Right Wingers eating crow on price of gasoline. $1.39 in Indiana.

[francoHFW]

It's barely started, and he never foresaw the total Pub obstruction and fear mongering. From the beginning....We wouldn't survive any more Pre-ACA, costs doubled just under W, btw with 45K dead a year and 500k bankruptcies- with insurance, dupes.

NEVER said immediately- a silly Pub and dupe idea...

As long as you place blame on things irrelevant you sound like a selfish asshole liberal who wants the middle class to pay for your life.

So you figure ACA's competition and Big Health oversight will work totally and immediately. That's pretty dumb.

I don't expect it to be an issue in my life and I never expected having to decide to get insurance or pay a fine. Pretty invasive for a government to force products on us.

Try to answer the question(s) lol...This product is a good one. And hasn't really started to affect yet...

What was the question, you ask nothing you just make statements and want agreement.
I'm paying higher rates. That is not a good start. We are two years into this and it is killing my pocketbook. It was far less expensive when I negotiated with my doctors.

How in the hell would you know if it is better or worse, you are on Medicare.

I read.

 

[francoHFW]

As long as you place blame on things irrelevant you sound like a selfish asshole liberal who wants the middle class to pay for your life.

So you figure ACA's competition and Big Health oversight will work totally and immediately. That's pretty dumb.

I don't expect it to be an issue in my life and I never expected having to decide to get insurance or pay a fine. Pretty invasive for a government to force products on us.

Try to answer the question(s) lol...This product is a good one. And hasn't really started to affect yet...

Correct. If it's this bad now, imagine how much worse it will get in the future.

Franco still hasn't figured out that Barry, Harry and Nancy set up the ACA so that it's true costs wouldn't be apparent until years after it was passed. He's naive enough to believe their claim that the ACA would "bend costs down" in the future. Anyone with even rudimentary math skills and a little common sense knows that is impossible.

It already is...

 

[BlindBoo]

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions

Jeeze, Congress authorized use of military force for two reasons. One was if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, They weren't. The other was the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Without WMD, they weren't.

Did congress approve yes or no?

Technically no. The Bush Administration signed on the UNSCR 1441 which gave the Weapons Inspectors the opportunity to certify that Iraq had complied to the UN Resolutions, and had not restarted it former WMD programs. Did Congress do anything once the President violated that section of the AUMF? No. Does that make them complicit in the whole invasion and occupation. Yes. Everyone of those who vote for it should have resigned in disgrace.

 

[KissMy]

Franco still hasn't figured out that Barry, Harry and Nancy set up the ACA so that it's true costs wouldn't be apparent until years after it was passed. He's naive enough to believe their claim that the ACA would "bend costs down" in the future. Anyone with even rudimentary math skills and a little common sense knows that is impossible.

Does is suck to be so stupid?

Healthcare Cost

 

[jillian]

Obama has given out more exploration permits than any other president. I recently read that his policies have led to oil/gas production that is equal to finding an entire Iraq.

The Keystone disaster shows that Obama is not in the hip pocket of the Koch's.

what about buffet?

what about him?

i'd think the difference is that buffet has a sense of social responsibility.... unlike the kochs.

that said, there shouldn't be any money in government.... but the rightwing judges decided money is speech and corporations are people. of course, Thomas should have recused because his wife benefitted from citizens united, but scalia and Thomas never recuse.

 

[jillian]

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions

Jeeze, Congress authorized use of military force for two reasons. One was if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, They weren't. The other was the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Without WMD, they weren't.

Did congress approve yes or no?

Technically no. The Bush Administration signed on the UNSCR 1441 which gave the Weapons Inspectors the opportunity to certify that Iraq had complied to the UN Resolutions, and had not restarted it former WMD programs. Did Congress do anything once the President violated that section of the AUMF? No. Does that make them complicit in the whole invasion and occupation. Yes. Everyone of those who vote for it should have resigned in disgrace.

that doesn't suit their meme....

 

[francoHFW]

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions

Jeeze, Congress authorized use of military force for two reasons. One was if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, They weren't. The other was the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Without WMD, they weren't.

Did congress approve yes or no?

Technically no. The Bush Administration signed on the UNSCR 1441 which gave the Weapons Inspectors the opportunity to certify that Iraq had complied to the UN Resolutions, and had not restarted it former WMD programs. Did Congress do anything once the President violated that section of the AUMF? No. Does that make them complicit in the whole invasion and occupation. Yes. Everyone of those who vote for it should have resigned in disgrace.

that doesn't suit their meme....

Excuse Dems for believing Booosh Bs....

 

[TNHarley]

Obama has given out more exploration permits than any other president. I recently read that his policies have led to oil/gas production that is equal to finding an entire Iraq.

The Keystone disaster shows that Obama is not in the hip pocket of the Koch's.

what about buffet?

what about him?

i'd think the difference is that buffet has a sense of social responsibility.... unlike the kochs.

that said, there shouldn't be any money in government.... but the rightwing judges decided money is speech and corporations are people. of course, Thomas should have recused because his wife benefitted from citizens united, but scalia and Thomas never recuse.

The Kochs aren't socially responsible? REALLY?
And buffet deals in railcars. It was completely relevant to what dud said..

 

[jc456]

Obama has given out more exploration permits than any other president. I recently read that his policies have led to oil/gas production that is equal to finding an entire Iraq.

The Keystone disaster shows that Obama is not in the hip pocket of the Koch's.

what about buffet?

what about him?

i'd think the difference is that buffet has a sense of social responsibility.... unlike the kochs.

that said, there shouldn't be any money in government.... but the rightwing judges decided money is speech and corporations are people. of course, Thomas should have recused because his wife benefitted from citizens united, but scalia and Thomas never recuse.

really. You're going with that one eh? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm please explain how he is and the Kochs aren't? Can you even do that, or are you just shouting from the mountain top?

 

[Oldstyle]

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions

Jeeze, Congress authorized use of military force for two reasons. One was if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, They weren't. The other was the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Without WMD, they weren't.

9/11 had nothing to do with Congress authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, Boo. Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people. He was restarting his nuclear weapons programs with money being generated by black market sales of oil, with the son of the Secretary General of the UN one of the people who were orchestrating those sales! If you read the top secret Downing Street Memos that were leaked, you'll see that intelligence agencies in both Britain and the United States were deeply concerned about whether or not Saddam would use his WMD's if Iraq was invaded.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13041014

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions.....

Bush did not invade Iraq at a time when SH was "in" violation of UN sanctions. The decision to invade was was made five months after UN Resolution 1441 was passed, in which Bush agreed to give SH a "final opportunityto comply" with a all previous UN sanctions and violations. No Iraqi violation of 1441 was deemed to exist by the UNSC during those five months of inspections.

So Bush did not invade Iraq because of 'blatant" violations of UN inspections. That excuse is a right wing myth.

It is fair to speculate what the real reasons might be.

We do know as a matter of fact that there was a spike in crude oil pricing following the invasion. Halliburton held the patent on hydraulic fracking. The fracking boom took off in the U.S. when oil prices rocketed up to $80 a barrel.

Some coincidence eh?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13063654

Franco still hasn't figured out that Barry, Harry and Nancy set up the ACA so that it's true costs wouldn't be apparent until years after it was passed.

You are making yet another accusation that you cannot backup.

I'm not making an "accusation"...I'm stating fact. The way that the ACA was drawn up...the way that it was implemented...were all designed to delay the full cost of the law to those who will ultimately bear the cost of it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13041014

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions.....

Bush did not invade Iraq at a time when SH was "in" violation of UN sanctions. The decision to invade was was made five months after UN Resolution 1441 was passed, in which Bush agreed to give SH a "final opportunityto comply" with a all previous UN sanctions and violations. No Iraqi violation of 1441 was deemed to exist by the UNSC during those five months of inspections.

So Bush did not invade Iraq because of 'blatant" violations of UN inspections. That excuse is a right wing myth.

It is fair to speculate what the real reasons might be.

We do know as a matter of fact that there was a spike in crude oil pricing following the invasion. Halliburton held the patent on hydraulic fracking. The fracking boom took off in the U.S. when oil prices rocketed up to $80 a barrel.

Some coincidence eh?

That's laughable, TotallyfooledbyObama! If Halliburton really did "hold the patent" on hydraulic fracking and pushed for an invasion of Iraq to drive up oil prices then why did they wait years before widely using fracking?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.


He was restarting his nuclear weapons programs

Not true. Force was authorized IF and only IF necessary - meaning IF the UN and Iraq did not restart the inspection process. Force in that sense was not really authorized.

Your statement on nuclear weapons programs is false. It was known to be false prior to the invasion.

 

[jc456]

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions

Jeeze, Congress authorized use of military force for two reasons. One was if Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks, They weren't. The other was the threat posed by Iraq to the United States. Without WMD, they weren't.

9/11 had nothing to do with Congress authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, Boo. Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War. As for the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein and WMD's? He had already used them against Iran and his own people. He was restarting his nuclear weapons programs with money being generated by black market sales of oil, with the son of the Secretary General of the UN one of the people who were orchestrating those sales! If you read the top secret Downing Street Memos that were leaked, you'll see that intelligence agencies in both Britain and the United States were deeply concerned about whether or not Saddam would use his WMD's if Iraq was invaded.

you know what I find extremely funny is the hypocrisy of the libturds. The US stepped in to stop the unnecessary deaths of muslims. So it's ok to be racist as a libturd when Bush was president. Hmmmmm.. very funny class.

 

[jc456]

Oldstyle 13041014

You seem to be implying that Bush invaded Iraq not because Saddam Hussein was blatantly violating UN sanctions.....

Bush did not invade Iraq at a time when SH was "in" violation of UN sanctions. The decision to invade was was made five months after UN Resolution 1441 was passed, in which Bush agreed to give SH a "final opportunityto comply" with a all previous UN sanctions and violations. No Iraqi violation of 1441 was deemed to exist by the UNSC during those five months of inspections.

So Bush did not invade Iraq because of 'blatant" violations of UN inspections. That excuse is a right wing myth.

It is fair to speculate what the real reasons might be.

We do know as a matter of fact that there was a spike in crude oil pricing following the invasion. Halliburton held the patent on hydraulic fracking. The fracking boom took off in the U.S. when oil prices rocketed up to $80 a barrel.

Some coincidence eh?

did congress approve it or not?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13066086

I'm not making an "accusation"...I'm stating fact. The way that the ACA was drawn up...the way that it was implemented...were all designed to delay the full cost of the law to those who will ultimately bear the cost of it.

No it was not. What is you basis for such a false accusation.

 

[jc456]

Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.


He was restarting his nuclear weapons programs

Not true. Force was authorized IF and only IF necessary - meaning IF the UN and Iraq did not restart the inspection process. Force in that sense was not really authorized.

Your statement on nuclear weapons programs is false. It was known to be false prior to the invasion.

ahhh the ole looking back is 20/20 ploy. libturds love to look back and claim to be right. hahahahahahahahahahaaha, can you say nope??????

 

[Oldstyle]

Force was authorized because the Iraqis were violating sanctions they had agreed to at the end of the first Gulf War.


He was restarting his nuclear weapons programs

Not true. Force was authorized IF and only IF necessary - meaning IF the UN and Iraq did not restart the inspection process. Force in that sense was not really authorized.

Your statement on nuclear weapons programs is false. It was known to be false prior to the invasion.

Really? Then kindly explain the Downing Street Memos, TotallyfooledbyObama! Why are British and American planners of the upcoming invasion worried about Saddam using WMD's if they know he has none? The minutes from that top secret meeting were leaked by liberals because they thought it painted Bush in a bad light but what it actually does is reveal that both British and American intelligence services were convinced that Saddam HAD WMD's.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13066086

I'm not making an "accusation"...I'm stating fact. The way that the ACA was drawn up...the way that it was implemented...were all designed to delay the full cost of the law to those who will ultimately bear the cost of it.

No it was not. What is you basis for such a false accusation.

Do you know ANYTHING about the ACA? How do you not know that it's roll out was designed to shift costs down the road? You're either woefully ignorant or deliberately deceitful.