Since no one else posted it: The not quite worst possible scenario..

[*Shinzon*]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gulf-...ry?id=10983980



No moratorium for joo.

That judge is fucked if they can prove that he has or has had some stock in any energy company. They'll crucify him and he'll most certainly do jail time lol.

[FNH]

A distant third would be to stop using as much plastic/petroleum product.

good luck with that.

[BerenTebogo]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ima...MO_2010170.jpg

'sup

Direct from NASA.

[Rhinox]

So apparently the judge that overruled the president had a ton of transocean stock yet he decided not to recuse himself.

[Xzerios]

Anyone think of the long term damage that this will do? I coulda swore we was in for a new Ice Age in the next 100-1000 years or so...


Instead, I can forsee the world temp climbing up a few more degrees and good ol Yella' Stone goin off.


Got front row tickets to the end of the world right here. >:3

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The oil spill is killing jobs, but yeah, lets direct our anger to the moratorium.

How so?

[FNH]

Anyone else questioning why the US government refused help from 13+ countries that offered to have the oil spill cleaned in 4 months?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Anyone else questioning why the US government refused help from 13+ countries that offered to have the oil spill cleaned in 4 months?

I thought Rahm and Obama already answered that. Not gonna waste this crisis so they can pass the previously declared dead cap and trade bill. The worse it gets the more likely it will pass.

[Rhinox]

Actually they did and I can prove it once I get home.



Btw repeating Sarah palins talking points is generally not a good thing

[BerenTebogo]

Anyone think of the long term damage that this will do? I coulda swore we was in for a new Ice Age in the next 100-1000 years or so...


Instead, I can forsee the world temp climbing up a few more degrees and good ol Yella' Stone goin off.


Got front row tickets to the end of the world right here. >:3

Do you get your information about the world around you from the back of a fruit fucking rollups box?

This is literally a less intelligent statement than believing in creationism.

[Omniyoji]

Mainly lulz

Top 10 Ridiculous Oil-Spill Quotes From Congress

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...uotes-congress

If we were to hold a contest for most tone-deaf oil spill comments by members of Congress, it'd be tough to top Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who actually apologized to BP yesterday, for what he called a "shake down" on the part of the Obama administration to get the company to compensate affected Gulf coast residents, then tried to backpedal (sort of). Oof. But he's far from the only one: I sure hope our Congresspeople are buying offsets, since there have been an awful lot of gaseous emissions coming from them in the wake of the largest offshore oil spill in US history. Luckily, MoJo reporter Kate Sheppard has been there to document it, tweeting the absurdity live from Washington, D.C. Here, culled from Kate's tweets, are the top 10 most ludicrous, out-of-touch, and generally embarrassing things our Congresspeople have said in the months since the spill began. Begin cringing...now:

10. John Culberson (R-Texas), 6/15, at a press conference: Argues that the BP oil spill "is an anomaly–like an airplane falling from the clear blue sky."

9. Joe Barton (R-Texas), 6/15, at an Energy and Commerce hearing: "Chinese oil companies are drilling off the coast of Cuba, which means they are drilling off the coast of Florida."

8. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), 6/15, at an Energy and Commerce hearing: "If this hearing is not about stopping the leak, then why are we here?"

7. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 5/4, told reporters:"I mean, accidents happen. You learn from them and you try to make sure they don't happen again."

6. Pete Olson (R-Texas) on moratorium, 6/15 press conference: "This is a kneejerk reaction by the administration to address a problem that doesn't exist."

5. Ralph Hall (R-Texas) 6/15, at a press conference: "It’s a shame we can't drill ANWR. It’s a shame we don't get that energy off the coast of Florida."

4. Parker Griffith (R-Ala.), 6/15, at an Energy and Commerce hearing: argued that the treatment of oil executives has been "disrespectful."

3. Ralph Hall (R-Texas), 6/15, at a press conference: "I resent the fact that [Obama's] trying to blame some of this on Bush. On 9/11 I don't remember Bush trying to blame this on Clinton."

2. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), 6/9, at a press conference: "The bridge to that promised land of renewable energy is built out of fossil fuels."

1. Joe Barton (R-Texas), 6/17, apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward at an Energy and Commerce hearing: "I am ashamed ... that a private corporation can be subject to what I would characterize as a shake down."

Don't miss a second of Congress' oil spill hijinks! Follow Kate Sheppard on Twitter. See MoJo's complete oil spill coverage here.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So apparently the judge that overruled the president had a ton of transocean stock yet he decided not to recuse himself.

So apparently he held that stock in 2008 and apparently were currently living in the year 2010. Also apparent is that he held $15,000 worth of that stock and apparently no mention is made what percentage of his total wealth that is. So apparently this is just more evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias.

[Olo401]

So apparently the judge that overruled the president had a ton of transocean stock yet he decided not to recuse himself.

Like Swampy mentioned he sold most of it a couple years ago. The remainder of his holdings are in diversified stock funds. Even I'll give him a pass on that because just about any smart stock portfolio is going to have such funds that invest in every industry, including energy.

However a good point was made this morning on NPR - the smartest thing for any judge to do with his/her investments is to put them into a blind trust so that there's no appearance of shenanigans if they hear a case.

[Velgadess]

whoever is in charge of their advertising...I mean really?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2800


Wed Jun 23, 4:43 pm ET
It's the great question that haunts all ill-advised consumer appeals in our viral age: What were they thinking?

Spirit Airlines — which has long cultivated an image as an edgy advertiser in the extremely competitive commercial-air industry — has launched an ad campaign for beach-getaway fares referencing — you guessed it — the Gulf oil spill.

The campaign — launched recently on the company's website — features a bikini-clad lass sunning herself on a white sandy beach, as picturesque blue waves come rolling in. The text across the top of the ad reads, "Check out the oil on our beaches: Ft. Lauderdale." And as if that weren't subtle enough, the ad also prominently features bottles of tanning lotion bearing the legend "Best Protection," with the letters "B" and "P" the dominant visual elements. The bottle is also green and yellow — the signature colors of the British-based oil giant:
http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editor...003b7e743.jpeg


Needless to say, the campaign hasn't sat well with some — the Business Insider blog dubbed it "tasteless." But flacks for the airline are defiant, claiming yesterday that the ads simply remind would-be Gulf tourists that Florida's beaches haven't been hit with major amounts of oil during the height of vacation season.

"It is unfortunate that some have misunderstood our intention with today's beach promotion," the company said in a statement on its website. "We are merely addressing the false perception that we have oil on our beaches, and we are encouraging customers to support Florida and our other beach destinations by continuing to travel to these vacation hot spots."


Still, many are outraged over the spot. Angry comments flooded Twitter after the ad campaign launched, with one user going by the handle of quiksnowboard7 weighing in to say, "Not only is Spirit Air a beyond crappy airline, they are classless as well!"

Gulf Coast residents also say the come-on leaves them cold. "Are you kidding me?" Jessica Talazac, a marketing assistant for a New Orleans-based entertainment development and management firm, told Yahoo! News after seeing the ad. "That's ridiculous. Way to make light of a horrible situation."

It was perhaps inevitable that Spirit would venture onto this turf, given that a big part of the company's marketing strategy hinges on viral buzz from outlandish advertising. The discount carrier has relied on "edgy, viral marketing" to help its brand identity stand out, CEO Ben Baldanza told USA Today last year. Many of these campaigns have blatant sexual themes, referencing "red-light specials" and "threesomes fares." In 2009, the company drew a protest from the Association of Flight Attendants for ads that, the group claimed, demeaned women and degraded flight attendants.

In tastelessness outside the sexual arena, meanwhile, Spirit sponsored a "Hunt for Hoffa" campaign. The idea was that visitors to the company's website could click on a grid to locate the missing union leader's body. A successful "find" would then result in an offer for a low fare.

Still, perhaps Spirit can take some consolation in the news that another corporation is taking great pains to look at the oil spill from a sunny perspective. That partner in spin and gaffes would, of course, be BP itself.

The company publishes an in-house magazine called "Planet BP," and in the latest issue, you'll find scant references to oiled pelicans, millions of gallons of gushing oil, or gaffe-prone executives. Instead, as noted by the Wall Street Journal's Benoit Faucon, you'll find a "BP reporter" quoting a Gulf Coast seafood industry worker explaining why "there's no reason to hate BP."

In another article, a local explains how the economy in the area has actually improved as a result of the spill. "Much of the region's [nonfishing boat] businesses," the piece concludes "particularly the hotels, have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams."

It wasn't noted, however, whether they came to the region on a Spirit flight.

[Rhinox]

So apparently he held that stock in 2008 and apparently were currently living in the year 2010. Also apparent is that he held $15,000 worth of that stock and apparently no mention is made what percentage of his total wealth that is. So apparently this is just more evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias.

He should have still recused himself.

Judges routinely recuse themselves for less. You're telling me he had no bias in this case considering he did own stock at early as two years ago?

That's like saying Dick cheney didn't have a conflict of interest when he gave No-bid contracts to a company he was head of when we entered both illegal wars.

Don't be stupid.


and enough of the liberuuh lame stream media spiel its gotten old.

[Rhinox]

Like Swampy mentioned he sold most of it a couple years ago. The remainder of his holdings are in diversified stock funds. Even I'll give him a pass on that because just about any smart stock portfolio is going to have such funds that invest in every industry, including energy.

However a good point was made this morning on NPR - the smartest thing for any judge to do with his/her investments is to put them into a blind trust so that there's no appearance of shenanigans if they hear a case.

Point is he knew damn well there would be a question on his ability to give a fair hearing and he decided to rule on this issue anyway.


This guy isn't the only judge in LA that is able to make the ruling. And I'm sure there are judges that don't have or never had any ties to the Oil business. Also its not like it looks bad on your record to recuse yourself there is obvious bias here.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

The only question the judge had to answer in recusing himself was whether he currently had ties. If the answer is no, then there is no issue.

And if he did know there would be an issue, the only question is probably whether that issue is reasonable. Considering there's no evidence he currently has ties, it's pretty evident that it's just bullshit by people who can't come up with a credible argument as to why he was wrong.

[Olo401]

The only question the judge had to answer in recusing himself was whether he currently had ties. If the answer is no, then there is no issue.

And if he did know there would be an issue, the only question is probably whether that issue is reasonable. Considering there's no evidence he currently has ties, it's pretty evident that it's just bullshit by people who can't come up with a credible argument as to why he was wrong.

Well the thing is there are ties, through the mutual funds that he owns. Since he doesn't have a blind trust we know this, and we also know that he's aware of it and chose not to tell his fund manager to divest out of those particular stocks.

Is it nitpicking? Certainly. Is anyone going to convince the people that it really isn't a big deal? Absolutely not, because our political climate is so polarized right now that everything is subject to scrutiny. And you can thank the Tea Party for that.

[Rhinox]

uh no.

Judges routinely recuse themselves if they shown bias on an issue even if its something they have said or done in the past. The fact that he thought Trans-ocean was a great investment as little as two years ago pretty much shows bias in this case.

Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

and of course its nitpicking.

The legal system is just a giant game of chess which is often decided by which Lawyer is the best at legal maneuvers. You should know this better then anyone Swampy

Otherwise 100% of guilty men/women would be in prison.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

And if he doesn't own the stock anymore impartiality can't be shown. And past impartiality is usually based on a statement or something.