The President with the worst average unemployment rate since World War II is?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Show the facts!

USA is one of the largest oil producing countries in the world.
And you make the "opinion" statement " you made and then you try to say I am irrelevant.
Nice try.
You agree it is producing more oil than ever, and you say what you say about controlling the economy.

Why the O'Reilly bit?
I just explained reality and you keep harping on the irrelevant.
The US is one of the top oil producers in the world now. So who is controlling the economy?
Is, or is not, the stock market reaching record highs?
So who is controlling the economy?
.

My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing the most and not enough are two completely separate things.

Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

 

[boilermaker55]

You still haven't disputed the facts posted.

Show the facts!

USA is one of the largest oil producing countries in the world.
And you make the "opinion" statement " you made and then you try to say I am irrelevant.
Nice try.
You agree it is producing more oil than ever, and you say what you say about controlling the economy.

My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing the most and not enough are two completely separate things.

Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show the facts!

USA is one of the largest oil producing countries in the world.
And you make the "opinion" statement " you made and then you try to say I am irrelevant.
Nice try.
You agree it is producing more oil than ever, and you say what you say about controlling the economy.

My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing the most and not enough are two completely separate things.

Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

Did you sleep through the recession?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You still haven't disputed the facts posted.

Show the facts!

My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing the most and not enough are two completely separate things.

Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

I've refuted them.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Show the facts!

My point is based in fact, not opinion. Producing the most and not enough are two completely separate things.

Look at the price of oil (and subsequently all consumer goods) in late 2008 before obama reimposed drilling and exploration restrictions and follow the price beyond that. Juxtapose that against stagnant and lower wages.

Juxtapose that with the 2.49 gas I bought yesterday, Captain Juxtaposer.

Juxtapose that 2.49 with the 1.35 just before obama imposed drilling restrictions.
Juxtapose that with the 15 - 40% increased consumer goods prices after obama reimposed drilling restrictions.

Did you sleep through the recession?

No, because I'm still awake as it goes on.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, Republican tax cuts are the reason 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax.

The ceasefire violations were never sufficient cause to invade Iraq.

Why hasn't Obama raised the federal income tax on the lower and middle class tax payers if the tax cut was such a bad thing?

The leading Democrats in the Senate apparently disagreed with your opinion on invading Iraq since they voted for it.

How did Democrats in the House vote?

You keep avoiding that more Democrats voted against the war than for it and that only seven Republicans had the balls to oppose the invasion

Enough Democrats voted for it, including Hillary Clinton, to enable the war. What about that is mysterious to you? Dems were for the war before they were against it.

The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines." The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was hot to trot.

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

 

[rightwinger]

There were no lies. Democrats had access to the same intelligence Bush did. Facts just are not your friends, Nutjobber. Must be why you live in Fantasyland.

Bush and Cheney got the Iraq intelligence they demanded

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

Who said Iraq was a threat

- The UN
- The French
- The Russians
- The Germans
- The Democrats

Who said Iraq was not a threat

- ...

Crickets.

See big guy, this is what happens when you rewrite history. Invading Iraq was a bad idea. Stockpiles of WMDs were irrelevant. He repeatedly used them, so he had the capability to make them. You don't need stockpiles. If that was why you supported it at the time, then you should still support it.

I'm tired of taking the hit for everyone. Look what happened when the US didn't attack ISIS. The Jordanians and Egyptians did. We need to stop carrying everyone's water for them while they undercut us and stab us in the back.

but you have zero integrity. Your view shifts constantly based on the party in power and who it helps and harms. When you grow a pair, get back to me. In the meantime, you can just keep wearing a dress for the Democrats and bending over whenever they ask

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

Aleady a failed point Bush had waited over 18 months during which time Saddam had expelled the inspectors at least once. Saddam continued to cover up, delay, and lie.
Compare that to Ghaddafi's handing over his nuclear arsenal and you see what full and fair accounting looks like Too bad Obozo bumbled Libya as well and got our ambassador killed.

Blix was there
UN inspectors were doing their job and asked for more time

Bush ordered them out of the country so he could invade

 

[The Rabbi]

Why hasn't Obama raised the federal income tax on the lower and middle class tax payers if the tax cut was such a bad thing?

The leading Democrats in the Senate apparently disagreed with your opinion on invading Iraq since they voted for it.

How did Democrats in the House vote?

You keep avoiding that more Democrats voted against the war than for it and that only seven Republicans had the balls to oppose the invasion

Enough Democrats voted for it, including Hillary Clinton, to enable the war. What about that is mysterious to you? Dems were for the war before they were against it.

The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines." The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was hot to trot.

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months. Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq. Everyone knew it would likely be used.

 

[The Rabbi]

There were no lies. Democrats had access to the same intelligence Bush did. Facts just are not your friends, Nutjobber. Must be why you live in Fantasyland.

Bush and Cheney got the Iraq intelligence they demanded

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

Who said Iraq was a threat

- The UN
- The French
- The Russians
- The Germans
- The Democrats

Who said Iraq was not a threat

- ...

Crickets.

See big guy, this is what happens when you rewrite history. Invading Iraq was a bad idea. Stockpiles of WMDs were irrelevant. He repeatedly used them, so he had the capability to make them. You don't need stockpiles. If that was why you supported it at the time, then you should still support it.

I'm tired of taking the hit for everyone. Look what happened when the US didn't attack ISIS. The Jordanians and Egyptians did. We need to stop carrying everyone's water for them while they undercut us and stab us in the back.

but you have zero integrity. Your view shifts constantly based on the party in power and who it helps and harms. When you grow a pair, get back to me. In the meantime, you can just keep wearing a dress for the Democrats and bending over whenever they ask

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

Aleady a failed point Bush had waited over 18 months during which time Saddam had expelled the inspectors at least once. Saddam continued to cover up, delay, and lie.
Compare that to Ghaddafi's handing over his nuclear arsenal and you see what full and fair accounting looks like Too bad Obozo bumbled Libya as well and got our ambassador killed.

Blix was there
UN inspectors were doing their job and asked for more time

Bush ordered them out of the country so he could invade

They were in the country when Saddam allowed them, although he barred them from many sites. He also could not account for stockpiles listed after the Gulf War and was not cooperative.

 

[rightwinger]

How did Democrats in the House vote?

You keep avoiding that more Democrats voted against the war than for it and that only seven Republicans had the balls to oppose the invasion

Enough Democrats voted for it, including Hillary Clinton, to enable the war. What about that is mysterious to you? Dems were for the war before they were against it.

The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines." The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was hot to trot.

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months. Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq. Everyone knew it would likely be used.

Bush panicked once Blix told him he did not think there were WMDs

Bush pulled the trigger before he lost his reason for invasion

 

[The Rabbi]

Enough Democrats voted for it, including Hillary Clinton, to enable the war. What about that is mysterious to you? Dems were for the war before they were against it.

The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines." The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was hot to trot.

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months. Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq. Everyone knew it would likely be used.

Bush panicked once Blix told him he did not think there were WMDs

Bush pulled the trigger before he lost his reason for invasion

Because Bush knew waging war would make him really popular, right?
What you dont know would fill the internet, Nutjobber.

 

[rightwinger]

Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

 

[rightwinger]

The authorization reads: "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he (Bush) determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to...."
It does not say Bush's gotta or were gonna be pissed and impeach Bush if he don't. It just says as "he (Bush) determines." The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, simple politics, and Bush was hot to trot.

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months. Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq. Everyone knew it would likely be used.

Bush panicked once Blix told him he did not think there were WMDs

Bush pulled the trigger before he lost his reason for invasion

Because Bush knew waging war would make him really popular, right?
What you dont know would fill the internet, Nutjobber.

Thats about right

From the day Bush took office, he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. Once 9-11 happened, Bush looked for any piece of evidence that Iraq was involved

Bush thought that Iraq would be his legacy....turned out it was

 

[The Rabbi]

Thats a fail. Everyone knew they were voting for war.

No they weren't

They voted to give Bush the option if he felt he needed it

Bush did not go to war when he got the approval. He waited three months and attacked once it looked like it would be proven there were no WMDs

So first you claim Bush rushed headlong into war. Now you claim he waited 3 months. Make up what's left of your mind.
And yes, the resolution authorized force in Iraq. Everyone knew it would likely be used.

Bush panicked once Blix told him he did not think there were WMDs

Bush pulled the trigger before he lost his reason for invasion

Because Bush knew waging war would make him really popular, right?
What you dont know would fill the internet, Nutjobber.

Thats about right

From the day Bush took office, he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. Once 9-11 happened, Bush looked for any piece of evidence that Iraq was involved

Bush thought that Iraq would be his legacy....turned out it was

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

Frm your link:
Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."[5]

 

[Londoner]

Up until Obama The President of the United States was accountable for many things....

Obama is not it seems....

Silly rabbit, you know presidents are not accountable for anything.

The greatest housing meltdown in history happened under Bush, but it was the Democrats' fault.

The greatest financial crash since the Great Depression happened under Bush, but it was the Democrats' fault.

The largest attack on U.S. soil happened under Bush (who failed to protect the eastern seaboard despite the August 2011 memo), but it was Clinton's fault.

The greatest job growth in a quarter century happened under Clinton, but it was because of Newt.

We get it, the president is responsible for nothing.

(Help. This guy votes)

 

[rightwinger]

Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

Frm your link:
Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."[5]

Blix was talking about actions in 1991

In 2003, Blix let it be known there was little evidence of WMDs

 

[kaz]

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

You're moving the goal posts big guy. This is the point I refuted:

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

I provided a link that proved that they did

The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistent Myth of Intelligence Failure Foreign Policy Journal

LOL, what a whacko leftist site, that's a hoot. Did you read any of the articles? They are moonbat on your scale, big guy.

The Democrats on the other hand:

John Edwards: "As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

Wesley Clark: "He does have weapons of mass destruction. ... There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this."

Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members..."

Al Gore: "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry: "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

Barrack Obama: "{Hussein} has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."

 

[kaz]

There were no lies. Democrats had access to the same intelligence Bush did. Facts just are not your friends, Nutjobber. Must be why you live in Fantasyland.

Bush and Cheney got the Iraq intelligence they demanded

They brushed aside anything that said Iraq was not a threat

Who said Iraq was a threat

- The UN
- The French
- The Russians
- The Germans
- The Democrats

Who said Iraq was not a threat

- ...

Crickets.

See big guy, this is what happens when you rewrite history. Invading Iraq was a bad idea. Stockpiles of WMDs were irrelevant. He repeatedly used them, so he had the capability to make them. You don't need stockpiles. If that was why you supported it at the time, then you should still support it.

I'm tired of taking the hit for everyone. Look what happened when the US didn't attack ISIS. The Jordanians and Egyptians did. We need to stop carrying everyone's water for them while they undercut us and stab us in the back.

but you have zero integrity. Your view shifts constantly based on the party in power and who it helps and harms. When you grow a pair, get back to me. In the meantime, you can just keep wearing a dress for the Democrats and bending over whenever they ask

Did the UN say Bush should invade?
Did the French? Germans? Majority of Democrats? Obama?

No

All advised Bush to wait for more proof. Bush invaded before proof that Iraq was not a threat came out

Aleady a failed point Bush had waited over 18 months during which time Saddam had expelled the inspectors at least once. Saddam continued to cover up, delay, and lie.
Compare that to Ghaddafi's handing over his nuclear arsenal and you see what full and fair accounting looks like Too bad Obozo bumbled Libya as well and got our ambassador killed.

Blix was there
UN inspectors were doing their job and asked for more time

Bush ordered them out of the country so he could invade

You said W ignored people who said Saddam was not a threat. Blix did not say that, so you still have not supported your point

 

[kaz]

Hans Blix - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC 1 on 8 February 2004, Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatizing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were ever found.

Frm your link:
Blix personally admonished Saddam for "cat and mouse" games[3] and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it attempted to hinder or delay his mission.[4]

In his report to the UN Security Council on 14 February 2003, Blix claimed that "If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided."[5]

Blix was talking about actions in 1991

In 2003, Blix let it be known there was little evidence of WMDs

That isn't what he said. He said he thought he could find them with more time. He did not say what you just made up