Is BP daring Obama to step in and stop the oil spill?

[subsuelo]

I'm checking the latest headlines where BP says they think they can stop the flow from the spill by sometime next week.

They think they can stop the flow by some time next week. Is anyone okay with that?

They openly shrug their shoulders ... admitting they don't know. No hard deadlines. Just the continued attitude of "we'll give this a shot and see how it goes". How long can we continue to accept this?

Or perhaps more importantly - how long will Obama's administration continue to accept this?

I also read that BP's CEO Tony Hayward http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7129204.ece">flew home for his birthday after promising to stay in the U.S. until after the spill was stopped. I'm all for anyone taking a break from work but god-dammit this is HIS company destroying the gulf, and he promised to stay. It's like he's telling us, you know what, not only will I go home while your gulf suffocates due to my company's negligence - but I'm going to make a promise to stay, and then break it.

Seriously - it's like he's openly provoking all of us. Who knows why - maybe because he knows there is no accountability. To take this spill so callously and carelessly, and has anyone seen videos of him talking about the spill? Half the time he's smiling and nearly chuckling in discussion with his BP colleagues.

So, I get to wondering - is BP daring or somehow challenging Obama's administration to step in and take over the spill site and halt other or even all BP operations in the U.S.? Provoking Obama, even? Is this some kind of high-stakes political game of chicken going on?

It is now way past time to have SEIZED B.P.'s assets or at the very minimum to have taken over spill operations, cleanup and shore protection, and to have taken over all B.P.'s operations pending major assessments and review. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing them being shut down altogether.

But we see nothing even approaching that kind of action. I don't know about the rest of you, but all I'm hearing is "Government scolds B.P." or "Obama criticizes B.P. execs"

Oh, you scolded them and criticized them, did you? How very tough. I'm sure they're scared now. Now watch Tony Hayward fly home for a birthday party while his company destroys the Gulf of Mexico and beyond. Watch him grin and chuckle while addressing spill issues. Watch his company guess and scratch their asses as to how to fix the leak, while oil pours into the Gulf at an unprecedented rate.

It's time for Obama's administration to seize control and take action. Why isn't it happening? Is BP daring Obama to step in and do something about it? What are the real stakes here and why does the Gulf of Mexico need to be tortured in the process?

Just asking questions.

[NoNothing]

1. I'll go out on a limb here

And say that Obama seizing control and taking action isn't happening because it isn't Constitutional.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Or practical or feasible.

Contrary to popular belief, Obama cannot arrest BP and charge it with terrorism, then have it charged with murder, and have them summarily executed, and have the oil flow stopped by executive order commanding it to stop.

In the early days I was thinking that sort of thing was just people being facetious. But now I have to wonder if it's just plain stupid.

[Dr Fate]

10. He cant threaten to veto or speak out against any of their subsidies or tax cuts either.

And we all know why.

So true, there is just absolutely nothing-nothing, nada, zip that "The Leader of the Free World" can do to put the breaks on any foreign corporation that operates on our shores. Even if there was something he could do, then we can just say "what good would that do".

Yes- it's clear that the best course of action is for "The Leader of the Free World" to keep quiet & just wait & see & let this play out.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. What bill should he veto to stop the flow?

[Dr Fate]

20. I'd love to see him to threaten BP & the international Oil community.

Something like: "If the gusher is not capped and it isnt cleaned up in 2 months, then I'll do everything in my power to see that you never get another tax break or subsidy again."

How 'bout no more no bid contracts for Haliburton as well- unless they put every hour & every penny of their resources towards stopping the leak?

I really think that this promise/threat should be aimed at all the the other oil companies who lobbied for deregulation-their resources are probably needed as well-but I'd settle for jsut threatening BP, etc. at this point.

I know, I know, he cant do that b/c (Insert excuse here)OR you can say "What good would that do?"

[subsuelo]

8. So, 50 or a hundred years from now, people will look back and ask...

... "why didn't they stop that oil spill sooner?"

"Oh, because it wasn't Constitutional."

That is really a sorry answer for not having done anything in the face of catastrophic environmental disaster.

[Dr Fate]

15. Great talking point come election time too.

"I had to let FOREIGN corporations do it their way- you wouldnt want me to violate the rights of a FOREIGN CORPORATION would you?"

[NoNothing]

16. A slight difference between

"not having done anything" and "not having shredded the Constitution"

The idea that the Constitution doesn't apply in times of crisis is what led to things like Korematsu and Gitmo.

[subsuelo]

28. Let the world burn before we break the Sacred Oaths of the Constitution

Yep, got it.

[cilla4progress]

35. Right friggen-on

Great way to frame it!

[Ex Lurker]

69. at this point, I'm ready to see a challenger to Obama in the 2012 presidential primary

preferably from the left, but I don't really care. the BP castastrophe has exposed Obama as a charlatan.

[Dr Fate]

12. He cant threaten to veto or speak out against any of their subsidies or tax cuts either.

Because (insert excuse here) or "What good would that do?"

[madmax]

18. Or BP can then use the fact that

government took over and that BP could have done the job faster but, where twarthed by government intervention. Whatever, a red herring to complicate any lawsuits. We, (BP) were prevented from handling the gusher because the government intervened.

Legal Eagles care to weigh in?

[louis-t]

19. And repukes would scream "he wants to take over BP".

Gee, I thought the 'private sector' does a much better job than the gubmint.

[Dr Fate]

22. So his excuse is that he is scared of what Tea-Baggers might say?

LOL! Keep 'em coming.

[louis-t]

47. My point was, the "he's gunna" crowd will still

complain, no matter what.

[truedelphi]

53. Who cares what repukes would say?

It would be nice to see some real leadership come out of 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue. Not only because the fate of an entire sea might require such, but also to confirm that my vote for this man was not totally in vain.

[nashville_brook]

32. magical thinking, much? never fear, the oil fairy is playing 10-dimensional chess in the backroom.

[gateley]

36. Is there nothing he can do because they're polluting OUR land? I'm in agreement

that he's probably got some legal/constitutional restraints, but... :shrug:

[NoNothing]

37. Of course!

There are lots of things he can do. But outright theft of private property is not one of them, and shouldn't be without repealing the Fifth Amendment.

[subsuelo]

38. Who in their right minds would put theft of "private property" ...

Over preventing further suffocation of the environment?

:shrug:

[NoNothing]

40. Probably people who think that rule of law is important

But what the hell, let's just elect an imperator and abolish democracy every time there's a problem. It's always worked so well in the past.

[subsuelo]

42. Sure, let's be sure to respect "rule of law" while the world burns

Really smart idea there!

House on fire! Oops, can't go turn on the neighbor's hose to help because it doesn't belong to us.

:crazy:

[NoNothing]

44. You are being silly and hysterical

Are you in imminent danger of death because of the BP oil spill? No, you're not. It's your type that panicked when the Reichstag burned and the WTC fell down, too. Calm down. We have a democratic process for dealing with problems. Let's make use of it instead of giving power to people who would use fear and panic against us.

[subsuelo]

48. Have you seen pictures from the Gulf? Don't tell me to "calm down"

Unless you just don't give a shit either, just like the BP executives and paid off politicians, don't tell me "calm down".

Some of us actually give a damn about the planet and find devastation to the environment a little difficult to sit back and accept.

I know that may be hard to fathom, but give it a try.

[gateley]

62. What private property would we be outright stealing? nt

[boston bean]

41. You sound just like Rand Paul......

[donco6]

57. The Constitution bars us from acting against someone destroying our coastline?

Really?

[Lerkfish]

2. "maybe because he knows there is no accountability"

the answer is contained in the question.

[phleshdef]

3. Is the government ALLOWED to just take BPs equipment and use it?

Because from everything I've read, we don't have the equipment to deal with it ourself and I'm not sure if the government can just legally take a private companies stuff and use it however it pleases. Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, I might be. But I don't think I am.

[Dank Nugs]

6. Well, nationalization might be an option, but BP is a UK company, IIRC

What could Obama possibly do? The option of last resort would involve deploying a nuclear bomb to fuse shut the fissure. If it came to that, he probably will.

[PufPuf23]

9. If it was a forest fire, Fed or State agencies can

commandeer logging equipment working in the immediate area for fire suppresion efforts even if said equipment has nothing to do with the fire.

[kenny blankenship]

50. The govt. can declare a state of emergency and commandeer *anybody's* property of whatsoever kind

Of course you're wrong about that.

In a declared state of emergency, all private property objections melt away. Want to get shirty about it? Sue the government after the state of emergency is passed.
Here is the US Supreme Court discussing the subject in United States v. Russell, 1871

Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into the public service, or may be seized and appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner . . . but the public danger must be immediate, imminent, and impending, and the emergency in the public service must be extreme and imperative, and such as will not admit of delay or a resort to any other source of supply, and the circumstances must be such as imperatively require the exercise of that extreme power in respect to the particular property so impressed, appropriated, or destroyed.

In many jurisdictions, a policeman can commandeer your car to carry out a hot pursuit of a criminal. That's right: they can just take it, like Popeye Doyle did in The French Connection. It doesn't happen much anymore because cops have more cars than they used to. If you don't like the way your car looks afterwards, petition for compensation. That's what courts are for. There are still laws on the books in some states saying that the fire department can in an emergency commandeer your horses since that's the way water used to be hauled to put out fires. And if that seems too obsolete, be aware that in an emergency the fire department can pull your house or building down, or cut & burn down timber on your land with a "backfire", to prevent the spread of a fire.

Public emergencies trump private property. It doesn't have to be in wartime, either. The limitation on the Federal govt in exercising this power is that the takings clause of the Constitution obliges the government to make restitution after the fact to property owners for the use of their property.

[truedelphi]

52. Thank you for a truly common sense argument.

Backed up with some decent thinking.

I agree with your reasoning.

[subsuelo]

58. and facts too! :) n/t

[pnwmom]

5. Why isn't Obama taking over the oil spill site?

NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO FIX THE GUSH. Not the Government. Not the Oil companies. Not other countries. It's all just guesswork, on anyone's part.

The government doesn't have a battalion of oil gush fighters, and they never have. This is completely different from a situation like Katrina, where the government had successfully dealt with similar emergencies (such as hurricanes in Florida) and just chose not to. Our military and National Guard know how to evacuate people -- but they don't know how to stop massive gushing of oil in deep waters.

No one does. Nothing anywhere near this scale has ever happened before.

In the end, the Feds might take over the site -- in order to bomb it with a nuclear missile. In the meantime, they're letting the oil industry use its collective wisdom, hoping something short of a nuclear bomb will work.

[Skidmore]

7. Oh, yeah. Exploding a nuke is just the answer.

I hope you hear the sarcasm that comes with the grammar. Too many Bruce Willis movies. Let's compound contamination with a high risk venture that could very well make things worse.

[Dank Nugs]

14. There are no easy solutions

Would there be contamination if you slant drilled near the site of the fissure and inserted the bomb deep under the sedimentary layer?

[Skidmore]

21. How much is known about the geography and geology of the sea bottom there?

How are you so certain that a nuke used in that matter wouldn't make things worse and release a greater gusher?

[Dank Nugs]

26. I'm not certain.

That's why I want this run by the world's best geologists and nuclear physicists first. Russia has done it in the past. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Better to stand and do something, than sit down and do nothing.

[pnwmom]

23. I certainly wouldn't be happy about it. But it might be the only thing

that works in the end.

[Dank Nugs]

11. Incorrect. There is a way to seal it. Russia has done it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100513/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2052

You may not like it though. It requires the use of a nuclear bomb. Russia had similar leaks / problems back in the 60's and employed this method to successfully seal that fissure, IIRC.

There is a way to fix it.

[ljm2002]

27. Hmmm, did you read the whole article?

Near the end: "While this method may have worked for the Soviets, the circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico are much different. As LiveScience's Jeremy Hsu points out: "The Russians were using nukes to extinguish gas well fires in natural gas fields, not sealing oil wells gushing liquid, so there are big differences, and this method has never been tested in such conditions.""

But sure, let's go ahead and nuke it. What could possibly go wrong?

:sarcasm:

[Dank Nugs]

30. Doesn't negate the fact that it shouldn't be considered..

Get a bunch of geologists and nuclear physicists together and have them discuss it.

By the way, the article is incorrect on this point. There is also natural gases leaking from the fissure as well, not just oil. And the ratio is something like 10,000 to 1. There's more natural gas leaking out than there is oil. It's a similar scenario that has been met with success in the past.

[ljm2002]

31. If the gentleman quoted in the article is correct...

...the Russians capped natural gas leaks. No mention of oil. So even though this gusher includes natural gas, it also includes oil -- and it is the oil that they are having trouble containing. That makes it different.

But I will agree, all possible avenues should be considered. I just want them to be very, very cautious if they consider using a nuke, because things could go terribly wrong. If they were to make the opening bigger, rather than containing, it could make the catastrophe orders of magnitude worse.

[subsuelo]

17. The same Government that waived BP's responsibility to have a plan

I'm just thinking of the criminal negligence involved with a government that waives responsibility to create a disaster plan, when the government doesn't have a clue how to deal with these disasters either.

"No, you don't have to have a plan. We don't either, so just be extra careful out there! Bye, have a good time!"

Right underneath our noses, they've been playing with fire, risking so much, and for what?

To make a profit, that's what.

[pnwmom]

24. Didn't that happen under Bush? n/t

[Dr Fate]

25. If so, then what steps did Obama & our 60 DEM Senators take to reverse the Bush plan?

???

[subsuelo]

29. You expected Change or something? n/t

[cilla4progress]

33. Honestly,

I'm starting to lose patience, too. I emailed the White House today - I expect them to step in / take over asap.

[subsuelo]

70. good! we need to keep up the pressure!

[blindpig]

34. Let's not call it negligence,

it is criminal recklessness in the pursuit of profit. Eleven men robbed of their lives, a populace robbed of their livelihood, resources and biodiversity robbed of posterity.

Is it not clear who is calling the tune here? Government is by, of and for Capital.

Kill Capitalism.

[truedelphi]

60. Well we don't really have Capitalism. More like

Ersatz Capitalism (forget if it was Spitzer or some expert who said that.)

But I am all for the killing of the Anything for Profits goes, while the governmental agencies turn a blind eye (as long as it is done by the Big Players.)

Meanwhile the same agency that allowed BP its exemption hunts down and stops the small entrepreneur from developing alternate fuels.

[blindpig]

68. Oh yes, it is Capitalism.

Capitalism evolves as it grows, adopting the means necessary to provide the growth of accumulation. If it doesn't look like your father's or grandfather's capitalism that is because the very success of capitalism leads to overproduction which depresses that growth of accumulation causing capital to seek new venues for growth. In the past this has often been expressed as imperialism, but even that ain't enough, there is so much capital sloshing around looking for a fruitful home. Thus the S&L affair, the tech boom, the housing boom, the finance crisis and now the 'restructuring' of the weaker European nations, coming to the US real soon. Gotta get that money where it can be found.

The oil industry is pretty old school, same mentality as at it's beginning, it's expansion has involved imperialism and expansion into the oceans. But the charter is the same, maximize profits and to hell with everything else. There is no regulating such a beast, it's wealth will crush all opposition, one way or the other. The subordination of the government to BP clearly shows who is really running the show.

The energy sector should be nationalized immediately, it is way too crucial, it's secondary effect too damaging, to be left in the hands of Capital. Of course this will never happen as long as capitalists control the government.

[AnArmyVeteran]

39. We went to war against a country which never threatened us. So why aren't we going after BP???

If I was the commander in chief I would seize control of the entire disaster area and ban any BP presence there. If they refused to comply I would order their ships be seized or sunk. We went to war based entirely on lies against a non-existent enemy, spending a trillion dollars and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. BP has threatened the US with its reckless and willful disregard for the people in the US and they should be treated as a rouge nation. We should go to war against corporations as if they were countries. Corporations want all the benefits of being 'human beings' but none of the responsibilities.

By the BP CEO going to a birthday party shows his total lack of concern. While he is responsible for the deaths of 11 human beings and possibly the destruction of the Gulf of Mexico he feels like partying. What kind of sociopath could that BP monster be? If I was President Obama I would have spoke during prime time telling the world how the BP CEO decided to leave his disaster behind so he could enjoy himself while tens of thousands are working tirelessly trying to save our coasts. Where are you President Obama???

President Obama could be a hero overnight if he stopped cowering to business interests and started representing the will of the sane Americans. He needs to completely disregard all conservatives and chart a course that is good for all Americans. If he did that even the dimwitted tea bagging crowd might be able to finally see they are being screwed by corrupt corporations.

[JuniperLea]

43. You should send this to him...

:cry:

[AnArmyVeteran]

55. I LOVE your tagline! Perfect! Conservatives claim to be Christians, but they hate Jesus' teachings..

[JuniperLea]

59. I was raised in a Fundy church...

Still recovering. I have a couple of aunts who are still going, and growing more and more self-righteous and hate-filled as the years pass. I tell them they have had their ears tickled by false prophets who have somehow convinced them that it's bad to feed the hungry and heal the sick. They just don't equate how Jesus treated the woman at the well and lepers with the current "social outcasts" they are spewing hatred toward. They were warned...

I've yet to walk into a church in the past 30 years where I didn't have hypocrisy greet me at the door. I know there are good Christians and churches out there... it must be so... I've stopped looking. I'd rather seek God quietly on my own... at the beach:)

[AnArmyVeteran]

61. My disgusting experience at a Baptist Church

I was invited to go to church with a girlfriend I had at the time. It was a Wednesday night service. The preacher called everyone there sinners, worthless and bad. He kept up his rambling abuse of the congregation until I had enough. I whispered to my date that I had to leave. I was on the aisle so it wasn't hard to get out. I walked to the side of the church and entered a hall that led to an exit. On the way two women approached me and asked in a very ugly tone "Where do you think you're going?". I told her I'm going outside to be with God. Their heads almost exploded, but I just calmly walked by them and out into the night air. I just walked around the dark parking lot looking up at the crystal clear sky full of brilliant, bright stars. And I felt so good about leaving all of that evil inside that brick building. I'll never forget that ecstatic feeling I had knowing what I did was the right thing to do. I was a bit shy at the time so it took every bit of courage I could muster to get up in front of all those people to leave. And I thought for sure that preacher would single me out to spew his venom on.

I've never been back to a Baptist church again. It's sad how abusive and demeaning that preacher was and how he was victimizing all of the people in the congregation. My friend Marsha later tried to commit suicide, but thankfully she was brought to a hospital in time. She cut both of her wrists badly. The reason for her torment: She had no identity of her own. If she had a good thought she thought it was god. If she had a bad thought, she thought it was satan. She felt like she was a bad person for even having bad thoughts and I suppose she felt like she was evil because of the constant drumbeat of hate from evil preachers and from her own parents, who were religious fanatics. She finally tried to end the war going on in her mind between 'god' and 'satan' and cut her wrists.

I feel sorry for all the people who are locked up in that world Marsha was a prisoner in. I wonder how many other people have been successful in committing suicide because of the mutant religion they were being forced to listen to and the pain it caused them. People do so many evil things in the 'name of god'. Just ten miles from where I live a mother drowned her five children to death because she thought god wanted her to do it. I have read story after story of people falling victim to the evils of religion and doing similar things.

Marsha was taken first to a county mental hospital and then the state mental hospital. Through a lot of intensive therapy Marsha was finally able to find her own identity and eventually marry and have children. But religion, and those who abuse it and victimize others with the Bible, almost killed a beautiful person like Marsha. I was the only person to visit her at either hospital. I drove to Austin to stay several days at a time, sleeping in my van and taking Marsha out into the real world for a few hours on passes.

Even though the monsters at that Baptist church did nothing for her after Marsha attempted suicide I was there for her all the time, writing her letters, sending her cards and driving 240 miles to visit her every week for over six months. But according to fundamentalist Christians I will go to hell, while all those who sit through abusive sermons from evil-minded preachers will go to heaven. I don't need religion to be good or do what is right. And I certainly don't want to end up in a hereafter filled with the monsters who can fluently quote scripture, but have no understanding of what they are reciting.

Anyway JuniperLea, your post triggered that all too vivid memory and thought I would share it. I like John Lennon's song 'Imagine' where he sings about a world without religion. What a better world we would have and one less reason for people to kill themselves or others.

[JuniperLea]

63. That's a beautiful, and a very sad story, AnArmyVeteran...

"I don't need religion to be good or do what is right." Exactly! Clearly you know the right thing to do. Poor Marsha... she's so lucky to have had you as a friend. I bet those so-called Christians never connected what Jesus said about visiting people who are sick, or in prison (Marsha was very much in a prison that THEY created) with the reality around them.

I had a music ministry... I traveled with a choir from age 14 to 17... I was one of three soloists, and we sang in prisons, hospitals, retirement homes, orphanages, etc. I was so freaking into it, you have no idea. I started bringing rock tunes into the set... the choir director was completely into it too, and we worked so hard. We did "Oh Happy Day" and "Put Your Hand in the Hand" and I was having a blast. Then during a choir competition in my home town, I overheard a couple of church elders speaking... one mentioned me and "Oh Happy Day" and said, "That beat comes straight from the depths of hell!" They went on to belittle our efforts in a very mean spirited way. They didn't even mention how our youth choir packed both the Friday night and Sunday night services, that youth attendance had nearly doubled in the past few years. I was stunned, and hurt... then pissed as hell. That was the end of church for me. I went from Tuesday night prayer service, Wednesday night Bible study, Friday night youth service, Saturday choir practice, and two services on Sunday, to not going at all.

I don't need religion to be good or do what is right either.

[AnArmyVeteran]

65. What an awful thing to say and crush the dreams of the vulnerable...

Thank you for your kind comments about my story. You story sickened me too. How do those kind of people consider themselves 'Christians'??? I've noticed that the more fundamentalist a Christian is, the more hateful, judgmental and hypocritical they are. To sing a joyful song as you were doing only to hear two evil people condemn it must have crushed you. But isn't that what lot of christian churches thrive on? They savagely attack congregations telling them they are all going to hell and they are all sinners. I'm sick of that deviant Christian belief that something must be destroyed to be rebuilt, or reborn. They equate it with Jesus dying and then coming back to life.

I'm sorry you had your dreams dashed by bad, horrible people. They certainly didn't walk in the footsteps of Jesus. But most christians rarely do.

And no, no one needs religion to be good or do what is right. But I've heard so many fake christians make the claim that no one can be good unless they have been 'saved'. I'd like to tell all of them to take the plank out of their own eyes before trying to remove the splinter out of another's.

Thanks for writing...

[subsuelo]

45. Thank you, AnArmyVeteran

You are someone with a clear understanding of the situation.

So let me ask my original question again - is BP actually daring Obama to take the actions you mention above? To seize control and start turning things around?

BP must have factored in political calculations to have taken this serious a risk and have pushed forward with it. Maybe they know it could hurt Obama by taking major action. We already have the Senator from KY saying that Obama is being "un-American" for merely criticizing BP.

How much political will does Obama have to actually seize control of BP? The tea-bag and far-right community will be absolutely livid. They may start taking drastic action themselves, as they might view it to be this big Socialist Takeover they have been told to fear. You get what I'm saying?

Maybe Tony Hayward is telling Obama: "Come on, take us down. You ain't got the balls to do it" Because if he does it - the far right will go absolutely crazy. Who knows what might happen then. Civil war? (I'm just throwing out possibilities) And if Obama doesn't do anything, well that's Hayward's green light to keep on doing what he's doing and not have to worry about a thing. (Exactly the way he's acting now)

[AnArmyVeteran]

54. Hi Subsuelo... lots of stuff to answer there, but here goes...

Number one, screw the tea baggers and every conservative extremist. Obama shouldn't waste one second thinking about them or any thoughts of bipartisanship. It wouldn't matter what Obama did the right wing is going to hate him. So why should Obama give an inch to them???

I don't know if there is any taunting being done by BP toward President Obama. I'm sure the BP CEO believes he is more powerful than any leader of any country, including President Obama. He is not limited to any country either. BP's borders cover the planet and if they want to do something all they have to do is dip into their massive corporate treasury and buy off enough politicians to get what they want.

Conservatives will never figure out they are being duped by corporations. They'll never figure out they are supporting the abusers who are victimizing them.

I have no idea what powers our government has relating to seizing a company, especially a foreign one, but President Obama should at least make an attempt to strike fear into anyone who dares to fuck with the United States or harm its citizens.

Which is the greater display of terrorism? The 9/11 attacks which killed less than 3,000 people and caused considerable property damage, or BP's killing of 11 human beings and their assault against the environment which could conceivably destroy the Gulf of Mexico?

'We the people' need to have someone with balls and a creative mind to advocate for them. We need someone strong who will go up against any bully in the world, whether they are a leader of a country or a leader of a corporation. All too often in Obama's first year and a half he has squandered opportunities to assert the people's will against injustices and assaults against their lives. Frankly, I am tired of not having any representation from 'leaders' so gutless they remind me of figurines made out of jello.

I know if I was president I would be an instant hero overnight to every hard working American. I wouldn't take any shit off of anyone and I would put the fear of god in everyone who thinks about or actually does harm anyone. Conservatives whine about taking their country back, but they are so clueless they don't even understand that they are fighting to give corporations total domination over our country. How they became so ignorant and clueless defies all logic and understanding.

Like I said earlier, Obama needs to forget about appeasing anyone on the right. They have destroyed our country enough during their rule. And I am totally shocked at how spineless most democratic leaders are to not point out al of the damage caused by conservative rule over our country.

Yes, I'm for seizing all BP assets, ships, and stripping them of any right to drill anywhere near the US. I know it would not be 'legal' to use our military to go to every place in the world where BP is operating and seize their property, but I would love to see it happen.

One thing is for sure: We need to change corporate law to allow our government to order the seizure of all of the PERSONAL ASSETS of every executive at BP, Halliburton and TransOcean or any other corporate executive caught harming others. Take their mansions, expensive cars, their private islands and every dime from every account where their money is hidden.

I believe justice would be finally served if all of those oil barons had every dime of theirs seized and then prevented them from ever earning more than $10,000 a year for the rest of their lives. I wonder how the rich and powerful would begin to act if they knew they were a moment away from being penniless and homeless, as so many Americans live their lives every day?

Why should we allow terrorists of any stripe to abuse and harm human beings and the environment? And face it, BP is a terroristic organization, even worse than Al Qaeda. BP is driven by a lust for riches, not caring at all about the people they affect. They are driven by greed. At least Al Qaeda is driven by mutant, evil principles, but evil nevertheless.

Which is more evil? Someone who harms others out of greed and a lust for massive riches, or someone who is acting out of principles with no concern for money? I think the answer is extremely clear.

Even the Bible condemns those who forgo all human decency in pursuit of monetary riches. It would be an interesting question to pose to Jesus wouldn't it? Who would Jesus think is more evil? Soulless corporate CEOs? Or misguided radicals who are driven by principles in the name of religion?

It is time we took our country back, but not take it back so corporations can rule over us. We need to take back our government, our laws and our country. If we fail to do so, the future of our country is doomed....

[subsuelo]

64. in response to a couple of points, AnArmyVeteran

I think we're pretty much on the same page in outlook towards the oil spill.

The thing with me is, I get very tinfoil-hat with these things. I wonder about darker, hidden conspiracies. I just get to wondering, if maybe this thing isn't being played out so far exactly according to schedule.

I think we often like to believe that politics itself is mostly beyond the control of any other entity... it just sort of goes through waves and certain cycles with mostly a mind of it's own. But less and less I think that is the case and more and more it seems to me that strings in fact are being pulled this way and that, of course with the help of corporate-run media.

So maybe this whole disaster is going exactly as planned. We're in the waiting stage where oil continues to gush, and Obama's administration has to make a choice to step in and take over some or all of BP's U.S. operations. What happens after this stage... anyone's guess. Maybe that part - is up to us?

[NoNothing]

46. And what is Obama going to do without any BP presence there?

I know many people are surprised at this, but the U.S. Government is not the most competent organization at every single thing in the world.

Exactly how many underground leaking oil wells has the Navy successfully stopped, ever?

I just don't understand why people are being so irrational about this. Not every bad thing that happens can be attributable to an evil overlord.

[subsuelo]

49. No - what is irrational is sitting around letting BP rape the Gulf

(You got a really messed up view of what's rational and irrational, you know that?)

[AnArmyVeteran]

56. If you look at the premeditated neglect on BP's part it's obvious they are guilty...

And BP, the 'experts' have had a month to stop the leak but are as clueless as the Keystone Cops. And BP has lied from the beginning about the amount of oil gushing into the Gulf, but at least a magnitude of 10.

BP executives aren't honest, competent or care about the consequences of their actions, so why are they paid millions a year for being so damned stupid???

[subsuelo]

66. In response to your question - why aren't we going after BP...

... when we went to war against a country that never threatened us -

Our military is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve the corporate masters.

They dictate which direction to point the guns. Surely they won't ever turn it on themselves.

[Catherina]

51. He who was the capital wins. With 500 trillion, the winner is BP

There is no accountability and there won't be.

Obama's too beholden to corporations to open his mouth. The only thing he can do at this poing is keep wining and dining foreign dignitaries while the gulf dies. BP is just another business that's too big to allow to fail even at the expense of global health. First it was our money, our food, our water, and now it's our health.


If we want action, we're going to need to organize it ourselves.

I also think we, as citizens, need to start class suits against BP, the United States, Britain, BP Board of Director members and BP shareholders.

[subsuelo]

67. WH says they will continue to "push BP to do everything they can"

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was even more emphatic.
"There's nothing that we think can and should be done that isn't being done. Nothing," Gibbs said Friday during a lengthy, often testy exchange with reporters about the response to the oil disaster.
There are no powers of intervention that the federal government has available but has opted not to use, Gibbs said.
Asked if President Barack Obama had confidence in BP, Gibbs said only: "We are continuing to push BP to do everything that they can."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_in_charge">link

That's it??

They're "pushing" BP? Oh really!

Yeah, I bet BP is really going to try hard now! With the W.H. pushing them like this. :sarcasm: