1.) NO WMDs WERE EVER FOUND. FACT. Show me proof that they found anything. Im sorry, but President Bush, Congress, and Secretary of State Colin Powell laid the case of Iraq on the basis of WMDs (Sarin Gas, Nuclear Weapons, Cruise Missles, Scud Missles), yet none were found. They did not make the case for invasion based on the threat of suicide bombers. Get your facts straight.stebo0728 wrote:False. Perhaps you were hoping to find weapons of SUPER MASS DESTRUCTION, or something to that effect, but 1 man with a bomb in his vest is a weapon of mass destruction. Weapons of greater calibur were found as well.1. There was NO WOMD found.
Study up on supply and demand. Disallowance of drilling in certain areas, overly stringent EPA standards, and the like were much more to blame for gas pricing than any of your conspiracy theories.2. Gas was it's highest ever as soon as Bush got in for 8yrs and IMMEDIATELY drop after he and Cheney left office!
So what. See above rebuttal.3. Halliburton DOES have the oil contract overseas!
4. Cheney IS HEAVILY invested in Halliburton!
Sure he had the lowest rating he ever had. Watch your saviors rating here in the next few months. And dont even bother checking out Congress' rating, it might make you cry.5. Bush had the lowest approval ratings EVER!
Congress holds the purse strings, I believe your friends held congress the last 2 years of the Bush administration.6. The last admin left the economy dirt broke which leaves Obama with a huge clean up effort
Simply absurd, republicans opposed the Freddy/Fanny overhaul, which led to the housing bust. There are a plethora of private sector solutions either introduced or being introduced that would rock your boat. Might make you get up off the couch and get a job though.7. The rightwing nuts ALWAYS complain but never give any solutions. If they did, then we wouldn't have been in the situation we are after 2008.
http://www.sarahsdeals.net/2008/09/aldi ... -week.htmlI don't know what planet you live on but I've never seen milk for $1.88 for a full gallon.
Ok this is from 2008, but you did say NEVER, plus I gave 1.88 last week, would scan my receipt if I could find it.
I think you would get a bit futher here if you set the hyperbole aside. A little here in there in good fun is great, but lets deal in the logical world a bit more if you please.
That's gross Greg. Really gross.AZhitman wrote:I couldn't tell you what it costs for the past 16 months - I got married.
If your claims are correct, then is this honestly a good excuse for more of the same type of behavior (and more brazen at that)? Where is the logic in making things worse, based on speculation about Bush? Sounds like a 5 years old... "but he did it first!"NightRiderQ45 wrote:Well that's exactly what Bush, Cheney, and everyone else who had their hands tied in oil did for 8 freaking years off of gas! Weapons of Mass destruction my a**! Lost lives over greed of oil. Oh and who has the contracts overseas...Halliburton! The same company that Cheney is heavily invested in. Yeah Bush really got his homies their paper! I don't blame him though. If I could get idiots on the right to buy into my gas "demand" claim and get all of my thug homies wealthy while having the worst approval rating EVER, I'll do it. I bet you were one of the many blind people blaming people who drove SUV's for gas going up? Those thugs left office and gas hasn't been anywhere near what it was for the past 8 years. Hell even milk used to be $5 during the previous administration of destruction! This administration is doing the best with what they are working with. The right had 8 yrs to make things right, but never did, but they are so quick to cast bricks at the glass house. Disgusting!!!!
Indeed, I may not know sh*t, but it would seem that you know even less than I do... so please refrain from such insults!NightRiderQ45 wrote:really don't know sh*t (including yourself).
That is not true. Gas prices only spiked for a short time in 2008 (coincidentally when the world began to get on the Obama train). For the other 7.5 years, gas had been priced reasonably (cheaper than Obama's gas for many years). It was a dollar something for almost the first 5 years of Bush.NightRiderQ45 wrote:Gas was it's highest ever as soon as Bush got in for 8yrs
I really hope you are not serious with this statement? The reason why airlines started charging people to check in bags was because of the very high gas prices (done during the Bush Admin) and the cost per barrel but you state that it was reasonably priced? Disgusting!!! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about so I will debate with someone else. Gas has NEVER BEEN "a dollar something" national average during the Bush Admin for 5yrs +. When Bush took office in January 2001, the national average was $1.46 and went up each year afterwards (FACT). Please stop because your response lacks no type of facts. Please, and I do mean, PLEASE show some type of proof that the nation average for gas for $1.+ during this time Bush Admin for 5yrs? I think even Greg & Stebo know that answer is completely wrong lol! They both are probably doingwingFeather wrote:That is not true. Gas prices only spiked for a short time in 2008 (coincidentally when the world began to get on the Obama train). For the other 7.5 years, gas had been priced reasonably (cheaper than Obama's gas for many years). It was a dollar something for almost the first 5 years of Bush.NightRiderQ45 wrote:Gas was it's highest ever as soon as Bush got in for 8yrs
to your response. LOL! I remember when I used to be in love with the Z in your advatar. My dad had a 89 300Z 2+2 model when it first came out. I LOVED that car, but was sad when he sold it...stebo0728 wrote:I just remembered why I dont normally respond to posts like that, and why I dont normally post numerous claims at once.
Burden of proof is sum'bich LOL
I cant speak to national averages at the time, but I do remember a brief stint here around 2007 I think it was, where gas gas was in the $1.teens for a bit, in fact I was on vacation in MS during that time and bought it for $1.02. That didnt last very long though and it was back up to nearly $2.I think even Greg & Stebo know that answer is completely wrong lol!
Shes sickLOL! I remember when I used to be in love with the Z in your advatar. My dad had a 89 300Z 2+2 model when it first came out. I LOVED that car, but was sad when he sold it...
failing lifters, I cant driver her till I fix her It's the cold hard truth. Sorry you don't like it, but it's the truth. Here is some factual information so that you may study up on the subject: http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx As you can see, prices were under $2 for years under Bush. Under Obama, they have been consistently above $2.NightRiderQ45 wrote:I really hope you are not serious with this statement?
When Bush left office, gas was the cheapest it had been in many years! When Obama stepped into office, it shot up by a dollar & doesn't look to be coming down.After the dramatic spike and then drop in gasoline prices in 2008, retail gasoline prices bottomed out in late December 2008 and then generally increased through May 2010, reaching about $2.90 per gallon for Regular on May 10, 2010. Prices then declined to around $2.70 by mid-June and then increased to $2.76 by June 28th.
Yep, that is the chart. You will notice that prices were lower under Bush, thanks to those large dips. Bush actually gave us breaks! In late 2008 after Obama joined the race & took his kickbacks from BIG OIL... that is the giant spike we see. Coincidence? Hmmm...IBCoupe wrote:The latest numbers look like a continuation of the trend that existed toward the end of the Bush administration. There was a bit of a spike in 2008, and then a massive drop right about when the recession came into full swing. In fact, the trend appears to be lower than it would have been absent absent the anomalous 2008 prices.
Not sure that's the chart you think it is.
Bush gave us a break in November of 2008? Oh, wait. That's right. That's when we elected Obama. Your theory is swiss cheese.wingFeather wrote:You will also notice that, even if you perceive prices as being "back to where they were"... well, how is that an improvement? If Bush was the "oil man" who ruined our lives, then wouldn't gas be less expensive on average under savior Obama? Instead, we see large dips in the chart where Bush gave us all breaks! Obama's side of the chart shows us no breaks, just a fairly steady price.
Thanks the point I have been trying to make. In total agreement with you there.Might it be that oil prices have absolutely nothing to do with the Administration?
And that is when the chart shows prices going back up. Look at January 2009, the price goes back up.IBCoupe wrote:That's when we elected Obama.
Don't tell your fellow Democrats... you all think Bush was charging us $4 a gallon for 8 years. "It's all his fault I tell you dogg!" You & this Q45 guy are too much...IBCoupe wrote:Might it be that oil prices have absolutely nothing to do with the Administration?
whats the difference between slightly overstated and outright lied to? do you want to tell the families of those dead soldiers that the case was slightly overstated?stebo0728 wrote:Ok so let me deal with these things one at a time, I have a busy day today, but I can plug a few in here and there, so first the WMD debate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Ok, yellow cake, so its not ready to blow up tomorrow, but couple that with
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/ ... index.html
Though dormant, there was definitely a pontential nuclear threat looming in Iraq, we removed it from the region.
With that said, I do disagree with the Iraq invasion. Iraq would have to be dealt with at some point, but we took it out of turn, and allowed Iran and N Korea to bolster their efforts. I just get tired of hearing the same old tiring arguments about "WMD's" and "being duped" and "Bush this Cheney that". Perhaps the WMD threat was a bit overstated, and I believe we went on some incorrect information, but that was incorrect external information. But the point remains, although it was not the "one room full of stuff that could kill everyone on earth in 2 seconds" sorta WMD everyone was expecting, that does not negate the threat that in fact was there, nor does it negate the fact that we were able to remove that material from an unstable region.
I understand your sentiment, and I agree, but the frustration is misdirected. Its not a question of a difference between overstatement and lying, but more a question of was there an error in who we got our information from, or an error in the information itself.whats the difference between slightly overstated and outright lied to? do you want to tell the families of those dead soldiers that the case was slightly overstated?
Could you have made a better determination based on the information available at the time? Just curious, because I hear this "lie" myth bandied about frequently.heliochrome85 wrote:whats the difference between slightly overstated and outright lied to? do you want to tell the families of those dead soldiers that the case was slightly overstated?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... hreat.htmlstebo0728 wrote:I understand your sentiment, and I agree, but the frustration is misdirected. Its not a question of a difference between overstatement and lying, but more a question of was there an error in who we got our information from, or an error in the information itself.whats the difference between slightly overstated and outright lied to? do you want to tell the families of those dead soldiers that the case was slightly overstated?
And for the record I have yet to see a publication or new story in which our major ally in this struggle, England, has refuted the existence of WMD. My position, or rather my belief, is that we took too long in talking about the action, instead of just taking the action, and thus the WMD was allowed to escape the region, at least for the most part, besides what was actually found. And thats alot of desert, most of what was found, including military arsenal, was found buried in the desert. Whos to say what may be unearthed in the future, or if what is there will even be unearthed or remain buried for all time. I realize that is speculation, and does not belong in the same category as fact.
look, all im saying is that the evidence presented was shaky at best. shouldnt we have known what saddam had since it was us after all who sold it to him? Im not opposed to the iraq war. he was a ruthless guy. stalin but without power. that being said, it came at a heavy and needless price. Had the case been built better for the war, maybe there wouldnt be so much political opposition. I just hope we can get our boys back sooner rather than later.AZhitman wrote:Could you have made a better determination based on the information available at the time? Just curious, because I hear this "lie" myth bandied about frequently.heliochrome85 wrote:whats the difference between slightly overstated and outright lied to? do you want to tell the families of those dead soldiers that the case was slightly overstated?
From now on, every time the Administration misspeaks, makes a bonehead call, or errs in their figures, I'm going to term it "lying to the American people."
AZhitman wrote:How many past Presidents are we gonna resurrect?
I could give a damn about Iraq by now. Sorry, but there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it now. We have a new Administration that's got plenty to criticize, and looking backward does nothing because you to walk into walls.
For the record, 90% of those people who claim they opposed the Iraq invasion are full of crap. If the shoe fits, wear it. The intel we had at the time was flawed, but we didn't learn that until much later. If you're gonna sit here and claim I'm wrong, then take a close look at how many Democratic politicians supported the invasion and tell me YOU knew more than they did. Beyond that, I'm not interested in hearing how prescient any of you were, because you weren't. Looking back, even I can admit it wasn't a great idea - but that's hindsight.
And I'll concur that the President has little to no influence on the price of fuel. That's ignorant and short-sighted. (Travel abroad and see how much gasoline costs.) We're actually STILL below where it should be, given inflation. Look back at prices from 30 years ago, extrapolate out to today, and you'll see that we're not getting "gouged".
Then let's not be perpetuating the notion that this was some coordinated "lie" to Americans.heliochrome85 wrote: look, all im saying is that the evidence presented was shaky at best. shouldnt we have known what saddam had since it was us after all who sold it to him? Im not opposed to the iraq war.
He's at Ft Bragg NC right now, just finished paratrooper training (82nd Airborne) and was just recommended for Ranger school. We grow 'em badass here at NICO HQ.heliochrome85 wrote: is he stationed out there?
Anything for you, my laundry-noggined snooklebum.heliochrome85 wrote:it makes an grouchy guy smile to hear you say you are a liberal
Agreed 100%. I have always wondered why we wouldn't just put a HUGE bounty on each of their heads. Bring us a head, collect your cash. $10M for Osama, and it steps down from there. We could make some enterprising young Arabs very wealtyh (and teach them how Capitalism works at the same time...heliochrome85 wrote:small scale surgical strikes would have been ideal, but i would have gone with the "give everyone 1,000 dollars and see how fast they retrieve saddams head" way.
). Cheaper than military action, that's for sure. But the TRUE libbies hate the idea. Bummer.
