This may be a bit over the top, but we must remain vigilant, especially when we see years of case law, and constitutional law circumvented with each new crisis an excuse to pass more laws restricting freedom or concentrating power in the executive branch of government, or the federal government assuming more power for itself over that of the states.
yes, a lot over the top imo. what's more frightening are the people who no longer think on their own and listen to shows like glenn beck and consider his nonsense.
when people don't like someone, they will find every way possible to discredit them. it's how they see their world. that will never change.
Mike Papantonio, the lawyer for many of the affected plaintiffs:
"I was glad to see Obama get a $20 billion down payment on that obligation because I've dealt with companies like this as you probably know, over the last 25 years and I've heard promises and I've seen them talk like they have compassion and sympathy for the victim. at the end of the process, it's always their corp rated defense lawyers that bill $2,000 an hour and try to make those victims go away with nothing. When all the smoke clears on this all that talk's going to be great but Obama was smart enough to say, look, that might be fine, but right now i want $20 billion. You might remember Dick Cheney and George Bush took BP behind closed doors on that 100-day meeting and ended up giving BP millions of dollars. The reverse of this is you have Obama that will took BP behind closed doors and said give the consumers $20 billion. This is a very different picture from the last presidency, I can tell that you much".
First, let's be honest about what actually occurred here. President Obama met with BP representatives and a result of that meeting is that BP agreed to put $20 billion into an escrow account to pay for Gulf oil spill losses. No one forced BP to do anything. They agreed to it. (Aren't you the one who believes Tony Hayward truly is sorry? Perhaps this is evidence of that.)
Second, should Congress choose to pass a law that forces BP to live up to their agreement and sets a standard for financial responsibility for future disasters, that's not dictatorship, that's Congress enacting a law by voting on it. It happens all the time.
Third, Glenn Beck is a moron. That's just my opinion so I'll just let his stupidity as presented in your OP speak for itself. I know you won't agree so no need to rebut, unless you just feel like it.
Lastly, since you were so kind to present Beck's quotes from MSNBC, I'll provide one of my own that I think sums things up quite nicely:
"He [President Obama] drives his opponents mad, and in the end, their total incoherence and malice will hurt them. In the end, because he won't take the Modo bait, the destruction of the populist ideological right will be more effective and profound because it will be self-destruction. Yes, this means that you have to endure these loonies posturing and making shit loads of money from it for the foreseeable future. But that merely requires steel and patience.
....And that's why Obama's incrementalism, his refusal to pose as a presidential magician, and his resistance to taking the bait of the fetid right (he's president - not a cable news host) seems to me to show not weakness, but a lethal and patient strength."
In case you haven't noticed, Beck is one of "these loonies posturing and making shit loads of money from it."
Only an American right-winger who already despises Obama could possibly believe that getting BP to agree to pay for their own mess is a bad thing. Glenn Beck is merely providing the tortured logic to support his listeners' desire to find something about it to dislike. And raking in the money while he's at it.
Last I checked we were still a nation of laws, so you apparently believe it's okay for the government to do something and then pass a law later to cover it.
This isn't about an agreement by BP to set up a 20 billion dollar escrow account to be administered by some third party, it's about the government, not just Obama, (because as much as I am sure you would love Obama to be this country's permanent dictator that's not likely.... yet)there may one day be a right wing President who will exercise those same powers (no doubt to your howls of disgust).
No, it IS about an agreement by BP to set up a 20 billion dollar escrow account to be administered by some third party. Period. You're trying mightily to make it about something else.
No, I don't want Obama to be permanent dictator and for you to say something like that shows how lame your argument has become.
Yes, Obama has exercised powers in this situation--the powers of persuasion and leadership.
Scares you, doesn't it?
His behavior is more like bullying.
Describe to me in detail exactly how BP executives were bullied.
Similarly to how he bullied Congress to get the "health care" bill going, he passes judgement openly and publicly upon those he can use to further his own agendas of "alternative fuel", etc.
When I saw him on tv saying we will make BP pay, he was bullying them there.
Mr. Obama has his nose in everything that gives him room to pass the buck to anyone else, while his entire Administration has shown no accountability at all, for anything at all. That's how a tyrant is, and that's equated to bullying.
I'm sure leeberttea is pleased to have your cogent argument to bolster his claim.
Obama is the biggest recipient of campaign money from BP. No doubt this "deal" benefits BP as well as Obama.
http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profi … scrow-deal
What you view as Obama's leadership and power of persuasion is nothing more than a perception, a painting artfully sketched in water colors on a canvas of white lies.
In his oval office speech did he talk about what he would do to stop the leak and hasten the clean up? Did he talk about how government failed and take responsibility for his part in this disaster? No. Instead he talked about his energy bill agenda, the destruction of the American economy and the middle class.
Well, leeber, which is it? I thought you said Obama "dictated" to BP. Your OP included these terms:
Now you're saying this "deal" benefits BP.
Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Or, more accurately, are you sure Glenn Beck knows what he's talking about? You might want to think about that before you parrot his ideas.
This comes about due to the dedication that whatever Obama does, he is against it. Even if it totally contradicts what was said before.
Beck was quoting reporters from CNBC and MSNBC. They are the ones that brought up the terms "strong armed" and "dictator". Essentially you have the left questioning the motives of Obama.
By the way, I'm not parroting anything, I only asked the question. Glenn has made a comparison between Obama today and Roosevelt in the 40s when the press and the progressives on the left had pushed for him to take dictatorial powers. He's pointing to the press on the left who are referring to Obama's actions as strong arming and dictatorial, then coupling that with yet another school chanting the blessings of Obama. If you can't imagine a scenario where this escalates out of the people's control then maybe you are naive.
So, you're going with Obama forced BP, as opposed to cut a deal with BP that benefits BP?
Just trying to keep your arguments straight, since they are contradictory.
They aren't contradictory at all! Obama used threats of over overreaching government authority to get BP to deal, and BP's influence with Obama got them a limited liability. The perception, to those like you who wish to believe they think for themselves and aren't influenced by the lies perpetrated by the progressive left, is that Obama is the one who made sure BP would pay. Everybody wins, except the American people.
Those who lack vision for the future dabble in politics or religion.
I've been watching Glenn Beck speculating about this very subject...some of his conclusions he backs up with speeches given by politicians and members of the media.
Of course many prominent politicians have been accused of this through history...for example, Bush senior business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. The theory here is that his family aided a dictator.
The US has backed dictators in the past, a cunning crew of tyrants and corrupt puppet-presidents who have been rewarded handsomely for their loyalty to U.S. interests.
by zzron 6 years ago
Maybe the word hate is a little strong. So why do people dislike President Obama and the way he is running the country? Are you an Obama fan? Yes, no, what is your opinion of Obama and his policies?
by ixwa 7 years ago
When was it that the American People have been so Angry at a President as they do President Obama?
by Jack Lee 5 months ago
This is a shocking relvelation, if true, undermines our whole democratic process...Why is this not headline news?
by JON EWALL 7 years ago
Why hasn't Congress and President Obama acted on the rising cost of oil ?Why hasn't Congress and President Obama acted on the rising cost of oil created by wallstreet speculators? Just a repeat of 2006, time to start another downturn in the economy.
by Stacie L 3 years ago
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
by Kathryn L Hill 3 years ago
James Madison wrote: "A popular Government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both… Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|