alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
UPDATE: Heads up Nixon, Bush Approval 35% and dropping
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Here's something I never understood: I know Carter was exceptionally unpopular in 1980 for a variety of reasons. Why did he run in 1980; alternatively, why didn't the DNC show some backbone and run someone else?
Also, while I'm skeptical to believe claims that society is becoming increasingly partisan, that last claim "80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve" makes me wonder if it's not palusible to think that we're treating party affiliation like we do sports teams more and more (i.e., loyalty is becoming the greater MO than understanding or agreeing with the party's method).
Also, while I'm skeptical to believe claims that society is becoming increasingly partisan, that last claim "80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve" makes me wonder if it's not palusible to think that we're treating party affiliation like we do sports teams more and more (i.e., loyalty is becoming the greater MO than understanding or agreeing with the party's method).
Go Seahawks! Woohooo! I don't care if you kill babies!
Seriously, I've felt like that for a while. But you know talking about Bush's declining approval rating is like eating aborted fetuses, or is it feti? It's also like cheering the terrorists, and in fact killing some Americans yourself.
After all, all dissention is treason.
Seriously, I've felt like that for a while. But you know talking about Bush's declining approval rating is like eating aborted fetuses, or is it feti? It's also like cheering the terrorists, and in fact killing some Americans yourself.
After all, all dissention is treason.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='Quillion']Go Seahawks! Woohooo! I don't care if you kill babies!
[/QUOTE]
Hoping for another 8-8 season?
[/QUOTE]
Hoping for another 8-8 season?
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
crickett003
CAGiversary!
Not sure how he personally could have handled the Katrina situation better. Louisiana should have done a much better job.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='crickett003']Not sure how he personally could have handled the Katrina situation better. Louisiana should have done a much better job.[/QUOTE]
You forgot to finish that last sentence, so I shall do so for you.
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure that the federal government under Bush did not cut funding for the construction of levees.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure FEMA was prepared to do anything other than pick its collective nose while New Orleans fell to shit.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job trying to get Bush's attention, since they are to blame in the 6 day lapse between the White House press release declaring LA a state of emergency (8/26) and Bush actually visiting there (9/1).
How do those work for you? Of course, that final statement has a severe logical fallacy to it, as all Bush really did on 9/1 was pose, right?
Yeah, he gave it all he could, like a paraplegic in a gangbang.
You forgot to finish that last sentence, so I shall do so for you.
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure that the federal government under Bush did not cut funding for the construction of levees.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure FEMA was prepared to do anything other than pick its collective nose while New Orleans fell to shit.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job trying to get Bush's attention, since they are to blame in the 6 day lapse between the White House press release declaring LA a state of emergency (8/26) and Bush actually visiting there (9/1).
How do those work for you? Of course, that final statement has a severe logical fallacy to it, as all Bush really did on 9/1 was pose, right?
Yeah, he gave it all he could, like a paraplegic in a gangbang.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='crickett003']Not sure how he personally could have handled the Katrina situation better. Louisiana should have done a much better job.[/QUOTE]
I don't suppose he could have cancelled his vaction and at least pretended to care. Leading a country and actually doing anything are not always the same things.
I don't suppose he could have cancelled his vaction and at least pretended to care. Leading a country and actually doing anything are not always the same things.
[quote name='crickett003']Not sure how he personally could have handled the Katrina situation better. Louisiana should have done a much better job.[/QUOTE]
How about breaking his vacation off instead of continuing it for two more days...
How about landing on the ground in AL, MS or LA instead of just flying over for the first few days?
How about putting someone in charge of FEMA who actually has pertinent experience in disaster management?
Ditto for Homeland Security.
How about not cancelling/retracting the fuding that LA has been asking for for years to fix the levees?
To say 'Louisiana should have done a much better job' as a way to attempt to divert attention from the inarguable failure that was the Federal Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina is really quite laughable - and a great example of the kind of disconnected 'reality' that George W Bush and co. cling to with the ferociousness of a Ninth Ward resident trying to smash their roof out from the inside to keep from drowning.
It's beyond the realm of being an apologist at this point.
To suggest that the current POTUSA couldn't have done much more than he did in response to this disaster is to either completely misunderstand the situation or more sadly - to bury one's head in the sand, ignoring hard facts and indisbutable visual images that make it clear to anyone with two working eyes and a functional cerebral cortex that Bush
ed up.
It REALLY is that simple.
Othersed up too, but Bush ed up WAY more than anyone else - just like he's been doing for a long time.
How about breaking his vacation off instead of continuing it for two more days...
How about landing on the ground in AL, MS or LA instead of just flying over for the first few days?
How about putting someone in charge of FEMA who actually has pertinent experience in disaster management?
Ditto for Homeland Security.
How about not cancelling/retracting the fuding that LA has been asking for for years to fix the levees?
To say 'Louisiana should have done a much better job' as a way to attempt to divert attention from the inarguable failure that was the Federal Administration's response to Hurricane Katrina is really quite laughable - and a great example of the kind of disconnected 'reality' that George W Bush and co. cling to with the ferociousness of a Ninth Ward resident trying to smash their roof out from the inside to keep from drowning.
It's beyond the realm of being an apologist at this point.
To suggest that the current POTUSA couldn't have done much more than he did in response to this disaster is to either completely misunderstand the situation or more sadly - to bury one's head in the sand, ignoring hard facts and indisbutable visual images that make it clear to anyone with two working eyes and a functional cerebral cortex that Bush
ed up.It REALLY is that simple.
Others
ed up too, but Bush ed up WAY more than anyone else - just like he's been doing for a long time.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Others
If someone constantly
s up things under their control, to the point that it is expected, at what point does ing up become success?
CappyCobra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']You forgot to finish that last sentence, so I shall do so for you.
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure that the federal government under Bush did not cut funding for the construction of levees.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure FEMA was prepared to do anything other than pick its collective nose while New Orleans fell to shit.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job trying to get Bush's attention, since they are to blame in the 6 day lapse between the White House press release declaring LA a state of emergency (8/26) and Bush actually visiting there (9/1).
How do those work for you? Of course, that final statement has a severe logical fallacy to it, as all Bush really did on 9/1 was pose, right?
Yeah, he gave it all he could, like a paraplegic in a gangbang.[/QUOTE]
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure that the federal government under Bush did not cut funding for the construction of levees.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job making sure FEMA was prepared to do anything other than pick its collective nose while New Orleans fell to shit.
or maybe this?
Louisiana should have done a much better job trying to get Bush's attention, since they are to blame in the 6 day lapse between the White House press release declaring LA a state of emergency (8/26) and Bush actually visiting there (9/1).
How do those work for you? Of course, that final statement has a severe logical fallacy to it, as all Bush really did on 9/1 was pose, right?
Yeah, he gave it all he could, like a paraplegic in a gangbang.[/QUOTE]
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
I've also heard alot of things about how LA is very anti-federal government and they still operate under the Napoleonic code in places like NO.
Responding to the crisis, I agree with the general consensus, but as far as preparing for it I think that NO govt deserves a good portion of blame at this point (and I would guess it's more politics then laziness)
Also - the NO coward cops story is another piece I'd like to see more about in the press.
Responding to the crisis, I agree with the general consensus, but as far as preparing for it I think that NO govt deserves a good portion of blame at this point (and I would guess it's more politics then laziness)
Also - the NO coward cops story is another piece I'd like to see more about in the press.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='gsr']you people voted for him - he's a tard...do we need proof of that everyday with one of these threads?
next time, make the right decision, even if you don't like the other candidate.
"cowboy-ism" and presidency don't mix.[/QUOTE]
Are you an idiot? "You people voted for him", you realize he only got 51% of the vote, don't you?
Oh, and it's 38% now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9280375/site/newsweek/
next time, make the right decision, even if you don't like the other candidate.
"cowboy-ism" and presidency don't mix.[/QUOTE]
Are you an idiot? "You people voted for him", you realize he only got 51% of the vote, don't you?
Oh, and it's 38% now:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9280375/site/newsweek/
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's something I never understood: I know Carter was exceptionally unpopular in 1980 for a variety of reasons. Why did he run in 1980; alternatively, why didn't the DNC show some backbone and run someone else?
Also, while I'm skeptical to believe claims that society is becoming increasingly partisan, that last claim "80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve" makes me wonder if it's not palusible to think that we're treating party affiliation like we do sports teams more and more (i.e., loyalty is becoming the greater MO than understanding or agreeing with the party's method).[/QUOTE]
Ted Kennedy did run against Carter in 1980 in the primaries. He didn't win. It was the last time a sitting President faced a serious primary challenge from within his own party. The DNC or RNC won't oust a sitting President if he's won re-nomination through the primaries. Just isn't going to happen.
Carter had these things going for him. 1. Double digit unemployment. 2. Double digit interest rates, actually close to 18%. 3. Double digit inflation. 4. The Iran Hostage Crisis. 5. Cut military spending to the point of dangerous inability to fulfill treaty obligations. 6. Blamed the American people for their problems. 7. Gasoline that was, to this day, the highest priced of all time adjusted for inflation.
There are others but these were the major ones. Carter was the absolute worst U.S. President of the 20th Century.
Also, while I'm skeptical to believe claims that society is becoming increasingly partisan, that last claim "80 percent of Democrats disapprove of his overall performance while nearly 90 percent of Republicans approve" makes me wonder if it's not palusible to think that we're treating party affiliation like we do sports teams more and more (i.e., loyalty is becoming the greater MO than understanding or agreeing with the party's method).[/QUOTE]
Ted Kennedy did run against Carter in 1980 in the primaries. He didn't win. It was the last time a sitting President faced a serious primary challenge from within his own party. The DNC or RNC won't oust a sitting President if he's won re-nomination through the primaries. Just isn't going to happen.
Carter had these things going for him. 1. Double digit unemployment. 2. Double digit interest rates, actually close to 18%. 3. Double digit inflation. 4. The Iran Hostage Crisis. 5. Cut military spending to the point of dangerous inability to fulfill treaty obligations. 6. Blamed the American people for their problems. 7. Gasoline that was, to this day, the highest priced of all time adjusted for inflation.
There are others but these were the major ones. Carter was the absolute worst U.S. President of the 20th Century.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'] 7. Gasoline that was, to this day, the highest priced of all time adjusted for inflation. [/QUOTE]
Heh, not anymore.
Heh, not anymore.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla']Heh, not anymore.[/QUOTE]
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
There are others but these were the major ones. Carter was the absolute worst U.S. President of the 20th Century.[/QUOTE]
Here's a riddle - What rhymes with 5 trillion dollars of national debt and the Iran Contra?
Answer:
Yessir, godbless 'Merica
There are others but these were the major ones. Carter was the absolute worst U.S. President of the 20th Century.[/QUOTE]
Here's a riddle - What rhymes with 5 trillion dollars of national debt and the Iran Contra?
Answer:
Yessir, godbless 'Merica
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
But, what you originally dealt with and quack responded to, referred to gas prices, presumabely at the pump. What's the difference between average, at the pump, gas prices then and now?
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
But, what you originally dealt with and quack responded to, referred to gas prices, presumabely at the pump. What's the difference between average, at the pump, gas prices then and now?
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
Quack was talking about gas prices and you responded with stats about oil prices. What are the stats for gas prices?
The above chart shows why oil prices have not yet put as big a crimp in our budgets as it did back in 1980. Back then the monthly average price peaked at $38 per barrel (although the intraday prices spiked much higher).
The common price quoted is for the all time high of Oil prices is the price that the highest barrel ever sold for. That price doesn't really have any effect on the price consumers paid. What really matters is the average price the refineries had to pay for the whole month.
Adjusted for inflation in July 2005 dollars this $38 peak is the equivalent of paying $96.81 today. This number is constantly changing as we adjust for inflation at the current moment.
In other words, Oil would have to average $96.81 for the entire month to be as high as the price we saw in December of 1979. But we are "only" paying a little over half that amount.
Link
Again, as usual, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
Quack was talking about gas prices and you responded with stats about oil prices. What are the stats for gas prices?
CappyCobra
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Quack was talking about gas prices and you responded with stats about oil prices. What are the stats for gas prices?[/QUOTE]
Because crude oil is refined into gasoline, diesel & other fuels. If the price of crude jumps, you'll be taking it in the pooper at the pump (and eventually at the grocery store, construction supplies, etc ; basically anything that is transported.). To sum it up, an increase in crude oil prices will increase the price of gas indirectly. The referines will just pass the cost of higher oil prices over to the consumer.
Because crude oil is refined into gasoline, diesel & other fuels. If the price of crude jumps, you'll be taking it in the pooper at the pump (and eventually at the grocery store, construction supplies, etc ; basically anything that is transported.). To sum it up, an increase in crude oil prices will increase the price of gas indirectly. The referines will just pass the cost of higher oil prices over to the consumer.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='CappyCobra']Because crude oil is refined into gasoline, diesel & other fuels. If the price of crude jumps, you'll be taking it in the pooper at the pump (and eventually at the grocery store, construction supplies, etc ; basically anything that is transported.). To sum it up, an increase in crude oil prices will increase the price of gas indirectly. The referines will just pass the cost of higher oil prices over to the consumer.[/QUOTE]
If they were just "passing the cost" then oil companies wouldn't have posted 68-91% net profit increases over the previous fiscal quarter.
If they were just "passing the cost" then oil companies wouldn't have posted 68-91% net profit increases over the previous fiscal quarter.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Again, as usual, you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
First off, your graph only goes to July - which just HAPPENS to be the exact point in time in which the price of crude oil went completely through the roof. Your graph puts the current price at $52 , when its actually *checks* $62 at the moment. That's actually down significantly. If you'd fill in the last 5 month's worth of oil prices, you'd have a spike very, very close to Carter's.
As was already mentioned, the price of oil doesn't directly correspond to the price of gas. The price of oil has gone up, but the price of gas has gone up a whole *lot* more in the past several months. That's not really Bush's fault - it was the hurricanes that took the refineries offline. If you'd graph the price of a gallon of gas, though, I'd bet that the price during the past couple of months would have spiked a good deal higher than it ever did during Carter's administration, and ultimately, its the price of gas, not oil, that affects the economy.
First off, your graph only goes to July - which just HAPPENS to be the exact point in time in which the price of crude oil went completely through the roof. Your graph puts the current price at $52 , when its actually *checks* $62 at the moment. That's actually down significantly. If you'd fill in the last 5 month's worth of oil prices, you'd have a spike very, very close to Carter's.
As was already mentioned, the price of oil doesn't directly correspond to the price of gas. The price of oil has gone up, but the price of gas has gone up a whole *lot* more in the past several months. That's not really Bush's fault - it was the hurricanes that took the refineries offline. If you'd graph the price of a gallon of gas, though, I'd bet that the price during the past couple of months would have spiked a good deal higher than it ever did during Carter's administration, and ultimately, its the price of gas, not oil, that affects the economy.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
California adjusted gas chart.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
The peak price in the late '70's ealy '80's was $3.0803. As of September it peaked at $3.056. So PAD is right... Gas was more expensive in 1980 by .0243¢. So take that you liberal quacks! Bush is OUR HERO!
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gasoline_cpi_adjusted.html
The peak price in the late '70's ealy '80's was $3.0803. As of September it peaked at $3.056. So PAD is right... Gas was more expensive in 1980 by .0243¢. So take that you liberal quacks! Bush is OUR HERO!
bread's done