Senators question if BP played role in Pan Am bomber's release
I should like to apologize to BP for my government unfairly dog piling on. Please don't take away our jobs in the Gulf.
|
Senators question if BP played role in Pan Am bomber's release
I should like to apologize to BP for my government unfairly dog piling on. Please don't take away our jobs in the Gulf.
Seems feasible that an oil company would do something like that. Not to say that it is in any way appropriate to bring it up in the currently ongoing narrative. Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I don't put anything past major corporations if it could possibly raise their profits.
This is a dire charge. If it's true, I could easily see BP going out of business in the most ugly fashion imaginable.
Yeah, whatever. Just don't take the jobs! The jobs! Can't you see we are in a recession and we need those jobs!
You poor, naive fools! This is just the tip of the iceberg. My allies and I have been tracking BP's nefarious schemes for years. There's heavy evidence to show that they are also responible for:
- The expansion of the Sahara desert in order to provide a testing ground for genetically engineered Giant War Scorpions.
- The sinking of Atlantis through an accident during their time travel experiments.
- The cancellation of the TV show Firefly, because the CEO was turned down for a guest spot.
And that's just a few things. Believe me when I say that what I'm leaving out would give Lex Luthor the chills.
They must be fought at all costs!
I find it completely feasible that any multi-billion dollar company would release any number of the most anti-social violent psychopaths if it would increase their profits.
- The cancellation of the TV show Firefly, because the CEO was turned down for a guest spot.
Stone them!
- The cancellation of the TV show Firefly, because the CEO was turned down for a guest spot.
Well, at least they got SOMETHING right...
This is a dire charge. If it's true, I could easily see BP going out of business in the most ugly fashion imaginable.
It seems to me that large intrusive government doesn't prevent corporate corruption; rather it seems to facilitate it.
This is business as usual for a big multinational. The people they own in government will cover for them and nothing of consequence will happen. I'm sure BP is "too big to fail". I imagine someone would bail them out if they got into real trouble.
Well, at least they got SOMETHING right...
- The cancellation of the TV show Firefly, because the CEO was turned down for a guest spot.
Dohp! I liked firefly.
I will guess a poor copy cat will be out in a few years. They can't seem to come up with any new ideas.
What's worse, it won't be cancelled. It will run forever and ever like American Idol.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
|
|
Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.
Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
|
Yeah, whatever. Just don't take the jobs! The jobs! Can't you see we are in a recession and we need those jobs!If they go out of business, the gub'mint can get their gulf rigs at bargain basement prices, then all those people can have cush government jobs!
China buys up all the gulf oil rigs in international water. US President gets all surley about having his plans foiled but wanders off to take it out on the family dog - foiled again in hs attempt to liquify BPs assets to pay off his failed economic policy...
"Damn it! What do I gotta do? Hmmm?"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, whatever. Just don't take the jobs! The jobs! Can't you see we are in a recession and we need those jobs!If they go out of business, the gub'mint can get their gulf rigs at bargain basement prices, then all those people can have cush government jobs!China buys up all the gulf rings in international water. US President gets all surley about having his plans foiled but wanders off to take it out on the family dog - foiled again in hs attempt to liquify BPs assets to pay off his failed economic policy...
"Damn it! What do I gotta do? Hmmm?"
Isn't it more precise that BP leases those rigs, and that they'll go elsewhere?
|
|
Isn't it more precise that BP leases those rigs, and that they'll go elsewhere?Yeah, whatever. Just don't take the jobs! The jobs! Can't you see we are in a recession and we need those jobs!If they go out of business, the gub'mint can get their gulf rigs at bargain basement prices, then all those people can have cush government jobs!China buys up all the gulf rings in international water. US President gets all surley about having his plans foiled but wanders off to take it out on the family dog - foiled again in hs attempt to liquify BPs assets to pay off his failed economic policy...
"Damn it! What do I gotta do? Hmmm?"
Thats right...they lease them from a SHELL company...:)
|
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
Only problem is the discusses deal was between the British government and libians whilst the actual reason he was released was a decision of the Scottish government which the British government wasn't involved in.
Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
I would also add that Obama either lied to our faces, or he is so grossly incompetent that he has no idea what hit own diplomats are doing.
I wonder how fast congress will lose interest in this now?
Isn't it more precise that BP leases those rigs, and that they'll go elsewhere?Yeah, whatever. Just don't take the jobs! The jobs! Can't you see we are in a recession and we need those jobs!If they go out of business, the gub'mint can get their gulf rigs at bargain basement prices, then all those people can have cush government jobs!China buys up all the gulf rings in international water. US President gets all surley about having his plans foiled but wanders off to take it out on the family dog - foiled again in hs attempt to liquify BPs assets to pay off his failed economic policy...
"Damn it! What do I gotta do? Hmmm?"
You're correct, but it's the latest moratorium from Interior that will drive production and tens of thousands of jobs out of the gulf.
|
|
I will guess a poor copy cat will be out in a few years. They can't seem to come up with any new ideas.What's worse, it won't be canceled. It will run forever and ever like American Idol.
Yeah and then they will complain about it and how it is so horrid and this is why the killed off Firefly, or worse yet they will see how horrid Joss Whedon makes the Avengers movie and say see this is why his series keeps getting axed.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You're correct, but it's the latest moratorium from Interior that will drive production and tens of thousands of jobs out of the gulf.
Oh, I don't deny that (I think two already are in the process of pulling out) Just pointing out that making noise about seizing 'BP's oil rigs' doesn't make sense.
Yeah and then they will complain about it and how it is so horrid and this is why the killed off Firefly, or worse yet they will see how horrid Joss Whedon makes the Avengers movie and say see this is why his series keeps getting axed.I will guess a poor copy cat will be out in a few years. They can't seem to come up with any new ideas.What's worse, it won't be canceled. It will run forever and ever like American Idol.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
LOL, my concern isn't the director, but the huge frakking cast. We have Nick Fury, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanova, Clint Barton and Jim Rhodes so far...
And those are just the heroes. no sign yet if we add Janet or Hank to the mix.
Am I the only one who liked Alien: Ressurction?
LOL, my concern isn't the director, but the huge frakking cast. We have Nick Fury, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanova, Clint Barton and Jim Rhodes so far...
And those are just the heroes. no sign yet if we add Janet or Hank to the mix.
Am I the only one who liked Alien: Ressurction?
I'm afraid so. Don't worry. I'm the only one who liked Starship Troopers.
|
|
Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
I would also add that Obama either lied to our faces, or he is so grossly incompetent that he has no idea what hit own diplomats are doing.
I wonder how fast congress will lose interest in this now?
I didn't get that at all. The administration was lobbying for the least of all evils. When it became apparrent that the Scots were going to release him or transfer him they wanted release in Scotland (where he could be monitored) vs. imprisonment in Lybia (where he would be welcomed a hero). Scotland took neither of those options and released him in Lybia...an option that the US did not endorse in any way.
|
|
Only problem is the discusses deal was between the British government and libians whilst the actual reason he was released was a decision of the Scottish government which the British government wasn't involved in.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
Ok, I'm admittedly a bit ignorant when it comes to the goings on of the British government, but don't Britain and Scotland fall under an umbrella government (the United Kingdom)? If so, does it really matter who made the deal?
I didn't get that at all. The administration was lobbying for the least of all evils. When it became apparrent that the Scots were going to release him or transfer him they wanted release in Scotland (where he could be monitored) vs. imprisonment in Lybia (where he would be welcomed a hero). Scotland took neither of those options and released him in Lybia...an option that the US did not endorse in any way.Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
I would also add that Obama either lied to our faces, or he is so grossly incompetent that he has no idea what hit own diplomats are doing.
I wonder how fast congress will lose interest in this now?
Remember Obama plead ignorance in the press conference with the UK's PM. He claimed to be surprised and disappointed. The kindest thing one could say is that he parsed his words to cause the public to infer a lie, or he lied through his teeth, or he is utterly oblivious to major national security issues.
Remember Obama plead ignorance in the press conference with the UK's PM. He claimed to be surprised and disappointed. The kindest thing one could say is that he parsed his words to cause the public to infer a lie, or he lied through his teeth, or he is utterly oblivious to major national security issues.I didn't get that at all. The administration was lobbying for the least of all evils. When it became apparrent that the Scots were going to release him or transfer him they wanted release in Scotland (where he could be monitored) vs. imprisonment in Lybia (where he would be welcomed a hero). Scotland took neither of those options and released him in Lybia...an option that the US did not endorse in any way.Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
I would also add that Obama either lied to our faces, or he is so grossly incompetent that he has no idea what hit own diplomats are doing.
I wonder how fast congress will lose interest in this now?
I don't get it either. What is he supposed to say? I think you may be reading into this a bit much, but I admit I am tardy to this particular party.
|
|
Remember Obama plead ignorance in the press conference with the UK's PM. He claimed to be surprised and disappointed. The kindest thing one could say is that he parsed his words to cause the public to infer a lie, or he lied through his teeth, or he is utterly oblivious to major national security issues.
I'm sure Obama was surprised and disappointed that they came out of left field and freed him to his home country...and did neither of the things that seemed most likely (ie.-jailed in Lybia or released in Scotland under surveillance). It was double-talk at worst...the US obviously knew something was going to happen with the guy, but who could have guessed that Scotland was going to screw the pooch this bad?
I didn't get that at all. The administration was lobbying for the least of all evils. When it became apparrent that the Scots were going to release him or transfer him they wanted release in Scotland (where he could be monitored) vs. imprisonment in Lybia (where he would be welcomed a hero). Scotland took neither of those options and released him in Lybia...an option that the US did not endorse in any way.Yeah, darn that evil BP.
Next they'll be cursed for arguing that he should be sent there and lie about knowing about it.
Ok, here's what I got from that article:
1) The US felt he should stay locked up...in Scotland.
2) If they weren't going to keep him locked up in Scotland, then compassionate release was preferable to jailing him in Lybia.
3) The US wanted the compassionate release to be in Scotland, not Lybia.
4) His eventual release to Lybia was connected to a £550 million oil contract obtained by BP.Seems that BP was more influential than the US on this one. (Big corporations influencing governmental decisions? *gasp* THE HORROR!!)
I would also add that Obama either lied to our faces, or he is so grossly incompetent that he has no idea what hit own diplomats are doing.
I wonder how fast congress will lose interest in this now?
The kindest thing one could say is that he parsed his words to cause the public to infer a lie, or he lied through his teeth, or he is utterly oblivious to major national security issues.
CNN,"Obama said most Americans were "surprised, disappointed and angry" about the decision to let al Megrahi go. "We should have all the facts," he added. "They should be laid out there." The decision "ran contrary to how we should be treating terrorists.""
EDIT: I'm having trouble finding the video of the quote. Does anyone have a link?
I'm not ready to agree with the right wing blogosphere yet that Obama endorsed this then lied and tried to hide it, yet.
|
|
Ok, I'm admittedly a bit ignorant when it comes to the goings on of the British government, but don't Britain and Scotland fall under an umbrella government (the United Kingdom)? If so, does it really matter who made the deal?
Not in regards to lawmaking Scotland has a different legal system and a different judicial system than the rest of the united kingdom so Bp making deal with the British government has no bearing on the decision to release Magrahi which was a Scottish Goverment decision
Don't worry. I'm the only one who liked Starship Troopers.As Yoda says, "There is another."
+2
|
|
ha ha. I'm serious though.Thats right...they lease them from a SHELL company...:)
Isn't it more precise that BP leases those rigs, and that they'll go elsewhere?
"What do you think, Mr Fibble?"
Sock Puppet shakes head..."Thats right Mr Fibble...If BP goes elsewhere those Jobs will go to Communist Chinese oil companies...considering most if not all of those oil rigs are in international waters there will be Chinese Subs patrolling the Gulf of Mexico protecting their oil tankers."