And this is why I still don't fill up at BP

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... ses-spill/

I know BP makes money from other avenues but no one has yet to tell me what else there is to boycott from them. Oh and their stock is also back to where it was about pre-spill.

[stebo0728]

If you have any kind of retirement fund managed by someone else, thats hugely diversified, chances are you have some BP stock, which is not so easy to dump, as its part of a managed fund that you cant really prune.

[C-Kwik]

I'm not so sure what the big deal here is. BP lost money as a result of the spill. Lots of it. They are likely to lose more. They would prefer to be in a position to have to pay taxes I'm sure as that would mean they made profit. Understand, to me this is a lot like when I used to handle insurance claims. I had a number of cases where an uninsured person hit my insured and my insured would want the law to prosecute them. I usually reminded them that if they don't have a lot of money, it would mean there is that much less available for us to try and collect back from if the government cuts into it. Similarly, I'd prefer to see BP put that money towards making their wrongs right.

[IBCoupe]

Aren't most BP gas stations franchises? By boycotting them, you might be hurting the guy at the pump more than you're hurting BP.

[bigbadberry3]

I guess I look at it in a different light. They caused their own problem, so why should I have to help them out of it? Yes I know the tax code allows it, against my wishes, but If you've been following the cleanup and such, you can see how little BP has put forth so far.

I also am aware of BP is franchised but that is a consequence of associating yourself with a corporation. Free market choice.

[Cold_Zero]

I dont shop at BP because they are consistently higher priced than the regional stations.

[C-Kwik]

I guess I look at it in a different light. They caused their own problem, so why should I have to help them out of it? Yes I know the tax code allows it, against my wishes, but If you've been following the cleanup and such, you can see how little BP has put forth so far.

I also am aware of BP is franchised but that is a consequence of associating yourself with a corporation. Free market choice.

Problem is, tax is not intended as a form of punishment. A fine would be, if they broke any laws or regulations that were in place at the time of the incident. If they indeed made no profit, then they should not be taxed as if they did. I'm not saying they should be let off the hook. But essentially taxing them more than everyone else to rectify a liability is not the way this should be handled. I have zero problem with making them pay for valid and reasonable damages caused by the spill.

[bigbadberry3]

I guess I look at it in a different light. They caused their own problem, so why should I have to help them out of it? Yes I know the tax code allows it, against my wishes, but If you've been following the cleanup and such, you can see how little BP has put forth so far.

I also am aware of BP is franchised but that is a consequence of associating yourself with a corporation. Free market choice.

Problem is, tax is not intended as a form of punishment. A fine would be, if they broke any laws or regulations that were in place at the time of the incident. If they indeed made no profit, then they should not be taxed as if they did. I'm not saying they should be let off the hook. But essentially taxing them more than everyone else to rectify a liability is not the way this should be handled. I have zero problem with making them pay for valid and reasonable damages caused by the spill.

I guess I'm more upset at the fact that I've had some business ventures go sour and didn't get a nice tax break for them. If your business messes up you should have to pay for your own mistakes. Maybe I'm upset still upset at the continuing bailouts I feel large corporations get. But I'm glad we agree that they have to at least pay for the damages.

[Bubba1]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... ses-spill/

I know BP makes money from other avenues but no one has yet to tell me what else there is to boycott from them. Oh and their stock is also back to where it was about pre-spill.

I'm curious, why aren't you also boycotting Exxon/Mobil? Afterall, they negotiated down their fine for the Valdez oil spill , one of the worst in history, to a relative slap on the wrist based on their income, and they were able to write off their losses.

Or how about Texaco? why are you not boycotting them too?. They lost a large embarrassing racial discrimination lawsuit. And to add insult to injury, the CEO punished the executives that were caught on tape by.... suspending them with pay!

[bigbadberry3]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... ses-spill/

I know BP makes money from other avenues but no one has yet to tell me what else there is to boycott from them. Oh and their stock is also back to where it was about pre-spill.

I'm curious, why aren't you also boycotting Exxon/Mobil? Afterall, they negotiated down their fine for the Valdez oil spill , one of the worst in history, to a relative slap on the wrist based on their income, and they were able to write off their losses.

Or how about Texaco? why are you not boycotting them too?. They lost a large embarrassing racial discrimination lawsuit. And to add insult to injury, the CEO punished the executives that were caught on tape by.... suspending them with pay!

Because I was about 2 when that happened.

[Bubba1]

Because I was about 2 when that happened.

Ah, so the other big oil companiess get total free passes from their scandals by you simply because you were too young at the time?

[IBCoupe]

I'll side with Berry on this one. Hard to get worked up about a tragedy you weren't around for.

My grandparents might have refused to buy a Volkswagen, but I'm not sure I'm similarly opposed.

[Bubba1]

I'll side with Berry on this one. Hard to get worked up about a tragedy you weren't around for.

1996 (for the Texaco scandal) and 1989 (for Exxon Valdez) is not exactly ancient history. My point is it seems kinda silly to me to be angry enough to want to take action against one specific oil company's bad behavior when several others have done equally appalling things.

[bigbadberry3]

I'll side with Berry on this one. Hard to get worked up about a tragedy you weren't around for.

1996 (for the Texaco scandal) and 1989 (for Exxon Valdez) is not exactly ancient history. My point is it seems kinda silly to me to be angry enough to want to take action against one specific oil company's bad behavior when several others have done equally appalling things.

Again, I was 2 and 9 respectively. I can't go back through history and boycott everything that every major company has done wrong. I will however voice my opinion in society when I have power to a time relevant event.

[Bubba1]

Again, I was 2 and 9 respectively. I can't go back through history and boycott everything that every major company has done wrong. I will however voice my opinion in society when I have power to a time relevant event.

I'm not suggesting you boycott everything in history that was wrong and
you are free to voice your opinion, but the level of respect you receive for that opinion as an adult can be lessened by your lack of knowledge of recent historic events.

The two events I mentioned were not exactly "Lindsey Lohan goes to jail again" tabloid items. These were huge events that dominated the news for a long time, especially the Exxon oil spill which has gotten renewed national discussion this past year because it's parallels to the BP oil spill. If you still don't know what happened with Exxon, and its aftermath, perhaps you might consider looking it up. It might alter your opinion of targeting just BP.

[IBCoupe]

Curse you, Berry, for not having a strong gut reaction about a huge news item from before you were out of diapers!

[Bubba1]

Curse you, Berry, for not having a strong gut reaction about a huge news item from before you were out of diapers!

Using that logic, I suppose it's perfectly okay to dismiss anything and everything notable that happened in the world (Revolutionary War, birth of Christ, Civil War, WW2, Nala's first sexual experience with a human female, (wait that hasn't happened yet), etc, simply because it happened before Berry was born?

[IBCoupe]

Who said to disregard?

By your logic, you'd have Berry exercising his moral outrage upon the British, the Italians/Jews (depending on your read of that issue), Alabama, germany, Japan, that poor woman who's going to be drugged, violated, and still come out disappointed.

[Bubba1]

, that poor woman who's going to be drugged, violated, and still come out disappointed.

[AZhitman]

Lemme pile on here...

Using that logic, Joel, shouldn't you be boycotting Nissan? I mean, we've all read about their absolutely inexcusable treatment of the owner of the domain name nissan.com, right?

Point is, EVERY company has done something despicable if you look hard enough.

[Bubba1]

Lemme pile on here...

Using that logic, Joel, shouldn't you be boycotting Nissan? I mean, we've all read about their absolutely inexcusable treatment of the owner of the domain name nissan.com, right?

That's okay Greg, I love pile ons....

Regarding Nissan, my answer is no. I agree that Nissan's behavior with the domain name was awful. But at the end of the day, that case involved an individual. To me, as bad as it was, that incident does not rise to the same magnitude or equivalent historic significance as the companies responsible for two of the largest offshore oil spills in recent history.

Perhaps I'm the only one that found it odd that OP gave Exxon a free pass (for essentially the same behavior as BP) for no other reason than it happened when he was young. Virtually all of our nation's history happened before we were born.

In hindsight, I think if he said he did not know about the Exxon oil spill instead of saying he was young when it happened, we probably would not be having this discussion.

Point is, EVERY company has done something despicable if you look hard enough.

I agree, but my point is if you want to boycott a company for doing something specifically despicable, does it make sense to divert your partronage to another company that has done the same despicable thing?

[AZhitman]

Good points. I'll buy that.