5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama's Energy Speech

[Leatherneck 693]

The White House has done no such thing. Go ahead, provide a source for the claim made here. Doesn't exist.

First of all I did not make the claim, that statement is part of the first 21 words in the article posted by the OP.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

First of all I did not make the claim, that statement is part of the first 21 words in the article posted by the OP.

I don't recall having said that you made that claim. You were looking for what in the article was BS. And I identified that which was BS. We are not in record gas price territory nor has the White House suggested that we are. So the article opened with a line of BS.

[Leatherneck 693]

I don't recall having said that you made that claim. You were looking for what in the article was BS. And I identified that which was BS. We are not in record gas price territory nor has the White House suggested that we are. So the article opened with a line of BS.

You've totally misunderstood and have since twisted my attempt to explain the context in which "record high gas prices" was used in that article/editorial.

You really are 'kicking a dead horse' and 'splitting hairs' here. For the record, again, which of course I've already stipulated, (maybe you missed that also) the nation is not experiencing "record high gas prices." Not a claim I would make, for I'm aware of the stats at the US Energy Information Administration.

Now, never did I mention nor did I imply the White House has ever suggested such we are experiencing "record high gas prices."

That article as posted is an IBD Editorial

PS. If you want to split hairs "We are not in record gas price territory," that might be true where you live, but in California we are in "record gas price territory," we are a mere .30 cents per gal from the high of June 16, 2008.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You have not paid over $ 4.00 while bush was in office.However the reason the prices are what they are are due to Bush. I guess if the sky falls some people would still blame him for it. Its hopeless talking to some people.

Gas prices now, and record high gas prices under Bush, are and were caused by speculators. Some folks prefer facts, although yes Bush was incorrectly blamed during his tenure for political not factual reasons.

The difference now though is blame has been leveled at Obama and is/has been based on the falsehood prices are higher under Obama. They weren't when this false blame of Obama started over a year ago, and gas prices still aren't higher than under Bush. So Obama is getting double BS treatment.

Edited February 28, 2012 by ready4ONE

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You've totally misunderstood and have since twisted my attempt to explain the context in which "record high gas prices" was used in that article/editorial.

You really are 'kicking a dead horse' and 'splitting hairs' here. For the record, again, which of course I've already stipulated, (maybe you missed that also) the nation is not experiencing "record high gas prices." Not a claim I would make, for I'm aware of the stats at the US Energy Information Administration.

Now, never did I mention nor did I imply the White House has ever suggested such we are experiencing "record high gas prices."

That article as posted is an IBD Editorial

PS. If you want to split hairs "We are not in record gas price territory," that might be true where you live, but in California we are in "record gas price territory," we are a mere .30 cents per gal from the high of June 16, 2008.

Why all the twisting and turning? You posted a simple question:

Now, for the third time -- What exactly in the article is "BS?" Please point to one statement in that article that is not factual.

You called "BS" so you should be able to prove even one statement as not factual.

I posted a simple answer:

"Energy: The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices."

That's it. The opener of the article is BS. That's all.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Increased oil production in the US is not going to drop oil prices by much. At the end of the day it goes into the world pot and developing countries are taking more and more of the world share.

About the only way to lower or steady US prices is to limit US oil exports which would be pretty difficult to do.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Increased oil production in the US is not going to drop oil prices by much. At the end of the day it goes into the world pot and developing countries are taking more and more of the world share.

About the only way to lower or steady US prices is to limit US oil exports which would be pretty difficult to do.

Well, we can always try and choke off the world economy. That'll bring gas prices down real quick.

[Leatherneck 693]

Why all the twisting and turning? You posted a simple question:

I posted a simple answer:

That's it. The opener of the article is BS. That's all.

Yes the portion of the statement "record high gas prices" a mere 4 words are not factual, yet, when standing alone. You're separating 4 words from the statement and calling the entire statement "BS."

How do we know it's not a true statement in its entirety from the White House? Read that statement in the context as written, someone from the White House might have very well said such, that is possible.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes the portion of the statement "record high gas prices" a mere 4 words are not factual, yet, when standing alone. You're separating 4 words from the statement and calling the entire statement "BS."

How do we know it's not a true statement in its entirety from the White House? Read that statement in the context as written, someone from the White House might have very well said such, that is possible.

The White House has not made that comment - you can check it out on whitehouse.gov. It's BS. The entire statement is BS.

[Leatherneck 693]

Increased oil production in the US is not going to drop oil prices by much. At the end of the day it goes into the world pot and developing countries are taking more and more of the world share.

About the only way to lower or steady US prices is to limit US oil exports which would be pretty difficult to do.

According to EIA, U.S. oil exports are not very much.

"EIA is not able to track how much domestically produced crude oil and other liquids are exported in the form of refined products. The small quantity of crude oil produced in the U.S. that is exported, nearly all to Canada, may actually be returned to the U.S. as refined products"

"The U.S. became a (slight) net exporter (exported more than we imported) of refined petroleum products in 2008. Refined petroleum products produced in the U.S. from both domestic and imported crude oil are exported to other countries. The volume of net exports of refined products in 2010 was equivalent to about 5% of the total volume of U.S. petroleum consumption in 2010."

Edited February 28, 2012 by Leatherneck

[Leatherneck 693]

The White House has not made that comment - you can check it out on whitehouse.gov. It's BS. The entire statement is BS.

Ok, so if it isn't on whitehouse.gov then it never happened? Got it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, so if it isn't on whitehouse.gov then it never happened? Got it.

Hey, I take another source. Problem is, there isn't one. The White House has not called the current gas prices "record gas prices". They just haven't. Not yet. They will once we have record gas prices. Which we will have soon enough. But as of the time of this piece being written, the White House has made no such statement. Period.

ETA: Any statement made by the White House is available on the website I provided. It's protocol.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[Leatherneck 693]

Hey, I take another source. Problem is, there isn't one. The White House has not called the current gas prices "record gas prices". They just haven't. Not yet. They will once we have record gas prices. Which we will have soon enough. But as of the time of this piece being written, the White House has made no such statement. Period.

ETA: Any statement made by the White House is available on the website I provided. It's protocol.

I get what you're saying, and it's clear that you're misunderstanding the context of the statement in its entirety . Your statement above highlighted in red is correct, the White House has said no such thing with regards to the price of gas. I agree.

What the statement is saying, "The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices." The President's energy policy speech was a response to the criticism, according to that statement.

Put another way, there are those (uninformed as they may be) criticising Obama for "record high gas prices" (which there is no such thing yet -- so we agree here, again) and according to the statement, the speech was the response to that false criticism.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I get what you're saying, and it's clear that you're misunderstanding the context of the statement in its entirety . Your statement above highlighted in red is correct, the White House has said no such thing with regards to the price of gas. I agree.

What the statement is saying, "The White House billed President Obama's energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices." The President's energy policy speech was a response to the criticism, according to that statement.

Put another way, there are those (uninformed as they may be) criticising Obama for "record high gas prices" (which there is no such thing yet -- so we agree here, again) and according to the statement, the speech was the response to that false criticism.

The speech did not even address that false criticism. How does the White House bill it a response to criticism without even addressing it?

[Leatherneck 693]

The speech did not even address that false criticism. How does the White House bill it a response to criticism without even addressing it?

You really are...well, grasping for air. If you don't see "record high gas prices" in the speech, the issue was never addressed? Did the speech need to be titled Remarks by the President in Response to Criticism to Record High Gas Price? A speech entitled "Remarks by the President on Energy" was the political/polite way to address the criticism.

Was it necessary for the President to say, let me address "record high gas prices?" He certainly did address the issue of high gas prices, that was the whole purpose of the speech without saying so.

Gas prices -- mentioned 11 times in some context or another.

Price of gas -- mentioned 1 time.

Gas -- mentioned 6 times.

Excepts from the speech. After reading those, how can you with minimal earnestness and an ounce of candor still insist, the speech was not a response to criticism?

. "Just like last year, gas prices are climbing across the country. This time, it’s happening even earlier.

. "Now, some politicians they see this as a political opportunity. I know you’re shocked by that. (Laughter.) Last week, the lead story in one newspaper said, “Gasoline prices are on the rise and Republicans are licking their chops.”

. "You know there are no quick fixes to this problem. You know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we’re going to take control of our energy future and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year..."

. "We’re not going to transition out of oil anytime soon. And that’s why under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That’s why we have a record number of oil rigs operating right now -- more working oil and gas rigs than the rest of the world combined..."

. "Over the last three years my administration has approved dozens of new pipelines, including from Canada. And we’ve opened millions of acres for oil and gas exploration. All told we plan to make available more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico."

. "Last week, we announced the next steps towards further energy exploration in the Arctic. Earlier this week, we joined Mexico in an agreement that will make more than 1.5 million acres in the Gulf available for exploration and production, which contains an estimated 172 million barrels of oil and 304 billion cubic feet of natural gas."

. "So we’re focused on production. That's not the issue. And we’ll keep on producing more homegrown energy. But here’s the thing -- it’s not enough."

. "The amount of oil that we drill at home doesn’t set the price of gas by itself. The oil market is global; oil is bought and sold in a world market."

. "The oil market is global; oil is bought and sold in a world market. And just like last year, the single biggest thing that’s causing the price of oil to spike right now is instability in the Middle East -– this time around Iran. When uncertainty increases, speculative trading on Wall Street increases, and that drives prices up even more.