>> ^siftbot:

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Hive13. If this nomination is seconded with isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.


*isdupe

>> ^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.

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.

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.

^Nice copy pasta. Well then I raise you with this:

Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that the “ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".[181]

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles (44 km) from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[text 2]

Robin Churchill, international law professor at the University of Dundee in Scotland, said there was no legal basis for boarding the ships as they were in international waters. [182] Ove Bring, Swedish international law professor, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[183] That was supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University,[184] Hugo Tiberg, maritime law professor[185] and Geir Ulfstein, professor at maritime law at University of Oslo,[186] while Jan Egeland, director of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs said that only North Korea behaved in international waters in the same manner as Israel.[187]

Canadian scholar Michael Byers notes that the event would only be legal if the Israeli boarding were necessary and proportionate for the country's self defence. Byers believes that "the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent."[188] Jason Alderwick, a maritime analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies of London, was quoted as saying that the Israeli raid did not appear to have been conducted lawfully under the convention.[189] Anthony D'Amato, international law professor at Northwestern University School of Law, argued that the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.[9] Said Mahmoudi, an international law professor, said that boarding a ship on international waters, kill and capture civilians is not in line with the law.[190]

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [191]

Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoğlu called the raid "a grave breach of international law and constituted banditry and piracy—it was “murder” conducted by a State, without justification".[22] Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime."

Turkey's deputy parliament speaker, Guldal Mumcu, said in a declaration that "[t]his attack was an open violation of United Nations rules and international law," and that "Turkey should seek justice against Israel through national and international legal authorities. The parliament expects the Turkish government to revise the political, military and economic relations with Israel, and to take effective measures."[192]
Dr. Turgut Tarhanlı, dean of the Law department of İstanbul Bilgi University,[193] cited the concept of innocent passage, under which vessels are granted safe passage through territorial waters in a manner which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the state.[194] He said that the Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that a coastal state may consider intervention if a ship is engaged in arms and drug smuggling, the slave trade or terrorist activities. However, the case with the aid boats is totally different. They set sail in accordance with the Customs Act and are known to be carrying humanitarian aid, not weapons or ammunition. According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, Israel was not entitled to launch a military operation against the boats and activists.[195]

@blankfist, a transcript of part of what he said:

The tea party movement is about saving the country from a mountain of debt that is devouring our country and I think could lead to chaos…

I think we stand on a precipice, we are encountering a day of reckoning…

We have a President who went to Copenhagen and appeared with Robert Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, and others — Evo Morales — to apologize for the industrial revolution. … These petty dictators say that to stop climate change it’s about ending capitalism.

Bullshit. Hugo Chavez said nothing of the kind:
http://theantipress.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-over-ideological-delusion-hugo.html

Hugo Chavez full speech at Cop15.

How ironic for FOX to support a quote from Hugo Chavez who is their mortal enemy

- an actual socialist/communist.

Thanks! I was hoping it wouldn't slip through into the PQ.. I'm looking forward to seeing the full production.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
*quality

^Do you ever question the slop that your Republican party feeds you, or are you content to slurp it up like a hungry dog?

1. Venezuela is a democracy
2. Hugo Chavez was elected thrice.
3. Your political programming has left you woefully misinformed.

>> ^direpickle:
blankfist: I actually agree with you on this thread (though I'll admit that I usually disagree with you). Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass. Hugo Chavez is a statist. Joe "Driving Permits Serve a Purpose" Public is not, even if I disagree with him.


No, it's cool. I'm a statist in the sense that government should intervene in the economy. Deflationary spirals should be fought with every tool available. Since you mention it, however, I'd prefer the term Keynesian. It doesn't carry all of the fascist connotations.

I just find it funny that yet another naive, free market idealist neglects to show any understanding of externalities.

blankfist: I actually agree with you on this thread (though I'll admit that I usually disagree with you). Using the term 'statist' is not helping your (our!) case and just makes you sound like a jackass. Hugo Chavez is a statist. Joe "Driving Permits Serve a Purpose" Public is not, even if I disagree with him.

I like non-sequiturs.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Yeah, so.. I'll see this.. Benicio went to my high school.

>> ^EDD:
jeeeeez. Now I get - it was me who didn't get YOU were being sarcastic with the 'Gollum' bit. I genuinely thought you meant that it was Serkis @ 2:01.


ROFLWTFLMFAOCOPTER, etc.

you should change your name to eddoofus or something. doofus.