Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

[Snow]

We need a Joe Barton that speaks the truth....without the public apology.

"Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."

A stupid point really (Barton's). The President doesn't have the authority to compel payment and neither did he. He as the power to persuade and in this case, the private enterprise voluntarily, if they follow through, chooses to be persuaded. They could simply decline and then face the consequences of the judicial authorities - who do in fact have the authority.

[bytor2112]

"Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere."

A stupid point really (Barton's). The President doesn't have the authority to compel payment and neither did he. He as the power to persuade and in this case, the private enterprise voluntarily, if they follow through, chooses to be persuaded. They could simply decline and then face the consequences of the judicial authorities - who do in fact have the authority.

True. BUT, the author of the article concedes that point. Call it what you like.....it appears like more strong arm coercion by community organizer barry. That being said, I would be hopping mad if I owned BP stock at the idiot for agreeing to do it.

Edited June 24, 2010 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

Because the organization responsible for the biggest man-made catastrophe in the history of everything shouldn't be asked to pitch in and help. They should be sued, lose the first round, and fight the rulings for decades before a pittance (after the lawyer's cut) is sent to those who are still around, as is the natural state of things. Darn that crazy president for wanting things done a different way.

[Soulsearcher]

I find it interesting.

People were whining that Obama wasn't doing enough to help. The republicans were on him for not taking enough action. So when he does exert a lil power and tries to do something to help the people affected who are losing their lively hood the same people whining about him not doing enough are now whining he did something.

[Moksha]

I find it interesting.

People were whining that Obama wasn't doing enough to help. The republicans were on him for not taking enough action.

Game rules say he must be shot at regardless of the actions he takes.

[dorave]

Dorave, do you really think Obama will launch a coup if/when he is voted out of power?

Really?

No.

[dorave]

This has been in motion much longer than we've suspected.

Step 1: Obama master minds 9/11 to create two wars with two purposes:

* Train the Army, both National Guard and Regular in fighting insurgencies.

* Influence combat missions to cull the ranks of those not loyal to him (Someone has read the Book of Samuel)

Step 2: Uses influence within DoD to stymie the wars dragging them out:

* This creates political discontent

* Further increases deficit

Step 3: Campaigns on platform of change.

* Once in office pretends incompetence and weak leadership skills.

* Creates depression to further create discontent and weaken his opponents funding, uses stimulus package as bribery to both cement his allies support and convince others to join his plan.

* Depression also increases distrust between citizens and illegal who they accuse of taking their jobs. This is fanned by Obama's double agent conservative pundits crying about illegal immigration.

* Manufactures scandal between him and most trusted ally to throw people off his scent.

Step 4a: Wins next election and further cements power.

Step 4b: Looses Election/End of Second Term he calls the military home.

* Under guise of reconciliation and to become popular with the troops General McChrystal shoots up the DoD hierarchy with Obama's blessing.

Step 5: Having left the Mexican border unsecured (and having secretly supported Arizona's new immigration laws) he hires Mexican mercenaries dressed as Mexican Army troops to attack border towns in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Step 6: Declares Martial Law, suspends elections due to the critical situation, and installs himself as dictator for life.

How did I not see it before!

Shouldn't the posts like this (over the last couple pages) in the thread be modded?

[Soulsearcher]

Shouldn't the posts like this (over the last couple pages) in the thread be modded?

LOL When it's the mod posting them?

[dorave]

Even mods need to abide by rules. He can mod himself.

Edited June 24, 2010 by dorave

[MarginOfError]

Is there a rule against humor here?

[FunkyTown]

Is there a rule against humor here?

There's not even a rule against snarkiness on here. Otherwise, you and myself and half the men and a good portion of the women would be banned.

[dorave]

Is there a rule against humor here?

Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

...

[FunkyTown]

...

I'm unsure what you're doing here, Dorave. Are you apologizing and being courteous and asking the Mod for further clarification on what he meant with his post or are you simply attacking his post and finding holes in his reasons for doing so?

[bytor2112]

Because the organization responsible for the biggest man-made catastrophe in the history of everything shouldn't be asked to pitch in and help. They should be sued, lose the first round, and fight the rulings for decades before a pittance (after the lawyer's cut) is sent to those who are still around, as is the natural state of things. Darn that crazy president for wanting things done a different way.

Yes....of course, you should trust Obama and his buddies to pick and choose the winners and losers as usual...who gets the funds and who doesn't, rather than the courts. And you do realize that BP is owned by it's shareholders and THEY at least have the right to due process. But, hey, if the end justifies the means...right?

[FunkyTown]

Yes....of course, you should trust Obama and his buddies to pick and choose the winners and losers as usual...who gets the funds and who doesn't, rather than the courts. And you do realize that BP is owned by it's shareholders and THEY at least have the right to due process. But, hey, if the end justifies the means...right?

Bytor's right on the money here. Due process is there for a reason. If you disagree with the way the justice system works, campaign for changes to the justice system - Not simply sidestepping it.

Too many travesties are committed in the name of expediency. Everyone deserves due process regardless of whether the court of public opinion convicts them or not.

[Dravin]

Even mods need to abide by rules. He can mod himself.

If you find a post objectionable, regardless of who posts it, please use the report function (the button in the upper right hand corner of a post: ) and ideally explain why you feel the post is violating the rules (using the helpful comments box that is part of the report function).

Edited June 24, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

The President doesn't have the authority to compel payment and neither did he. He as the power to persuade and in this case, the private enterprise voluntarily, if they follow through, chooses to be persuaded. They could simply decline and then face the consequences of the judicial authorities - who do in fact have the authority.

But the President also does not have authority to compel John Q. Fisherman of New Orleans to abandon his judicial claim against BP. He can try to persuade John Q. Fisherman to do so--but why on earth would he bend over backwards settling claims against BP when he has given every indication that he wants to see BP sued into bankruptcy anyways? There are so many other things a Chicago politician can do with twenty billion dollars in an election year . . .

Knowing that the Administration could not force the residents of the Gulf Coast to grant BP judicial immunity, and would only make a half-hearted attempt to persuade them to do so--what were the other factors that led BP to accept this "deal"?

Edited June 24, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

The first thing that comes to my mind is PR, it looks good to set up the fund. That's some really expensive advertising but I'm sure it is a motivator for not taking a hard stance. The other thing that comes to mind is can BP apply claims disbursed via the fund to future liability they are determined to have?

What I'm thinking is:

1. John Q. is paid $5,000 from the fund.

2. John Q. later sues BP and is awarded $5,500 in damages due to his beach-side hot dog stand going under.

3. BP says, we paid him $5,000 already, here are the receipts.

4. BP only pays $500.

Of course that only explains why it isn't a completely horrible move, else-wise BP would have held onto the money and been able to use it in the meantime. Of course I understand that BP will be paying into it in installments, so I wonder if people might end up being queued for checks which means (if those people sit tight and don't sue) BP can spread that cost out. They may also possibly hope that John Q in the above case may be content (and enough others like him) to just take the $5,000 and not pursue for greater damages, if their claim is denied I wonder how many people are going to blame Obama's Third Party Claim Disbursement Service and not BP and may not realize that they can then sue BP instead of tying themselves up in the Third Party's bureaucracy of appeals.

Just some random (and probably ignorant) ramblings.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, people paid via the fund would have to accept that as payment in full on any future claims and waive the right to future litigation.

The advantage to the fund, for the resident, would be not having to pay legal costs and (theoretically) a faster payout than one would get through litigation. But methinks the payout through the fund will be far lower than one could get through court, even counting legal costs. There are, I think, about fifty million residents of states bordering the gulf coast. If even one tenth of them filed claims, that's an average per capita payout of $4,000.

If I'm a fisherman or a longshoreman on the gulf coast, and I've lost six working months of the year so that my average salary of $30,000 was cut to $15K for 2010--I'm in for a nasty shock when the Feds come along offering to "make me whole" with four thousand bucks.

All this indicates that a) this $20 billion is the first of many contributions the Administration plans to extract from BP, or b) the Administration knows darned well that this fund won't make the Gulf Coast residents whole--and, that being the case, they'll have little incentive to try.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's an interesting analysis of what might happen in a BP bankruptcy.