Obama lends billions to Brazilian Oil Company - Soros to benefit
POSTED BY: RIPWash
UPDATED: Sunday, July 20, 2025 18:43
VIEWED: 6145
PAGE 1 of 7
Anybody else find this a little odd and dishonest on separate levels? And I'll reference two articles.
Obama lends billions to Petrobras for off-shore drilling:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524
166.html
So first of all we have Obama giving another country a fair amount of money to do something that he himself is not in favor of doing on his own native soil (yes, America, not Kenya 
).
Second, it would seem that George Soros, one of Obama's biggest supporters and campaign contributors just so happens to own stock in that very same company. So much so that it's his largest holding at the current time.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aFHPjfeUvtl8
This is what REALLY chomps my hide. Here is a man (Soros) who is making millions upon millions in a capitalist system, yet denounces capitalism and all it stands for. Am I wrong there? If I am, someone please enlighten me. But on the surface of things, he seems a hypocrite. The way I understand, the man is one of the richest people in the world. He, alone, could solve a couple global problems all by himself (world hunger is one I can think of just off the top of my head) and not even blink at the cost. But does he? No. I'm fairly certain that he could start some form of health benefit system for those who can not afford it. That would be a fine pursuit for one of his means and position. But does he? I don't think so.
Again, if I'm wrong please enlighten me.
But back on point . . . Here we see something that seems so outrageously two-faced. A) a man who denies U.S. oil companies the right to drill off-shore (his claims that we can not drill our way out of our fuel problems), yet is giving money to another company to do just that and B) said action points to be to the benefit of his largest campaign contributor ("Thanks, Georgie. Now we're even").
*********************************************
"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Outrageous. I haven't been this angry since the last guy did it, rewarding one of his biggest supporters by giving him the job of Vice President, and then awarding the company that his Vice President still held hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock and stock options with no-bid contracts once he convinced "the people" of the absolute need to invade Iraq and take it over.
I understand your anger. Maybe you'd feel better if Obama said we were doing it to "spread democracy" to Brazil, or some other flimsy excuse that sounds good to the masses?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hey hey now, dripping sarcasm is forgiveable, but splattering the walls is overkill, ewww.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
So first of all we have Obama giving another country a fair amount of money to do something that he himself is not in favor of doing on his own native soil
Like giving Israel cash to pull the bullshit they do ?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Outrageous. I haven't been this angry since the last guy did it, rewarding one of his biggest supporters by giving him the job of Vice President, and then awarding the company that his Vice President still held hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock and stock options with no-bid contracts once he convinced "the people" of the absolute need to invade Iraq and take it over.
I understand your anger. Maybe you'd feel better if Obama said we were doing it to "spread democracy" to Brazil, or some other flimsy excuse that sounds good to the masses?
Mike, I think the statute of limitations on "But Bush did it!!" has about run out. Besides, saying that because someone else broke the rules makes it all right for your guy to break them is a pretty weak defense. It also changes the topic. I wouldn't suggest that was your idea
, but it does tend to throw the thread off track.Back on the topic, it does seem kinda silly for the U.S. to be sending several billion to Brazil when we could surely use it at home. The fact that it's going specificaly to a company in which Mr. Soros invested heavily just a year ago should at least raise questions.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mike, I think the statute of limitations on "But Bush did it!!" has about run out.
Seriously? Is the statute of limitations really that short for Republican despots? Seems I'm still hearing the right-wing crazy-talkers going on and on about how FDR was responsible for the Great Depression and WWII, things I doubt many, if ANY, around this board were even alive for.
And no, I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm trying to put it in context. I find it curious that the people who had no problem with it when done by Republicans and their cronies NOW have a problem with this kind of behavior. Those hundreds of billions - actually THOUSANDS of billions - of dollars that we wasted in Iraq? Could we well afford that?
Should I have a big problem with Obama and Soros? If so, why? And if so, why are you trying to invoke some non-existent "statute of limitations" on the wrongdoings of the previous administration? Sure, they're gone - but show me one single problem that Obama is facing that wasn't left to him by Bush.
Should this kind of stuff bother me? It does, sure - but the real question is, why didn't it bother you for the last eight years?
My guess is your answer will be something along the lines of "to the victor go the spoils". You only seem to something's spoiled when you're not the victor.
Shit like this happens. It's politics.
Or, to put it in terms even a pro-gun, anti-Obama healthcare-hater can understand: What is being done illegally here? What laws have been broken? Isn't George Soros just exercising his rights? Isn't Obama?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Seriously? Is the stature of limitations really that short for Republican despots?
The statute of limitations for giving the current administration a pass because Bush did something similar in the past should have expired in January.
Quote:So, If Bush paying his supporters off with contracts, political positions, etc. was wrong, shouldn't folk ask questions if Obama appears to be doing the same thing?
And no, I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm trying to put it in context.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, sorry for the typo in my earlier reply - I typed "stature" instead of "statute". Guess I'm lucky I didn't refer to it as a "Statue of Limitations"...
So, should it be wrong if one does it and then another does? Probably so. But, politically speaking, those on the right tend to only notice when those on the left do it, and vice-versa. It seems kind of wrong to complain about something now that you weren't complaining about before.
You say "If Bush doing it was wrong..." Thing is, as I remember it, you didn't have anything to say about it being wrong back then. So why do you bring it up now?
And do you really think that a president just gets to walk away from all responsibility the day he leaves office? Nothing he did can ever be brought up again?
That's going to make history classes quite interesting, isn't it?
Did the Nazis get a free pass the day after Hitler killed himself? Remember when they let all the Watergate conspirators out of prison the day Nixon resigned?
So, back to the question at hand. If Bush doing it was wrong, shouldn't we be questioning Obama doing it? Honestly, we probably should. But if we're playing by the same rules as before (and apparently I can't know that, because on January 21st I ceased to be able to even ask what Bush had done for the previous eight years), shouldn't Obama's supporters really just accuse you of being a terrorist-loving surrender monkey who hates America's freedoms and wants to see us fail?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So, back to the question at hand.
Not really. The question at hand is if Obama is sending money Soros' way.
Sorry, Mike, but your response to any suggestion that Pres. Obama might be less than absolutely stellar is to first invoke some variation of the "But Bush Did..." screed and then to insult whoever has the temeritry to author the criticism.
If you got any arguments on the merits of the actual issues, by all means bring them up. If it's gonna be another round of "But Bush Did...", then please just figure out some brief standard abbreviation and we'll all take the "But Bush Did..." and gratutious insults as read. maybe "BBD
"."Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME