Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   Sharing 19.5% of Rosneft through shell companies has nada to do with Exxon seeking a waiver to operate in 'Crimea which formerly was separate from glorious Russia', nor other shady deals for oily comrades. Deal in darkness, light a danger, nyet?   ( businessinsider.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

770 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2017 at 6:07 AM (26 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



25 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-04-21 02:52:49 AM  
No, of course not.  Tillerson is a genuine statesman.
 
2017-04-21 06:12:57 AM  
Because of course they are.
 
2017-04-21 06:17:07 AM  
Light a danger.  Big oil.

/we're all going up in flames
 
2017-04-21 06:20:02 AM  
So the Trump administration is basically a crime family.
 
2017-04-21 06:25:14 AM  
House Republicans: "That's it!  We must seriously investigate....Obama's birth certificate!"
 
2017-04-21 06:28:45 AM  
Of course they're going to ask.  They'd be crazy not to ASK.  But will they get a yes when it should clearly be no?  that will be interesting to find out.
 
2017-04-21 07:22:12 AM  
I'm surprised they're even asking.  I figured that doctrine for this administration was to just do whatever seems most profitable, and then let Trump take credit for creating jobs.
 
2017-04-21 07:42:04 AM  
Sochigate?

For all these corporate profit making deals trying to get around the sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.

This reeks of Fascism.
 
2017-04-21 08:38:03 AM  

Ambivalence: Of course they're going to ask.  They'd be crazy not to ASK.  But will they get a yes when it should clearly be no?  that will be interesting to find out.


If we all know the answer, why would they be crazy not to ask?

I get the sentiment of what you're saying, I'm not trolling you. I'm only pointing out that we are all so used to this blatant abuse of power, sickening morals of these large corporations, that even we would be surprised if they didn't at least ask.

That's the new 0, that's the new par, that is our new understanding of the standard.
 
2017-04-21 08:38:53 AM  
If the Crimea does not have enough angry citizens to covertly wreck any oil operations going on in the area on a hourly basis then that region is already lost.
 
2017-04-21 08:59:49 AM  
I would love to know where that 19.5% ownership ended up.  My guess, it start with T and ends with rump.
 
2017-04-21 09:14:07 AM  

Famous Thamas: I would love to know where that 19.5% ownership ended up.  My guess, it start with T and ends with rump.


It's legit: the signature is some Canadian guy named "Vladimir Poutine"...
 
2017-04-21 09:17:26 AM  
Headline is a human centipede of trainwrecks.
 
2017-04-21 09:19:04 AM  

Jake Havechek: So the Trump administration is basically a crime family.


Yep. Trump is not a leader, he's a boss. And a horrible one at that.

I mean, he's a little farked up maybe, but he's funny, I mean funny like he's a clown. He amuses me. He makes me laugh. Trump is here to farkin' amuse me. Dance MonkeyTrump, Dance.
 
2017-04-21 09:21:42 AM  

orclover: If the Crimea does not have enough angry citizens to covertly wreck any oil operations going on in the area on a hourly basis then that region is already lost.


This looks to be offshore so security for the drills would be pretty easy.  Reading TFA it looks like they are mainly looking to do exploration work with no actual production.  Part of their deal with russia is to meet exploration goals and the sanctions keep them from doing that.
 
2017-04-21 09:47:00 AM  

Jake Havechek: So the Trump administration is basically a crime family.


A successful crime family.
 
2017-04-21 11:03:50 AM  
This sort of thing is a perfect illustration of just why the global leftist movement must prioritize and demand resources be used to support the regions they come from, rather than large international entities or authoritarian regimes. Many of the conflicts in the world could be solved by an international solidarity movement to demand regional allocation of capital produced from region-based natural resources.

Would such a movement be easy or swift? Of course not. But it would be worth it.
 
2017-04-21 11:18:22 AM  

hammettman: Jake Havechek: So the Trump administration is basically a crime family.

A successful crime family.


img.fark.net
 
2017-04-21 11:57:30 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Headline is a human centipede of trainwrecks.


Submitter here,

First greenlight, was trying to give the background, mention the deal and pun on oil, corruption and how this all might (hopefully) blow up (so to speak) if exposed to the sunshine of public awareness. Help a submitter out, how would you improve?
 
2017-04-21 12:12:35 PM  

Conqueror of Bread: This sort of thing is a perfect illustration of just why the global leftist movement must prioritize and demand resources be used to support the regions they come from, rather than large international entities or authoritarian regimes. Many of the conflicts in the world could be solved by an international solidarity movement to demand regional allocation of capital produced from region-based natural resources.

Would such a movement be easy or swift? Of course not. But it would be worth it.


The trouble with the "anti-globalist" argument is that it is from Alt Right websites and spokespeople. Also, it is not the same as "anti-globalization" which is an actual left wing critique of international capital. The last decade of Alt Right and National Socialist groups talk about the races returning to their places of origin. "Globalist" is not about the movement of capital, but rather refers to Jewish control of capital, although the far-right spokespeople will not mention that is the content when they leave their websites and go to other, centrist websites, like some subreddits. It is easy to make "anti-globalist" arguments look like "anti-globalization" arguments.

I just don't want to see Fark.com become a place where posts about "regional allocation of capital" are allowed to become the normal topic of conversation, when the real background to them is that Africans need to go back to Africa, Slavs back to Europe, etc.. It would be rather sad. It would also mean that Bannon et al would be in control of a lot of Fark threads.
 
2017-04-21 12:25:35 PM  
refudiate
Smart1
Funny1

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Headline is a human centipede of trainwrecks.

Submitter here,

First greenlight, was trying to give the background, mention the deal and pun on oil, corruption and how this all might (hopefully) blow up (so to speak) if exposed to the sunshine of public awareness. Help a submitter out, how would you improve?



That should help.

/ never submitter here
//   ; p
 
2017-04-21 12:34:53 PM  

mainsail: Famous Thamas: I would love to know where that 19.5% ownership ended up.  My guess, it start with T and ends with rump.

It's legit: the signature is some Canadian guy named "Vladimir Poutine"...


And the receiving party is signed "Lord Dampnut"...must be British or something.
 
2017-04-21 02:39:55 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Conqueror of Bread: This sort of thing is a perfect illustration of just why the global leftist movement must prioritize and demand resources be used to support the regions they come from, rather than large international entities or authoritarian regimes. 

The trouble with the "anti-globalist" argument is that it is from Alt Right websites and spokespeople.Also, it is not the same as "anti-globalization" which is an actual left wing critique of international capital. The last decade of Alt Right and National Socialist groups talk about the races returning to their places of origin. "Globalist" is not about the movement of capital, but rather refers to Jewish control of capital, although the far-right spokespeople will not mention that is the content when they leave their websites and go to other, centrist websites, like some subreddits. It is easy to make "anti-globalist" arguments look like "anti-globalization" arguments.

I just don't want to see Fark.com become a place where posts about "regional allocation of capital" are allowed to become the normal topic of conversation, when the real background to them is that Africans need to go back to Africa, Slavs back to Europe, etc.. It would be rather sad. It would also mean that Bannon et al would be in control of a lot of Fark threads.


Your claim regarding the anti-globalist/globalism argument being fundamentally right wing is not accurate. It is a policy supported by many leftists. I do not mention either buzzwords globalism or globalization. Any attempt to draw a distinct difference between the two concepts is a semantics based spin game, as the latter is simply a word used to describe the growth or reduction of the former. 

You're also making a significant mistake by equating policies supporting the regional allocation of capital with radical nativism. Resources should be used to support the people where the resources come from, regardless of the ethnic background or immigrant status of said individuals.

There is nothing wrong with the argument that a nation's government or social institutions should benefit the members of that community and society. And their certainly is no requirement that such a notion be exclusive to culture, creed, race or ethnicity. Your premise requires the use of a straw-man which is pretty far from reflective of the post you quoted.

I share your notion that radical nativism should have no place on Fark.
 
2017-04-21 05:07:42 PM  
Conqueror of Bread
You're also making a significant mistake by equating policies supporting the regional allocation of capital with radical nativism. Resources should be used to support the people where the resources come from, regardless of the ethnic background or immigrant status of said individuals.

There is nothing wrong with the argument that a nation's government or social institutions should benefit the members of that community and society. And their certainly is no requirement that such a notion be exclusive to culture, creed, race or ethnicity. Your premise requires the use of a straw-man which is pretty far from reflective of the post you quoted.


So, I guess, why? And how? Resources are not distributed evenly. That's not just a truism, it literally serves as the basis of human history. Whether you're aligned along state, nation, ethnic, religious lines, one group of people will always have resources that another covets because the world is not a Minecraft map. If resources should be used to support the local population, does that mean that another population that happened to be born somewhere else should accept their fate and languish without them?

If you're making a moral argument, I would reject it on the basis that it's choosing one group over the other. If you're making a practical argument, I would say all of human history proves that how resources "should" be distributed depends largely on which group of people you belong to.
 
2017-04-21 06:42:21 PM  

gusto1214: Conqueror of Bread
You're also making a significant mistake by equating policies supporting the regional allocation of capital with radical nativism. Resources should be used to support the people where the resources come from, regardless of the ethnic background or immigrant status of said individuals.

So, I guess, why? And how? Resources are not distributed evenly. That's not just a truism, it literally serves as the basis of human history. Whether you're aligned along state, nation, ethnic, religious lines, one group of people will always have resources that another covets because the world is not a Minecraft map. If resources should be used to support the local population, does that mean that another population that happened to be born somewhere else should accept their fate and languish without them?

If you're making a moral argument, I would reject it on the basis that it's choosing one group over the other. If you're making a practical argument, I would say all of human history proves that how resources "should" be distributed depends largely on which group of people you belong to.


This is true, which there are regions of the world with resources other regions do not possess.

 And your question regarding the "why" is answered by a basic morality question: Do human beings have a responsibility to help one another? If you answer "no" then we do not share a core moral value and little I can say will convince you, but if you agree that we have this responsibility, and understand that mutual aid is beneficial for social development and sustainability, we can move on to the how.

In regards to the how, we already operate a global marketplace of trade. If priorities shifted away from enriching elites and instead focused on a resources-based economy, rather than a command based one, then trade and mutual aid might occur unimpeded.

When I suggest resources should be used to benefit the local population, that does not mean they should be hoarded, only that any capital generated by the manufacture or distribution should benefit the whole of the people, rather than elites. 

An example might be the region of Saudi Arabia, where a political elite reaps the greater benefits of regional resources, while the average citizen is excluded from any benefit. This is possible due to the authoritarian international order imposed by imperialist western forces. Were a dramatic shift to occur and the authoritarian regime brought to an end, the people of Saudi Arabia would still require resources from outside of the region in order to maintain basic creature comforts outside of the Persian Gulf. Oil resources could be traded for abundances of other resources which the region could not produce, rather than sold to increase the capital holdings of the Saud royal family.

I am making a moral argument, but the only group I choose above another is the whole of humanity over the elite few. The practical argument also stands, were regions to barter and provide mutual aid for a collective benefit, there would be no need for tribalism and the barriers to cooperation which are constructed (most often by the elite) in order to prevent solidarity and mutual benefit.

History shows us that mutual aid works well, but is often crushed by elites and authoritarian regimes which are threatened by such movements.

Spain is a wonderful example of this. A functioning system of mutual aid was crushed by Franco's fascist right wing for daring to show a good example others might follow.
 
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report