Obama lends billions to Brazilian Oil Company - Soros to benefit

POSTED BY: RIPWash
UPDATED: Sunday, July 20, 2025 18:43
VIEWED: 6145
PAGE 3 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, September 6, 2009 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, that whole statue idea is plain right-wing apologism.

Why? I'm not saying that there should be a statute of limitations on discussion of Bush in a topic about Bush. I'm not saying that there should be a legal statute of limitations.

However, it doesn't add any value to a discussion of possible problems in the Obama administration to answer any question with "But Bush did..." as though that makes it all right. Besides, it usually gets the thread off the topic - possible problems in the Obama administration, in this case - and into the same round of accusations we see in this one.

I'm all up for a moritorium on all the "Bush did...", "Roosevelt did...", "Lincoln did..." apologia when discussing a possible problem some other political leader might be having. If we're discussing politics or ideologies in general, I'm fine with as far back as "But Hamurabi did...".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NIKI2

Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:20 PM

You have good ideas for slashing the deficit, Dream, but I think yer "Dreamin'", as none of them would be that easy or feasible to accomplish--or accomplish quickly. Also, I would add that Obama inherited a country in ruin, infrastructure-wise, and many other things that "cost". It's gonna be tough times, deficit-wise, and I don't know how much to blame on Obama and how much to blame on what he came into--maybe we never will, eh?

Shiny: You scared me! Reread what you wrote and you'll see that it is EXACTLY what some of the right-wing fringos COMPLETELY BELIEVE! I didn't realize you were kidding until I saw that last line...whew!

Signy: I think there's a difference on statute of limitations FOR ME between discussing what the current President is doing and what a past one has done, in that I don't want to throw the whole discussion of something I see as wrong out just because the other guy did the same, or worse. Like, this entire discussion has had little if anything to do with the topic posted, which DOES concern me. So if we deflect with "but Bush...", and argue whether the statute thing is right or wrong, when do we discuss the actual topic?

(tho' I freely admit, I could "but Bush" all day and into the night myownself )...and hey, don't I get credit for the Brazillians joke, since I posted it first? Harumph!

Ooops, I see Geezer made my argument for me about "But Bush". I agree...BUT, I'm not AT ALL willing to declare a moratorium on "President __ did"...hell NO! If we can't learn from the past, why discuss the present or future of our government? And no, Dumbya does NOT get off scott free 8 months after 7 years of screwing up my country, you beddabelieve not!!! So THERE!

________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
However, it doesn't add any value to a discussion of possible problems in the Obama administration to answer any question with "But Bush did..."

So why bring up Lincoln to rationalize Bush? If you practiced what you preached, I'd buy into it. But you don't, so the next best thing is to point out the inconsistency of asking people to do something you yourself don't do.

Generally, I try to stick to the point at hand. Separate the issues from the people, personalities and politics. Do you? Do other right-wingers? THAT is the point of bringing up "But Bush...". Do you live in an irony-free zone? So I suggest you practice what you preach and the discussion will go a lot farther and be more productive.

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:13 PM

My feeling on the topic is... almost any time the government spends money, some wealthy person somewhere is going to benefit. The only way to separate out quid-pro-quo is to look at the expenditure itself and the process by which funds were granted: Does the expenditure meet an important goal? Could the loan/ grant/ contract have gone to a different entity to better effect?

Automatically drawing a line between an expenditure and a political payback is pointless. I expect AnthonyT, with his knowledge of finance and banking, to be able to bring forth information which is a little more conclusive than just suspicion-tinged speculation.

For example, Rip just "knows" that Soros was a "big supporter" of Obama. But... really?? All of Obama's donations came from individuals, and about half of them were in amounts under $200. I'm not sure that Soros did- or could have- added enough $$ to the campaign (which was heavily grass-roots) to make a substantial difference.
www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html

Admittedly, I don't understand the purpose of this loan (or loan guarantee). I would imagine that most of Brazil's oil will either be used internally or go to China. Possibly this is a backstop position against Venezuela, or against the ME being closed to us, or against the natural gas deal with Bolivia falling through.

KWICKO

Sunday, September 6, 2009 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, that whole statue idea is plain right-wing apologism.

Why? I'm not saying that there should be a statute of limitations on discussion of Bush in a topic about Bush. I'm not saying that there should be a legal statute of limitations.

However, it doesn't add any value to a discussion of possible problems in the Obama administration to answer any question with "But Bush did..." as though that makes it all right. Besides, it usually gets the thread off the topic - possible problems in the Obama administration, in this case - and into the same round of accusations we see in this one.

I'm all up for a moritorium on all the "Bush did...", "Roosevelt did...", "Lincoln did..." apologia when discussing a possible problem some other political leader might be having. If we're discussing politics or ideologies in general, I'm fine with as far back as "But Hamurabi did...".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Talk about a duck-n-cover. Hell, that was a run-n-hide!

So let's see... When it comes to policy, I'm not allowed to compare Obama to Bush OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT, according to Geezer's rules of how he wants history to be convenient for him. Although it should be noted that when it comes to policy, Geezer's kind are out there day and night comparing Obama to HITLER, fer chrissakes. So your side gets to claim he's worse than Hitler, but I'm not allowed to add, "...yet still better than Bush."

Cute how you've tried to game the system, Geezer. I know you'd like for me to forget just how terrible a human being Bush was, and how much you seemed to love licking his boots, but it's just not going to happen. You were, and remain, a Bush toadie, no matter how badly you'd like others to forget that fact.

Mike

RIPWASH

Monday, September 7, 2009 10:48 PM

Sorry to have done a "post 'n' run" but the family took me camping this weekend.

I should have expected the "But Bush and Haliburton!" deflection from Kwicko and a few others and that's okay. They're allowed to stew in their juices over that. I wasn't around FFF.net for that whole ordeal, but it's really kinda apples and oranges in the context of my post.

A) Obama (to my knowledge) opposes "drilling our way out" of our oil problem and even voted against lifting the ban on off-shore drilling.
B) Obama is now giving another county billions of dollars so they can expand and/or develop their off-shore drilling.

Those two things, right off the bat, get a huge "WHAT THE???" from me. Seems a mite hypocritical. If he'll do that for another country, he'd sure as heck better change his stance on off-shore drilling for his own dang country. And how!! If he was so against off-shore drilling for the sake of the environment that should mean the WORLD'S environment, not just American environment. He should have told Brazil to pound sand and kept that moolah in the good ol' US of A. But that's just me.

Then add to this that the benefits this company will reap from this investment will just so happen to line the pockets of George Soros. One of the wealthiest people in the world. The man behind Moveon.org and countless other "non-profit," pro-Obama organizations that were part of the astro-turfing that got Obama elected. Sorry, Sig, but when one man with that much monetary clout is behind all of that, it's hardly grass-roots. Just my opinion. Just ask the MSM . . . tea party organizers are astroturffed by big corporations and such. Right? So what they have to say doesn't really matter.

Then my second gripe was that those who are fanatical followers of Moveon.org and socialism who back and support Soros in his actions don't seem to see through his paper-thin veil of a disguise. He is a HUGE capitalist!! He's only out to make more money!!This one act alone, his playing into the capitalist system, a system he supposedly abhors, shows more hypocrisy than you can shake a stick at in my book. And the fact that this guy only seems to push his money around in the political area instead of investing his vast amounts of wealth into things like healthcare funding or feeding the poor worldwide . . . I mean, isn't that one of the conerstones of socialism? That those with the means should assist those without?

And like I said, enlighten me if you know more about this than I. I'd really like to know.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:15 AM

Nik

On Obama, I give him 18 months, which is what I gave Bush. I normally give a president 18 months, because of the nature of govt. If you're elected in 2012, you take office in 2013, and you get to start writing the 2014 budget. Somewhere in 2014, your policies will be in full swing, and we will see the effects.

Sure, a president will take action before then, and can f^&k it up. I think Clinton did, royally, but he started out by attacking America, and then committing genocide in Iraq. 15 months in, he was endorsing genocide in Africa.

So, yeah, a president can be a total f^&k up. But Obama is not, so I'll have to wait and see. Where we stand on July 20th 2010 is where I'll make my call, pending no other dramatic action.

Quote:

You have good ideas for slashing the deficit, Dream, but I think yer "Dreamin'", as none of them would be that easy or feasible to accomplish--or accomplish quickly. Also, I would add that Obama inherited a country in ruin, infrastructure-wise, and many other things that "cost". It's gonna be tough times, deficit-wise, and I don't know how much to blame on Obama and how much to blame on what he came into--maybe we never will, eh?

Nah, some of those could be pushed through in short order. Also, I disagree that the country was in ruin. Crisis, maybe, but other than New Orleans there were no infrastructure issues, and aren't *yet*. I can't blame Bush entirely for Nola. If you had heard Ray Nagin before Katrina hit saying, and I quote "I'm don't care so much about evacuating the people, I'm really much more concerned about the oil." At that point I was pretty sure if anything went wrong where most of the blame would fall.

I agree, Bush was a disaster, but not as large a disaster as the left makes him out to be. The America Obama inherited was a functioning, running country, with some serious issues: Two wars, and $8 trillion in debt (just over twice what Bush inherited, esp. considering we were already at war in Iraq.)

I think I'm being pretty objective on this one. I don't think we have decent candidates for "worst president ever" here. Abe Lincoln inherited a country and left half a country to his successor, Andrew Jackson instituted genocide against the indians and slavery as national policies. Considering those are the first presidents of our current major parties, I don't think anyone has topped that. I might nominate Hoover or Truman...

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:28 AM

Rip. Obama support was not astroturfed. If you were honest with yourself and the facts, you'd know that. I've followed moveon for a long time. It started under Clinton for crissake. So WTF? indeed.

I don't know much about this deal. Are the expected reserves big enough to make a difference to... anyone except a direct investor? Will they come on-line fast enough to suck American dollars out of Chinese coffers? Is there something going on in Brazil that makes it look susceptible to the anti-American wave sweeping through south and central America? Is it related to the coup in Honduras?

Like I said, I don't know what is going on with this deal and neither do you. But that doesn't prevent you from finger-pointing speculation, does it? Of course not! But if you're going to speculate, at least make it worth our while to read. Look into the expected reserves. Check out the amount of loan guarantee. Is it big enough to swing anything major? Or is it just big enough to be a bone tossed to a friend?

AFA hypocrisy... the BUSH administration was prolly the MOST hypocritical in recent memory. Id have to go back to Nixon to find an administration that was anywhere near as power-hungry. And Bush's bootlickers topped the charts... and still do. They're off-the-wall crazy. Going nuts about Obama addressing schoolchildren ("OMG! Save the children!) and not a PEEP about Bush's massive destruction of civil rights???? It's OK to bring a loaded gun to Obama rallies, but not OK to compare Obama favorably to Bush????

Please, spare me the hypocritical whining about hypocrisy! When you manage to be HALF of what you expect the "other side" to live up to, maybe I'll bother to listen.

GEEZER

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Although it should be noted that when it comes to policy, Geezer's kind are out there day and night comparing Obama to HITLER, fer chrissakes.

Okay, Mike. You've been making this kind of crap accusation about me for far too long. Quote me anywhere I have compared President Obama to Hitler, or been anything less than respectful, even if I question some of his policies. Do so or shut the fuck up.

Edit to add:

After a few minutes thought, I'm changing the last sentence to "Do so or shut the fuck up about it".

Otherwise, Mike will complain I'm trying to make him shut up about everything.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 12:26 PM

Every President had some dirt with them, Obama is not the first nor will he be the last

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
This is an old story, if most of you are just now learning this, it's because Barry's whores in the press ignored it so not to make Barry look like one of George's bitchs.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE