|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
The penalty......$200,000 chump change.  They did make a $55 mil wildlife donation tho. But still 200k! No wonder these companies cut corners when the penalties like this are so small. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...orizon/2588105/
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
This crap sickens me.
There needs to be jail time for this, but there never will be. They donate too much money for anyone in office to allow them to go to jail.
The corruption that permeates this entire country disgusts me to no end.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I get the animosity, but the actual crime they are discussing and the fallout seems relatively minor: Quote:
Halliburton's energy-services subsidiary designed and built the well for BP. In early May, the company began an internal investigation to determine whether the number of "centralizers" — metal collars that help keep the well pipe centered — played a role in the blowout. Halliburton recommends installing 21, but BP chose to use just six.
Halliburton ran 3-D computer simulations in May and June 2010, and both times the results indicated there was little difference between the two scenarios. Employees were then directed by unidentified individuals to destroy the simulations, the Justice Department said.
The Deepwater Horizon Task Force was unable to recover the computer simulations.
Halliburton and BP have blamed each other for the cement job that failed to seal the Macondo well.
So, Halliburton tried to blame BP for not using the recommended 21, but had simulations that showed having 6 was about the same anyway. They didn't want BP to use that against them, so they destroyed the simulations.
Now, I get how this could have been a bigger issue, but it was 'after the fact' and I don't fully grasp how these simulations are not the private information of Halliburton in the first place.
I must be missing something here (perhaps they continued to use it to attack BP after they knew it was erroneous?).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
This crap sickens me.
There needs to be jail time for this, but there never will be. They donate too much money for anyone in office to allow them to go to jail.
Why? The tests were run after the accident, Haliburton apparently ran and paid for the simulations themselves.. so in my way of thinking, destroying those simulations was totally up to them. If the government wants tests run like that, they should run them and pay for them...
There is a ton of wrong-doing between Haliburton and BP and people probably should go to jail over this whole accident, I just don't see this as that big of a deal.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
The penalty......$200,000 chump change.
They did make a $55 mil wildlife donation tho. But still 200k! No wonder these companies cut corners when the penalties like this are so small.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...orizon/2588105/
To add what others have said, you can't set penalties based on earnings. They need to be somewhat consistent based on the offense.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
The penalty......$200,000 chump change.
They did make a $55 mil wildlife donation tho. But still 200k! No wonder these companies cut corners when the penalties like this are so small.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...orizon/2588105/
To add what others have said, you can't set penalties based on earnings. They need to be somewhat consistent based on the offense.
It's still chump change considering the total damage. Why destroy evidence unless you are hiding something?
I work in the oil and gas industry and I know first hand these companies cut corners because they are willing to pay the penalties over the cost of doing things right.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The penalty......$200,000 chump change.
They did make a $55 mil wildlife donation tho. But still 200k! No wonder these companies cut corners when the penalties like this are so small.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...orizon/2588105/
To add what others have said, you can't set penalties based on earnings. They need to be somewhat consistent based on the offense.
It's still chump change considering the total damage.
This was about destroying evidence, which was theirs to destroy to begin with. Nothing to do with the damages done during the spill.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The penalty......$200,000 chump change.
They did make a $55 mil wildlife donation tho. But still 200k! No wonder these companies cut corners when the penalties like this are so small.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busi...orizon/2588105/
To add what others have said, you can't set penalties based on earnings. They need to be somewhat consistent based on the offense.
It's still chump change considering the total damage.
This was about destroying evidence, which was theirs to destroy to begin with. Nothing to do with the damages done during the spill.
Then why didn't they fight the 200k fine? Nevermind I'll tell you. It's incriminating evidence that was destroyed and it would show that they are liable for much more damage then they are admitting too. Really, this is a standard gas and oil industry wide tactic. Its all about risk managment. vs saftey and enviromental issues. Meaning it's cheaper to pay the fine then to do things right.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Why does McDonalds, or any large corporation, settle versus fight? It's cheaper.
If you are getting sued and risk months in court and thousands of dollars in attorney fees and court costs, and the plaintiff says they will settle for $500, do you fight or just pay?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Why destroy evidence unless you are hiding something?
You are not obligated to incriminate yourself. If you run the tests voluntarily after the fact and don't get the results you want, why should you have to turn over the results?
Look at it this way... if you can prove that you were home at 8:30 one night but you are accused of robbing a gas station on the other side of town at 9:00 and you initially say that there is no way you had time to get there... then one day you decide to try it and it turns out that you actually CAN get from your house to the gas station in under half an hour, you are not obligated to provide that information to the other side....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Typical of your analogies, another great one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
if you can prove that you were home at 8:30 one night but you are accused of robbing a gas station on the other side of town at 9:00
Depends on where you live.. in my home town, you could get from one side of town to the other about 5 times in 30 minutes...LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Which is why I'm pretty sure it was you who robbed the gas station. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
KBR gets tax cuts, subsidies, and no-bid contracts and they own enough of our government that they will never have to pay for any crime they commit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 Likes: 73
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 Likes: 73 |
In general, it's illegal to destroy results of experiments if you are a scientific laboratory. Especially when the tests are being done to apply for government licenses (like you would need to operate a large scale, offshore drilling rig).
I don't know all the specific laws in this case - but otherwise, for instance, a company which produces drug A could produce 10 tests which show it is harmful - one that does not show it is harmful. And then they could destroy the first 10 an apply for drug licensing.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159 |
Quote:
Which is why I'm pretty sure it was you who robbed the gas station.
Right 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 66 |
Eh, the amount of oil that was released into the Gulf was chump change. Coverage of the spill was media sensasionalism..appealing to the emotions of the public and environmental nut jobs... predicting economic and environmental doom and gloom for years to come. Ill never foget those liberal looney tunes congregating on some Florida beach holding hands and singing Kumbaya.lol In case anyone isn't aware, oil seeps naturally from the ocean floor every day around the world...most of it eaten up by microbes. Off the coast of Santa Barbara alone 2 to 3,000 gallons seep daily. http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/natural-sources.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,850 Likes: 159 |
I hear what your saying, but that one incident in the Gulf spilled 170 MILLION gallons in a matter of days in a much smaller area than you are talking about. It was both the volume and the speed at which it was released http://www.nrdc.org/energy/gulfspill/?gclid=CPDJvbXnz7gCFY87MgodfzwA_A
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,195 Likes: 8 |
Thank you for posting that response. I had heard that same reasoning when the oil rig was news. I can't figure out how it's wrong to be concerned with something like this accident where people died, the environment was damaged, and multi-billion dollar corporations were the cause. To think that's nothing or just main stream media over reaction would indicate to me that someone is a oil hugging, science hating, big brother business lover. Sometimes it's fun to minimize stuff with labels.  Now the debate is the state wanting to hold the oil industry responsible for land loss equal to the size of the state o Delaware, but Bobby Jindal put the nix on that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
In general, it's illegal to destroy results of experiments if you are a scientific laboratory. Especially when the tests are being done to apply for government licenses (like you would need to operate a large scale, offshore drilling rig).
I don't know all the specific laws in this case - but otherwise, for instance, a company which produces drug A could produce 10 tests which show it is harmful - one that does not show it is harmful. And then they could destroy the first 10 an apply for drug licensing.
In general I hear what you are saying... and I will also say that I don't know the applicable law here but just to pose the counter argument, I don't know if this qualifies as a scientific laboratory.... the other thing is that this was after the fact testing, this wasn't to get any kind of approval, licensing, patent, etc.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why destroy evidence unless you are hiding something?
You are not obligated to incriminate yourself. If you run the tests voluntarily after the fact and don't get the results you want, why should you have to turn over the results?
Look at it this way... if you can prove that you were home at 8:30 one night but you are accused of robbing a gas station on the other side of town at 9:00 and you initially say that there is no way you had time to get there... then one day you decide to try it and it turns out that you actually CAN get from your house to the gas station in under half an hour, you are not obligated to provide that information to the other side....
Look at the facts sir ..Halliburton did tests on the concrete and construction process of their horizion deep well foundation assemblies using 3d modeling, finite element analysis, and other forensic tests that include data that only they could use or produce. They found many flaws. Then they destroyed that evidence showing all the flaws. They where then found guilty of destroying that evidence and were fined only $200,000 for this part of the overall fiasco. They didn't fight the pultry fine as they could have, and gladly paid it, saving them billions, perhaps more by covering up the truth.
I understand truth isn't exacly what anybody wants to hear in these forums is it? It's all about who thinks they are rght, not wrong.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Look at the facts sir ..Halliburton did tests on the concrete and construction process of their horizion deep well foundation assemblies using 3d modeling, finite element analysis, and other forensic tests that include data that only they could use or produce. They found many flaws. Then they destroyed that evidence showing all the flaws. They where then found guilty of destroying that evidence and were fined only $200,000 for this part of the overall fiasco. They didn't fight the pultry fine as they could have, and gladly paid it, saving them billions, perhaps more by covering up the truth.
From the article:
Quote:
the company began an internal investigation to determine whether the number of "centralizers" — metal collars that help keep the well pipe centered — played a role in the blowout. Halliburton recommends installing 21, but BP chose to use just six.
Halliburton ran 3-D computer simulations in May and June 2010, and both times the results indicated there was little difference between the two scenarios.
Their tests were in regard to using 6 collars BP decided to use versus the 21 that Halliburton recommended, not the cement issues. At least per the article.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
In general, it's illegal to destroy results of experiments if you are a scientific laboratory. Especially when the tests are being done to apply for government licenses (like you would need to operate a large scale, offshore drilling rig).
I don't know all the specific laws in this case - but otherwise, for instance, a company which produces drug A could produce 10 tests which show it is harmful - one that does not show it is harmful. And then they could destroy the first 10 an apply for drug licensing.
In general I hear what you are saying... and I will also say that I don't know the applicable law here but just to pose the counter argument, I don't know if this qualifies as a scientific laboratory.... the other thing is that this was after the fact testing, this wasn't to get any kind of approval, licensing, patent, etc.
So you are saying, if the results showed favorable results with no flaws in the construction of the horizion deep sea oil well foundation, that they wouldn't use the results for public approval and destroy that evidence regardless?... Puleeeez! You really have no clue how these oil construction companies work do you?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
Look at the facts sir ..Halliburton did tests on the concrete and construction process of their horizion deep well foundation assemblies using 3d modeling, finite element analysis, and other forensic tests that include data that only they could use or produce. They found many flaws. Then they destroyed that evidence showing all the flaws. They where then found guilty of destroying that evidence and were fined only $200,000 for this part of the overall fiasco. They didn't fight the pultry fine as they could have, and gladly paid it, saving them billions, perhaps more by covering up the truth.
From the article:
Quote:
the company began an internal investigation to determine whether the number of "centralizers" — metal collars that help keep the well pipe centered — played a role in the blowout. Halliburton recommends installing 21, but BP chose to use just six.
Halliburton ran 3-D computer simulations in May and June 2010, and both times the results indicated there was little difference between the two scenarios.
Their tests were in regard to using 6 collars BP decided to use versus the 21 that Halliburton recommended, not the cement issues. At least per the article.
You believe that....LOL...and all the test evidence has been destroyed. BTW its concrete not cement, and it's all about the foundation of the well which includes the collars and concrete assembies that go with it.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look at the facts sir ..Halliburton did tests on the concrete and construction process of their horizion deep well foundation assemblies using 3d modeling, finite element analysis, and other forensic tests that include data that only they could use or produce. They found many flaws. Then they destroyed that evidence showing all the flaws. They where then found guilty of destroying that evidence and were fined only $200,000 for this part of the overall fiasco. They didn't fight the pultry fine as they could have, and gladly paid it, saving them billions, perhaps more by covering up the truth.
From the article:
Quote:
the company began an internal investigation to determine whether the number of "centralizers" — metal collars that help keep the well pipe centered — played a role in the blowout. Halliburton recommends installing 21, but BP chose to use just six.
Halliburton ran 3-D computer simulations in May and June 2010, and both times the results indicated there was little difference between the two scenarios.
Their tests were in regard to using 6 collars BP decided to use versus the 21 that Halliburton recommended, not the cement issues. At least per the article.
You believe that....LOL...
hahahahahahahahaha.  Is it so difficult to just say you disagree without hidden insult?
I was going by what the article says, if you have FACTS that dispute that please show them.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Look at the facts sir ..Halliburton did tests on the concrete and construction process of their horizion deep well foundation assemblies using 3d modeling, finite element analysis, and other forensic tests that include data that only they could use or produce. They found many flaws. Then they destroyed that evidence showing all the flaws. They where then found guilty of destroying that evidence and were fined only $200,000 for this part of the overall fiasco. They didn't fight the pultry fine as they could have, and gladly paid it, saving them billions, perhaps more by covering up the truth.
From the article:
Quote:
the company began an internal investigation to determine whether the number of "centralizers" — metal collars that help keep the well pipe centered — played a role in the blowout. Halliburton recommends installing 21, but BP chose to use just six.
Halliburton ran 3-D computer simulations in May and June 2010, and both times the results indicated there was little difference between the two scenarios.
Their tests were in regard to using 6 collars BP decided to use versus the 21 that Halliburton recommended, not the cement issues. At least per the article.
You believe that....LOL...
hahahahahahahahaha. Is it so difficult to just say you disagree without hidden insult?
I was going by what the article says, if you have FACTS that dispute that please show them.
Ok sorry ... I disagree. The data (facts) have been destroyed. So no one can proove anything. But really, you can't believe Halliburton is hiding something?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
I understand truth isn't exacly what anybody wants to hear in these forums is it?
No, you are the only one. In fact you might be the only one left in the entire western world that actually wants to hear the truth or is capable of speaking it. I'm just grateful that you even took the time to insult me, that's how awesome you are.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
I understand truth isn't exacly what anybody wants to hear in these forums is it?
No, you are the only one. In fact you might be the only one left in the entire western world that actually wants to hear the truth or is capable of speaking it. I'm just grateful that you even took the time to insult me, that's how awesome you are.
Instead of drama queen antics with your passive aggressive claiming I insulted you. Just admit you don't know much about the oil and gas industry and how these companies really operate before getting into a debate about it again. 
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Ok sorry ... I disagree. The data (facts) have been destroyed. So no one can proove anything. But really, you can't believe Halliburton is hiding something?
I can believe they have something to hide, and maybe they did. But that isn't what the article stated, or even what your OP originally was debating. Which was the $200k fine being insignificant.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Quote:
Quote:
Ok sorry ... I disagree. The data (facts) have been destroyed. So no one can proove anything. But really, you can't believe Halliburton is hiding something?
I can believe they have something to hide, and maybe they did. But that isn't what the article stated, or even what your OP originally was debating. Which was the $200k fine being insignificant.
Thanks for that acknowlegement. And even if the article didn't state that, it was part of my debate. Please read my second post on this thread.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
And please read my first post, prior to your second post.  Where I stated that penalties must be somewhat consistent regardless of the companies financial position. I don't doubt there's a lot of butt covering going on, but this case had nothing to do with liabilities for the damages caused from the spill, so why should that even be considered?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Instead of drama queen antics with your passive aggressive claiming I insulted you.
You are right, I probably should have just told you that you are an ass.
Quote:
Just admit you don't know much about the oil and gas industry and how these companies really operate before getting into a debate about it again.
This isn't really about the oil and gas industry, it's much more about the law, which I've admitted multiple times that I'm just offering an opinion since I'm not a lawyer.... and when subjects come up that are within my area of expertise, I still try to offer my opinion without being an ass and insulting people........
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
So you are saying, if the results showed favorable results with no flaws in the construction of the horizion deep sea oil well foundation, that they wouldn't use the results for public approval and destroy that evidence regardless?... Puleeeez! You really have no clue how these oil construction companies work do you?
Of course they would have. And while I have admitted to not being a lawyer, I do work on a lot of construction claims lawsuits sometimes as an impartial expert and sometimes as an advocate to one side.... so I'm pretty familiar with how discovery works, how expert testimonies are put together, how to prepare for and conduct depositions, how theories are tested and re-tested, and what happens to all of the information that is generated.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 15,920 Likes: 156 |
Bla Bla Bla ...and you still can't smell a corporate coverup. The truth will set you free.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
Bla Bla Bla ...and you still can't smell a corporate coverup. The truth will set you free.
Yes I can.. the question is whether or not what they did was illegal and to what degree.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Halliburton admits destroying Gulf
oil spill evidence
|
|
