Obama lends billions to Brazilian Oil Company - Soros to benefit
POSTED BY: RIPWash
UPDATED: Sunday, July 20, 2025 18:43
VIEWED: 6145
PAGE 4 of 7
Sig, please show me where I've been hypocritical. I heard this topic on the radio and did the research on my own. I didn't just take it at face value as many accuse us "right wingers" of doing. I found TWO separate articles by more or less trusted sources and then pointed out the hypocrisy. I found it interesting, even alarming and, yes, pointed fingers. Much as you would have done if Bush had done it not long into his presidency. Heck! Look at Mike, bringing up the whole Haliburton thing! I wasn't around this illustrious site when that whole thing went down, so I won't dare assume I know what went on or what was said. Please tell me what your thoughts were the instant that fracas started. Did you and others immediately point fingers or was there long, meditated, and thoughtful debate on the subject? It would seem that Kwicko was furious about the Haliburton arrangement (correct me if I'm wrong there, Kwick). Should he have been? I dunno. That's for him to decide and his right to do so. It would seem that, by his comments above, he may have said at the time, "It's just politics." What about you?
Just because I'm bringing up something up about Obama that is a little questionable does not automatically make ME hypocritical. Did I support Bush? Yes. Did I agree with everything he said and did? No. Did I support Obama? No. Do I agree with what he has done so far? No. But give it time. I'm willing to admit there may be something in the future he does that I agree with and will support him on. Time will tell.
As to my Soros and astroturfing comment. All I can say is that the tea party organizers are being labled as astroturfers and that they are being backed by big time donors and corporations. I know that with the organizers in my area . . . that's simply not the case. If "tea baggers" are labled as astroturf because they're being backed by big money, why is is wrong to lable Moveon.org in that same fashion? Even if it was under Clinton. What difference does that make? One man with substantial personal funding is behind it. And wouldn't that funding be better used elsewhere for the benefit of the world community?
As to Obama speaking to the kids today? I'm not sure what to think about it. I can't help but wonder what those on the left would have said and done if it were Bush wanting to do so. Our school district gave parents the opportunity to have their kids not participate if they so chose. Personally, I left it up to my son to decide whether or not he wanted to listen. I was fully willing to let him and discuss it with him afterwards. On his own, with no prompting from me or his mother, he decided against it. My wife decided she'd record it off of C-Span and we'd watch it as a family and discuss it. So there 
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, Rip, another reason Obama might be sending money for Brazil to develop its oil industry is to counter the oil power of Venezuela. If there were another big oil exporter in South America, and it were willing to give its neighbors a price break, as Venezuela does, the Bolivarian Revolution - with its ties to Iran, Llbya, etc. - might get slowed down a bit.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay Rip, lets start with Soros and Moveon.
Many RWers say that Soros founded Moveon. Not true. Moveon was founded independently by two computer entrepreneurs
Quote:Since I was involved with moveon at the email stage, I can attest absolutely that this is the case. Now, as far as its funding is concerned
MoveOn started in 1998 as an e-mail group, MoveOn.org, created by computer entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, the married cofounders of Berkeley Systems. They started by passing around a petition asking Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on", as opposed to impeaching him. The petition, passed around by word of mouth, was extremely successful; ultimately, they had half a million signatures. Buoyed by their success, the couple went on to start similar campaigns, including
calling for more arms inspections rather than an invasion of Iraq (see Popular opposition to war on Iraq)
the reinstatement of lower limits on arsenic and mercury pollution
Quote:Yes, Soros donated money to moveon in 2004.
Some of the major financial contributors to MoveOn.org have included:
Linda Pritzker has donated at least US$4,000,000.
George Soros has donated at least US$1,460,000.
Peter B. Lewis has donated at least US$500,000.
The San Francisco Foundation Community Initiative Funds, a 501(c)(3) organization affiliated with the San Francisco Foundation, began serving as a fiscal sponsor for MoveOn.org Civic Action in 2000, providing a channel through which individuals can make directed, tax-exempt donations to support its work. In 2001, SFFCIF's IRS Form 990 show that it provided MoveOn.org Civic Action with $17,698 in funding.
Iraq Peace Fund, an effort of the Tides Foundation, has donated an unspecified amount.
MoveOn.org ceased receiving any donations to its 527 after the 2004 election, and closed the 527 permanently in 2008. MoveOn's primary source of funding is its members. MoveOn.org raised nearly 60 million dollars in 2004 from its members alone, with an average donation of $50.
Obviously given the timeline, it had nothing to do with Obama. Simple FACT CHECKING would have told you that. Yes, he and his family members donated to the Obama campaign... but not a huge amount given the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake: $60,000 all together.
AFA Soros being a hypocrite, he has basically said- Hey, I didn't make the system, I just live in it Nonetheless, he is an active philanthropist and has donated billions of dollars to causes in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Russia. Again, simple fact checking would have told you that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the info, Sig. Much appreciated.
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're welcome. But I'm not done yet. I have a very busy day ahead of me, but I hope to get back to you on the topic
Quote:I think Geezer is reiterating what I already said. The deal smells of geopolitics and/or currency stabilization. Maybe now that the idea has come from a "more or less trusted source" you'll think on it some more.
Just because I'm bringing up something up about Obama that is a little questionable does not automatically make ME hypocritical
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think Geezer is reiterating what I already said. The deal smells of geopolitics and/or currency stabilization. Maybe now that the idea has come from a "more or less trusted source" you'll think on it some more.
Well, yeah, but he said it nicer
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All I want to know is... have you learned anything about jumping to conclusions, and getting your information from more than one end of the political spectrum? If not, I've just wasted valuable time.
Oh, and BTW- the WSJ is not a trusted source. Big, yes. But their reporting is very, very slanted. They simply do not write about anything that contradicts their pro-corporate/ pro-finance views. I doubt, for example, that they had many articles about the financial meltdown in early to mid 2008. I doubt they had any words of warning on the Iraq invasion. How often have they "got it right", in retrospect? If you're going to trust your sources, they should have a track record showing that they CAN be trusted.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll say that I didn't intend to jump to conclusions. It's just that the two articles imply that there is a connection that raises some questions. That's all. If I jumped, then I jumped. You never jump? Ever?
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.
Go back and re-read what I wrote. Where did I specifically accuse YOU? I said YOUR KIND. Are you now saying that you're not a conservative, not a tea-bagger, not a Republican? You're not any of those, huh? You just like to wear their colors.
You'll notice that I'm generally quite careful with my words; if I'd wanted to say that YOU think Obama = Hitler, I'd have come out and said it. Nope, I said "your kind" like to make that comparison. It's called damning by association - you know, like saying Obama "pals around with domestic terrorists". It doesn't have to be literally true, right? And hey, if you don't like being associated with douchebags, quit hanging around with douchebags.
Quote:
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.
Talk about making shit up out of whole cloth...
Please cite where I've ever complained that anyone's trying to make me shut up about ANYTHING, or shut the fuck up. Oh, let me add - about it.
Next you'll be spewing some bullshit claims about me trying to have you "banned", just like your li'l buddy Out2Lunch did, with absolutely no backing evidence, because such has never happened.
Mike
"It was already blue when we got here!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME