Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Why not?
It's good to be the king. :2razz:
Why not?
That doesn't address how large problems like this invite scumbags who try to take advantage of anyone and everyone.
If that's the cost of people who were injured getting paid what they are owed by the scumbags at BP, then I'm ok with it. I think the problem of BP getting away without paying what they owe is a much larger one than the occasional opportunist trying to take advantage of BP if they are forced to pay.
Why not?
If you've misplaced your principles so badly that you won't even rethink them when the trouble is in your own back yard, that's what makes you a fool. But I'm sure you're wrong about this, and were you actually faced with this situation in your own state, you'd reconsider your blind toeing of the party line. That doesn't make you a hypocrite, just a reasonable human being. Or maybe you really would stick with your party even when they put the knife in your back. Foolish indeed.
If I were you, I wouldn't be assigning some moral superiority to those affected.
If they can take a short cut to get more than their due, they will.
Why not?
.
So when someone says one thing for one group of people and something different for another, you consider that a sign of intelligence?
Personally, I consider whether someone can offer a cogent response in an adult discussion.
The government didn't force them to drill in deep water by closing off shallow waters, the only thing that forced BP to drill there was their own greed.
Sorry to break it to you, but "those affected" are morally superior. They are innocent. BP is culpable. That's moral superiority in my book. Frankly, I don't care if a few unscrupulous types try to bilk BP out of more than they are owed. T.S. for the them. BP is not the victim here, BP is the perpetrator!
That would be like saying:
The government raised my taxes, so therefore I could no longer afford to pay my rent. Given this, I robbed a bank, but the government is liable for my bank robbery because they raised my taxes.
I don't think it is like that at all.
It may be like, the government made marijuana illegal which gave rise to organized crime to supply the demand and more people were killed. More people were killed because the government created a criminal environment by making marijuana illegal. True.
Let me try this one more time. I think that when someone can empathize with others, and put themselves in the shoes of another person and realize how a situation might make them feel, and act accordingly, that is a sign of wisdom. If you can only cling to misbegotten principles without any regard to the human toll, then it is foolishness or worse. If these same misbegotten principles end up becoming your own undoing because you can't give them up even when you actually are the victim of them, then that's just poetic justice I suppose.
I have no problem with legitimate people who have been effected getting compsensated, however is illegitimate claims are being honored, then frankly, BP would be the victim in terms of those claims.
Sure, but it's a question of degree. This is such a massive disaster caused by the negligence of BP, they shouldn't be cut any slack. I'm not saying illegitimate claims should be paid. I am saying that we should make it much harder for BP to avoid paying and easier for people injured to get what they are owed. We should err on the side of letting some illegitimate claims through rather than have any legitimate claim denied.
You cannot sue the government for upholding the law.
If you mean liability in terms of dollars, the government will have none legally. If you mean something like popular opinion liability, that remains an open issue.
I believe that all parties are entitled to be treated fairly under the law. That would not involve "erring on the side of letting some illegitimate claims through." Just because you are upset at BP does not mean they suddenly have no legal rights.
The law sometimes has negative consequences. They should be legally liable for those consequences.
False, I do know what I'm talking about and I gave you the numbers. If you want to dispute them on the merits, that's fine, but you've made no effort to do so, and you don't know what you're talking about.-You claimed that this spill caused more damage than BP could ever afford. You don't know what you're talking about.
False, I gave a couple of worst case scenarios to give an illustration of the scope of the financial impact of the disaster. If you can't extrapolate the magnitude of the potential financial damage of this disaster from these numbers, it only goes to show you don't know what you're talking about.-You claimed that this would completely wipe out FL's tourism industry. You don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that the damage from this disaster will last decades is well known, but hey I wouldn't expect you to be aware of that since you have shown no evidence of knowing what you are talking about.-You claimed that this would take decades to recover from. You don't know what you're talking about.
False. I did say that I thought you would react differently if you were located near the oil spill and could experience it first hand, but I never claimed to know this for a fact.-You claimed that I would act differently if this were in Long Island. You don't know what you're talking about.
I mean, if you want to file suit on those grounds, don't let me stop you. I have a hard time imagining how you would go about forming your actual case though. I think there are just as many people who think it is a great thing that shallow water drilling in most of the country is banned etc. .
They should be equally liable for holding that opinion.
False, I do know what I'm talking about and I gave you the numbers. If you want to dispute them on the merits, that's fine, but you've made no effort to do so, and you don't know what you're talking about.
False, I gave a couple of worst case scenarios to give an illustration of the scope of the financial impact of the disaster. If you can't extrapolate the magnitude of the potential financial damage of this disaster from these numbers, it only goes to show you don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that the damage from this disaster will last decades is well known, but hey I wouldn't expect you to be aware of that since you have shown no evidence of knowing what you are talking about.
False. I did say that I thought you would react differently if you were located near the oil spill and could experience it first hand, but I never claimed to know this for a fact.
You said:You'd definitely be singing a different tune if this disaster happened in the Long Island Sound.
False, I gave a couple of worst case scenarios to give an illustration of the scope of the financial impact of the disaster. If you can't extrapolate the magnitude of the potential financial damage of this disaster from these numbers, it only goes to show you don't know what you're talking about.
If BP was not going to be able to meet these expenses, their stock would not be trading at $31. In a battle between who knows what's going on, the market >>>>>>>>>>> you.
There is absolutely no way this disaster will even come remotely close to wiping out half of Florida's tourist revenue. It isn't even likely to wipe out half of the beach related tourist revenue as there are also nice beaches on the Atlantic coast thus far completely unaffected by this situation. Furthermore, there is far more in Florida than just the beaches. The theme parks in the Orlando area, for examples, provide a significant source of tourist revenue that shouldn't be affected at all -- or may even be AIDED by this as people still want to go to Florida and will look for something rather than the beaches on the Gulf coast to go to.