BP's Hayward to step down within 10 weeks: report

[slowhand]

BP's Hayward to step down within 10 weeks: report

49 minutes ago


LONDON (Reuters) - BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward is to step down within the next 10 weeks, The Times reported on Wednesday.

Hayward has been under pressure to resign as the British-based company battles to contain an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.


There is a growing expectation that Hayward would announce his departure in late August or September, the Times said, citing sources close to the company.


Hayward would have to step down so that BP could shore up its defenses against a potential buyout threat by ExxonMobil or Royal Dutch Shell, the newspaper cited a person close to the matter as saying.


Robert Dudley, chief of BP's Gulf Coast restoration efforts, is viewed as the front-runner to replace Hayward, The Times said.


BP officials were not immediately available for comment.


BP said last month that Hayward, criticized for his response to the disaster that started on April 20, was still CEO with no change under discussion.


BP said on Tuesday it reached a $7 billion deal with Apache Corp, a large part of its planned sale of $10 billion in assets to pay for the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100721/n_top_news/cnews_us_bp_hayward

See ya scumbag!!

[MintJulep]

Next, BP will close its doors. More unemployment! Yee haw :rolleyes:

[slowhand]

Next, BP will close its doors. More unemployment! Yee haw :rolleyes:

Good fucking riddance

They harbor tewwowists you know..Fuck them and the horse they rode in on

[Bill Cosby]

Gee that poor bastard........... Will he be able to afford those yacht outings w/ the boyz???

What is his umbrella worth??

The folks in Virginia, & new Jersey wanna know...............

[slowhand]

Gee that poor bastard........... Will he be able to afford those yacht outings w/ the boyz???

What is his umbrella worth??

The folks in Virginia, & new Jersey wanna know...............

He should be grateful he's not in jail with his soap on a rope

[Bill Cosby]

LOL.............. & a ceo of such a big corp is gonna worry about that???

It will be interesting to see who get executed in China for their spill...........

Any odds it will not be the CEO?? lol

[doctordog]

He should be grateful he's not in jail with his soap on a rope

For what? Damn, I am glad someone like you was not around to throw you in jail for every mistake you made.

[slowhand]

For what? Damn, I am glad someone like you was not around to throw you in jail for every mistake you made.

Some mistake huh?

Cameron's First U.S. Visit Overshadowed by Lockerbie Bomber Outrage

By Anne McGinn
Published July 20, 2010
| FoxNews.com

In an effort to defuse what will likely be the biggest point of contention in their Tuesday White House meeting, British Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to tell President Obama that the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was "wrong."
In their first White House meeting, the two leaders are also expected to discuss Afghanistan, BP's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf and its alleged role in the release of al-Megrahi.

In an interview with BBC news, Cameron, who was elected prime minister in May, said he "deeply regrets" the pain the decision caused, but asserted that the release of al-Megrahi in August of last year was the decision of the Scottish government alone.

"All I know is, as leader of the opposition, I could not have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong," be told the BBC.

Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the December 1988 bombing that killed 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland.

Al-Megrahi, who suffered from prostate cancer, was released in August 2009 by Scottish officials on "compassionate grounds" after he was given only 3 three-months to live. Al-Megrahi received a hero's welcome when he returned to his native Libya -- where he is still living -- almost one year later.

Just as British-owned BP sealed the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the company came under fire again, but this time for allegations that BP, which has lucrative oil contracts in Libya, lobbied the British government in 2007 to proceed with a UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement. BP has acknowledged it warned the Labour government of a possible "negative impact on UK commercial interests," but denies there were any discussions with either the UK or Scottish government about al-Megrahi.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Saturday there was no evidence BP had any connection with al-Megrahi's release, but there is little doubt Prime Minister Cameron, who travels to Capitol Hill for meetings with House and Senate leadership Tuesday, will be peppered with BP questions. Just last week New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer called on the company to suspend oil drilling plans in Libya until the company's role in the release of al-Megrahi is investigated.

"The bottom line is simple: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British government and Libya," said Schumer, who lost numerous constituents in the December 21, 1988, bombing,

"Back in 2007, BP and the Libyan government struck a $900 million oil deal that the prime minister, Tony Blair, helped coordinate," said Schumer in a news conference with reporters. "But the deal ran into roadblocks, and BP admits that it pushed the British government to expedite a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya to smooth the way for an oil deal. We then know that the British government agreed to release al- Megrahi based on a fraudulent doctor's prognosis that he only had three months to live. All of a sudden, once Megrahi is released, all the roadblocks to that oil deal are removed and, lo and behold, the oil deal is finally approved. If anyone thinks this is a coincidence, I have them a bridge to sell them in Brooklyn," the senior senator from New York charged.

In his interview with BBC, Cameron said on the topic, "I have no idea what BP did. I am not responsible for BP."

But BP and the oil spill the in the gulf have strained relations between the U.S. and U.K. since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20th. And as British prime minister, Cameron has had to lead the defense of the British-owned company amid harsh criticism from the American government and its citizens affected by the spill.

June was an especially tough month for relations. As tens of thousands of barrels of oil continued to spill into the Gulf, President Obama, who early on in the environmental disaster referred to the company as "British Petroleum," said he would have fired BP CEO Tony Hayward. The president also embraced the idea that the oil company suspend its quarterly dividend and criticized BP for spending money on a PR campaign.

The angry words from Washington produced a backlash in the U.K., where millions of British retirees depend on BP, the world's third-largest oil company, for their pensions. And Cameron had promised to press Obama during their one-on-one first meeting during the G8/G20 in Toronto, for a dollar amount so BP would have an idea of the final costs related to the oil spill. No such request was made, at least publicly.

Relations between the two countries seem to have simmered since Hayward was pulled from handling the oil spill's day-to-day operations and President Obama sat down with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg. The administration's meeting with BP executives in June led to the company's announcement of a $20 billion escrow fund over 4 years, to pay claims to Gulf Coast residents and business owners affected by the spill.

Following the four hour meeting with senior administration officials, the chairman also announced the suspension of dividend payments to shareholders and the creation of a $100 million fund to assist out of work oil workers following the government's six month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

Tuesday's Oval Office meeting will be the second time the two world leaders are meeting, and the first time in the U.S. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of all topics to be discussed, Afghanistan topped the U.S.'s list of priorities.

There are now approximately 10,000 British troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO led effort and the British have seen an increase in causalities as of late. The U.K. hopes to have withdrawn all its forces by 2015.

Asked if Obama would try to dissuade Cameron from naming a target date, Gibbs said, "it is hard to look that far into the future. Obviously, the president has committed to July of 2011 as a date of our transition and begin to, based on -- judging that based on the conditions on the ground to begin removing some of the troops that -- that the president added as a part of our increased resources there over the past couple years."

Following their Oval Office sit down, Obama and Cameron will participate in an East Room joint press conference. The events speak to the often described "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K., but its a welcome Prime Minister Cameron's predecessor did not receive.

President Obama welcomed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to the White House just six weeks after being sworn in himself, but the meeting between the president and the prime minister of one of the U.S.'s biggest allies was lackluster. Many Brits considered it a snub that Brown was only received for an Oval Office sit down meeting -- no joint press conference in the East Room or Rose Garden as his predecessor Tony Blair frequently participated in during his tenure with former President George W. Bush. Of course, Blair's relationship with Bush was questioned back at home with many charging Bush treated Blair as a "lap dog."

According to Heather Conley of Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, in forging his relationship with this U.S. president, Cameron needs to strike a balance between the perceived "subordinate, 'poodle' relationship" he had with Bush, and Gordon Brown's "dour, technocratic approach."

"It remains to be seen if the two leaders will develop that 'special' chemistry that has been historically evident between American and British leaders but appears to be somewhat elusive between President Obama and other world leaders," said Conley.

Conley added that Cameron should be given credit, after only two months on the job, for making some "gutsy political calls" like publicly apologizing for British actions related to the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland; announcing a significant reduction in government spending as well as increasing taxes to reduce the U.K.'s budget deficit; announcing that British forces will leave Afghanistan no later than 2015; and last, but certainly not least, politically navigating the fallout over the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

As part of his schedule while in the states, according to the British embassy, the prime minister will have breakfast with Vice President Joe Biden, travel to Capitol Hill for meetings with House and Senate leaderships, as well as have a sit down with Arizona Republican Senator John McCain.

Also on Tuesday, Cameron will have his first sit-down interview with a U.S. television outlet since becoming prime minister -- with ABC's Diane Sawyer.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister will travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier before proceeding to the Pentagon for military briefings on Afghanistan. He will then travel to New York for meetings with U.S. business leaders, and with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. He also will have dinner with the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/bp-stealing-thunder-camerons-visit/

[doctordog]

so what, surely you have something more than this

[GetAClue]

Some mistake huh?

Cameron's First U.S. Visit Overshadowed by Lockerbie Bomber Outrage

By Anne McGinn
Published July 20, 2010
| FoxNews.com

In an effort to defuse what will likely be the biggest point of contention in their Tuesday White House meeting, British Prime Minister David Cameron is expected to tell President Obama that the release of convicted Pan Am Flight 103 bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was "wrong."
In their first White House meeting, the two leaders are also expected to discuss Afghanistan, BP's handling of the oil spill in the Gulf and its alleged role in the release of al-Megrahi.

In an interview with BBC news, Cameron, who was elected prime minister in May, said he "deeply regrets" the pain the decision caused, but asserted that the release of al-Megrahi in August of last year was the decision of the Scottish government alone.

"All I know is, as leader of the opposition, I could not have been more clear that I thought the decision to release al-Megrahi was completely and utterly wrong," be told the BBC.

Al-Megrahi was convicted in 2001 and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the December 1988 bombing that killed 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground in Lockerbie, Scotland.

Al-Megrahi, who suffered from prostate cancer, was released in August 2009 by Scottish officials on "compassionate grounds" after he was given only 3 three-months to live. Al-Megrahi received a hero's welcome when he returned to his native Libya -- where he is still living -- almost one year later.

Just as British-owned BP sealed the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the company came under fire again, but this time for allegations that BP, which has lucrative oil contracts in Libya, lobbied the British government in 2007 to proceed with a UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement. BP has acknowledged it warned the Labour government of a possible "negative impact on UK commercial interests," but denies there were any discussions with either the UK or Scottish government about al-Megrahi.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Saturday there was no evidence BP had any connection with al-Megrahi's release, but there is little doubt Prime Minister Cameron, who travels to Capitol Hill for meetings with House and Senate leadership Tuesday, will be peppered with BP questions. Just last week New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer called on the company to suspend oil drilling plans in Libya until the company's role in the release of al-Megrahi is investigated.

"The bottom line is simple: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a corrupt deal between BP, the British government and Libya," said Schumer, who lost numerous constituents in the December 21, 1988, bombing,

"Back in 2007, BP and the Libyan government struck a $900 million oil deal that the prime minister, Tony Blair, helped coordinate," said Schumer in a news conference with reporters. "But the deal ran into roadblocks, and BP admits that it pushed the British government to expedite a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya to smooth the way for an oil deal. We then know that the British government agreed to release al- Megrahi based on a fraudulent doctor's prognosis that he only had three months to live. All of a sudden, once Megrahi is released, all the roadblocks to that oil deal are removed and, lo and behold, the oil deal is finally approved. If anyone thinks this is a coincidence, I have them a bridge to sell them in Brooklyn," the senior senator from New York charged.

In his interview with BBC, Cameron said on the topic, "I have no idea what BP did. I am not responsible for BP."

But BP and the oil spill the in the gulf have strained relations between the U.S. and U.K. since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion on April 20th. And as British prime minister, Cameron has had to lead the defense of the British-owned company amid harsh criticism from the American government and its citizens affected by the spill.

June was an especially tough month for relations. As tens of thousands of barrels of oil continued to spill into the Gulf, President Obama, who early on in the environmental disaster referred to the company as "British Petroleum," said he would have fired BP CEO Tony Hayward. The president also embraced the idea that the oil company suspend its quarterly dividend and criticized BP for spending money on a PR campaign.

The angry words from Washington produced a backlash in the U.K., where millions of British retirees depend on BP, the world's third-largest oil company, for their pensions. And Cameron had promised to press Obama during their one-on-one first meeting during the G8/G20 in Toronto, for a dollar amount so BP would have an idea of the final costs related to the oil spill. No such request was made, at least publicly.

Relations between the two countries seem to have simmered since Hayward was pulled from handling the oil spill's day-to-day operations and President Obama sat down with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg. The administration's meeting with BP executives in June led to the company's announcement of a $20 billion escrow fund over 4 years, to pay claims to Gulf Coast residents and business owners affected by the spill.

Following the four hour meeting with senior administration officials, the chairman also announced the suspension of dividend payments to shareholders and the creation of a $100 million fund to assist out of work oil workers following the government's six month moratorium on deepwater drilling.

Tuesday's Oval Office meeting will be the second time the two world leaders are meeting, and the first time in the U.S. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of all topics to be discussed, Afghanistan topped the U.S.'s list of priorities.

There are now approximately 10,000 British troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO led effort and the British have seen an increase in causalities as of late. The U.K. hopes to have withdrawn all its forces by 2015.

Asked if Obama would try to dissuade Cameron from naming a target date, Gibbs said, "it is hard to look that far into the future. Obviously, the president has committed to July of 2011 as a date of our transition and begin to, based on -- judging that based on the conditions on the ground to begin removing some of the troops that -- that the president added as a part of our increased resources there over the past couple years."

Following their Oval Office sit down, Obama and Cameron will participate in an East Room joint press conference. The events speak to the often described "special relationship" between the U.S. and U.K., but its a welcome Prime Minister Cameron's predecessor did not receive.

President Obama welcomed British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to the White House just six weeks after being sworn in himself, but the meeting between the president and the prime minister of one of the U.S.'s biggest allies was lackluster. Many Brits considered it a snub that Brown was only received for an Oval Office sit down meeting -- no joint press conference in the East Room or Rose Garden as his predecessor Tony Blair frequently participated in during his tenure with former President George W. Bush. Of course, Blair's relationship with Bush was questioned back at home with many charging Bush treated Blair as a "lap dog."

According to Heather Conley of Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, in forging his relationship with this U.S. president, Cameron needs to strike a balance between the perceived "subordinate, 'poodle' relationship" he had with Bush, and Gordon Brown's "dour, technocratic approach."

"It remains to be seen if the two leaders will develop that 'special' chemistry that has been historically evident between American and British leaders but appears to be somewhat elusive between President Obama and other world leaders," said Conley.

Conley added that Cameron should be given credit, after only two months on the job, for making some "gutsy political calls" like publicly apologizing for British actions related to the 1972 Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland; announcing a significant reduction in government spending as well as increasing taxes to reduce the U.K.'s budget deficit; announcing that British forces will leave Afghanistan no later than 2015; and last, but certainly not least, politically navigating the fallout over the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

As part of his schedule while in the states, according to the British embassy, the prime minister will have breakfast with Vice President Joe Biden, travel to Capitol Hill for meetings with House and Senate leaderships, as well as have a sit down with Arizona Republican Senator John McCain.

Also on Tuesday, Cameron will have his first sit-down interview with a U.S. television outlet since becoming prime minister -- with ABC's Diane Sawyer.
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister will travel to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier before proceeding to the Pentagon for military briefings on Afghanistan. He will then travel to New York for meetings with U.S. business leaders, and with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. He also will have dinner with the Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/20/bp-stealing-thunder-camerons-visit/
So you are saying that he should be in jail for trying to convince the government to release a prisoner so that his company could potentially profit from the exchange? Did he hold a gun to someone’s head? Did he blackmail them? What exactly did he do that was illegal?

I don't agree with what BP did, but shouldn't the fault lie with the government for releasing the guy? Don’t they have the final say in the matter?

This really boils down to the fact that this guy was a successful business man and you resent him because of it. You really need to look at yourself and ask what you can do to make your own life better instead of worrying about someone else that you don’t even know. Will his going to jail somehow make your life better?

[MintJulep]

This really boils down to the fact that this guy was a successful business man and you resent him because of it. You really need to look at yourself and ask what you can do to make your own life better instead of worrying about someone else that you don’t even know. Will his going to jail somehow make your life better?BIN-GO...........

[slowhand]

So you are saying that he should be in jail for trying to convince the government to release a prisoner so that his company could potentially profit from the exchange? Did he hold a gun to someone’s head? Did he blackmail them? What exactly did he do that was illegal?

I don't agree with what BP did, but shouldn't the fault lie with the government for releasing the guy? Don’t they have the final say in the matter?

This really boils down to the fact that this guy was a successful business man and you resent him because of it. You really need to look at yourself and ask what you can do to make your own life better instead of worrying about someone else that you don’t even know. Will his going to jail somehow make your life better?

You people arent capable of connecting the dots are you?..You have no concept of how powerful these corporations are do you?

You think I resent of Tony Hayward because he is successful? :lmao2:

You really dont get it do you?

Tony Hayward..The man who plead the 5th at a congressional hearing, without actually pleading the 5th

The man who said the fishermen who got sick from toxic fumes skimming BP'S oil, had food poisoning

The man who is the CEO of a corporation that has enough influence to push the British govt to release a fucking terrorist, who killed over 200 passengers in the Lockerbie bombings, many of them Americans, so that BP could get a sweet oil deal with Libya...

The man who seems to have more power, and influence than Obama has..Notice how Obama barks at BP every now and then, but never bites

Notice how the Supreme Court squashed Obama's 6 month moratorium on new deep water oil drilling projects, inspite of the blatently obvious risks to human life and the environment?

I dont resent Tony Hayward because he is successful..I resent him because he is an asshole..because he is a fucking piece of shit

God forbid if a liberal released the Lockerbie Bomber..You right wingers would have a fucking stroke..But when some corporate oil whore does it lets him go so BP can drill some oil off of the coast of Libya, then thats ok with you?

You know what your problem is?..You dont care about people..All you care about is money..You have the same mentality as Tony Hayward..As a result of BP's negligence, and relaxed govt regulations on outer continental shelf oil drilling, the Gulf of Mexico is a polluted toxic waste dump..What are you, and people who think like you, going to do with your money when you cant breathe the air, or drink the water?...Swallow the money untill you fucking choke on it, that's what you're gonna do with it

[doctordog]

You people arent capable of connecting the dots are you?..You have no concept of how powerful these corporations are do you?

You think I resent of Tony Hayward because he is successful? :lmao2:

You really dont get it do you?

Tony Hayward..The man who plead the 5th at a congressional hearing, without actually pleading the 5th

The man who said the fishermen who got sick from toxic fumes skimming BP'S oil, had food poisoning

The man who is the CEO of a corporation that has enough influence to push the British govt to release a fucking terrorist, who killed over 200 passengers in the Lockerbie bombings, many of them Americans, so that BP could get a sweet oil deal with Libya...

The man who seems to have more power, and influence than Obama has..Notice how Obama barks at BP every now and then, but never bites

Notice how the Supreme Court squashed Obama's 6 month moratorium on new deep water oil drilling projects, inspite of the blatently obvious risks to human life and the environment?

I dont resent Tony Hayward because he is successful..I resent him because he is an asshole..because he is a fucking piece of shit

God forbid if a liberal released the Lockerbie Bomber..You right wingers would have a fucking stroke..But when some corporate oil whore does it lets him go so BP can drill some oil off of the coast of Libya, then thats ok with you?

You know what your problem is?..You dont care about people..All you care about is money..You have the same mentality as Tony Hayward..As a result of BP's negligence, and relaxed govt regulations on outer continental shelf oil drilling, the Gulf of Mexico is a polluted toxic waste dump..What are you, and people who think like you, going to do with your money when you cant breathe the air, or drink the water?...Swallow the money untill you fucking choke on it, that's what you're gonna do with it

Obama was in office for over a year but instead of focusing the MMS on these wells he played golf, went to broadway shows, and took some vacation. I guess he doesn't care about people either.:thumbsup:

[slowhand]

BIN-GO...........

The village hypocrite who was crying over the sight of oiled birds in the Gulf over at Rumbleville, and then turns around and defends a piece of shit like Tony Hayward over here

You are pathetic

[slowhand]

Obama was in office for over a year but instead of focusing the MMS on these wells he played golf, went to broadway shows, and took some vacation. I guess he doesn't care about people either.:thumbsup:

Obama is not without sin in this mess either, I would have sworn I made that point perfectly clear in my post

Bush and Cheney arent without sin either

[doctordog]

The village hypocrite who was crying over the sight of oiled birds in the Gulf over at Rumbleville, and then turns around and defends a piece of shit like Tony Hayward over here

You are pathetic

Oh God, another cross board pussy war.:doh:

[slowhand]

Oh God, another cross board pussy war.:doh:

Get this through that think head of yours..This has nothing to do with cross board rivalries

This has to do with taking one position in one place, and another position somewhere else..It called hypocrisy, and only liars indulge in it

[GetAClue]

You people arent capable of connecting the dots are you?..You have no concept of how powerful these corporations are do you?

You think I resent of Tony Hayward because he is successful? :lmao2:

You really dont get it do you?

Tony Hayward..The man who plead the 5th at a congressional hearing, without actually pleading the 5th

The man who said the fishermen who got sick from toxic fumes skimming BP'S oil, had food poisoning

The man who is the CEO of a corporation that has enough influence to push the British govt to release a fucking terrorist, who killed over 200 passengers in the Lockerbie bombings, many of them Americans, so that BP could get a sweet oil deal with Libya...

The man who seems to have more power, and influence than Obama has..Notice how Obama barks at BP every now and then, but never bites

Notice how the Supreme Court squashed Obama's 6 month moratorium on new deep water oil drilling projects, inspite of the blatently obvious risks to human life and the environment?

I dont resent Tony Hayward because he is successful..I resent him because he is an asshole..because he is a fucking piece of shit

God forbid if a liberal released the Lockerbie Bomber..You right wingers would have a fucking stroke..But when some corporate oil whore does it lets him go so BP can drill some oil off of the coast of Libya, then thats ok with you?
And how does any of this justify your notion that he should be put in jail? What law did he break? You have gone off on a pretty good tangent here, but there is nothing of substance.

You know what your problem is?..You dont care about people..All you care about is money..You have the same mentality as Tony Hayward..As a result of BP's negligence, and relaxed govt regulations on outer continental shelf oil drilling, the Gulf of Mexico is a polluted toxic waste dump..What are you, and people who think like you, going to do with your money when you cant breathe the air, or drink the water?...Swallow the money untill you fucking choke on it, that's what you're gonna do with it
Do you know what your problem is? You don’t care about the rule of law. You just think that we should throw people in jail because they are jerks. If that were the case, most of congress would be there now (not that that would be a bad thing).

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan to Hayward, but I also don’t believe in vigilante justice either. If there were laws broken, then by all means put him on trial and if convicted throw him in jail. But you seem to think that BP and Hayward specifically went to the Gulf and blew up the oil rig JUST to pollute the water. Sure BP took shortcuts, cut corners and probably did as much as anyone to cause this accident. I hope there is an investigation and if it is determined that someone broke the law, they should go to jail. But the government regulators whose job it was too inspect these rigs and allowed these shortcuts, should be held to the same standard if not a higher one.

But simply saying Hayward should go to jail because he petitioned the British government to release the Lockerbie bomber makes no sense. HE DIDN’T RELEASE THE GUY, THE GOVERNMENT DID! If he bribed some officials, then yea, lock him up. But don’t forget the ones that would have had to accept a bribe, they would be just as guilty.

[MintJulep]

The village hypocrite who was crying over the sight of oiled birds in the Gulf over at Rumbleville, and then turns around and defends a piece of shit like Tony Hayward over here

You are patheticI said it was a great tragedy but my only concern was stopping the leak. I was never in a tizzy over BP or Hayward, that is your gig. The leak is sealed so your continuous harping over Hayward is nothing more than a case of class envy. You want to "git the rich" cuz it ain't fair! I will be having no part of that.

[MintJulep]

Get this through that think head of yours..This has nothing to do with cross board rivalries

This has to do with taking one position in one place, and another position somewhere else..It called hypocrisy, and only liars indulge in itWhat are the different positions? I never railed against Hayward and BP. My only concern was stopping the leak, not pointing fingers. Period.

BP didn't deliberately blow up the well. It was an accident. Oh, but you're another twoofer, aren't you?

[doctordog]

Get this through that think head of yours..This has nothing to do with cross board rivalries

This has to do with taking one position in one place, and another position somewhere else..It called hypocrisy, and only liars indulge in it

One has nothing to do with the other. Everyone feels bad for the birds, turtles, and animals but to say the CEO has to go to jail for that is asinine. It like me saying you should pay for some of that clean up because you used diesel or gasoline when you fished.

[MintJulep]

One has nothing to do with the other. Everyone feels bad for the birds, turtles, and animals but to say the CEO has to go to jail for that is asinine. It like me saying you should pay for some of that clean up because you used diesel or gasoline when you fished.No kidding! :lmao2:

[slowhand]

And how does any of this justify your notion that he should be put in jail? What law did he break? You have gone off on a pretty good tangent here, but there is nothing of substance.


Do you know what your problem is? You don’t care about the rule of law. You just think that we should throw people in jail because they are jerks. If that were the case, most of congress would be there now (not that that would be a bad thing).


Oh but I do care about the rule of law, and no matter how negligent BP is, nobody is going to go to jail..You can take that to the bank


Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan to Hayward, but I also don’t believe in vigilante justice either. If there were laws broken, then by all means put him on trial and if convicted throw him in jail. But you seem to think that BP and Hayward specifically went to the Gulf and blew up the oil rig JUST to pollute the water. Sure BP took shortcuts, cut corners and probably did as much as anyone to cause this accident. I hope there is an investigation and if it is determined that someone broke the law, they should go to jail. But the government regulators whose job it was too inspect these rigs and allowed these shortcuts, should be held to the same standard if not a higher one.

Exactly

But simply saying Hayward should go to jail because he petitioned the British government to release the Lockerbie bomber makes no sense. HE DIDN’T RELEASE THE GUY, THE GOVERNMENT DID! If he bribed some officials, then yea, lock him up. But don’t forget the ones that would have had to accept a bribe, they would be just as guilty.

and BP admits that it pushed the British government to expedite a prisoner exchange agreement with Libya to smooth the way for an oil deal

His intent speaks for itself..That is one evil SOB..And he claims BP is going to clean up this mess and make those it affected whole, no matter how long it takes?..I'll believe that when I see it..The world would be a better place without scumbags like him

[slowhand]

One has nothing to do with the other.

A liar is a liar is a liar..What dont you understand about that?


Everyone feels bad for the birds, turtles, and animals but to say the CEO has to go to jail for that is asinine. It like me saying you should pay for some of that clean up because you used diesel or gasoline when you fished.

If some liberal even so much as made a peep about releasing the Lockerbie Bomber you'd have a fucking heart attack

[doctordog]

A liar is a liar is a liar..What dont you understand about that?




If some liberal even so much as made a peep about releasing the Lockerbie Bomber you'd have a fucking heart attack

If? IF? IF A COW SHIT BUTTER WE WOULD HAVE TO CHURN IT!:lmao2:

[GetAClue]

Oh but I do care about the rule of law, and no matter how negligent BP is, nobody is going to go to jail..You can take that to the bank




Exactly





His intent speaks for itself..That is one evil SOB..And he claims BP is going to clean up this mess and make those it affected whole, no matter how long it takes?..I'll believe that when I see it..The world would be a better place without scumbags like him
You can make the text as big as you like, but you still have not shown me where he has broken any laws. I did agree with you that he is a lowlife, but that does not justify jail time.

There are a lot of people that this world would do better without, but that does not give me or you the right to jail them. Once again, I will ask, what has this guy done to deserve to go to jail as you originally claimed? What laws did HE personally break?

[slowhand]

You can make the text as big as you like, but you still have not shown me where he has broken any laws. I did agree with you that he is a lowlife, but that does not justify jail time.

There are a lot of people that this world would do better without, but that does not give me or you the right to jail them. Once again, I will ask, what has this guy done to deserve to go to jail as you originally claimed? What laws did HE personally break?

11 men are dead..The Gulf of Mexico is full of his oil..He lied his ass off at the Congressional hearing..You figure it out

[GetAClue]

11 men are dead..The Gulf of Mexico is full of his oil..He lied his ass off at the Congressional hearing..You figure it out
The 11 dead oil workers is a tragedy. However, do you have proof that Hayward was criminally responsible or even if a crime was committed? As of this point, it is simply a tragic accident.

As far as his testimony to Congress, it does not appear that he was forthcoming with any of his answers, in effect invoking his 5th amendment rights. Do you have any information that he "lied" to congress? If that is the case, I would contact my congressman and have it investigated.

Just face the facts, you suffer from class envy. You believe that if a "rich guy" gets taken down, that somehow your life will be better. You really need to get over that.

[slowhand]

The 11 dead oil workers is a tragedy. However, do you have proof that Hayward was criminally responsible or even if a crime was committed? As of this point, it is simply a tragic accident.

Tragic negeligence

As far as his testimony to Congress, it does not appear that he was forthcoming with any of his answers, in effect invoking his 5th amendment rights. Do you have any information that he "lied" to congress? If that is the case, I would contact my congressman and have it investigated.

He did not invoke his 5th amendement rights..He repeated over and over again that "he did know" and that is bullshit..That is lying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wPuHOAbu0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wPuHOAbu0)

Just face the facts, you suffer from class envy. You believe that if a "rich guy" gets taken down, that somehow your life will be better. You really need to get over that.

I already told you why I dont like that asshole, and it has nothing to do with class envy..Tony Hayward is a fucking worm..Get it?

[GetAClue]

Tragic negeligence



He did not invoke his 5th amendement rights..He repeated over and over again that "he did know" and that is bullshit..That is lying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wPuHOAbu0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wPuHOAbu0)



I already told you why I dont like that asshole, and it has nothing to do with class envy..Tony Hayward is a fucking worm..Get it?
Yea I get it, and I happen to agree. I never claimed you had to like him. I was just attempting to point out that you claimed that he should be in jail but have yet to show evidence of a crime.

[slowhand]

Yea I get it, and I happen to agree. I never claimed you had to like him. I was just attempting to point out that you claimed that he should be in jail but have yet to show evidence of a crime.

Look, you read the paper, you watch the news, you are on the internet..everything this scumbag has said, done, and intended is documented

Connect the dots and figure it out for yourself

Other than that, if all you have left is to do here, is to carry out a fulite useless argument to satisfy your ego, then go and rattle somebody elses cage..If you think Im gonna waste my time here, while you condemn Hayward in one breath, and then defend him in the next, in an attempt to discredit me, then best you think again, cuz to be honest, I dont give a rats ass what any of you conservatives think

[MintJulep]

Oh yes you do! You love us. :lmao2:

[slowhand]

Oh yes you do! You love us. :lmao2:

And that goes double for you

[MintJulep]

Just don't have another hissy fit............:lmao2:

[xav8terx]

So you are saying that he should be in jail for trying to convince the government to release a prisoner so that his company could potentially profit from the exchange? Did he hold a gun to someone’s head? Did he blackmail them? What exactly did he do that was illegal?

I don't agree with what BP did, but shouldn't the fault lie with the government for releasing the guy? Don’t they have the final say in the matter?

This really boils down to the fact that this guy was a successful business man and you resent him because of it. You really need to look at yourself and ask what you can do to make your own life better instead of worrying about someone else that you don’t even know. Will his going to jail somehow make your life better?



Fuck you, if that had been obama you'd be calling him a terrorist supporter. You fuckin fags from the right need to get your shit together.

[slowhand]

Just don't have another hissy fit............

I cant..Its not allowed here anymore..But that's ok..ol' slowhand has a deep bag of tricks :thumbsup: :p :disbelief: :lmao2:

[slowhand]

Fuck you, if that had been obama you'd be calling him a terrorist supporter. You fuckin fags from the right need to get your shit together.

And you can take that to the bank..Exactly what I was thinking

[xav8terx]

If? IF? IF A COW SHIT BUTTER WE WOULD HAVE TO CHURN IT!:lmao2:



and your fuckin sorry ass would be right there licking it up!!

[xav8terx]

And you can take that to the bank..Exactly what I was thinking



these douche bags dont know what to think unless their right wing handlers instruct them. Get a clue needs to do just that.

[xav8terx]

Look, you read the paper, you watch the news, you are on the internet..everything this scumbag has said, done, and intended is documented

Connect the dots and figure it out for yourself

Other than that, if all you have left is to do here, is to carry out a fulite useless argument to satisfy your ego, then go and rattle somebody elses cage..If you think Im gonna waste my time here, while you condemn Hayward in one breath, and then defend him in the next, in an attempt to discredit me, then best you think again, cuz to be honest, I dont give a rats ass what any of you conservatives think



thats all they have left. they know they are fucked in November so now all they can do is chop up videos and point fingers in every direction.

[slowhand]

thats all they have left. they know they are fucked in November so now all they can do is chop up videos and point fingers in every direction.

Yup, only this time the video cutter got caught with his racist pants around his ankles

Its like Bill Maher said..Why do these people lie, when every word, every sound bite is documented, and/or uploaded on youtube?

[GetAClue]

Look, you read the paper, you watch the news, you are on the internet..everything this scumbag has said, done, and intended is documented

Connect the dots and figure it out for yourself

Other than that, if all you have left is to do here, is to carry out a fulite useless argument to satisfy your ego, then go and rattle somebody elses cage..If you think Im gonna waste my time here, while you condemn Hayward in one breath, and then defend him in the next, in an attempt to discredit me, then best you think again, cuz to be honest, I dont give a rats ass what any of you conservatives think
Once again, you failed to understand what I have said since the first post in this thread. I think we both agree that Hayward is a low life scumbag. I do not deny that. However, I also don't believe that just because someone is a low life scumbag, that is a good enough reason to throw a person in jail. When someone in authority gets to decide who is a low life scumbag and can jail them for it, we are all in trouble.

[GetAClue]

Fuck you, if that had been obama you'd be calling him a terrorist supporter. You fuckin fags from the right need to get your shit together.
I take it you were captain of your debate team in High School? :lmao2:

Grow up. If you wish to have a debate about the issue, fine I will respond too you. However, if all you have in your arsenal is name calling and foul language, I win by default. But thanks for playing. :thumbsup: