Id put the truther stuff on the same level as the birther stuff about Obama. We could talk about differing levels of belief but meh, its a distraction.

Same with the "Obama is a Muslim" stuff.

Sort of like how on Monday, Bush would be too dumb to tie his own shoes, and on Tuesday, he was masterminding 9/11.

I'm sure these very forum archives are full of all sorts of fun topics about George Bush.

"Bush lied, people died."

"NO WAR FOR OIL!"

etc etc etc...

We went into Iraq on false pretenses. The only reason we care about that whole region in the first place is oil. So what's inaccurate about "war for oil"?

It certainly wasn't "war because we care about you killing your own people" as we have demonstrated numerous times before and since. And it strains credulity to think Saddam was going to be doing any more invading after Kuwait effectively neutered him.

Lol republican spin: http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t1#...gas-prices.cnn The republican pundit on this couldn't possibly be more full of ****. "I don't disagree with you that increased US production wouldn't affect the price of gas nor that we are currently in an oil production boom in this country." (30 seconds later...) "People are putting the dots together that this administration is hostile to oil production and that is why the price is going up." Never mind of course that people are completely wrong, and we're the ones putting the dots together for them.

Remember, it's not what you say, it's what they hear.

Bush lied, people died is literally 100% what happened.

Again we arent talking about things that are correct but made Bush look bad, its incorrect things made up to make him look bad we are looking for.

See?

Same ****, different day president.

I know right? As long as one side says bad things about the other we can never judge anyone. We certainly wouldn't want to look at whether one side's claims are true (Bush lied about WMDs) while the others are completely false disingenuous propaganda (Obama is deliberately inflating gas prices). I mean what's the point in that when there's always an easy false dichotomy to cancel out any negative outcome?

The Left marginalizes its radicals. A lot of that you can blame on race and anti-communist practices from the Cold War. You don't see ELF, Black Panthers, the ACLU, Communists, Pacifists, or other Left whackos with a seat at the policy formation table. My God, Obama is rather hawkish. He passed a Republican health plan giving away tax dollars to insurance and drug companies. He executes citizens without trial. He detains people without charge indefinitely. He has flirted with rolling back Social Security and Medicare.
He isn't even on board with marriage equality. The poster boy for the radical left, Dennis Kucinich, just lost a freaking primary. Since Andrew Jackson, for good or for ill, the Democratic Party has been the broader, more centrist party of the majority of people.

The ACLU is radical?

Or they don't make the main stage as much, or get as much coverage, or you have to go out of your way to find the crazies on the left whereas the crazies on the right go out of their way to post on this forum find you.

Thinking that Obama has much influence over gas prices is dumb, but it's fairly typical as far as common economic fallacies go.

Saying "Bush went to war for oil" is dumb for pretty much the same reasons - it's a super expensive way to at best moderately decrease the world price of oil. "Bush went to war for Haliburton" is actually slightly more plausible then either, because corruption can fail a cost-benefit analysis if it lines you or your buddies' pockets enough. However, both factors being minor to moderate influences (possibly but unlikely being the deciding factor) seems quite likely.

There is nothing fallacious about "Bush went to war because the Middle East is very important to our interests, which is solely because of oil".

Fred Karger and Buddy Roemer are beating Ron Paul in the Puerto Rico primary?

http://64.185.222.182/cee_events/PRI...5/default.html

Does that seem completely implausible to anyone else? Corrupt officials just trolling now?

Those that subscribe to the "war for oil" theory don't think it was to slightly lower the price of crude. It is presented more about the need to control sources of oil which is a way of projecting power and influence.

Yeah, nothing aside from the fact that the very premise of that statement is ridiculous.

Wait, is that why I'm not a mod yet? ****.

Feel free to elaborate. Or you can just continue to blithely assert the exact opposite of something that pretty much every thinking person believes.

What matters about oil other than the price? Possibly "security of supply" but that's mostly internalised in the price anyway.

Another way of saying almost the same thing...
Is Washington Oil Doctrine takes a long multi-decade view...
No one fights wars for "slightly lower price of crude"...
But for dramatically lower over the next 20-30-40 years.

Also...
You cannot stay in power if energy spikes on your watch...
Obama is gonna be turfed by women in November...
The majority of gas tank fill ups are done by women...
And they know PRECISELY what each fill-up costs...
TWICE as much as it did 3 years ago, Mr. President.

And what exactly is wrong with "power and influence"...
In our Darwinian world...
Either you have it... or your adversary has it...
It's pretty much a binary choice.

Lots of Democrats were saying we would start a dumbass war that would never end in Iraq on like 9/12/01. Pointing out that this is exactly what happened is wingnuttery how exactly?

I know facts are inconvenient for Republicans since 2000, but Bush lied people died is a description of events, not a crazy phrase people made up to distort things.

You want to be a mod? You should have a doctor look at that.

That's the exact strategy that I pursued in my modship campaign. I guess it just works better in BBV4Life than here.

Romney wins Puerto Rico primary with 83% of the vote (44% reporting), wins all 20 delegates

In b4 "PR isn't even a state so when Rick Santorum nets 5 delegates by winning Louisiana the MOMENTUM will propel him to the nomination"

Santorum's decision to go to Puerto Rico might be the worst tactical choice of the campaign so far. -Nate Silver

Someone needs to hire Nate Silver as a campaign manager. Guy is a political think tank.