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

[Timmy]

Looking like we'll have another Dem President in '16 to keep gas prices low given the current Repub line-up.

Keep repeating that DumBama is the reason gas prices are low. You make our case against public schools with each and every one of your posts.

Yeah . He's only to blame when they are high! Obama can never ever get credit for anything good !!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Looking like we'll have another Dem President in '16 to keep gas prices low given the current Repub line-up.

Keep repeating that DumBama is the reason gas prices are low. You make our case against public schools with each and every one of your posts.

Yeah . He's only to blame when they are high! Obama can never ever get credit for anything good !!!!

I'm perfectly willing to give anybody credit provided there's proof that they actually did something to credit them for.

Just being in the right place at the right time does not warrant such credit. DumBama has closed down coal fired power plants and even made attacks on fracking which is the main reason our energy is lower in price today. Mr.Green did nothing to lower the price of gasoline, and in fact, reduced drilling and exploration permits on public land.

Furthermore is the fact we are doing better economically due to lower priced fuel. And who are the Democrats crediting that to?

 

[Dot Com]

Looking like we'll have another Dem President in '16 to keep gas prices low given the current Repub line-up.

Keep repeating that DumBama is the reason gas prices are low. You make our case against public schools with each and every one of your posts.

Dumbama? How cute Ray From Cleveland

BTW- you even log-off today kid?

 

[KissMy]

National Average Gasoline Pump Prices are Under $1.997

Gasoline selling for $1.34 at Admiral, 405 E Market St, Crawfordsville, IN 47933

 

[Spoonman]

can someone tell me why Obama kept the prices so high his first 7 years

 

[Oldstyle]

It laughably pathetic that Barack Obama's Presidency has been so bad that you liberals have to claim low gas prices as one of his "successes"! That says VOLUMES about what a fail President he's been!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Papageo 13076542

The asshole Putin has made Obama his bitch a few times.

Name one time Putin made Obama his bitch. And the front runner in the GOP nomination process loves Putin and Putin loves him.

Remember that Putin surrendered all of Assad's chemical weapons because of Obama. That action was praised by Netanyahu for making Israel much safer. Putin was the bitch on Syria.

So vote for Trump if you want to see Putin manhandle a U.S. president. That's why Putin likes him.

You Teapublicans don't know what you want.

Being a bitch in the sense that you used it is more like Tony Blair being Bush's bitch on invading Iraq. And that did not mean Bush as alpha male cowboy made one single correct move once he decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

 

[hortysir]

Looking like we'll have another Dem President in '16 to keep gas prices low given the current Repub line-up.

Keep repeating that DumBama is the reason gas prices are low. You make our case against public schools with each and every one of your posts.

Yeah . He's only to blame when they are high! Obama can never ever get credit for anything good !!!!

I'm perfectly willing to give anybody credit provided there's proof that they actually did something to credit them for.

Just being in the right place at the right time does not warrant such credit. DumBama has closed down coal fired power plants and even made attacks on fracking which is the main reason our energy is lower in price today. Mr.Green did nothing to lower the price of gasoline, and in fact, reduced drilling and exploration permits on public land.

Furthermore is the fact we are doing better economically due to lower priced fuel. And who are the Democrats crediting that to?

And another point....NOBAMA asked OPEC to slow production, which would have raised the price, but was told no

Sent from my Y538 using Tapatalk

 

[Papageorgio]

Papageo 13076542

The asshole Putin has made Obama his bitch a few times.

Name one time Putin made Obama his bitch. And the front runner in the GOP nomination process loves Putin and Putin loves him.

Remember that Putin surrendered all of Assad's chemical weapons because of Obama. That action was praised by Netanyahu for making Israel much safer. Putin was the bitch on Syria.

So vote for Trump if you want to see Putin manhandle a U.S. president. That's why Putin likes him.

You Teapublicans don't know what you want.

Being a bitch in the sense that you used it is more like Tony Blair being Bush's bitch on invading Iraq. And that did not mean Bush as alpha male cowboy made one single correct move once he decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/29/obama-has-turned-putin-into-the-worlds-most-powerful-leader/

Then we won't go into the sanctuary airport that Putin set up for a traitor.

As far as Trump, why in the hell would you think I'd vote for Trump? Oh wait, you lump everyone on the right together. You are a special kind of dumb.

 

[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.

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

 

[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 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.

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

Nope. You said it not me. ". 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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

 

[Dot Com]

butt hurt rw'ers

Reminds me of this

 

[Oldstyle]

butt hurt rw'ers

Reminds me of this

What's amusing is that you Progressives actually think THAT is Barry...when THIS is who Barry Obama really is!

He's a safety helmet wearing...girl's bike riding...pussy!

 

[Oldstyle]

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

Nope. You said it not me. ". 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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:

Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

Nope. You said it not me. ". 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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:

Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.

I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.

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.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

 

[FA_Q2]

Saddam didn't have a war with Iraq, you idiot...he was the President of Iraq...he had a war with Iran...and he had a war with Kuwait!

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

Nope. You said it not me. ". 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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:

Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.

I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.

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.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.

The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.

 

[Dot Com]

Gas Prices Just Dropped Below a Monumental Point

Thank you Mr. President!!!

 

[BlindBoo]

Kurds and Shiites were his countrymen too. Don't tell me he didn't take action against them either.

Nice try at deflection, Boo...too stupid to know the difference between Iran and Iraq...weren't you?

Nope. You said it not me. ". 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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

That is blatantly false. His repression of his own people and the violations of the UN agreement were both listed as reasons for military force among many others:

Text - H.J.Res.114 - 107th Congress (2001-2002): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

I think you are confusing the act that authorities war with Iraq and the one that authorities actions against terrorists.

I'm not confusing anything. You are. The first section does not authorize military action. Sec. 3 does and it lists the reasons. From your link.

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.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

The first section is the reasons. That is why it is nothing more than a list of 'whereas' statements.

The section cited includes:
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

And you directly stated:
You said it not me. "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." But that still was not a reason listed in section of the resolution to authorize military force against Iraq. Makes you the stupid one. Can't remember what you posted?

And the security resolution in question directly dealt with weapon programs.

The first section also include this:
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

The Bush administration signed onto Res. 1441 and it was being enforced at the time. IN it we agree that if the inspector reported any interference by Iraq the UNSC would reconvene to determine the next step. The inspectors did not report any interference but President Bush made his decision to renege on that obligation.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf

The first section also had:
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Where that act had no authorization for military action.