State of the Union Speech Didn't Include This - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Shell · 01-28-2010, 01:07 PM

I read this today and find it baffling and upsetting if true:

Quote:

Subject: Offshore drilling in Brazil funded by Obama administration for China

Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following:
"Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil ! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA ! Now here's the real clincher...the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".
We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.
Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.
If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!

Let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this.
Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this.

President Obama Finances Offshore Drilling in Brazil - WSJ.com

It's no surprise that Obama had many rich financial supporters of questionable motives during his campaign, but is this recent approval of billions of taxpayers money for the benefit of George Soros true?

Derwood · 01-28-2010, 01:11 PM

the two sources you listed are Glen Beck and the WSJ.......all of my red flags are at full alert right now

Stare At The Sun · 01-28-2010, 02:02 PM

Glen beck is insane, but what's wrong with the WSJ?

Derwood · 01-28-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

Glen beck is insane, but what's wrong with the WSJ?

I wouldn't say anything is "wrong" with it, per se, but they definitely skew very conservative, especially in their editorial section

Baraka_Guru · 01-28-2010, 02:19 PM

Grain of salt anyone?

Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims | FactCheck.org

aceventura3 · 01-28-2010, 02:26 PM

Here is another source:

Quote:

U.S. Government to Loan Brazil's Petrobras $10 Billion
The U.S. government is preparing to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil’s coast thought to contain 80 billion barrels of high-quality crude, an amount that could lead to a six-fold increase in Brazil’s current proven reserves and transform that nation into one of the world’s 10 largest oil producers.

RIO DE JANEIRO – The U.S. government is prepared to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil’s coast, a Brazilian official said Wednesday.

President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James Jones, discussed the matter with officials this week during a visit to the South American country, Brazilian Planning Minister Paulo Bernardo da Silva told reporters.

He said the U.S. Export-Import Bank already has signed a letter of intent in that regard with Brazilian state oil company Petrobras.

The loan is equal in value to a similar credit line agreed to with the China Development Bank, also for exploiting Brazil’s “pre-salt” area, so-named because the estimated 80 billion barrels of high-quality crude in that new oil frontier lie far beneath the ocean floor under layers of rock and an unstable salt formation.

Under the agreement with the Chinese state bank, finalized during Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s visit to Beijing in May, Brazil can repay the loan facility with oil as opposed to cash.

According to the government’s projections, the pre-salt reserves – located at a depth of up to seven kilometers (4.3 miles) below the ocean surface in an 800-kilometer by 200-kilometer area – could eventually lead to a nearly six-fold increase in Brazil’s current proven reserves of 14 billion barrels and transform that nation into one of the world’s 10 largest oil producers and a major crude exporter.

Petrobras plans to invest close to $29 billion through 2013 to develop the pre-salt deposits in which the company already holds concession rights.

Petrobras is projecting that some 1.3 million barrels per day can be extracted by 2013 from the pre-salt fields and 1.8 million bpd by 2020.

The Tupi field, which is believed to contain between 5 billion and 8 billion barrels of oil and was the first to be exploited in the pre-salt region, is considered to be the largest hydrocarbon discovery in the Americas in the past 30 years.

Other large oil and natural gas fields were later found nearby, also under a thick bed of salt.

But Brazil has been forced to seek external financing because the fields pose an enormous technical and financial challenge due to the depth and thickness of the salt and the drastic changes in temperature as the oil is brought to the surface.

Acknowledging that Petrobras alone is not capable of developing the massive pre-salt reserves, Brazil announced in May that it will invite international oil companies to bid for concessions in that region beginning next year.

The country had previously halted the sale of concessions after the massive finds were made.

Petrobras, an integrated energy company and the global leader in deepwater oil exploration and production, operates in 27 countries in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe.

Shares of Petrobras, Brazil’s largest corporation, trade on the Sao Paulo, New York, Madrid and Buenos Aires stock exchanges, but the Brazilian government retains control through a golden share. EFE

Latin American Herald Tribune - U.S. Government to Loan Brazil's Petrobras $10 Billion

dc_dux · 01-28-2010, 02:52 PM

Q: Did Obama loan $2 billion to Brazil’s oil company to benefit China and George Soros?

A: The president had nothing to do with the loan, which the Export-Import Bank approved for Brazil to buy U.S.-made equipment and services.

Quote:

The e-mail is false on two counts.

* The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive order" by the president. No presidential order was required. Furthermore, none of President Obama’s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im Bank states: "In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."

* The message falsely claims that "we have absolutely no gain" from the loan. In fact, the loan is being made specifically to finance purchase by Petrobras of U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services. The mission of the Ex-Im Bank is to encourage exports by making such loans.

Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims | FactCheck.org

Charge: America is exporting jobs to Brazil as a result of the loans.

Fact: Only American made goods and services qualify for Ex-Im Bank loans or guarantees. This is the government doing what it's supposed to do - helping to create U.S. jobs, making sure that Americans get a fair shot at selling goods and services, and helping American workers compete on a level playing field against foreign competition.

Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development

Ooops...Baraka beat me to it

Just another example of misrepresentation of the facts emanating from a viral e-mail and further circulated by those with an agenda.

dippin · 01-28-2010, 02:52 PM

There are several things wrong with that initial description, including several things that are not mentioned in the WSJ article itself.

- The Brazilian state is the biggest stock holder in Petrobras, with 50.01% of shares. PETROS, the company's pension fund, is the second largest stock holder. And it's not Soros who owns stocks, but his hedge fund firm. In that sense it is not unlike other hedge funds. On top of that, read this. So this is nothing more than a made up fantasy of the whole "new world order" conspiracy theorists.

- Not all offshore drilling is the same. The biggest thing that the WSJ and the blurb at the start don't mention is that the US already has several offshore drilling platforms. In fact, the US has more offshore platforms in the gulf of Mexico than Brazil has in all its coastline. What Obama has not supported is offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf. The Brazilian state, just like the American state, has restrictions on where companies can and cannot drill.

- It's a loan, not a gift.

aceventura3 · 01-28-2010, 03:05 PM

I do not recall reading any posts defending Beck on this forum. If not for the liberal talking heads I listen to occasionally, I would never know what Beck says. I don't take him serious.

Shell · 01-28-2010, 03:39 PM

...then check these out:

YouTube- Brazil Oil August 19, 2009

YouTube- Glenn Beck - Brazil Gets 2 Billion For Drilling To Brazil

aceventura3 · 01-28-2010, 03:58 PM

I just don't like Beck, I think if he just toned it down a bit he could be o.k. The underlying issues are very real and should be taken seriously, just like I take serious the tar-sands in Canada and the US. Beck aside, I think these issues and the empty rhetoric coming from the WH shows that Obama is in over his head. I check the air-pressure in my vehicles religiously, and unless there are extreme variations in the pressure, MPG's don't deviate much, I doubt we would get the savings Obama suggested.

jlew_90 · 01-28-2010, 03:59 PM

You can't loan money you don't have. Somebody please explain how it's supposed to help
Americans.

rahl · 01-28-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I just don't like Beck, I think if he just toned it down a bit he could be o.k. The underlying issues are very real and should be taken seriously, just like I take serious the tar-sands in Canada and the US. Beck aside, I think these issues and the empty rhetoric coming from the WH shows that Obama is in over his head. I check the air-pressure in my vehicles religiously, and unless there are extreme variations in the pressure, MPG's don't deviate much, I doubt we would get the savings Obama suggested.

If you tire pressure is consistant, obviously your mpg's won't be affected. Most people don't check their tire pressure though.

And what does tire pressure have to do with the state of the union by the way?

Baraka_Guru · 01-28-2010, 04:16 PM

For more clarification:

Quote:

Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development
Background on Ex-Im Bank:

* The Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (Ex-Im Bank) mission is to help create and sustain jobs for American workers. The Bank does this at no cost to the American taxpayer; in the past sixteen years the Bank has netted the American people $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports have supported.
* More than 80% of Bank authorizations during the last fiscal year directly benefited small businesses.

Charges and facts:

Charge: The U.S. government is giving away more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to Brazil’s largest oil and gas company to drill for oil in Brazil.

Fact: The Bank has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Petrobras for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company. Of note, the Bank is self-sustaining and no taxpayer dollars are involved.

Charge: The loans to Petrobras represent a giveaway of U.S. tax dollars.

Fact: The Bank’s activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime. In fact, since 1992 the American people netted more than $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports created.

Charge: America is exporting jobs to Brazil as a result of the loans.

Fact: Only American made goods and services qualify for Ex-Im Bank loans or guarantees. This is the government doing what it's supposed to do - helping to create U.S. jobs, making sure that Americans get a fair shot at selling goods and services, and helping American workers compete on a level playing field against foreign competition.

Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

Read Chairman Hochberg's Letter to the Editor that appeared in the August 21, 2009 editions of the Wall Street Journal.

Updated: August 20, 2009

Ex-Im Bank :: Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal

LETTERS
AUGUST 21, 2009

Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers

Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that.

That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—
workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years.

Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.

We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress.

At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer.

Fred P. Hochberg

Chairman and President

Export-Import Bank of the U.S

Washington

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12

Letters to the Editor: Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers - WSJ.com

hunnychile · 01-28-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

the two sources you listed are Glen Beck and the WSJ.......all of my red flags are at full alert right now

This says it all.

Shell · 01-28-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

And what does tire pressure have to do with the state of the union by the way?

In a word...flat.

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil? (see youtubes above)

Baraka_Guru · 01-28-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shell

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil? (see youtubes above)

Read what I just posted above. American taxpayers didn't loan the money; the Export-Import Bank did. Petrobas may have money, but the loan of $2 billion ensures that a) they will actually go through with the project, and b) they will import American goods and services to do so.

aceventura3 · 01-28-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

If you tire pressure is consistant, obviously your mpg's won't be affected. Most people don't check their tire pressure though.

And what does tire pressure have to do with the state of the union by the way?

I alter the pressures for different reasons and I monitor the effects. Don't ask, I already know I am weird. My dream job would be, if I could write, at Car and Driver/Consumer Reports/ Etc. or some other magazine were I could test cars/tires/etc., all day.

I watched the video clip above. It highlighted Obama talking about air pressure as a reason for not needing to drill for oil off-shore.

dippin · 01-28-2010, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shell

In a word...flat.

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil? (see youtubes above)

Every company in the world, even the biggest one, generally borrows money to expand it's business.

What is the issue here, exactly? The bank is making a profit through the loans, lending money that does not come from tax payers, and in the process helping the US export more.

And even if this decision was made by Obama (which it wasn't), and even if the stocks belonged to Soros personally, and not his hedge fund (which they dont) the notion that it was done to benefit Soros is nonsense. Whatever benefit Petrobras gets from this loan will be long term and diluted among its many, many stockholders (and Soros is very, very far from being a major stockholder in the company).

Charlatan · 01-28-2010, 06:14 PM

I would think the "buy American" types would be over the moon about this deal.

ratbastid · 01-28-2010, 06:44 PM

Here's this thread:

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I don't trust the source."

"In fact, here's the actual facts of the case, which indicate that this 'bad thing' isn't really happening, and what is happening isn't a bad thing."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Um. Dude. Facts."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Facts? Hello?"

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I'm an obsessive fiddler-with of automotive minutia. Obama's vague and negative."

"Ooh! A bad thing...."

Martian · 01-28-2010, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shell

Why would we loan a "measly" 2 billion to the already super-rich oil company, Petrobas in Brazil? (see youtubes above)

In a project of this magnitude it's unheard for a corporation to go forward without outside funding.

It may surprise you to learn that with very few exceptions even the largest companies in the world operate under a debt load. It's the way business works.

Petrobras isn't taking a loan just for kicks. They lack the available liquid assets to make this happen. They were going to have to take outside funds to make this happen. Would you rather they'd gone to the Chinese instead, maybe?

And this is discounting all the above reasons why this isn't anything to get worked up over.

Whole thread is a non-starter.

ASU2003 · 01-28-2010, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlew_90

You can't loan money you don't have. Somebody please explain how it's supposed to help Americans.

I don't know about this, it is the first time I have heard of it. But I would assume it goes something like this.

Brazil finds oil (or thinks there might be oil)
China needs oil
China is willing to pay big money for the oil
Brazil and China do not have the new oil drilling equipment
USA companies do have this equipment
USA owes China a lot of money
Brazil wants to be able to sell this oil
Brazil does not have the money to build new oil platforms (or there are unused ones)
USA loans Brazil a few billion in order to have them hire Americans and use USA equipment.
Brazil sells China the oil
USA gets paid back, and a third party country benefits from us reducing the trade deficit with China.

aceventura3 · 01-29-2010, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Here's this thread:

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I don't trust the source."

"In fact, here's the actual facts of the case, which indicate that this 'bad thing' isn't really happening, and what is happening isn't a bad thing."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Um. Dude. Facts."

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"Facts? Hello?"

"Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!"

"I'm an obsessive fiddler-with of automotive minutia. Obama's vague and negative."

"Ooh! A bad thing...."

Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires. What is not funny is other nations addressing their needs in-part with off-shore drilling, while we pretend it is not a viable option off of our shores. If your assessment above is all you get from this, I can see how funny it is to you.

dippin · 01-29-2010, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires. What is not funny is other nations addressing their needs in-part with off-shore drilling, while we pretend it is not a viable option off of our shores. If your assessment above is all you get from this, I can see how funny it is to you.

The US has over 3000 offshore oil platforms already, so the whole "we pretend it is not a viable option off our shores" thing is false. The US, like Brazil, has restrictions on where people can drill.

rahl · 01-29-2010, 08:35 AM

[QUOTE=aceventura3;2753162]Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires.

Ace, come on man, you know you don't beleive that.

And putting the correct amount of pressure in your tires will improve you mpg.

Rekna · 01-29-2010, 08:36 AM

You should never let facts get in the way of ignorance.

aceventura3 · 01-29-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

The US has over 3000 offshore oil platforms already, so the whole "we pretend it is not a viable option off our shores" thing is false. The US, like Brazil, has restrictions on where people can drill.

I don't get liberal arguments. If I listen to Obama he does not support off-shore drilling around our shores. If I listen to you Obama's position is false. Which is it? I agree that reasonable people would simply look at off-shore drilling on a case by case basis, but liberals often make blanket statements against it. Now you pretend there is no basis for confusion???

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

[quote=rahl;2753173]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires.

Ace, come on man, you know you don't beleive that.

There is no doubt that Obama has not clearly articulated a specific and detailed energy policy. Suggesting that things like windmills, windows, air-pressure, are the answers is a bit dishonest.

Quote:

And putting the correct amount of pressure in your tires will improve you mpg.

When you use the word "correct" in this context, understand there are trade-offs. The pressure to maximize MPG is often different than recommended pressures. Traction, tire life, handling, heat build up, ride comfort, water displacement are some of the other factors.

Hey, I got an idea, if the average American lost 25 pounds that would increase MPG's and perhaps that will help eliminate our need to drill for oil off-shore too.

ratbastid · 01-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't get liberal arguments. If I listen to Obama he does not support off-shore drilling around our shores. If I listen to you Obama's position is false. Which is it?

The third option you haven't considered is: you're not listening at all.

dippin · 01-29-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't get liberal arguments. If I listen to Obama he does not support off-shore drilling around our shores. If I listen to you Obama's position is false. Which is it? I agree that reasonable people would simply look at off-shore drilling on a case by case basis, but liberals often make blanket statements against it. Now you pretend there is no basis for confusion???

Whatever confusion is there is in your own head. The debate over off shore drilling is entirely about offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf, not all oil drilling. Again, there are over 3000 off shore oil platforms in the US already.

Oh, and the bans on drilling on the outer continental shelf were implemented in 82, 90 and 2006, so they are hardly a "liberal" cause.

aceventura3 · 01-29-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

The third option you haven't considered is: you're not listening at all.

I am going to mirror you.

The fourth option you haven't considered is: you're not listening at all.

Does that help the exchange?

---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Whatever confusion is there is in your own head.

Ding, ding , ding, let's give you a prize. When I say I don't understand expressed or implied, I actually mean it.

Quote:

The debate over off shore drilling is entirely about offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf, not all oil drilling. Again, there are over 3000 off shore oil platforms in the US already.

Please, listen to Obama on the video above, is that what he said.

Quote:

Oh, and the bans on drilling on the outer continental shelf were implemented in 82, 90 and 2006, so they are hardly a "liberal" cause.

I am in 2010, many of the conservatives I interact with today favor increased off-shore drilling where it make sense, the opposition is liberal.

dippin · 01-29-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am going to mirror you.

Please, listen to Obama on the video above, is that what he said.

Considering the debate has always been over off shore drilling in the outer continental shelf, you can safely assume that any references made by offshore drilling at this point are referring to the outer continental shelf.

aceventura3 · 01-29-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Considering the debate has always been over off shore drilling in the outer continental shelf, you can safely assume that any references made by offshore drilling at this point are referring to the outer continental shelf.

I wish we could stop being so cryptic here. Given, what I know and given what I have read here, the posts do not make any sense. I am not sure what point you are making, here. Obama is against off-shore drilling and Bush was severely criticized by liberals for wanting to do that, so was McCain. Am I wrong?

Quote:

Facing gas prices near $4 a gallon and a pivotal national election, congressional Democrats allowed a ban on offshore drilling to lapse in September

But times change, and on Tuesday, the Obama administration - with gas prices roughly half what they were and many Democrats' having been swept into office - blocked offshore drilling plans put in place at the last minute by the Bush administration, including plans to open the national outer continental shelf for drilling.

Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar also announced last week that his agency would block drilling on public lands in Utah, criticizing the Bush administration for releasing its offshore drilling plan just days before leaving office.

Obama blocks offshore drilling - Washington Times

dippin · 01-29-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I wish we could stop being so cryptic here. Given, what I know and given what I have read here, the posts do not make any sense. I am not sure what point you are making, here. Obama is against off-shore drilling and Bush was severely criticized by liberals for wanting to do that, so was McCain. Am I wrong?

Obama blocks offshore drilling - Washington Times

Quote:

Considering the debate has always been over off shore drilling in the outer continental shelf, you can safely assume that any references made by offshore drilling at this point are referring to the outer continental shelf.

Again, there are over 3000 oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

ratbastid · 01-29-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Does that help the exchange?

I don't know how you can call it an exchange. You're committed to a certain black and white perspective, and you're playing dumb about anything that adds nuance to the discussion. There's no exchange happening here.

aceventura3 · 01-29-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Again, there are over 3000 oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Do you support using oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?

---------- Post added at 01:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

You're committed to a certain black and white perspective, and you're playing dumb about anything that adds nuance to the discussion.

How long have you had the ability to determine what I am committed to? How would you know? Are you suggesting my posts are dishonest? Are you suggesting my questions are not legitimate? When I say that I don't understand something, are you suggesting that I really do? When I point out what appears to be conflicting information are you suggesting that I just make it up for some reason? Or, is it that I am just not listening?

dippin · 01-29-2010, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Do you support using oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?

Considering neither he nor anyone in his administration has ever mentioned anything about shutting them down, I'd say they are not going to do anything to stop them, so the issue is settled.

matthew330 · 01-29-2010, 07:48 PM

It's getting as painful to read this forum as it is to participate in it. There's enough attitude from the participants that have a point that the opposition has to painfully ignore to not have 20 tfp rules and yellow cards thrown in face for what would be deserving response in the real world..... but to have to put up with the handful of resident ankle-biters that consistently have nothing to add but commentary whose sole purpose is to belittle other people is just too much. Not even fun to read. It's just freakin obnoxious.

For those who might be tempted to insinuate I'm playing a victim, I'm not really invested enough to consider myself one - so please don't waste your time. Sometimes I just can't help myself from adding my own commentary.

dippin · 01-29-2010, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

It's getting as painful to read this forum as it is to participate in it. There's enough attitude from the participants that have a point that the opposition has to painfully ignore to not have 20 tfp rules and yellow cards thrown in face for what would be deserving response in the real world..... but to have to put up with the handful of resident ankle-biters that consistently have nothing to add but commentary whose sole purpose is to belittle other people is just too much. Not even fun to read. It's just freakin obnoxious.

For those who might be tempted to insinuate I'm playing a victim, I'm not really invested enough to consider myself one - so please don't waste your time. Sometimes I just can't help myself from adding my own commentary.

So in your opinion we should be seriously discussing some facts that have been proven false again and again? Showing that the "facts" presented in this thread are false is just "commentary" that adds nothing?

aceventura3 · 01-30-2010, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Considering neither he nor anyone in his administration has ever mentioned anything about shutting them down, I'd say they are not going to do anything to stop them, so the issue is settled.

Do you support expanding the use of oil platforms off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to drill for oil? Does Obama?

01-28-2010, 01:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	the two sources you listed are Glen Beck and the WSJ.......all of my red flags are at full alert right now __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

01-28-2010, 02:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Grain of salt anyone? Bogus Brazilian Oil Claims \| FactCheck.org __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

01-28-2010, 02:52 PM	#8 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	There are several things wrong with that initial description, including several things that are not mentioned in the WSJ article itself. - The Brazilian state is the biggest stock holder in Petrobras, with 50.01% of shares. PETROS, the company's pension fund, is the second largest stock holder. And it's not Soros who owns stocks, but his hedge fund firm. In that sense it is not unlike other hedge funds. On top of that, read this. So this is nothing more than a made up fantasy of the whole "new world order" conspiracy theorists. - Not all offshore drilling is the same. The biggest thing that the WSJ and the blurb at the start don't mention is that the US already has several offshore drilling platforms. In fact, the US has more offshore platforms in the gulf of Mexico than Brazil has in all its coastline. What Obama has not supported is offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf. The Brazilian state, just like the American state, has restrictions on where companies can and cannot drill. - It's a loan, not a gift. Last edited by dippin; 01-28-2010 at 02:54 PM..

01-28-2010, 03:05 PM	#9 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I do not recall reading any posts defending Beck on this forum. If not for the liberal talking heads I listen to occasionally, I would never know what Beck says. I don't take him serious. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-28-2010, 03:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I just don't like Beck, I think if he just toned it down a bit he could be o.k. The underlying issues are very real and should be taken seriously, just like I take serious the tar-sands in Canada and the US. Beck aside, I think these issues and the empty rhetoric coming from the WH shows that Obama is in over his head. I check the air-pressure in my vehicles religiously, and unless there are extreme variations in the pressure, MPG's don't deviate much, I doubt we would get the savings Obama suggested. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

01-28-2010, 02:02 PM	#3 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	Glen beck is insane, but what's wrong with the WSJ?

01-28-2010, 03:59 PM	#12 (permalink)
jlew_90 Upright Location: Midwest	You can't loan money you don't have. Somebody please explain how it's supposed to help Americans.

01-28-2010, 06:14 PM	#20 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I would think the "buy American" types would be over the moon about this deal. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-28-2010, 06:44 PM	#21 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Here's this thread: "Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!" "I don't trust the source." "In fact, here's the actual facts of the case, which indicate that this 'bad thing' isn't really happening, and what is happening isn't a bad thing." "Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!" "Um. Dude. Facts." "Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!" "Facts? Hello?" "Oooh! A bad thing is happening! I blame Obama!" "I'm an obsessive fiddler-with of automotive minutia. Obama's vague and negative." "Ooh! A bad thing...."

01-29-2010, 08:35 AM	#26 (permalink)
rahl Junkie Location: Ohio	[QUOTE=aceventura3;2753162]Pretty funny. What is not funny is the fact that we have a President who thinks energy policy is governed by people putting the correct air pressure in their tires. Ace, come on man, you know you don't beleive that. And putting the correct amount of pressure in your tires will improve you mpg. __________________ "Your life is Yours alone...Rise up and live it"

01-29-2010, 08:36 AM	#27 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	You should never let facts get in the way of ignorance.

01-29-2010, 07:48 PM	#38 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	It's getting as painful to read this forum as it is to participate in it. There's enough attitude from the participants that have a point that the opposition has to painfully ignore to not have 20 tfp rules and yellow cards thrown in face for what would be deserving response in the real world..... but to have to put up with the handful of resident ankle-biters that consistently have nothing to add but commentary whose sole purpose is to belittle other people is just too much. Not even fun to read. It's just freakin obnoxious. For those who might be tempted to insinuate I'm playing a victim, I'm not really invested enough to consider myself one - so please don't waste your time. Sometimes I just can't help myself from adding my own commentary.