We came, we drilled, we polluted. Now we won't pay.

Seems to me you have a vendetta and personal attraction to BP.

Fines, fees, and penalties should not be based on one's ability to pay punitive damages, but instead on the actual debt to society for their negligence.

 

Do you have anything other than speculation regarding these supposed long term affects?

It isn't anybody responsibility to prove your position and facts but yours.

Show us some facts.

 

I suppose showing tickets should be based on income as well?

 

Some people won't be satisfied until they bankrupt the company and then string up the execs and watch them die.

The hated is quite ugly.

 

Your definition of damages is not aligning with his.

Damages is based upon the actual damage done to society.

The PENALTY for the damage should be based upon the actual cost of the negligence.

No where does ones income impact the damage or the penalty in my opinion.

 

Not BP specifically- ALL environmental saboteurs.

 

You have evidence they deliberately caused this spill, please bring it forward for the appropriate laughter reaction.

 

Huh? I'm not sure what you're getting at on this....

 

Damages aren't based on income usually, but fines for industry are usually set with the intent of affecting a company enough to deter them from doing a certain action. Ultimately, fines are related to income -- not specifically the income of any particular company but rather an amount set that is significant to the average company of the applicable industry. Otherwise, the fine isn't very effective.

We started out talking about fines, and then damages awarded became part of the discussion.

 

Sorry, happened by this one. Really? LOL you lefties are truly silly people. Sily.

- - - Updated - - -

Huh?..........

 

So...BP sabotaged their own rig so that they'd lose profit...so that they could pay BILLIONS in fines? That could only make sense to an enviro-whacko.

 

Fines and penalties should not be punitive. They should be based upon the debt owed to society to mitigate the damage.

Unless of course you can prove the the company was INTENTIONALLY negligent.

 

You mean, in court?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/15/nation/la-na-nn-bp-criminal-penalty-gulf-oil-spill-20121115

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ms-bp-for-gross-negligence-in-gulf-oil-spill/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/b...-phase-to-set-amount-of-oil-spilled.html?_r=0

AND, Halliburton stinks:

http://www.businessweek.com/article...-halliburtons-guilty-plea-is-good-news-for-bp

As for INTENTIONALLY negligent, well now.

As we all know, being an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) isn't illegal, is it.

BP has been all (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and elbows, since it was created, back when the CIA and MI6 boosted Iran, for the Shah, in 1953.

Proving what an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) does, in US Court might make all those court officer gangstas uncomfortable, when they profiteer, on cheating discovery and continuing a myriad, of false processes, for profiteering.

Hey, why prove an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) dumps and then tries to stuff loads, of 5-lb. bags, with 10 pounds, each?

 

you're a hoot dude!!!! I see how you are, I see through your silliness. LOL

 

So they are intentionally negligent because you irrationally hate them?

 

I'm not sure if punitive is the word you're looking for here. By definition, fines and penalties are punitive.

The extent to which they should be punitive is where we seem to disagree.