Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: "James L. Hankins" <jhankins5@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:02:59 -0500
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xoSdne3sBbSfa4nRRVn_vwA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you remember your first exposure to "torts," James? Remember that case
about the wheel coming off the mail coach and hitting a bystander?
Remember?
There was no privity of contract of the injured person and the
manufacturer of the defective wheel ... remember what the justice said
about what would happen if we let "everyone" recover, no matter what the
contract said? We have come a long way.
Also, remember how even today, there has to be some limit on the extent of
damages that can be recovered from an "occurrance." Remember the barge
that hits the bridge and closes the bridge to traffic until it can be
repaired? Remember those cases ... the barge owner is responsible for the
repair of the bridge ... if a car was on the bridge and fell during the
collision, they recovered too ... but what about the people that got
"stuck" in traffic? The guy that missed a deadline that caused him to
lose a big deal? The kids that missed their soccer game ... think of the
pain and suffering? The truck with the beef halves that runs out of gas
and the beef spoils before he can get out of traffic? And what about the
butcher that does not get the beef halves and loses all that business?
And the grocer that did not get the cut beef that got spoiled and lost the
profit of those beef halves that got spoiled? And what about those steak
houses that did not get their cut beef steaks and lost all that profit as
well ... and all their employees ... and all the others that have a
"legitimate" claim to the stupid company that let their barge hit the
bridge??? Is there no end?
Do you really think that drilling for oil can be done without any risk at
all? There is always "one more" safety device that can be added. There
are always Monday morning experts that can point to the 50 dollar item
that would have prevented the exact accident that just occurred. Locking
the barn door after the horse is stolen is the government reaction to
every crisis. We are still taking our shoes off at airports.
Proximate causation arguments don't really address your implied assertion
that it would somehow be unfair to bankrupt BP. Sounds like you're just
quibbling about the scope of damages. I would be suprised if the direct
damages were not enough to bankrupt BP. I doubt the indirect consequences
would be needed.
Of course, they never do the right thing, they skimped and took a risk.
It failed. It not only failed, but it looks like they are going to cause
more damage to the Gulf and the coastline than the company is worth.
Where is the unfairness if the company cannot absorb those losses?
I did not peg you for such an anti-business guy, James. "They never do
the right thing" belongs to the current administration. There is a group
that seems to think that putting BP out of business (by making them "pay"
for every remote possible claim that is even remotely connected to their
liability ... under the law in existence at the time ... the law that
encouraged them to actually attempt the deep water well in the first
place) will some how be "just and fair."
I truely believe that such folks actually do not want the oil business to
exist at all. It is the only explanation of the hysteria over this
obvious significant oil spill. It may be the worst ever. It may turn out
to be the second worst ever. It will eventually be cleaned up and we will
go on. BP may indeed be put out of business. It will not be a good
thing, but it could happen.
You were trying to minimize the amount of oil from the leak early on
which turned out to be inaccurate. This thing is monumental. No one
believes that bankrupting BP is going to "solve" anything. They'd rather
just have the oil out of their coastlines and out of their water rather
than have the tragedy happen and then get paid money for it.
I think there are indeed people that believe that bankrupting BP is an end
in itself. You seem to be choosing to believe a story line that many
believe. Everyone certainly would be most happy if this tragedy had not
occurred ... I wonder why so many seem to think that BP is not included in
that group. I know many very good BP employees ... I know a lot of folks
that make their living indirectly from the oil business in the gulf.
Folks seem to think that all those people will be better off if BP is
bankrupted by this event.
If you want to believe that BP knew that this was going to happen (or
believed that such an event was likely), I would say that you do not know
much about the oil business. BP is the second or third largest energy
company in the world ... (they trade places with Shell ... to the big dog,
Exxon) ... they are world experts in evaluating cost and benefit ratios
for millions of operations all over the world. Again, I am surprised that
you, James, seem to be pile on sort of guy in this tragedy.
Not piling on, just trying to figure out the conservative mind. BP took a
risk and it exploded on them. There seems to be this sentiment by
conservatives to limit BP's exposure and to blame the Government
(specifically President Obama) for "mishandling" the oil leak. It's just
bizarre to listen to the conservatives here harp on the Government (which
their principles counsel to stay out of these things) and defend BP (which
their principles counsel should bear the risk of its business decisions).
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: da pickle
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- References:
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: Pepe Papon
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: James L. Hankins
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: Paul Popinjay
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: mo_charles
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: James L. Hankins
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: mo_charles
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: James L. Hankins
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: susan
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: James L. Hankins
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: Tom White
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: da pickle
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: James L. Hankins
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- From: da pickle
- Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- Prev by Date: Re: BABS=genius
- Next by Date: Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- Previous by thread: Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- Next by thread: Re: Obama's job approval rating now lower than President Bush's
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|