O.K., my limit is this: No demanding (implicitly) that the BP dude commit suicide.

[UTUSN]

I don't know how "evil" he is. And the media yakkers have been RELENTLESS (anybody know what that word means? The Greeks said, only DEATH is relentless.)


So this dude has been made to crawl and O.K.


What does everybody want, that he commit suicide?

[UndertheOcean]

1. who exactly is demanding that ?

[UTUSN]

4. The incessant no-satisfaction. Look, oh, nevermind. n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. he wants his life back though

[KansasVoter]

3. Drugs are bad for you!

[UTUSN]

5. Fine. n/t

[Jennicut]

6. I want him to get off my tv, and go do something useful.

Besides just punishing the dude...he needs to give something back to society, however small. Maybe he should just go clean up some litter by the side of the road or something. That guy is a waste of air.

[obxhead]

17. nah, put him in a rowboat with a bunch of shamwows. nt

[opihimoimoi]

7. Japan style is OK w me....whad dey did was that fucking atrocious...fuck him

[seabeyond]

8. i hear what you are saying. nt

[UTUSN]

10. Thank you. Sometimes a heart responds. n/t

[Hydra]

9. He doesn't need to commit suicide

He can lose all his money. It's infinitely worse, in my book.

But we have a disturbing tendency to focus all of our anger on a single person(we've been taught well). This isn't just his fault, or even a couple of people's faults. This is the fault of basically everyone in charge, especially since they can't claim they didn't see this coming.

Mass suicide of nearly our entire top gov't? Amusing concept, but I'd rather they be fired and sued into the ground.

That's the logical punishment in Capitalism, isn't it? Or do we only do that to poor non-people?

[UTUSN]

11. I hate Shrub-CHEENEE, I really-really DO. n/t

[GReedDiamond]

12. How about asset forfeiture and significant jail time?

That oughta do it.

[UTUSN]

13. Fine with me. n/t

[bobbolink]

14. To Alcatraz.

Or the equivalent.

[tiptoe]

15. Last I checked, he was still defynig EPA orders and using toxic Corexit. Obama can stop him, if ever

he becomes inclined to do something useful while environmental damage is being compunded by Hayward's use of Corexit (over a million gallons as of June 6).

CEO Hayward's goal: Stall an intelligent, serious engineering-design fix to the oil spill, until hurricane(s) arrive to disperse the estimated spilled 39,000,000 gallons X $100/gal =~ $4 Billion fine.

He's been using Corexit incessantly to break up the evidence, indifferent to environmental impacts; a hurricane will disperse his oil-spill, mix it with other spills or sea-leakage, and make it more difficult to assess fines.

He's also not allowed a scientific measurement of the flow from the BOP.

I consider Obama's inaction on enforcing EPA's Corexit order as complicity in this matter. He says he's talking to experts to find out "Whose Ass to kick"...but besides the "tough talk" all I see in deeds from him is SITTING ON HIS OWN ASS and KISSING of CORPORATE ASS, when he doesn't even make a MINIMAL effort to stop BP's CEO from using a poison.

Disgusting, especially since he's allowed conflicted BP to continue oversight of the largest environmental disaster in America. I don't believe Obama when he says "every key action must be approved by the Feds." This inaction on Corexit -- at the expense of life, no matter what political strategy Obama may think he's playing with BP -- will probably allow the liar, "there are no plumes" Tony Hayward to get away with a large reduction in the fines his company now faces.

Get real Obama; stop behaving as if you take orders from DLC trash Rahm Emanuel and pretend you actually care about the environment and the people that elected you by a 20 million vote margin.

Pretend you're the President of the USA and not a stooge of RE and British Petroleum.

Take some MINIMAL action wrt Hayward's defiance of the EPA corexit order.

It's not sufficient merely to fine BP; it's about an expediency of protecting the environment by stopping the corexit use A.S.A.P.

==========
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8522262
Three More Reasons for the President to Take Control over BP's Gulf Operation

Robert Reich 6/9/10 12:04 PM

1 -- Why hasn’t BP moved more of its rigs and tankers to the site? Because BP’s first responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, and moving more rigs and tankers would be too expensive. Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the government’s man on the scene, said BP planned to move another rig to the spill site June 14, which would enable the company to boost its capacity to collect oil from the ruptured well to 28,000 barrels (1.18 million gallons/4.45 million liters) a day.

2 -- Why isn’t BP leveling with the American people about how many barrels of oil is gushing into the Gulf? Because BP’s first responsibility is to its shareholders, and a bigger leak means more liability. Government scientists estimate the leak spews 12,000-19,000 barrels a day, with one estimate as high as 25,000 barrels. BP says it’s not nearly this much.

3 -- Why isn’t BP acknowledging a huge plume of oil developing deep under water? Ditto. On Tuesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers reported subsurface oil as far as 142 miles from the leaking Gulf well, the first clear confirmation of such a plume. On Wednesday, BP rejected the report, insisting that it has not found any significant concentration of crude under the surface. “We haven’t found any large concentrations of oil under the sea. To my knowledge, no one has,” BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said on NBC’s TODAY show.

[UTUSN]

16. Fine fine fine n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. An ostraca

:-)