Click here to go to our new forums at
If you are a Forumosan Regular, when you log in for the FIRST TIME, you must RESET your password by using the Password Recovery system.

Usernames on the new forums must not contain any SPACES and must end with LETTER or a NUMBER; if yours does, you will be prompted to change your Username
Contact us at admin(at)forumosa(dot)com or @forumosa on Twitter or on our Facebook Page if you have any questions or problems logging back in

The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderator: Mick

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby jdsmith » 01 Apr 2012, 17:58

What seems to have Obama especially steamed is the fact that the conventional-energy companies are profitable. Especially the five largest. So he wants to tax them. He then wants to redistribute their income to his favorite green-energy firms. Sound familiar? I don’t know which is more important to the president -- the fact that he hates fossil fuel or the fact that he hates success. Or that he wants an energy-entitlement state.

But here’s what I do know, factually.

Oil companies have an effective corporate tax rate well above 40 percent. And they operate within one of the highest-taxed industries in America. According to the Tax Foundation, for more than 25 years, oil and gas companies have sent more tax dollars to Washington and state capitals than they earned in profits. That’s a fact.

Single-handedly, oil and gas companies finance over 10 percent of non-defense discretionary spending within the U.S. budget. According to The Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil, the world’s largest energy firm, paid out $59 billion in total U.S. taxes over the five years prior to 2010 while earning only $40.5 billion in domestic profits.

And Obama wants to raise taxes on conventional-energy firms by somewhere between $40 billion and $80 billion? Whatever happened to the supply-side principle that if you tax something more, you get less of it?

But with gasoline prices headed towards $5 a gallon, and with oil prices over $100 a barrel, virtually the whole country outside of the White House wants more oil, more retail gas for the pump and more energy supplies everywhere in order to bring prices down. Raising taxes won’t do it.

Make no mistake about it: Fossil fuel is going to drive the American economy for decades to come. Green energy is not.

Obama’s other line of attack is that oil companies shouldn’t get any subsidies. They made too much money for that. Well, I’m against oil subsidies. There’s about $90 billion worth in the federal budget. Better to end them, slash corporate tax rates across the board and let the free market decide energy policy and production.

But on the subject of subsidies, so-called renewable-energy subsidies (think Solyndra) are 49-times greater than fossil-fuel subsidies, according to studies by the Congressional Research Service. And the Congressional Budget Office says renewable green energy received 68 percent of energy-related tax preferences in fiscal year 2011, while fossil fuels got only 15 percent. Additionally, oil, natural gas and coal received 64 cents per megawatt hour in subsidies, while wind power alone received $56.29 per megawatt hour. That’s nearly 100-times what fossil fuels got.

By the way, the so-called subsidies that Obama is talking about are really depreciation write-offs for investment. Oil companies get a 6 percent deduction from income. Most manufacturing industries get 9 percent. And every company in the economy is eligible for faster investment write-offs.

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100 percent cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences and carve-outs. That would be an unbelievable job-creator.

But President Obama is too busy spewing falsehoods to support his ideological agenda than to take account of the facts. And while he’s at it, one of the greatest, pro-growth revolutions ever is taking place right under his nose. It’s the oil and gas shale miracle, which if left unfettered will turn America and Canada into an energy-independent New Middle East inside of 10 years.

In fact, the collapse of natural-gas prices brought on by this revolution could become one of the biggest tax cuts for the economy in history, making all our industries vastly more competitive, revolutionizing transportation and providing more consumer real income at home. ... 13686.html

Same old, same old. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby jdsmith » 01 Apr 2012, 22:08

Hell, I may just start a blog about this guy and his lies. Yet another article:
The presidency of Richard Nixon was destroyed, and that of Bill Clinton nearly ruined, by scandals that erupted over lies they told. But no president ever before has lied as frequently, as flagrantly or as foolishly as has Barack Obama. ... 13692.html
I agree. :thumbsup:

Posing in front of stacks of pipe, Mr. Obama said: "Today, I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles and make this project a priority."

Not the whole pipeline, which was to run from Alberta's tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast. Just its southern end, over which Mr. Obama has little control. He still won't permit the pipeline to cross the Canadian-U.S. border.

Drilling can't bring down gasoline prices, Mr. Obama said, because "we only produce 2 percent of the world's oil." The actual figure is 6.5 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Mr. Obama flubbed a deception he employs often. What he meant to say was that America possesses only 2 percent of the world's proven reserves of petroleum. What he doesn't say is that "proven reserves" measure oil recoverable in known reservoirs under "existing economic and operating conditions." Drill in more locations and employ new techniques and we have 60 times our proven reserves in "technically recoverable oil," the EIA says.

This isn't politics, you left wing nut cuppers. This is just lie upon lie.
In Golden, Colo., two days earlier, the president said it was Congress and the Chinese, not he, who are to blame for the failure of Solyndra, a solar firm which went bankrupt after receiving $535 million in federal loan guarantees. "This was not our program per se," he said.

Mr. Obama made Solyndra the poster boy for his massive "investment" in green energy. Solyndra's owner was a frequent guest at the White House, which approved the loan to Solyndra despite concerns raised by financial experts and the Office of Management and Budget.

With YouTube around, it's hard to drop a whopper that big down the memory hole. An ad is up which juxtaposes the president in 2010 taking credit for Solyndra's "success" with his remarks in Golden.

These guys are slow. I put that up days ago.
Mr. Obama lies most often about energy, but not only about energy.

Obamacare will cost taxpayers a lot more than he said it would. It raises, not lowers, health insurance premiums. You might not be able to keep your doctor or private health insurance plan. The individual mandate isn't a tax, Mr. Obama said. His lawyers told the Supreme Court that, in essence, it is.

BIG FAT ONE right there. Go on, LWNC. defend him on that one.
The president was overheard Monday making a politically embarrassing request of Russia's president. In trying to explain it away, Mr. Obama claimed he'd been talking about nuclear weapons stockpiles when in fact he'd been talking about missile defense.

Then he joked about it the next day. What a shit. You lie about defense too? Say it ain't so, bro!

"The Taliban's momentum has been broken," the president said in the State of the Union address Jan. 24. The Taliban consider victory "inevitable" once coalition troops withdraw, according to interviews with Taliban prisoners cited in a NATO report.

<snork> :roll:

Lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House," candidate Obama promised, then filled his administration with former lobbyists.


"My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government," he said. No recent president has done more to hide things from press and public, say critics such as Katherine Meyer, a lawyer who's been filing freedom-of-information cases since 1978, according to a report in Politico.

Bullshit. On a stick.

"Americans aren't stupid," Mr. Obama said.

Yep. Lied about that one too.

GObama 2012! :roll: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby jdsmith » 08 Apr 2012, 10:15

Two Years Later—The ObamaCare Lies Continue

The Obama Record: Little noticed in the president's remarks attacking the Supreme Court last week were two whoppers he told about ObamaCare. Then again, since that reform was built on untruths, why should he stop now?

At that press event, Obama told any justice thinking of overturning ObamaCare's central tenet that "in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with pre-existing conditions can actually get health care."

But this is false

Oh yeah? Prove it. Who says differently?
In fact, Obama himself argued precisely the opposite during the 2008 campaign, saying a mandate wasn't needed to achieve universal coverage. "The reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it," he said then. "It's because they can't afford it."

Well, maybe they can't afford it NOW. :aiyo:
Plus, ObamaCare itself proves a mandate isn't needed to cover those with pre-existing conditions. The law set up federal "high risk" pools that offer insurance to those denied it by private companies. Yet instead of making this a permanent solution, Obama kills these pools off in 2014 in favor of the mandate.

Obama also claimed at that press conference that the law "was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Yes, we can!
Also false
The House approved it by a slim 7-vote margin, with 34 Democrats joining every Republican to oppose it. Less than a year later, the House voted to repeal ObamaCare by a significantly larger margin, 245-189.

It was only in the Senate, where Democrats held a temporary supermajority, that it did well, and even then they could only get it through using a variety of unusual parliamentary tricks. What's more, just 51 Senators voted to keep the law in a 2011 vote.

So, the only strength here was in Obama's lie. :bravo:
But as the old saying goes, lies beget more lies. Here's just a sampling of past Obama prevarications about his signature reform law:

"If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Fact: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that as many as 20 million will be forced off their plans as employers dump workers into the government health exchanges to avoid ObamaCare's costs. A survey by McKinsey and Co. found that nearly a third of employers were likely to drop coverage for employees once ObamaCare kicked in.

And an analysis by the Medicare actuary found that ObamaCare's attacks on Medicare's private insurance options would force nearly 8 million seniors out of plans they've chosen.
"If any bill arrives from Congress that is not controlling costs, that's not a bill I can support. It's going to have to control costs."

Fact: The law Obama signed contains no meaningful cost-control provisions, something every honest health care analyst admits.

"We will bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family."

Fact: The CBO projects that premiums over the next decade will climb at a faster rate than they did in the past five years. The CBO also projects that premiums in the individual insurance market will be as much as 13% higher in 2016 as a result of the law. Premiums for small businesses could go up 1%. Meanwhile, a study done for Wisconsin by one of the architects of ObamaCare found that "the majority of individuals in the nongroup market will pay more in premiums for health insurance in 2016 than they do today." The average increase: 30%.

"And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government."

Fact: ObamaCare will accelerate spending at every level. In 2014, when the law takes full effect, national spending on health care will shoot up 8% and go on climbing at more than 6% a year, according to official government forecasts.

"The plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years."

Fact: The current Congressional Budget Office report pegs the 10-year cost of ObamaCare at $1.7 trillion. The only way Obama could get his price tag down so low is by putting off the start date by four years. Once Obama-Care fully kicks in, it will add $260 billion a year, and rising, to the budget.

"To help ensure that everyone can afford the cost of a health care option in our exchange, we need to provide assistance to families who need it. That way, there will be no reason at all for anyone to remain uninsured."

Fact: Despite spending $800 billion to subsidize premiums in the government-run exchanges, over the next 10 years, along with $931 billion in new Medicaid costs, ObamaCare will still leave 27 million — or 10% of the population — uninsured, according to the CBO. ... dbot=1&p=2
Now, I want you to close your eyes, and picture the President in your mind, picture him lying through his teeth about all this, again and again and again, and then add on the oil lies, and the green energy lies, and the lies about his mama's death...and then, I want you to picture him white:
Now tell me again, WHY you would vote for this guy?
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby TheGingerMan » 08 Apr 2012, 14:25

Silly question.
Politicians & lawyers lie. That age old alliance formed long ago entails lies, for a living.
And a President, or even a Prime Minister, is supposed to be above all that? After all that limbering clasping climb up the greasy pole, what else would they do to maintain their position?

"Politics, noun: strife of interest masquerading as a contest of principles
"Turne ye to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope,
even to day do I declare that I will render double unto thee:"


"Or fill high hawkfell of my hand,
with skalds reward for skilled word?"

~~~Egill Skallagrimssøn, c.974

"It shall rain for forty days and forty nights, until your vile odour is cleansed."
User avatar
Bureaucrat of the Underworld (cóng dìyù lái de guānliáo)
Bureaucrat of the Underworld (cóng dìyù lái de guānliáo)
Posts: 7992
Joined: 29 Aug 2005, 00:38
Location: The Thin Edge Of The Wedge
In Taiwan since: 0- 0-2114
Gruntleness: Fully Disgruntled

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby jdsmith » 08 Apr 2012, 17:34

Despite the sad legitimacy of what you say, it is no reason to stop calling them on it at every turn. :D
Your warning level: [1]
User avatar
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
Posts: 14855
Joined: 05 Jan 2005, 10:40
Location: Always.

Re: The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

Postby Enigma » 25 Jun 2012, 16:20

Isn't calling ANY politician a "Big Fat Liar" a bit redundant?
Time to Marry a Local (gāi qǔ tái wān lǎo pó jià tái wān lǎo gōng liǎo)
Time to Marry a Local (gāi qǔ tái wān lǎo pó jià tái wān lǎo gōng liǎo)
Posts: 2281
Joined: 07 Dec 2004, 17:02
Location: South on 3, Tuchen exit, in pursuit!

   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.

Return to International Politics

Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 0 guests