Obama is making GW look good!

[ViperOverLord]

That ball was already rolling. It's reasonable, based on Bush's own bailing out of banks, to assume that he would have done the same thing.

Yes, so I guess that's not Obama's fix, that's Bush's fix? Not sure what that has to do with what.

I'm saying the bailouts are neither a negative or a positive. They're more like casualties of war. Shit happens, that sort of thing.

My big problem with Obama is that he took immediate action in calling a moratorium on drilling in the gulf. He showed decisive and quick action there (although I still don't think he should have done that). Why hasn't he taken decisive and swift action in demanding regulation and clear understanding of what Wall Street is doing with that TARP money? Also, he should be breaking up these banks, so they never have to be bailed out again, cause they won't be able to hold us ransom with this too big to let fail baloney.

Instead of calling for a moratorium on drilling (and thus losing those rigs to Brazil and elsewhere), why didn't he call for immediate emergency inspections on all current operating rigs?

Bush was very vocal about deregulation. I fault him with that. You can make the excuse that he just drank the Kool-Aid, but I don't buy that. I think they were all just looking to get rich quick and force a new bubble in real estate to distract from the bursting of the tech one.

Obama should be more decisive in this area, and stop giving a shit about winning another term. I wish he had a bit more James K. Polk in him, or even Teddy Roosevelt, and had that attitude of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Just do what you set out to do, and if you get reelected like Roosevelt did, cool. If you don't, then you actually had a productive 4 years, rather than 4 years of treading water followed by 4 more years of frustration caused by the inevitable rise of the opposition party in Congress.

The never ending cycle of politics.

Summary: The bail outs aren't the problem, the lack of regulation and the size of these banks are. Do something about that.

Thanks for writing a diatribe for me to ignore pd. You've said to many nutty flaming things to bother taking you seriously.

Translation: Gee, my repertoire consists entirely of calling my opponents douchy America haters. Although there are people on this forum that could debate this on an intellectual level, I am not one of them. Let's fall back on more character assassination.

Saying I assasinated his character is like saying undertakers are murderers. Go look at his posts. He has made a lot of flaming posts and I don't take people like that seriously nor should you.

[ViperOverLord]

Obviously, regulation as we know it has not and is not working. There is more regulation every year. It is similar to spending more on education every year, only to get worse results overall.

Government is still the main problem in this scenario. A crappy gov't regulations is crappy regulations. Everything this congress passes takes away freedoms and rights and liberties. Throw em out, start over. And if it does not have at least some kind of productive reform/regulation for fannie and freddie, then it doesn't float.

Government/Union Greed/Corporate Greed - All are perilous when not checked properly. I agree though. Right now government is our worst enemy. They are becoming Big Brother every day.

[King Doctor]

Right now government is our worst enemy. They are becoming Big Brother every day.

Please explain how.

I'm afraid that while your vague slogans are highly eyecatching, they have currently failed to persuade me that we are living in a police state that punishes thoughtcrime.

[Woodruff]

Remember all the verbal GW Bush hating? How could you not? No other man was verbally hated so furiously by so many people in an 8 year span. Jesus might have faced more verbal hate back in the day but even that only lasted 3 years.

Bush was verbally hated something serious. But Obama is really starting to make him look pretty dang good right about now.

If Bush was hated as much as Jesus, who will be our Judas?

Colin Powell

Figures you'd pick the black guy.

(I'm KIDDING!!!! I couldn't resist it, what with all the racial crap in the fora of late.)

[Woodruff]

But Obama is really starting to make him look pretty dang good right about now.

Um...no. Not even remotely, actually. As unhappy as I am with Obama, it doesn't even come near the disdain I felt for Bush.

Sounds like a personal problem.

And your statement regarding Obama isn't? Hypocritical much?

[Woodruff]

And how exactly is President Obama cleaning up the steaming pile of shit that is the Iraq War?

The fact that we're even still in the war! It's supposed to be over. Are you aware that this is the longest military engagement the US has ever been in? It can't be won and everyone expects him to do something about it. Not to mention that it's a horrible waste of money. Maybe we could do something about the economy if we weren't wasting billions of dollars fighting lunatic fanatics.

Bush wrecked the economy, Bush got us into the war, Bush lost the trust of the American people.

Now it's Obama's job to Fix the economy, get us out of the war, and win back our trust. Now I'll admit that he hasn't been doing a stellar job at any of these tasks, and maybe someone else could be doing a better job, but It's not fair to say that he's a worse president that Bush because Obama looks bad digging himself out of Bush's hole.

I agree that Bush got is into two wars. (1) I agree that Bush lost the trust of the American people. I do not agree that Bush wrecked the economy (there's too much blame to go around on that particular issue). I would urge you to take a look at the president election from 2008 and see what the major issues are.

President Obama's major domestic policies so far in his presidency have been to pass the health insurance plan, bail out a number of companies, a jobs creation bill, and regulate the financial system. Of those items, none of them were in direct response to something Bush did. With respect to foreign policy, I will give that President Obama has attempted to repair international relations with other nations (although it appears to my untrained eye that relations with Israel and Russia have taken a turn for the worse). However, we are still in two wars and the Patriot Act is still around (and by all accounts is used with more vigor than under President Bush).

So, while I think certainly that President Obama is a better alternative to President Bush, I do not think one can say that President Obama's problems are due to the shit that President Bush left him.

(1) Really? He got us into two wars? Because it was Clinton that dropped the ball on Osama and it was Clinton that turned a blind eye to Saddam, although I blame Bush I for not exterminating that sorry piece of trash in the first place. In retrospect we can claim all we want that we didn't have to go to war with Iraq, but it was Clinton's failed CIA oversight that led to faulty intelligence. Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

Wow...for all you claim about others "Bush hating", you're an incredible Bush apologist. I mean of the serious type.

[Woodruff]

That ball was already rolling. It's reasonable, based on Bush's own bailing out of banks, to assume that he would have done the same thing.

Yes, so I guess that's not Obama's fix, that's Bush's fix? Not sure what that has to do with what.

I'm saying the bailouts are neither a negative or a positive. They're more like casualties of war. Shit happens, that sort of thing.

My big problem with Obama is that he took immediate action in calling a moratorium on drilling in the gulf. He showed decisive and quick action there (although I still don't think he should have done that). Why hasn't he taken decisive and swift action in demanding regulation and clear understanding of what Wall Street is doing with that TARP money? Also, he should be breaking up these banks, so they never have to be bailed out again, cause they won't be able to hold us ransom with this too big to let fail baloney.

Instead of calling for a moratorium on drilling (and thus losing those rigs to Brazil and elsewhere), why didn't he call for immediate emergency inspections on all current operating rigs?

Bush was very vocal about deregulation. I fault him with that. You can make the excuse that he just drank the Kool-Aid, but I don't buy that. I think they were all just looking to get rich quick and force a new bubble in real estate to distract from the bursting of the tech one.

Obama should be more decisive in this area, and stop giving a shit about winning another term. I wish he had a bit more James K. Polk in him, or even Teddy Roosevelt, and had that attitude of "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Just do what you set out to do, and if you get reelected like Roosevelt did, cool. If you don't, then you actually had a productive 4 years, rather than 4 years of treading water followed by 4 more years of frustration caused by the inevitable rise of the opposition party in Congress.

The never ending cycle of politics.

Summary: The bail outs aren't the problem, the lack of regulation and the size of these banks are. Do something about that.

Thanks for writing a diatribe for me to ignore pd. You've said to many nutty flaming things to bother taking you seriously.

You pick one of pimpdave's good, well-thought-through posts to ignore? Somehow, I don't find that surprising...it's quite convenient.

[thegreekdog]

And how exactly is President Obama cleaning up the steaming pile of shit that is the Iraq War?

The fact that we're even still in the war! It's supposed to be over. Are you aware that this is the longest military engagement the US has ever been in? It can't be won and everyone expects him to do something about it. Not to mention that it's a horrible waste of money. Maybe we could do something about the economy if we weren't wasting billions of dollars fighting lunatic fanatics.

Bush wrecked the economy, Bush got us into the war, Bush lost the trust of the American people.

Now it's Obama's job to Fix the economy, get us out of the war, and win back our trust. Now I'll admit that he hasn't been doing a stellar job at any of these tasks, and maybe someone else could be doing a better job, but It's not fair to say that he's a worse president that Bush because Obama looks bad digging himself out of Bush's hole.

I agree that Bush got is into two wars. (1) I agree that Bush lost the trust of the American people. I do not agree that Bush wrecked the economy (there's too much blame to go around on that particular issue). I would urge you to take a look at the president election from 2008 and see what the major issues are.

President Obama's major domestic policies so far in his presidency have been to pass the health insurance plan, bail out a number of companies, a jobs creation bill, and regulate the financial system. Of those items, none of them were in direct response to something Bush did. With respect to foreign policy, I will give that President Obama has attempted to repair international relations with other nations (although it appears to my untrained eye that relations with Israel and Russia have taken a turn for the worse). However, we are still in two wars and the Patriot Act is still around (and by all accounts is used with more vigor than under President Bush).

So, while I think certainly that President Obama is a better alternative to President Bush, I do not think one can say that President Obama's problems are due to the shit that President Bush left him.

(1) Really? He got us into two wars? Because it was Clinton that dropped the ball on Osama and it was Clinton that turned a blind eye to Saddam, although I blame Bush I for not exterminating that sorry piece of trash in the first place. In retrospect we can claim all we want that we didn't have to go to war with Iraq, but it was Clinton's failed CIA oversight that led to faulty intelligence. Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

Well, technically, Congress and President Bush got us into two wars. President Clinton (and the Clinton-era Congresses) did not declare war in either of these circumstances.

[Woodruff]

Obviously, regulation as we know it has not and is not working.

I don't believe the problem lies with the regulation. Rather, it lies with the oversight. Regulation is useless without proper oversight of the things being regulated.

[nietzsche]

As I learn with all your comments and thoughts, I'm yet confused as to why most tend to ignore a truth well known:

The war in Iraq is all about the oil. They can leave tomorrow, but they don't want you, they tell you what they want in the news, I can go on and suggest Macchiavellic actions, but I would cross the line I guess.

To thegreekdog: You don't know in what shit would the whole world be without the bailouts.

And as to the main point: W was favored by the superavit Clinton left, and Obama was fucked by the W deficit. Some has to be said about the not-long-ago-praised Greenspan

Also, we (shame on me) expected to much of Obama, he's just another puppet. He too is grabbed by the balls by the owners of the money. BP contributed a lot to the Obama campaign, and that's why he gave green light to BP to drill where the mess happened. (This I learned in another thread).

And saxi: stop the propaganda or no cookies for you!

[thegreekdog]

A couple of things nietzsche:

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

(2) I know that we'll be back doing bailouts again in about 10 years (if not sooner) because we didn't let failed companies fail or put in some strings to make sure these companies don't f*ck up again.

(3) Obama increased the Bush deficit. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean here.

(4) Agree on the puppet stuff (although maybe I wouldn't use the term puppet).

[saxitoxin]

A couple of things nietzsche:

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

Is that a fair question to ask, though?

The U.S. government pays ag subsidies to farmers not to decrease food prices but to enforce a price floor. Food consumption will eventually max-out, whereas America's capacity for food production is essentially unlimited due to the availability of arable land. Cargill and Archers-Daniels-Midland would have a difficult time remaining profitable if tomatoes cost 1-cent each, ergo the necessity of the price floor.

There was relatively cheap gasoline prior to conflict. A conflict-imposed price floor has been set on gasoline, increasing consumer prices while not significantly impacting demand.

[nietzsche]

A couple of things nietzsche:

4 to be exact.

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

It's all about the oil. Where are the WMD? Is Bin Laden in Iraq? Is about the power oil gives. What happens when the US loses control of the oil and demand of it increases on the freeways of CA? US is in deep sh*t.

(2) I know that we'll be back doing bailouts again in about 10 years (if not sooner) because we didn't let failed companies fail or put in some strings to make sure these companies don't f*ck up again.

Yes, the problem didn't end with the bailouts, but the bailouts were necessary in that moment. Smarter regulation is needed, clear laws and punishment to the actors. Exemplary punishment is I believe necessary and it's not happening.

(3) Obama increased the Bush deficit. Maybe I'm not sure what you mean here.

He did. To create temporary jobs to jump start the lending, indirectly of course. And for the TARP. Both essentially necessary because of the moment of crisis.

(4) Agree on the puppet stuff (although maybe I wouldn't use the term puppet).

Let's say he has the interests of those who put him in office more present than the interest of the resting 300,000,000 americans.

[thegreekdog]

It's all about the oil. Where are the WMD? Is Bin Laden in Iraq? Is about the power oil gives. What happens when the US loses control of the oil and demand of it increases on the freeways of CA? US is in deep sh*t.

That's the popular opinion - If it's not about oil, what's it about? I don't really buy it, but I suppose, as Dr. Toxin suggests, lower prices for gasoline are not the result of getting cheaper oil.

I agree with the other comment.

[Shed]

First post!

This paragraph by theviperlord caught my attention:
Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

The key word here is "potential." Diplomacy and fact-checking must come before retaliation. This may be an unworkable goal, but we ought to resolve the underlying cause for conflict in the region. We can fight suicide bombers with cutting-edge weapons technology but there are more willing to kill themselves and others in cold blood. Why? What are we, the United States, doing to reassure the Iraqis and Afghanis that we are not the enemy?

One of the Wikileaked CIA documents spoke of suicide bombers receiving 50,000 dollars and added compensation for their family. The terrorist groups are treating the situation in the Middle East as a total war, currying the favor of the people and giving them less reason to support the other side. We fight an impressive game, with cutting-edge military technology, so why have we failed to the terrorists with less military sophistication? I believe it has something to do with failed promises: the United States promised to bring a Western-styled democracy to both of those countries, but now we're anxious to withdraw with hopes of at least a stable government. I don't mean to say that we should stay in these countries forever, but the underlying strategy of "fight now, make friends" now only works in Dragon Ball Z. We need a serious overhaul in the way wars are fought because this is not working.

[thegreekdog]

First post!

This paragraph by theviperlord caught my attention:
Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

The key word here is "potential." Diplomacy and fact-checking must come before retaliation. This may be an unworkable goal, but we ought to resolve the underlying cause for conflict in the region. We can fight suicide bombers with cutting-edge weapons technology but there are more willing to kill themselves and others in cold blood. Why? What are we, the United States, doing to reassure the Iraqis and Afghanis that we are not the enemy?

One of the Wikileaked CIA documents spoke of suicide bombers receiving 50,000 dollars and added compensation for their family. The terrorist groups are treating the situation in the Middle East as a total war, currying the favor of the people and giving them less reason to support the other side. We fight an impressive game, with cutting-edge military technology, so why have we failed to the terrorists with less military sophistication? I believe it has something to do with failed promises: the United States promised to bring a Western-styled democracy to both of those countries, but now we're anxious to withdraw with hopes of at least a stable government. I don't mean to say that we should stay in these countries forever, but the underlying strategy of "fight now, make friends" now only works in Dragon Ball Z. We need a serious overhaul in the way wars are fought because this is not working.

Nice first post sir and welcome.

Just one minor quibble - I think the key word is "irregardless" for obvious reasons.

[Phatscotty]

A couple of things nietzsche:

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

It was a wash. sure, the oil is cheaper, but so is the US currency(oil price in USD only). I have a feeling the only ones who are getting anything "cheaper" are the imperialist corporate exploiters

[ViperOverLord]

Right now government is our worst enemy. They are becoming Big Brother every day.

Please explain how.

I'm afraid that while your vague slogans are highly eyecatching, they have currently failed to persuade me that we are living in a police state that punishes thoughtcrime.

Nah. You're either hiding from the world or doing your intentional flaming. But if you can write a compelling argument about how government is not becoming big brother then I might feel inclined to respond.

[ViperOverLord]

Remember all the verbal GW Bush hating? How could you not? No other man was verbally hated so furiously by so many people in an 8 year span. Jesus might have faced more verbal hate back in the day but even that only lasted 3 years.

Bush was verbally hated something serious. But Obama is really starting to make him look pretty dang good right about now.

If Bush was hated as much as Jesus, who will be our Judas?

Colin Powell

Figures you'd pick the black guy.

(I'm KIDDING!!!! I couldn't resist it, what with all the racial crap in the fora of late.)

I picked him based on his endorsement of Obama even though Obama pretty much represented most of what he stood against. However he was part of a GWB admin that did plenty of selling out that I could at least grant him the mitigating factor that he was jaded. That said, I imagine he regrets his endorsement now.

[ViperOverLord]

And how exactly is President Obama cleaning up the steaming pile of shit that is the Iraq War?

The fact that we're even still in the war! It's supposed to be over. Are you aware that this is the longest military engagement the US has ever been in? It can't be won and everyone expects him to do something about it. Not to mention that it's a horrible waste of money. Maybe we could do something about the economy if we weren't wasting billions of dollars fighting lunatic fanatics.

Bush wrecked the economy, Bush got us into the war, Bush lost the trust of the American people.

Now it's Obama's job to Fix the economy, get us out of the war, and win back our trust. Now I'll admit that he hasn't been doing a stellar job at any of these tasks, and maybe someone else could be doing a better job, but It's not fair to say that he's a worse president that Bush because Obama looks bad digging himself out of Bush's hole.

I agree that Bush got is into two wars. (1) I agree that Bush lost the trust of the American people. I do not agree that Bush wrecked the economy (there's too much blame to go around on that particular issue). I would urge you to take a look at the president election from 2008 and see what the major issues are.

President Obama's major domestic policies so far in his presidency have been to pass the health insurance plan, bail out a number of companies, a jobs creation bill, and regulate the financial system. Of those items, none of them were in direct response to something Bush did. With respect to foreign policy, I will give that President Obama has attempted to repair international relations with other nations (although it appears to my untrained eye that relations with Israel and Russia have taken a turn for the worse). However, we are still in two wars and the Patriot Act is still around (and by all accounts is used with more vigor than under President Bush).

So, while I think certainly that President Obama is a better alternative to President Bush, I do not think one can say that President Obama's problems are due to the shit that President Bush left him.

(1) Really? He got us into two wars? Because it was Clinton that dropped the ball on Osama and it was Clinton that turned a blind eye to Saddam, although I blame Bush I for not exterminating that sorry piece of trash in the first place. In retrospect we can claim all we want that we didn't have to go to war with Iraq, but it was Clinton's failed CIA oversight that led to faulty intelligence. Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

Wow...for all you claim about others "Bush hating", you're an incredible Bush apologist. I mean of the serious type.

You need to learn what an apologist is. I support the cause of the wars regardless of who the president is. Don't call me out for having an inconsistent agenda when you have no proof. It's the media that has the agenda. The last months of GW's presidency we heard minute by minute analysis of unemployment numbers from all angles and studies and body count numbers. That has all but vanished because people like you have sufficiently had their ears tickled.

[ViperOverLord]

And how exactly is President Obama cleaning up the steaming pile of shit that is the Iraq War?

The fact that we're even still in the war! It's supposed to be over. Are you aware that this is the longest military engagement the US has ever been in? It can't be won and everyone expects him to do something about it. Not to mention that it's a horrible waste of money. Maybe we could do something about the economy if we weren't wasting billions of dollars fighting lunatic fanatics.

Bush wrecked the economy, Bush got us into the war, Bush lost the trust of the American people.

Now it's Obama's job to Fix the economy, get us out of the war, and win back our trust. Now I'll admit that he hasn't been doing a stellar job at any of these tasks, and maybe someone else could be doing a better job, but It's not fair to say that he's a worse president that Bush because Obama looks bad digging himself out of Bush's hole.

I agree that Bush got is into two wars. (1) I agree that Bush lost the trust of the American people. I do not agree that Bush wrecked the economy (there's too much blame to go around on that particular issue). I would urge you to take a look at the president election from 2008 and see what the major issues are.

President Obama's major domestic policies so far in his presidency have been to pass the health insurance plan, bail out a number of companies, a jobs creation bill, and regulate the financial system. Of those items, none of them were in direct response to something Bush did. With respect to foreign policy, I will give that President Obama has attempted to repair international relations with other nations (although it appears to my untrained eye that relations with Israel and Russia have taken a turn for the worse). However, we are still in two wars and the Patriot Act is still around (and by all accounts is used with more vigor than under President Bush).

So, while I think certainly that President Obama is a better alternative to President Bush, I do not think one can say that President Obama's problems are due to the shit that President Bush left him.

(1) Really? He got us into two wars? Because it was Clinton that dropped the ball on Osama and it was Clinton that turned a blind eye to Saddam, although I blame Bush I for not exterminating that sorry piece of trash in the first place. In retrospect we can claim all we want that we didn't have to go to war with Iraq, but it was Clinton's failed CIA oversight that led to faulty intelligence. Irregardless of blame, I'll be damned if I want my president to sit on his hands while insane factions deal in potential nuclear proliferation. You can say that Bush f'd up the aftermath of Iraq but that's really overstating it. We're dealing with suicide bombers and we've done a lot of good for their people.

Well, technically, Congress and President Bush got us into two wars. President Clinton (and the Clinton-era Congresses) did not declare war in either of these circumstances.

Oh yea. There's no such thing as cause and effect. Bush arbitrarily went to war. Good well thought out point.

[ViperOverLord]

As I learn with all your comments and thoughts, I'm yet confused as to why most tend to ignore a truth well known:

The war in Iraq is all about the oil. They can leave tomorrow, but they don't want you, they tell you what they want in the news, I can go on and suggest Macchiavellic actions, but I would cross the line I guess.

To thegreekdog: You don't know in what shit would the whole world be without the bailouts.(1)

And as to the main point: W was favored by the superavit Clinton left, and Obama was fucked by the W deficit. Some has to be said about the not-long-ago-praised Greenspan

Also, we (shame on me) expected to much of Obama, he's just another puppet. He too is grabbed by the balls by the owners of the money. BP contributed a lot to the Obama campaign, and that's why he gave green light to BP to drill where the mess happened. (This I learned in another thread).

And saxi: stop the propaganda or no cookies for you!

$2,000 of every car is built into bloated union pension. Via the union, GM had janitors making six figures. Yea by all means, let's keep the thievery plants running instead of starting over properly.

[tzor]

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

Google is your friend ... you can find out here

The syrup is $8.20 per gallon.

[ViperOverLord]

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

Google is your friend ... you can find out here

The syrup is $8.20 per gallon.

I only wish the war was about oil. We could recoop our costs from the Iraqi people that allowed a gangster murderering thug to trifle with us. But we are a compassionate country and are trying to bring them to our level rather than subjigate a people. This is being done no thanks to subversive libs.

[Frigidus]

(1) If the war in Iraq was about oil, would you expect oil prices to decrease? Because they really aren't. Maybe it was meant to be about oil, but it's not resulting in me getting cheaper gasoline. This is neither here nor there, but I wonder how much a gallon of Coca-Cola costs? Probably more than a gallon of gasoline.

Google is your friend ... you can find out here

The syrup is $8.20 per gallon.

I only wish the war was about oil. We could recoop our costs from the Iraqi people that allowed a gangster murderering thug to trifle with us. But we are a compassionate country and are trying to bring them to our level rather than subjigate a people. This is being done no thanks to subversive libs.

Wow. You're blaming the people that lived under a brutal dictator for the brutal dictator? You also seem to be suggesting that, following the invasion of their country (justified or otherwise, beneficial or otherwise) we fleece the Iraqis and "subjigate" them. Damn. Most people wouldn't say that even anonymously.