Obama lends billions to Brazilian Oil Company

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:22 AM

FREMDFIRMA

hey hey now, dripping sarcasm is forgiveable, but splattering the walls is overkill, ewww.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 5:53 AM

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 6:44 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:47 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 9:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

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:
And no, I'm not trying to change the subject. I'm trying to put it in context.

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?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 11:46 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 12:35 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:41 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 2:59 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:06 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 3:20 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Jeez, Mike. Three duck and cover posts in a row? C'mon, man.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 7:28 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 8:26 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

"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 | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 5, 2009 9:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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:
Try to get them to see the inconsistancy in just one little corner of their worldview

Ahhh.... er..... ummm....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 4:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:33 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 5:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 6:20 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 7:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 6, 2009 8:04 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 7, 2009 12:48 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?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 7, 2009 4:15 PM

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...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 7, 2009 4:28 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 7, 2009 5:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

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"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:26 AM

JAYNEZTOWN

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 2:51 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:16 AM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 3:40 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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:
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

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

Quote:
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.

Yes, Soros donated money to moveon in 2004.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:06 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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:
Just because I'm bringing up something up about Obama that is a little questionable does not automatically make ME hypocritical

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.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:24 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 4:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 5:09 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 7:33 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 8:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Please cite where I've ever complained that anyone's trying to make me shut up about ANYTHING, or shut the fuck up.

Well, that was easy.

From a bit earlier in this thread.

"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."

Oh, and btw, about "Go back and re-read what I wrote. Where did I specifically accuse YOU? I said YOUR KIND."
Nothing but sophistry.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:04 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

Perhaps the US is struggling to maintain a presence in Brazil

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/09/200997183748340697.
html

France and Brazil sign nuclear deal
Lula, left, is considering adding French fighter
jets to a revamped military [EPA]

France's partially state-owned electric and gas utility has signed a nuclear co-operation with two Brazilian companies during a state visit to Brazil by Nicolas Sarkozy, France's president.

GDF Suez will provide assistance to Eletronuclear and Eletrobras to develop Brazil's nuclear power industry under the deal signed on Monday.

The agreement came on the same day Sarkozy was hosted by Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at an Independence Day military parade attended by thousands of people in Brasilia, the capital.

Sarkozy's visit is a sign of the developing military and technology ties between France and Brazil.

Dassault, a French aerospace company, is one of three aircraft makers who are under consideration by Lula for a $2bn contract to build 36 fighter aircraft for the Brzailian air force.

'French choice'

The Rafale fighter jet is considered to be Lula's preferred choice over the US F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Gripen NG, built by Saab, a Swedish company.

The Brazilian president said before Sarkozy's visit that Dassault’s offer had an "exceptional comparative advantage" because Paris has agreed to share all military technology with Brazil as part of the deal.

Talks with France over the Rafale aircraft are at "a very advanced stage and I think that we will reach a good understanding with France," Lula said in a radio interview.

Brazil last December agreed to buy five submarines and 50 military transport helicopters from France, in a deal worth about $10bn.

Sarkozy and Lula were set to sign the final confirmation of those two major purchases on Monday.

Brazil is modernising its military in an attempt to protect its natural resources in the Amazon and new offshore oil fields.

Lula has said that Brazil's overhaul of the military is part of a strategy aimed at establishing the country as one of the world’s 10 major powers.

The French seem to be more able to make the deals

" 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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA

*plays square dance music*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Please cite where I've ever complained that anyone's trying to make me shut up about ANYTHING, or shut the fuck up.

Well, that was easy.

From a bit earlier in this thread.

"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."

You took that as a complaint? Hell, I'm just trying to figure out "Geezer's Rules for Debate". You keep wanting to change them every day. One day you want exact words to go by, the next it's all "sophistry", and you're willing to infer any insult you please, no matter WHAT the exact words were.

Quote:

Oh, and btw, about "Go back and re-read what I wrote. Where did I specifically accuse YOU? I said YOUR KIND."
Nothing but sophistry.

Like the "sophistry" involved in you saying I claimed that YOU were comparing Obama to Hitler? You're reaching, and you're desperate, old man. You might want to look into some new reading glasses, because you're taking issue with things I never said.

By the way, can you please show me EXACTLY where I've ever started an argument by saying "But Bush did...", as you continuously claim? Those exact words, please. Find 'em, or shut the fuck up. Or was it just sophistry when you made that claim?

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 11:48 AM

I more had this in mind

but I couldn't find a good looney tune, stooges or marx brothers routine to it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 12:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You took that as a complaint? Hell, I'm just trying to figure out "Geezer's Rules for Debate". You keep wanting to change them every day.

Yeah. I think Sophistry covers your posts quite well.

You got anything meaningful on the discussion of Obama lending money to Brazil, I'll reply. Otherwise, not so much.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 1:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
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?

I have a really good nose for when something doesn't make sense, especially when a given explanation doesn't match up to the situation. That's why the Iraq invasion didn't make any sense whatsoever to me. The whole WMD scenario was just so much bull twaddle.

So yeah- I jump all the time. But you have to approach data with a very quiet mind. You can't impose your assumptions and prejudices on it, otherwise you'll miss the real story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 8, 2009 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You took that as a complaint? Hell, I'm just trying to figure out "Geezer's Rules for Debate". You keep wanting to change them every day.

Yeah. I think Sophistry covers your posts quite well.

You got anything meaningful on the discussion of Obama lending money to Brazil, I'll reply. Otherwise, not so much.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Much like I think Stupidity covers YOUR posts pretty accurately.

If you've got anything meaningful to add to the discussion, please do. So far, you haven't.

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 7:35 AM

Oh, and Ripper? You need to clarify your claims. You've said a couple of different times that Obama is "giving" Soros money, then you've posted links and mentioned "lending" money to Brazil. Is he giving the money away, or is he lending it? Because if you don't know the difference, can I have a loan?

Now, as to what I said about Haliburton, Cheney, et al, and when, let's just say that no matter what I said, if it was anything OTHER than "That's politics", I was called "un-American" for my troubles. Do you want to be treated the same way your "patriotic" brethren treated us on the left who were against the war in Iraq and the multi-billion dollar giveaways to Bush cronies?

And between being called un-American, terrorist-loving, America-hating, and "French", I was also repeatedly assured that on crimes were committed, so I should just shut the fuck up about Haliburton.

So I have to ask: Do you have any evidence of a crime here, or are you just asking for the left to treat the right far better than the right has ever treated us?

Mike

"It was already blue when we got here!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 9, 2009 9:02 AM