chicken... no head

Onceler said:
Oh...okay. By your own logic, then, thanks for admitting that I never admitted that.

Nice goin', Yurtsie!

:clink:
Click to expand...

good lord you're an idiot...apparently you wee brain has no concept of omission...you admitted it by not providing a link, i point directly to what i claim is your admittance of your lie, you, however, can't point to a single link

link up to your claim onceler or are you scared because you know you lied...
 
Topspin said:
did you miss the part where I say they are only required by LAW to pay 75M.
Click to expand...

From what I have found, it seems this has been misreported. Apparently, the cap does not apply to cleanup costs, only economic damages. But maybe this is debatable and that is the cause of the conflicting reports. The WH has indicated that the cap does not apply to cleanup costs and BP has said it will pay for all of those and legitimate liability claims.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/04/politics/main6460911.shtml

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday the administration wants to work with Congress to change a law that caps at $75 million BP's liability for economic damages like lost wages or dwindling tourist dollars.

BP PLC is responsible for all cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act, but Gibbs said that other costs could easily top $75 million.
...

BP says on its website that it is committed to paying "all necessary and appropriate cleanup costs" as well as "legitimate and objectively verifiable claims for other loss and damage caused by the spill."
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
good lord you're an idiot...apparently you wee brain has no concept of omission...you admitted it by not providing a link, i point directly to what i claim is your admittance of your lie, you, however, can't point to a single link

link up to your claim onceler or are you scared because you know you lied...
Click to expand...

I didn't "lie," nor did I "admit" that I lied.

Thanks for admitting that I didn't admit that, and that you were lying when you said I did, Yurtsie!

:cof1:
 
RStringfield said:
From what I have found, it seems this has been misreported. Apparently, the cap does not apply to cleanup costs, only economic damages. But maybe this is debatable and that is the cause of the conflicting reports. The WH has indicated that the cap does not apply to cleanup costs and BP has said it will pay for all of those and legitimate liability claims.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/04/politics/main6460911.shtml

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday the administration wants to work with Congress to change a law that caps at $75 million BP's liability for economic damages like lost wages or dwindling tourist dollars.

BP PLC is responsible for all cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act, but Gibbs said that other costs could easily top $75 million.
...

BP says on its website that it is committed to paying "all necessary and appropriate cleanup costs" as well as "legitimate and objectively verifiable claims for other loss and damage caused by the spill."
Click to expand...

I think that is what he was referring to. The proposed $2b is for economic damage. Which is why toppy brought up the $75m number.

Clean up costs are NOT included in that cap number.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You've got ENITER COMMUNITIES destroyed by the negligence of BP.

2 Billion is going to do what? How many tens of thousands of people have had their lives and their community destroyed? Divide that up between everyone effected and all anyone's going to wind up with is a check for $500.00. Yeah, that's going to make it right for everyone whose life has been destroyed by BP.
Click to expand...

ENITER COMMUNITIES :readit:

What the flip are "Eniter" Communities?
 
Onceler said:
Took the words right out of my mouth, Yurtsie!

Where did I "admit" that I lied?

Take your time.
Click to expand...

Which again is a gross misrepresentation of the seepage discussion. I brought the seepage issue up as a positive reason for off shore drilling. I did not bring it up as a 'this is as bad as the spill' argument. In fact, I clearly stated that the amounts of the natural seeps was equivalent, but spread out over the course of a year rather than in a few weeks.... which is why the spill was worse.

It was a response to the knee jerk reaction by some that we should stop off shore drilling because it 'wasn't worth it'.
 
Superfreak said:
Which again is a gross misrepresentation of the seepage discussion. I brought the seepage issue up as a positive reason for off shore drilling. I did not bring it up as a 'this is as bad as the spill' argument. In fact, I clearly stated that the amounts of the natural seeps was equivalent, but spread out over the course of a year rather than in a few weeks.... which is why the spill was worse.

It was a response to the knee jerk reaction by some that we should stop off shore drilling because it 'wasn't worth it'.
Click to expand...

"Some" would be me; it is not worth it. And the discussion itself was definitely brought up to marginalize concern about the amount of oil being spilled into the Gulf. Surely, you would not deny that.

And there were those on that thread & elsewhere who took it one step further than you did, and who refused to see the difference between the concentration of a spill like this & seepage over time.

So there.
 
Yurt said:
who are these people and how should i know better than just about anyone onceler? back up your claims if you're not lying...
Click to expand...

You, Yurtsie....among others. Typical of you to run away from statements made in haste after you realize how wrong-headed they were.

Thanks for admitting the latter, though!

:good4u:
 
Onceler said:
You, Yurtsie....among others. Typical of you to run away from statements made in haste after you realize how wrong-headed they were.

Thanks for admitting the latter, though!

:good4u:
Click to expand...

i said that about seepage? really....provide just one link...if you don't, i'll accept that as your admittance of your lie

furthermore, provide just one link to anyone saying that
 
Yurt said:
i said that about seepage? really....provide just one link...if you don't, i'll accept that as your admittance of your lie

furthermore, provide just one link to anyone saying that
Click to expand...

What do you get our of lying re: past statements so much? What is the benefit there?

Truly, a mystery to me. It is something you do exceedingly often, however...

:eek:
 
Yurt said:
who are these people and how should i know better than just about anyone onceler? back up your claims if you're not lying...
Click to expand...

It was you, you lying sack of garbage...

From the thread "Oil Rig Explodes of LA Coast"; post #149:

"i think the question we need to ask is:

what is the overall pollution for natural seepage compared to oil production leaks over a long period of time....

i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater, but i'm sure cypress will immediately pounce that they are not peer reviewed...

so, since you guys are making the claim, please provide a study that you approve that shows overall pollution from natural seepage as compared to oil production includeing leaks...."

:good4u:

Those are YOUR words Yurtsie...now, get busy working on the lie you'll be telling us as you twist and spin your way out of admitting you were wrong.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It was you, you lying sack of garbage...

From the thread "Oil Rig Explodes of LA Coast"; post #149:

"i think the question we need to ask is:

what is the overall pollution for natural seepage compared to oil production leaks over a long period of time....

i've seen studies that show natural seepage is far greater, but i'm sure cypress will immediately pounce that they are not peer reviewed...

so, since you guys are making the claim, please provide a study that you approve that shows overall pollution from natural seepage as compared to oil production includeing leaks...."

:good4u:

Those are YOUR words Yurtsie...now, get busy working on the lie you'll be telling us as you twist and spin your way out of admitting you were wrong.
Click to expand...

LOL...first off...i was asking a question, not making a statement, secondly, i wasn't referring to this particular leak, but leaks in general, lastly, no where did i make the claim:

Onceler said:
This does seem egregious, but it must have been all of those people saying it was just like seepage for the first month or so...
Click to expand...

i never once claimed the leak was just like seepage....your embarrassing gotcha attempt is quite humorous....you're either the dumbest fuck on the interwebs or plain dishonest....which is it?
 
Onceler said:
"Some" would be me; it is not worth it. And the discussion itself was definitely brought up to marginalize concern about the amount of oil being spilled into the Gulf. Surely, you would not deny that.

And there were those on that thread & elsewhere who took it one step further than you did, and who refused to see the difference between the concentration of a spill like this & seepage over time.

So there.
Click to expand...

given that I am the one that brought it up... you are incorrect. I brought it up in response to your statement that offshore drilling should stop because it wasn't worth it. I brought it up to show there were BENEFITS to drilling as well.

That in no way was brought into the discussion by me to state it was equivalent to the spill. In fact we discussed that in the thread as well.

I can't speak to what others have stated on other threads, so you will have to link to them specifically. I do not recall anyone taking it that far, though I am not 100% certain of that.
 
That's why I don't rush out & get links on demand for Yurtsie, anymore. It doesn't matter. You can throw his own words in his face, and he'll either deny them or spin them wildly.

I did a cost/benefit on retrieving links, and it's about the same as offshore drilling.
 
Onceler said:
That's why I don't rush out & get links on demand for Yurtsie, anymore. It doesn't matter. You can throw his own words in his face, and he'll either deny them or spin them wildly.

I did a cost/benefit on retrieving links, and it's about the same as offshore drilling.
Click to expand...

lmao....you don't even care if you lie

that link didn't prove your claim and you know it...hence why you can't actually address my refutation of sappy's bullshit claim that my post said that seepage is the the same as the oil spill

it was just like seepage for the first month or so...
Click to expand...

i never said that, not even close...if you had any modicum of honesty in you, you would acknowledge that instead of dishonestly jumping on sappy's lame attempt to use that post to defend your lie

as i said:

LOL...first off...i was asking a question, not making a statement, secondly, i wasn't referring to this particular leak, but leaks in general, lastly, no where did i make the claim:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Onceler
This does seem egregious, but it must have been all of those people saying it was just like seepage for the first month or so...

i never once claimed the leak was just like seepage....your embarrassing gotcha attempt is quite humorous....you're either the dumbest fuck on the interwebs or plain dishonest....which is it?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top