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

[NotfooledbyW]

JC 13066151

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

There were no deaths of Muslims on orders of Saddam Hussein to be stopped in Iraq in March 2003. Muslims started dying the very moment Bush began to shock and awe them.

Were you alive then? Old enough to understand a basic news report?

 

[jc456]

JC 13066151

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

There was no deaths of Muslims on orders of Saddam Hussein to be stopped in Iraq in March 2003. Muslims started dying the very moment Bush began to shock and awe them.

Were you alive then? Old enough to understand a basic news report?

sure there were, there were hundreds of thousands of bodies found during the UN inspections. you should actually look at history instead of making fictional stories.

 

[Oldstyle]

JC 13066151

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

There were no deaths of Muslims on orders of Saddam Hussein to be stopped in Iraq in March 2003. Muslims started dying the very moment Bush began to shock and awe them.

Were you alive then? Old enough to understand a basic news report?

God but you're ignorant! Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims throughout the Middle East...Kurds...Iranians...Kuwaitis...and those other Iraqi Muslims he had killed.

If there was an award for most clueless poster on this board you'd be in a dead heat with R-Derp!

This post was supposed to be to TotallyfooledbyObama...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13066205

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.

The ACA could not become law if it adds debt to the U.S. Treasury. It was always scored by the CBO to reduce costs to the taxpayer and U.S. Treasury once implemented and in full operation.

 

[jc456]

JC 13066151

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

There were no deaths of Muslims on orders of Saddam Hussein to be stopped in Iraq in March 2003. Muslims started dying the very moment Bush began to shock and awe them.

Were you alive then? Old enough to understand a basic news report?

God but you're ignorant! Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims throughout the Middle East...Kurds...Iranians...Kuwaitis...and those other Iraqi Muslims he had killed.

If there was an award for most clueless poster on this board you'd be in a dead heat with R-Derp!

why did we protect Kuwait if he wasn't killing muslims. I tell you the libturds stupid is never ending. just wow.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm pretty sure that TotallyfooledbyObama will insist it had to do with Halliburton making millions, JC! Not that Saddam was a power hungry sociopath!

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13066205

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.

The ACA could not become law if it adds debt to the U.S. Treasury. It was always scored by the CBO to reduce costs to the taxpayer and U.S. Treasury once implemented and in full operation.

Now THAT is the most amusing thing I've ever heard! The ACA will not reduce costs to the "taxpayer". It will impose a new burden on those who pay taxes. Get this through your head...Obamacare was never about lowering healthcare costs! It's always been about providing subsidized healthcare for the poor and having those costs picked up by the Middle Class.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jc 13066231

sure there were, there were hundreds of thousands of bodies found during the UN inspections. you should actually look at history instead of making fictional stories.

They found bodies of Iraqis in 2003 that were killed when?

 

[jc456]

Oldstyle 13066205

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.

The ACA could not become law if it adds debt to the U.S. Treasury. It was always scored by the CBO to reduce costs to the taxpayer and U.S. Treasury once implemented and in full operation.

Now THAT is the most amusing thing I've ever heard! The ACA will not reduce costs to the "taxpayer". It will impose a new burden on those who pay taxes. Get this through your head...Obamacare was never about lowering healthcare costs! It's always been about providing subsidized healthcare for the poor and having those costs picked up by the Middle Class.

^^^^ding, ding, ding^^^^^

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13066364

Now THAT is the most amusing thing I've ever heard! The ACA will not reduce costs to the "taxpayer".

So you are saying the CBO are liars?

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle 13066364

Now THAT is the most amusing thing I've ever heard! The ACA will not reduce costs to the "taxpayer".

So you are saying the CBO are liars?

Oh for god's sake...the CBO takes numbers that government gives them and makes estimates based on those numbers.

When you give them made up numbers or don't include costs in the numbers you give them...then the end result will be meaningless.

CBO: It's Not Possible to Analyze Obamacare Costs

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oldstyle 13066364

Now THAT is the most amusing thing I've ever heard! The ACA will not reduce costs to the "taxpayer".

So you are saying the CBO are liars?

Oh for god's sake...the CBO takes numbers that government gives them and makes estimates based on those numbers.

When you give them made up numbers or don't include costs in the numbers you give them...then the end result will be meaningless.

CBO: It's Not Possible to Analyze Obamacare Costs

So you lied.

From your link to the Washington Examiner.

"Before it become law, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that Obamacare would cost $938 billion and reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first decade, from 2010 through 2019."

What I said is true. What you said is not true.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 I said it was one of two reasons Congress authorized action against Iraq. That is if Iraq was found to have participated in the attack.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

 

[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.

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.

Saddam's actions against his own countrymen was not mentioned in the section of the resolution to authorized military force against Iraq. In fact our history of support for Saddam during his war against Iraq helped killed about a million Arab Muslims. So to think we'd step in to save them is just not consistent with reality.

 

[BlindBoo]

JC 13066151

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

There were no deaths of Muslims on orders of Saddam Hussein to be stopped in Iraq in March 2003. Muslims started dying the very moment Bush began to shock and awe them.

Were you alive then? Old enough to understand a basic news report?

God but you're ignorant! Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims throughout the Middle East...Kurds...Iranians...Kuwaitis...and those other Iraqi Muslims he had killed.

If there was an award for most clueless poster on this board you'd be in a dead heat with R-Derp!

This post was supposed to be to TotallyfooledbyObama...

American's can say "And I helped" in killing of them too.

 

[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.

Saddam's actions against his own countrymen was not mentioned in the section of the resolution to authorized military force against Iraq. In fact our history of support for Saddam during his war against Iraq helped killed about a million Arab Muslims. So to think we'd step in to save them is just not consistent with reality.

I never said it did. I was merely discussing how big of hypocrites the libturds are. Take out a guy killing muslims. Someone even posted he never did. Now come on man, how stupid was that post?

 

[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.

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.

Saddam's actions against his own countrymen was not mentioned in the section of the resolution to authorized military force against Iraq. In fact our history of support for Saddam during his war against Iraq helped killed about a million Arab Muslims. So to think we'd step in to save them is just not consistent with reality.

I never said it did. I was merely discussing how big of hypocrites the libturds are. Take out a guy killing muslims. Someone even posted he never did. Now come on man, how stupid was that post?

Sure you did. when you said "The US stepped in to stop the unnecessary deaths of muslims". We didn't. We 'Stepped in" because President Bush decided that Iraq had WMD and was an immediate threat to the USA. Also if you think about the results of the invasion, occupation and subsequent civil war, many Muslim's were killed unnecessarily. Furthermore now that the civil war has boiled over into a regional conflict many more Muslims are being killed.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I am experiencing the pain and it is a lot worse.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jc 13066231

there were hundreds of thousands of bodies found during the UN inspections. you should actually look at history instead of making fictional stories.

Your story is fiction. Mass graves from decades earlier were not located and dug up during the UN inspections of 2003.

So are you hiding now that you have found out that you are wrong?

Where are you?

 

[jc456]

jc 13066231

there were hundreds of thousands of bodies found during the UN inspections. you should actually look at history instead of making fictional stories.

Your story is fiction. Mass graves from decades earlier were not located and dug up during the UN inspections of 2003.

So are you hiding now that you have found out that you are wrong?

Where are you?

i'm right here, perhaps they found them when they took him out, I don't care, the fact remains the dude was killing muslims and the US took him out. Isn't that what you want today with ISIS or are you for them. Will you be that hypocrite?

So dude, did congress approve the invasion or not?