PDA

View Full Version : Obama Another Obama screwed up on oil example


HonestChieffan
01-22-2012, 09:16 AM
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence-181200200.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Didn't he give them 2 billion to develop off shore oil when he stopped Americn off shore development?

HonestChieffan
01-22-2012, 06:57 PM
Crickets

suzzer99
01-23-2012, 12:38 AM
Maybe if you didn't make the same drudge copy-and-paste post 432 times a day you might get a some kind of thoughtful reply. You really expect people to reply to you other than the usual cadre of mindless supporters offering token support? You are a ****ing broken record. No one gives a shit about the stupid endless tripe you post, not even them. You are a big reason this forum is a gigantic pathetic joke to the rest of CP. Which I can only assume is your goal, since even you aren't that stupid as to not realize you're just helping gunk up the forum to the point of making it completely useless.

orange
01-23-2012, 02:17 AM
Didn't he give them 2 billion to develop off shore oil when he stopped Americn off shore development?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

Claim: * President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S.

MOSTLY FALSE

Origins: * The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S. Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:

[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company


This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank.

More at the link. False. Nice try. Stop listening to Glenn Beck. The end.

Doug
__________________

from Sean ****ing Hannity Forum (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2378311)

It's getting so you can't even rely on right-wing zealots to back you up, HCF. LMAO

|Zach|
01-23-2012, 02:23 AM
LMAO

RaiderH8r
01-23-2012, 02:53 PM
http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/brazil-stiffs-obama-oil-deal-exposing-presidents-incompetence-181200200.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

Didn't he give them 2 billion to develop off shore oil when he stopped Americn off shore development?

This was done through the US Import-Export bank and as a purely international trade matter, it is quite common. However, this administration has gone to exhaustive lengths to prohibit, cut off, threaten, tax, regulate, and hinder US resource development. Our nation is poised to fundamentally change the geopolitical and economics of energy production with huge successes in developing unconventional natural gas and, coming next, unconventional crude oil production. Production, that Goldman Sachs estimates, could vault the US past Russia and even Saudi Arabia for crude oil production by 2015. Yeah, you read that right. Is there even a whiff of excitement about these prospects from this Administration? Absolutely not. So the fact that this Administration's Import-Export bank made a routine transaction with Brazil is common. What is uncommon is that they did it to ENCOURAGE Brazillian oil production while hindering or, in the case of the offshore, outright stopping US oil production while holding strong to an anti-development energy policy, followed up by an anti-jobs/anti-energy policy with respect to KXL pipeline. So under that morass of anti-energy policy AKA f'ing stupidity then all of the sudden Brazil's choice to send their product to a global competitor makes quite a bit of difference, particularly through the political lens. It will be even funnier when the Canadians tell Obammy to pound sand as they send their pipeline westward and their product on to China as well.

Looking out for American interests is not what this Presidency is about.

suzzer99
01-23-2012, 05:10 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp

Claim: * President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S.

MOSTLY FALSE

Origins: * The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S. Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below:

[President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company


This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.

The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank.

More at the link. False. Nice try. Stop listening to Glenn Beck. The end.

Doug
__________________

from Sean ****ing Hannity Forum (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2378311)

It's getting so you can't even rely on right-wing zealots to back you up, HCF. LMAO

*crickets*

HonestChiefFan, care to comment?

BucEyedPea
01-23-2012, 05:14 PM
We don't even need to have an Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im) to to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. That's not free market-economics.

HonestChieffan
01-23-2012, 06:00 PM
Did we manage to miss the point that Obamas happy dance with Brazil landed China the oil?

orange
01-23-2012, 06:11 PM
I missed the part where you explain which U.S. agency is in charge of buying up foreign oil - or drilling contracts, which is what this article is actually about, which you would have known if you had actually read it.

dirk digler
01-23-2012, 06:13 PM
what a dumbass

orange
01-23-2012, 06:15 PM
James Williams, an energy economist with the U.S. consulting group WTRG Economics, said the Chinese are taking on big risks with ultra-deep-water investments.

“But for them, the benefits are greater, as they become partners with companies that have better technology and expertise,” he said.

HCF - do you think this might have something to do with why the United States American oil companies didn't outbid China?

orange
01-23-2012, 06:30 PM
Crickets

http://www.factzoo.com/sites/all/img/birds/owls/elf-owl-eating-bug.jpg

Yumm!

dirk digler
01-23-2012, 06:37 PM
crickets?

|Zach|
01-23-2012, 06:54 PM
This really is a classic HCF thread.

dirk digler
01-23-2012, 06:57 PM
there is sure a lot of crickets in here.

crickets
crickets
crickets

Mr. Flopnuts
01-23-2012, 06:57 PM
Maybe if you didn't make the same drudge copy-and-paste post 432 times a day you might get a some kind of thoughtful reply. You really expect people to reply to you other than the usual cadre of mindless supporters offering token support? You are a ****ing broken record. No one gives a shit about the stupid endless tripe you post, not even them. You are a big reason this forum is a gigantic pathetic joke to the rest of CP. Which I can only assume is your goal, since even you aren't that stupid as to not realize you're just helping gunk up the forum to the point of making it completely useless.

Ya'll are coming around.

orange
01-23-2012, 07:01 PM
In the interest of getting something useful out of this thread, I found this on some other forum (corrected math):

Old hard bitten Sarge was at a party and this cute little hottie comes up to him a bit before midnite after drinks had flowed for a bit and liking a man in a uniform and starts teasing him and asks him when the last time he had sex was. "Nineteen fifty seven ma'am". She grabs him and hauls him off to a spare room telling him she will loosen him up. They get it on and emerge form the bedroom. She tells him "That was great for someone who hasn't had sex for decades." Old Sarge looked down at his watch and replies "Decades ma'am? By my reckonin' it's now twenty three forty five so that was a little less than four hours ago".

Rev9 & orange

suzzer99
01-24-2012, 09:48 AM
Heh until recently that joke couldn't really be updated - because 1989 doesn't work, and no one really says "twenty oh five". But you could make it some forlorn private instead of hardbitten sarge, and change it to 20:10. It will get funnier as the years go by.