Sorry we made you take responsibility

[Stormy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2660

This guy is so far out that the rest of the GOP is trying to keep their distance.

[Kire]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

I think I heard Michelle Bachman saying similar. Funny how Republicans want gov. to stay out of private enterprise, but will be fine with private enterprise ****ing the public.

[Ωbright]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

Those people know which side their gulf is oiled on.

[Armored]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

He's got a legitimate opinion.

[Valkysas]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

that he was paid to have.

[Armored]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

As long as the argument is legitimate the motive is irrelevant.

He's still on the losing side of it and probably rightfully so, but it would be nice for people to look at both arguments.

[Wavelength]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

He's got a legitimate opinion.

How is it a legitimate opinion? If I got a permit to build a nuclear power plant five miles from your home, hired someone else to run it, it blew up, and the fallout caused you to get sick and caused your land to be useless, do I not owe you compensation?

"Shakedown" is when you get an undeserved traffic ticket, win in court, and still have to pay court fees that are higher than the ticket's fine was. Shakedown is when DC politicians propose a $10 fine for not backing into parking spaces, for the sole purpose of generating revenue. Shakedown is when the SEC goes after a financial firm that did nothing wrong but knows that the company will settle because it's not worth the costs to fight.

"Shakedown" is not forcing people to compensate others whom they have harmed.

Armored, I respect you for not being willing to jump to the lowest-common-denominator mentality, but sometimes a scumbag politician is just a scumbag politician.

[Armored]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

He's not saying BP isn't responsible for compensation. Specifically he said there is "No question BP is responsible" What he's arguing is that the proper legal procedures have been ignored and BP is being preemptively held for a years worth of profit. Before the proper investigation has even been finished.

Now BP makes a lot of money so its easy to just say they can afford to, but an entire years worth of profit is a big deal for any person/business. Especially when that's just an rough estimate(guess?) at the damages and the investigation hasn't even been completed. Its unprecedented and kind of wild.

I think the livelihood of everyone affected by this is more important than huge profits by BP so I think the government had a good idea here but you can't go around calling a guy a scumbag and ignoring his argument because of conflicting viewpoints or assumption of character.

[Wavelength]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

He's not saying BP isn't responsible for compensation. Specifically he said there is "No question BP is responsible" What he's arguing is that the proper legal procedures have been ignored and BP is being preemptively held for a years worth of profit. Before the proper investigation has even been finished.

Oh, I didn't know that "you can't put political pressure on a company to do the right thing" was a proper legal procedure. My bad.

Come on. The guy literally said "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

He said that if you do something that is legitimately wrong, you should be immune from any political pressure that is trying to make you right your wrong! You know what? I don't want him living in a country like that, either. He doesn't deserve it.

Now BP makes a lot of money so its easy to just say they can afford to, but an entire years worth of profit is a big deal for any person/business. Especially when that's just an rough estimate(guess?) at the damages and the investigation hasn't even been completed. Its unprecedented and kind of wild.

BP agreed to set up this fund. They didn't have to. They did so in order to try to get a lenient punishment from both the government and the public. They'll probably succeed in doing so. This wasn't illegal in the least.

I think the livelihood of everyone affected by this is more important than huge profits by BP so I think the government had a good idea here but you can't go around calling a guy a scumbag and ignoring his argument because of conflicting viewpoints or assumption of character.

That's not what I did and I'd appreciate it if you lay off the accusations. Here, take a look at some of this guy's actions in the past. I'll admit I'm selectively taking facts from the Wiki article, but I'm not obfuscating the meaning of any of it.

Barton entered private industry until 1981 when he became a White House Fellow and served under Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards. Later, he began consulting for Atlantic Richfield Oil and Gas Co. before being elected to Congress in 1984.[3]

Congressman Barton has taken $1.4 million in campaign contributions from the Oil industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Congressman is the Ranking Minority Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee and during the June 17, 2010 hearings on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, apologized to BP for what he termed the the $20 billion "shakedown" of BP by the White House.[4]

Legislative work: Barton has actively obstructed implementation of clean air standards, work that has earned him huge pay-offs from companies such as Texas Industries which operated a cement kiln in Midlothian, Texas and burns hazardous waste for fuel with insufficient technology to prevent the resulting air pollution throughout North Texas.[9]

As a chairman with primary responsibility over the energy sector, Barton has consistently acted over the years to prevent congressional action on global warming.[10] In 2001, Barton declared, "as long as I am chairman, [regulating global warming pollution] is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that."[11] Barton led opposition to amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the Energy Advancement and Conservation Act in 2001, opposing an amendment to require the President to develop and implement a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels as called for by the non-binding United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the U.S. is a party.[dead link][12] In 2003, Barton again opposed amendments that would have recognized global warming during consideration of the National Energy Policy Act of 2003, opposing a nonbinding amendment that would have put Congress on record as saying that the U.S. should "demonstrate international leadership and responsibility in reducing the health, environmental, and economic risks posed by climate change."[dead link][13] In July 2003, Barton offered an amendment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act to remove language that both recognized global warming and called on President Bush to reengage with the international community to find solutions.[dead link][14] In addition, Barton has consistently opposed proposals to reduce the nation's dependence on oil.[15][16][17]

In 2006, Barton earned two "environmental harm demerits" from the conservative watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection, the first "for derailing floor passage of a sense of the House resolution ... acknowledging climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions"; the second, "for holding hearings, in his role as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, designed to intimidate climate scientists and raise doubt about the impacts and causes of climate change."[26] The hearings were held by Barton's committee on July 19, 2006, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations; there, several skeptics testified regarding the hockey stick graph.
Barton used his committee chairmanship to block the Combating Autism Act of 2006, despite overwhelming bipartisan support. Barton claimed the money steered toward environmental causes of autism were not the reason he blocked passage of the bill,[28] However, he voted for passage of the bill once the environmental language was removed[citation needed].

During his political career, the industries that have been Barton's largest contributors were oil and gas ($1.4 million donated), electric utilities ($1.3 million) and health professionals ($1.1 million)[33]
[edit] Personal life

Joe Barton and his wife Terri own several homes in the Texas cities of Ennis and Arlington. Barton has four children, two stepchildren and five grandchildren.[34]

Citizens for Ethics reported that Barton paid his wife Terri $57,759 in salary and bonuses, from his campaign funds in the 2006 election cycle.[4] A spokesman said that Terri served as the campaign's outreach director and planned fundraising and special events.[6] Barton's daughter Kristin was paid $12,622 in salary and bonuses and his mother, Nell Barton, was paid $7,000 for a car.[6]

Congressman Barton voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act.[39] FEC data shows that in his career, Barton has received almost $2.2 million from the Healthcare industry, $1.5 million of that coming from PACs. This is second only to the amount of money Barton has raised from the Energy sector.[40]

[Shard]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

It's okay guys. He apologized for his apology.

Apparently he didn't think his argument was legitimate enough to stand up to his own party for it.

[Sampson]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

Are you guys listening to this? Hayward's voice is amazing.

[Armored]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

Oh no, you're not making me extend this argument so i'll keep it short and sweet

Oh, I didn't know that "you can't put political pressure on a company to do the right thing" was a proper legal procedure. My bad.

Come on. The guy literally said "I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words — amounts to a shakedown, so I apologize."

He said that if you do something that is legitimately wrong, you should be immune from any political pressure that is trying to make you right your wrong! You know what? I don't want him living in a country like that, either. He doesn't deserve it.

These three paragraphs are just incorrect. Sorry.

BP agreed to set up this fund. They didn't have to. They did so in order to try to get a lenient punishment from both the government and the public. They'll probably succeed in doing so. This wasn't illegal in the least.

I don't think he questioned the legality of it. Sure it might be legal, but is it the right course of action? That's the real question.

That's not what I did and I'd appreciate it if you lay off the accusations. Here, take a look at some of this guy's actions in the past. I'll admit I'm selectively taking facts from the Wiki article, but I'm not obfuscating the meaning of any of it.

I'll concede that you aren't assuming as much as I thought, but a wikipedia article can only tell you so much.

[Wavelength]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

It's okay guys. He apologized for his apology.

Apparently he didn't think his argument was legitimate enough to stand up to his own party for it.

Broken link - please use http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/...pill_bp_s_ally instead.

My favorite quote from the article:

Barton then issued, and House Republican leader John Boehner's office forwarded out a somewhat different written statement.

"I apologize for using the term 'shakedown' with regard to yesterday's actions at the White House this morning, and I retract my apology to BP," it began, and finished: "I regret the impact that my statement this morning implied that BP should not pay for the consequences of their decisions and actions in this incident."

I love this. He proves me right on the "that's not a shakedown" comment, and he proves me right on the "sometimes a scumbag politician is just that" comment. I think Armored was right that he didn't imply that BP shouldn't pay for the consequences of their actions... but of course, to serve his own political interests, Barton put his tail between his legs on that one too.

[Wavelength]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

Oh no, you're not making me extend this argument so i'll keep it short and sweet

Hey, if you don't want to argue, that's honestly cool. But then don't come in and say the guy has a legitimate point when he doesn't.

These three paragraphs are just incorrect. Sorry.

Oh? Did he not say the words that were quoted? I stand behind everything I said there.

I don't think he questioned the legality of it. Sure it might be legal, but is it the right course of action? That's the real question.

You're not making sense to me. Just a little while ago you said "What he's arguing is that the proper legal procedures have been ignored". To me this sounds like a contradiction, but I have a feeling you're making a distinction between the "legal procedures" of due diligence and the legality of the payment. Is that what you're saying?

I'll concede that you aren't assuming as much as I thought, but a wikipedia article can only tell you so much.

OK thanks, and yeah, I agree that a Wikipedia article isn't definite proof of someone being a scumbag! I don't have the time to find ten reliable exposes for you right now though! :3

[Cutter De Blanc]

Re: Sorry we made you take responsibility

I think the last thing BP needs up their asses right now when they're trying to deal with this oil gusher is a criminal investigation. They're under alot of pressure at the moment. I'm not saying don't get the **** out of them when this crisis is over, but I think we should be waiting until this disaster is over before we start taking their liberties away.

BUT WHAT DO I KNOW, HUH?