obAMATEUR Continues His LIE – He Is Responsible For Increased Drilling

obAMATEUR stepped up his rhetoric on oil production and gas prices. Rightly or wrongly, the American people are blaming Obama for the cost of their latest fill-up. So obAMATEUR’s solution? Mislead the American people and pepper them with over-the-top rhetoric. For example, yesterday he tried to emphasize his (non-existent) drilling record: “So do not tell me that we’re not drilling. We’re drilling all over this country. There are a few spots we’re not drilling. We’re not drilling in the national mall. We’re not drilling at your house.”

Clever. But unfortunately those are not the FACTS. Just last weekend, Obama addressed the nation and stated that “[u]nder my Administration, oil production in America is at an eight-year high. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs, and opened up millions of acres for drilling.”

Once again, let’s dispel these myths. (Myths, hell. They’re LIES.)

Oil production is at an eight-year high?

The US Energy Information Administration has finally put this one to bed. After looking at data from 2003 to 2011, production on federal lands under obAMATEUR was lower than all but one year of the Bush administration, and it hit rock-bottom in 2011. In fact, production alone dropped by 6% from 2010-2011 to its lowest level in nine years.

We’ve quadrupled the number of oil rigs?

I guess it is easy to claim that you’ve increased something, when you literally put a halt to it early in your administration. In 2010, after the BP oil spill, take a look at this gimmick pulled by the obAMATEUR administration … from the Institute of Energy Research, “The obAMATEUR administration would like you to think that major strides have been taken to increase drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. But, that is hardly the case. The administration has been touting the four drilling permits it has issued, but in reality, but these are not new permits—they have only reissued four permits that it suspended last year.” Also remember that the obAMATEUR administration held just one offshore lease sale in all of fiscal year 2011. President Bush’s energy plan called for five.

We’ve opened up millions of acres for drilling …

Under “the one we have been waiting for”, the federal government has leased less than half of the offshore acres that President Clinton did. In 2010 the federal government issued the lowest number of onshore leases since 1984. Our Dear Ruler is also blocking access to 19 billion barrels of oil in the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico, another 10 billion barrels estimated in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast, and another 10 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

You are being LIED to and you drones just suck it up like ambrosia.

While Bush was President, the Democrats (and their willing propagandists in the media) never failed to bludgeon him with the full blame for rising gas prices.  Pelosi (and her mindless regurgitating drones) maintained that it was the “Two Oil Men in the White House”.  Now that they are in charge and their “man” is in the White House the LIES and the EXCUSES fly – “the President has no direct control of the oil/gasoline market”.  But as I said, Bush was totally responsible, while their “leader”, who has no tangible and realistic energy policy, is completely blameless.  The libs favorite talking point is that it will be a decade before drilling can have an impact and in the same breath, their “green and renewable” energy is a viable solution all of which is more than a decade away from fruition.

Again, you are being LIED to drones, why to you regurgitate the dumbed down talking points?  In your case, ignorance is definitely BLISS.

Hat tip: Neal Boortz

76 thoughts on “obAMATEUR Continues His LIE – He Is Responsible For Increased Drilling

  1. RetiredSpook March 17, 2012 / 10:47 am

    And, on top of his less-than-honest record WRT energy, Obama continues to push to take away tax deductions from the oil industry.

    I guess, if we were close (within a couple years) of transitioning to other forms of energy, I’d be willing to cut Obama some slack on this issue. But such is not the case. Petroleum will continue, by Obama’s own admission, to be the fuel of the engine of capitalism for decades. It touches nearly every aspect of our lives, from the plastic case of our cell phones to the capsules that contain our medication. The strategy of attempting to accelerate our move away from it by making it too expensive to utilize will just drive our economy into a death spiral. Unfortunately, I don’t think that that’s unintentional.

    • tiredoflibbs March 17, 2012 / 1:12 pm

      LEGITIMATE TAX DEDUCTIONS that ALL manufacturers are legally allowed to take.

      BUT, the marxists uses these legitimate deductions and tries to equate them with “subsidies” only for oil industry, which is ANOTHER LIE by this administration.

      Again, demonizing an “enemy” as part of the Saul Alinsky strategy of which this AMATEUR is a loyal apprentice.

  2. bloodypenquinstump March 17, 2012 / 11:10 am
    • RetiredSpook March 17, 2012 / 11:21 am

      Ooooooh, are you new here. Everyone has their pet name for The One We Have All Been Waiting For: BHOzo (my favorite), O’bummer, O-Zero, ObiOne, O’Bumbler. Come on everyone; what’s your personal favorite nickname for the dip-stick-in-chief?

      • Jonathan Swift March 17, 2012 / 11:30 am

        I hear dehumanizing political opponents was used in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, you leftist. (That one is for you, Amazona).

      • Cluster March 17, 2012 / 11:39 am

        Actually, I like dip-stick-in-chief.

      • greg-o March 17, 2012 / 12:07 pm

        I prefer using the null Ø as that sums up his value in mathematical terminology (and we know how much he loves “math”), i.e., Øbama.

      • dbschmidt March 17, 2012 / 12:39 pm

        I can not take credit for ‘King Putt’ but like it.

      • Amazona March 17, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        swifty, thanks so much for your recent addition (above) to the lengthy list of proofs of your total ignorance regarding political ideology.

        Now it appears that you think the way in which opponents are described is a definition of political philosophy and the choice of how best to run the nation.

        What silliness next? Religion? How many marriages? Height? Speech mannerisms?

      • tiredoflibbs March 17, 2012 / 1:14 pm

        Nottooswift: “I hear dehumanizing political opponents was used in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, you leftist. (That one is for you, Amazona).”

        You really can’t connect the dots can you? The DEMOCRATS are infamous for demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents, just ask the oil industry, conservative blacks, conservative women and any “enemy” that is contrary to their ideology.

      • Jonathan Swift March 17, 2012 / 2:05 pm

        Amazona,

        If only i could elevate my rhetoric to your level by emulating crying noises over and over when replying to somebody! Such wit!

        you really are going out of your way to avoid discussing the topic and disputing the facts of Obama’s continued lying. //Moderator

      • Jonathan Swift March 17, 2012 / 2:05 pm

        “Nottooswift: “I hear dehumanizing political opponents was used in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, you leftist. (That one is for you, Amazona).”

        You really can’t connect the dots can you? The DEMOCRATS are infamous for demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents, just ask the oil industry, conservative blacks, conservative women and any “enemy” that is contrary to their ideology.”

        This is always my favorite. Yeah, we’re doing this right now, but liberals do it also so they are the bad guys! Do you not have any sense of irony?

      • neocon1 March 17, 2012 / 5:33 pm

        Ochimpy
        Ubomba
        the kenyan
        usurper
        POS
        muslim
        racist

      • Amazona March 17, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        swifty, a good first step toward raising the quality of your posts would be to begin, finally, to discuss politics.

        Politics as the term relates to government in the United States in the first couple of decades of the 21st Century, that is, not obscure game theory used to disguise the fact that you know nothing about the political reality of 21st Century American politics.

        It’s pretty obvious that you are so deeply invested in an odd and irrelevant conglomeration of abstract concepts and linguistic gymnastics, shaped to a large degree by your emotional knee-jerk spasms of reaction to whatever seems to represent “conservative” anything, that it would be hard for you to ditch it and start over, and start to actually learn about political ideology and the real political choices available to Americans today.

        But that’s what it will take.

        Till then, you will just continue to fill up lots and lots of blog space without ever saying a single word that is relevant to the choices we have to make about how to govern our country.

      • Amazona March 17, 2012 / 8:08 pm

        As for nicknames, the way the rules were defined to us this week, by David Axlerod et al, if someone is self-described as a “comedian”—-and being funny is clearly not a criterion—then that person can say absolutely anything about anyone, with no blowback.

        We are always being told that because someone has slapped the label of “comedian” onto profoundly unfunny people like Garafolo, Franken and Maher, they can spew vile and vicious mental sewage at will and it’s not even offensive.

        So “c***” is not offensive if someone/anyone/Maher’s doting mommy thinks he qualifies as a comedian, and non-vulgar, non-sexual, puns based on Obama’s name are so HORRIBLE the only way to even deal with them is to dredge up comparisons to Nazis and genocidal Soviet dictators.

        Readers of this blog know by now that when I challenge someone from the Left to define terms they never do, but that they always end up doing so inadvertently, through their rhetoric.

        swifty has always been a generous donor of accidental explanations of what the Left thinks, or more often what it does NOT think but carries on about anyway.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 11:30 am

        Deleted: Off topic. //Moderator

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 3:34 pm

        Deleted off topic. Complains about blog policy.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 9:57 pm
  3. Dvindice March 17, 2012 / 11:32 am

    mr obama lie? say it ain’t so!

  4. Cluster March 17, 2012 / 11:44 am

    Notice how Obama always speaks to college students and young audiences, and how he mocks any opposition – yesterday citing everyone that disagrees with his green energy agenda as a “flat earther”. I suppose if he actually spoke to an intelligent and informed audience, he’d be laughed out of the auditorium, but then again he could always break out in song.

    • Amazona March 17, 2012 / 12:52 pm

      Did you catch the tepid response to his feeble efforts to crack jokes at Republican expense? There was mostly silence, with a couple of nervous titters and of course the mandatory guffaws from the handful of bootlicker yes-men. He caught it, as you can tell by the change in his tone of voice, as he lost some confidence and fell into his old schtick of slurring his words and dropping his g’s to sound more folksy, but he fell flat.

      And no wonder. He sounded like a spiteful, hateful nag, trying to make fun of people by lying about them.

      Ooops—lyin’ about ’em.

      • Cluster March 17, 2012 / 1:09 pm

        I actually get embarrassed for Obama, Biden and the rest of the moronic democrats that can only win the election by trying to convince the voters that the opposition is in favor of dirty water, hating women and/or drilling on the national monument. I would think that Obama could raise his game a little considering that everyone thinks that he is soooooo smart.

  5. Cluster March 17, 2012 / 11:50 am

    Yesterday, I claimed that a good way to end oil speculation was to require the speculators to take possession of the oil – of course that was meant to be tongue in cheek but there are valid ways to curtail rampant speculation which is estimated now to be adding 10%-20% of additional costs to each gallon, and the Obama administration is simply looking the other way. In addition to that, Obama is actually giving reason to rampant speculation by his reluctance to be aggressive in domestic exploration and extraction, and by his weakness to confront the turmoil in the ME.

  6. Bob1 March 17, 2012 / 12:31 pm

    Who really cares about whether or not Barack Obama lies about anything, oil production or his birthplace? He hides his records as a student in American schools and changes his statements about his faith when it isn’t politically advantageous to affirm his Muslim commitments. He is good at using labels like “birther” to mock his critics who challenge his claims, and the media in too many cases repeat the labeling and the mockery. And I don’t think that political debates will be able to expose his lies. The facts get “hidden” and the words get “spun” so much that the “truth” gets lost in the propaganda of our game of popular politics, which is played by us all. Fraud can best be proven in a court of law, not in a town meeting or on the stage of a public debate. But who has the courage to legally confront him as the lying con artist that he is? So we continue exchanging words and opinions while the deceit continues and we all sink deeper and deeper into the “quicksand” of “popular politics” rather than “rules of law”. l

  7. watsonredux March 17, 2012 / 3:34 pm

    tired, sometimes I wonder if you actually read the articles and data that you cite. You said,

    “Oil production is at an eight-year high?

    The US Energy Information Administration has finally put this one to bed. After looking at data from 2003 to 2011, production on federal lands under obAMATEUR was lower than all but one year of the Bush administration, and it hit rock-bottom in 2011. In fact, production alone dropped by 6% from 2010-2011 to its lowest level in nine years.”

    I took a look at the EIA link you cited. It shows that crude oil production on federal lands was higher in each year of 2009, 2010 and 2011 than any year of 2006, 2007 or 2008. If you look at the full report rather than the summary, you will see that onshore oil production on federal lands has increased in each year of the Obama administration, and in each of those years it has been higher than the previous years in the report, which goes back to 2003.

    Offshore oil production also rose dramatically in 2009 and 2010, and in 2010 was higher than any other year in the report. It dropped dramatically in 2011. Can you think of any particular recent event that might have caused overall offshore oil production to drop? Think hard on this one and it will probably come to you. But even with the drop in offshore production, overall oil production on federal lands in 2011 was higher than any year since 2005.

    • Amazona March 17, 2012 / 8:26 pm

      The wattle smirks: “Can you think of any particular recent event that might have caused overall offshore oil production to drop? Think hard on this one and it will probably come to you. ”

      It didn’t take long to come up with the answers to this snarky little pseudo-quiz.

      There were two interrelated events that directly caused the falloff in offshore oil production. One was the hysterical overreaction to the oil spill in the Gulf, and one was the permatorium placed on further deep-water drilling.

      Go ahead and lump them together to consider as one event, if you like, as the hysterical overreaction led to the permatorium.

      I wonder if wattle and company can find out when the drilling permits were issued for the rigs which produced the oil he cites. I wonder if he can tell us how many new permits have been issued in the time periods he references.

      It’s a favorite Lefty tactic to try to take credit for work done by predecessors, while simultaneously blaming them for everything that went wrong. But a study of the time periods he cites will show that most of the production he is so proud of came from old permits, often from established drilling sites.

      In the meantime, Barry and the Boyz shut down the Gulf for months, till rigs left to take other long-term leases, and then shut down all new offshore drilling along most of the Eastern Seaboard.

      In the meantime, King Barry issued a royal edict handing over unprecedented power and authority, with no Congressional approval and no oversight, to a single agency, which promptly started working to slow down if not actually shut down oil and gas production. All the EPA has to do now is declare that something, anything, is a pollutant, and they then have free rein to do whatever they think they ought to do to “fix” the “problem”.

      So far they have been working on stopping hydraulic fracturing and demanding that some drilling sites in the West shut down for six months or so a year on the off chance that a raptor might wander too close.

      Oil and gas wells get pumped dry. They are then capped and new wells are drilled. Preening about the production from old wells is fine and dandy, if you are determined to take credit for someone else’s work and foresight, but without new replacement wells coming online, regularly and predictably, the industry will die.

      Or be killed.

      And just today I heard the Demagoguer in Chief tell an audience that they would have to choose between the oil companies and the nation.

    • tiredoflibbs March 17, 2012 / 10:57 pm

      Watty, again you and reading comprehension are total strangers.

      Oil production on private lands, which obAMATEUR has no direct control or influence, is responsible for the increase. Wile production on lands which he does control are significantly lower than when he took office. He has the lowest oil lease revenue since taking office. Most oil production on federal land was from those issued during the Bush administration. He is not responsible fir leases issued before taking office. But you are desperate to give obAMATEUR credit for anything, since his record is so dismal.

      Details Watty, details.

    • RetiredSpook March 18, 2012 / 1:27 pm

      I took a look at the EIA link you cited. It shows that crude oil production on federal lands was higher in each year of 2009, 2010 and 2011 than any year of 2006, 2007 or 2008.

      But, with the exception of the peak in 2010, it was lower than 2003, 2004 & 2005.

      If you look at the full report rather than the summary, you will see that onshore oil production on federal lands has increased in each year of the Obama administration, and in each of those years it has been higher than the previous years in the report, which goes back to 2003.

      Talk about cherry-picking. The total for 2011, which Obama touts as an 8 year high, is 6% below 2003 and 4% below the average of 2003, 2004 and 2005.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 8:13 pm

        But what is telling is that obama’s oil lease revenue is way down. He has not approved many new oil leases. The oil produced on federal lands are a result of Bush’s oil lease sales, not obama’s.

        But why quibble about details….

  8. dbschmidt March 17, 2012 / 3:42 pm

    Not the entire post but what was used should have been credited. Strange seeing the kettle call the pot black because you seemed to have no issue with one of your fellow travelers (Mitch) plagiarize in the entirety of the post quite possibly one of the lefts idols (Maher) without condemnation. For reference I will include: March 15, 2012 at 4:59 pm #

  9. dbschmidt March 17, 2012 / 3:52 pm

    With consideration you stated and Watson leans toward “It doesn’t fly with logical people, who reject propaganda for objective facts and rational analysis of those facts.” why don’t the two of you and the rest of the trolls here get together and bring us knuckle-dragging, women-hating, ignorant folks a logical (might be difficult), honest (that one may be tough for you all also), objective (another toughie) review of the entire 17 minute campaign movie that is packed full of lies, half-truths, and wishful (at the unicorn fart level) thinking that the President just released.

    I am sure if you all had a meeting and combined all of your cognitive abilities–you might be able to exceed the fart in a whirlwind level and actually realize that it entire diatribe could only serve this nation well as a form of fertilizer.

  10. bozo March 17, 2012 / 6:10 pm
    • Cluster March 17, 2012 / 7:09 pm

      Bozo, you really out did yourself. 15 different people, 15 different opinions. Congratulations.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 8:07 pm

        Unlike the mindless drones from the left – 15 different people all regurgitating the same crap.

  11. Cluster March 17, 2012 / 7:22 pm

    Well see now I wa forced to read the report (I hate it when that happens) and was not surprised to see production slightly up on crude despite a big dropp in off shore between 2010-2011 but also interesting is the drop in natural gas production, which is a clean energy and something we should really be focused on because we are sitting on trillions of cubic feet of natural gas – a 100+ year supply. The high gas prices are not a result of lower production, in fact we are an exporter now and supplies are high because of lower demand (unemployed people) and the very mild winter. The high gas prices are a result of no coherent energy policy (algae?), turmoil in the ME, speculation, the global market and increasing global demand. The answer is simple and has been for about 30 years but no administration has had the guts to do it. We are sitting on a lifetime of crude reserves in ANWR, the Bakken fields, the gulf and the coasts, and a lifetime+ of natural gas reserves, we just need the commitment to go get it. Every president has failed us, but had we done so even ten years ago, we would not be having this discussion. As a country, we need a president committed to doing this AND have a sensible plan, heavily weighted on the private sector, to develop a non fossil fuel based energy alternative.

    • Cluster March 17, 2012 / 7:33 pm

      And before someone chimes in about the product being sold on the global market, let me stop you right now, because we don’t have to sell anything to any global market. However, if and when we most likely do sell it, our influence on the market, would be that of OPEC’s – we would carry a lot of weight and command our price.

  12. bloodypenquinstump March 17, 2012 / 8:18 pm

    Posting using fake email address – deleted//Moderator

  13. Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:46 am
    • Cluster March 18, 2012 / 10:48 am

      And one might even say that Jonathan Swift regurgitates the administrations response.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 12:06 pm

        Nottooswift, why can’t you respond to the topic of the thread? Your “responses” are not related to the topic. Off topic responses are always deleted.

        It seems you cannot argue the FACTS that your pResident is a LIAR and trying to take credit for the prior administrations approval of oil leases while his oil lease sales are a fraction of Bush’s.

        Note: I have credited Boortz in the post. For some reason, you can only whine about that and not comment on the thread, which is a typical liberal dodging tactic. FACTS are FACTS and for some strange reason, you are afraid of them.

        Now comment on the thread or STFU. We are sick of your “picking fly shit out of pepper mentality.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 12:22 pm

        Many would say that Nottooswift regurgitates the talking points from the White House, which is then regurgitated by Media Matters and the rest of the lefty media.

        But notice, he is afraid to comment on the FACTS that obAMATEUR is a LIAR when it comes to drilling. obAMATEUR has no sound energy policy and the rest of his record is equally dismal. Nottooswift knows he cannot defend the indefensible – hence, the persistent dodging.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 3:38 pm

        Deleted. Off topic. Personal attacks.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 8:54 pm
      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 9:03 pm

        Still refuse to refute the FACTS of the post, there Nottooswift.

        You’d rather continue the whining.

        So be it.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 9:57 pm

        Continues to complain about blog policy. Continues with the personal attacks. Refuses to comment on topic.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:26 pm
      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 10:28 pm

        Since the shoe fits……

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:33 pm

        But it wouldn’t matter what I typed, no matter how insightful, that would be the response. Because you see, you don’t have the critical thinking skills to actually say anything at all on the topic.

        The bottom line is that you read Boortz, you think it sounded vaguely like a good attack on Obama, and so you thought it was great.

        Not only that, but I’ve spent days refuting every stupid malformed statistical citation on this blog, and every time I get blown off like facts aren’t a big deal. You have no interest in facts, so don’t pretend like you do just because it lets you change the subject.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 10:39 pm

        Nottooswift, your posts have been refuted by me and others very easily. You just ran away from the responses only to come back later and regurgitate the same crap as before. Yor responses also lacked any proof to your assertions and was pointed out repeatedly.

        You just ignored those as well.

        You are not responding to this since you apparently have not received the days marching orders.

        Your whining continues…….

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:52 pm

        Let’s go down your frontpage right now.

        “13 Million”

        The 13 million job figure was constructed from taking the same number of total workers the BLS uses to construct the 8.3% unemployment figure and using the BLS figure for non-farm workers instead of total workers. It is the BLS unemployment figure, only counting anybody working on a farm as unemployed.

        “Poll: 80 Percent Say They Are Worse Off Now Than Four Years Ago”

        The poll says: ” 37 percent say worse today”. Bonus points: the poll compares to March, 2008, which is most of a year before Obama took office.

        “That, my friends, comes to a cost of $5.5 MILLION dollars. Per job. Nice return on investment there, Barry.”

        11 million dollars was never spent on clothing for two people.

        See, your front page is full of ridiculous figures that I have corrected for you each time. No, you have not refuted any of that. It is all cold, hard fact, and each time I get dog piled by people trying desperately to change the subject from the botched empirical citations. All this stupid interest I have in making sure correct and applicable data is used is brushed off as “picking fly shit out of pepper” because you guys have no real interest in how true your “facts” are.

      • tiredoflibbs March 19, 2012 / 5:11 am

        Nevertooswift, making simple statements with no proof does not make them true, while we have provided sources and proof.

        For example, in your first argument you state: “it is patently impossible to employ that many more people, because there aren’t that many unemployed people in the country based on the figures he is citing.”

        There is no further explanation, sources or proof of your baseless ASSertion. You need more than essentially saying, “no it’s not”. We provided counter arguments to yours WITH SOURCES AND PROOF of our claims that in each time you completely ignored and chose to stay “stuck on stupid”. Not to mention, the above statement is a far cry from this slaughtering of the English language: “The 13 million job figure was constructed from taking the same number of total workers the BLS uses to construct the 8.3% unemployment figure and using the BLS figure for non-farm workers instead of total workers. It is the BLS unemployment figure, only counting anybody working on a farm as unemployed.”

        Nice try, but no.

        Now, stop dodging and comment on obAMATEUR’s LIES of this topic.

      • Jonathan Swift March 19, 2012 / 7:22 pm

        tiredoflibbs,

        You wouldn’t know proof if it kicked you in the head. I made all of my points using the same sources that you guys cited. I didn’t need to bring in external sources, because the problem was that you were repeatedly too incompetent to read and comprehend your own sources.

        The problem here that you can’t even figure out that the presented sources contradict statements made on blogs4victory (or on the opinion page you cite) even after somebody points it out to you. It’s so beyond ridiculous that I can’t even have a conversation with you, because you are apparently so borderline illiterate that you can’t read what I’m posting.

      • tiredoflibbs March 19, 2012 / 8:40 pm

        You used the same data to form your conclusion. A conclusion without other corroborating evidence is just an OPINION. You are aware that in a 6th grade science class you have to EXPLAIN how you arrived at your conclusion. All you did was give your conclusion, no LOGICAL explanation whatsoever. PLUS, your original ASSERTION is by no way the same as the above statement. You have done what “climate scientists” have done and shaped an argument from cherry picked data without any other corroborating evidence. Until then your OPINION is nothing more than conflicting OPINION, since you offered two different conclusions.

        Give us a study, another corroborating article, SOMETHING that backs up your conclusion. Just because you draw a conclusion from data, does not make it correct, especially when your conclusions change from post to post.

        “The problem here that you can’t even figure out that the presented sources contradict statements made on blogs4victory”

        Wrong….Your dubious conclusion does not disqualify other corroborating evidence that we used to debunk your arguments. Again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

        I am trying to have a conversation with you. The problem is you are still dodging the topic of this thread – comment, present your defense of your pResident and his pathetic policy or STFU.

      • neocon1 March 20, 2012 / 6:51 am

        count

        Arguing with Swifty;

        Hilarious……

  14. Cluster March 18, 2012 / 10:47 am

    Muslims and liberals have another thing in common – they both hate Christianity:

    Saudi Grand Mufti Calls for “Destruction of All Churches in Region”

    According to several Arabic news sources, last Monday, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.”

  15. Cluster March 18, 2012 / 1:23 pm

    Obama’s base is acting up again:

    Police and Occupy Wall Street protesters clash at New York park where movement began six months ago

    All Americans need to ask themselves, is this what we really want in a President? I think we’re better than this – unfortunately these are the people the current US President panders to. Sad.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116661/Occupy-Wall-Street-protesters-clash-police-Zuccotti-Park-movement-began-6-months-ago.html#ixzz1pUROiKWU

  16. tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 10:16 pm

    Nottooswft, apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit. If you had noticed, not every topic is original material.

    But since you cannot comment onobAMATEUR’s lies, all you can dois continue with your picking fly shit out pepper mentality.

    You can keep whining but it will get you nowhere.

    • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:27 pm

      There are these things called quotation marks that indicate you are quoting somebody. You did no such thing. You not only took the text, but edited it in some minor ways to make it seem like you had written it, and then posted it without any citation. That’s the definition of plagiarism.

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 10:33 pm

        Again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Reread the topic above and you will see I credited Boortz. IT IS PLAGIARISM only if I don’t credit the source. Duh.

        Now, quit your whining and comment on obAMATEUR’s lies or STFU.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:38 pm

        You credited Boortz by editing in a hat tip after I called you on it. I still have an old browser window open from before the edit. Want a screenshot? 🙂

      • tiredoflibbs March 18, 2012 / 10:43 pm

        No need. I noted the simple oversight and corrected it. Duh. I am sure you will not give the latitude to any conservative that you will endlessly give your fellow drones and lib looters.

        Your constant dodging is getting tiresome.

      • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:53 pm
      • Jonathan Swift March 19, 2012 / 9:07 pm

        You added the citation after deleting how many of my posts? Yeah, I’m sure it was a simple oversight.

      • tiredoflibbs March 19, 2012 / 9:54 pm

        Nottooswift, you can’t win an argument so you jump to some other meaningless pitiful attempt at GOTCHA! plus you continue to duck and dodge on the current topic.

        So…. NO you can’t comment on the FACT that obAMATEUR LIES about his next to non-existent drilling record.

        Inadvertently not including the reference to boortz’s website does not invalidate the FACTS presented. A minor error easily corrected, mind you. But you are so desperate to try and invalidate what is posted (just like your other throwing shit at the wall and hoping something will stick arguments), it seems you cannot cherry pick out data, haphazardly form a dubious conclusion with no explanation and call it “proof of your argument”.

        Again, comment on the topic or STFU.

    • Jonathan Swift March 18, 2012 / 10:29 pm

      “picking fly shit out pepper mentality.”

      I note that you are regurgitating somebody else’s words again here. Do you ever have an original thought?

      • Cluster March 19, 2012 / 8:27 am

        Jonathan,

        I have to say that you are the one that is painfully unoriginal. Not only do you not have anything original to say, you are entirely predictable as well. You pick at the margins on every issue rather than addressing the substance and that Mr Swift, requires very little thought or originality. You might want to learn the first rule of holes.

      • neocon1 March 19, 2012 / 9:06 am

        another mental MIDGET LOUDMOUTH POS spouts off the usual leftist tripe.

        Alec Baldwin: Sen. Inhofe Is a ‘Whore’ Who Should ‘Retire to a Solar-Powered Gay Bar’

  17. Cluster March 19, 2012 / 8:30 am

    Isn’t it time we ask that annoying little boy Santorum to stop whining and drop out of the race?

    • neocon1 March 19, 2012 / 8:48 am

      Admittedly, high gas prices do constitute a problem for the American people, but tapping the SPR is not the way to solve it. There is a solution, and Obama should have been pursuing it for three and a half years now. That solution is to do everything possible to spur more domestic production of oil and gas.

      The proper response to higher gas prices is a crash program to expand domestic supplies. The president should immediately announce approval of offshore exploration on the East and West coasts, permit drilling in ANWR and elsewhere in Alaska, reverse his decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, and approve shale drilling on federal lands. The effect of this announcement would be instantaneous, not five or ten years down the road as Obama claims, because global futures markets would immediately factor in future supply increases. Lower gas prices would result.

      Instead of actually lowering pump prices, Obama just wants to appear to be responding to prices.

      Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/tapping_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve.html#ixzz1pZBNW3lc

      • neocon1 March 19, 2012 / 8:55 am

        Hulton also recalls one particular conversation with Mary Ayers. “She was enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student that they were helping out,” he tells Corsi, “and she referred to him as a foreign student.” Adds Hulton, “I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him.” Within a year of this conversation, Hulton had a fateful meeting with the young man he presumed Mary was talking about.

        According to Hulton, he encountered the fellow on the sidewalk on the front of the Ayers home. In that it was extremely rare to see a black man in this tony neighborhood, Hulton believes that the man felt the need to explain his visit to the Ayers household. Hulton describes him as friendly and neatly, although casually, dressed. Hulton tells Corsi, “I am absolutely positive that it was Barack Obama.”

        Hulton was sympathetic. After he had come out of military service, he was a supporter of Martin Luther King, who had pressed for fair housing in the Chicago area in the 1960s. “I took some flak about my support for civil rights from my fellow workers at the time,” remembers Hulton.

        Obama explained to Hulton that he had taken the train out from Chicago to Glen Ellyn in order “to thank the Ayers family personally for helping him with his education.” What shocked Hulton was that when casually inquiring into the young man’s plans for the future, Obama answered, “I am going to be president of the United States.” As Hulton tells Corsi, “[i]t came across like this was something that’s already been determined.” Adds Hulton, “I was speechless.”

        Hulton told Diamond and Corsi essentially the same story. What gives the Corsi interview added value is that we see Hulton tell it. Although just a year older than Bill Ayers, he seems to come from a different generation. He has little to gain — and a lot to risk — by going public. Corsi warns Hulton that by quoting Mary’s comment that Obama was a “foreign student,” he has put himself at some risk. Says Hulton, “I am only telling you what I distinctly remember her saying — that he was a foreign student.”

        Hulton’s interviews with Diamond and Corsi are consistent in every major detail save for dates. Hulton suggested to Diamond that the sidewalk meeting took place in the mid-’80s, but Corsi suggests to Hulton that it was in the early 1990s, and Hulton does not correct him. Hulton clearly does not remember the date. If I were to speculate, I would guess 1988, the year Obama started Harvard Law School. Presuming Hulton actually met Obama, the “education” in question would almost surely have been law school.

        There is a good deal at stake here. According to Snopes and the other fact-check sites, Bill Ayers and Obama did not meet until the mid-1990s. This is a talking point that both Ayers and Obama have upheld. When Ayers appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America in 2008, he put the date of their first meeting in 1995 at a fundraiser in Ayers’s own home. “I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know,” said Ayers. “But that was the first time I really met him.”

        As it happens, I stumbled into my own discovery of Ayers’s involvement in the writing of Obama’s 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, when I was investigating how Obama got into Harvard Law School and who paid his way. What had piqued my interest was an interview with veteran New York power-broker Percy Sutton on a local New York City show called Inside City Hall. The interview took place in late March 2008 but did not surface until August 2008.

        Sutton told how twenty years prior he had been “introduced to [Obama] by a friend.” The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, “the principal adviser to one of the world’s richest men.” The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to “please write a letter in support of [Obama] … a young man that has applied to Harvard.” Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

        A few months before the election, it should have mattered that a respected black political figure like Sutton had publicly announced that a fanatic black separatist, backed by an ambitious Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama’s career perhaps for the last twenty years. It did to the Obama-friendly media, but not in a way in which it would have to real journalists. Moving in swiftly to kill the story were Politico, an insider D.C. journal run by Washington Post alums, and Media Matters for America, an alleged watchdog group founded by the recovering Troopergate author, David Brock.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/what_the_mailman_knows_about_ayers_and_obama.html#ixzz1pZD5G400

      • neocon1 March 19, 2012 / 9:15 am

        Ted Nugent Goes Off: Obama Is an ‘Anti-American Monster,’ Suggests GOP Candidates Lack Testosterone

      • bagni March 19, 2012 / 11:13 am

        matt neo
        agreed on tapping into the spr
        but
        disagree that pulling more oil out of u.s. soil will drop prices
        using less oil is the only thing that will drop prices
        unless of course you want to get all ‘chavez’ on us
        and nationalize the industry
        ?????

    • neocon1 March 19, 2012 / 9:19 am

      What about Ru Paul? why in the world is he still in?

  18. RetiredSpook March 19, 2012 / 12:17 pm

    This is a great omen for Conservatives:

    President Obama is struggling to draw in big-dollar donations, with half as many people writing large checks to his campaign than at this point four years ago.

Comments are closed.