us supreme court in the pocket of big oil

[xsummitx]

anyone who thinks big oil does not totally control and own the us government is a fool.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/bs_nm/exxon_valdez_court_dc

big oil does what ever they want


"quote"
Even President Bush is a target: "He took us into a war on lies," Landham said, claiming the actual intent was "to put 'Big Oil' back into Iraq."


todays news

great world we live in,oil companies are destroying it and "its ok"

 

[xsummitx]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-06-23-globalwarming_N.htm?csp=34


here is one more

 

[phatty]

So exxon paid 3.5 billion to clean up and the supreme court order them to pay another half billion.

How was that not paying for their "crime"?

And secondly, Global warming is so speculative its turned into a religious battle where no one can prove one thing or another. Its whatever makes you feel good... $$$ buys science, and for the right $ to fund a project you can get a scientist to say whatever you want him to say. And that is a two way street for sure...

 

[xsummitx]

So exxon paid 3.5 billion to clean up and the supreme court order them to pay another half billion.

How was that not paying for their "crime"?

And secondly, Global warming is so speculative its turned into a religious battle where no one can prove one thing or another. Its whatever makes you feel good... $$$ buys science, and for the right $ to fund a project you can get a scientist to say whatever you want him to say. And that is a two way street for sure...

cleaned up was their responsibility,restitution.where the fine,the penalty

if you or i cause criminal careless damage we have to pay for the damage and pay the penalty

i don't feel a 1/2 bil was a penalty ,a penalty is something that effects you

if you get a dwi you can not drive anymore,thats a penalty

even the 2.5 bil imo was not enough for the disaster they created.a year of no profit would have been a penalty

they sorta cleaned up ,what did they do to reverse the effects, bring things back to pre spill enviroment...

as far as the science yes with money you can get any one to say anything.

 

[Ollie]

cleaned up was their responsibility,restitution.where the fine,the penalty

if you or i cause criminal careless damage we have to pay for the damage and pay the penalty

i don't feel a 1/2 bil was a penalty ,a penalty is something that effects you

if you get a dwi you can not drive anymore,thats a penalty

even the 2.5 bil imo was not enough for the disaster they created.a year of no profit would have been a penalty

they sorta cleaned up ,what did they do to reverse the effects, bring things back to pre spill enviroment...

as far as the science yes with money you can get any one to say anything.

It may have been their responsibility, however, they went all out to try contain and clean up. There are permanent monitoring stations that they pay to maintain and care for. They have modified their tankers to reduce any chance of a spill like this again. They have spent billions of dollars not accounted for in the law suit.

Then you pay the half billion. 500 million is a chit load of cash.
Reverse the effects? what exactly were they supposed to do?? Other than clean it up and try to save as many critters as possible.

The people and lawyers saw big dollars and went after it. Tell me 30k people lost their entire years income as a result of the spill. There were a few thousand at most, yet anyone that could get in on the cash did so. Had they limited it to the people actually affected, those people could have gotten more.

 

[MTdream]

anyone who thinks big oil does not totally control and own the us government is a fool.

"quote"
Even President Bush is a target: "He took us into a war on lies," Landham said, claiming the actual intent was "to put 'Big Oil' back into Iraq."


todays news

great world we live in,oil companies are destroying it and "its ok"

unfortunately, you are not holding others accountable to the same standard as you are President Bush...


Just a few examples...(you fill in the blank on who said these)

and, yes, they are quoted IN context and YES they are all real quotes...snopes some of them....

but dont let reality cloud the color of the sky in your world....

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security....The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

I LOVE this one as it negates the Change agent as being fit for office

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?

XXXXXXXX (Democrat, XXXXXXXX): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

XXXXXXX: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

XXXXXXX: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

XXXXXXX: Yes.

"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction...Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world"

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security."

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

News Anchor: And with what we're dealing with here, which is not one man [Bin Laden], it's a hydra-headed operation that's in 55 countries around the world. Now granted, the focus is on, and we should understand, not just Afghanistan -- Afghanistan, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

News Anchor: They hate America. They hate us. This is one thing that makes this war different. They don't want territory, they don't want what we got -- they want to kill us and destroy us. It's a heavy statement, but it's true -- they seek to accomplish our death. Death as a people, as a society, and a culture.

talk show dork: Why?

News Anchor: Who can explain madmen, and who can explain evil.

News Anchor: Saddam Hussein, if he isn't connect to this, he's connected to any other things. He's part of this 'Hate America' thing. You have to understand, Saddam Hussein is somebody I have sat this close, eye to eye.

Wow, HARD to run from those data points...and hard to imagine that all these were said re: Iraq...

But your right...it is all Bush, and Bush's agenda!!! oh and it is Bush's fault for all....Katrina, Somalia, Global Warming, Myanmar, tornadoes, avalanches, etc.

 

[MTdream]

this one is a follow on to the News reporter one, that is more telling than all the others...in his own words, he is perfectly right...the staying power is NOT in this country to do what is needed...it is sad...here it is in his own words...

News anchor dude: This [war] will be long, the casualties will be greater. Let's face it, we've already had more casualties, I mean five thousand of our fellow Americans have been killed already. When we talk about casualties, we've suffered casualties, but there will be more. When we send out sons and daughters into this kind of war, into this Twilight Zone that they're going, there will be great casualties. Now, it remains to be seen whether we have the staying power, that's basically up to you, and me, and everybody in the audience, and every American, whether we have the staying power, whether we have the will to stay with it, is the big question. But you say 'Will it do anything?' I certainly think it can, but what would we think of ourselves if we didn't try.
News anchor dude: This will take years, this may very well take another four, eight, ten years. The world's view of us, in many places with many people, is we just don't have the stomach to stick anything out. Well, we were great during World War II, but this is a new generation, they're all spoiled.

kind of ironic, that in that last quote he is talking about YOU...those who dont remember...those whom have forgotten!!!!

 

[ruffryder]

It may have been their responsibility, however, they went all out to try contain and clean up. There are permanent monitoring stations that they pay to maintain and care for. They have modified their tankers to reduce any chance of a spill like this again. They have spent billions of dollars not accounted for in the law suit.

You make it sound like they did it out of there own free will. I highly doubt that was the case. I suspect that they were forced to do the above, there was no choice.

 

[ruffryder]

this one is a follow on to the News reporter one, that is more telling than all the others...in his own words, he is perfectly right...the staying power is NOT in this country to do what is needed...it is sad...here it is in his own words...kind of ironic, that in that last quote he is talking about YOU...those who dont remember...those whom have forgotten!!!!

That is the nature of the beast it seem we only stayed around if it was of monetary value.

We cut and left from Afghanistan now that is come back to bite us. If we do it in Iraq, it will just be a matter of time until that country hurts us one way or another.

We screwed that country up, and we need to stay there until they are back together, on there own.

 

[Dogmeat]

anyone who thinks big oil does not totally control and own the us government is a fool.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/bs_nm/exxon_valdez_court_dc

big oil does what ever they want


"quote"
Even President Bush is a target: "He took us into a war on lies," Landham said, claiming the actual intent was "to put 'Big Oil' back into Iraq."


todays news

great world we live in,oil companies are destroying it and "its ok"

*yawn* at people griping about "big oil".

*yawn* at people griping aboug gas prices.

I've said it 800 billion times, if you wanna blame somone, blame the same idiot ****head greenies who try to shut off all our riding areas. The mentality that they purvey that the Democrats have gotten voted into office on for the last 40 years is why we're in the mess we're in right now.

And FYI, there is no such thing as "big oil", that's a media buzz word because reporters are complete idiots that generally speaking can't understand anything more technical than a nintendo or something.

 

[Dogmeat]

You make it sound like they did it out of there own free will. I highly doubt that was the case. I suspect that they were forced to do the above, there was no choice.

When that spill first happened, Exxon wanted to be permitted to use some kind of surfactants in their cleanup of the spill. I am not exactly sure what this would have accomplished other than helping to disperse the oil slick, but I'm not a cleanup expert. Regardless, whoever the local Alsakan government official in charge of saying "yay or nay" on their use of surfactants was some young guy who basically wasn't qualified for the job he had and wouldn't allow them to use those chemicals until after he was told by the higher ups to do so, when had Exxon been able to do what they wanted to contain the spill it NEVER would have been so bad. THey eventually wound up using various chemicals that were effectivley banned in the first hours of the spill for remediation but that was too late.

I'll try to find a source on this, but I've read several articles on it over the course of the last decade or so.

 

[ruffryder]

some more info
wiki EXXON Valdez

 

[xsummitx]

some more info
wiki EXXON Valdez

well even that says they did a half a$$ job on the clean up and that that the wildlife impact is still an issue..
..good info though.
...and is says that there is still oil that has not been cleaned up....not alot to the over all amount but the jobs is not done.
wtf....that is exactly what i am saying.....i am by no way a greenie but why should we not care about our enviroment like we care about our sleds and riding areas

 

[ruffryder]

well even that says they did a half a$$ job on the clean up and that that the wildlife impact is still an issue..
..good info though.
...and is says that there is still oil that has not been cleaned up....not alot to the over all amount but the jobs is not done.
wtf....that is exactly what i am saying.....i am by no way a greenie but why should we not care about our enviroment like we care about our sleds and riding areas

Wasn't going for a correction, just putting out more/other info.

It comes down to the same thing that environmental topics always do. Is the earth only here for humans use and consumption (the bible tells us it is), or are humans here to coexist just like the rest of things on this earth do.

 

[xsummitx]

It may have been their responsibility, however, they went all out to try contain and clean up. There are permanent monitoring stations that they pay to maintain and care for. They have modified their tankers to reduce any chance of a spill like this again. They have spent billions of dollars not accounted for in the law suit.

Then you pay the half billion. 500 million is a chit load of cash.
Reverse the effects? what exactly were they supposed to do?? Other than clean it up and try to save as many critters as possible.

The people and lawyers saw big dollars and went after it. Tell me 30k people lost their entire years income as a result of the spill. There were a few thousand at most, yet anyone that could get in on the cash did so. Had they limited it to the people actually affected, those people could have gotten more.

well 2 courts said thats what they should pay.....and what can they do?????


return the wildlife population to what it was....build some fish farms to replace the billions of salmon destroyed and what ever the equivalent would be for the animals.....undo the damage done....finish cleaning it up...it not done...see the link ruffy posted

 

[xsummitx]

But your right...it is all Bush, and Bush's agenda!!! oh and it is Bush's fault for all....Katrina, Somalia, Global Warming, Myanmar, tornadoes, avalanches, etc.[/QUOTE]

it is bush's agenda.....and mine to a point...i dont blame for anything he didn't do.....is the answer obama HE!! no....he is all wrong for this country.....but i can not totally agree with mcain either...ron paul was my guy....now all i can do is hope and pray who ever gets the job does not make matters any worse

 

[xsummitx]

Wasn't going for a correction, just putting out more/other info.

It comes down to the same thing that environmental topics always do. Is the earth only here for humans use and consumption (the bible tells us it is), or are humans here to coexist just like the rest of things on this earth do.

i think we should coexist....if you empty the milk jug what do you have left...nothing....i have kids...i want what was availible for me availible for them.

 

[MTdream]

But your right...it is all Bush, and Bush's agenda!!! oh and it is Bush's fault for all....Katrina, Somalia, Global Warming, Myanmar, tornadoes, avalanches, etc.

it is bush's agenda.....and mine to a point...i dont blame for anything he didn't do.....is the answer obama HE!! no....he is all wrong for this country.....but i can not totally agree with mcain either...ron paul was my guy....now all i can do is hope and pray who ever gets the job does not make matters any worse

So, you choose to not try and play bingo on the quotes?

Hint...

none of them are republicans...
25% of them predate bush....
100% of them now take the stance that it is a "bush" agenda...and "bushs' war"

 

[xsummitx]

as a wise little green guy once said.....there is no try ,it is do or do not

 

[MTdream]

anyone who thinks big oil does not totally control and own the us government is a fool.

fool is a VERY big word to call people who dont agree with your rant though...especially when you rant is conjecture at best...