Obama: No Bailouts, Unless I Want There to Be (Liar-in-Chief)

President Obama again, last night, gave an outstanding performance as Liar-in-Chief. He may have set a new record, although statisticians are still evaluating that. It is close. It is hard to top those speeches where Obama said, in one pargraph, that govenment has to "live withoin ints means, like ordinary failites"--only in about the next paragraph to propose expanding spending and/or opposing spending/deficit cuts. Still, last night Obama MAY have managed to contradict himself in CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES. That is what is being checked: whehter he has done ti before, with present indications being that he HAS done it before--meaning that he FAILED to set a new record last night.


The section of the speech I am talkng about is the section where President Obama was talking aobut how POURD he is of his bailout of General Motors. Then, immediately, Obama had an "applause" line saing "No bailouts, ..., no copouts." Say what? Did I not hear Obaama jsut say tthat he would not let jobs be lost at GM if he could do anything aobut it (bailiout)? this proves again that our Liar-in-Chief will say ANYTHING that he thins SOUNDS GOOD, knowng he can count on the mainstream media not to call him on it. Obama still says taht one of the way he kept us out of a "dpressioin" was to BAIL OUT our financial system, as well as GM. Then you have "Bailout Ben" Bernanke, who is STILL bailing out bands, Wall Street and even Europe, with the entire cooperation of teh Obama Administrration. Can you get any MORE dishonest than this? Well, you would not think so, but I have confidence in our Liar-in-Chief. YS HE CAN. Our statisticians--working as this was being typed--THINK they have found previus instances where our Liar-in=Chief has contradicted himslef within the same sentence.


No, I did NOT waste my tie listenting to the class warfare speech, which evidenty had a number of contradictions as Obama just went for what SUNDS GOOD--whether it contradicts something he just said or not. However, as I mentionned in my P.S. last night, I reserved the right to comment on CLIPS. And I did see a rather extensive clip about how Obama talked about "sving GM" and "ou auto industry", and then turned around as said "No bailouts". Now the clip i saw implied this ws in consecutive sentences, but obviusly there is a possibility that editing compressed the sentences together. Doesn't matter. The DIRECT CONTRADICTIN is there, and it is an OBVIOUS contradictioin. That, again, raises the question of why Obama thiks he can GET AWY WITH this kind of obvioius contradiction. What does he ven MEAN when he says "no bailouts"? Somebody should ASK him. "Mr. President, did you mean that-if the same kind of situation arises in the future,-that you will NOT favor bailouts of financial institutions and imortant companies like GM? Does that meean you now think that the gailousts that you did, and supoported, were a MISTAKE? " Somehow, President Obama just never gets asked those questions. For example, is it not an OBVIOUS question: "President Obama, you have often said that the Federal Government has to live withnin its means,like ordinary families. What did you MEAN by that, considering that you are continuing to run tirllion dollar deficits every year, and seem to OPOSE almsot all efforts to REDUCE current deficits? Do you raealize that ordinary families cannot simply say that they will "solve" the problem ten years from now,while coninuing to live beyond their means in the present?"


Nope. We have a Liar-in-Chief, and he does not even CARE. He EXPECTS to "get aay wiht it", becaue he counts on a sycophantic media not to call him on it.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).