The vilification of BP (by Obama) due to oil well leak

Bobhelm,
if according to you,
the pattern of behavior of BP is not important
to make a judgment weather or not the vilification of BP was right or not,
then I think it stops here.
This proves that you are not prepared to accept proven facts and a pattern of behavior that contradict your opinion,

Your way of thinking is noted and so be it....

Cookie wrote:I understand that you try to refuse everything that BP has done in the past.
This contradicts your statements that BP takes responsibility ....
As the history shows, their record is indeed the worst ever in the US
I truly understand this is very difficult for youy, but you can't deny this
but these facts, this history shows the pattern of behavior of BP.
Again, this is something that you don't like when people rub you with your nose in these facts,
but it's hard to deny isn't it.
So if you think that a pattern of behavior is not important,

Cookie, every time I post on this thread I keep telling myself, to leave it at that. I've made my point - a long time back, my point about Obama's behaviour. Then so often I read your next post whereby you "twist and turn", go off at tangents, usually historical ones, or keep banging your drum about BP's PAST SAFETY RECORD and HISTORICAL events.

Firstly, THIS ISN'T ABOUT HISTORY, or historical events, as much as you seem to try and make it so!!

Secondly, I don't believe I've made any comments about a pattern of behaviour (by BP).

Thirdly, my OP and stance on this topic was that Obama had been "unstatesmanlike" in attacking (vilifying) BP over the Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion and subsequent leak, - not about BP's historical safety record, which predates Obama's Presidency anyway.

Fourthly, I emphasised several times, that BP's role or behaviour or safety records were, to me anyway, incidental to my point, which was - Obama's "unstatesmanlike" behaviour or rhetoric if you prefer.

It seemed to me that initially you quite reasonably asserted that Obama's "behaviour" got results, which there was debate about, myself and some others arguing that BP had accepted responsibility for the disaster, and that they would have done what they have done anyway. You asserting that it made a difference. Fair enough.

Since then it seems you have taken the thread ever further from my original point, posted lists of your own feelings about BP (PRESENTED AS FACTS!), dredged up every piece of obscure material from the Internet all about historical events, - safety incidents or simply criticising BP. Apologies if at times I have been drawn down your slippery off topic slope. I have tried not to, and have several time restated my original point, but seemingly to no avail.

This topic was meant to be about Obama's response (and language)to the Gulf of Mexico accident, not what happened under different circumstances, different CEO's, or whatever over the last 10 years! If you want to challenge BP's CURRENT safety record, - i.e. as in that related to this incident, or to link that to Obama's behaviour, then I could see some relevance to that. Please note however that in terms of the current Gulf of Mexico explosion and leak, no cases have come to Court yet, so why not keep your powder dry until then!

cookie wrote:Bobhelm,
if according to you,
the pattern of behavior of BP is not important
to make a judgment weather or not the vilification of BP was right or not,
then I think it stops here.
This proves that you are not prepared to accept proven facts and a pattern of behavior that contradict your opinion,

Your way of thinking is noted and so be it....

In a court of law 'past priors' would absolutely NOT be permitted to be entered as evidence of guilty on the charges - in any civalised country in the world. Evidence about the particular charges are paramount. The judge would take them into consideration when deciding the sentence & that is the correct approach to take.
You have offered no evidence of any wrong doing in this particular act by BP. It is a tragedy for certain. That does not mean to say that it was not an accident. I admire the fact that BP have not tried to hide their ultimate responsibility behind lawyers as so many companies in this situation have done in the past.
You cannot even give them credit for that & neither could the President.
In his case I am certain that it is because he cannot bear the heat that would occure once American's realised that BP actually did nothing wrong according to the law of the land. People then just might start to ask WHY an American President who claims to be so keen on the environment could actually let this happen.

let's keep it at:
" I don't want to perpetuate this topic".....
statements like this really start to sound pathetic.....

some more great investigative journalistic work:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/bp-links-compensation-wit_n_679171.html

BP has managed to link the fate of its $20 billion oil spill victims compensation fund with its continued ability to pump oil from the Gulf of Mexico.

The voluntary trust agreement negotiated with the Department of Justice is not with the British-based multinational, or even with BP America, but with a fairly remote subsidiary, BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPEC) -- a Delaware corporation that operates BP's Gulf oil leases.

So if BP's drilling revenues from the Gulf suddenly vanished, so, presumably, would the compensation fund, said Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program.

and here is the 20 billion voluntary trust agreement that BP signed —under threat of federal criminal indictment—

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BPECTrustAgreement.pdf


and in the WSJ,

the US administration want more security, I wonder why....:

BP has said it expects to be able to make the required payments to the $20 billion fund through its ongoing operations and asset sales.

However, the administration wanted security in the form of collateral in the event that BP couldn't meet its obligation due to financial or legal problems

.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704388504575418602719011146.html?KEYWORDS=Bp+fund

( note: They taught me to apologize after I accused somebody wrongfully.... )

Cookie, - look up .......

What's the title of this topic?

So now you're digressing onto compensation funds and trust funds. Need I say more.

It would seem that your off-topic pursuit of BP is becoming an obsession! Have you thought of seeking treatment for it and your inability to maintain focus (on the original topic).

arjay wrote:[

Thirdly, my OP and stance on this topic was that Obama had been "unstatesmanlike" in attacking (vilifying) BP over the Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion and subsequent leak, - not about BP's historical safety record, which predates Obama's Presidency anyway.

It seems that for some people it is difficult to understand that Obama attacked BP BECAUSE of their historical safety record

OK, I understand that some people don't want to, or refuse to understand this,
again, so be it
again this tells more about the people that refuse this than about the topic itself:
the vilification of BP by Obama: why did Obama kicked ass?????
The answer has been given, look at the history, the pattern of behavior of BP
but again, some people are short minded and refuse to accept the past
thank God for the People of the Gulf States that Obama didn't do that!!!!
There was indeed a vilification of BP (by Obama)
with reason, because....

Cookie wrote:It seems that for some people it is difficult to understand that Obama attacked BP BECAUSE of their historical safety record

That's your off-topic and irrelevent assumption!

WHY, is not important. It's the fact he did it, and his behaviour and language in doing so that was the point of my post, but you still don't seem to have understood that!!! Instead you seem to have developed an obsession with attacking BP over anything and everything.

arjay wrote:

Cookie wrote:It seems that for some people it is difficult to understand that Obama attacked BP BECAUSE of their historical safety record

That's your off-topic and irrelevent assumption!

WHY, is not important. It's the fact he did it, and his behaviour and language in doing so that was the point of my post, but you still don't seem to have understood that!!! Instead you seem to have developed an obsession with attacking BP over anything and everything.

arjay wrote:Cookie, every time I post on this thread I keep telling myself, to leave it at that. I've made my point - a long time back, my point about Obama's behaviour. Then so often I read your next post whereby you "twist and turn", go off at tangents, usually historical ones, or keep banging your drum about BP's PAST SAFETY RECORD and HISTORICAL events.

It's no wonder WBU stopped posting

I would suggest that the reason WBU stopped posting has little to do with moderation, and a lot more to do with his discomfort at being challenged on a number of "discrepancies" which arose in his numerous one-track posts.

arjay wrote:
WHY, is not important.

Arjay, you again showed with this answer more about you than about the subject.
after this quite stupid answer,

can you imagine: WHY IS NOT IMPORTANT
think this means the end of your rant....
once people stop asking the question WHY something happened,....
for me i hope that you finally keep your word: I don't want to perpetuate this...
just do what you said and shut up,
for now this seams to me the best way out for you.

in the mean time I will update with new info WHY the White House Administration was quite right to threat BP with a federal criminal indictment so that BP coughed up $20 billion for the People of the Gulf states and for the Clean up of this incredible environmental disaster over-there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/bp-to-pay-50-million-in-p_n_680348.html

BP To Pay $50 Million In Penalties For Texas Refinery Explosion

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Beleaguered oil giant BP has agreed to pay a record $50 million fine for failing to correct safety hazards at its Texas City oil refinery after a 2005 explosion killed 15 workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said Thursday it is still working to collect another $30 million for other penalties that the company is contesting.

BP had contested the entire amount before agreeing to pay $50 million for hundreds of violations that it was supposed to fix under a 2005 agreement with the agency. OSHA said that BP had failed to make the improvements quickly enough, while BP had sought additional time to complete the repairs.

The agency also claims BP committed hundreds of new violations at the plant since the blast occurred. OSHA wants BP to pay another $30 million in penalties for allegedly failing to repair safety valves that protect equipment and pipes from becoming over-pressurized.

Arjay,
just a small advice,
you don't have to react to this article unless you have new facts to contradict these.
We already know your opinion and we know that you will only rant and try to spin these facts.
so don't waste your precious energy and stick to your promise: " I will not perpetuate this topic"

For the others:
This article and new conviction shows me again WHY the White House had to vilify the villain.
By saying:" I am disappointed in BP", you will realize nothing, as history showed us.
The White house was quite right to kick ass and threat with a federal criminal indictment in order to get a 230 billion $ fund.
members argued that this reaction was over the top
articles and new convictions of BP showed them that BP has indeed a pattern of bad behavior (criminal behavior...)
Guess it's all part of BP's culture to be so negligent...
When you put it all in context you start to get a nasty picture of BP with a really bad criminal behavior
In this context, the vilification of BP was not only justified, it was necessary!!!!
BP started to act like a small spoiled child. full of arrogance, promising one thing, but doing the opposite. They deserved it...

also,
some members try to paint this as a fight against BP,
This has nothing to do with nationality of a company,
it has to do with corporate negligence, abuse and criminality.
If this was Shell, Total, Goldman sachs,.... my reaction would be the same:
enough is enough, no more corporate impunity, these corporations have to be accountable
Yes, we know they have the politicians and the judges in their pockets,
but the People together with the Media have quite some power also.
It's time for a change,
it's time that these corporations
pay for their negligence,
pay for their greed,
pay for their safety violations,
pay for their killing,
pay for their destruction,
pay for their criminal activities,...
and statements like: " I am disappointed in BP"
will not achieve this, unless you live in "Alice in Wonderland:"...

And yes,
I know 50 million $ is pocket money for BP
and Yes,
people would argue that the BP executives should be going to jail for the murder of their workers due to negligence!
and yes,
A mere fine will only tell BP that they can continue to ignore safety rules.

But it is a change,
and as long as people will say " I am disappointed in BP"
change will be far out of reach and things will go on as they did before:
a criminal conviction here and there,
a fine here and there,
some casualties here and there,....
so let's kick as so that these corporations understand that enough is enough.
Too many dead,
too many suffered we have to put a halt to this, NOW

There are 2 different topics here:

1. The "unstatesmanlike" behaviour of Obama, - topic finished (case proved).
2. The vilification of BP by Cookie, - ongoing & in perpetuity it would seem.

I'll leave you to continue with your highjacking/obsession.

Have just read this report in the Telegraph, like the replies at the end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... gator.html

malc123