So Mr. President- were you lying then or are you lying now? [Reader Post]

Loading

Remember how Obama mocked Ed Henry for asking whether Obama wanted high gas prices?

Fox News reporter Ed Henry asked Obama

“Your critics will say on Capitol Hill that you want gas prices to go higher, because you have said before that will wean the American people off fossil fuels onto renewable fuels. How do you respond to that?”

And Obama responded:

“Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher?” he said. Turning to the room at large, he added, “Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”

Well, beside all the evidence in the previous post, another Obama stance has been unearthed.

Obama scolded Ed Henry with this:

Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices: I want gas prices lower because they hurt families.

Thing is, there’s this video from 2008. And in the video Obama says that high energy and gas costs are a sacrifice he expects Americans to make.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJ0YfUknfE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

So Mr. President, were you lying then or are you lying now?

Fortunately for Obama, democrats have absolutely no long term memory.

And Joe Wilson was right.

via GWP

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

And Obama responded:

“Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher?” he said. Turning to the room at large, he added, “Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”

You will note that Obama’s “answer” completely evaded answering the question. Instead, it was typical Alynsky tactic Rule#12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

In this case the target was Ed Henry.

Obama scolded Ed Henry with this:

“Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices: I want gas prices lower because they hurt families.”

This answer is also an incomplete cop-out. It gives an “I feel your pain” air of seeming sympathy, but it leaves out explanations of: The Administration’s energy policies, why the Obama presidency has blocked any drilling on Federal controlled areas, after the President has already stated that “drilling won’t solve the [supply] problem”, and instead Obama simply asked Saudi Arabia to up their production and is considering releasing some of the strategic reserves (which contradicts the Obama energy doctrine and recognizing that supply IS part of the problem.)

When isn’t this loser lying?

For the last 10-20 years, we have heard the refrain, “Drilling now won’t help us for 5-10 years. We could have been helped 5-10 years ago if we had started during the first Bush term.

Releasing oil from the strategic reserves (increasing oil supply) will lower prices, or begging Saudi Arabia to increase production (increasing oil supply) will lower prices, but increasing domestic oil supplies won’t.

How about we drill now, increase oil supplies and gain the added benefit of have a secure source of oil that isn’t at the mercy of the Middle Eastern conflict and their terrorists? Imagine how those evil speculators would react to a safer source of oil.

Presidents may not have dictatorial control over oil supplies, but they have policy and regulatory control that can have a giant effect on oil prices. Obama refuses to use his bully pulpit to bring to market safe, conflict free oil (Canada and the US). If he was using his bully pulpit to open up domestic drilling and prices refused to drop, then he would have done all he could.

Since he hasn’t, he hasn’t. He lies.

Here’s s an example of a lie: I want gas prices to be higher; I don’t want gas prices to be higher.

A ‘lie’, in semantic analytical terms, may be consider to be ‘a contradiction not owing to a change of ones mind’.

None of the statement presented a Obama’s are contradictions (cannot both be true at the same time).
1) “Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher?”
2) “Look, here’s the bottom line with respect to gas prices: I want gas prices lower because they hurt families.”
3) “People are free to buy a Suburban…if they want…but we can’t subsidize it…. (paraphrased from video)

Now you can read anything you want into these statements, but none of them is a contradiction, and therefore satisfies the first criterion for a ‘lie’. As far as being vague and ambiguous, what else in new for politicians, on both sides of the fence—even before Saul Alinsky.

I think conservative should pay more attention to the language when making their unfounded assertions.

3) “People are free to buy a Suburban…if they want…but we can’t subsidize it…. (paraphrased from video)

then why not……. people are free to buy contraceptives….if they want….but we can’t subsidize it

The only time Odumbo is not lying is when his lips are closed!

The only time a politician doesn’t lie is when he’s telling you about how some other politician lied.

Oh, come on now. You know that Obama has always been worried about using up fossile fuels. That’s why he purchased a Chrysler 300 Hemi-8 that was listed as 18 mpg but actually got about 8 mpg for in-city driving. If you want to see Obama’s former gas guzzler, it is still listed on EBay for a cool one million smacks.

Obama wants gas prices to “necessarily skyrocket” right along with your utility bills. After all, he’s counting on the fact that he hasn’t had to pay any utility bills for the last three years, and won’t have to for another five years. And of course, his limited use of AF1 and AF2 (you know, because Michelle Antoinette has to travel separately) shows his concern. Once out of office, he will start with the crap about how wasting AF1 gasoline is “unpatriotic”.

As to people buying a Surburban, and we aren’t going to “subsidize” that purchase, isn’t the Surburban made by GM that we really, REALLY subsidized?

How did the left manage to convince so many people that Obama is smart because I damn sure don’t see it.

I remember Obama LAUGHING at a man at one of his rallies.
The man was complaining about high gas prices then (they are higher now).
Obama told him he should not drive an SUV.
Then he asked the man how many children he had (anything over three and you need an SUV just to carry them in safe back seats).
The man said he has 10 children.
So Obama tells him he should be driving a hybrid SUV.
Only one problem.
The very largest capacity for any hybrid SUV is 8 people, not 10.
Only gas-powered SUV’s have a capacity for 10 and more passengers.
Video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKdScVerrBU&feature=related

@Nan G:

I remember that too, Nan!

@Liberal1 (objectivity):

I think the word you are looking for is deceit. A lie can be a contradiction, but there doesn’t have to be contradiction for something to be a lie. There are many ways to lie, many of which the far left relies on consistently.

(A) Lies of omission. That is when you give facts but not all the facts, whereby the facts given seem to support your conclusion, but a unbiased, honest examination all the facts may not support the given mentioned conclusion at all (there may be a contradiction involved or there may not).

(B) Convolutions of words AKA Bending the Truth. There are a variety of ways to twist words, and the legal profession has made it an art form (Congress overwhelmingly has members who were lawyers, therefore we should not be at all surprised that so many of them lie,) “It depends what the meaning of “is” is”

(A/B) Taking things out of context: A combination of methods A & B where, by giving a single statement out of context, without the entire conversation, the audience is made to believe that something was stated which wasn’t. This can include taking statements out of their historical context, where information available in the day supported one conclusion, yet after more information came to light later, a different conclusion would be reached.

(C) Direct lie. Self explanatory.

(D) A stream of lies. The compounding of lies, which very often eventually results in contradictory lies.

(E) Plausible deniability The ability to deny a fact or allegation, or to deny previous knowledge of a fact. It may include a conspiracy of people who know the facts, obscuring the truth via a third party who may or may not know the facts, but only repeats the talking points they are told. These “Sockpuppets” may or may not be knowingly lying when they passing on these lies.

(F) Propaganda AKA “Conventional wisdom”. Similar to (E) this is where (1) “Trusted sources” create conventional wisdom amongst the public by telling the same lies over and over until an unquestioning public accepts it as truth. (2) Ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. Such ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined. Unqualified societal discourse preserves the status quo. (The “Global Warming” scare is an example of conventional wisdom.)

(G) “A little white lie. “ Any form of a “minor lie” where the intent is a conscientious effort to protect the precipitant from harm.

(H) Putting words in other people’s mouth. This is a hypothetical form, where a one person theorizes what another person might say, based on their “understanding” of the second person. The statement may or may not be itself a lie, but maliciously inferring that the second person would or has said it, is a lie.

(I) Fabrication of truth AKA “Con job” This is a campaign to trick or cheat people based on a fabrication of information and/or situation which is nonexistent. The “confidence man” then profits in some manner from the people they have hoodwinked.

Changing the subject, while not a lie, is often a tactic to avoid recognizing the truth or being forced to state a lie.

I may have missed a few methods of lying, but the main purpose of all lies is to deceive.

@Ditto:

So glad you included
(H) Putting words in other people’s mouth. This is a hypothetical form, where a one person theorizes what another person might say, based on their “understanding” of the second person. The statement may or may not be itself a lie, but maliciously inferring that the second person would or has said it, is a lie.

This is Obama’s most often used lie.
He puts words in hypothetical people’s mouths.
When it is done that way it is also called the Straw Man Fallacy.

So, people are going across the border to Mexico to buy gas at $1.50 per gallon. How can the gasoline companies sell gas for $1.50/gallon in Mexico, but we have to pay a national average of $3.85-$4.00/gallon in the US?

Wouldn’t have anything to do with the government TAXING us so much, would it? The next time some asshole politician or Occupy Marxist tells you how bad “Big Oil” is for making 8 cents/gallon profits, ask said idiot how much the state and federal governments rake in on each gallon of gas…..

Babydoc97, Mexico is one of the nations that not only has nationalized their oil company, but they heavily subsidize many items, including gasoline. It’s kind of a round robin trade here… Mexico was our 2nd largest crude supplier in 2009 (9%), although that has been declining. They don’t have our refining capabilities, so they buy back our refined fuels which covers about 47% of their needs. (This according to a May 2011 FAQ sheet.).

The heavy subsidizing of gas creates other problems since it removes the natural consumption behavior from the market place, which effects natural rises/declines in global pricing. We experienced this same type of effect when there was a Congressional mandate (as a condition of the Alaskan pipeline approval) that the Alaskan oil had to be refined and sold only in the US between the 80s and mid 90s. While this helped control the West Coast gas prices at the pump a bit, it also created an artificial glut that had negative economic results… most especially in encouraging developing other fields for future.

Keith Bradsher at the NYTs had an article back in the 2008, at the time of the astronomical oil price increase before the crash, about how 96% of the global increased consumption and demands for oil were directly attributed to those in countries with subsidized gasoline. Subsidies, which keep gasoline low in those nations despite natural market forces, encouraged increased consumption since there’s no repercussions at the wallet to slow it. That, in turn, increases the global demand.

Normally OPEC nations open up the taps on the flow of crude to lower prices when barrel prices increase to high and global consumption goes down – as long as their spare capacity is adequate. In this way, they again encourage more consumption with the lower prices and the cycle starts all over again. Thus the prices moved up and down, responding to market consumption and demand.

But if global demand is high, their spare capacity low, and there’s inadequate new fields being developed, crude becomes a premium commodity and the high price reflects that. That’s the cycle we are in now. Low spare capacity plus potential interruption with a crazy Middle East, increased global demand (aided by subsidizing nations), and not enough new exploration due to governments taxing and regulating to raise the global spare capacity.

The result? Consumption will continue decreasing because of the high prices, and governments who do nothing to combat that with policies discouraging new development. Then you can add the devaluation of the dollar, which is the most used currency for oil trading. (Altho Iran is now refusing US dollars)

While subsidizing looks inviting… especially in times like these… they further screw up the world marketplace pricing. Also, unless you’ve got enough exports revenue to cover the subsidizing you’d have to do to make up for the unabated increased barrel costs, it’s just another endless vortex of national debt/borrowing piling on to an already bad situation.

The solution is out of our control… that being nations should not be messing with the global market by keeping pump prices artificially low by subsidies when that’s controlled by new field productions and the natural flow of consumption.

But look at it this way… you can’t change Mexico’s policy of subsidies. And you’ve got a 47% chance that you’re putting quality US refined product in your tank. So if you’re close to the border, you’d might as well take advantage of a bad situation. Just be careful since Mexico’s one dangerous state these days. But I sure wouldn’t advocate for the US implementing price controls via subsidies. I believe that the Carter years proved price controls were a crazy solution.

And you are absolutely correct that the only ones making a windfall on refined gasoline at the pump are the federal and state governments.

@Babydoc97: A lot of the cost of gasoline is due to the fact that we have to produce over 45 different blends of gas here in the states. Refineries can’t just produce gas… we have to produce specific blends for each state, Mexico only has two blends for the whole Nation this makes it much cheaper to refine the gas. Most states in Mexico only charge an 11% tax… here we go from a high 68 cents per gal. in Connecticut to a low of 27 cents in Alaska… we don’t have a fixed percentage like they do. Also, Mexico subsidies the industry… Pemex is a State owned Company.

I forgot to mention the regulatory burden our government inflicts on us. Mexico does not have to comply with all the regulations we do. Honestly if you knew how much it costs us to bring in one well you would be surprised gas isn’t $8 a gallon.

I bought Premium gas in Mexico just over the weekend.
Our Mini Cooper gets almost 40 mpg so we took it to San Diego for our day with less than 1/4 tank when we left home.
Went into Mexico (what a slow border crossing!) tanked up on Premium for $18 and now back home with probably 10 gallons of gas left.
Hubby is considering trading in our Ford Mustang for the new Mini Cooper Coupe.
No pretense of a backseat (ever sit back there? Yikes!)
But much more room for groceries and supplies.
40 mpg instead of the Mustang’s 24 mpg.

@Poppa_T:
All Babydoc97 is gonna here is: blah, blah, blah……..state owned.
Why don’t people read a little bit. And not only are there different blends for different areas, there is also a winter type blend and a summer type blend.

Aqua, I don’t get that from Babydoc97’s comment at all. I believe his/her assumption was that the difference of the Mexican fuel prices to US was only taxes. Technically, the cost of refining that fuel (including the price of crude to purchase) is little different than ours. Why their prices are low is because Mexico picks up the difference by government subsidizing.

Because they profit selling us oil, the imports they subsidize may make it all come out in the wash… or not. Dunno. But that’s why it’s low.

@Ditto: No Ditto, the word lib1 is looking for is probably somewhere on this list:

adulator, apple polisher, ass-kisser, backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, brownnoser, doormat, doter, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groupie, hanger-on, kiss-up, lackey, minion, sycophant, teacher’s pet, yes-person…

Are his lips moving?

That should answer your question.

Have you noticed Obama NEVER mentions CO2 anymore?
But Obama STILL wants to take our riches and give it to his cronies under whatever false pretense he can pull off……
Obama stands increasingly isolated on the whole ”Green Energy” front….

Germany — once a global leader in the race for reliance on “alternative” forms of energy — has discovered that no amount of environmentalist ideology can alter the fundamental laws of economics.

http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/11276-germany-cuts-subsidies-to-floundering-solar-industry

[T]he German government that will drastically reduce the subsidies that have given solar power the appearance of profitability in that nation.

[I]n January, Spain abandoned its subsidies altogether.

Britain and Italy have made similar moves.

In short, the German government was inclined to fund a “feel good” environmental project when indulging global-warming hysteria did not threaten the overall economy.
Now, when the European Union is in a financial “meltdown,” the German government knows that some measure of budgetary restraint will be necessary in the days to come if the country is going to avoid the fate of nations such as Greece.

With the ideological agenda of the environmental fringe in retreat as public skepticism calls its “science” into question, the fatal flaws of its economic model may bring the conversion to “alternative” energy to a halt.

“Ed, just from a political perspective, do you think the President of the United States, going into reelection, wants gas prices to go up even higher?” he said. Turning to the room at large, he added, “Is there anybody here who thinks that makes a lot of sense?”

“Look, here’s the bottom line (lie I’m telling in an election year) with respect to gas prices: I want gas prices lower because they hurt families.”

(Grammatically speaking, his last comment actually says lower gas prices hurt families. That may have been a Freudian slip or it may have just been a mistake meaning to say, with respect to high gas prices… because high gas prices hurt…).

Sociopaths have no moral conscience and no concerns for truth. The ends always justify the means. In this case, he was forthrightly indicating it makes no sense to advocate for higher gas prices in an election year. The bottom line is what he needs everyone to believe he wants, not his true agenda.

If/when the Marxists eliminate all liberty and have complete control, I suspect we’ll see oil rigs in every back yard. Energy duly reserved for that day when they own it and don’t need to use it as a stranglehold.

@SM Williams:

Agreed. Again none of what Obama said answered the question of whether he fully intends for there to be high energy prices. He recognizes that ‘it doesn’t make sense for a President to want high energy prices in an election year.’ That however, is not a denial, it is only a statement of what logic would dictate.

This ideologue of a President recognizes that high energy prices hurt the lower and middle class, so knowing via his previous statements that he clearly wants high energy prices, it supports your conclusion that he is a sociopath. A condition that goes hand in hand with having a Machiavellian narcissistic thought process.

This is what we have as a President. His disdain for the Constitution and purposeful shrugging off of its limits on of the powers of his office proves that this is the most dangerous type of personality to have in that office. El Uno must be defeated in this next election at all costs, for if he wins he will become an unbridled tyrant.