Comments on: Against Chevron, the Strategy Has Always Been Political http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/ The National Association of Manufacturers Premier Manufacturing Blog Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:55:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Carter Wood http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13358 Carter Wood Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:15:20 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13358 Later comments have added nothing to the exchange, so I'm closing this thread down. Later comments have added nothing to the exchange, so I’m closing this thread down.

]]> By: Max German http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13346 Max German Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:34:46 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13346 Based on the cut and paste Amazon Defense Coalition talking points strung together in the above comments, James has been well-coached by Hinton Communications. Based on the cut and paste Amazon Defense Coalition talking points strung together in the above comments, James has been well-coached by Hinton Communications.

]]> By: James http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13345 James Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:54:27 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13345 "Facts be damned"? How about the fact that Chevron lobbied hard to have Ecuador's preferential trade relationship with the US suspended as punishment for allowing this lawsuit to continue? That doesn't count as political interference in the judicial process in your book? If they had been successful many people in Ecuador would've lost their jobs and their economy would've been severely affected. And what Chevron wanted was for the Ecuadorian government to interfere in a legal case to which they are not a party and stop it from going forward. What a marvelous sense of justice! “Facts be damned”? How about the fact that Chevron lobbied hard to have Ecuador’s preferential trade relationship with the US suspended as punishment for allowing this lawsuit to continue? That doesn’t count as political interference in the judicial process in your book? If they had been successful many people in Ecuador would’ve lost their jobs and their economy would’ve been severely affected. And what Chevron wanted was for the Ecuadorian government to interfere in a legal case to which they are not a party and stop it from going forward. What a marvelous sense of justice!

]]> By: Carter Wood http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13343 Carter Wood Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:40:07 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13343 I don't normally post personal attacks as comments, but regard James' ad hominem as revealing of a mindset and tactic sadly too common among the advocates of the $27 billion lawsuit against Chevron. Facts be damned. I don’t normally post personal attacks as comments, but regard James’ ad hominem as revealing of a mindset and tactic sadly too common among the advocates of the $27 billion lawsuit against Chevron. Facts be damned.

]]> By: James http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13322 James Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:06:04 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13322 The plaintiffs will win this case in Ecuador, just as they would've won it in the US if Chevron hadn't argued that it had to be tried in Ecuador. Both the law and the facts are on their side. What they don't have is Chevron's deep pockets, so things like a grassroots campaign and documentary help to raise awareness (and donations) to be able to keep their fight going (for over 16 years now, I understand). You say that the ADC has hired a lobbyist? That's news to me, but let's just say for the moment that it's true. How many lobbyists does Chevron have? By your own logic, doesn't that mean that they hope to force a political resolution to this issue? They certainly tried to do that over the last few years when they lobbied the US government to deny preferential trade relations with Ecuador as punishment for allowing this case to go forward. What do you think about that? How can you possibly excuse that while insisting that the fact that there was a movie made about this case is somehow evidence of a lack of fair play on the part of the plaintiffs? You make me sick, Carter. I've only recently become interested in this issue, and really it's to your credit that I have. You and the other self-righteous "Chevron-can-do-no-wrong-screw-the-indians" bloggers are so over the top with your vindictive attacks on the people trying to get a fair trial in this case that you really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You're not arguing the merits of the case and you have no clue as to its history or the facts on the ground. And it's abundantly clear that you don't even care. You're just spouting pro-Chevron venom, and you could care less if people continue to suffer for lack of medical treatment and environmental cleanup while you help this drag on even longer. Bravo! What would Jesus think of your behavior? The plaintiffs will win this case in Ecuador, just as they would’ve won it in the US if Chevron hadn’t argued that it had to be tried in Ecuador. Both the law and the facts are on their side. What they don’t have is Chevron’s deep pockets, so things like a grassroots campaign and documentary help to raise awareness (and donations) to be able to keep their fight going (for over 16 years now, I understand).

You say that the ADC has hired a lobbyist? That’s news to me, but let’s just say for the moment that it’s true. How many lobbyists does Chevron have? By your own logic, doesn’t that mean that they hope to force a political resolution to this issue? They certainly tried to do that over the last few years when they lobbied the US government to deny preferential trade relations with Ecuador as punishment for allowing this case to go forward. What do you think about that? How can you possibly excuse that while insisting that the fact that there was a movie made about this case is somehow evidence of a lack of fair play on the part of the plaintiffs?

You make me sick, Carter. I’ve only recently become interested in this issue, and really it’s to your credit that I have. You and the other self-righteous “Chevron-can-do-no-wrong-screw-the-indians” bloggers are so over the top with your vindictive attacks on the people trying to get a fair trial in this case that you really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You’re not arguing the merits of the case and you have no clue as to its history or the facts on the ground. And it’s abundantly clear that you don’t even care. You’re just spouting pro-Chevron venom, and you could care less if people continue to suffer for lack of medical treatment and environmental cleanup while you help this drag on even longer. Bravo! What would Jesus think of your behavior?

]]> By: Against Chevron, the Strategy Has Always Been Political « The Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Clearinghouse http://www.shopfloor.org/2009/10/26/against-chevron-the-strategy-has-always-been-political/#comment-13315 Against Chevron, the Strategy Has Always Been Political « The Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Clearinghouse Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:40:23 +0000 http://www.shopfloor.org/?p=10409#comment-13315 [...] Read the full article. Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...] [...] Read the full article. Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...]

]]>