Users who Dugg This
MerrySparrow
669 Followers
MerrySparrow
669 Followers
saqib abbas
130 Followers
saqib abbas
130 Followers
Ronald E. Barron
-16 Followers
Ronald E. Barron
-16 Followers
Social Cuthbert
248 Followers
Social Cuthbert
248 Followers
smacksawAug 2, 2010
Unconstitutional? What Amendment is that, the Right To Drill Dangerously Offshore?
Really, here's the "heads asplode...now free trade means you can't do something in your national interest because foreign entities say it's not legal?
Uhh...ok.
heidenreich12Aug 2, 2010
Alright, now just for the sake of argument. What amendment gives you the right to healthcare?
inactiveuserAug 2, 2010
What amendment gives you the right to roads?
oriondrAug 2, 2010
Not that your question is relevant in any sense imaginable..
noupsellAug 2, 2010
wait for it............................................... f**k BP
smacksawAug 3, 2010
General welfare clause.
reaper527Aug 2, 2010
well, their argument is that the law singles out bp, denying them equal protection under the law.
that being said, its a ridiculous argument because the law can apply to any company, and is purely based on if your company had been responsible for the death of 10 people in the previous 7 years
anillopAug 2, 2010
Article I, Section 9 prohibits a Bill of Attainder. Which prohibits passing a law meant to punish someone without the benefit of a trial.
deslockAug 2, 2010
Please tell me who this "someone" is you are speaking of.
Last I remember BP isn't a person nor does it have the right to a speedy trial because of the hardships of being in jail.
If only BP could get raped in jail... sigh.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Well, according to your Supreme Court, corporations are people.
daimposterAug 2, 2010
unfortunately Peggles is right. ;(
smacksawAug 3, 2010
Punish or remedy?
rhawk187Aug 3, 2010
Thank you. The very first thing that came to mind when I read the headline.
ghostwoAug 2, 2010
I like how they play the protectionism card. Protectionism is if they block out BP to help an American company. This is raising standards to prevent this from happening again.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Perhaps the UK could ironically help the US and finance a revolution to restore the Constitution in its literal meaning.
deslockAug 2, 2010
Because the "literal meaning" is why the Constitution was written. If you have to interpret it and govern and adapt as society changes, then it's broken right?
/s
Sir, the whole point of the third branch of the US government was created to allow for the interpretation of the Constitution. There is a reason that the US Constitution is the oldest written constition of any nation in the world. It adapts to a vastly different modern world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
You can only interpret something written in plain English so much.
hamiltonbrandAug 2, 2010
You s**t where you eat, you deserve the mess you get.
ninhAug 2, 2010
Nothing wrong with tightening regulations for the whole industry, but selectively blocking one company violates the equality before the law clause.
pintomp3Aug 2, 2010
Does banning a drunk driver from driving violate the equality before the law clause?
essarAug 2, 2010
Drunk driving is a choice, not an accident.
methdwman3Aug 2, 2010
@PIN - Imagine you were arrested for drunk driving. The law of your area doesn't take your license for this, but the locals are pissy at you, so they decide to pass a law saying anyone with a screename beginning with 'pin' cannot drive. Would you have a problem with that?
doctechnicalAug 2, 2010
"Does banning a drunk driver from driving violate the equality before the law clause?"
If the law in question was written to target one specific driver over any others (as this one was) then the answer is "yes".
aslan72Aug 2, 2010
@methdwman3
What if that drunk driver had hit multiple kids, wheels around town with a bottle of bourbon in his hand at 11 a.m. and says 'Screw you, Pigs' every time he passes by a cop car?
I'd say this is a law to hit egregious offenders.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
@Essar
BP made the choice to not to properly maintain DWH and chose to avoid many safety protocols.
ninhAug 2, 2010
@rubagub and for that they are on the hook under existing laws.
To stay with the drunk driving idea, how about revoking the right to vote for those who in the past have been caught DUI, but only those with a blood alcohol level above 0.02?
hipmanAug 2, 2010
BP isn't named in the bill.
doctechnicalAug 2, 2010
They might as well have been:
"US lawmakers have been working for more than a month on new legislation to stop any company from winning offshore oil licences if it has contributed to the deaths of more than 10 workers in the last seven years."
Aside from BP, who does that apply to, exactly?
hipmanAug 2, 2010
Well, yeah, no one.So what's your point?.I'm sorry BP is the only one with such a poor track record.
logosx1Aug 2, 2010
If they were named, it would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The fact that the bill doesn't reach that level of perfidy does not sanitize it.
daimposterAug 2, 2010
@hipman: so what? retroactively making a law that has details that pretty much single out just BP? Are you saying every other oil company has clean hands? What if Mobile tomorrow had a rig that exploded and killed 9 people. Should they be safe because they didn't kill 10?
let use an example. Say you are driving and you have 3 passangers, 2 girls and one guy. Say you get arrested for reckless driving for going 30mph over the speed limit. Now say another person the same night was busted for reckless driving but he had 3 passengers that were 2 males and 1 female. The town enacted a law that anyone arrested with reckless driving with at least 2 female passengers and 1 male passenger will have a mandatory 25year sentence. Would that law be fair? Would that not be a law targeted just at you?
It was very specific with the 7 years and 10 deaths. What if an american oil company was responsible for 15 deaths last year. Would a revised law stating 'last 6 months' be fair?
inactiveuserAug 2, 2010
Does smoking weed come under freedom of religion, peaceful protest, free speech?
zenmojoAug 2, 2010
That only applies to citizens. Stop digging him up.
thebawsAug 2, 2010
BP can get f**ked.
whipnetAug 2, 2010
Nope, they are just going to re-brand as AMOCO. Already in the works.
*
kthoma22Aug 2, 2010
Yes it is protectionism. It's called protecting our shores.
doctechnicalAug 2, 2010
And I'm sure the UK can find all sorts of new and innovative ways to "protect their shores" from our goods and services.
This sort of thing has repercussions.
r0g3rAug 2, 2010
If one of the "repercussions" is no more big oil spills near my home, I'd be happy with that.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
The US still exports? Okay, maybe pharmaceuticals but that's about it.
mindtriggerAug 2, 2010
Seriously? The UK would be cutting off their own nose if they tried some sort of trade restrictions.
prosequiAug 2, 2010
@diggbigwig: the US has a huge export business in complex machinery (John Deere, Caterpillar, Boeing, GE), big time paper and food exports (Weyerhauser, International Paper, Cargill), colossal chemical exports (Du Pont, Koch, Dow), and as you mentioned, lots of pharma products.
atarioAug 3, 2010
They already do. The US has long since unilaterally dropped all the protections most other countries retain. And our vast exodus of manufacturing and trade deficits have proven the point.
jetboyterpAug 2, 2010
The Obama administration will only screw this up even more. The current moratorium on all offshore drilling has only put thousands more out of work. The One's answer to Governor Jindal?..."They can apply for unemployment".
The govt gave BP a pass on inspection in return for BP's generous donations to the president during the election. It ain't all BP's fault.
OK, I'll let Obama go back to his golf game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
armedrebelAug 2, 2010
Hell yeah dude, I wish we could go back to Bush, that guy NEVER played golf. That's how you really judge president.
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=bush%20golf&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1680&bih=867
methdwman3Aug 2, 2010
HIs golfing ended BECAUSE of the criticism he got for golfing when soldiers were dying. Somehow, Obama is immune from such criticism.
digg2point0Aug 2, 2010
Shopped.
Bush couldn't figure out which end of the club to hold.
jetboyterpAug 2, 2010
B-b-but Booooooooosh!11!one11!!
kasjogrenAug 2, 2010
Cause Obama didn't invade Iraq for no good reason.
crcurranAug 2, 2010
Moratorium is on all deep sea oil drilling not all offshore oil drilling. Why would the President do that? because it's blatantly obvious in the face of this disaster that no deep sea oil drilling company has any clue what to do when s**t goes wrong miles below the surface.
The Obama administration (Public Sector) didn't want to interfere with BP and the oil industry's emergency response (Private Sector) since the Right Wing would flip out. Then when things didn't go well because technology was developed to dig that far down but no technology was developed to solve problems that far down, the President is blamed for not doing something earlier. What could he have done? No one has an answer as to what the President could have done but still they say he should have done something.
koparAug 2, 2010
"BP's generous donations to the president during the election" = $0?
Look it up. Stop being an idiot.
jetboyterpAug 2, 2010
Idiot says what?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64420A20100505
imallvol7Aug 2, 2010
I just imagine a bunch of Brits shouting "bloody hell" over and over.
digg2point0Aug 2, 2010
*Bloody 'ell
piesforyouAug 2, 2010
It would be the americans emplyed by BP cursing...
0011002Aug 2, 2010
Wait what happened here? Didn't the British try to distance them from BP during this who mess and got mad people were still calling them British Petroleum? So now they are mad we're not going to give new drilling rights (not stop current drilling) to ANY company that has more than 10 deaths in the last 7 years? The fact that no other company has this many deaths in the last 7 when BP has had 26 (11 on the oil rig and 15 at a refinery in Texas)?
essarAug 2, 2010
I know it's the in-thing to hate on BP and everything - and understandably so - but what, really would a ban achieve? Not only has the possibility been raised that it really wasn't all BP's fault - Halliburton comes to mind as an implicated party - but surely any other company in the industry will be just as susceptible to such accidents.
I'd imagine that taking vindictive attitudes towards companies for this sort of thing could discourage investment, which is something nobody wants during a recession. When true foul play is discovered then actions should absolutely be taken. However, the spill WAS an accident. Perhaps the clean-up was not handled as should have been, but is a ban the solution?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fuzzynyankoAug 2, 2010
Basically bans all companies that have had 7 deaths or more in an offshore well
tarantulusAug 2, 2010
As a brit, I find this ban distasteful, BUT with BP's atrocious safety record, they need a serious beating. maybe this is the only way to do it... fines don't work because they've got so much money to burn.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
They really don't have all that much money to burn all things considered. Had the MMS been dinging them the entire time and bleeding the bank accounts the same way the civil courts bleed citizens, there's a very good chance this spill would not have happened.
Amazing what some strippers and blow will get your ass into...
Android14094Aug 2, 2010
It will come out "in the wash". Early reports indicate that a BP manager threatened an on-site Trans Ocean manager, in front of others, and overrode safety concerns. If true, this IS BP's fault.
xenuxenutsAug 2, 2010
If BP had a better safety record, I could blame Haliburton or Trans Ocean. But they don't. I have no love for Haliburton, but this was BP's fault, not the contractors.
However, I think they should be on a type of probation. After 1 year of no safety violations, they should be able to resume legal activities, but remain on probation for the 7 year duration. Safety violations not fixed within 3 months would result in them "serving the rest of their sentence". Anything that's too significant that it takes longer than 3 months to fix shouldn't have occurred in the first place.
Hey, if it's good enough for citizens, why not apply it to corporations? They want the rights? They can have the penalties too. If BP were an individual, they'd be in jail. This gives them a chance to reform their business practices.
iseedeadpeopleAug 2, 2010
Says Who,? where the proof BP are at fault
BP had a 65% share in the well, while US company Anadarko, had 25%.
The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, Transocean. A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well
so why is BP at fault, They employ over 80000 people in the US, 80000 people who probably want to keep their jobs.
hipmanAug 2, 2010
lol, like these people would know anything about a Constitution.
tarantulusAug 2, 2010
We have one too, c**kstain
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
BP has a rights -- they are guilty until proven innocent.
Of course, this really is about a "right to work." And BP has lot's of kids and a pending heart transplant.
... wait, is BP a corporation or a human being -- because the "Constitution" is ACTUALLY, a limit on what is restricted to government and "all other rights are guaranteed to the individual and state." No wonder the Brits are confused, because most people in the states get this wrong as well.
So, to summarize;
BP has no Constitutional Rights.
The Constitution is more of a restricted outline of what the Government can do and ALL rights not specified, should be assumed to be fundamental to the people.
Currently, this is been confused to; "all rights to the corporation, until proven otherwise." I don't see the "right to profit" anywhere here -- but I'm sure it's part of the "Tea Importer's Code."
coconutxAug 2, 2010
I believe the US Supreme Court overturned a law banning corporate political spending. I think they argued that this would violate a corporations rights. Thus they are treating the entity as a individual.
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
And that only means the Supreme Court has too many fascists -- NOT that their is anything that even resembles the US Constitution in their arguments. This would have made the Founding Fathers heads spin.
coconutxAug 2, 2010
My point was that if they are now treating a corporation as a collection of individuals and thus as an individual rather than a financial entity. Then logically similar rights entitled by the constitution should be held by a corporation.
I am not saying this is the right thing, I am just giving an interpretation.
kasjogrenAug 2, 2010
Corporations have more rights than people do in the Roberts court.
vitriolandangstAug 2, 2010
Yeah, the original "Activist Judges" are henchmen for the corporations these days.
zenmojoAug 2, 2010
Our Supreme Court is the most conservative in recent history, so...yeah.
bimtottAug 2, 2010
No oil giant has more safety violations than BP. No oil giant outsources most of its drilling operations more than BP. This isn't "unconstitutional," it's common sense, and long overdue. This is an appropriate sanction against a corporation that has a long track record of overzealous risk-taking.
digghasnoethicsAug 2, 2010
Most of the 'safety violations' are associated with Amoco, which BP unwisely bought. If BP have any sense they will sell off the entire lump and get the hell out of the US. Is a fading exploration market and with the new regulations coming up, will be dead loss.
The US has been playing jingoism/protectionism throughout this, and the net effect is going to be to ensure nobody else wants anything to do with them.
xenuxenutsAug 2, 2010
From what I've read, Amoco's safety procedures were gutted after BP bought them. It sounds like BP treated US facilities as if it were raping a colony. If that was true, BP deserves a ban.
MitchPaigeAug 2, 2010
"The US has been playing jingoism/protectionism throughout this, and the net effect is going to be to ensure nobody else wants anything to do with them."
Really?
s**t, and here I thought we should have just seized BP as a default judgement for destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
Seriously though, if you can't understand why we don't want a company who murdered 11 employees and started the largest ecological disaster in recent history.......... Oh thats right, you are probably one of those people who didn't pay attention as the documents detailing the criminal negligence of BP were released.
Holy f**king s**t they were incompetent. I don't want them near a pipe wrench, let alone an oil producing well.
iseedeadpeopleAug 2, 2010
A large percentage of BP'S issues in the last few years have been inherited from their purchase of AMOCO, you know them, American Oil Company.
Did BP drop a bollock , yes undoubtedly, was the explosion there fault, probably, did transocean perpetuate the incident, absolutely.
The sooner that we all realise that the government are playing us all for suckers the better, They bashed Toyota over their screw ups and ignored GM's horrific record (whilst pumping millions into it) And now they get to lay into BP so they can big up what Oil companies they have left.
Once Again BP dropped it and deserve to pay every $ but people are far to blinkered to see how we are being played
bimtottAug 2, 2010
And how awesome is it to have an article about the BP oil spill written by Alex Spillius.
fudgeworthAug 2, 2010
I suggest the Brits don their red coats and stand opposed.
fuzzynyankoAug 2, 2010
So far, the ban in question bans any company that has had 7 or more deaths on an oil rig, which happened to target BP.
mickstephensonAug 2, 2010
Happened to target BP.. Ha. It was designed to target BP, I'm sure if ExxonMobil has had 7 deaths then that number would be 8. You seriously think otherwise?
This is being labelled as protectionism because that is exactly what it is.
barasawaAug 2, 2010
Actually BP has 36 deaths to account for. That's 11 on this latest disaster, and 15 from when they blew up that onshore facility in 2005.
mickstephensonAug 2, 2010
Normally when you start a sentence with "actually" it should be followed with a statement which is at odds with the one you are "correcting".
bloodwineAug 2, 2010
I keep hearing all these other countries shouting that the U.S. had better not become more protectionist. These shouts started when the global recession first kicked in gear and many in the U.S. started shouting that we needed to protect our borders, discourage offshoring, and buy local.
Are there any other countries with less protections in place than the U.S.? To me it seems like we're the cheap whore of the world that gives it away to anyone, and now they are worried that we won't be bending over for them as much at the local Motel 8.
danbarkerAug 2, 2010
Errm, the UK has less protectionism than the United States.
stealthdaveAug 2, 2010
[Citation Needed]
danbarkerAug 2, 2010
@stealthdave The citation is the Laws that we have. If you dont think I am correct, look at them and you will find that I am.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
QQ more britain
buzzfriendlyAug 2, 2010
How about BP completely finish capping the well, finish the cleanup, finish paying out ALL valid claims, resolve all issues it may have in court. Once BP gets to the point we can think about restoring its privileges to drill off our coasts.
Android14094Aug 2, 2010
It's been thirty years, count 'em, since the last gulf oil spill and the oil industry did NOTHING to improve on their non-existent "disaster plan" (remember the 'sombrero'?). That's because corporations, by their nature, care about nothing but money.
Well, here we are. In your effort to save a fast buck, you had a devastating effect on the bottom line. You destroyed the corporation's profit. Execute the prime directive! You are a mistake! (I had to insert the Star Trek reference because we are, after all, dealing with a mindless machine).
That's what make the US Supreme Court's ruling about corporate "free speech" so infuriating. An entity that cares about NOTHING but money gets to spend the most in an election...
lokithecomplexAug 2, 2010
Can the UK ban Goldman Sachs then?
MitchPaigeAug 2, 2010
Please do. Much of our country would probably donate to a fund to destroy Goldman Sachs.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
f**k BP. Those people should be tried in American courts along with the MMS people who were being bribed to look the other way. I'd like to suggest that the persons responsible for the lax safety on the destroyed BP rig should be tried for the murders of the innocent men who burned to death or drowned that fateful day in April.
Frankly, I'd like to see the guilty executed. Sends the right message to the corporate world about the consequences of their actions. This wasn't a goddamn accident, and the American people know it. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
snarkasticAug 2, 2010
I suggest you go and study the Bhopal disaster. Compare BP's response with that of Union Carbide. Then stop the sanctimony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
danbarkerAug 2, 2010
Is this the BP rig which was owned and operated by Transocean... an American company? Yes. No wonder why America is a failed super power.
elcadAug 2, 2010
Doesn't the UK have an unconstitutional government?
danbarkerAug 2, 2010
We dont have one because we are better than you.
electric_sheepAug 2, 2010
Constitutional Monarchy.
elcadAug 2, 2010
So where can we Americans look at your Constitution? That is, if you have one.
electric_sheepAug 2, 2010
You'll have to head to Westminster and the parliamentary archive.. There is not a single, core document of the constitution written down, instead there are literally thousands of pages of it. Every new law that passes is added to the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
elcadAug 2, 2010
@Electric_Sheep Even the wikipedia link you provided has a section titled "Disputes about the nature of the UK Constitution".
But I don't want to to get into a pissing match with you over a joke that did not not seem to go over well. We seem to share a love of Philip K. Dick and Scotland, where I was an exchange student in the 80s. And I gladly accept defeat at your quill and will admit that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
danbarkerAug 2, 2010
Yes, ruin the biggest economy in the Gulf. BP has rather larger supplies in Libya (haha) and also Russia and lots of other places... BP will just move on.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
Haven't they already started to move one by moving rigs?
coconutxAug 2, 2010
I think it is unfair to put this ban in place before investigations have even been concluded. It is obvious this ban specifically targets BP. Once investigations have concluded the US has every right to act on liable parties according to the law. Introducing retroactive rules though could be a very slippery slope.
MitchPaigeAug 2, 2010
There really isn't any need for an investigation. BP was forced to release all the documents about the spill to Congress, who released them to the public.
There is absolutely no way besides bribery that they can be found not guilty.
coconutxAug 2, 2010
I very much doubt all the information about the spill is currently availible. As for who is guilty, there are many companies involved in this: Amaco, BP, Transocean, Halliburton. I doubt it was just BP to blame, depending on the circumstances they may not even be the most liable party.
I'd rather they waited until investigations have been concluded to render a judgement. However, mid-terms are coming up and they are throwing desperate measures to try to look strong. Making decisions which capitalise on public anger and righteous indignation is not the way forward.
meedAug 2, 2010
f**k the UK, we had a very violent and bloody revolutionary war with them, and then another war a few decades later (where they burned down our president's home). Now one of their company really f**ked up, caused a great man made disaster. Now that we want to try to prevent such douchebaggery again , they scream about a OUR constitution? How f**king dare you?
The UK has probably one of the worst track records from over the centuries. Let me name my favorite act of douchebaggery, selling opium to china, then when they tried to stop it cause half the nation were poppy heads, they sent in their war ships to force china to continue to allow them to poison their people for a profit. How about giving Poland to the Soviets during world war two? And lets not forget that American Idol is simply a adaptation of Pop idol for the US audience.
Seriously, if the UK is gonna have a issue when the USA tries to stop a UK based company from f**king up our environment, food sources, and vacation areas again. They can go to hell and their queen can suck my dick (I bet she gives great gum jobs when she takes her dentures out.) Dear UK: f**k off.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
"Now one of their company really f**ked up, caused a great man made disaster. "
NEWSFLASH: BP is roughly equally British and American. It will soon be headed by an American CEO. It has an extensive subsidiary in the US, called BP America.
valisk61Aug 2, 2010
Hey, meed -
Does your mouth fill up with water when it rains?
iph0neAug 2, 2010
It would do, if it wasn't already full up with food.
themadoneAug 2, 2010
you're an idiot mate, the terrible accidents that have blighted your coastline is an awful thing indeed, however and i'll type this slowly for you so you can keep up.
BP... is... a... multinational.
same number of yanks on the board as brits and waaay more american employees, its not our fault as a country this terrible accident happened, our government have to come down on the side of bp however as £1 in every £6 in the national pension pot comes from the corrupt bastards.
yes offshore is a dangerous game, but your own corrupt political system allowed bp and others to lobby to drill offshore, and while the taxes were rolling in and no one was dying you all ignored it. Yes our track record as a country is terrible, our ancestors have done some terrible things, but we arn't judging americans for burning witches or selling supplies and arms to both sides in WW2 and still having the ordasity to think you single handedly won it. Personally speaking i understand the ban, and your anger, but dont get confused who you're angry at here.
snarkasticAug 2, 2010
That's the most one-eyed interpretation of history I've ever seen. Dick.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
I don't understand how it became common knowledge in the UK that Americans are mad at BP in part because they can blame the British, like it is all xenophobia. No, we are mad at BP (the international oil corperation) for having it's well blow up and spew tons of oil for months into the gulf coast. If BP had done this on the south English coast, I guarantee the UK's population would be just as furious.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
When your president still called it "British Petroleum", despite being told not to, and the media are just as bad, there might be reason to believe there's a touch of xenophobia.
Stories like this, where the US is trying to engineer a law to stop BP (but not any of the slightly less irresponsible oil companies, i.e all of the rest) don't help either.
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
This is exactly what I am talking about! BP changed their name from "British Petroleum" to their acronym in 2000 and I don't think anyone really noticed. But that confusion is the main evidence that there is some kind of anti Anglo conspiracy in the US to get those dang British. It is just not true, the overwhelming anger is at BP, a gigantic oil company who holds no passport recklessly drilling a well and causing massive, catastrophic, and personally painful environmental damage to a huge swath of US coastline and fishing area. It isn't that hard to fathom now is it? Especially looking at their dismal safety record?
Closed AccountAug 2, 2010
"This is exactly what I am talking about! BP changed their name from "British Petroleum" to their acronym in 2000 and I don't think anyone really noticed. "
The UK media seem to have noticed. I think I'd expect the US media to do a bit of research when they have to write about them, and perhaps your highly paid, highly educated President could do the same. Or at least stop saying it when you've been told not to.
"It is just not true, the overwhelming anger is at BP"
For what? Has it been conclusively proven that BP are completely and entirely to blame? There are several parties involved, including the rig's owner (who is not BP) and the MMS.
Where's the sheer outrage at Exxon and others? I bet everyone who is boycotting BP (or more accurately the stations not owned by them, but by mom and pops) is heading straight to a Mobil station. Every oil company is responsible for some disaster, somewhere.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
The only people who care/write about this bit of word play are people from the UK, so it is clearly not an American election issue in the way you think it is. Besides, Americans are Angliophiles practically by default, we think you are all James Bond or something! So trying to pin a xenophobic bent on this is a purely one sided affair. Americans are xenophobic about plenty, you shouldn't worry about becoming a target.
The Falklands comparison is just too silly, you think this spill in anyway is helping Obama? Any single way? Even if he said Osama did it, I don't think he would get much support unless he plugged the well himself.
BP has been front and center in all aspects of the response. Their subcontractors are just that, and hopefully will be investigated as well. Exxon was almost ruined for their spill of less oil in a more remote place. This is much bigger, and much closer. If you can't see why people are mad at just about everyone involved you need a better imagination.
melthornalAug 3, 2010
Really? You are really trying to say Americans hold a Xenophobic relationship with the British? Have you ever f**king been to America? This is *easily* the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life. This is even more ignorant than those white hippie kids who run around saying "When I look at black people I don't see their skin color." You really ought to be embarrassed of yourself for saying something so ridiculous.
jimbo92107Aug 2, 2010
What would the Brits know about constitutions? THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.
iph0neAug 2, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
we just don't bang on about it like it's divinely inspired and flawless.
jasvllAug 2, 2010
That article literally says you don't have a Constitution and spends most of its time explaining why that's okay.
iph0neAug 2, 2010
Even though the first sentence is "The constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed."
clonedAug 2, 2010
And the next one says "the UK has no core constitutional document".
jasvllAug 2, 2010
Sometimes, there's more to an article than the first sentence. Sometimes, there's a second or even a third!
"Unlike many nations, the UK has no core constitutional document. It is therefore often said that the country has an unwritten, uncodified, or de facto constitution."
iph0neAug 3, 2010
Are you guys under the incorrect impression that a "constitution" is defined as "the piece of paper a constitution is written on"?
Just because we don't have a single bit of paper which it's written on doesn't mean we don't have one.
iph0neAug 2, 2010
sounds fair. I mean, it's not like America ever uses any oil or anything.
blackhappyAug 2, 2010
First Mexico and now the U.K., a lot of people sure want to tell us what they think is unconstitutional.
merrikAug 2, 2010
The government can kill federal contracts with companies that f**k up massively and consistently and ban them from doing business with the federal government. It happens fairly regularly. I guess this would be different in that it would apply to state and private contracts too? I wonder how many of those BP actually has in the U.S.
Anyway, the UK can shut the hell up. That company is pretty much off the rails and needs a swift kick in several places before they can be trusted to do business here.
iseedeadpeopleAug 2, 2010
A large percentage of BP'S issues in the last few years have been inherited from their purchase of AMOCO, you know them, American Oil Company.
Did BP drop a bollock , yes undoubtedly, was the explosion there fault, probably, did transocean perpetuate the incident, absolutely.
The sooner that we all realise that the government are playing us all for suckers the better, They bashed Toyota over their screw ups and ignored GM's horrific record (whilst pumping millions into it) And now they get to lay into BP so they can big up what Oil companies they have left.
Once Again BP dropped it and deserve to pay every $ but people are far to blinkered to see how we are being played
jsquadAug 2, 2010
Protectionism? Really? I'm sure American companies are SO worried that BP is going to take their business. Us Americans just LOVE using BP.
I think the considerable number of safety violations BP has accumulated is proof enough that we're not trying to protect our businesses. But they're right. We are trying to protect something. Our own environment. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
puppetheadAug 2, 2010
Setting a precedent can be dangerous. Which companies shall Africa ban from operating after the mess in Nigeria? Minor spill in Russia, ban every company who isn't Russian.
Starting to see where it ends yet?
theswashbucklerAug 2, 2010
Yeah, let's let incompetent companies pollute our waters without any repercussions. That's a great f**king idea...
enantiodromiaAug 2, 2010
How about we dump all the oil we gather up, in the waters of Portsmouth, England. Then we're even steven.
snarkasticAug 2, 2010
How about we dump all the chemicals from Union Carbide on your front lawn? Get some perspective...
iseedeadpeopleAug 2, 2010
The only response that someone of your pathetic intellect would understand is.
You c**k
enantiodromiaAug 3, 2010
Are you asking to engage in an intelligent debate? Please let me know when you are ready.
You may pick the topic, and have the first go at it.
iseedeadpeopleAug 3, 2010
OK dick-wad I'm an Icelandic who lives in KY so why don't you just go on there making assumptions, and as for an intellectual debate why don't you look at your opening comment and tell me who's the imbecile.
Why don't you look at the details of the incident
Where is the proof BP are at fault
BP had a 65% share in the well, while US company Anadarko, had 25%.
The rig was owned and operated by a US firm, Transocean. A failed blow-out preventer was made by another US firm, Cameron, while Halliburton, the oil services firm once run by Dick Cheney, carried out cement work that was supposed to seal the well
So why are we all bashing BP?
Because Obama told us to blame British Petroleum (even though they dropped that name 10 years ago when they bought out masses of the US's struggling oil companies)
Don't be a sheep my friend!
emcdani84Aug 2, 2010
They really should pass a law similar to Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) which would require all big oil company CEO's to sign off saying their rigs are up to regulation or face jail time in the event of a disaster. The CEO could then hire and independent company that inspects all the offshore platforms. That independent comapny would also be required saying they did a complete inspection of all the oil rigs. If they lie jail time. This would create new jobs for the independent contractors to inspect, eliminate the need for MMS, and Hayward would be in jail. If you don't know what SOX isit is a law that requires all public company CEO's sign off saying their accounting records are correct. The law went into effect in response to Enron and MCI, haven't seen many accounting scandals since.
Not a Repub or Dem issue, its just the right thing to do.
theswashbucklerAug 2, 2010
It is protectionism - protecting our waters from an incompetent oil company that has shown it will screw anyone and everyone when an accident occurs.
theswashbucklerAug 2, 2010
When will Joe Barton apologize to the British government?
coraduganAug 2, 2010
What a joke that they (BP) expects us to move out of the way while we watch them destroy our resources, kill our people and now demand more rights- go drill off your coasts- go kill your wildlife and people- go and do what you did to us and see if you won't get outraged!!!!!!!!!
computershackAug 3, 2010
You'll no doubt be aware that the drilling rig responsible for all of this wasn't actually owned by BP and was staffed by Americans. Oh, you're not?
rhawk187Aug 3, 2010
Bill of Attainder anyone?
hereticoftruthAug 3, 2010
Frankly, if BP can prove it's ability and intent to drill safely in the future, then let them drill. But if they want to do business as usual, lets line them up and shoot them as an example to others.
computershackAug 3, 2010
I hope BP does pull out of the USA. That way, there'll be 10,000's more Americans unemployed and millions of American pensions down the tubes. But unlike the UK, those affected in the USA will have to live like bums and sleep in cardboard boxes.
Closed AccountAug 3, 2010
@ snarktastic:
Union Carbide's pathetic handling of the disaster in Bhopal somehow justifies BP's criminal response? That's like saying, well, I murdered someone, but I didn't go all "Manson" on her, so it's okay. In a word: obfuscation.
DanBarker: Regardless of America's status as a superpower (what the f**k that has to do with this I do not know,) BP is ultimately responsible for what happened on that rig. International oil operations are hidden behind a web of dummy companies, offshore tax havens, powerful lobbying, and outright criminal conspiracy. BP has the worst safety record of any transnational oil company by far. Is Transocean part of it? Of course. But that still doesn't exonerate BP officials who fostered lax compliance with safety regulations.
And they way that they've behaved - trying to pass the buck, restrict information from our government and media, dumped millions of gallons of toxic chemicals on top of the spill in direct opposition to the EPA, and stiff the people whose lives have been ruined by this - it's unconscionable. Digg me down all you like but the fact remains, BP is a greedy corporate juggernaut running roughshod over the interests of the common good in a cynical race for profits. And now that profiteering has created what can accurately be described as the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.
But by all means keep defending them, you swine.
snarkasticAug 4, 2010
Firstly, the reply button is that way-------------------->
Secondly, bulls**t. Read this:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1995029,00.html
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Look, I know you have a hard-on for Bhopal. I get it. A very bad thing happened and those responsible walked away. A true tragedy.
But as I said before, it doesn't justify BP. Please get a f**king clue.
snarkasticAug 6, 2010
Never said it did. I was pointing out the hypocrisy. Idiot.