Palin says Barton position is not mainstream to the GOP

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008304-503544.html

Who does she think she's fooling?

[theprestige]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008304-503544.html

Who does she think she's fooling?
Pop Quiz, Hotshot:

Has the Republican party

Endorsed Barton's position?
Repudiated Barton's position?


ETA: I can tell you actually agree with everything Palin says, because such a position would be the exact opposite of your public statements regarding Palin.

[thaiboxerken]

Endorsed Barton's position?

Before he said it, yes.

Repudiated Barton's position?

After he said it, and drew harsh criticism from the public. Yes.

[Lurker]

A local radio station here (talk radio) ran a call in poll and over 80% of people agreed with Barton.

[thaiboxerken]

A local radio station here (talk radio) ran a call in poll and over 80% of people agreed with Barton.

Wow. You live near fools.

[Skeptic Guy]

So I wonder what those 80% think is the preferred option?

[Beerina]

Politicians getting things done rather than posturing and preening and preparing to enrich lawyers via lawsuits?

[thaiboxerken]

Getting things done.... like getting BP to set up a 20 billion dollar fund?

You know what's funny, Beerina. Dick Armey said something very different. He said that the Obama Administration should leave it to the lawyers and courts to settle this. That's why thinks this "shakedown" is wrong.

[theprestige]

Getting things done.... like getting BP to set up a 20 billion dollar fund?
Tell me: How much of the oil spill did that fund clean up last month? How much is it cleaning up this month? How much will it clean up next month?

In fact, how much money is actually in the fund right now?

[leftysergeant]

Tell me: How much of the oil spill did that fund clean up last month? How much is it cleaning up this month? How much will it clean up next month?

As usual, you missed the point. The fund is not for cleanup. It is to mitigate thje ecconomic loss for victims of BP's free-market psychosis. The actual clean-up is directly billable.

All the fund does is eliminate the need to sieze all of BP's assets and tank the British pension systems.

Maybe the British will wake up and start moving their pensions intro something more closely resembling our Social Security system.

[thaiboxerken]

Tell me: How much of the oil spill did that fund clean up last month? How much is it cleaning up this month? How much will it clean up next month?

In fact, how much money is actually in the fund right now?

So the fund is to clean up the oil spill? Where did you hear this from. You conservatives can spin all you want, but the 20 billion dollar fund is a good thing.

[theprestige]

So the fund is to clean up the oil spill? Where did you hear this from. You conservatives can spin all you want, but the 20 billion dollar fund is a good thing.
How much money did you say was in that fund right now?

Of course it's a good thing. On paper. When (if) it's ever fully-funded, it might even be a great thing. But that's all in the future. Right now, the fund is just a PR stunt, so people like you can claim that Obama is actually doing something.

So what is he doing, exactly? How does this fund do things like clean up oil all last month? How does it fix today's problems in the MMS? How does it audit all the other oil rigs in operation in U.S. waters right now?

It's great that Obama's doing something in the future. What about the harm this spill is doing right now, today? What about the harm this spill has been doing for two months now? Has it ever occurred to you that the people who live and work around the Gulf might be less concerned about what Obama might do in the future, and more concerned about what he has or has not done in the past and present?

Fisheries threatened? Wetlands ruined? Species endangered? These things have already happened. And you want to pretend that a fund that might actually have lots of money in it some point in the future is "doing something"? Pull the other one, please.

[thaiboxerken]

It's to get 5 billion a year for 4 years. How much in there right now? None. I don't know how long it will take BP to deliver on it's promise.

Yes, this is partly a PR deal, but not just for Obama. It's good PR for BP as well.

How do you expect Obama to fix this without securing funds from BP. Perhaps you want the tax payers to bail BP out on this. Do you want Obama to wave the magic want to fix the problem instantly.

[Cleon]

Hangonaminit...

Sarah Palin is the arbiter of what is mainstream Republican thought?

Sarah Palin? The "I read all newspapers" and being-close-to-Russia-counts-as-foreign-policy-experience Sarah Palin?

I...I need a drink. And a nap. I feel a little dizzy.

[eeyore1954]

It's to get 5 billion a year for 4 years. How much in there right now? None. I don't know how long it will take BP to deliver on it's promise.

Yes, this is partly a PR deal, but not just for Obama. It's good PR for BP as well.

How do you expect Obama to fix this without securing funds from BP. Perhaps you want the tax payers to bail BP out on this. Do you want Obama to wave the magic want to fix the problem instantly.

I would agree it is good public relations for BP except for the fact that it appears to the public they were forced to do it rather than willing.

I would expect Obama to "fix this" by agressivly spending the money and resources neccesary to mitigate the damage from the spill and going to BP for the money. I believe at this point that is being done.

Where do you get the idea that anyone is saying bail BP out?


To the point in the thread it probably is mainstream Republican thought that BP should not have been forced to set up a fund especially at this point when they have not balked at paying.

This is not mainstream Republican thought and another sign to me that Obama has not done a good job on picking his advisors and staff.

"That's not a political gaffe, those are prepared remarks," Emanuel told ABC. "That is a philosophy. That is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here as BP, not the fishermen."

[leftysergeant]

To the point in the thread it probably is mainstream Republican thought that BP should not have been forced to set up a fund especially at this point when they have not balked at paying.


Throwing out $50K bones here and there is hardly "mitigating losses," which is what the fund is supposed to address. The clean-up is totally separate.

This is not mainstream Republican thought and another sign to me that Obama has not done a good job on picking his advisors and staff.

Actually, this is Obama doing something immediately for BP's victims.

[hgc]

A local radio station here (talk radio) ran a call in poll and over 80% of people agreed with Barton.


That's probably a good sampling of the people who listen to that particular show and also choose to particpate in self-selecing polls (which are about as useful as a sand merchant at the beach). In other words, not meaningful as re: public opinion.

[Lurker]

That's probably a good sampling of the people who listen to that particular show and also choose to particpate in self-selecing polls (which are about as useful as a sand merchant at the beach). In other words, not meaningful as re: public opinion.

Agreed. But it is a slice of conservatism.

[hgc]

The Republicans, including their leader Rush Limbaugh, are all over the airwaves bruting the "shakedown" meme, which originated as an official talking point of the 100-member strong Republican Study Group of the House.

This is identical to Barton's foolish outburst, except he uttered his apology out loud.

Looks like mainstream Republican thought to me, though of course it's not universally accepted by Republicans.

[hgc]

Agreed. But it is a slice of conservatism.


Perhaps. I think they're just parroting back what the radio show host said to them. It doesn't quite rise to the level of a position of a political ideology, ie., conservatism.

[thaiboxerken]

What's interesting here is the Republicans saying that Obama isn't doing enough. Then, when Obama does something, they complain because it's an exercise in too much government power. They don't really care what Obama is doing, they just want to give the narrative that he's wrong. Even if Obama had a magic wand that fixed the oil spill and cleaned up the ocean/beaches instantly, they'd complain that he used magic.

[Lurker]

Perhaps. I think they're just parroting back what the radio show host said to them. It doesn't quite rise to the level of a position of a political ideology, ie., conservatism.

??

Who decides what conservatism is if not a majority of people who self-identify as conservatives?

[leftysergeant]

??

Who decides what conservatism is if not a majority of people who self-identify as conservatives?Well, since rightwhacker morons like the fat deaf eunuch have been defining "liberals" to suit their delusions, I guess those fools have to settle for my definition of "conservative."

(Not that I expect a Rushblob fan to get my point. That takes rational thought.)

[thaiboxerken]

I think Lurker's point is that, at least in his locality, the notion that this is a "shake down" is mainstream amongst conservatives.

[Shalamar]

What's interesting here is the Republicans saying that Obama isn't doing enough. Then, when Obama does something, they complain because it's an exercise in too much government power. They don't really care what Obama is doing, they just want to give the narrative that he's wrong. Even if Obama had a magic wand that fixed the oil spill and cleaned up the ocean/beaches instantly, they'd complain that he used magic.

exactly. Its a Lose/Lose situation for President Obama. No matter what he does, the right wing will still ash out at him for doing nothing/doing too much.

Hopefully he's just ignoring them and doing what he feels is best.

[Giggywig]

Well, since rightwhacker morons like the fat deaf eunuch have been defining "liberals" to suit their delusions, I guess those fools have to settle for my definition of "conservative."

(Not that I expect a Rushblob fan to get my point. That takes rational thought.)
Not to burst your bubble but I seriously doubt you have anywhere near the influence Rush has. Nobody has to settle for your definition of, well, anything. Not that anybody has to settle for Rush's definition of anything either, but at least people know about those.

[AlBell]

exactly. Its a Lose/Lose situation for President Obama. No matter what he does, the right wing will still ash out at him for doing nothing/doing too much.

Hopefully he's just ignoring them and doing what he feels is best.
It is a shame he can't figure out anything to do that is either Constitutional or effective.

[thaiboxerken]

It is a shame he can't figure out anything to do that is either Constitutional or effective.

Feel free to prove that it's unconstitutional. We have yet to see if it's effective.

[eeyore1954]

What's interesting here is the Republicans saying that Obama isn't doing enough. Then, when Obama does something, they complain because it's an exercise in too much government power. They don't really care what Obama is doing, they just want to give the narrative that he's wrong. Even if Obama had a magic wand that fixed the oil spill and cleaned up the ocean/beaches instantly, they'd complain that he used magic.

I agree with you that many will complain about what he is doing no matter what but I would say in this case having BP setup a $20B fund does very little to address what most critics would have said he is doing wrong.

[Shalamar]

It is a shame he can't figure out anything to do that is either Constitutional or effective.

A perfect example. President Obama can Do No Right.

I do not agree with everything he's done, but I'm not going to blast him, or, anyone else for that matter just because they do not follow my political Ideals.

[MikeMangum]

The Republicans, including their leader Rush Limbaugh, are all over the airwaves bruting the "shakedown" meme, which originated as an official talking point of the 100-member strong Republican Study Group of the House.

This is identical to Barton's foolish outburst, except he uttered his apology out loud.

Looks like mainstream Republican thought to me, though of course it's not universally accepted by Republicans.

You are proposing a false dichotomy here. It is possible to denounce extra-legal tactics without being on the side of the entity that those tactics are used against, just like it is possible to defend the right to free speech of someone who espouses ideas you find abhorrent. BP can be an entirely unsympathetic company and still be a victim of extra-legal tactics. The target of those extra-legal tactics is irrelevant, just like a drug addicted hooker may not make a very sympathetic victim, but we still prosecute people who rape drug addicted hookers.

The real victim is the rule of law; in other words, all of society. If a president can ignore the law to shake down a company, regardless of how unpopular that company is or how stupid the law he ignores happens to be, it weakens the rule of law.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That's why our Constitution has a ban on bills of attainder or ex post facto laws: doing so keeps judicial functions in the Judicial branch of government, with all of the due process protections and evidentiary rules of the court, and allows people to be judged on the law as current at the time of incident in question. The President is not part of the Judicial branch of government.

The government should have never passed a law limiting responsibility for economic damages to $75 million, but that is the law, and any changes to that law cannot be retroactive. Political threats to a company by the President(targetting that specific company) to get them to fork over large sums of money either as punishment or as compensation for percieved wrong, is extra-legal. The President is not part of the Judicial branch of government. He does not judge cases and decide guilt or damages.

[thaiboxerken]

The government should have never passed a law limiting responsibility for economic damages to $75 million, but that is the law, and any changes to that law cannot be retroactive

How would changing the law now be retroactive to the BP situation?

[MikeMangum]

How would changing the law now be retroactive to the BP situation?

Changing the law now, to apply to cases going forward, would not be retroactive at all. The point is that the government is behaving as if, of course, the $75 million cap on economic damages will be ignored. That is, after all, why Obama got $20 billion out of BP for the express purpose of paying out economic damages.

The blame for that mess should go to the legislators who passed the bill that contains the cap. It should not simply be ignored.

ETA: I wanted to point out that even now there is no motion to amend the law in question. Why bother when it can just be ignored?

[thaiboxerken]

How is the BP spill a "past" event, when it's still going on? Can you call this changing a law retroactively if it happens DURING and event?

[MikeMangum]

How is the BP spill a "past" event, when it's still going on? Can you call this changing a law retroactively if it happens DURING and event?

Actually, yes, it is a "past" event, at least in terms of liability. BP's actions that give it legal liability happened on or before April 20, 2010. The fact that the consequences continue to accrue does not change that fact.

ETA: Look, I don't like it either. Ideally, there never would have been a law passed that limited liability for economic damages to $75 million, and BP would end up paying out for many thousands of civil suits to pay restitution for economic damages. But the fact is, there WAS a law that was passed that limits liability for economic damages to $75 million and using extra-legal strong arm tactics in an attempt to rectify that fact is incredibly corrosive to the rule of law.

[MattusMaximus]

Getting things done.... like getting BP to set up a 20 billion dollar fund?

You know what's funny, Beerina. Dick Armey said something very different. He said that the Obama Administration should leave it to the lawyers and courts to settle this. That's why thinks this "shakedown" is wrong.

That, and before Barton so publicly shoved his foot down this own throat, the "shakedown" talking points were making the rounds by various elected Republicans and being used by them in interviews & speeches. After the Barton blowback though, you'll find no GOP politicians using the lingo - curious, isn't it?

[MattusMaximus]

That's probably a good sampling of the people who listen to that particular show and also choose to particpate in self-selecing polls (which are about as useful as a sand merchant at the beach). In other words, not meaningful as re: public opinion.

It's also probably a decent first-order approximation of the kind of folks who tend to turn out to vote in Republican primaries.

[MikeMangum]

It's also probably a decent first-order approximation of the kind of folks who turn out to vote in Republican primaries.

What, people with respect for the rule of law?

ETA: but then again, "the ends justify the means" is basic leftist catechism.

[quadraginta]

What's interesting here is the Republicans saying that Obama isn't doing enough. Then, when Obama does something, they complain because it's an exercise in too much government power. They don't really care what Obama is doing, they just want to give the narrative that he's wrong. Even if Obama had a magic wand that fixed the oil spill and cleaned up the ocean/beaches instantly, they'd complain that he used magic.


Witchcraft!

Probably Voodoo, being as how he's Kenyan, and all. That's worse. Can't even use good Christian devil-worshipping magic.

[MattusMaximus]

What, people with respect for the rule of law?

ETA: but then again, "the ends justify the means" is basic leftist catechism.

Yup, it comes in the handbook right after the section on kicking little old ladies down the stairs and eating live babies.

:rolleyes:

[Dr. Keith]

The real victim is the rule of law; in other words, all of society. If a president can ignore the law to shake down a company, regardless of how unpopular that company is or how stupid the law he ignores happens to be, it weakens the rule of law.

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.

[rwguinn]

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.
Not sure.
They publicly stated that they would bear the cost of fixing the problem, I.e., cleanup, but I read an article last week where they were balking (big time) at having to pay for the loss of economy-essentially lost jobs/livelihood and similar economic impacts due to the spill. will see if I can find it.

Her's a little bit of it:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6573FD20100612
more
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/05/05greenwire-bp-chief-sends-mixed-messages-on-economic-dama-91434.html

[MikeMangum]

Yup, it comes in the handbook right after the section on kicking little old ladies down the stairs and eating live babies.

:rolleyes:

Actually, Rules for Radicals doesn't mention kicking old ladies or eating babies, at least not specifically, but it DOES say that the end justifies the means. That's certainly not the entirety of the left, but for the far left, is it indeed part of the catechism.

Ever heard the phrase "can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs (http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Walter+Duranty)"?

The only people that I've read or heard say that phrase (or anything similar) without irony, and as justification, are Walter Duranty and Robespierre.

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, yes, it is a "past" event, at least in terms of liability. BP's actions that give it legal liability happened on or before April 20, 2010. The fact that the consequences continue to accrue does not change that fact.

Since BP has failed to stop the underwater spill, it's my opinion that it's still a current and ongoing event. The fact that it's still happening means that it's a present event.

[MikeMangum]

I've been out of the loop on a lot of this so I have a bit of a question:

How did Obama force them into this shakedown?

In other words, what leverage did he use if they were only liable for $75 million in damages?

I ask because if he just asked them to do it and they did, that's not detrimental to the rule of law. That's a smart businessman weighing the impact on his company of different decisions. But if he threatened them with unconstitutional actions of some sort, that could be a problem.

BP was called into the White House and kept there in 4 hour long talks. What do you think? The fund is not going to be handled by the judiciary, it is NOT limited to those with actual, direct economic damages caused by BP, and BP agreed to pay $20 billion into this fund even though the agreement explicitly does not cap damages.

Keep in mind that Congress has been mooting about legislation to force BP to pay essentially all the unemployment benefits of Louisiana, amongst other things. Do you really think that when a situation of this sort is being addressed by the political branches of government, as opposed to the judiciary, that there is no coercion involved? There was at least one state government (Alabama) that was going to bill BP for lost sales tax revenue.

BP, Under Pressure, Woos Congress (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704866204575224561891852380.html)
BP PLC Chief Executive Tony Hayward met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill Tuesday, advancing the oil giant's campaign to avoid the sort of political backlash that has engulfed companies such as Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Toyota Motor Corp.

...

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Sunday the administration planned to keep "keep the boot on the throat" of BP—a phrase that has since become part of a Democratic fund-raising appeal.

BP shares slump as US presses oil firm to pay laid off workers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/09/bp-oil-spill-us-anger)
The political and financial pressure on BP escalated sharply yesterday as the US government demanded compensation for thousands of oil industry workers laid off as a result of a freeze on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The demand sent the company's shares plummeting on Wall Street amid worries over long-term survival prospects.

...

As many as 15 Congressional committees are investigating the oil spill and at one of many hearings yesterday, the US interior secretary, Ken Salazar, said he would ask BP to repay the salaries of workers laid off by the moratorium on drilling.

BP Slumps to 20-Month Low as Obama, Congress Raise Pressure Over Oil Spill (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-09/bp-shares-decline-for-a-third-day-as-obama-increases-pressure-on-hayward.html) Obama said he has made three trips to the Gulf to find out who to hold responsible, “so I know whose ass to kick.” Lawmakers led by Representative Peter Welch wrote to Hayward urging him to stop paying dividends and cancel an advertising campaign in the U.S. until the cleanup is completed.

“They’re getting a lot of flak from politicians, and that’s raising concerns about the dividend,” said Peter Hitchens, an analyst at Panmure Gordon & Co. in London.

Congressional leaders increase pressure on BP to compensate victims (http://blog.al.com/live/2010/06/congressional_leaders_increase.html)
WASHINGTON -- Congressional leaders stepped up pressure on oil giant BP to fully compensate economic victims of the Gulf spill as President Barack Obama offered condolences Thursday to the relatives of the 11 rig workers killed in the April 20 explosion.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said "every taxpayer in America must know that BP will be held accountable for what is owed." She spoke at the White House after Obama met with congressional leaders of both parties.

...

After meeting with the lawmakers, Obama said the existing law governing oil spills was passed "when people didn't envision drilling four miles under the sea for oil." [so I guess that means it can safely be ignored]

...

Obama met Monday with Cabinet officials involved in the oil spill response and reiterated his earlier warning to the British oil company to not be "nickel-and-diming" business owners who are losing income because of the spill.

[MattusMaximus]

Actually, Rules for Radicals doesn't mention kicking old ladies or eating babies, at least not specifically, but it DOES say that the end justifies the means. That's certainly not the entirety of the left, but for the far left, is it indeed part of the catechism.

It's interesting that you mention RfR, seeing as how many on the right have been using those tactics for the last year or so.

[Cleon]

It's interesting that you mention RfR, seeing as how many on the right have been using those tactics for the last year or so.

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

[thaiboxerken]

Stewart sums it all up here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2010/daily-show--15080-pt--1

[elbe]

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

I know the first time I ever heard of Alinsky was from Cicero, so I looked him up and, oddly enough, decided it was too stupid to care a whit about. Apparently I'm not left wing enough.

[hgc]

??

Who decides what conservatism is if not a majority of people who self-identify as conservatives?


I'm not trying to define conservatism, except to say that it's a political ideology of some sort. What I meant about the listeners of that radio program who participated in the poll is not that their position isn't conservative, per se, but that it's not the result of reasoning through on ideological grounds.

[Lurker]

What's with this sudden hard-on conservatives have for Alinsky? I never even heard of the guy until he became this bizarre "Get Out of an Argument Free" card. "Hah hah! That's right out of Alinsky's handbook!"

As if most people have even read Alinsky's book--including the people who keep yammering on about it.

I'm willing to bet this can probably be tracked down to some revelation made by Limbaugh, Beck, or one of those other characters.

+1. I had never heard of Alinsky and still have not read anything by him. Conservatives use it to marginalize arguments.

[MattusMaximus]

I know the first time I ever heard of Alinsky was from Cicero, so I looked him up and, oddly enough, decided it was too stupid to care a whit about. Apparently I'm not left wing enough.

Ha ha, ditto. I hadn't even heard of Alinsky until the stupid Tea Party townhall crap last summer (which failed miserably in it's attempt to kill HCR) where they started talking about using the RfR tactics. Now here we have a conservative on this thread whining about how liberals are pulling that crap. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black :rolleyes:

[Dr. Keith]

BP was called into the White House and kept there in 4 hour long talks. What do you think?

That 4 hours was not long enough for me to explain a very complex issue to my client last week and we are having a conference call on it later today. I somehow think that the perpetrators of the largest oil spill in our waters should be prepared to talk for at least 4 hours in the White House.

Am I supposed to assume that Cheney left a water board set up in there somewhere?

It is BP's choice to either ignore the president and take their chances in our legal system or agree to the fund. I can see rational arguments either way, but I still don't see unconstitutional assertion of power.

The fund is not going to be handled by the judiciary,

I thought the details were still be worked out.

The courts have no jurisdiction until BP or the victims ask the courts to intervene via a proper pleading. The judiciary is not at the President's beck and call.

it is NOT limited to those with actual, direct economic damages caused by BP,

Nor would any lawsuit be so limited.

and BP agreed to pay $20 billion into this fund even though the agreement explicitly does not cap damages.

Nor would any one lawsuit. They may have seen that as a great way to stop the free-fall of their stock price. It does seem to have bottomed out a bit.

Keep in mind that Congress has been mooting about legislation to force BP to pay essentially all the unemployment benefits of Louisiana, amongst other things.

I assume that "mooting about" does not mean "passing." Politicians say a lot of things to keep their jobs.

Do you really think that when a situation of this sort is being addressed by the political branches of government, as opposed to the judiciary, that there is no coercion involved?

Again, the judiciary is not self activating. A party needs to file a pleading to get in front of a judge. Absent that the judiciary has no power or authority.

I was unaware of the parts of the constitution that prevent the President from discussing possible solutions with parties that have severely damaged our country. If keeping someone in the White House to discuss these solutions for 4 hours is coercion, then that is a very low bar. so far, that is the only evidence you have presented, and doesn't seem "unconstitutional" to me.


There was at least one state government (Alabama) that was going to bill BP for lost sales tax revenue.

Alabama's state government is now controlled by Obama?

[thaiboxerken]

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that the government can't have an attorney general present at a meeting?

I find it interesting that the same people who defend water-boarding and other forms of torture are complaining about some supposed pressure from having a lawyer present at negotiation talks.

[BenBurch]

Hangonaminit...

Sarah Palin is the arbiter of what is mainstream Republican thought?

Sarah Palin? The "I read all newspapers" and being-close-to-Russia-counts-as-foreign-policy-experience Sarah Palin?

I...I need a drink. And a nap. I feel a little dizzy.

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

[Shalamar]

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

A moose?

[thaiboxerken]

Are there any Conservatives here that still think Barton's position is not the mainstream GOP position after this week?

[BenBurch]

A moose?

Alan Keyes. Very similar to a moose.

[Cleon]

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

I have to admit, there's an inner part of me that really wants to see a Palin/Bachmann ticket. I call this part of my brain the "Andy Kaufman Lobe."

[leftysergeant]

Alan Keyes. Very similar to a moose.You insult all ruminants.

Obama gave BP a way out of being the first corporation ever to be placed under arrest for a felony. It was not in the interest of either those dependent on income from BP to stay alive throughj another winter or the government to put them into recievership.

For the time being, anyway. It would probably be best for both the GOP and BP if Barton just clamped his pie hole shut. There is more than probably cause to sieze all of BP's assets now. It were probably best, then, that the GOP not be seen as approving of BP's shenanigans.

[eeyore1954]

Originally Posted by BenBurch
Two years from today, we will be talking about who her (Sarah Palin) running-mate is going to be.
A moose?

Then if she was elected the VP would live in fear of being shot by the President.

[thaiboxerken]

It's interesting to see the GOP's gradual reveal of their agreement with Barton. When Barton first opened his mouth, they apologized for him and shamed him into taking back what he said. They said that it's not a mainstream position. Today, most of them are defending what Barton said and have revealed that it really was their position.

[eeyore1954]

It's interesting to see the GOP's gradual reveal of their agreement with Barton. When Barton first opened his mouth, they apologized for him and shamed him into taking back what he said. They said that it's not a mainstream position. Today, most of them are defending what Barton said and have revealed that it really was their position.

I am wondering who are the most of them. I am sure many believe it was a wrong move by Obama but I doubt if many have "revealed that it was their position" that is was a slushfund and a shakedown.

[thaiboxerken]

Really? Because in this thread, many have defended that exact position.

[eeyore1954]

Really? Because in this thread, many have defended that exact position.

I am still wondering who the "most" of them are who defended that it was a slush fund and a shakedown. Not a few of them.

[thaiboxerken]

Fox news, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh... and their followers.

[MattusMaximus]

Two years from today, we will be talking about who her running-mate is going to be.

Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that all-too-realistic prospect.

[MattusMaximus]

It's interesting to see the GOP's gradual reveal of their agreement with Barton. When Barton first opened his mouth, they apologized for him and shamed him into taking back what he said. They said that it's not a mainstream position. Today, most of them are defending what Barton said and have revealed that it really was their position.

Linky?

[AlBell]

Linky?
To voices in ones head?

[thaiboxerken]

To voices in ones head?

Says the guy who agrees with Barton.

[AlBell]

I don't run around blathering about what "they" think, and yes that is my position.

We both have some access to the facts of the matter; I've made my call on the meaning.

We can of course agree to disagree.

[thaiboxerken]

Right, I agree that it is a mainstream position BP fund Obama asked them to fund was a shakedown.

[AlBell]

So what?

[eeyore1954]

Fox news, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh... and their followers.
They don't count first I don't think any of them every disagreed with the original statement. I am looking for most of the mainstream GOP polticians who agree it was a slush fund and a shakedown.

[thaiboxerken]

Those poeple you said don't count ARE the mainstream conservative movement.

[johnny karate]

Here's Tom Price speaking on behalf of over 115 House Republicans (http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=191125):
...the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics.


How many more GOP politicians would be required before we can acknowledge this is a mainstream GOP position?

[MaGZ]

A local radio station here (talk radio) ran a call in poll and over 80% of people agreed with Barton.

Barton was right, it was a shake-down by thugs in the Oval Office.

[MaGZ]

When it comes to BP first we have the sentence then we have the trial.

[KoihimeNakamura]

There *is* that giant oil spill in the gulf. Maybe you missed it.

[eeyore1954]

Those poeple you said don't count ARE the mainstream conservative movement.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken
It's interesting to see the GOP's gradual reveal of their agreement with Barton. When Barton first opened his mouth, they apologized for him and shamed him into taking back what he said. They said that it's not a mainstream position. Today, most of them are defending what Barton said and have revealed that it really was their position.

Who are the most of the mainstream who "When Barton first opened his mouth, they apologized for him and shamed him into taking back what he said" and now are defending what Barton said. I don't know about Beck but I heard Limbaugh parroting Bartons slushfund and shakedown from the beginning.

[Beerina]

Can't both sides be right? BP is a giant oil company that got sloppy, cheap, and lazy in a very complicated operation, and caused a lot of damage. It will be very costly.

Fair enough. This was still a shakedown. Using current public outrage to scare BP with what, other threats?


Did reality stop being reality when I stopped looking?