Smackdown Of Right-Wing Talking Point On BP Liability

[ChoppinBroccoli]

A few days ago, I posted a link to the article that appeared here regarding the Republican efforts to block a bill to increase the cap on liability for the BP oil spill on my Facebook page. Today I got a response from one of my right-wing friends, who parrotted back what I can only assume is the "standard issue" right-wing talking point on the subject.

"Changing the liability cap, AFTER the event is UNCONSTITUTIONAL--- Ex Post Facto. e.g., Can I increase my automobile liability insurance to cover a serious crash I had last week? NO! Why not? Answer: It would be unfair to the insurance company that insured me, with the statistical expectation that I would not have a serious crash, rather than paying out, beyond previous policy limits, based on a certainity ( I already had the crash.). Ooops! They did that in the "Health Care" legislation. It's called, "No exclusion for pre-existing conditions". So, if I am consciuos, I can get health insurance in an ambulance enroute to a hospital. Obama...........Americas first and finest Imam !!!!!"


Here was my response to him (Part 1):

"You see, it's always a tricky business when you attempt to tell an attorney what the Constitution says. Would you like me to explain why your response is wrong, or would you rather just rest on the notion that your talking points have won the day (Reich-wingers often prefer blissful ignorance to being educated as to why they're wrong--they'd rather cling to their ideology rather than the truth)?

I never tell my doctor that his diagnosis is wrong, and I never tell my auto mechanic that I know better than him what's wrong with my car. They were extensively educated in their fields and I'm just some schlub who's picked up a little information along the way. And if I were a layman, I'd never attempt to explain the Constitution to an attorney either. But here we are."


Then my cousin chimed in with this:

"I wondered how long it would take you to reply...he gave it away with the straw-man fallacy about Islam at the end, too. Darned logic! How can you browbeat people into silent mindless submission if they keep throwing things like logic in your face? The "reich-wingers" don't care if the ignorance is blissful or not. Any old ignorance will do... And besides, while I'm not an attorney, I'm pretty sure that the Constitution doesn't speak to issues of liability. Does it?"


And I followed it up with this:

"That's true, but there's also a much easier explanation than that one. Rather than give an entire class on the subject, just know that Ex Post Facto laws were referenced in the Constitution as one member of a group of three: Ex Post Facto, Habeas Corpus, and Bills of Attainder. What strikes you as the common theme among these three things? Ever heard of an attorney filing for Habeas Corpus in a civil proceeding? Wanna know why not? Because those three specific legal concepts only apply to criminal cases.

Retroactivity in civil matters happens ALL THE TIME. It's written into the body of legislative bills ALL THE TIME, and it's 100% enforceable ALL THE TIME. Retroactivity does NOT equal Ex Post Facto anymore than your 5th Amendment right to counsel allows you to get a free, court-appointed lawyer to represent you when you're being sued civilly for burning a cross on your neighbor's lawn.

Awwwww. And that little talking point sounded SO convincing, too. Darn the luck! I bet it goes over gangbusters with people who don't know the law, though. Most right-wing talking points DO really resonate with people who don't know enough to realize that they're utter crap."


And then I capped it off with a flourish:

"Hey, it just occurred to me that under this logic, all the gay people who got married in California in the few months when it was still legal..........are ALL still considered legally married, aren't they? Because ex post facto laws are ALWAYS unconstitutional, right? RIGHT?

People who know too much are dangerous, and people who know absolutely nothing are dangerous, but there's NOTHING more dangerous than a person who knows JUST ENOUGH to be wrong (but be totally convinced he/she's right) about any given subject."


He never responded. Kinda like how the SAME guy never responded when I pointed out the little Ray Stevens video ("Come To The USA") was suggesting that we should be more like China, Sudan, and Iran. I tell ya, most of the people who repeat right-wing talking points only know enough to repeat them. They literally have no idea what to do once you shoot them down. The right-wing screamers are sending their little footsoldiers out into battle woefully underprepared.

[dsc]

1. actually the gay californians are still married

the California SCOTUS specificly ruled that those who got married in that window got to stay married.

[Traveling_Home]

6. STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!! HE"S ON A ROLL LOL

[Vinca]

2. Facts . . . is that all you've got?

:rofl: Right wingers don't need no stinkin' facts.

[Richardo]

3. Great smack-down.

I do like hearing from people with some expertise in a field. :patriot: :thumbsup:

[drm604]

4. It also strikes me (admittedly a non-lawyer) that his insurance examples are total non-sequitors.

The health insurance example isn't even correct is it? Aren't we now required to have insurance?

And he just couldn't resist the idiotic "Imam" remark could he?

[jp11]

8. When it goes into effect, if you don't have insurance you will charged/acessed a fee/tax you are not

required to have insurance.


Individual Mandate:
In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

More on the history of the mandate:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/23/1544396/that-health-mandate-gop-is-suing.html

[sabrina 1]

5. I rec'd this but maybe your reichwing friend is here unrec'ing?

It's a phenomena really, the way they repeat their talking points without ever doing any research to see if they have any validity. And then, as happened with you here, when someone debunks their talking points, they do not respond.

A few weeks ago I received an email from one of my friends sent to her by a rightwing friend. It has a photo of Obama and Michele. According to the email they were saluting the flag with their left hands. I did a quick fact check and within literally seconds, found out that the photo had been photo-shopped. You can see the debunking of the lie here http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/mirror-image/

I sent it back, my friend tells me that her rightwing friend now knows about 'fact-checking' but he claims that 'Snopes doesn't do their own research'. I'm not sure what that had to do with the fact that his email was not only a lie, but a deliberate lie. But that's the only response we received from him. It's not the first time I've sent him corrections. You would think that when you are proven wrong that often you would stop sending out those emails, but he hasn't. We get them on a regular basis.

I don't know what it is, but the only explanation I can think of is that they have surrendered their minds to a cult and only serious and long-term deprogramming might help. But logic and reason and facts does not even make a dent.

Kudos for trying though ~

[leveymg]

7. There is no liability cap on fines ($1000/bbl). US will own BP by the time they cap this.

It's all in how you calculate the spill rate. The liability cap applies to private civil damages, and is really a red herring.

[drm604]

9. And this is why BP has been trying to hide the spill rate.

They lie about it then hide it with dispersants.

[laughingliberal]

10. K & R nt

[Scuba]

11. The cap is a way to socialize their losses, while keeping profits private.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

12. I Got A Response

Here's some long-winded, rambling thing that I'm not sure HOW it has ANYTHING to do with the subject, but this was his response to me:

"ok here is the logic...........same thing with ambulance chasers.......just like pain and suffering......this actually happened to my dad........as a dr he told a female patient that there was some abnormality in/with her breast......he was not specialized to diagnose whatever it was she had but he told her on 3 different occasions that she should go to a specialist ASAP, he had the medical records to prove what he had told her and even had her sign it the 3rd time he warned her.........so she stops going to my dad and like 6 months later she gets breast cancer.......and it was untreatable......so her only action was to have the entire breast removed........she in turn went to some bleeding heart liberal lawyer who took her case..........not only took the case but sued my dad and won 2.5 million dollars.......yes 2.5 million bucks.....for pain and suffering....they must have dug up the same jury that sat for oj b/c they found my dad guilty *(even though he showed the medical records in court THAT SHE SIGNED saying she should see a specialist)....... so what happens next my dad has to buy and pay out of his pocket for EVEN more mal practice insurance through absolutley no fault of his .......from that point on b/c of loser and a terrible attny. every patient my dad saw from that point forward was charged more.......every person who walked through the door was charged b/c of some loser looking to get rich and the jury sided with her............and her asshole ambulance chasing lawyer..........we need to allow the scumbags who seek wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much cash in these type suits to be able to lose and pay up so if you are seeking 3282328303 gazillion dollars from a person or a company if you lose then you must pay exactly what you are seeking.......that would put an end to that crap

how does the fit to this oil spill........if we want to make the liability for big oil rasied why not make it 1881818118 trillion why stop at 10 billion.......if the U.S. raises it higher the only thing that is going to happen is BP will increase the tax on every drop of gas..........thus meaning we will ALL pay more at the pump.......and if BP has to cover their asses every flippin oil company will do the same thing..........and it will all get passed down to the pump or our pockets........just like in the case of my dad........every one pays for the actions of one scumbag..........according to 3 diff online sources Bp has paid 29 million thus far with many many law suits waiting ......so my point is this let see what bp decides to pay out when this is all said and done........instead of big brother govt coming in and setting the mark at 10 billion......that is rediculous......if bp decides not to pay i say we as a country go after them for every red cent.......as i think the envimt. is worth protecting........that not only keeps fewer taxes out of our gasoline .......but gives bp a chance to make good.........again if they scam out of one penny i think we should sue them for that .......but the answers NEVER are found in big govt .......or in govt regulations......... the less govt is in our lives the better off we are..............again that statement was not mine but these words are.......

and one fact that is indisputable as long as we have a home grown terrorist loving president who believes in bill ayers notions we are in big trouble.........im out "


So, even though I probably should have just let it drop at that point, I responded with this:

"I'm quite certain that Conservatives in the 1860s whined that the cost of cotton would skyrocket when Lincoln freed the slaves too. The argument is just as valid today as it was then.

And if you've learned anything from this BP disaster, I would think you would have learned that private industry does almost NOTHING better than the Government. Within the last few years, you've seen pretty much every industry the right-wingers deregulated go down like a lead balloon, yet you still cling to this ideology that deregulation works. It only works when the people running the industry are ethical enough to police themselves. And as we've all seen, they're not. The proof that you're wrong is all around you. In fact, I defy you to name me a single industry that has thrived under deregulation.

Cheney's deregulation of the energy industry CAUSED the BP disaster, and your reliance on private industry to fix the screw-up has resulted in the worst oil disaster in the nation's history. And in case you haven't noticed, the oil is still gushing while BP shrugs its shoulders.

I hate to break it to you, but sometimes kids actually NEED their parents to step in and be the adults. I assume your parents didn't trust you and your siblings to "police yourselves" the way you implicitlly trust crooked, multi-billion-dollar, for-profit corporations to. Imagine where you'd be right now if they had."

[ChoppinBroccoli]

13. Then, To Illustrate My Point, I Added This Little Addendum

"And if you still believe deregulation works, let's examine it using yourself as the template. If the DOT "deregulated" the highways, how fast would you drive? Would you always drive a "safe" speed? If the meat-packing industry were deregulated, would you ever buy hamburger again (I suggest you speak with Upton Sinclair before answering this one). If the NFL "deregulated," how many times would you see players, in the spirit of fairness and all that, calling penalties on themselves? And if the entire State where you live (I'd use Ohio, but I don't think you live in Ohio anymore) decided to "deregulate" itself of its entire criminal code, would you ever be able to leave the house again?

Oh, and by the way, how does your dad feel about the deregulated insurance industry that's free to charge him whatever premiums they darn well please and drop his coverage at a moment's notice? I bet he wishes his deregulated insurance company had sprung for a better attorney to represent him in that malpractice suit (but you see, expensive lawyers cut into their profits, and the execs in the tower need their multi-million-dollar bonuses again this year). Sorry if that one hits a little too close to home.

Yeah, deregulation works. For the people who live to victimize the weak and powerless."