Reply With Quote
Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry
I want to hear a liberal say that they'd rather have George W. Bush as their president than Saddam Hussein, I CHALLENGE THEM TO SAY IT I DARE THEM!
Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry
murphy i want you to say what the point of that question is
if you want to prove that bush is better than saddam than congrats
rushmore here he comes
That's like asking President Bush if he is happy that people like you support him.
Invades countries without cause:
Saddam - check
Bush - check
Promotes the use of torture:
Saddam - check
Bush - check
Used Abuh Graib for a prison and torture chamber:
Saddam - check
Bush - check
Enriched himself by looting Iraq:
Saddam - check
Bush - check
Despised as a bully by the world:
Saddam - check
Bush - check
I don't know if Bush is better, but he's at least as good.
Who asked a question?
My God! What the happened! Was the manure at Moonbat Cave the trigger to this pathetic post.
Who is on first, MORON.
^^Is that a question? I don't think he was asking, he was demanding. Do you and Mookie need a grammar course? Funny how one plants one bait and miraculously catches two bags at the same time.
Guru of Nothing...Australian for Sultan of Stupidity.
Will conservatives say.......they would rather have Hillary as their president than Saddam?
Once upon a time, I thought democrats were the biggest joke on the block.
Then I met you ... then I met you.
^^^"Then i met you.... then i met you....then i met you....."you going crazy yet?
Oh, and if Hillary vs Saddaam. I'd go Hillary. I'm not that kind of traitorous moonbat trash who would equate one to sadaam.
Do you have anything to really add to this forum, chickenhawk, or are you just going to hang off of Yoni's nutsack, and be the second best name caller here?
This gem can be found here, unless he goes and edits it, which you'll know by the edit timestamp being later than this original post time.
Last edited by exstatic; 11-16-2005 at 08:39 AM.
I'll say it......I'd rather have Bush as President than Saddam.
Thank God for term limits.
Would have tortured and murdered your entire family in front of you before torturing and murdering you, for posting that:
Saddam - check
Bush - no
Were you trying to be funny, or do you really just not get it?
Well Flash, read the little article I am posting. Maybe you can learn a little
something about economics.
================================================== =======
Ignoring economics: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Nov 16, 2005
A newspaper headline -- "Lawmakers Struggle to Define Gasoline Price 'Gouging'" -- shows how phony the current Congressional jihad against the oil companies is. "Price gouging" is one of those phrases that evoke strong emotions but have no definition.
Where particular states have passed laws against "price gouging," their different definitions reveal how slippery and arbitrary the concept is. Kansas attempts to define price gouging as selling at prices more than 25 percent higher than they were before some disaster. Georgia makes it illegal for prices to rise after the state government has declared a state of emergency, unless the seller can prove that his costs have gone up.
What all this boils down to is that prices higher than what observers are used to are called "gouging." In other words, prices under normal conditions are supposed to prevail under abnormal conditions. This completely misunderstands the role of prices.
Why do prices exist at all? To cause things to be produced and made available to the public -- and to cause consumers to limit how much they consume. Why then do prices suddenly shoot up? Because there is either less of a supply available or more of a demand, or both.
When hurricanes knocked out both oil drilling sites and refineries around the Gulf of Mexico, there was suddenly less supply of oil. That meant higher prices and higher profits.
What do higher prices do? Force people to restrain their own purchases more so than usual. What do higher profits do? Cause more money to be invested in producing whatever is earning higher profits, and this in turn expands output. Isn't a larger supply of oil and a reduced consumption of it what we want?
Whenever there have been sharp rises in gasoline prices, whether nationwide or locally in California, Senator Barbara Boxer has loudly demanded an investigation of the oil companies. These repeated investigations over the years have repeatedly failed to turn up anything other than supply and demand.
The real irony is that it has been precisely liberals like Barbara Boxer who have been the chief obstacles to increasing the supply of oil because they are dead set against drilling for oil in more places and against building more refineries.
When you refuse to let supply rise to meet rising demand, why should you be surprised -- much less outraged -- when prices rise?
Yet there was Senator Boxer on nationwide TV, decrying the high salaries of oil company executives, who are making perhaps half of what a number of baseball players make or a tenth of what movie stars make. The insinuation is that their salaries and oil company profits are what drive up gasoline prices. But there were no hard facts to back up either insinuation.
Given the enormous sums of money involved in the production of oil, even if all the oil company CEOs worked for nothing, there is no hard evidence that this would be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even one cent per gallon. As for oil company profits -- representing "greed," as the Barbara Boxers call it -- these profits per gallon of gas are much less than federal taxes per gallon of gas. But the government is never called "greedy" by liberals.
These political circuses have a cost that can be even greater than the high cost of gasoline.
We went through all this before, back in the 1970s, when oil company executives were also hauled up before Congress and denounced on TV by politicians. Inflammatory but vague and unsubstantiated charges went flying hither and yon in the media.
This demonization of oil companies made it politically inconvenient to remove price controls on oil when other price controls from the Nixon administration years were repealed.
The net result was that the shortages which price controls produce disappeared for other things but remained for gasoline. Motorists had trouble finding gasoline and sometimes spent hours waiting in long lines at filling stations. This was the hidden cost of political demagoguery.
Anyone nostalgic for those days of waiting in gasoline lines, which sometimes reached around the block, can jump on the bandwagon for gasoline price controls or other laws to crack down on "Big Oil." Just be aware that there is a cost. There is no free lunch -- and no free demagoguery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you were around in the 70's, but I was and it wasn't a funtime to travel. Gas was rationed by the station owners to around 5 gals, if they had it, to a person.
I don't think Hussein could be our president, even if he wanted to be. He's not a US citizen.
________
Wong Amat Tower Condos
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:00 PM.
^^Somebody please tell little bobby w/o letting him down, that it's only make believe, and that sadaam will not run.
Exactly.
________
Cheap Glass Pipes
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:00 PM.
major ownage of pea-brain (err, body) by gtown
By the way, who the is Bobby?
________
Zoloft Settlement News
Last edited by Mr. Peabody; 08-23-2011 at 07:00 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
