted:
"Other upgrades followed (past tense, already happened)... video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas"
Not quite. Followed "come after in time, as a result ("A terrible tsunami followed the earthquake")". Another use as a verb is "to bring something about at a later time than". The cameras came after in tyme.
Falcon
That's not much use for a 3 year old.
True, it's not much good unless you're at least a teen, when you can balance checking/savings accounts.
Falcon
You keep using You and I, when i have already explained that its assertions that YOU make that YOU have to prove, not I (YOU and I in your story that is). If you cannot prove assertions that you make then dont make them, because they are not defensible (i.e. see this in the context of the original conversation I had with the OP).
Yes I use "you" and "I", in English Composition it is informal and generic. "You" specifically is Objective Third Person
Not being able to rationally debate with me you resort to accusing me of the wrong use of "I" and "you" as specifically you the person I am replying to and I who is replying, when you yourself gets it wrong in your accusation, I see no reason to continue this conversation. In both cases my use of "I" and "you" are in the third person.
Falcon
The cameras are already there.
I don't see where TFA says cameras are already there, the only reference I found as to when they were installed was this: "Other upgrades followed, among them a wireless computer system for all patrol cars; video surveillance cameras in high-crime areas; a virtual community patrol system for residents to report crimes via text message; a grid showing patrol cars' locations, and a gunshot detection system that tracks the source of shootings." Video surveillance cameras were installed as an upgrade.
Falcon
To answer your point: You can easily prove negative assertions - in your case you show your bank statements for the time period.
You can say I deposited it in another account, how do I prove I do not have another account? Or you can say I cashed the check without depositing it in my own account. How do I prove I did not cash a check? Well that one's relatively easy, I can show there is no check I signed. That is if I have access to the accounts and can show deposits are withdrawals. You can then say you gave me a money order or cashier's check. How do I prove you did not? Lastly, you can say you gave me cash, again how do I prove you did not? In can not, for each attempt I make to prove something you can change the story. For instance you can say you paid someone else to give me money, or you mailed it.
Quite simply it can be impossible for me to prove you did not give me money.
You would bring proof of the debt, as well as all your bank statements that show that no amount matching the debt were deposited by said person.
See above about not making a deposit. If I don't make one a bank statement will not help me. You have not thought this through obviously. And yes, I know about cashing checks I've been given instead of depositing it. I am on disability but my sister gets the money as my representative, most of the tyme she then writes me a check. Now if that check is from the representative account, it is from the same bank my account is in. Even though the 2 accounts are in the same bank if I deposit a check I still have to wait at least 2 days for the check to clear. However if I cash the check then deposit cash, which is what I do, the cash is available immediately. Or, because my disability income is being messed with, my sister sometimes writes me a check from her own account, in another bank. In that case I go to her bank to cash the check, then again deposit cash into my account. In either case I do not deposit the same amount as the check I cash, I keep some cash then I go grocery shopping and or go make a payment on my cable bill for instance.
Falcon
Actually, I'm fine with them building small plants.
If that's what you meant, I didn't get that, then I agree. Myself I have said I wanted solar panels installed on roofs, wind turbines in back yards, geothermal and solar thermal heating, and such.
If your goal is to replace coal fired plants with renewables, then you have to think on the scale of a coal fired plant -- 300MW to 1000MW.
Elsewhere I've mentioned how the capacity from wind turbines could replace, or negate the reason to build, nuclear power plants. These power plants take years and years to build. And not just in the US. However if you erect 20 5 megawatt wind turbines, there are bigger ones, a month in 10 months you've added 1 gigawatt of potential capacity. Need more, erect more. Use solar, geothermal, and others as well. Use whatever can be used to generate electricity in a given area.
Falcon
Why don't we focus on the incarceration rate and seek to lower it to as low as possible? Why don't we seek to decrease the arrest rate for victimless crimes? Anybody have an answer that isn't racist, sexist, or elitist?
Ah but those are the reasons we have victimless crimes, because of elitism, racism, and sexism. Oh, and religion.
Falcon
all I need to do really is try and build the habit of checking these things and then actually doing something or making a mental note rather than going "Oh yes, ooh, shiny, huh?" and forgetting :)
What I try to do to make sure I use my planner is place it in the chair I sit in when I go to bed. When I get up, after getting a drink I then sit down in the chair and I'll test my blood then take my prescriptions. So it works on days I have to do something but I don't do it every day. However because of my injury I also have trouble with initiation and with follow-through. I used to say that my brain was like those eggs in commercials about your brain on drugs, all scrambled or fried.
Falcon