Posted on 06/10/2010 7:53:15 PM PDT by advance_copy
I guess they should have sold their BP stock a few weeks ago. That’s the way the market crumbles.
Destroying a major oil producer is not the answer needed for this situation. And the US government should meet its own expenses incurred during whatever part it plays in handling the situation and the cleanup.
Another report I heard said that during the Clinton administration, laws were passed requiring the EPA to be responsible for oil spill cleanups. Haven't heard much about that, but those making the statement were definite and cited specific law.
Obama and his gang are acting like Chicago thugs and nitwits as usual. They should all get this thing more under control before they start, or continue the finger pointing and blame placing.
Did not the HalO-ed one say “Oceans will heal themselves”?
The worst was the 0 admin expecting BP to foot the salaries of ALL people laid off as a result of 0 halting all drilling. The presidency should never offer a learner’s permit.
As for the Brits, I wonder if they’re starting to see what we did all along.
You mean the “Hollow head one”?
There will probably be a long delay between seeing it and admitting they've seen it.
But this whole "BP will pay for everything" chorus is insane. There is no way any corporation can pay for all their own expenses in this effort, then pay the US government and state governments and all affected businesses and property owners.
And, all the Gulf states where rigs have been stupidly shut down will lose many millions in royalties, not even to mention all the tourist related industries. Obama and his nitwits have no clue how much all those costs will add up to before this is somewhat back to normal.
The “Special Relationship” giveth, and the “Special Relationship” taketh away.
The man is reckless.
Let’s settle this with a soccer match - how convenient - 1:30 pm Saturday, EST...
There were huge numbers of "puff pieces" on Obama during the US election, and although the BBC scrupulously coverered McCain and the republican campaign as well, it was quite obvious they were backing Obama. He got more air time and he was always presented first when coverage of the elections came up. Since then there have been a whole raft of "documentaries" extolling the historic significance of a black man becoming president, involving interviews with assorted civil rights leaders, in which their assertions are treated with hushed reverence. For the sake of balance they also interview some who have a few problems with the details of the rise of the "One", but their viewpoints are marginalised and ridiculed by being interrupted, taken out of context, or set against irrelevant comparisons.
However, this does NOT mean that "we love Barack Obama here in Britain". It means "the media and the chattering classes love Barack Obama here in Britain". The left-wing media bias works just as effectively in the UK as it does in the US. Probably better - it's more subtle for a start off. My personal observation was that the great British public was more ambivalent than is suggested here, and certainly far more apathetic. After all, none of them could actually vote for the man.
I’m just waiting to see the Guardian and it’s readers whine, considering their campaign to pressure Americans to vote for 0.
On day one, when he returned the bust of Churchill, these dolts should have had their first clue?
June 11, 2010
That’s enough ‘kicking ass’, Mr President
Barack Obama’s attacks on BP may play well at home, but they are damaging millions of British people. The President is entitled to make clear that BP must accept full legal and moral responsibility for the consequences of the spillage. That that will cost billions of pounds is BP’s problem and rightly so.
But the White House, in recent days, has gone far beyond that. The Associate Attorney-General, speaking, presumably, with the President’s approval, has testified that the Justice Department will take action to force BP to withhold its next dividend payment to shareholders, due next month.
That has led to a further huge drop in the BP share price — the company’s value has slumped from £120 billion to £55 billion since the oil spill began. Already there is speculation that BP may become ripe for takeover, with suggestions that China’s national oil company may be interested.
Such comments by US officials on BP’s dividends policy might have been reasonable and necessary if BP had given any indication that the interests of shareholders were to be given precedence over the rights of those in the United States who have suffered severe loss because of the oil spill.
So far as I am aware, there has not been a single remark by anyone in BP to that effect. On the contrary, BP has emphasised that as a global company, which still has massive assets, it is perfectly capable of meeting its obligations in the United States while paying a dividend to its shareholders based on the overall profitability of the company at the present time.
The American interference on dividend policy has very serious consequences — and not just for BP. The dividends that it pays are a significant component in the income of pension funds in both Britain and the United States.
cont. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7147794.ece
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.