Posted on 06/10/2010 6:22:32 AM PDT by txlurker
As each day goes by, the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico becomes more gruesome. Oil-drenched birds and turtles wash up along the shoreline, pristine beaches are polluted by balls of tar and an oily slick laps at Louisiana's ecologically fragile marshland. Understandably, Americans are livid. But has the bloodlust directed at BP gone too far?
Egged on by catch-all protest coalitions, a "seize BP" campaign is organising demonstrations in major cities calling on the US government to snatch the British company's US assets. A "boycott BP" action group advocates shunning BP service stations. Placards abound with slogans such as "God bless America – go to hell BP" and "BP – billionaire polluters". The wife and children of BP's chief executive, Tony Hayward, are under police protection following threats.
Urged by political strategists to act more angrily, Barack Obama shed his uncharacteristic cool this week and declared that if it was up to him, BP's boss would be fired. The White House now wants BP to pay not only for cleaning up the Gulf, but also for the cost of jobs lost on 33 other oil rigs because of a government-imposed six-month moratorium on offshore drilling. And the US department of justice is threatening legal action to halt BP's dividend payouts to investors.
Anthony Weiner, a usually sensible Democratic congressman, declared: "Whenever you hear someone with a British accent talking about this on behalf of British Petroleum, they are not telling you the truth."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
[who stole from the owners of the companies.]
Who did the Tea that got dumped in Boston Harbor belong to?
The East India Company.
ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar announced Tuesday they will pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
The sudden pullout of three corporate giants from a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups could be the death knell for climate change legislation languishing on Capitol Hill.
BP - About 39 per cent of the company is held by US investors, with 40 per cent of the shares held in Britain. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7148202.ece
No...I'm suggesting that the Mexicans were hiding behind sovereign immunity rather than pay to clean up Texas. Why do you invent crap like the "international community"?
>>You liken thugs to revolutionaries.
What did the Tea Owners call the folks who dumped their cargo into Boston Harbor?
Do the Venezuelan people think Chavez is a thug? Has he built a wall to keep them in? Does he murder them for not rendering proper religious belief before the King?
There are varying degrees of thuggery.
What if Chavez colonized a foreign country and then transported opium through it. Would that be “thuggery” or just bidness as usual for the British Empire?
[I’m suggesting that the Mexicans were hiding behind sovereign immunity rather than pay to clean up Texas.]
Ok, they were hiding behind sovereign immunity.
Should they have been held accountable; and if so, by whom?
>>The East India Company.
And how did the owners of the East India Company characterize the act of their tea being dumped into Boston Harbor?
Is your house sovereign? How do you know where your property begins and property belonging to other’s ends?
You've got as much grasp of the Boston Tea Party as you do Venezuela.
Do the Venezuelan people think Chavez is a thug?
Yes.
Has he built a wall to keep them in?
Net emigration is zero.
Does he murder them for not rendering proper religious belief before the King?
Well, he has declared himself President for life, he controls the courts and the military...and told the citizenry that showering once a week is a luxury...sounds pretty medieval to me.
There are varying degrees of thuggery.
...but you admire all of them.
What if Chavez colonized a foreign country and then transported opium through it. Would that be “thuggery” or just bidness as usual for the British Empire?
You mean like the time Chavez sent tanks into Colombia to break up the Colombian/US anti-drug-trafficking operations? Yeah, that sounds like something the Founding Fathers would do, too.
Who do you imagine came into your house and took something?
For starters: The Supreme Court of Justice. Although laughable, The United States of Mexico is a Republic with a, supposedly, independent court. Let's start there.
We asked 100 people to name the dumbest post on FR. Survey says: You win.
>>Let’s start there.
Ok. And if the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice denies payment for damages in Texas - what then?
How do you know where your property begins and property belonging to other’s ends?
What is your point? If I don't live there, I can't point out how it's a hell hole? North Korea's not my country either, but it sure is a hell hole. Maybe you can tell us how Kim Jong Il is like Ben Franklin.
Now, again, what DID the Tea Owners call the folks who dumped their cargo into Boston Harbor? Theives or Terrorists or something like that was it?
Tea Owners? LOL...you have no idea what "The Boston Tea Party" was about, do you? I'm sure the East India Company was more pissed that their cargo was being seized by the colonial governor. Maybe you should do some actual research before posting your rantings.
Nope, but you're used to getting it wrong, so what's the diff?
Are those lines more valid than the ones delineating the borders of a country?
Yes...especially when the border is a river that changes course repeatedly.
The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice would be the ultimate venue for appeal...so, what you're saying is the lower courts find Pemex guilty, but the Supreme Court says you can't collect damages? You're an expert on Mexican law, too?
Did you ever explain WTH you were talking about here? You were going to form a public company and try to break into Todd's house? And then sell the loot?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.