# Senate Republicans block BP investigation



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature Network

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORbqq_FHoM&feature]YouTube - BP Investigation Blocked By Senate[/ame]

----------------------------

Remember how many times I said this would happen?  Republicans will probably get both houses this fall.  BP will pay nothing.  ALL costs will be born by the Middle Class.

A post at the bottom explained it:

*Listen up people. Even though Democrats have the majority, there still needs to be 60 votes to bring legislation to a full vote. Once the full vote takes place, then you only need a majority. Since the Democrats do not have 60 senators in the senate, they always need Republican support to get a bill to the floor to be voted on. Failure to get the 60 votes is called a filibuster. The Republicans have banned together to ensure that the 60 votes needed to get the bill to the floor to be voted on by the full senate will not happen.
So wake up people. The Republicans do not want this investigated. The real question is why. *


----------



## manu1959 (Sep 27, 2010)

maybe the pres should just issue an executive order.....


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> maybe the pres should just issue an executive order.....



Doesn't it have to be "funded"?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

If one of these MOFOS is your elected, please consider calling or emailing to voice your disapproval of this action.

U.S. Senate: Senators Home


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.

Yes Republicans blocked it in the Senate until the republican leadership had time to read it. 

They then, a day or 2 later allowed the vote to go forward.

Move on folks there is no story here......


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

Most Republicans on this site would prefer the American Middle Class pay.  They don't want to upset BP.  It's a "company" after all.  A big one.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > maybe the pres should just issue an executive order.....
> ...



No, a subpoena does not require any funding.  I'm not sure why the Presidential Commission lacks this power or why they needed a new law to use it, but the Republicans should NOT NOT NOT be trying to shield BP from a full investigation of the spill.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.
> 
> Yes Republicans blocked it in the Senate until the republican leadership had time to read it.
> 
> ...



O for pity's sake...I feel foolish now!

Damn you, rdean!!!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



Weeee haaa----you mean it won't cost a dime to investigate BP ?  What a deal !


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.
> 
> Yes Republicans blocked it in the Senate until the republican leadership had time to read it.
> 
> ...



"As time passes, people's memories fade," West said. "It's just a natural thing. The subjects of the investigation (BP and senior managers) have had over a month to sanitize records and get stories straight."
West said there should have also been a subpoena immediately issued for emails and other documents that may shed light on the events leading up to the spill and the discussions that took place afterwards.
"The thing that has brought most criminals down is their email," West said. "The first thing you do is grab the servers so they can't be doctored. But this company does not appear to be under a court order to produce or preserve so what's to stop them from tampering with potential evidence?"
In fact, Congress has already been informed that seven hours of data leading up to the explosion aboard Deepwater Horizon is now missing.

t r u t h o u t | Ex-EPA Officials: Why Isn&#039;t BP Under Criminal Investigation?

----------------------------------------------------

You're right.  The window of opportunity has probably already faded.  BP got away with a big one.  Shows the power corporations have over the Republican Party.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.
> ...



Don't feel to bad Madeline, it did come from rdean after all. We had quite a thread on this about a month ago. Maybe even 6 weeks back.....


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.
> ...



that's cause you izz foolish.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...








oh fuck, yadon'tsay? we had another thread about this? and that stupid fuck rdean didn't check?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 27, 2010)

They should investigate this Administration instead. Who took the most cash from BP of any politician in America? Drum Roll please...Hopey Changey Barack Obama! A dirty little secret the corrupt MSM has of course refused to discuss. Hopefully the Republicans will regain some power in November and begin to really investigate that awful Oil Spill mess. So far it has all been a Democrat White Wash. If you investigate BP you must also investigate this White House. The Democrats are just trying to deflect everything on BP to cover for their own shocking incompetence. Wait til after November and then investigate both BP and this White House. I'm good with that approach.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Sep 27, 2010)

Well you know rdean. If someone wants to read a bill they must be evil.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 27, 2010)

dilloduck said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



It'll cost money for lawyers, scientists and their support staff, their offices and equipment, etc. but a subpoena is a not "funded".  If I had a legitimate lawsuit, I could subpoena all the IRS drafts of regulations for the last 20 years, and they'd have to supply them to me, free of charge.

Sometimes you can seek relief from unduly burdensome discovery, but not often.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

Madeline said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.
> ...



They are pulling your leg.

The president's commission met today on BP to try to figure out their options without subpoena power.  The President had subpoena power for the 9/11 Commission, for 3-Mile Island.  They don't have it for BP because it was blocked by Republicans.

That means that we have to rely on what ever BP is kind enough to share with us.

If you look at the Republican's "Plague on America", there is nothing about alternate energy or environmental protection.  They simply don't care about these things.

We watched this oil spill for months.  What have you heard about it in the so-called "liberal" media for the last couple of months.  Seems the "liberal" media may not be so "liberal" after all.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 27, 2010)

Investigate this Administration instead. Maybe after November this can happen. Make 2010 count people.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



rdean, you are a damned liar. post a link with todays date on it. i just spent more time than necessary looking and the only stories on this i can find is from a month ago. Please bring us up to date or at least apologize for being an idiot.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I can't.  At least not yet.  I just watched this on the news.  It's why I posted it.

What is it you think I'm lying about?  What did i say that was so threatening?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Because I told the truth, you "Heard" something on the news and because you think it will hurt republicans you start trashing it in here. Well dick head you are wrong again. And you know it. Now get off mommies computer.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



OK you dirty* smear of a shitstain*.  I gave you the opportunity to show some honor, which I was sure you didn't have.  At least you didn't disappoint.

Here is the official statement from the Secretary of the Interior before the NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL AND OFFSHORE DRILLING 

dated SEPTEMBER 27, 2010

from the meeting they had today you fucker.

Secretary Salazar Statement BP Oil Spill Commission

Go read it SWINE.

They are also meeting tomorrow:

Experts question BP's take on Gulf oil spill

By DINA CAPPIELLO
The Associated Press 
Sunday, September 26, 2010; 3:43 PM

BP's testimony, and the questioning, lasted more than three hours on Sunday. It was the first time BP's six-person investigation team was questioned publicly about its findings. On Monday and Tuesday in Washington, investigators will turn their attention to the government's response to the spill and its impact on the economy and environment at a hearing of the national spill commission set up by President Barack Obama. 

washingtonpost.com

You are a creep and an asswipe.  Republicans and others of your kind almost never put up links or proof but they howl when they hear a comment they don't like.

*This is me:*






*This is you:*


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 27, 2010)

Just investigate this Administration instead. I'll settle for that. BP & this Administration are the same entity. This current President took the most cash from BP of any politician in America. If you investigate BP you also have to investigate this White House. They're the same thing. So make it happen Republicans. Winning in November can make it happen. Go get em.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

OK you pile of shit, you have proved once again that you are an ignorant, stupid, leftest hack.

Not one place in either of your links does it mention that the Republicans have blocked the investigation.

You are, as normal wrong. And for the personal digs at me and for lying at least 3 times in this thread here comes another neg.


Here's one of you rdean, since you love pretty pictures.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Just investigate this Administration instead. I'll settle for that. BP & this Administration are the same entity. This current President took the most cash from BP of any politician in America. If you investigate BP you also have to investigate this White House. They're the same thing. So make it happen Republicans. Winning in November can make it happen. Go get em.



And there you are.  Just as dirty as SFC Ollie.  No links. Just lies.

And why no links?  Because you would have to explain how the money to Obama came from BP Employees.  You know, secretaries, janitors, engineers, platform workers, kitchen workers and thousands of other employees.  Not a cent came from a BP sponsored PAC.

Your kind are so dirty.  

Your kind hate this country.

What is it that makes the right wing such filthy people?

NY Times falsely reports that Obama took BP PAC money for 2008 campaign
June 19, 2010 1:07 pm ET 

The New York Times reported that "in the 2008 election cycle," Barack Obama "took in $77,000" from BP "executives and its political action committee." In fact, Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked donations in 2008, and all of that money came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

NY Times falsely reports that Obama took BP PAC money for 2008 campaign | Media Matters for America


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> OK you pile of shit, you have proved once again that you are an ignorant, stupid, leftest hack.
> 
> *Not one place in either of your links does it mention that the Republicans have blocked the investigation.*
> You are, as normal wrong. And for the personal digs at me and for lying at least 3 times in this thread here comes another neg.
> ...



I never said Republicans BLOCKED the investigation, nipple head.  But by BLOCKING the presidents subpoena power, they might as well have.  How did you get so dumb?  And still no apology?  You have no honor and no class.  You are an embarrassment.

If the government can't issue a subpoena (which was clearly shown in the video.  Actually recorded IN the Senate.), what info will BP be willing to share?  Think about it.






Just stop commenting.  You only make yourself look more and more stupid.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Just investigate this Administration instead. I'll settle for that. BP & this Administration are the same entity. This current President took the most cash from BP of any politician in America. If you investigate BP you also have to investigate this White House. They're the same thing. So make it happen Republicans. Winning in November can make it happen. Go get em.
> ...



Lol! Man,you're actually kind of pathetic. Barack Obama did receive the most money from BP of any politician in America. This is just fact. Just because you don't want to accept this,it doesn't mean it's not fact. BP and this White House are the same entity. They're old buddies. You can't investigate one without investigating the other one too. I really do hope this happens. That Oil Spill calamity should no longer be allowed to be White Washed by the Democrats. Maybe things will change in November. God i hope so.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > OK you pile of shit, you have proved once again that you are an ignorant, stupid, leftest hack.
> ...



I think you should follow your own advice.

What is the name of your thread here rdean? I know it is difficult for you to remember it is at the top and bottom of each page so I'll help you out.

 Senate Republicans block BP investigation ​
And the story about blocking the subpoena power is exactly as I said. it was blocked temporarily until Republican Senate Leadership had a chance to read it. This all happened a month ago. Are you really this fucking stupid?


----------



## Jon (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> I never said Republicans BLOCKED the investigation.



You said exactly that, moron. End yourself, save God the trouble.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Sep 27, 2010)

Um isn't this thread title 'Senate Republicans block BP investigation?' So i think the OP did claim Republicans blocked the investigation. Did he or she already forget their own thread title? Now that's some pretty funny chit. I love Message Boards.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Sep 27, 2010)

I hear Bill Clinton gota BJ from a fat Polish chick too.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

*Hey look, I found another picture of rdean​*


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Actually, I QUOTED the "Mother Nature Network".  See:

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.

Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature Network

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rORbqq_FHoM&feature]YouTube - BP Investigation Blocked By Senate[/ame]

------------------------------------------------

But the truth is, you called me a liar for not posting a link.  

And you said twice:  *This all happened a month ago. Are you really this fucking stupid?*

You didn't even read the links I posted.  Do you know how?  The meeting happened yesterday, today and will continue tomorrow.

I posted the links and you never apologized.

Do you see how good the Republicans and the right wing is at "swerving away" and "dodging the truth".  They are masters of "slight of hand" and misleading statements. 

Never put up links.  Just lies and untruths.  They work for that "gotcha moment".  No substance.


----------



## Yurt (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> *I never said Republicans BLOCKED the investigation*, nipple head.



the TITLE of the thread is:

*Senate Republicans block BP investigation* 

i would call you stupid and dishonest, but that would do a disservice to dishonest and stupid people


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yes rdean, don't melt down now. they did have a meeting. they also had subpoena powers. Can you show us a recent news story that says they don't? Because we discussed this at length a month ago and the Republicans did go ahead and suport this after they read the bill. Please do try to keep up.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 27, 2010)

Worse yet rdean you are senile now too?

You were the 4th person to post in that earlier thread with the same video...

LOL this just gets better and better.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/130595-wtf-how-do-republicans-explain-this-one.html


----------



## oreo (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.
> 
> Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature Network
> 
> ...




You can tell you're getting real desperate here.

 *



BP has already paid out billions of dollars for the Gulf oil leak--and are going to pay out until it is cleaned up and all retribution to those industries that were affected are paid back in full.
		
Click to expand...

*
I don't know how many times we have to remind liberals that the U.S. Congress has a democrat majority in congress, that the U.S. Senate has a democrat majority and we have a democrat administration.

IOW--*Republicans can't stop ANYTHING.*


----------



## Yurt (Sep 27, 2010)

Yurt said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > *I never said Republicans BLOCKED the investigation*, nipple head.
> ...



rdean will never address this post....

watch


----------



## oreo (Sep 27, 2010)

Yurt said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...




----Geez---Rdean does it again--   The I.Q of rdean has seriously got to be in question.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Presidential panel probes spill causes, response
*Monday, September 27*, 2010 at 9:35 AM by Jennifer A. Dlouhy in Gulf oil disaster

During* today&#8217;s wide-ranging hearing, the eight-member panel *also is set to grill scientists and administration officials about the amount of oil that for three months flowed from the blown-out well into the Gulf of Mexico.

So far, *the panel has been operating without the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony* from reluctant witnesses. Lawmakers have pushed legislation to give subpoena power to the commission, but their proposal has stalled on Capitol Hill amid other disputes.

Presidential panel probes spill causes, response - Texas on the Potomac

---------------------------------------

Only SFC Ollie could look at the truth and so blatantly call it a lie.

Don't worry.  I don't expect you to admit you're wrong.


*This is me:*






*This is you:*


----------



## shintao (Sep 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> Remember how many times I said this would happen?  Republicans will probably get both houses this fall.  BP will pay nothing.  ALL costs will be born by the Middle Class.



Oh, I am sure Dems breathed heavy and were praying for Hope & Change. I thought BP already put up a WH bond to pay for damages, as required by our laws at the time of the spill. And they have went beyond that by accepting responsibility and working our coast lines and gulf as best they can.

The only thing we don't know is how bad the damage is going to be on the gulf animals, and how many years it will take for the gulf to recover. As long as the blue crab is staggaring around like drunk on Saturday night, I have no intentions of eating the mercury laced water life. And I think all water life should be checked by the FDA & IDed to know where it is coming from.


----------



## shintao (Sep 27, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I hear Bill Clinton gota BJ from a fat Polish chick too.



Was that the same day they had pizza delivered? Jus wonderin if Moni sweetie had identifiable Dixie Pizza sauce on her blue dress.


----------



## rdean (Sep 27, 2010)

shintao said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Remember how many times I said this would happen?  Republicans will probably get both houses this fall.  BP will pay nothing.  ALL costs will be born by the Middle Class.
> ...



What laws?  Do you have a link?

How much has BP actually put into that account?  Remember, they said they were going to put in 20 billion in 5 billion dollar installments over 4 years.  But that was before the Republicans "apologized" and called it a shake down.  Even though nearly a dozen of the "little people" died on that oil rig explosion, somehow, to Republicans, it was "just an accident".  To them, it's obvious the middle class should pay for the clean up and damage.  

It was clear that BP had no idea they had this "support" in our government.  I suspect if they knew the Republicans were going to apologize, they NEVER would have pledged all that money.  Without subpoena power and knowing the Republicans are on their side, how much do you think we will actually get?  Probably what we've got so far and not a penny more.  Wanna bet?

One things for sure, if Republicans get both houses, and they probably will, there will be no further investigation.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Hey rdean, linkiepoo please?  I have mental whiplash here.  I follow the BP story fairly closely and have not heard about this before.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



rdean, there is absolutely no excuse for this outburst.  You owe SFC Ollie an apology.

If you dun want to be treated like a petulant child, stop behaving like one.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

LibocalypseNow said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



If this is true it's easily proven, LibocalypseNow.  Post a fucking link or else you seem to be such a partisan hack you'd nuke the Gulf region if it would ding Obama's reputation.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Maddie, he's right. Obama did get contributions from BP - of course, the argument is that the donations are from individuals, not BP itself. As Obama himself pointed out "I don't take money from oil companies".... what he did not mention when announcing that is that, no politician took contributions from oil companies - because it's illegal. More political word play. 

However, there's a decent article from the Guardian newspaper (left leaning newspaper in the UK) 

BP oil spill cost hits nearly $10bn | Business | guardian.co.uk

This makes some interesting points..... including this:

_BP also said payouts to people affected by the spill such as fishermen, hoteliers and retailers had dramatically increased since it handed over authority for dispensing funds to a White House appointee.

BP has set up a $20bn compensation fund, which has so far paid out 19,000 claims totalling more than $240m. The fund is run by lawyer Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's former executive pay tsar.

The oil company previously paid out about $3.5m a day in compensation, but this has risen to $12.5m a day since Feinberg took over._

Hayward was correct when he said he expected illegitimate claims. Interesting how the amounts being paid out skyrocketed after control of the fund was handed over to the US Government. It's so much easier to spend money when it isn't yours that your spending - and you have a big dog in the hunt, ie votes. 

Let's also bear in mind that the two US companies, Haliburton (those evil demons to the left) and Transocean are both getting off scott free in this mess. Why is that? There has been no outcome from the investigation into responsibility as yet. BP are held as a scapegoat - mainly because they are not a US company. 

There are huge questions that have not even been asked, yet alone answered yet. I know those questions. Most in the media know those questions. Why isn't anyone asking them? More to the point, why isn't anyone answering them?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



I think Feinberg and the claims handling process would make an excellent thread, CG.  I might agree with LibocalypseNow as well about Obama's contributors if he'd post some documentation.  I just get frustrated with people who use everything and anything to further their attacks on one pol or another -- the oil spill is (or should be) as nonpartisan an issue as any of us will see in our lifetimes.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


too fucking stupid
your linked story is WRONG


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I don't really bother with the whole BP oil spill thing much.... generally, Americans are far too hysterical about it to be able to logically think and analyze information about it. It's easier just to scream about the evil that is BP. I find that ridiculous beyond belief. But... it is fact that Obama took substantial amounts from BP employees - and the evidence is available, and has been provided on this board on a number of occasions.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

LibocalypseNow claimed Obama took money directly from the company and in greater amounts than any pol before him.  Preposterous gibberish, I suspect.  On a thread we're using to bash our favorite lefty agent provacateur, seems only right to take our favorite righty one to the woodshed as well.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> LibocalypseNow claimed Obama took money directly from the company and in greater amounts than any pol before him.  Preposterous gibberish, I suspect.  On a thread we're using to bash our favorite lefty agent provacateur, seems only right to take our favorite righty one to the woodshed as well.



It is not preposterous gibberish, mo chara.

Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com

Whether you like the 'source' or not, the figures are what they are.... accurate.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow claimed Obama took money directly from the company and in greater amounts than any pol before him.  Preposterous gibberish, I suspect.  On a thread we're using to bash our favorite lefty agent provacateur, seems only right to take our favorite righty one to the woodshed as well.
> ...



Well, this helps explain why Obama couldn't find his anger at the spill.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



That's not it. The reason he can't find his anger is that his Administration has dirty hands in this whole affair. But, let's not let that fact get in the way of hysterical ranting about the evil oil company.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



"Dirty hands" meaning what?


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



'Dirty hands' meaning exactly that. They are complicit in what happened.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

In what way?


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> In what way?



I've already stated why in other threads. I'm not gonna get into it yet again. Most posters prefer to be spoon fed information by the media to finding out facts for themselves. (By that, I don't necessarily mean you) so I'm not inclined to go into stuff that the media choose not to talk about.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.
> 
> Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature Network
> 
> ...





Accidents happen.  Oh ... I forgot ... you're a parrot for the leftwingnut agenda.  Nothing is EVER an accident unless it's YOU, right?


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Gunny said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.
> ...



Yes, they do. But what is interesting is the why of it all. Exactly why were BP drilling where they were drilling? No one asks that.... because the answer would not look good for this Administration - or the previous Administration.... The blame lies squarely with Congress. If anyone should be paying, it is our Congress critters..... but that would mean we foot the bill, and we can't have that, can we?


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > In what way?
> ...



Well, this is what I know, so far, CG.  The Deepwater Horizon rig was licensed and operational before Obama took office.  The safety plan and safety inspections that should have been required were clearly negligently done, but again, before he took office.  However, he appointed a new DOI czar, Salazar, and Salazar presumably replaced the head of MMS or chose to retain him.

The shenanigans at MMS were extreme, well-known and had previously been reported on.  Obama did not direct Salazar to clean up that cesspool.  Had MSS been redirected in January 2009, the spill probably would have been averted.

There's enough blame to go around, but yes, Obama has to shoulder his fair share.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I didn't say Obama. I don't actually hold him responsible. I hold the right people responsible. Congress. All of them. Regardless of party. Fact is that it was Congress who pushed BP out to deep water drilling, overriding BP's concerns, as well as those of Haliburton, Transocean and the individual states. All three companies, and the individual state governments wanted onshore drilling. It was congress that overrode that and pushed the drilling out. And that was a Dem led Congress, so screaming 'Buuuuusssshhhh' doesn't cut it. All this is verifiable with a considerable amount of effort - ie, you need to look past getting information from the media. 

This whole thing is just more smoke and mirrors... with the GOP and Dems pointing the finger at each other, all of them pointing at BP (the big bad foreign company) and ALL of them know why their doing it. Because they don't want Americans to stop the hysteria and ask the hard questions. Sadly, it works. It always does. Because, generally, Americans prefer to have an easy answer, a bogeyman to blame, because the alternative is just too hard.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2010)

Good grief.  Such chicken littles.  The GOP Senators blocked it so they could actually read it.  
Good: Senate GOP will lift block on subpoena power against BP

Okay, it turns out Senate Republicans are going to do the right thing and support giving officials the subpoena power to probe BP.

....

According to a DeMint aide, he happened to be on the floor when a Democratic Senator introduced the bill for a voice vote. DeMint was told by GOP leadership aides to hold up the bill because leadership hadn't had a chance to read it, the DeMint aide says.

But now that the leadership has read the bill and decided it has no objections, it will move forward if a Dem asks again for it to be passed by unanimous consent.

....​The Plum Line - Good: Senate GOP will lift block on subpoena power against BP

I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer my lawmakers actually to read legislation before they vote on passing it.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Good grief.  Such chicken littles.  The GOP Senators blocked it so they could actually read it.
> Good: Senate GOP will lift block on subpoena power against BP
> 
> Okay, it turns out Senate Republicans are going to do the right thing and support giving officials the subpoena power to probe BP.
> ...



You're mean. You're spoiling rdrool's fun.


----------



## Madeline (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief.  Such chicken littles.  The GOP Senators blocked it so they could actually read it.
> ...



Ya, but the trouble is rdean has his fun at our expense.  I am tired of chasing rabbits down holes, and I know I won't take him at his word again anytime soon.  So unless I have a half-hour to fact-check, I prolly won't be reading many more rdean posts.

I might not feel this way if rdean could've admitted his error and apologized, but he did not...and his viciousness towards SFC Ollie turned me totally off.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Never take a claim that either party is deliberately voting against the best interests of 'we, the people' at face value. There is ALWAYS a reason - and that reason is usually valid. That goes as much for the Dems as it does for the GOP. It is the same as the Defense budget - the dems claim the GOP 'hate' the military because they voted it down. Truth was, they voted against the crap that was tacked onto the Defense bill in order to PROTECT the military - not to damage it. This is the main reason why you cannot trust the partisans in anything they claim.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Good grief.  Such chicken littles.  The GOP Senators blocked it so they could actually read it.
> ...


I tend to do that more than 6% of the time, when I can actually decipher his babble.  Divecon tends to do it a lot whenever deanie-do's links either have nothing to do with what he says or, more often, completely contradict what he says.  It's good being a 6%er.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I like that, 'chasing rabbits down holes'.  Gonna file that saying away for future use.

And, much as I am loathe to provide much of a defense for deanie-do, a lot of the press DID report this without that little detail about the actual REASON the Senate GOP blocked it.

That is why I check several sources before I comment.

It's a shame what our press has become.  We get what we settle for, though.  Quality equilibrates to the lowest level of expectations.

Damn, damn...just more reason to emphasize critical thinking in ALL aspects of our lives.


----------



## California Girl (Sep 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Lesson for the foolish: Don't take media reports at face value.


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow claimed Obama took money directly from the company and in greater amounts than any pol before him.  Preposterous gibberish, I suspect.  On a thread we're using to bash our favorite lefty agent provacateur, seems only right to take our favorite righty one to the woodshed as well.
> ...



the original story about Obama receiving over 77 thousand from BP Pacs came from the New York Times.  Later, the New York Times printed a "correction".  But the damage had been done.  Republicans gleefully took this story and ran with it smearing the first minority president.  It wasn't their first time and it won't be their last.  They are a dirty political party who cares nothing for the truth.  Many on this board are evidence of that. 

Correction: June 25, 2010

An article on Saturday about BPs political connections described incorrectly the more than $77,000 in contributions that President Obama received in the 2008 election cycle from BP-related donors. All of the contributions came from BP employees; Mr. Obama did not receive any money from BPs political action committee in the presidential campaign. (He did receive $1,000 from the companys P.A.C. in his 2004 Senate campaign.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/us/politics/19donate.html

So here you go: Among all federal-level candidates, President Barack Obama is the all-time top recipient of BP-related money -- more than $77,000 -- with 99 percent of it coming from personal donations made by BP employees. Obama took no money from any political action committees during his 2008 presidential run, when he shattered previous fund-raising records, but he did accept $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate bid. Two other former presidential candidates -- George W. Bush ($47,388) and John McCain ($44,899) -- also rank on BP's top 20 list. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) who made a ton of news Thursday regarding BP, is also there.

BP's Favorite Lawmakers, A Setback for DISCLOSE Act and More in Capital Eye Opener: June 18 - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked contributions for his presidential campaign, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Politics. All of the money came from BP employees, not the company. Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees; none of this is from BP's PAC.

Obama&#039;s campaign money from BP employees, not company or BP&#039;s PAC - Washington DC Policy Reform | Examiner.com

The New York Times falsely reported that Obama took PAC money from BP 
oil.  They reported a few months ago, that "in the 2008 
election...Obama...took in $77,000...from BP...executives and its 
political action committee."  But Obama did no such thing.  In fact, 
Obama made a deliberate point of refusing to accept any money from BP 
in the last presidential election.  Obama did not accept contributions 
from any political action committees.  In marked contrast, they 
hypocrit "maverick" John McCain took all the money he could from 
BP. 

NY Times Lied. Obama Took NO Money From BP Oil. - alt.politics | Google Groups


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



So,you think that the President's commission has "subpoena power"?

--------------------------------------------------

BP slow to pay oil spill damage claims while Tampa Bay fisherman struggle

September 25th, 2010 6:50 pm ET

Blocking subpoena power in disaster investigative commissions is unheard of. The terrorists crisis, the financial crisis and Three Mile Island commissions all had subpoena power. However, Senate Republicans gave no explanation on Monday when they blocked the Presidential Commission on the BP oil spill from having subpoena power to conduct the investigation.

Protecting BP does not serve the American people, and it will not bring the truth to the millions of people along the Gulf Coast who are entitled to answers. Moreover, it is an insult to the families of the eleven men who were killed the night the Deepwater Horizon exploded. It is difficult to fathom how the Republicans can justify obstructing justice in the BP oil spill, but that is exactly what they have done. The bigger question is, how can Americans let them get away with it?

Subpoena power in BP oil spill investigation blocked by Senate Republicans - National Political Spin | Examiner.com

-------------------------------------------------------

How many oil wells are there in the gulf.  A thousand?  A hundred thousand?  Hundreds of thousands?  If there is an "explosion", it's because someone cut corners.  

11 men died.  Their families are devastated.  The Gulf is damaged.  Denying subpoena power gives BP a chance to get rid of documents.  To purge evidence.  Without the subpoena, there is no compulsion to testify, to give documents and e-mails. 
The so called "liberal" press dropped the ball on this.  Maybe because they are more "conservative" than "liberal"?

Where is my "error"?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

Madeline said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Why would he admit to it. He knew he was full of shit when he posted it. He is a pure propagandist of the highest order.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 28, 2010)

I have looked and looked for a updated story about this but it seems every one I can find ends up talking about back at the end of July when this happened. And they all leave out the part where Senator Demint explains why he objected.They all also leave out the part where the Republican leadership said they were fine with the bill and would support it moving forward. So *if* this commission does not have subpoena powers, that means the Democrats never brought it back up for a vote.

I couldn't find where this happened either, but then no one in any of the stories have given the number or name of the bill. Makes it hard to actually find.....


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> I have looked and looked for a updated story about this but it seems every one I can find ends up talking about back at the end of July when this happened. And they all leave out the part where Senator Demint explains why he objected.They all also leave out the part where the Republican leadership said they were fine with the bill and would support it moving forward. So *if* this commission does not have subpoena powers, that means the Democrats never brought it back up for a vote.
> 
> I couldn't find where this happened either, but then no one in any of the stories have given the number or name of the bill. Makes it hard to actually find.....



Only *NOW* you look up the date?  

By Greg Sargent  |  July 1, 2010; 2:35 PM ET

That was four months ago.  So now it's the Democrat's fault.

Bush was given subpoena power for the 9/11 commission.  No Democrat had to "read something".  The president was given subpoena power over "3 mile Island".

Not Obama from the Republicans.  Because they had to "read something".

Republicans have said they are looking for Obama's Waterloo and want him to "fail".   *Or am I lying about that too?*

Not even sure it matters anymore.  On something like this, you have to strike right away.  Get emails, get records, gather evidence.  

Everything has been laundered now.  It probably doesn't really matter.  

Besides, BP might have been found guilty of something.  Do you really think that Republicans, who publicly apologized to BP for suggesting they pay for their mess, would want that?

Like I said, how many oil rigs are in the gulf?  How many disasters are just "accidents" and how many because someone "cut corners" to save a few bucks.

I bet now we will never know.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Crew Argued Over Drilling Plan Before Rig Explosion 

About 11 hours before the Deepwater Horizon exploded, a disagreement took place between the top manager for oil giant BP PLC on the drilling rig and his counterpart for the rig's owner, Transocean Ltd., concerning the final steps in shutting down the nearly completed well, according to a worker's sworn statement.

Michael Williams, a Transocean employee who was chief electronics technician on the rig, said there was "confusion" between those high-ranking officials in an 11 a.m. meeting on the day of the rig blast, according to a sworn statement from Mr. Williams reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Williams himself attended the meeting.

The confusion over the drilling plan in the final hours leading up to the explosion could be key to understanding the causes of the blowout and ultimately who was responsible.

What is known from drilling records and congressional testimony is that after the morning meeting, the crew began preparations to remove from the drill pipe heavy drilling "mud" that provides pressure to keep down any gas, and to replace this mud with lighter seawater.

Ultimately, the crew removed the mud before setting a final 300-foot cement plug that is typically poured as a last safeguard to prevent combustible gas from rising to the surface. Indeed, they never got the opportunity to set the plug.

Mr. Williams declined to be interviewed. 

Oil-Rig Crew Argued Over Drilling Plan Before Blast - WSJ.com


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Turns out I was right after all.


----------



## Si modo (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Oops, deanie-do.  Try reading it again:   The Plum Line - Good: Senate GOP will lift block on subpoena power against BP

Or remain willfully ignorant and the fool.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...


rdean will ignore it

as do his retarded sources


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Read it yourself you fools.

Look at the date on that post you keep waiving around.  It was JULY FUCKING FIRST.

And does the president have subpoena power now?  NOOOOOO.

It takes the Republicans 4 MONTHS to "read something"?????

There were NEVER going to give him ANYTHING.  He's a "black" guy in the "WHITE" House.  

Remember:

it will be his Waterloo. 

Remember:

It will break him

Republicans want Obama to "fail".  They say it's his policies, but that's a joke.  Nothing he has done has been anywhere as close to radical as what they did under Bush.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Tell you what you racist fuck; you show me the bill, and when it was presented. Even just give me the bills number and I'll do the research. because right now you got nothing. Demint stated flat out that it was blocked so it could be read, and then it was said that the republican ;leadership had no problems with it. There isn't another mews story about it. So show me where the democrats tried to bring it up and the Republicans blocked it again......Or as I said just find the bill number because I can't find it. Seems almost as if it doesn't exist.

You have this fucking hate problem and try to pass it off to everyone else I for one am tired of your shit.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


you dipshit, the GOP block on it was LIFTED then
when they READ it
you dishonest PoS


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Don't for get White hating Christaphobic propagandists as well


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


goes without saying as nearly every post of his says it

notice how he has ignored this since the proof that any blocks the GOP in the senate had were gone 4 months ago


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You write as if you believe the people in the Senate don't talk to each other.  Everyone in the senate knows what time it is and who's doing what to whom?

-----------------------------------------------

The Times has long opposed filibusters and holds in the Senate (yes, even during the Bush years) on the grounds that both procedures are fundamentally undemocratic and require a level of mutual respect that no longer exists in Congress. Recent examples of such procedural abuse abound in Congress; a particularly egregious case was when Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) placed secret holds on 70 of President Obama's nominations to win terms more favorable to his state on an Air Force contract to build aerial refueling tankers. Shelby's obstructionism was undemocratic, but his reasons for holding Obama's nominations hostages were clear.

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint warned Monday evening that he would block all legislation that has not been cleared by his office in the final days of the pre-election session. 

DeMint's action serves no purpose other than to make him the most powerful man in the Senate, even denying his own minority leader Mitch McConnell the ability to negotiate with Democrats.

Jim DeMint: The most undemocratic senator? | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times

-----------------------------------------------------

Hey, how come you guys never post links?  Don't you know how to use a search engine?


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You are so full of shit, your eyeballs are about to pop.


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

You know what's really funny?  If Republicans say they didn't have time to "read the bill", how come they NEVER requested a rules change?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> You know what's really funny?  If Republicans say they didn't have time to "read the bill", how come they NEVER requested a rules change?


dipshit
that was over back in JULY

but i fully expect you to keep on claiming they are still blocking


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


naw, thats YOU


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...




I love how you ignore that the GOP stopped blocking this in July, and fling some more White racist claims out.


And you wonder why I call you a white hating....well you know the rest.


----------



## rdean (Sep 28, 2010)

Republicans are in BP's back pocket.  I know it.  You know it.  

Hey, let's all go apologize to BP.  We embarrassed them.  The nerve.  Asking them to clean up their mess.

Oh, wait, Republicans ALREADY apologized.  Guess that means we don't have to.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Republicans are in BP's back pocket.  I know it.  You know it.
> 
> Hey, let's all go apologize to BP.  We embarrassed them.  The nerve.  Asking them to clean up their mess.
> 
> Oh, wait, Republicans ALREADY apologized.  Guess that means we don't have to.



Both parties are in the oil industries pocket pal. 

What does that have to do with you Spreading lies in this thread?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 28, 2010)

rdean said:


> Republicans are in BP's back pocket.  I know it.  You know it.
> 
> Hey, let's all go apologize to BP.  We embarrassed them.  The nerve.  Asking them to clean up their mess.
> 
> Oh, wait, Republicans ALREADY apologized.  Guess that means we don't have to.



Someone needed to apologize for the thug shakedown BS, After they had already stated they would be financially responsible.


 Got a bill number yet?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans are in BP's back pocket.  I know it.  You know it.
> ...



The only thing I think they needed to be apologized to for, was the fact that Dems, who knew they had already agreed to pay. Used it as an opportunity to Grand stand and make it look like they forced them to pay. 

However that apology might have been better aimed at us than BP.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 28, 2010)

I wonder if rdean is grappling with that fact that this thread simply highlights what I said.

It is proof the Dems are in big oils pocket just as much as the Republicans.

Why else would they have done nothing in the last 4 months, and instead try to pretend Republicans are blocking it.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), said that Republicans supported giving subpoena power to a bipartisan, congressionally appointed panel, not a panel appointed by Mr. Obama that some Republicans view as partisan. 

Oil-Spill Panel Pushes for Subpoena Power - WSJ.com

Now we know the truth.  This is why Republicans blocked subpoena power.  Republicans, the people who "apologized" to BP want to be on the committee, otherwise, no committee.  What does it matter?  They APOLOGIZED  to BP.  They will do anything to protect that foreign company.  Up to and fucking over the American People.  Well, at least they're consistent.  They are only practising their "party values".


----------



## Madeline (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean, does the Presidential Commission have subpoena power or don't they?  How's about we argue from facts for a change?

BTW, the President has no power to create a Congressional Committee.


----------



## theHawk (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.
> 
> Senate Republicans block BP investigation | MNN - Mother Nature Network
> 
> ...



Not quite sure why we need a "presidential commission" to have "full subpoena power".  If laws were broken then let the proper local, state, and/or federal authorities investigate.  We don't need politicians doing the work of the justice department.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

So as it turns out, or at least appears to me, is that rdean is pissed off because his hero changed the rules of the game. Had the congressional committee appointed this investigating panel there would be no problem. However, because Mr Bigshit Obama had to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong..................................

At least that's the way I see rdeans link....

But then I could be wrong. Don't think so, But it's possible.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

theHawk said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-1 to give the presidential commission investigating the BP oil spill full subpoena power. In the Senate the move was blocked by Republicans.
> ...



Ah but the Politicians need to grand stand.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Madeline said:


> rdean, does the Presidential Commission have subpoena power or don't they?  How's about we argue from facts for a change?
> 
> BTW, the President has no power to create a Congressional Committee.



The presidential committee does NOT have subpoena power.  

I'm watching Hardball Chris Mathews right now with the same lady Senator from New Hampshire saying the request for subpoena power had been made three times.  She said she will introduce it for a fourth time.

Chris Mathews asked her why the Republicans keep blocking it.  Then he said his brother has been working on oil rigs for 30 years.  The technology has been proven.  That mistakes are management decisions because there so many redundancies a failure is nearly impossible unless a management decision is made to bypass safeties.

He said Republicans want Americans to believe this is a "mechanical" failure.

Of course, the righties will call me a liar.  The same Hardball will be repeated tonight at 1:00 for those who care to sit up, watch what I just wrote and then still call me a liar anyway.

The funny thing is the right RARELY posts links.  When you ask them why?  They say, because I'm only giving my opinion.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > rdean, does the Presidential Commission have subpoena power or don't they?  How's about we argue from facts for a change?
> ...



Chris Mathews lol. Well there is your problem.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



Here it is.  It made the Internet.  Go ahead, call this US Senator a LIAR.  If she was lying, Senate Republicans would be all over her.  Are they?  No.  Why.  Because they want to screw the American people and their base eats it up.

And there you go.  Gobble gobble gobble.

Oil spill commission denied subpoena power - Bing Videos


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yada yada yada, White, yada yada yada, Christian, Yada yada yada, Republicans.....

That's all I hear when you talk anymore.

Your Blind Partisanship makes you incapable of seeing Both sides.

Neither side actually wants it to happen. This is all a shell game,  partisan Politics. Nothing more.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> So as it turns out, or at least appears to me, is that rdean is pissed off because his hero changed the rules of the game. Had the congressional committee appointed this investigating panel there would be no problem. However, because Mr Bigshit Obama had to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong..................................
> 
> At least that's the way I see rdeans link....
> 
> But then I could be wrong. Don't think so, But it's possible.



I posted the video.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Can't bear the truth.  Thought so.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



No you can't bear the truth. BOTH sides do not want a real investigation to happen. She is Grand standing.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie  
This is old news, unless i am confusing almost the exact same thing.

Yes Republicans blocked it in the Senate until the republican leadership had time to read it. 

They then, a day or 2 later allowed the vote to go forward.

Move on folks there is no story here......



SFC Ollie said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



I must be a liar.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Then you watched the video.  Why won't Republicans call her bluff and give the Presidential Commission subpoena power?

The things you say.  You don't really believe your own BS?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

Double Post


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Because they don't want an investigation either. Do you even read what other people type?

Mark my words, after the election. Even if Dems hold Both houses. This will go away, they don't want it. They are just using it as a campaign tool

Once you give up your alignment to either party. It becomes much easier to see BOTH of them for what they are. 

Like I said your Democrat Blinders are making it impossible for you to see the whole truth.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

Why do we not have a number on this bill that the House passed?

And why is it that Mr Matthews brother believes that there has never been a mechanical failure? Shit breaks all the time. It's why they have mechanics, repairmen, and spare parts.

Oh and the videos that were shown there are from months ago.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



But of course, YOU see the truth.  Wow, you must be smart.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Why do we not have a number on this bill that the House passed?
> 
> And why is it that Mr Matthews brother believes that there has never been a mechanical failure? Shit breaks all the time. It's why they have mechanics, repairmen, and spare parts.
> 
> Oh and the videos that were shown there are from months ago.



Because, obviously, you are impugning the integrity of a US Senator you know nothing about.  

If she were lying, Republicans would be all over her.  You know that right?  Can you deny that?

If she were lying, Republicans would be shouting it from the rooftops.  You know that right?  Can you deny that?

If what she was saying was a lie, Senate Republicans would be screaming that they had been smeared.  You know that, right?

Chris Mathews NEVER said there has never been a Mechanical failure.  You could watch it again if you don't believe me.

More than 27,000 abandoned oil and gas lurking under the Gulf of Mexico, and more than 1,000 oil rigs and platforms are inactive. An Associated Press investigation revealed that many of the wells have been ignored for decades, with no one to check for leaks.

USA: 3500 Gulf unused wells must be connected - News - Mining News and Journal


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Nah, I just took my partisan blinders off a couple years ago is all.

You don't have to believe me, Just wait and see what happens. 

Both sides like getting money from BP, this is nothing but a dog and pony show.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



The company I work at sent money to both John McCain and Obama.

The employees took up collections and sent the bundled money to Obama.

The corporate CEO and the owners sent money to McCain.

There is money and there is money.

It's amazing how clear you can see the difference.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



And both parties love it all, and could care less where it comes from.

And if you give them enough. like BP has to Both parties. They will defend you to the death. 

Like I said, A real investigation is not going to happen. If congress has any say over it.


----------



## rdean (Sep 29, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...



Republicans will make sure of it.  Just in case.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Sep 29, 2010)

So there are no bills that this was voted on? No number so we can go back and trace it....

I give up then. There is simply no way to verify what happened if there is no paper trail to follow.

I know that the Republicans lifted their objections at one point. now you are telling us that the rules changed, and they objected again.

Oh fucking well. I can't find it in the congressional records. Maybe because once again King shit Obama took control?


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> So there are no bills that this was voted on? No number so we can go back and trace it....
> 
> I give up then. There is simply no way to verify what happened if there is no paper trail to follow.
> 
> ...



Just goes to prove my point. 

neither side actually wants to investigate. The Dems simply wanted to use it to gain points before the Election.

Nothing but a game.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 29, 2010)

rdean said:


> Go ahead, call this US Senator a LIAR



Oh my I would never dream of that. US senators Never Ever Lie.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 1, 2010)

Charles_Main, rdean,  _et al,_

I had to chuckle at this.



Charles_Main said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Go ahead, call this US Senator a LIAR
> ...


*(OPINION)*

Ethics in Congress is an oxymoron.

It is my opinion that a Beltway Politician (Republican or Democrat) has the honesty, moral character, and integrity of only two steps below that of a used car salesman.  They are not interested in what is good for the country.  They are utilitarian, they will tell you anything --- but once they are in office, their only concern is for themselves, how much it benefits them, and the next election.



			
				Jeffery Pelt: Hunt for the Red October said:
			
		

> Listen, *I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar*, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.



If they open their mouths, any truth that comes out is totally by mistake.l  They have been telling half truth and lies for so long they have forgotten what truth is.

While it is illegal to lie to the FBI, it is not illegal for a Member of Congress to lie to a constituent.  As you can tell by the election outcomes so far, they are more concerned about their respective party than they are about getting the People the best leadership possible.  Not one single member is holding a position to rebuild America; but they will send a trillion dollars to Iran or Afghanistan to rebuild theirs.

No, this tickles me.  But anyone who thinks a Congressman or Senator is working in thier best interest is only fooling themself.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Perry2016 (Oct 3, 2010)

I like how you like to rewrite history.  The President refused and continues to refuse financial contributions that come from big business, specifically the oil companies who despise him for the potential capital gains taxes coming their way for their ill gotten gains.

What a short memory we have, huh?  When people were paying outrageous prices at the pump, Exxon Mobil and BP were making record profits, benefiting from a war started by a man named Bush, who invested heavily in both companies.

Furthermore, Exxon and BP were the main campaign contributors to John McCain's presidential and recent Senate re election efforts.

I absolutely guarantee you that if a Republican were President,, BP would not be required to pay any fines at all, because, honestly, that's what happened with the slap on the wrist to Exxon back in the day when a Republican was the President.

Now, I don't think BP alone is to blame.  Halliburton helped construct that faulty rig and low and behold, just two weeks before the gulf spill, they bought up the clean up company that cleans up such spills.  A coincidence, I think not.

So please, if any politicians need to be investigated, their names are George Bush and Dick Cheney.  These people always seem to profit from disasters and the misery of others.



LibocalypseNow said:


> They should investigate this Administration instead. Who took the most cash from BP of any politician in America? Drum Roll please...Hopey Changey Barack Obama! A dirty little secret the corrupt MSM has of course refused to discuss. Hopefully the Republicans will regain some power in November and begin to really investigate that awful Oil Spill mess. So far it has all been a Democrat White Wash. If you investigate BP you must also investigate this White House. The Democrats are just trying to deflect everything on BP to cover for their own shocking incompetence. Wait til after November and then investigate both BP and this White House. I'm good with that approach.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 3, 2010)

Perry2016 said:


> I like how you like to rewrite history.  The President refused and continues to refuse financial contributions that come from big business, specifically the oil companies who despise him for the potential capital gains taxes coming their way for their ill gotten gains.
> 
> What a short memory we have, huh?  When people were paying outrageous prices at the pump, Exxon Mobil and BP were making record profits, benefiting from a war started by a man named Bush, who invested heavily in both companies.
> 
> ...


LIAR

Deepwater Horizon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## California Girl (Oct 4, 2010)

Perry2016 said:


> I like how you like to rewrite history.  *The President refused and continues to refuse financial contributions that come from big business, specifically the oil companies who despise him for the potential capital gains taxes coming their way for their ill gotten gains.*
> 
> What a short memory we have, huh?  When people were paying outrageous prices at the pump, Exxon Mobil and BP were making record profits, benefiting from a war started by a man named Bush, who invested heavily in both companies.
> 
> ...



FactCheck.org: Obama's Oil Spill


_Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.
Summary. In a new ad, Obama says, "I dont take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesnt distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:
Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. 

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
_

You know what would be cool, Perry? It would be cool if you knew what you were talking about before you make yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 4, 2010)

Perry2016 said:


> I like how you like to rewrite history.  The President refused and continues to refuse financial contributions that come from big business, specifically the oil companies who despise him for the potential capital gains taxes coming their way for their ill gotten gains.
> 
> What a short memory we have, huh?  When people were paying outrageous prices at the pump, Exxon Mobil and BP were making record profits, benefiting from a war started by a man named Bush, who invested heavily in both companies.
> 
> ...


[Emphasis added]   As Halliburton IS in the oil business, of course it's no coincidence.  In fact, Halliburton started in containment and abatement of oil field disasters, and that continues to be one of their specialty operations.

Apparently, you just pull crap from your butt and post it thinking no one will know the difference.  See, the nice thing about providing sources for one's assertions is that you not only do the intelligent thing, but you keep yourself from looking like an idiot.


----------



## beowolfe (Oct 4, 2010)

And this surprises you how?  Remember the butt head from Texas (and yes, I know there are a lot of them) that used his hearing time to apologize to BP.  It seems he was the only repug being honest.


----------

