Friday Open Comment Thread
by David Benzion · 10/07/2005 12:37 amHave at it.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
86 Responses to “Friday Open Comment Thread”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Well, I have just reported to school and await a meeting this morning to rake me over the coals because too many of my darling students are failing my classes. Social promotion is alive and well because most teachers will simply promote the failures rather than be subjected to disciplinary actions or other harassment. High school diplomas
are handed out like raffle tickets. Ridiculous.
#1. buddy s
I’m schocked
Before I saw the definition and usage of a computer troll on this blog, I never considered the evil spirited creature definition. My own personal definition was always of a fishing analogy. You know, where someone throws out some “bait” and “trolls” through an area with a high concentration of “fish” to see what or who bites. Both definitions work though, don’t they?
Ischoe:
That is also a spot on definition. For some though I had to keep it real simple and since I did not have a big chief note pad and crayon to draw a picture I used what I could.
Squawkbox
And remember the cardinal rule…. Do not feed the trolls
So, how bout those poll numbers?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml
I mentioned those numbers last night, it is stunning. Bush numbers less than Nixon during Watergate. Nixon was at 39% approval at the hieght (or depth as the case may be) of Watergate, Bush 37% now.
The most stiking number is among independents. only 29% approval.
Wow!!! Even with those low approval numbers the government is still functioning, we haven’t had a major terrorist attack and our economy is still growing—not bad!!! Why don’t they take a poll of what options or alternative plans people want or can offer. The President is doing his job the best he can—-”criticism” is not an alternate plan.
There was no criticism offered. It is just a stunning number. Even you would have to admit that.
Does not offer much hope to those repubs that have to run next year.
To be fair, Clinton in the hieght (or depth) of Monicagate/impeachment. 67%.
All true, but I still maintain that the only polls that matter is the one taken on election days.
Besides, if Democrats regain the White House and both chambers of congress next time around, will we be better off? I think not…
To all the libs - put down your bongs for a minute while I tell you something. If I were asked if I approved of how he is handling Iraq, I’d probably say no, hurting his numbers even further. But that’s because I think he’s not acting strongly enough - not because I want to turn it over to a lib. Don’t get so excited libs, thinking that you are going to win again in 2008. Not going to happen.
The muslims of the middle east better be sure they keep praying to allah that I am never elected President, because this war would be over in 15 minutes if that were ever the case. I’m sure you know what I mean.
You can resume your bonging now.
JimB, you are right about the election. But even I as an observer from the “left” am stunned. So I would assume that these numbers are troubling for you.
Answer to your question, you think not, I think yes.
How about this mess down in Sugarland? I guess there is nothing to be said for personal responsibility. If these were kids from the 3rd Ward, they would have been hung out to dry.
Sugar Land drops teens’ citations for alcohol
By ERIC HANSON
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
SUGAR LAND - Charges against 17 defendants accused of underage possession of alcohol ended abruptly Thursday when all charges were dismissed.
City of Sugar Land Prosecutor Jan Baker said the Class C misdemeanor citations had to be dropped because of a lack of evidence, namely the inability of the officers who wrote the tickets on April 14 to identify the teens who were on trial.
A charge against one teen was dismissed before noon Thursday because of a technicality.
“I think a critical part of it was the fact that they (arresting officers) could not identify any of these individual students when they were asked to do so in court,” said Rick Bell, one of seven attorneys involved in the case.
Baker agreed.
“We were supposed to prove identity. We had an identity hearing this morning and it didn’t turn out the way we thought it would,” she said.
“Rather than go through and have an entire trial where we wouldn’t be able to prove one of the most important elements, we decided to just go ahead and stop it.”
Baker filed a motion to dismiss all the charges, which municipal court Judge D. Craig Landin granted Thursday afternoon.
“I’m happy. At the rate it was going it might have gone on two more days. Apparently the state decided that it did not have a case,” said Robert Decrosta, whose daughter was cited.
Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace said he was disappointed in the trial’s outcome. He said it would almost be impossible for anyone to identify a stranger after six months.
“Our police officers will continue to enforce the minor-in-possession laws. We only have the best interests of our youth and our citizens at heart,” Wallace said.
“Our police chief will be talking with the judge to learn his reasoning behind his decision today and to, if applicable, discover ways in which police officers can improve the identification process at the scene.”
There were so many defendants and attorneys involved in the trial that Sugar Land officials had to move the proceedings from the courtroom to the city council chambers.
The teens were issued the citations after police responded to complaints of a loud party in the upscale Sugar Creek subdivision where officers found more than three dozen teenagers, no adults and plenty of booze.
Some teens have pleaded guilty, but those on trial argued that police entered the house without a warrant and simply issued citations to everyone in sight, whether they had a drink in hand or not.
“The police came in. They didn’t check to see which kids were drinking. They just said everybody is getting a minor in possession (citation),” said Rene Woodring, whose daughter was cited.
Officer Todd Cox testified that he saw five or six young people standing outside the home and that people fled when they saw him approaching.
After entering the home and seeing that there were no adults present, Cox and other officers talked about what action they should take.
“We began issuing citations to everyone who was there,” he said.
City leaders and police contended that officers had a duty to curtail underage drinking and prevent intoxicated teens from driving home.
Chronicle reporter Ruth Rendon contributed to this report.
Cameraguy, That is my point in pointing out the “independent” number. Bush should enjoy a solid support level of about 33% among conservatives. Then there is the “left” at about 33% that will never approve.
So the number that matters most to all Pols is the independent. At 29% this is very dangerous for him. And for those that need to run in 06.
Today’s levity:
A college professor, an avowed atheist and active in the ACLU, was teaching his class. He shocked several of his students when he flatly stated for once and for all he was going to prove there was no God. Addressing the ceiling he shouted:
“God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform.
I’ll give you exactly 15 minutes!!!!!”
The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by.
“I’m waiting God. If you’re real, knock me off this platform!!!!”
Again after 4 minutes, the professor taunted God, saying, “Here I am, God!!! I’m still waiting!!!”
His count down got down to the last couple of minutes when a SEAL, just released from the Navy after serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and
newly registered in the class, walked up to the Professor. The SEAL hit him full force in the face, and sent the Professor tumbling from his lofty platform.
The Professor was out cold!! The students were stunned! and shocked. They began to babble in confusion.
The SEAL nonchalantly took his seat in the front row and sat silent. The class looked at him and fell silent…..waiting.
Eventually, the professor came to and was noticeably shaken. He looked at the SEAL in the front row. When the professor regained his senses and could speak he asked:
“What the hell is the matter with you?! Why did you do that!?”
The SEAL replied:
“God was really busy watching over America’s soldiers, who are protecting your right to say stupid stuff and act like a jerk!!!
So He told me to take care of it.”
Feagan,
The “criticism” is in the poll numbers. Low poll numbers is meant or interpreted as a criticism of President Bush’s performance to date. Notice I didn’t say good or bad performance because people will intepret his performance anyway THEY want. Here again, all we get from the left (aka liberal Democrats) is criticism, no alternate plan. To be a leader, you must have an agenda that you are willing to follow.
We appreciate the added information and comments, really we do. Rather than copy and pasting an entire story from another source, please post the link and maybe highlight the more important points in your comments.
Squawkbox
Moderator
As far as winning seats and elections are concerned, sure, the November polls are all that matters. But shouldn’t it be of concern to some that SO MANY people are unhappy with the performance of the ruling party right now?
And cameraguy, your explanation for the low Iraq poll numbers still does not explain the fairly wide majority that feels we should cut spending in Iraq and/or pull out of the area ASAP.
Tim and Feagan,
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.
I could write a poll that puts Mother Teresa in the same light as Saddam Hussein. It is a matter of what questions you ask, the way you word them, the order in which they are asked, and, most importantly, the “acceptable” answers.
In short, I don’t believe any of the polls out there, because they’re all agenda-driven.
The only poll that matters is usually held in November.
All the rest of your smokescreen is just more liberal wishful thinking.
The republicans are going to keep winning elections until your side (or a more conservative party that doesn’t currently exist) comes up with a PLAN. Of course, to have a plan, you need IDEAS. And to have ideas, you need a BRAIN. Too bad most liberals lack the most important ingredient… or rather, have one, but use it more for coming up with short sound bites and endless whining, rather than solutions.
Please go back to your whining, now.
#12 Cameraguy,
You seem fascinated with the whole liberal-bong connection. Do you get a contact high from being around them? I have some liberal friends at work, but the bong deal is obviously not an issue here, or they wouldn’t have jobs.
Oh well, if the liberals are tokin’ it up, I suppose it beats them being on crack. The crackheads seem to be quite a bit more violent. Or are liberals on that stuff too?
It is interesting to me that the poll numbers pointed out.
Then there is a rash of insults. Wino says libs don’t have brains, Robert says it is mere criticism without an alternate plan, Cameraguy says we libs are all dope heads.
Is that really the best explanation you can offer ? I mean really.
I could offer random insults, and to be honest, I have on occaision. But when a president with control of the house the senate and the judicial branch has such low numbers what is the explanation.
Regarding Iraq, the president has gotten EVERYTHING he asked for. What explains the debacle we now see.
Oh and Cameraguy, I have NEVER taken an illegal drug. Cannot speak to every lib. But I can say very clearly
I don’t. Sorry dude, too busy working, trying to raise my kids etc etc.
OMG guys!
um…
(Don’t feed the trolls.)
(Don’t feed the trolls.)
…er…
(Don’t feed the trolls.)
(Don’t feed the trolls.)
ok…never mind
I’m in the “never took any drugs” category, too. And please tell me how the question “do you approve or disapprove of the job that President Bush is doing” is a biased question? And how the exact same question keeps returning worse and worse results for the President.
My only caveat to that question (Do you approve of the job President Bush is doing) is that people will answer yes or no for a number of reasons, not all of which equate to having a liberal Democrat for President in 2008. Finding out what’s underneath the approval rating (more than just which group answered what way) is pretty crucial.
I find the clear partisan split more disturbing than anything, because that tends to make me think that there may be a lot of kool-aid drinkers out there…
#25 Tim
If I may…If someone “disapproves” of the job the President is doing, it does not mean they want him or his party out of office. A disapproval could mean he is too aggressive or it could mean he is not aggressive enough, each coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Another point is some respondants may derive their answer based primarily on the war on terror, or his response (or lack thereof) to immigration, or his response to the Supreme Court vacancies, or his political affiliation. This answer in the poll would then be skewed because the respondant does not truly take into account the entire “job” of the presidency.
“And how the exact same question keeps returning worse and worse results for the President” sadly enough, a lot has to do with how the media protrays the president. This influences the public to respond a certain way.
I never said WHY people disapproved of the president, or what inferences we could or should draw from it! All I said is that it should be troubling that so many people disapprove. Sure, that COULD mean that we need someone vastly more conservative. It COULD mean a lot of things. But the one thing we can safely say that it means is that there are not a lot of peole happy with the president’s performance. But sure, maybe it means they want him to change the law and serve a third term.
Another point to ponder…who are the people being polled? These polling places never contact me during the day because I’m WORKING!
I don’t answer the phone in the evenings because I’m spending time with my family.
So who does that leave answering these polls? **Stay at home moms (which are decreasing in numbers)
**people without day jobs
**people who put more importance onm answering polls than spending time with their family
And just how do you suppose THESE people will answer?
I do recall his poll numbers were quite low before he was elected to a second term by the greatest number of people in US history.
Which re-enforces my point in #29…the people voting in the elections are not the same as those taking the polls.
Bush’s approval ratings were hovering in the high 40s to low 50’s (depending on whose poll you looked at) and he got 51% of the vote. Doesn’t seem like that much of a disparity there.
Feagan,
If you’re going to use what I say in one of your rants, please be accurate.
I didn’t say liberals have no brains, I said you liberals don’t use your brains for anything except coming up with sound bites and whining.
I don’t see a debacle in Iraq. I see a country that was under the thumb of a ruthless dictator, but is now on the verge of becoming a free and independent State, because of President Bush and the good people of America who actually support the troops.
Of course, you have to look around to find the good news about what is happening in Iraq, because the MSM refuses to print any good news which would make Bush look good. But the good news is out there, if you’d just look for it.
It was already explained to you why your interpretation of the poll results could be in error, but you can’t or won’t accept that, and keep spouting your interpretation as if it were the only interpretation.
Ever since Bush was elected, your side has continually said he was stupid, then a liar, then evil, then back to stupid. You’re now on to “inept.” The problem with all of this is it just isn’t true.
Every time your side has come up against Bush, you’ve come away a loser. Frankly, if I kept getting beat by someone, I’d quit denigrating his intelligence. Your rants remind me of the bumper sticker that says, “I may be slow, but I’m ahead of you.” You really ought to look beyond your hatred to see what you’re really saying about yourself when you attack President Bush.
Liberals continue to lose elections. MSM continues to slant news and polls to fit their agendas. Democrat accusations continue to be proven baseless. Feagan continues to interpret poll results as the bellweather of republican losses in the next election. And they all wonder why we aren’t listening to them anymore.
Until your side starts “throwing out the trash” like our side does (think of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon to see what one does with a corrupt president), then you won’t have credibility, and you’ll keep losing… elections, adherents, and your sanity.
Feagan,
The President does not have control of Congress when whiny Democrats threaten to block or filibuster anything they don’t like—no matter the fact that they are not in the majority. Hence, the problem, the Democrats cannot accept a minority role and the Republicans cannot handle being in the majority. How come, when the Democrats don’t get what they want, its because the Republicans are not bi-partisan as if the Democrats were right and the majority was wrong. Another problem the President has is a liberal media who wouldn’t tell you the truth even if their jobs depended on it.
Feagan, why don’t you tell us who could do a better job than President Bush??? And why??
Wino, when did I denegrate GW’s intelligence?
Robert, thats easy to answer. Clinton. May not like him, might not like what he did with Monica, Hell I didnt, but you cannot deny his record.
Let me ask another question. Tried last night but got spanked by Squawk, fairly I might add.
In October of 2003 Scott McClellan said he went to both Lewis Libby and Karl Rove to ask them if they had any involvement in “Plamegate”. He then reported to us, Cateorically they did not.
Why then does Rove need four trips to the Grand Jury to say to Fitzgerald “I had no involvement”.
Faegan…
Please identify the details of what “record” you reference.
I don’t recall Clinton taking charge and doing much of anything for which to take credit.
Feagan,
Clinton!!!!! You might as well have said Hillary.
All Clinton did was take credit for what the Republican Congress did and the legislation they passed. All that the “Impeached One” had going for him was scandals. I give him credit for having the manpower and the media to cover it all up. He probably would not get away with it because of the bloggers that are out there now. His corruption ran from his own actions down thru his cabinet. We never saw so many cabinet members who were corrupt and incompetent. We all know the reason Hillary stayed with Bill is because she got to choose cabinet members and got to tell Bill what to do.
If wanted to choose a Democrat, you should have chosen Joe Lieberman.
Robert, so lets see Clintons success was because of the Repubs. Bushs’ failures is because of the Dems.
High Gas prices ummmm Dems fault. World record deficity ummmm Dems fault, Highest trade deficit in the U.S. history ummmmm Dems fault. Falling dollar ummmm Dems fault.
Record Budget surplus ummmmm Repubs. Lowest trade deficit ummm Repubs…….
O.K. you and I disagree.
Any theory on Rove ? wait dont tell me….. Dems fault.
Wait, economic success was because of the Republicans in Congress? Then why did it fall flat? Why did the surplus turn into record deficits when Clinton left office? There were still Republicans in Congress…more of them, even!
And for crying out loud, Clinton did not successfully “cover up” the Lewinsky thing. It’s not like the media did not jump on every sordid detail, from cigars to stained dresses and everything in between. The details were pounded home day in and day out by the so-called liberal media. (No pun intended!)
#39 Faegan:
“High Gas prices ummmm Dems fault”
Dems fault for hampering the construction of refineries by implementing strict environmental restrictions, thus reducing the supply as the demand increases. States fault for requiring special blends..refineries cannot reduce the price for everyone when they have to make many special blends for many different states.
Repubs fault for allowing it to happen and not fixing the problem…
Intersting theories, MeMyselfNI, but much of the rise in gas costs is simply die to the fact that UNREFINED oil costs so much more than it did during the Clinton years. Remember when it used to be in the low 20-s per barrel? Now it’s over $60. Refinery concerns have nothing to do with that whatsoever.
You’re only half right Tim. Oil price is a big factor, but refining capacity is too. The Saudis have offered to sell an additiional 2 million barrels a day (even before the storms). But there are no takers ’cause they don’t have any place to refine it.
Warning Extreme Rant Ahead
Auugghhhhh Bill Clinton again. The republicans have no one but themselves to blame for President Clinton and the fact he is still around to chill my bowels.
I invite everyone to read David Schippers book Sellout. You can still find it on Amazon. I don’t receive anything for endorcing the book btw. Attorney Schippers was/is a life long democrat who had voted for President Clinton was tasked to prosecute the good prez during the impeachment.
He reveals in his book the usual democrat blocks and tackles. He also reveals which linguini spined Republicans joined with the democrats to block Kenneth Starr. The two most notable was then Majority Leader Henry Hyde and MS Senator Trent Lott.
There is much more than I care to elaborate on. So every time you see President Clinton standing by Presdient Bush (41) or see him criticizing President Bush (43) the Republicans had their chance to bury this clown but refused. When you criticize President Clinton for his current antics don’t forget to include those Republicans also.
And people wonder why I live in a cave and don’t watch TV. mumble mumble mumble.
End of rant you may now return to your rat killing.
During Dan’s interview with Delay Monday after the 2nd inditement came down, Delay acknowledged accepting corporate money for his PACs. When Dan asked what could be done to improve/simplify the campaign contribution regulations, Delay aswered that he is supporting (maybe he said proposing) legislation that would eliminate ALL restrictions. Delay said (paraphrasing) that any entity could contribute and that voters could make up their own minds as to who is a crook or being influenced. I was astonished that Dan who, along with Edd, is always complaining (rightly so, I might add) about special interests and corporations controlling our politicians, didn’t utter a word of concern.
If you win the State Senate seat Dan, I hope you “walk the walk” and take on campaign reform, EVEN if it involved folks like Delay.
#40 Tim:
“Wait, economic success was because of the Republicans in Congress?”
The Republicans pushed it through and Clinton signed on due to Dick morris’ suggestions so his poll numbers would improve.
“Then why did it fall flat? Why did the surplus turn into record deficits when Clinton left office?”
Because Clinton counted Social Security money and other funds in the budget that should not have been.
Drill ANWAR, drill Florida, drill California, build a refinery in my back yard
#44 Squawkbox…
I agree…enough about Clinton…
…but they started it today!!!
Let’s get back to yesterday’s levity.
BTW - I never got a subscription!
#46 There was also a huge .com bubble that burst. Most .coms stock traded for High$$$ but really contained no value to back it up.
#49 I agree…I neglected to mention the .com bubble…I don’t think we can Reps OR Dems for that one!
TY.
***correction***
#49 I agree…I neglected to mention the .com bubble…I don’t think we can BLAIM Reps OR Dems for that one!
TY.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/07/D8D3903O1.html
The Reps are attempting to work toward easing restrictions on refineries, thus increasing supply, and the Dems are working to block it and MAINTAIN high gasoline prices.
#42 Tim
My statements regarding refineries are not THEORIES but facts. Check them out yourself.
Are you aware the US is currently IMPORTING gasoline from other countries because the US refineries are maxed!?! And you claim this has NO EFFECT on gasoline prices?
Each state has its own requirements regarding theblend of gasoline approved for use in its state and you claim this has NO EFFECT on gasoline prices? (Tell that to California!)
Just as the price of crude affects the price of gasoline, one cannot rule out the fact that the refinery situation has A LOT to do with gasoline prices…
Hmmm….
Interesting read regarding what affects gasoline prices:
http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/econ_gasprices.shtml
“Crude oil, refining, and shipping costs affect the price of gas. Pump rates also vary by short-term factors such as refinery and pipeline outages, and state and local regulations on shipping and zoning.”
“”Refiners are producing at a very high percentage…There is no excess fuel production from which to draw…The gasoline in Chicago is different from the gasoline in Detroit, and even from the gasoline in the suburbs of Chicago. It takes two weeks to refine a specific formulation of gasoline, and several more weeks to ship it to a specific market. If the entire country were using the same kind of gasoline, it would speed the availability of fuel to any area facing a shortage and keep prices more level.”
Your thoughts…TIM?!?
May I ask where I said that refinery capacity had no effect? I just said that MUCH of the effect is due to the change in the cost of oil. It triples in cost, and that means that the price of the resultant gasoline goes up a lot as well.
And re: the record surplus turned record deficit…
Could it have had something to do with the fact that the Republican controlled, supposedly “small government”, group in Washington is spending like there’s no tomorrow?
#54 Tim…
You stated in post #42 “Refinery concerns have nothing to do with that (the rise in gas costs) whatsoever.”
If my interpretation of your posting was innacurate, I apologize. I think we can both agree that refineries AND the cost of crude affect gasoline prices. Read the link on my earlier post (#53) and it spells out other affects on gasoline costs.
As demand continues to rise, and the number of refinieries continue to decline, you must see how that DOES affect prices.
MMnI, I am sure I will be accused of all sorts of left wing lunacy, but my question to you. Why not get away from Oil ? We have the technology now. We can build more efficient engines. We have Hybrid technology. We do we keep going to the same well in the same place (the middle east).
Why not get away from it all together ? Or at least work toward that goal >?
Squawkbox #44 (I think). First you give me homework with the State dept. Report. All 138 pages of it. Then Mike Martin gives me a new book to read. Now you want me to add another. I hope you know it will require more than one adult bev. My bookshelf/reading list grows by the day.
MMnI, did not start it
.
#56 MMnI,
In rereading my post, I can see how it could be confusing…
When I said it has nothing to do with “Refinery concerns have nothing to do with that whatsoever,” I was referring to the fact that refineries have nothing to do with the cost of crude oil.
So, yeah, obviously both factors had an impact. It just sounded from your post (#41) that you were ignoring the rising crude oil costs as a MAJOR contributer to the cost of gasoline.
We have so much we disagree on I’m sure, and we just wasted time fighting about something we agree on! Let’s get back to our TRUE beefs.
#57 Engines are becoming more efficient avery year or two and will likely be governed by demand. I think Hybrid technology is bogus. Costs too much, doesn’t make enough power to satisfy most people, and the battery is charged by fuel usage elswhere. The minimal recharge by kinetic energy is not enough. Bottom line is it takes energy to create energy.
Reply to Tim, et al:
If GWB was running for reelection, I may be concerned, but since he is not, the numbers mean nothing to me.
Now, if you want to get me upset, show me similar numbers regarding possible Conservative candidates for 2006 and 2008.
If you have any numbers for any VIABLE Liberal Candidates out there, post those as well. I’m pretty sure they will be much more enlightening to you and us than the meaningless numbers you seem to be so much in awe of
As far as the oil thing. Whats it going to be in 5 years? $10 a gallon? This is crazy man. I have sales calls to make all over the city and its killing me.
The days of FREE estimates are over. I am going to start charging for my time and if you decide to use my service I will credit the amount to your bill.
This is going to start to trickle down. If that dumbass Greenspan keeps raising rates its really gonna get bad. Look how he killed the last boom.
#57 Faegan
“Why not get away from Oil ? We have the technology now. We can build more efficient engines. We have Hybrid technology.”
Believe it or not…I agree. We should explore alternative fuel sources.
Get away from it all together? Not necessarily…someone will be making the same arguement with next fuel source. Why not tap into the resources God gave this blessed country WHILE we explore alternative measures?
Until we do find a cheaper fuel than gasoline refined from crude oil, why should we depend on other countries for the oil we need now when we have it AND the ability to refine it within our own country? Why must we impose restrictions that prevent this objective?
#60 SC
I agree with you regarding the cost of hybrids…you don’t hear too many libs that recognize that!
Feagan, once you said Bill Clinton we all knew which camp you come from. Only time will tell. I think history will not be to kind to Bill Clinton. The problem will only compound itself if Hillary gets elected President. All those books that have come out—–I guess they are all lies—-why doesn’t Bill sue for defamation of character.
#59 Tim
Tag…you’re it…
Speaking of BEEF…(growl)…I’m going jet and get something to it…
SC you are right about the engines. But it seems we are once again getting our clocks cleaned by Asian and European automakers. I remember when I first started driving. Mid to late 70’s Oil embargo. My first car had a 350 4bbl. 8-10 miles to gallon if I was lucky. Everyone started talking about fuel economy. Govt. told automakers we need more fuel efficient cars. U.S. automakers said ohh no can’t do. Too expensive, no way. Japenese automakers quietly went ahead and did it. Alum. heads and blocks etc. Cleaned the clocks of the U.S. automakers. Now we hear the same refrain from the U.S. What does Toyota and Honda do, quietly go ahead with Hybrid technology. Is it perfect ? no. Is it good enough that Ford is using it and paying Toyota for the privilige ? yes.
#62 Gregg
One last thing…compare the price of gasoline today to the inflation adjusted price over the last twenty five years…
We still have not reached the top! We have just become accustomed to CHEAP FUEL!
#65 Robert, you are too funny. I voted for Bush 41. Yep its true. Also voted for Reagan.
I had lunch with a Lib. friend of mine yesterday. He accused me of being a closet consevative. Now you claim to know which camp I am from. Jeeez I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.
Make mine GM. Three v8s and a v6. Until its red and Ferrari it will be American, unless they do what they did in the 70s. How would you like a Mustang II or Vega in your gene pool.
Later all
MMnI, I do recognize the cost vs. utility of Hybrid. But I would point out that cost is falling. Remember what a VCR cost in the 80’s ? I can pick one up now for 30.00 bucks. Remember what a DVD player cost a mere three years ago ?
The cost will drop on Hybrids. Only now the domestic auto makers will be playing catch up with the Japenese.
I don’t agree with the power argument. The horsepower and torque on the hybrids is impressive.
MMNI,
Cheap my arse. It takes $75 to fill my tank. I fill up twice a week. Thats $150 wk x 4 weeks=$600 a month. Now double that with the wifes SUV,thats $1200 month juts for gas. Thats about what my mortgage is.
Unlike the Government I have to cut back. No more eating out at restaurants. Sorry Edd. TOT is the first casulty.
#35 - What about Clinton’s record? We have covered this before. Clinton’s ‘record’ was largely due to luck, a Republican Congress opposing him, and the fact that he was President during an economic boom that he had little or nothing to do with.
#72 gregg, Bam !!! you are exactly right. People are starting to really feel the pain. My elect. bill was 700.00 last month. My gas cost has doubled. Not only have I had to cut back, my business is feeling the pinch as others cut back. That is the real danger with the fuel prices. We will soon be in a world of hurt.
I know this is way OT for what’s being discussed today, but what’s behind all this continued pursuit of finding performance-enhancing drugs in Lance Armstrong? Sour grapes Frenchmen? Give the man his due, already.
MM,
I agree. The dude had testicular cancer and came back and rode a bike for a gazillion miles. Give him a break.
Feagan
You are a good man.
As for my President Clinton rant, that was not directed at anyone in particular. I saw a post up above raggin on the boy (I don’t care for him btw) and had to have my say.
Ya know the funny thing is when one breaks down the balances of power, legislative and judicial branch, a president is like a pitcher on a baseball team. The team wins or loses and the pitcher catches hell or accolades. President Clinton probably did some good and bad but the Congess and/or the Senate had to be a party to most of it. Same goes for President Bush.
The difference between baseball and politics in baseball we rag on all the players in politics we rag on the President.
1. As long as Western Europe, USA, China & India remain addicted to imported oil, and middle eastern despots control the major flow, given that peak production is either imminent or already past, oil prices will continue to rise. We either go mad max, or we get real about energy efficiency. That’s it.
2. Can we all just GET OVER CLINTON.
3. Harriet Miers: thought this might increase the worry/rage/frustration of the religio-wingnut faction:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=acdsgzj7bucgb9mbaqsfs9642k4uz0j5
Doc Monroe
See my rant at post 44 about Presidente’ Clintone’. Howzabout dat you and me agree.
You said
“3. Harriet Miers: thought this might increase the worry/rage/frustration of the religio-wingnut faction:”
Oh yeah nice trolling btw.
And yes I do call out trolling on those that “agree” with me.
I thought “trolling” was really something that only antagonized FReepers (confession - I once stayed on Free Republic for three days engaging the vike kitties in a debate about abortion before they finally rumbled me and i got zotted; think I actually changed some minds).
I thought this board was more akin to the old Independent Argument Forum, and not an echo chamber.
Here’s my man:
http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=102
Doc Monroe
No echo chamber here. You and everyone else are free to express their opinions and criticize.
“religio-wingnut faction” is a statement that “provokes an angry response or to start trouble without adding anything worthwhile to the conversation.”
I don’t believe I need to say anymore.
Squawkbox
Moderator
Nuff is a fairy.
Fairy Nuff.
Squawk, I agree with you re the Pres as a Pitcher analogy. I have not read the book you suggest but I know of it. Funny thing I almost bought it some time ago. I read some reviews and based on what I see, I suspect I will agree with much of it. Sorry though it has to go to the end of the shelf/reading list. First in first out you know.
Yup, my brain is a FIFO buffer also Feagan. Speaking of which, I’m gonna try to find “The World is Flat” this weekend. I cheated and read a little on-line from amazon, but I’d like to have the hard copy. What I read so far seemed pretty good…
# 72 Gregg
In my #68 post, I stated “We have just become accustomed to CHEAP FUEL!”
It is true…we HAVE become accustomed to cheap fuel for too many years. Now that the price of fuel is rising, it may not be as inexpensive as we were accustomed to, and we may be feeling this increase in our wallets, but I ask you to show me a cheaper fuel source currently available!
I will admit we are on the verge of identifying or creating cheaper fuel (Hybrid technology is a start), but we are not quite there.