Home | About | Donate

'Payout Time': Exxon Seeks Waiver from U.S. Sanctions to Drill in Russia


The difference being what occurred in 2014 was a request for an extension to finish a project that was in process at the time the sanctions were imposed.

And more importantly .there were no questions of collusion with Russia when Obama was elected.


In 2014 Exxon requested an extension to finish work that was in process at the time the sanctions were imposed. Big difference. And Obama wasn't elected with assistance from the Kremlin. Huge diff.


there's a difference?:wink:


Russia's one of the few players holding things together, regardless of how one feels about Putin's government and his party. Russia's current foreign policy goal is to achieve a multipolar power balance and for Russia to have equal access to European markets without the US interfering in that trade.

That doesn't seem like such an objectionable ambition to me.


Of course it's a distraction for exactly the reasons you stated.


I think the U.S. works for Exxon....


He is worth less now then just after he inherited his fathers fortune. That's not much of an accomplishment. Most spoiled little rich boys do the same.


The DNC doesn't see any need for "improvement".


Don't forget, insider trading is legal for the house and Senate. Everything is a ruse.


Maybe lay off the Rachel Maddow a little.....Russia is the democrat's Benghazi.


I know it makes me, way radical; but somehow, I believe doing business with Russia is preferable to doing WWIII with Russia.


Well put!




Are you directing that at me? In this forum people speak to each other like adults. So if you are aiming your rhetoric, do so as if you were speaking to an equal, not like a racist or sexist. If you do that, i will respond.


I would like to disagree with you on what you said to seatower about Putin being an assassin. I will yield to the idea i have no evidence on hand, but i saw the evidence on Intel Exchange on the deep web. It looked/seemed rather convincing. I would lean towards Seatower l, but you want evidence. Speaking of evidence, how much would you need? Look at evidence of just conflict of interest alone with Trump, yet nothing has really been done. If you understand ballistics at all, it would be obvious that Kennedy was shot by more than one gunman, which the original coroner's analysis said, but that didn't change anything, nor was it enough evidence. If you had evidence, what would you do with it? If you could prove 9/11 was an inside job, what would you do with that evidence, go to the government? To whom? It's not that i disagree with having evidence, but what would you do with it? I have evidence of government involvement in crazy crap, but that doesn't mean I'm going to run and tell anyone. So, if there was hard evidence that you authorize as real evidence to you, who would you tell? The mass media, the Prez, or maybe homeland security? What would you think they would do if you did? So, evidence is wonderful, but it means nothing if you have no plans for it to be released to the public. I truly don't mean to ramble or poke at you, but this is a question I've always had when people bring up needing hard evidence on sensitive issues. We see the system being rather on the corrupt side of things, so who do you tell?


He's right about the OPEC. That's in Economic classes that deal with international trade. I took the class and learned how things actually worked than what a news channel told me.


If there is no evidence for such a serious allegation against someone (e.g. murder) then it is merely slander or a smear and should not be repeated by responsible journalists or people who want to be considered responsible journalists When did people on the left stop caring about evidence to support one's contentions and accusations? Isn't that one of the bedrocks of our bill of rights and of Enlightenment principles of fair and logical discourse? Do you not think journalism should use evidence to underpin what they publish? If not, it is merely yellow journalism or propaganda. You're okay with that?

Yes, Trump has plenty of conflicts of interest which don't necessarily have anything to do with Russia, but I don't hear many on the left getting as worked up about them. They might get mentioned but then the left moves on and instead it's the demonization of Russia and Putin all the time. That's what they want to put their focus on and that is a problem for a lot of reasons.


Well said. I agree to your point about journalists. They should be held to higher standards as you pointed out. As for ourselves, your point still remains valid. But, by looking in the past like the Bay of Pigs, the Spanish American War, and the Banana Republic incident, journalists were used to persuade the masses into false flag operations. Even Shay's Rebellion was yellow propaganda created by our government (as well as the first time it was used against a citizen.). So, for me, I spent an inordinate amount of time in school and on my own learning to read and tgink critically. If a journalist doesn't pick something up, i know from past experience it might be something tgey kniw could hurt their reputation. If you get a chance, check out O'Reilly's attack on journalists in the past. People had evidence, but they were discredited through other means. If you want to get way out in left field, the Sphinx is now being reexamined because all Egytoligists have done is use books and scrolls to tell everyone what is and what isn't. Yet an MIT professior had told them almost two decades ago they were wrong just by basic geology that a 101 student could have told them. So, my point is i agree to an extent. As for slander, that is not something that Seatower has seemed to express, nor have i seen him slander in the past. To suggest he is slandering, i think that is a leap, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks for a real reply, by the way. Like i said, it was well stated and to the point as it should be.



To your list I would add: Joe Biden's son's interest in Burisma Holdings.



Well done!