Circlejerkular Logic.

Jon is a linguistic god!

*Quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 10:04am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.

Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.

"What do you do when god and mortals fail?"

Chuck Norris?

Ya, it is politics as its finest really. Thanks to some others providing me links and what not, I was able to fine lots of information out on this. It seems the district courts are the ones that should be handling stuff like that. Obama has the power of Moratorium, but state still have a certain level of veto power. It is all super crazy tangled web. I think most would agree with the settlement being needed, as for me, I worry like yourself about federal 'Carz' of wealth distribution. The courts are one of the last places were we as citizens can make judgments against large corporations. We do get stabbed in the back at times, like with the huge reductions in the fines for exxon; bastards. I think we need to rethink corporate charters and how they exist in this country. They are far to sheltered from the risk normal people take. I don't have a solution atm, just thinking out loud.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @GeeSussFreeK, if the President asks for something from someone, and they voluntarily agree to it, how is it some sort of breach of executive power? He didn't exert any legal authority at all.

For example, BP's own press release says they agreed to establish the fund.

Now, if you guys have some sort of actual evidence that BP was resistant until Obama threatened them, making this a coercive agreement, bring it forth.

Otherwise you're just making bullshit accusations based on your own misguided ideas of who Obama is, based on lies trumped up by the propaganda arms of the corporate overlords (i.e. conservative media) to make it seem like BP is some sort of victim in all this.

I live near the coast, BP isn't a victim. The point is it it out of place. Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility? I don't even care if it was a threat, and I never assumed it was. And Like I have said before, worse things in the world are happening. I worry of Presidents taking the roles of the courts, once your are the cops and the judge, your democracy is in trouble. I worry more here than I am accusing. It sets a dangerous precedent. Moreover, if something goes "bad" with the escrow, who handles it then? The President and BP again? Or do the courts then have step in and take something over that they never had any say in how it worked? In other words, he is going outside the way things work. And I think he did so to respond to the moronic claim that his administration wasn't doing enough or crying dragon tears.

I want to avoid the situation where if you have a problem, you go to the president instead of the courts. Moreover, I don't want the president poking his head in when it is the courts that are supposed to be handling it. I would say the same about congress trying to do the job of the courts or the executive, but really, it has been the executives power that has been growing without bound the most.

They always forget about the brown people >> ^missly12:

Life is so lonely. Maybe you want to check out ==== B l a c k W h i t e R o m a n c e . c o /m ====. It’s the largest and best club for seeking interracial singles, black athletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty white queens, fitness models, and Hollywood celebrities. It also features certified singles and verified beautiful women. What’s the most important is: you can meet the one who you're looking for!!! GO and have a try.....

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this. Obama's 20 billion cash escrow account IS a 'shakedown' and there is nothing wrong calling him out on it. The GOP should have had the stones to oppose it more. There is no legal justification for the Executive Branch to assume this kind of power. It is unconstitutional, illegal, and inappropriate. Putting unsupervised Executive branch 'czars' like Fienberg in charge of 20 billion dollars to hand out to whoever he wants is a terrible idea.
Barton was 100% correct in everything he said. It is shameful for the US to have anything to do with this kind of garbage. This is the stuff that Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or other bananna republic dictators do. Boo - hiss on Obama for doing it, and double boo-hiss on the GOP for not giving Obama both barrels. When will the GOP get a backbone and stand up for what's constitutional rather than what is politically convenient? All it takes is one bogus whine from democrats about being 'opposed to helping Gulf victims' and they fold like cheap umbrellas. The leftist position on this issue is laughable on its face, and they knuckle under to the rhetoric every time. Bah.


Sadly, the courts now seem to be owning their elections to corporate America more and more these days (Like every other elected official.) If this is the case, soon the courts will owe their alliance to the same... and then who do we have to petition to?

I am not worried of excecutive powers here; I am worried of corporate powers. What if the spill costs 100 billion or more? The courts would probably never agree to force the oil companies to pay that amount in the name of "jobs" or "unfairness." What if it costs 200-500 billion? Who pays the legally required payments? What if the spill had been far worse?


I am not saying you are wrong---the president has no means to force a company to do right. It is the actual consumer who has that power (Consider the consumer a Veto-man.) Then, it is the courts that have that power. However, when everything fails? Then what?

Oh, and BP did this for public image--not because the president shook any one down. You give the president too much here---it was the consumer's veto that won that battle... certainly not Bp's moral standards...

I can see how you could misunderstand, because the president has blue balls and not red ones.

Yes, but what about the fears!

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
Let's just start with this. Again, from BP's summary of the agreement:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.
The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

Hey Net, I agree with you and am in pretty much the same area as you... I would like, however, to point out what runs your opponents' mindset. Fear. Now, remember, fear is natural and is even necessary to survival. We are running into the problem of a world with finate resources, and that world is getting ever smaller. America is losing its once mighty grip on the things we have had for so long we assumed we were entitled to the wealth.

Now, blame is thrown all around except back at those who hurried along the process to begin with (Voters and their demands for low taxes and high services... Humans and their undending need to consume, etcetera...) So, social security has been raided to pay, money borrowed, etcetera. The Oceans overfished. Dead zones. Farm land is being compacted... Our debt is soaring... And the piper has to be paid at some point.

We must realize all our blank checks were foolish. This cannot be blamed on the half-black president--though he is a reasonable target. This must be blamed on our grandparents and parents and so on and so forth. And of course--us! Most of our generation does not undersand why things happen the way they do and yet, they are all about fixes... Sad...

>> ^NetRunner:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 27th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Winstonfield_Pennypacker">Winstonfield_Pennypacker, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 1st, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK">GeeSussFreeK, if the President asks for something from someone, and they voluntarily agree to it, how is it some sort of breach of executive power? He didn't exert any legal authority at all.
For example, BP's own press release says they agreed to establish the fund.
Now, if you guys have some sort of actual evidence that BP was resistant until Obama threatened them, making this a coercive agreement, bring it forth.
Otherwise you're just making bullshit accusations based on your own misguided ideas of who Obama is, based on lies trumped up by the propaganda arms of the corporate overlords (i.e. conservative media) to make it seem like BP is some sort of victim in all this.

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?

This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.

it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims

You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head? The executive branch does not have the power to do this. The Constitution plainly states you appeal to congress for a redress of grievances – not the President’s personally appointed toadies. Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial

The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Hey Net, I agree with you and am in pretty much the same area as you... I would like, however, to point out what runs your opponents' mindset. Fear.

I get that. But...I generally give people the benefit of the doubt about being able to engage their rationality and quash their fears. Get people to think about what they're reacting to a little more, and see if it really makes sense.

Obama has the codes to launch America's nuclear weapons. Obama is, as President, Constitutionally immune from prosecution of crimes -- he could go on a mass murdering spree, and all we could legally do is impeach him. He's allowed to negotiate and sign treaties on our country's behalf (though it won't necessarily have the force of law without Congressional approval).

This has been true of every President since Truman (and before that we just didn't have the nukes).

Presidents wield lots of power, but less than most Prime Ministers from other countries. In other countries, there is essentially perfect party discipline, and flat majority rule. No vetoes, no filibusters, no unanimous consent, nothing.

Being able to use pure influence as the head of state to negotiate a voluntary agreement seems perfectly kosher by any standard. If BP gets denied redress via courts, believe me, we'll hear about it!

Hell, if someone gets screwed by this ICF, we'll hear about it!

It's one of the built-in benefits of having a Democratic president -- their critics always get easy access to a media megaphone. The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Why are BP and the President handling something that is clearly the courts responsibility?
This. Whatever liability BP is on the hook for should be handled 100% through the courts, not by the Executive branch. There is a separation of powers for a reason.
Umm, false. If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

Can I prevent you from seeking damages in court? Only if you sign a legal agreement waiving that right, and then only as long as the court feels like you gave properly informed consent.

Can Obama force you to go through the ICF? No. Can Obama take away your ability to seek damages in court? No, because of separation of powers.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


it just means there's a government-run escrow being set up to ensure that BP has set aside the funds to pay claims
You say the words GOVERNMENT RUN ESCROW and still no alarm bells go off in your head?

No! I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now Obama’s ‘pay czar’ is the one people bow & scrape before for redress – a guy who has no oversight, answers to no one, didn’t have a single vote by Congress, and doesn’t have to face an approval process. No chance for abuse there, eh?

All public servants are answerable to someone. Even Supreme Court Justices can be impeached. I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this -- as there is to most things the Executive does. Republicans will demand it, and Democrats have no reason to oppose it.

Then there's that whole thing where you can still just seek damages in court...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

but no real sign that any of those people want to deprive Obama of the power to detain terror suspects indefinitely without trial
The president has no constitutional right to collect monies from private organizations of any kind for any reason - real or fancied, freely or begrudged. The president DOES have a constitutional right direct the military and defense of this country and that includes treatment of captured enemy soldiers. See the difference?

Wait, what happened to separation of powers? The President doesn't have to give people trials anymore under the Constitution? Read the 6th amendment again, please!

Plus, again, no legal authority is being exerted, BP is voluntarily agreeing to this, and is certainly within their rights to refuse, and most certainly within their rights to challenge the legality of the fund in court.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Just as a final note – I’m not saying BP should be ‘off the hook’. I’m of the opinion that when anyone screws up, they should take responsibility for their actions. When a company screws up, they should pay for the damages. BP has been cutting corners & playing dangerously to save cash and the mess is their fault. They should do the right thing and step up & fix it. That includes paying for legitimate damages and cleanup.

Good to hear. I'm sure you won't contradict yourself in the next paragraph...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That’s not the same thing as saying they should just write a black check and hand it to the government and walk away. There is certainly no onus on BP to pay all the lunatic claims that will inevitably result as the greedy vultures start circling over this 20 billion. BP isn't responsible for lower tourism revenues, or dropping home prices. The only people that should be getting money are people who have actual PHYSICAL repairs or clean up costs due to oil. All the other stuff is 'act of god' stuff and sometimes that just happens and you have to deal with it.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Obama’s ‘BP stash’ is designed by nature to be an irresponsible, unanswerable, politically motivated vote-machine. Why should we believe Obama is going to run this clean when he hasn’t run a single ‘clean’ political effort in his lifetime? At what point has government EVER been a responsible entity for the distribution of cash for damages? Never. This is the tobacco settlement fiasco just waiting to happen again.

Ahh, and you close with a fact-free animosity-driven rant. Everyone is answerable. Obama can lose re-election, and he can be impeached. More meaningfully, he can be subjected to public pressure, and evidence of impropriety would certainly be a big story, so every media maven will be looking for some. There's also that whole "no one is giving up their right to sue" part of this, as well as the plain observation that courts are part of the government too...

Plus the specific, named, person Obama's looking at having manage the fund also managed the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which by most accounts was handled well.

I don't expect to convince you to trust government agencies, but for God's sake, they aren't taking away people's right to sue. If they tried, you can count on someone suing over it!

Why do you have such a blind allegiance to republican ideals? And parroting back something to the effect of "You are blind" is not an intelligent retort.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I tend to agree on calling the GOP out for flip-flopping on this...

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, June 22nd, 2010 8:48pm PDT - promote requested by MycroftHomlz.

The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

The only ‘silencing of dissent’ is on the left side of the aisle. And how nice it all sounds… ‘Net Neutrality’, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Academic Fairness’… The left is the side that engages in the systematic suppression of dissent – not the right. I have a longer memory span than 5 minutes, and there is nothing BUT ‘dissent’ when the GOP is in the White House. Dissent was ‘patriotic’ during Bush, but now is ‘the party of NO’ during Obama, right? But of course good little left-wing zombies have no problem with that.

If I break something of yours, do you have to 100% go through the courts to get compensation? No. Why? Because civil court is totally optional.

If you break my stuff (and refuse to pay for it) then YES I 100% have to go through the courts to get compensation. You’ve proven my point. I don’t go to Obama’s pay czar. Court is where I go, and failing that, I call my congressman and let him know the courts aren't doing their job. I do NOT go to the Executive branch except to write a whiny letter.

I have not been programmed to have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response where I wet myself with fear whenever the word "government" comes into play.

This is patently untrue. You do have a knee-jerk Pavlovian response to wet yourself with fear whenever the word ‘government’ comes into play and ‘conservative’ is involved. The blind, unthinking, slavish trust only applies when a left wing radical is in charge. I believe it was Lenin (another leftist) who called these kinds of fanbois “useful idiots”. People who aren’t critical of government at all times and in all things are fools. The price of freedom is vigilance, and the only good government is LIMITED government.

I'm sure there will be Congressional oversight of this

Oh – well – that ignores history, facts, and precedent - but as long as you're SURE... You aren’t picking up what I’m putting down. I don’t care if Obama is distilled perfection made of unicorn hairs and angel feathers… It doesn’t matter if BP ‘volunteers’ (yeah right – then why the closed door meeting?). This is not something the Executive branch is allowed to do for ANY reason. Ever. Period. It has no authority to do this, and government isn’t allowed to just ‘assume’ authority over whatever they want no matter how munificent they may think they are.

Ahh, so now you're defining down what constitutes a legitimate claim from what even BP says is legitimate? Good to know you don't want to "let them off the hook"...

No – I’m defining ‘responsible’. BP isn’t responsible for lost business. Tourism down? Is that BP’s fault? Maybe partly. But you can also blame the media, the government, the economy, and a whole host of other parties for that. BP is responsible for damage and cleanup. That's it. I see no need for them to pay for ancillary issues that may or may not be related.

Everyone is answerable.

To who? When? You say ‘answerable’ but one of the main problems with federal government is that NO ONE is ever held responsible for anything. They never go to jail for breaking the law. They never pay damages for the consequences of their bad politics. So they ‘lose an election’? Awwwwwww – how terrible for them. They still keep getting money & payola. They still get political back-patting. They still get put on unaccountable ‘blue ribbon’ panels for exorbitant payoffs. They keep getting on TV shows and money for speeches, commentary and books. They still are put on cabinet positions, or other unelected unaccountable political jobs where they still effect policy and get away with murder.

See, when you really get down to the brass tacks the political class is in NO WAY ever ‘answerable’ for their bad behavior and terrible decisions. They just get a brief – all too toothless – wet noodling and then skate off clean while everyone else has to pay for them to keep on partying. Clinton. Impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Did he lose his office? No. Did he go to jail? No. Did he have to pay millions in damages? No. He got a tiny slap on the wrist and then the left circled the wagons around him and set him up for life so he’d specifically NEVER have to be truly culpable for his high crime. He should be in jail, or living in a cardboard shack, penniless and shunned to the end of his days. Instead he’s living high on the hog courtesy of constant political payola. And you call that ‘answerable’?

So what happens WHEN (not IF) Obama’s pay czar starts mis-handling the BP funds? Exactly HOW is he going to be ‘answerable’? To whom will he pay millions in damages? What jail will he go to? How will he be banned from politics for life afterwards? And how is Obama ‘answerable’ for unconstitutionally claiming money in the first place? But I don’t hear anyone making him ‘answerable’ for his unconstitutional, illegal act. All I see are left-wing zombies defending the illegal, and GOP cowards who don't have to guts to stand up for the constitution anymore.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker I'd go another round with you, but it's clear you just wanna flap your gums about fictitious versions of me and liberals and Obama, and are so utterly disconnected from reality that you aren't even responding to things I actually said.

I mean seriously, you literally snipped out the phrase "I'm sure there will be congressional oversight", and cut off the part where I said why I thought that, and acted as though there is a series of facts and history in which congressional oversight is never applied when a political food fight breaks out over something.

There's part of your fever dream I agree with -- namely, the rich and the powerful never get held accountable for anything. Tony Hayward is back to racing yachts, Lloyd Blankfein didn't even lose his job, and is already paying himself huge bonuses again, and Bush and Cheney are free men.

"The only ‘silencing of dissent’ is on the left side of the aisle. And how nice it all sounds… ‘Net Neutrality’, the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, ‘Political Correctness’, ‘Academic Fairness’… The left is the side that engages in the systematic suppression of dissent – not the right."

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker, you are almost as disingenuous and conniving as QM.

It was the Bush administration who dreamed up the concept of "free speech zones" when they were ramping up for the Iraq war.

It is the rightwing who equates dissent with sedition.

It is the rightwing who calls people who stand against them traitors.

Remember? "You're either with us, or your with the terrorists."

We need the Fairness Doctrine, badly. The rightwing dominance of the media has had a disastrous effect on our country's welfare. Rupert Murdoch has done incalculable harm, just to make a buck.

Political Correctness? You righties always get your panties in a wad when you can't insult broad swaths of the population with derogatory racial and sexist remarks.

BP committed a crime, the kind of crime that they could (and probably will) try to weasel out of with legalities.

A $20 billion "shakedown"? Ha! A shakedown is when you take money from people without doing anything for them other than, say, promising not to hurt them, arrest them, or destroy their property.

The damage this oil spill has done, and will do, will far exceed $20 billion dollars.

Obama should nationalize BP and toss a boatload of its executives in the hoosegow.

Obama's one fault in all of this is having been too patient with a group of people undeserving of that courtesy.

I mean seriously, you literally snipped out the phrase "I'm sure there will be congressional oversight", and cut off the part where I said why I thought that

Sure. You said it, but have no proof it will happen so why belabor it? As with all piles of money in Washington, that 20 billion will get misappropriated and spent on unrelated crap with only token pennies on the dollar going to BP oil damages. Every citizen must view government as the ENEMY, because history proves that eventually it will be.

I know that leftists disagree with that stance... This poll proves only Democrat zombies are big gummint fanbois... Most other folks have a healthier point of view.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/48_see_government_today_as_a_threat_to_individual_rights

There's part of your fever dream I agree with -- namely, the rich and the powerful never get held accountable for anything.

Agreed. Guys like Barney Frank should be penniless street bums in the stocks at town square instead of still being in charge of the committee he used to screw up the economy.

Free speech zones, dissent = sedition, opposition = traitors, with us or against us…

I am not a slave to a political ideology. I don’t apologize for people when they do the wrong things. So I I freely and openly condemn(ed) the tactics the GOP used during Bush to stifle dissent. Will you do the same? Do you condemn people like Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Olbermann, Madcow, and all the others on the left who routinely mock, belittle, and censor Tea Partiers, call people “Nazis”, and the “party of No” for no reason but to grease the skids of their agenda? Thankfully, I am not bound with such fetters. Boo - hiss to 'free speech zones' no matter what party is behind them.

We need the Fairness Doctrine, badly. The rightwing dominance of the media has had a disastrous effect on our country's welfare. Rupert Murdoch has done incalculable harm, just to make a buck.

No – we don’t need any government regulation of media. The marketplace of ideas is a grand collision – and viewpoints of all kinds are available everywhere without government interference. The Right may dominate talk radio, but the left dominates most other media with an iron fist. Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, PBS, tv shows, pop music, and the vast majority of news channels, newspapers, and internet blogs either tilt left or are outright left wing extremists.

So does your opinion of the “Fairness Doctrine” include forcing all these left wing radicals to give conservative views ‘equal time’ in all media venues? Or do you only care about talk radio because it says things you don't like sometimes? See how your support of such a concept leads only to tyranny and abuse? The whole FD concept is an attempt by neolibs to break down one of the few areas where they don't dominate. Rather than cheer it on, it should totally creep you out and outrage you.

You righties always get your panties in a wad when you can't insult broad swaths of the population with derogatory racial and sexist remarks.

No – we get annoyed when sanctimonious lefties use political correctness to stifle dissent. I don’t insult minorities or make racist/sexist comments. And yet here you are, accusing me personally of being a racist and a sexist based on no evidence. Funny how you are using Political Correctness to stifle dissent, isn’t it? Gee – it’s almost like I was EXACTLY RIGHT! Thanks for proving my point. Sadly you aren't alone. This kind of crap is commonplace from the left on campuses, in public schools, on news, in the media, in entertainment, and in politics. Ried, Pelosi, and more commentators I can count have all used the same tactic. Shame on you all.

BP committed a crime, the kind of crime that they could (and probably will) try to weasel out of with legalities.

If they commit a crime, you take them to court. You don’t have the Executive Branch create a private slush fund. If they violated the law, then punish them with the law. Don’t make up crap from the Oval Office.

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you, @Winstonfield_Pennypacker.

Take BP to court? You mean the same Supreme Court that recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals? The same Supreme Court packed with right-wing ideologues like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts? That's your idea of justice?

You always make these dishonest comparisons. Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

We need the Fairness Doctrine in radio and television because the right wing, always the money-grubbers, are stacking the deck. Leave the blogs alone. Leave the papers alone. But reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in television and radio and dance to the wailing of the conservative propagandists who would have everybody believe that their point of view is the only point of view.

We're in this mess because of you, man, and because of people like you. We're in this mess because your idea of how the world should work is totally fucked up, only you will never, ever admit it.

You bow to the strong and pick on the week. Now go back to licking your master's boots.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I mean seriously, you literally snipped out the phrase "I'm sure there will be congressional oversight", and cut off the part where I said why I thought that
Sure. You said it, but have no proof it will happen so why belabor it?

Holy. Fucking. Shit. You responded to my complaint about unrepresentative quotation by using another unrepresentative quote?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
As with all piles of money in Washington, that 20 billion will get misappropriated and spent on unrelated crap with only token pennies on the dollar going to BP oil damages. Every citizen must view government as the ENEMY, because history proves that eventually it will be.

But you have no proof it will happen, so why belabor it?

Let's look at history, how did management of the 9/11 Victim's Compensation Fund go? Similar thing, did the gubbimint steal everyone's money there?

Also, here's the text of Obama's comments announcing the fund. Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

There's nothing but downside in trying to engage in funny business on this fund. The money is meant to go to victims of a disaster who are the center of national attention, and the object of national (if not global) sympathy. It'd be suicidal to try to steal from it.

Much easier to just put your pork into a defense appropriations bill (e.g. alternate engine for the F-35, and the C-17).

I agree the fears are unjustified--but what I do not agree with are people's abilities to get over fears, misconceptions, hatred, jealousy, envy, sadness, and oh yeah, love for pie and all things pie...

I respect the great hope, but I look at it like this. If it ever came down to feeding my own children or doing wrong by someone else--I know where my loyalties lie... Sorry humanity! Heck, most people wrong each other for far less. At least I have those values...

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Hey Net, I agree with you and am in pretty much the same area as you... I would like, however, to point out what runs your opponents' mindset. Fear.
I get that. But...I generally give people the benefit of the doubt about being able to engage their rationality and quash their fears. Get people to think about what they're reacting to a little more, and see if it really makes sense.
Obama has the codes to launch America's nuclear weapons. Obama is, as President, Constitutionally immune from prosecution of crimes -- he could go on a mass murdering spree, and all we could legally do is impeach him. He's allowed to negotiate and sign treaties on our country's behalf (though it won't necessarily have the force of law without Congressional approval).
This has been true of every President since Truman (and before that we just didn't have the nukes).
Presidents wield lots of power, but less than most Prime Ministers from other countries. In other countries, there is essentially perfect party discipline, and flat majority rule. No vetoes, no filibusters, no unanimous consent, nothing.
Being able to use pure influence as the head of state to negotiate a voluntary agreement seems perfectly kosher by any standard. If BP gets denied redress via courts, believe me, we'll hear about it!
Hell, if someone gets screwed by this ICF, we'll hear about it!
It's one of the built-in benefits of having a Democratic president -- their critics always get easy access to a media megaphone. The scary part happens when Republican presidents get the media to systematically silence dissent...

I agree with you on nearly every point you made. However, we are in our current mess (as a whole, not just oil related) because of many
mistakes made on both sides due to pandering and a lack of leaders. Every mistake the Executive, Judical, and Legislative branch creates for the next generation stays with our nation in a perpetual state of forever. We need these problems solved---however, we are a nation that never unmistakes ourselves. I don't even think we are a nation that is built to fix shit.

Indefinate detention? Sure Obama will fix it...maybe... after his next election... War in Iraq? Sure the President has a great time table to leave... in due time... Energy plan with little reliance on oil? Well, 30 years after we should have begun, our greatest accomplishment is that we use more oil! We barely use solar, wind or nuclear energy... The list of problems goes on and on, but corporations do not solve problems, and since we are run by the dollar---they win.

>> ^rougy:
There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you, @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since June 27th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Winstonfield_Pennypacker">Winstonfield_Pennypacker.
Take BP to court? You mean the same Supreme Court that recently ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals? The same Supreme Court packed with right-wing ideologues like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts? That's your idea of justice?
You always make these dishonest comparisons. Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.
We need the Fairness Doctrine in radio and television because the right wing, always the money-grubbers, are stacking the deck. Leave the blogs alone. Leave the papers alone. But reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in television and radio and dance to the wailing of the conservative propagandists who would have everybody believe that their point of view is the only point of view.
We're in this mess because of you, man, and because of people like you. We're in this mess because your idea of how the world should work is totally fucked up, only you will never, ever admit it.
You bow to the strong and pick on the week. Now go back to licking your master's boots.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I agree the fears are unjustified--but what I do not agree with are people's abilities to get over fears, misconceptions, hatred, jealousy, envy, sadness, and oh yeah, love for pie and all things pie...
I respect the great hope, but I look at it like this. If it ever came down to feeding my own children or doing wrong by someone else--I know where my loyalties lie... Sorry humanity! Heck, most people wrong each other for far less. At least I have those values...

That's why I generally want to change the way things work so that doing the right thing is also the easy thing, at least wherever it's possible.

I don't even really have a problem with fear, jealousy, envy, sadness (and zero problems with pie!), I just wish people would apply them when there's a real reason to do so. Fear bred of ignorance is wrong, fear of real and actual threats is great!

There's just no place to start with someone as blatantly dishonest as you

Well with a rational argument like that, you’re fully qualified to be a journalist for the Washington Post. Send in your application today while it still exists.

Hollywood, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the NYT, AP, and PBS are not liberal bastions. They only appear to be to you because your viewpoints are so hopelessly skewed to the right of the scale.

A person such as yourself looks at the vast swathe of center/left to hard/left media and thinks, “nothing wrong here…” From this radical position, any news story that doesn’t hew to a leftist ideology offends you. So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'. You say the media isn’t liberal. Facts dismiss your opinion as incorrect and confirm my statements as accurate.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

using another unrepresentative quote?

Unrepresentative? No. Totally representative. And know what? IMMA DOIN' IT AGAIN!

You said “I’m sure there’ll be sufficient oversight” and then made a few unsupported opinions related to this naïve assumption. There is no need to triple down in the repetition. It was a bunch of non-factual opinions based assumptions which deny reality and precedent. Every specious opinion about “sufficient oversight” was also made regarding the tobacco settlement. The bulk of that never reached the ‘victims’. Same for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and even the vaunted 9/11 Victim's Fund can't account for hundreds of millions of lost dollars. This'll be no different.

Apparently it won't be controlled by the government either, and both BP and Obama are saying "[t]his fund does not supersede either individuals' rights or states' rights to present claims in court."

1. Putting the fund under his pay czar is putting it ‘under the government’. 2. You can’t trust anything Obama says as far as you could throw a tar-soaked dolphin. 3. !I! was the one that said people can sue anyway. That’s the point. If people can sue, then let them go to the courts. That’s where this belongs. We shouldn't get into the BAD habit of creating government slush funds for every event that comes down the pike. That will just repeat the "failed policies of the past".

Oh - and just so you know - I won't get my knickers in a knot if you just use 'pull quotes' from my massive texts. That's common practice for brevity - nothing sinister. It would be a truly silly goofball who would take umbrage to that...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So when a news outlet is actually 'fair and balanced’ your radical-left blinders force you to see it as being ‘right wing neocon'.

Is that perhaps the same "fair and balanced" news organization with hosts who routinely compare Obama to Nazis and Stalinists? The same news station that still says Obama hasn't released any birth records and criticizes his actions when he repeats something they praised a conservative for doing?

Just curious if that's the news source you're trusting, because it would certainly explain many of your political positions.

I don't trust any news organization to be honest. FOX leans right but is hardly the Ahzmodean Baalzebub that the left wing makes it out to be. MSNBC leans left, but isn't entirely the Luciferian Demogorgon the right thinks. But both of them are biased. No question. You have to look at them carefully.

Above all you have to make a careful distinction between their 'news' and their 'commentary'. A lot of people harp on FOX for shows like Hannity, O'Rielly, and Beck. Well - those guys aren't news - they're commentary. I lump them in the same pile as Madcow, Olbermann, King, and all the other talking heads. Bias isn't confined to the commentary side, but the news side isn't as bad as the radicals like to pretend. FOX or MSNBC 'haters' tend to focus on what the commentators say to justify their hate of a particular outlet. I have arrived at a place where I can go to any source and winnow out the news wheat kernals from the commentary chaff. They're both still biased, but at with a rotation of both sides as well as some nice internet clearing houses like Drudge you can get a well-rounded sampling.