Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

eed to reread some things then. > > -Original Message- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:40 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point > > > By and large this discussion

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Ah. Perhaps I need to reread some things then. -Original Message- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:40 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point By and large this discussion doesn't intere

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

An appeal is to determine if the findings were valid. The judge said no because they were based on a lie. Salazar says he'll re-write it so the lies are excluded and it won't have a reason to be overturned. So what you're saying is correct, but the admin screwed up and have to redo it to say we'r

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Which I think they should be prosecuted for...that apples to both sides BTW... -Original Message- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:53 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point well there goes at

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

gt; I was under the impression that the moratorium was motivated by fear of > another Deepwater Horizon. > > -Original Message- > From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:34 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need help understanding a

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

tter would uphold the ruling. I was under the impression that the moratorium was motivated by fear of another Deepwater Horizon. -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:34 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current tal

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

you know that admitting it is the first step to recovery. ;) On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Sam wrote: > > Damn I'm stupid! > I asked a question without using the proper punctuation and didn't > notice until after I hit send. > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Sam wrote: >> Are you talking

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Damn I'm stupid! I asked a question without using the proper punctuation and didn't notice until after I hit send. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Sam wrote: > Are you talking about an appeal or a power grab. > Not sure if he can take over the oil companies for fun. As for the > appeal, the dec

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

y something that can fall under interstate > commerce. > > -Original Message- > From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:57 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point > > > I don'

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Which it does. It's clearly something that can fall under interstate commerce. -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:57 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point I don't think you

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

> breach of professional ethics. > > -Original Message- > From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:37 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point > > > It literally takes an act of Co

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

understanding a current talking point So you want unlimited presidential power or you don't? Which is it? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > > Exactly.  I also don't think that the recent federal court ruling will stand > as the President was well within his power

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Yes...I would bring up charges against the judge for not doing so as a breach of professional ethics. -Original Message- From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:37 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

I don't think you can win an appeal just because you don't like the judge. It has to be on merit and it looks like this one will stick. On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Sisk, Kris wrote: > > It literally takes an act of Congress or of a higher court to overrule a > federal judge. Obama can't do

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

m the case and gotten another judge in. -Original Message- From: Eric Roberts [mailto:ow...@threeravensconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:06 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point Exactly. I also don't think that the recen

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Thanks for answering my question before I even posted Maureen ;-0 -Original Message- From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:14 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Sam

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

So you want unlimited presidential power or you don't? Which is it? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > > Exactly.  I also don't think that the recent federal court ruling will stand > as the President was well within his powers regards if it may cost some jobs > or not.  The

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point >$20 billion from BP ring a bell? The government didn't take it. They asked, BP agreed. >The government decides who's going to hand it out and why. Or did you forget who appointed Feinberg? S

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

So the appeal process should be quick, right? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Maureen wrote: > >> A federal judge just called you a liar. > > Yeaha federal judge who owns a bunch of stock in the companies > involved and should have recused himself. > > "Feldman's financial disclosure report

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

I did. Did you? On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > > Read the laws regarding oil spills and other corporate made disasters.  Then > come back and comment. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http:/

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Not really. -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:30 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point Doesn't the tea party movement lean more libertarian than right-wing? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:44 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Sam wrote: > > There is no law allowing the US government to take money from one > company and distribute it at will to whomever they desi

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

sy on BP. -Original Message- From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:43 PM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point As has been pointed out to you several times the US government hasn't taken anything. Al

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Read the laws regarding oil spills and other corporate made disasters. Then come back and comment. -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:38 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point There is no

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Sam wrote: > > A federal judge just called you a liar. Yeaha federal judge who owns a bunch of stock in the companies involved and should have recused himself. "Feldman's financial disclosure report for 2008, the most recent available, shows holdings in at

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

>$20 billion from BP ring a bell? The government didn't take it. They asked, BP agreed. >The government decides who's going to hand it out and why. Or did you forget who appointed Feinberg? So the government appointed him. That's a far cry from them 'handing it out'. >A federal judge just call

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Doesn't the tea party movement lean more libertarian than right-wing? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > its one of his right wing tea party fantasies I think. ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

its one of his right wing tea party fantasies I think. On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, G Money wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Sam wrote: > >> >> There is no law allowing the US government to take money from one >> company and distribute it at will to whomever they desire without d

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Sisk, Kris wrote: > > As has been pointed out to you several times the US government hasn't > taken anything. $20 billion from BP ring a bell? > Also, as has also been pointed out to you, it's not > going to be the government handing out the money. The governme

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Sam wrote: > > There is no law allowing the US government to take money from one > company and distribute it at will to whomever they desire without due > process. > Right...so if the US government did that, it would be illegal. But they aren'tso...what the

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

get there? I need a break from reality. -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 2:38 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point There is no law allowing the US government to take money from one company

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

There is no law allowing the US government to take money from one company and distribute it at will to whomever they desire without due process. Also, wasn't Feinberg going to pay the 150k newly unemployed oil workers due to the now illegal moratorium on drilling? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:45 P

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

What laws were broken Sam? And answer the question... -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:21 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point What are you saying? Laws don't matter if you lik

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Speed typing, I need to remember to review before I send :) At least I didn't write "kinda mute." On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Ian Skinner wrote: > > > Who's buying him? > ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

What are you saying? Laws don't matter if you like the guy breaking them? On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Ian Skinner wrote: > > On 6/22/2010 7:11 AM, Sam wrote: >>> Point to consider, the fund will be independently administered. >>> >> Buy an Czar personally appointed by Obama. >> > > Who's b

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On 6/22/2010 7:11 AM, Sam wrote: >> Point to consider, the fund will be independently administered. >> > Buy an Czar personally appointed by Obama. > Who's buying him? I do wonder what your feelings of him when he was appointed *by* Bush ~~

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > glad to see you parroting the talking points again. What next more > copy and past responses? What talking points? > Point to consider, the fund will be independently administered. Buy an Czar personally appointed by Obama. > But then

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Sisk, Kris wrote: > > Moot point. Obama hasn't broken any laws. You got me on a technicality. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Use your power as President to bully corporations but don't leave a paper trail. > He made a suggestion to BP and > they took

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

>Did I say BP shouldn't pay or did I say Obama should follow the laws? Moot point. Obama hasn't broken any laws. He made a suggestion to BP and they took it. He didn't threaten and they only pressure applied to them was that of public opinion. The suggestion could have come from anyone and gotte

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

glad to see you parroting the talking points again. What next more copy and past responses? Point to consider, the fund will be independently administered. But then again as far as you're concerned corporate profit is much more important. On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Sam wrote: > > On Thu,

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > > so you think its OK for some guy who made his life fishing get > completely ruined by BP's negligence. It's starting to look like WH negligence or at least inaction. > At least the escrow fund will > ensure some reasonable amount of com

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

I guess the truth doesn't poll well. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Vivec wrote: > > Rep. Barton now says he hold BP responsible and that his morning > remarks apologizing to the BP CEO may have been miscontrued. > > Damage control? :-)

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

I guess ACRO gas wont be cheap anymore :( -Original Message- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:08 AM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point The money comes from revenues, just like any other

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Rep. Joe Barton has a shaky fundraising background to be delivering such a shocking defense of BP (via Slate twitter). The Texas Republican received $1.5 million in donations last year from big oil, according to Open Secrets

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Agreed. Just for once I'd like to hear a politician say "Yes I did it, I inhaled and I damn well enjoyed it." or "Yes we did. She's a private person and its none of your business." On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM, G Money wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Vivec wrote: > >> >> Rep.

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Vivec wrote: > > Rep. Barton now says he hold BP responsible and that his morning > remarks apologizing to the BP CEO may have been miscontrued. > Misconstrued? MISCONSTRUED His words were uttered into a mike and broadcast on CSPAN! *sigh* I am SO sick of

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Yeah...he got caught red handed with his hands in the cookie jar, now he is sorry...that he got caught. -Original Message- From: Vivec [mailto:gel21...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:30 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point Rep

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

ail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:52 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point > > > so you think its OK for some guy who made his life fishing get > completely ruined by BP's negligence. At least the escrow fund will > ensure

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

He has one? -Original Message- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:52 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point so you think its OK for some guy who made his life fishing get completely ruined by

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point I think the laws caps out at $75 million I'm sure that BP would pay out $20b+ to cover what's needed due to public pressure. I just don't know why Obama wants his hands on that money too. On Thu, Jun 17,

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: > At least the escrow fund will > ensure some reasonable amount of compensation that does not take 20 > years to receive, like the Exxon Valdez claims for example. I'd like to think this too, but I don't have a ton of confidence in the gover

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

so you think its OK for some guy who made his life fishing get completely ruined by BP's negligence. At least the escrow fund will ensure some reasonable amount of compensation that does not take 20 years to receive, like the Exxon Valdez claims for example. I guess you think its OK for a large c

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

BP was handling claims internally. If they needed help and asked then things would be well and good. They were pressured into letting the US Gov hand out money as it sees fit and BP can only dispute amounts over $500k. The fund "might" work out to be a good thing, the means of getting them stink

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

pay for the cleanup as well as pay claims.  That > would include selling off assets that they own to generate funds. > > -Original Message- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:26 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Sam wrote: > The money comes from British pensioners, that's not the problem. It's > the public opinion that would destroy BP as a brand if they refused > the O's offer :) You mean market forces and public opinion actually do force a company to do something resp

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

The money comes from revenues, just like any other company. And they are suspending their dividend, which will hurt British pensioners just like US pension plans that were invested in US investment banks were hurt when those firms had massive wipeouts. On the other hand, BP usually comes in with 3

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Has the government declared that they are going to step in and become claims mediators? I have no idea if that is legal or not but I am unaware that anyone from the Federal government has claimed that they are unilaterally taking that role on. From everything I know, BP still has all the normal av

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

The money comes from British pensioners, that's not the problem. It's the public opinion that would destroy BP as a brand if they refused the O's offer :) On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Sisk, Kris wrote: > > It's not even suicide for them. Oil companies can do whatever they want > and not be w

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

rs. That's pretty much where we sit with oil. -Original Message- From: Cameron Childress [mailto:camer...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:49 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Sam wrote: >

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Do you mean Kenneth Feinberg, the administration's Wall Street "pay czar"? Yeah they did mention him. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, morgan l wrote: > > The money isn't in anyone in the government's hands. An independent firm > will handle the escrow--that's the whole point of escrow. Of cour

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Sam wrote: > Wink wink nod nod. Admittedly, it's suicide for BP to say no, but it's still voluntary. -Cameron ... ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Cold

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

The money isn't in anyone in the government's hands. An independent firm will handle the escrow--that's the whole point of escrow. Of course, I bet none of the news you listen to even mentioned that part, did they? On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Sam wrote: > > I think the laws caps out at $7

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Wink wink nod nod. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Cameron Childress wrote: > Obama asked, and BP could always say no.  Obama isn't legally > compelling BP to do anything yet, from what I understand BP is doing > all of this voluntarily . > > So I'm not sure there is even any basis for a lega

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

I think the laws caps out at $75 million I'm sure that BP would pay out $20b+ to cover what's needed due to public pressure. I just don't know why Obama wants his hands on that money too. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > > Actually, I forget the name of the law, but Obama

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Sam wrote: > Tell him the government can't step in and become the mediators for the > claims unless BP asked them to but I'm sure that's not the case. Obama asked, and BP could always say no. Obama isn't legally compelling BP to do anything yet, from what I und

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

funds. -Original Message- From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:26 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point I'm confused, who is illegally demanding to take over what process? Governments shouldn&#x

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

ammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:14 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point Not to mention it's illegal for the government to demand to take over this process. But some people love Chicago style politics. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM,

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Tell him the government can't step in and become the mediators for the claims unless BP asked them to but I'm sure that's not the case. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Judah McAuley wrote: > > I'm confused, who is illegally demanding to take over what process? > Governments shouldn't respond

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

That's your problem right there :P On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Eric Roberts wrote: > I think Rachel Maddow said it very succinctly on the Bill Maher show in ~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.c

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

-Original Message- > From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:14 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point > > > Not to mention it's illegal for the government to demand to take over >

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

ba the Hut. -Original Message- From: Sisk, Kris [mailto:ks...@gckschools.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:32 AM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point >Republicans in the United States sound more and more like the evil Empire in Star Wars, like the

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

2010 11:32 AM To: cf-community Subject: RE: Need help understanding a current talking point >Republicans in the United States sound more and more like the evil Empire in Star Wars, like the Sith honestly lol lol Don't kid yourself. The Democrats are no better. They're not using the

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

Since when has that stopped them from doing anything? -Original Message- From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:14 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Need help understanding a current talking point Not to mention it's illegal for the governme

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

Not to mention it's illegal for the government to demand to take over this process. But some people love Chicago style politics. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Kris Sisk wrote: > >>I do wonder though, who's more corrupt and/or incompetent at handing >>out money, BP or the US Federal Government

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

>I do wonder though, who's more corrupt and/or incompetent at handing >out money, BP or the US Federal Government. It's BP handing out money >as they see fit, MAYBE slower than they should, maybe not to as many >people as deserve it. The other choice is the US Federal Govt >DEFINITELY handing it

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

I don't think they are exact equivalences, no, but I do agree that politicians will try and make political hay, that's kind of what they do being politicians and such. But my point isn't "why are they attacking Obama", that part I get and I expect. What I don't understand is why they are attacking

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Judah McAuley wrote: > Ok, so BP is up on capitol hill today and Republicans keep apologizing > for the way that Obama has treated the company. They are also > repeatedly referring to the new $20 billion dollar escrow account that > they've set up to pay for pote

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Sisk, Kris wrote: > >>Republicans in the United States sound more and more like the evil > Empire in > Star Wars, like the Sith honestly lol lol > > Don't kid yourself. The Democrats are no better. They're not using the > tactics that the Republicans are using rig

RE: Need help understanding a current talking point

>Republicans in the United States sound more and more like the evil Empire in Star Wars, like the Sith honestly lol lol Don't kid yourself. The Democrats are no better. They're not using the tactics that the Republicans are using right now, but they did under Bush. And they'll do it again the nex

Re: Need help understanding a current talking point

ANYTHING Obama Does, say and support the Opposite. Ensure that NOTHING he does can be seen as positive. Rinse and Repeat. There doesn't have to be any sense behind it. The Republican followers at this point are simply rabid extremists. Democrats, on the other hand, are not doing the same in re

Need help understanding a current talking point

Ok, so BP is up on capitol hill today and Republicans keep apologizing for the way that Obama has treated the company. They are also repeatedly referring to the new $20 billion dollar escrow account that they've set up to pay for potential claims as "a Chicago-style shake down". I don't understan