[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 80°F  
High: 79°F ~ Low: 54°F
Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Necessity or gouging?

Posted Friday, April 30, 2010, at 10:29 PM

I've noticed oil prices have been on a very upward trend since the unforfortunate oil spill off the coast of Louisiana.

Is this a necessity or taking advantage of the situation to raise prices?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

It usually starts to go up this time of year due to summer travel, but we can bet they will squeeze every extra penny out of us they can and use any excuse they can to do so. You know business as usual

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Fri, Apr 30, 2010, at 11:27 PM

Since oil is traded on the open market, investors are betting oil will rise. Speculation helps drive up prices. In addition to that GDP is rising and (as wonderwhy pointed out) summer driving season is upon us increasing demand. It's a perfect storm. I won't be shocked to see it trading at 150.00 a barrel by august.

-- Posted by Tim Baker on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 12:13 AM

Well from what I heard, gas prices were not suppose to go up anymore since George Bush is no longer president. LOL!

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sat, May 1, 2010, at 8:49 PM

Well from what I heard, gas prices were not suppose to go up anymore since George Bush is no longer president. LOL!

-- Posted by jaxspike

You mean liberals and the MSM (redundant?) LIED to us????

-- Posted by quietmike on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 7:31 AM

Yes, we sure do miss that 5 dollar a gallon gas Bush gave us. As for the "unfortunate oil spill" in the gulf....let's hear that good ole' Republican battle cry again.

"Drill, Baby, Drill!"......oops

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 11:01 AM

Rocket Valentine . . . what will you say when gas prices go up when Obama is in office.

What a moron to believe that the president dictates gas prices. People like that shouldn't vote because of their ignorance.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 1:52 PM

Yes, we sure do miss that 5 dollar a gallon gas Bush gave us. As for the "unfortunate oil spill" in the gulf....let's hear that good ole' Republican battle cry again.

"Drill, Baby, Drill!"......oops

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine

This coming from the same side that believes we can borrow and tax our way out of a recession.

-- Posted by quietmike on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 6:00 PM

quietmike - And we should take economic advice from Republicans that created the recession?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 8:23 PM

Rocket, I'm with you.

-- Posted by MotherMayhem on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 9:08 PM

Drill Baby Drill equals KILL BABY KILL

Where will they want to drill the next death machine? Guess Palin would love to comment on that......I do notice she has been silent on this explosion. No winks or cutesy prom queen appearances. This is what the republican party campaigned on during the election, yet so much silence.

quietmike where did Pres. Bush get all his funding from? You don't think he borrowed it do you?

-- Posted by KaiteJones on Sun, May 2, 2010, at 9:45 PM

"quietmike - And we should take economic advice from Republicans that created the recession?"

The recession was caused by the burst of the mortgage bubble. How exactly did Republicans cause the mortgage bubble? The changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under Clinton is what led to the frenzy of subprime lending that occurred especially under Fannie Mae. Earlier in this decade when the Republicans sought to more tightly regulate these lenders, Dems fought them tooth and nail. Ask Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd and Gregory Meeks why no regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was needed. Watch the videos below and tell me how republicans caused the subprime lending crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEX...

-- Posted by cortnerkin on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 1:01 AM

Rocket Valentine

Look back a few years and you will see that the recession started AFTER the DEMOCRATS took control of congress.

Congress writes the budgets.

-- Posted by quietmike on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 3:44 AM

I know you Republicans are trying hard to block the Bush administration out of your memory, but the fact is it was an 8 year fiscal nightmare. Bush took a 128 billion dollar surplus leftover from Clinton and turned it into a 455 billion dollar deficit before the mortgage crisis even happened. And Bush didn't even add the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the budget, so it was really even more than that.

Bush and the Republicans spent our money like drunken sailors for 8 years...where were these crazy t-baggers then?

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 11:19 AM

KatieJones - Well said. Haven't heard Palin say a word lately....."How's that drilly-spilly thing workin' out for ya now?" wink,wink.."You betcha"

(my Sarah Palin imitation)

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 1:07 PM

Rocket Valentine . . . so you are basically saying since Bush did it then it is ok that Obama does the same thing? But hey, why am I even arguing with a mental midget like you. LOL!

BTW . . . as far as oil drilling, considering that 30,000 wells have been drilled in the Gulf of Mexico and this situation has just occurred shows how rare this spill is. Obama administration has even admitted to this. Again, you only know catch phrases and what some comedy skit has taught you instead of real facts. Again, you only show your lack of intelligence and inability to think.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM

Rocket, Palin is entertaining isn't she LOL. Give ditsy a whole new meaning. You did not think she would actually have anything of value to contribute though did you? No money in it for her. But beware you will find some very insulted people here if you don't worship her.

good impression of her

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 1:49 PM

You still haven't explained how the Republicans caused the subprime crisis. If you think Bush's 8 years were a fiscal nightmare, then the last year and a half must be a night terror from which we will not awaken. I was never a GWB fan but we've gone out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as I can tell. Clinton would not even have had a budget surplus if the Republican Congress hadn't forced it on him. Since you have no memory of the Carter administration, it's easy to think GWB was the worst president ever.

-- Posted by cortnerkin on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 6:02 PM

Rocket Valentine,

Have a look at the federal deficit spending, broken down by which party was in control of congress, you know where the spending is planned.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/feder...

Clinton never had a surplus. Don't take my word for it, ask the treasury department.

Here's a link:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogi...

Maybe you don't remember clinton shutting down all national parks and having a federal employee layoff during Christmas of '95 because those evil republicans in congress wouldn't pass a budget with enough handouts?

-- Posted by quietmike on Mon, May 3, 2010, at 6:47 PM

Mike the simple fact is we were doing very good Clinton handed this country over to Bush,. On his watch Bush allowed the country to fail and become the disaster we are now having to deal with. It is now Obama's responsibility to fix it. If Clinton would had left Bush a disaster it would have been Bush's responsibility to fix it. When all is said and done, A president is responsible for what he leaves behind when his term (terms) are over no matter what he inherited, that does not mean the mess was his fault only that it is his responsibility to do all in his ability to leave the country better than when he started. Bush failed at that, you can argue all you want, make excuse after excuse, quote fact after fact on how to blame some one else, but the bottom line is The presidents are the ones who have to answer for there years in the White HOuse. You will be happy with the fact that all the manipulation, fear mongering and low handed actions of your party that are intended to block any progress in Obama's terms will all part of the pudding but in the end the same will apply for Obama as Bush ,Clinton and all the others who came before them, he will be judged by what he left in comparison to what he started out with.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 8:58 AM

Wonderwhy,

Trying to have a debate with you is nearly pointless.

You apparently despise research and refuse to let facts get in the way of your opinions-opinions that have been spoon fed to you by the MSM and the left.

I doubt if the treasury department is biased or has a political axe to grind.

Did you even bother to look at the stats?

If you still disagree with those, why not post some stats to back up your claims...if you can find any.

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 3:57 PM

Who's debating, all one has to do is look around and see.

You say read the stats, one can always find stats to back what they want.

This country was doing well when your hero took office and was in the tank when he left. Anyone with eyes can see, unless they are to filled with hate to try.

You can not debate with the likes of you, your more intent on hate for Obama than you are with reality. I pointed out some things. If you can "debate" why they are wrong in your eyes go for it. But I doubt you can. You just pull out Fox News worthy interpretations of so called facts. Both sides have their manipulations. You are one that would never look at anything not approved by FOX so the reliability of it is fuzzy at best.

Tell me how this statement is wrong:

When all is said and done, A president is responsible for what he leaves behind when his term (terms) are over no matter what he inherited, that does not mean the mess was his fault only that it is his responsibility to do all in his ability to leave the country better than when he started.

No you won't find any FOX stats to help you, but common sense may if you try to use it.

Did your Bush leave the country better than he received it? Yes or No?

Did Clinton leave the country better than he received it? Yes or No?

Obama has not left yet so he can't answer for his terms yet.

The one good thing I can say about you is that you are at least entertaining in a nutty sort of way.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 5:10 PM

First of all I haven't had TV service for nearly eight years so you can stop with the knee jerk liberal retorts about Fox News, Glen Beck, Hannity and the like. I know that will make it more difficult for you as you will have to do your own thinking but try to give it a shot.

------------------------------------------

You asked:

When all is said and done, A president is responsible for what he leaves behind when his term (terms) are over no matter what he inherited, that does not mean the mess was his fault only that it is his responsibility to do all in his ability to leave the country better than when he started.

---------------------------------------

It depends on what you are measuring and whether that falls within the responsibilities of the president or not.

If you are talking about the budget...then no that is solely the responsibility of CONGRESS. Congress writes the budgets, the president can only sign, veto, or let lay on the table the budgets that congress sends him. If you had paid attention during your high school civics class, you would know that already.

---------------------------------------

Then you asked:

Did your Bush leave the country better than he received it? Yes or No?

Did Clinton leave the country better than he received it? Yes or No?

------------------------------------------

First off I have never claimed to be a fan of Bush, as he wasn't conservative enough for my tastes. I know that is one of the default leftist talking points, and you are left in confusion without them, so I'll play along.

As for being commander in chief of the armed forces (probably THE most important duty of a president) Bush left it much better than he found it. Much of Clinton's supposed savings came at the cost of military cuts, namely he reduced the military by two divisions worth of personnel leaving the country weaker.

Clinton also was too busy playing "hide the cigar" with his intern to effectively deal with several terrorist attacks both here and against American interests abroad. He also did nothing while Iraq violated it's U.N. cease fire agreements scores of times.

Whether you agree with the wars or not, Bush showed resolve that had been sorely missing in the executive branch, and took the fight off of American soil preventing further terrorist attacks.

Unfortunately obama is closely following the liberal script of appeasement, and the years long period of no terrorist attacks on our soil has already been lost.

I have answered your questions, now, would you kindly repay the favor?

-- Posted by quietmike on Tue, May 4, 2010, at 8:25 PM

YEs Mike I do read stats, and I have read enough of them to know that there are enough of them out there to back up both sides views, it's all a matter of where you go to find your stats. I am surprised that your not intelligent enough to know that. Any one can manipulate there out cmes to make them look good.

I asked 2 simple yes or no questions,you even reposted them. But you never gave the yes or no answers. Which is not a surprise because I knew you would not.

It's funny though you used the typical cigar talking point to avoid answering the Clinton one, we all know that this country was in good shape when he turned it over to Bush. And then you used the Bush went to war bull, he lied to get support for his was to get Sadam and gain profits for his buddies such as Black water and Haliburton. The reason he went to war over there was not to protect our soil but because that is where the oil is, if he was out to protect us he would have gone after Ben Laden like he lied and said he was going to.( Hey but Laden is happy Bush gave him all those years to find a real good hiding place for when Bush was not there to protect him any longer) But here again you cowered behind the rabid right puppet talk and did not answer the question. Again anyone with a brain knows Bush left this country a disaster. H had 6 years of total control up there and did nothing but use our brave troops as his little toy soldiers. They did not seem any more important to him than the little green plastic ones young boys buy from the dollar store.He did not seem to show them any more respect than being disposable and replaceable without any thought. You say you do not "claim" to be a fan of Bush, but your words say differently you defend him well. You may call yourself a conservative, but from where I stand you sound more like a rabid right wing nut with little no respect for your fellow man. If that is what it takes to be conservative no wonder they are running from that party. Most Republicans are not like you, and for good reason.

so to answer my questions for you,

YES Clinton left the country better than he got it (it was not that bad when it came to him),

NO Bush did not leave the country better than when it was handed over to him.

Don't be fooled, just because Obama does not have to act like a Rambo wanna be does not mean he is not doing his job as commander in chief, some people have brains and can use them , they don't have to grab a gun to hide behind. But I doubt you understand that. Clinton had his battle he did it smart. It took 78 days.

this sums it up , it's written by Sidney Blumenthal, from the Washington monthly.

"Yet it is the differences between those wars and how the diplomacy surrounding them was conducted that is most striking. In the case of Iraq, the Bush administration ignored NATO; belatedly demanded, briefly gained, and ultimately lost the support of the United Nations; and went to war over the expressed opposition of much of the world. Bush's war has divided the United States from Europe, split Europe itself, and left the future of the United Nations and NATO in doubt. In Kosovo, by contrast, the Clinton administration worked through NATO, keeping its shaky coalition together in the Western alliance's first war. Clinton's war brought Europe and America closer together and invested NATO and trans-Atlantic relations with a renewed sense of purpose. That unity of purpose proved invaluable in post-war Kosovo, where U.S. and European troops secured the peace and U.N. administrators sponsored a difficult, but so far reasonably successful, transition to democracy. How helpful--or welcome--our allies will be in rebuilding post-war Iraq remains to be seen.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 8:25 AM

I thought my answers provided a clear enough description as to my opinions without a blunt yes or no, but since you didn't seem to get it, let me reiterate.

If your metric for the performance of a president is the economy, then you are starting off wrong, because congress is responsible for the budget. So for all the cheerleading for clinton for his supposed budgetary genius, he had little to nothing to do with it as congress writes the budgets.

CONGRESS WRITES BUDGETS

CONGRESS WRITES BUDGETS

Are we getting it now?

Protecting the country IS a PRIMARY responsibility of a president. Clinton was virtually unresponsive to numerous attacks against America, to include the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the Khobar tower bombings, and the first twin tower bombing, among others.

So no, If you measure things that are within the realm of responsibility for a president, clinton left the country worse than he found it.

Why did I know you would use the Daily Kos talking point of "bush lied"???

Let's look at who else believed the same as bush during the same time frame:

--------------------------------------

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by:

-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by:

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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 ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

----------------------------

So, are all your liberal heros also in the pocket of Haliburton, Blackwater, and Exxon?

Aside from national security, bush did a lousy job as president.

The first round of bailouts, AIDS funding to Africa, and doing absolutely nothing about the invasion of illegal mexicans. So, I give bush a 50/50 vote.

Again, whether a president left the country better or worse, depends on what specific thing you are referring to and whether he had control of it or not.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 12:55 PM

YEs when Clinton left we were better

when Bush left we were not.

it is as simple as that. I did not ask for all the bla bla bla just a simple were we better off the day they left office compared to the day the signed on. So the hot air and blood pressure are all not relevant.

go do your yoga and cool down. We are done here.

-- Posted by wonderwhy on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 3:20 PM

Don't waste your time quietmoke. Standard response is Bush's fault. We all know it was greed on Wall St. and Capitalism that got us into this mess since Michael Moore said so. Meanwhile, Bush is not in office and those responsible for encouraging subprime lending and propping up Fannie and Freddie are still in power. In the name of affordable housing, they encouraged risky loans to people who could not afford them and mortgaged the future of our children to bail out these companies that were too big to fail (actually they were too politically connected to fail). In that bailout, Bush played the useful idiot for sure. Now Chris Dodd is proposing Financial Reform which is like letting the fox gaurd the henhouse. So quietmike, go do your yoga knowing Bush left things worse than when he came in and resting comfortably in the knowledge that those who screwed us with their idiotic policies and social engineering are still in place continuing to screw us.

-- Posted by cortnerkin on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 7:02 PM

Thanks cortnerkin,

Sometimes I think liberals are allergic to logic.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, May 5, 2010, at 9:21 PM

I meant quietmike in my above post. I'm not sure what a quietmoke is.

-- Posted by cortnerkin on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 10:02 AM

Wonderwhy . . . you reasoning leaves out so many factors that it makes your point not valid. Look at it this way . . . when Clinton was in office, who was in charge of Congress the last term? Yeah, the Republicans and when Bush was in his second term the Democrats were in charge of Congress and since Congress is in charge of making laws then one would assume that the prosperity you attributed to Clinton can actually be attributed to the Republicans also and the failed economy of Bush to the Democrats. It is funny because Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981--1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people. We are actually seeing an increase if welfare entitlement under both Bush and Obama and guess who has been in charge of Congress the past couple of years . . . oh yeah, Democrats! Clinton, Bush, or Obama has no power to do any of this on their own . . . that is the power of Congress.

Your broad statements show your inability to discern fact form fiction and only go to show you na*ve beliefs in political rhetoric.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 11:24 AM

Your broad statements show your inability to discern fact form fiction and only go to show you naive beliefs in political rhetoric.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 11:26 AM

Jaxspike,

Didn't you know, all that information is just Bla, Bla, Bla meant to confuse the masses.

If it were relevant at all, Huffingtonpost, MoveOn.org, Acorn, and DailyKos would have already given us buzzwords.

-- Posted by quietmike on Thu, May 6, 2010, at 12:18 PM

I know we've slipped off the original topic of the oil spill, but I just had to express my amazement at quietmike and jaxspike's seemingly endless plethora of misinformation, and for lack of a better word...total bulls**t.

The falsehoods in your posts are so numerous that it would take up too much time and space here to dabate them point by point. And since we're already way off topic I'll just leave you with a couple of links and hope that other people can also research some of your bogus claims for themselves.

Yes, Clinton did balance the budget. But don't take my word for it, ask The Congressional Budget Office http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/du...

And yes, Bush lied us into Iraq

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, May 7, 2010, at 12:44 PM

I think quietmike's statement regarding the disputed Clinton surplus is that for there to have been a surplus during those years you must include money borrowed through intragovernmental holdings such as Social Security. It is a little disingenuous to claim a surplus when you are still borrowing money even if you spent less than you borrowed. I'll concede that spending was better controlled at the time but it has more to do with the gains in Congress the Republicans made in 1995 than any overall spending reduction goal Clinton had.

Iraq was not a Bush decision I was keen about so I don't care to dispute whether it was a lie. I'm not keen about a war in Afghanistan either.

-- Posted by cortnerkin on Sat, May 8, 2010, at 1:25 AM

Rocket Valentine,

I guess it depends on what your definition of a lie is. (that sounds very clintonesque)

My definition is if a person tells something false and they know at the time what they are saying is false that is a lie.

OTOH-If a person tells something they believe to be true at the time they tell it, and it later turns out to be untrue, that is a mistake and not a lie.

If you believe bush lied, do you also believe all the people I quoted above also lied to get us into Iraq? If your answer is no, what is the difference?

BTW- Did you know that over 500 tons of uranium was removed from Iraq and sent to Canada?

Since Iraq has no nuclear power plants, what do you suppose they were going to do with that much uranium?

From a "liberal friendly" source no less:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

-- Posted by quietmike on Sat, May 8, 2010, at 6:10 PM

quietmike - I do agree with your definition of a lie. Most of the Senators that you listed above voted AGAINST going into Iraq. This includes Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd.

If you read their quotes it seems that they all agree that Saddam was still working to develop weapons. But the intelligence reports that we had also showed that even if that was true, he was still at least 5 to 7 years away from development. That's why there was definitly no reason for the immediate invasion.

As for Kerry and Clinton's vote, the only thing I can say is that they got it wrong. Saddam was not the threat that the Bush administration portrayed him to be. I beleive that they knew that, and if you read the the second link that I posted it shows how they deceived congress for votes and the American people for support.

-- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sat, May 8, 2010, at 8:52 PM

Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree-no harm there.

I thank you for your time and effort in an honest debate.

-- Posted by quietmike on Sun, May 9, 2010, at 3:37 AM

I think you're wrong on those gas prices. I bet the price of Regular holds up around 2.499 all summer!

-- Posted by MyMrMarty on Sun, Aug 29, 2010, at 4:28 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Shelbyville Mills School
(759 ~ 5:22 PM, Jul 29)

Does TV Hold Us Captive?
(7 ~ 6:04 PM, Jul 26)

Just Some Thoughts
(92 ~ 10:40 PM, Jul 25)

Any haunted places?
(37 ~ 6:15 PM, Jul 23)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)