patdollard.com . . .

Marking the similarities between President Barack Obama’s time in office and former president Jimmy Carter’s is nothing new. But as of Monday, Obama has hit one more Carter benchmark – both saw gas prices double in their first term of office.

In fact, while just barely, Obama has seen an even higher gas price increase than Carter dealt with under his administration.

Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

The National Republican Congressional Committee called attention to Obama’s recent “dishonorable distinction,” blaming the Democrats’ rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline as a major factor for skyrocketing gas prices.

The Canadians have done the predictable and logical thing,selling their oil to those who want it, the Chinese.

but, but, but... I don't understand.

George Bush had started the Iraq war in order to secure long-term and easy access to cheap Iraqi oil for the American companies...

Could he and Donnie Turdsfeld have been wrong all this time ?
has anything gone wrong ?

I am in agreement with this thread topic.

Important current point would be : how many barrels a day do Obama sanctions against Iran put out of the market ?
(besides providing Chinese and Indian with cheaper oil).

Otherwise :

ArthurH wrote:

Important current point would be : how many barrels a day do Obama sanctions against Iran put out of the market ?
(besides providing Chinese and Indian with cheaper oil).

Well dangit! I have to agree with you there parder!

poupon_le_french wrote:



Well dangit! I have to agree with you there parder!

It was a question more than a statement, got the answer yes or no ?

poupon_le_french wrote:

I am in agreement with this thread topic.

I, also agree. This topic is agreeable.

Glad to see we are in agreement and supporting each others' rights to freedom of agreement, err, speech.

ArthurH wrote:

poupon_le_french wrote:



Well dangit! I have to agree with you there parder!

I was a question more than a statement, got the answer yes or no ?

Oh shit!

I don't want to be banned...

Give me a hint as to what you want me to say so I can be in agreement.

giving this is on a subject on which he never posts



i wholeheartedly agree with it

Do your own research !
This site is meant to promote independant thinking (even pedos and serial boy scouts molesters defend their points here, with regular columns)
But somewhere in between 600,000 to 1 million over their potential 3 or 3,5 millions would probably make sense.

ArthurH wrote:

Do your own research !
This site is meant to promote independant thinking (even pedos and serial boy scouts molesters defend their points here, with regular comunms)
But somewhere in between 600,000 to 1 million over their potential 3 or 3,5 millions would probably make sense.

I prefer not to use my own common sense, and simply agree.

I'm no troll Atrie. Trolls are disagreeable.

If you feel disagreeable just go out and fire some guns in the air. Guns are very agreeable

poupon_le_french wrote:

Trolls are disagreeable.

I agree, but fraidie is even worse

Arthur, don't you agree that this is a wonderful thread?

gas is like 5 bucks in Kommiefornia

THEY WILL STILL VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!

NikosAliagas wrote:

but, but, but... I don't understand.

George Bush had started the Iraq war in order to secure long-term and easy access to cheap Iraqi oil for the American companies...

Could he and Donnie Turdsfeld have been wrong all this time ?
has anything gone wrong ?

LOL! Classic self-ownage! Only the libtards were claiming that was why Bush went into Iraq. Kind of makes them look foolish now, now doesn't it?