Obama lends billions to Brazilian Oil Company - Soros to benefit
POSTED BY: RIPWash
UPDATED: Sunday, July 20, 2025 18:43
VIEWED: 6145
PAGE 2 of 7
I happen to agree with Geezer 100% on this, Obama supporter that I am. It infuriates me, too, and I'm getting less and less happy with Obama almost daily.
I also agree that two wrongs don't make a right, and that if we decried the actions of Bush, we should be equally decrying the same sort of actions by Obama. I'll give the deficit a BIT of a pass because it was inherited, but the rest of this bullshit, Gitmo, detention, this and other things reeeely pisses me off.
Equally so does Obama's seeming insistence to compromise with the right on healthcare, etc., admittedly. But Bush having done bad things in NO way excuses Obama from bad things in my eyes.
Grrrr...argh!
________________________
Together we are greater than the sum of our parts
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: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.
So you're saying that it's ALWAYS wrong for a politician to send money another's way? Does it make a difference if that someone who's benefiting is a private investor, a corporate CEO, a military contractor, or a philanthropist? Is it always wrong, no matter who the politician is and who the beneficiary?
Because the thing is, Geeze, you DON'T think it's always wrong. In fact, going by most of your posts, one would have to come to the conclusion that you in fact think it's always RIGHT for politicians to send money their supporters' way - as long as those politicians and supporters are conservatives, of course. I think you generally call it "capitalism" and say it "creates jobs" that we peons should call ourselves lucky to have.
Or maybe you'd care to enlighten us all and show us where you've been against this in the past?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And back to the question at hand, to quote from the original post...
Quote:
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 ).
I'm confused. Ripper says Obama "lends" billions to Brazil, then Geezer says Obama's "sending money Soros's way."
Is there an accusation in there? Is one of you contending that Obama's using Brazil for money laundering, or that he tipped off Soros that he was going to use his unilateral Executive power to singlehandedly loan money to Brazil's oil industry, so Soros should hurry up and buy in? Or is it a possibility that Soros is actually smart enough to read which way the wind's blowing and put him money into a growing concern before it takes off?
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.
Actually, I think I can pretty safely say you're full of shit on that one, Geezer. For one thing, I've disagreed with Obama plenty, on lots of stuff. As for the insult part, what do you call what you just did to me? ;) Were you lying, or were you just trying to be insulting?
As for comparing Obama to Bush... well, Presidents tend to be compared to their predecessors. Would you rather I compare him to FDR, or has the "statute of limitations" run out on that one? Let's see, Obama has thus far NOT dug us out of the depression (but FDR took 4 terms to do that, and I doubt you'll give Big O that long), but on the positive side, he also hasn't gotten us into a world war or had half our fleet sunk, either. Hmmm... Obama hasn't cut unemployment by 10 points, but then again, unemployment is below 10%, so it would be impossible for him to do so. Looks like it's kind of a toss-up.
At the risk of being as over-the-top hyperbolic as you have been, I think it's safe to say that your response to any support of Obama is to invoke some variation of the "He's a Socialist and he's going to destroy America!" screed and then insult whoever has the temerity to author the support of your President.
Do I think Obama's the best President in U.S. history? Hardly. I think he's a damn sight better than his predecessor, and I think I'd like to give him more than 8 months in the job to decide whether or not he's going to do worse than the last guy did in eight years. I guess for some, that's asking too much.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jeez, Mike. Three duck and cover posts in a row? C'mon, man.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Niki
Grrrr...argh!
Agreed. I think that he will soon earn his share of the deficit, he only inherited 8 trillion, and that's looking to double real soon. Of course, he also inherited a non-functional budget, but he could slash and save:
I haven't done the exact figures, but somewhere around here:
End 3 wars, slash defense budget and supplemental, bonus trillion or so
End welfare for millionaires, save another 700 billion.
End corporate welfare, maybe another 500 billion, when you count that which goes through state aid.
End bailouts, 1.5 trillion
that's not even touching the ultra obvious dissolve the FED (Okay, that one might get him shot.) But there are ways to dodge that bullet.
Some other obvious ones:
Match China and Japan on Tarrifs.
Nationalize natural resources (you take something out of america, you pay for it.) But there's 500 billion a year in revenue, waiting to be collected.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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?"
----------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
___________________________________________________
I'm with Kwicko on the History Repeating statement.
Bush had said several times that history would reveal his legacy. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I gather that to mean that he believes that, over time, his accomplishments and services to this country will go down in the annals of history as a positive. Something that scholars, politicians, great thinkers and common folk alike would agree Bush and his administration for Nobel Prize consideration.
Imagine Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stepping to the podium several years from now and thanking all who voted for them in receiving the Nobel Prize for advancing Human Rights, promoting economic growth worldwide and progressing basic American freedoms to the point that we are all better off today than ever in our recent history.
Obama should be ashamed for duping the American public. How dare he strike a deal with a foreign country that appears to be benefitting one man. Bush and Cheney would never stoop so low as to manipulate the American public opinion. They would not stand for one man dipping his hand into the American till. Furthermore, they would never use their political office for personal gain.
In short, Obama and the democratically controlled Congress, have single-handedly drove us into ruin and despair. How dare he send billions over there when it is needed so much right here. Economic stimulus my ass. Bring back Bush, I say, his policies and grand leadership is what advanced the greatness of this country. When he was in office all the world leaders respected and feared us. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeha! Bring back the Cowboy President. Then we'll see who has the last laugh.
The preceding has been a paid political announcement by the Bush for Pres for Life Campaign. Remember, history will vindicate his greatness.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, that whole statue idea is plain right-wing apologism. If there really were some sort of statute, we'd never hear about Monica again. And of course, if someone can scrape the blame off their shoe the second they leave office, then credit disappears too. So we should never ever EVER hear about Reagan and the fall of the USSR either. But obviously Monica is still a topic, as is Chappaquiddick, Reagan and the fall of the USSR. Hell, your response to Bush violating habeas corpus was
'But Lincoln...'
LINCOLN????
A little more internal consistency would be certainly welcome... but absolutely not expected.
Quote:Ahhh.... er..... ummm....
Try to get them to see the inconsistancy in just one little corner of their worldview
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Geezer, not trying to be harsh here ... you're head and shoulders above many of your RW compatriots. So how do you wind up behind such flimsy arguments?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I gotta get this in here just 'cause it's funny...
Quote:
Donald Rumsfeld briefed the President this morning. He told Bush that 3 Brazilian solders were killed in Iraq.
To everyone's amazement, all the color drained from Bush's face, then he collapsed into his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.
Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many is a Brazillion"?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME