Bush: I'd rather be right than popular
Leif Erikson
The president is, of course, neither.
Gene Seibel
--
Gene Seibel
The Farm - http://pad39a.com/gene/farm.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.
Leif Erikson
> How have you determined that you are (right)?
Good old plodding geno - nothing if not predictable.
The unpopularity is, I think, beyond dispute.
As to his being right - well, the only official reason
given for invading and occupying Iraq turned out to be
completely bogus. N. Korea is believed to have
developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
entirely during his presidency. The national
dependency on imported energy has grown larger. The
New Orleans levees failed. 9/11 (I believe Richard
Clarke when he says the Bush admin. didn't take al
Qaeda seriously.)
Maybe you'd like to try to identify some things Bush
got right. Be sure *not* to mention Iraq - it's a
debacle from start to finish.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> The Farm - http://pad39a.com/gene/farm.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
You may remember I chided you for your unearned
assumption of superiority merely based on having
learned to fly. Being a pilot is no more admirable
than having any other costly hobby.
Don Staples
"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
news:TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Gene Seibel wrote:
>
>> How have you determined that you are (right)?
>
> Good old plodding geno - nothing if not predictable.
>
> The unpopularity is, I think, beyond dispute.
>
> As to his being right - well, the only official reason given for invading
> and occupying Iraq turned out to be completely bogus. N. Korea is
> believed to have developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
> entirely during his presidency. The national dependency on imported
> energy has grown larger. The New Orleans levees failed. 9/11 (I believe
> Richard Clarke when he says the Bush admin. didn't take al Qaeda
> seriously.)
>
> Maybe you'd like to try to identify some things Bush got right. Be sure
> *not* to mention Iraq - it's a debacle from start to finish.
Interesting, the New Orleans levee failure, in a democratic state, and a
black democratic liberal socialist mayor. Gas dependency has been growing
for generations, I paid .17 a gallon when I started driving. Did Clinton
take al Qaeda seriously when he missed doing any damn thing about bin laden
when he was handed to him? Nuclear weapons in less than 8 years? Yeah,
right. Wrong on all counts, it would seem.
Doug Miller
> N. Korea is believed to have
>developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>entirely during his presidency.
Liar. They started doing that during Clinton's *first* term, and he didn't do
a damn thing to stop them -- gave them additional reactor technology, in fact,
in exchange for their promise to "stop".
Oh, and by the way... both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter pronounce "nuclear"
exactly the same way George W. Bush does.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Gene Seibel
superior as to think I know how to run the country better than the
president. ;)
tom
Guppy the Corpse Pumper
Leif Erikson wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/06/bush.lkl/index.html
>
> The president is, of course, neither.
Just like *you* stupid little homo Goo!
Elmo
Changing the subject doesn't answer the question.
--
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of
common aims based on a common reality. It involves the
compromise, the art of what's possible.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Gene Seibel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How have you determined that you are (right)?
>>
>>Good old plodding geno - nothing if not predictable.
>>
>>The unpopularity is, I think, beyond dispute.
>>
>>As to his being right - well, the only official reason given for invading
>>and occupying Iraq turned out to be completely bogus. N. Korea is
>>believed to have developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>>entirely during his presidency. The national dependency on imported
>>energy has grown larger. The New Orleans levees failed. 9/11 (I believe
>>Richard Clarke when he says the Bush admin. didn't take al Qaeda
>>seriously.)
>>
>>Maybe you'd like to try to identify some things Bush got right. Be sure
>>*not* to mention Iraq - it's a debacle from start to finish.
>
>
> Interesting, the New Orleans levee failure, in a democratic state,
The levees are under the management of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers - a federal agency.
> and a black democratic liberal socialist mayor.
Nagin isn't a socialist. But thanks for revealing
you're a fascist.
> Gas dependency has been growing
> for generations, I paid .17 a gallon when I started driving.
Bullshit, you shitbag. The non-adusted price of
gasoline in 1950 was already more than $.25 a gallon,
and you weren't driving in the 1930s.
If you're going to lie, shitbag, make the lie
plausible. Your lie was laughable.
What counts, anyway, is the real price, not the nominal
price.
Leif Erikson
> In article <TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, le...@norvege.no wrote:
>
>
>>N. Korea is believed to have
>>developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>>entirely during his presidency.
>
>
> Liar. They started doing that during Clinton's *first* term,
They didn't build any *warheads* until after Bush was
president.
Carter and Clinton both pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
Eisenhower and Bush II, at least, among Republicans,
pronounce it "NOO-kyu-lar". Bush is a semi-literate,
uncurious, anti-intellectual dummy.
Leif Erikson
> Sorry, I don't remember.
Alcohol abuse will do that to you.
YouKidding?
Leif Erikson <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
I agree with you on the first two items, but when I started driving
(late 60's), the price for regular gasoline was $.30 to $.33 a gallon.
However, in the early seventies, I could buy all the regular gasoline I
wanted, where I lived in the midwest, for $.18 to $.20 a gallon.
> If you're going to lie, shitbag, make the lie
> plausible. Your lie was laughable.
>
> What counts, anyway, is the real price, not the nominal
> price.
YK
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> le...@norvege.no wrote:
>>
>>
>>>N. Korea is believed to have
>>>developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>>>entirely during his presidency.
>>
>>
>> Liar. They started doing that during Clinton's *first* term,
>
>They didn't build any *warheads* until after Bush was
>president.
They didn't *claim* to, at any rate, I'll give you that -- but there's no
evidence that they even have any. They've never tested one.
But they definitely started their weapons production program during Clinton's
first term. And Clinton helped them.
Try as you might, you can't pin that one on Bush. It won't stick.
>
>Carter and Clinton both pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
Not true, in either case. In fact, the press had considerable sport at
Carter's expense over exactly that point. They *liked* Clinton, though, so
they left him alone.
> Eisenhower and Bush II, at least, among Republicans,
>pronounce it "NOO-kyu-lar".
Your use of the present tense when referring to Eisenhower doesn't enhance
your credibility, you know.
> Bush is a semi-literate,
>uncurious, anti-intellectual dummy.
That "semi-literate dummy" has a master's degree from Harvard. What do you
have?
Leif Erikson
> In article <PpIrg.1736$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, le...@norvege.no wrote:
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>
>>le...@norvege.no wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>N. Korea is believed to have
>>>>developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>>>>entirely during his presidency.
>>>
>>>
>>>Liar. They started doing that during Clinton's *first* term,
>>
>>They didn't build any *warheads* until after Bush was
>>president.
>
>
> They didn't *claim* to, at any rate, I'll give you that -- but there's no
> evidence that they even have any.
You can't logically demand evidence that something
doesn't exist. That's absurd and fallacious.
They didn't say they had any, and the U.S. didn't
believe they had any until 2003: Bush's term.
> But they definitely started their weapons production program during Clinton's
> first term. And Clinton helped them.
No, he didn't.
> Try as you might, you can't pin that one on Bush.
I can certainly pin the utter failure to act as the
warheads were actually developed on Bush.
>>Carter and Clinton both pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
>
>
> Not true, in either case.
No, absolutely true.
>> Eisenhower and Bush II, at least, among Republicans,
>>pronounce it "NOO-kyu-lar".
>
>
> Your use of the present tense when referring to Eisenhower
Minor error. You're going to hurt yourself with all
that stretching, pal.
>>Bush is a semi-literate,
>>uncurious, anti-intellectual dummy.
>
>
> That "semi-literate dummy" has a master's degree from Harvard.
Basically purchased - unearned. He was an indifferent
student there. No one remembers him there.
> What do you have?
Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?
Leif Erikson
> Don, someday maybe you'll be right about something, but it sure doesn't seem
> like it will be world affairs.
>
> Can't blame the levee failure on any one administration, but we can blame the
> really poor response directly on Bush jr. When you started driving 17 cents
> was a lot of money.
I'm sorry, I don't believe his story about gas prices.
That would be less than half the price others were
paying around the country. California was a major
refining state in those days, and there were no special
formulation requirements as there are today. Gasoline
cost over $.30 a gallon at the beginning of the 1970s,
and it only went up.
> Gas is still really cheap in the US.
In real terms, gasoline and oil both are at all time
highs. The previous high was in 1981, but we've now
gone well above that.
> The point was Bush
> jr (and senior for that matter) has pushed hard to increase America's
> dependency on oil-for profit. Clinton did fire a cruse missile at Osama when
> he had the chance and pissed the world off doing it. He missed, but at least
> he took a shot before 9/11. Bush had Osama locked up in Afghanistan, and in a
> bizarre case of ADD decided to start a war someplace else before taking him
> out. It is now quite clear that Bush and Cheny lied about what they knew and
> when they knew it. I have no doubt they acted in what they thought was the
> best for the country- they were just wrong.
I do have doubt about that. If what they did was in
the best interest of the country, why did they feel the
need to lie about it? As you note, they *did* know
something different from what they told the country.
They clearly were pursuing some other agenda, and it
may or may not have been in the national interest.
One interesting and plausible, but at this point
unverifiable, thesis is that the invasion was about
protecting the dollar. OPEC sales are all denominated
in dollars, but there has been pressure building to
begin writing contracts in Euros, and Iraq in fact had
begun doing so. The invasion was to get Iraqi oil back
in dollar terms, and forestall any other OPEC moves
away from the dollar. If the world abandoned the
dollar as the reserve currency, the U.S. economy would
tank, given our current deficits.
Was protecting the place of the dollar as the reserve
currency in our national interest? Short term, for
sure; but at the cost we've incurred? I don't know.
In any case, the public would not have accepted that as
a rationale for war. Read up on Leo Strauss and the
"noble lie".
> Cheny was telling us he had
> nothing to do with leaking Plame's name to the press while at the very same
> time he was telling the grand jury that he did directly leak the name. I
> consider endangering a CIA operative to discredit her husband (who was right
> that Sadam did not seek uranium from nigeria as Bush claimed even when his own
> CIA told him the report was wrong) a felony. Cheny should rot in prison-
Cheney outed Plame, period; and it was done solely for
political motive.
>
> Bush jr. also has presiding over our largest budget surplus, and through rather
> bad luck compounded by really bad choices turned it into our largest deficit
>
> N. Korea? They developed the bomb on Bush's watch.
>
>
> N. Korea 'admits having nukes'
> Friday, April 25, 2003 Posted: 1:31 PM EDT (1731 GMT)
>
>
>
> BEIJING, China (CNN) -- American and North Korean delegations have had separate
> meetings Friday morning with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhao Xing, followed by
> a brief "trilateral" meeting among all the parties, the U.S. Embassy says.
>
> No information was released on a date for a future round of talks among the
> three parties, designed to diffuse a controversy over North Korea's alleged
> nuclear program.
>
> North Korea on Thursday admitted to having at least one nuclear bomb, senior
> Bush administration sources told CNN.
>
> North Korea's representative Li Gun pulled aside U.S. Assistant Secretary of
> State James Kelly on Wednesday and told him "blatantly and boldly" that the
> country has at least one nuclear weapon, one official said.
>
> Li then asked, "Now what are you going to do about it?
>
> -apparently Nothing- which is why Iran knows it needs to make nukes.
>
Just Another
Leif Erikson <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Bush is a semi-literate,
> uncurious, anti-intellectual dummy.
This appears to be some weird strategy of his, maybe by his team; the
times he appears semi-literate, as I've watched, have been during
unscripted portions of public appearances. With a script, he's very
persuasive and articulate, and in unscripted or semi-scripted interview
situations, he seems perfectly coherent.
I wonder what the rationale behind his occasional public "dummy" facade
is, and if he was wearing his "decider" hat when he chose to implement
it? Does he "dummy up" to make himself palatable to the average
right-wing Christian watching him, Bud in hand?
tom
dstaples
"RT" <RT-...@home.place> wrote in message
news:r2mva2hhud4gvgnh3...@4ax.com...
OK, your right, just like the rest of the lying liberals.
Dean Hoffman
Leif Erikson <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote:
>
> > Gas dependency has been growing
> > for generations, I paid .17 a gallon when I started driving.
>
> Bullshit, you shitbag. The non-adusted price of
> gasoline in 1950 was already more than $.25 a gallon,
> and you weren't driving in the 1930s.
>
> If you're going to lie, shitbag, make the lie
> plausible. Your lie was laughable.
>
> What counts, anyway, is the real price, not the nominal
> price.
From Cato:
http://tinyurl.com/z2e79
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim Ledford
>
[....]
>
> I agree with you on the first two items, but when I started driving
> (late 60's), the price for regular gasoline was $.30 to $.33 a gallon.
> However, in the early seventies, I could buy all the regular gasoline I
> wanted, where I lived in the midwest, for $.18 to $.20 a gallon.
>
.17 cents a gallon, in Midland Texas back in the
middle 1960'ies and the funny part was how there
were such things back then called oil millionaires.
Dean Hoffman
"YouKidding?" <foo...@wattsit.net> wrote:
> I agree with you on the first two items, but when I started driving
> (late 60's), the price for regular gasoline was $.30 to $.33 a gallon.
> However, in the early seventies, I could buy all the regular gasoline I
> wanted, where I lived in the midwest, for $.18 to $.20 a gallon.
There were some gas wars back in the 60s in my area. My dad
bought tractor gas (no tax) for about a dime a gallon if I remember
right.
I worked at a campground a couple summers in the early 70s. I'd run
the gas pumps from time to time. Gas was 43¢ a gallon or so. You
shoulda heard the whinin' and complainin'.
Dean
Leif Erikson
> In article <foobar-5598D9....@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> "YouKidding?" <foo...@wattsit.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I agree with you on the first two items, but when I started driving
>>(late 60's), the price for regular gasoline was $.30 to $.33 a gallon.
>>However, in the early seventies, I could buy all the regular gasoline I
>>wanted, where I lived in the midwest, for $.18 to $.20 a gallon.
>
>
> There were some gas wars back in the 60s in my area. My dad
> bought tractor gas (no tax) for about a dime a gallon if I remember
> right.
> I worked at a campground a couple summers in the early 70s. I'd run
> the gas pumps from time to time. Gas was 43¢ a gallon or so. You
> shoulda heard the whinin' and complainin'.
And quite reasonably so: the stuff was more expensive
at that price in real terms than it was until about two
years ago.
It's the real price that matters, not the nominal price.
Bud Hufstetler
@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> I'm sorry, I don't believe his story about gas prices.
> That would be less than half the price others were
> paying around the country. California was a major
> refining state in those days, and there were no special
> formulation requirements as there are today. Gasoline
> cost over $.30 a gallon at the beginning of the 1970s,
> and it only went up.
Regular gasoline sold for $0.259-0.279/gallon at the Standard station in
Southern California I worked at during 70/71. Occasionaly the price might
fluctuate as much as 2 cents in either direction, but I remember people
bitching whenever it topped 28 cents. Standard was usually the highest
price in town and the stations directly across the street sold their
regular for a couple cents less per gallon. The independent stations ran
by White Oil (a local company) consistently sold theirs for $0.219-0.229
and if one shopped around you could often find an intersection with
competing brand name stations on each corner engaged in a distributor
supported price war that resulted in prices under 20 cents per gallon.
I remember those prices well because I was 16, worked 20 hours/week at
$1.35/hr and drove a car that got 9mpg on its best days and I needed to
be able to go out on a (cheap) date after paying for my gas. I had to
make every penny count.
Bud
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <PpIrg.1736$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> le...@norvege.no wrote:
>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <TMvrg.5060$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>
>>>le...@norvege.no wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>N. Korea is believed to have
>>>>>developed nuclear ("noo-kyu-lar" in Bushese) warheads
>>>>>entirely during his presidency.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Liar. They started doing that during Clinton's *first* term,
>>>
>>>They didn't build any *warheads* until after Bush was
>>>president.
>>
>>
>> They didn't *claim* to, at any rate, I'll give you that -- but there's no
>> evidence that they even have any.
>
>You can't logically demand evidence that something
>doesn't exist. That's absurd and fallacious.
Of course it is. But I didn't do that.
You really need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills a bit, you
know.
What I said was, "there's no evidence that they even have any". And that's the
truth. They claim to, sure. But they have never tested one, never demonstrated
the existence of the claimed weapons in any way. There's no evidence that they
have one -- other than the claims of their deranged "dear leader" Kim Jong
Mentally Ill. Maybe you consider the claims of an obvious madman to be
"evidence". I don't.
>
>They didn't say they had any, and the U.S. didn't
>believe they had any until 2003: Bush's term.
I believe I just stipulated that, didn't I? Reading comp again, Leif...
>> But they definitely started their weapons production program during Clinton's
>> first term. And Clinton helped them.
>
>No, he didn't.
Like hell he didn't. He gave them reactor technology. *Do* try to stay in
touch once in a while, ok?
>
>
>> Try as you might, you can't pin that one on Bush.
>
>I can certainly pin the utter failure to act as the
>warheads were actually developed on Bush.
Once again -- there's no evidence, other than the claims of an obvious madman,
that these alleged warheads even exist.
>
>
>>>Carter and Clinton both pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
>>
>> Not true, in either case.
>
>No, absolutely true.
Obviously you were too young during the Carter administration to remember
the razzing he received in the news media for his pronunciation.
>
>
>>> Eisenhower and Bush II, at least, among Republicans,
>>>pronounce it "NOO-kyu-lar".
>>
>>
>> Your use of the present tense when referring to Eisenhower
>
>Minor error. You're going to hurt yourself with all
>that stretching, pal.
Spin it however you want. It doesn't say much for your accuracy.
>
>
>>>Bush is a semi-literate,
>>>uncurious, anti-intellectual dummy.
>>
>>
>> That "semi-literate dummy" has a master's degree from Harvard.
>
>Basically purchased - unearned. He was an indifferent
>student there. No one remembers him there.
Completely and utterly false. Bush was admitted to Harvard (a) back when
Harvard actually had admission standards, and (b) before his family became
wealthy -- and his record there was considerably better than Al Gore's
undergraduate career.
>
>
>> What do you have?
>
>Ph.D. economics, UCLA. You?
Ooooh, economics. I'm impressed. Not.
That *does* go a long way toward explaining your loose standards of evidence,
though.
I have a master's in a *real* science. Computer science. A discipline in which
one cannot succeed without a clear understanding of logic, and the ability to
apply it rigorously.
I can see why you chose economics.
Doug Miller
>I'm sorry, I don't believe his story about gas prices.
[17 cents / gallon]
> That would be less than half the price others were
>paying around the country. California was a major
>refining state in those days, and there were no special
>formulation requirements as there are today. Gasoline
>cost over $.30 a gallon at the beginning of the 1970s,
>and it only went up.
So do you think that history began in the 1970s?
Seems I'm a little older than you. I can remember gas prices being routinely
around 27 to 29 cents a gallon, and dropping as low as 19 cents during price
wars. [Michigan, early 1960s]
Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to suppose that they might have been
even lower at some earlier time.
Doug Miller
>In article <nARrg.1892$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> le...@norvege.no wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry, I don't believe his story about gas prices.
>
>[17 cents / gallon]
>> That would be less than half the price others were
>>paying around the country. California was a major
>>refining state in those days, and there were no special
>>formulation requirements as there are today. Gasoline
>>cost over $.30 a gallon at the beginning of the 1970s,
>>and it only went up.
>
>So do you think that history began in the 1970s?
>
>Seems I'm a little older than you. I can remember gas prices being routinely
>around 27 to 29 cents a gallon, and dropping as low as 19 cents during price
>wars. [Michigan, early 1960s]
>
>Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to me to suppose that they might have been
>even lower at some earlier time.
>
On a cross-country driving vacation in 1979, I had my first experience with
dollar-a-gallon gasoline. It was somewhere around 85 cents at home in
Indianapolis, mid-90s in Colorado.... and stations in California were selling
self-serve regular at 50-odd cents a *half* gallon because the pumps had only
three digits for the price (dimes, pennies, and tenths) and were physically
incapable of setting prices over 99.9 cents.
We returned home by the southern route, passing through the Texas panhandle...
where _full_serve_ regular was only 72 cents.
If the guy who claimed to have paid 17 cents a gallon when he started driving
was talking about, say, Texas or Louisiana in the early 1950s... I believe
him.
dstaples
"Doug Miller" <spam...@milmac.com> wrote in message
news:i1jsg.42136$VE1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
St. Louis in 1956, and I agree with the tea. Regular price was in the .20
cent range, with .17 for "specials" that would run for a few weeks till some
one changed their minds. The one dufus that objects to the figures is the
one that says gas prices are in line with the rest of the economy, as they
were back in the '50's. Probably, considering average income from then to
now, maybe even cheaper.
Nick Hull
"tom" <tome...@msn.com> wrote:
Probably even Gore couldn't have done worse if he tried, and he would
have tried ;)
--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
Don Staples
"Elmo" <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
news:e8mbjb$m18$1...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu...
Changing the subject? Just pointing out that Lief the Clueless was wrong on
all counts.
Don Staples
> Don Staples wrote:
>>
>>
>> Interesting, the New Orleans levee failure, in a democratic state,
>
> The levees are under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
> a federal agency.
Ah, then what is the New Orleans Levee Board all about? And how old is the
levee? You are of short memory, or just another liberal toad.
>
>
>> and a black democratic liberal socialist mayor.
>
> Nagin isn't a socialist. But thanks for revealing you're a fascist.
Oh? All things for "da black folks" We gonna be a chocolate city again"
>
>
>
>> Gas dependency has been growing for generations, I paid .17 a gallon when
>> I started driving.
>
> Bullshit, you shitbag. The non-adusted price of gasoline in 1950 was
> already more than $.25 a gallon, and you weren't driving in the 1930s.
Shit bag? No need to bring your mother into the conversation.
>
> If you're going to lie, shitbag, make the lie plausible. Your lie was
> laughable.
No, your positiion is laughable, you know, head up your ass.
>
> What counts, anyway, is the real price, not the nominal price.
The real price was .17 per gallon, you young fuck heads refuse to
acknowledge that your full of shit on anything prior to 1980.
Elmo
In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from a starting
point of $.409) in less than a year. I too remember when the price was less
than $.209 per gallon when Kennedy was President. But I distrust the "inflation
adjusted" prices for gasoline since most of the measure of inflation leave out
volatile commodities because they have too large an effect even though those are
the things which tend to have the largest impact on wage earners. Figure the
price of gas compared to something else.
When gas was under $.20 per gallon, you could buy a quart of milk for $.25 at
the milk machine in the gas station lot. That quarter per quart was a high
price for the convenience of getting it when the store was closed but for the
sake of argument, say that in 1962 gasoline was 1/5 - 1/4 the price of milk.
Today a gallon of milk will run pretty close to a gallon of gas. So gasoline
has increased 4 to 5 times as much as milk over that time span.
--
Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of
common aims based on a common reality. It involves the
compromise, the art of what's possible.
Doug Miller
>
>In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from a starting
>point of $.409) in less than a year.
BS. Regular gas was only around 44-45 cents a gallon in 1974.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:BnIrg.1734$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Don Staples wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>Interesting, the New Orleans levee failure, in a democratic state,
>>
>>The levees are under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
>>a federal agency.
>
>
> Ah, then what is the New Orleans Levee Board all about?
You really *like* being a stupid fuck, don't you?
In the aftermath of the Great Mississippi Flood of
1927, the United States Congress gave the United
States Army Corps of Engineers supervision and
control of design and construction of flood control
throughout the Mississippi Valley. Local levee
boards remained, however, in charge of day to day
inspection and maintaince of the levee systems in
their areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orleans_Levee_Board
> And how old is the levee?
Old enough that the Corps of Engineers should have
rebuilt it, since they *knew* it was degraded.
> You are of short memory, or just another liberal toad.
Neither. But you already knew that.
>
>>
>>>and a black democratic liberal socialist mayor.
>>
>>Nagin isn't a socialist. But thanks for revealing you're a fascist.
>
>
> Oh? All things for "da black folks" We gonna be a chocolate city again"
Nagin is a racist black nationalist, but that doesn't
make him a socialist. You evidently don't know what
socialism means.
>>
>>>Gas dependency has been growing for generations, I paid .17 a gallon when
>>>I started driving.
>>
>>Bullshit, you shitbag. The non-adusted price of gasoline in 1950 was
>>already more than $.25 a gallon, and you weren't driving in the 1930s.
>
>
> Shit bag?
Yes - you shitbag.
>>If you're going to lie, shitbag, make the lie plausible. Your lie was
>>laughable.
>
>
> No, your positiion is laughable,
Nope.
>>What counts, anyway, is the real price, not the nominal price.
>
>
> The real price was .17 per gallon,
The fuckwitted poster said the *nominal* price was .17
per gallon which would have had an even lower real
price. The nominal price was *not* .17 a gallon at the
time he said it was.
You're too stupid for this, donny.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>Elmo <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>
>>In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from a starting
>>point of $.409) in less than a year.
>
>BS. Regular gas was only around 44-45 cents a gallon in 1974.
That has little to do with Elmo's statement. Around 1963, my father had
a price war, selling gas for 19.9 cents per gallon at his Esso station
vs 17.9 for an independent across the street. Our first US "oil crisis"
started around 1973.
Nick
Doug Miller
>Doug Miller <spam...@milmac.com> wrote:
>
>>Elmo <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from a starting
>>>point of $.409) in less than a year.
>>
>>BS. Regular gas was only around 44-45 cents a gallon in 1974.
>
>That has little to do with Elmo's statement. Around 1963, my father had
>a price war, selling gas for 19.9 cents per gallon at his Esso station
>vs 17.9 for an independent across the street.
Irrelevant. I'm talking about normal, everyday prices. Gas did *not* "more
than double ... in less than a year" starting in 1973. More like a ten percent
increase in one year.
>Our first US "oil crisis"
>started around 1973.
But it did *not* double the price of gas in a year. Elmo's just plain wrong.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>>>Elmo <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from
>>>>a starting point of $.409) in less than a year.
>>>
>>>BS. Regular gas was only around 44-45 cents a gallon in 1974.
>>
>>That has little to do with Elmo's statement...
>Irrelevant.
Logic is a little tweeting bird? :-)
Nick
Doug Miller
>Don Staples wrote:
>
>> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:BnIrg.1734$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Don Staples wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>Interesting, the New Orleans levee failure, in a democratic state,
>>>
>>>The levees are under the management of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
>>>a federal agency.
>>
>>
>> Ah, then what is the New Orleans Levee Board all about?
>
>You really *like* being a stupid fuck, don't you?
>
> In the aftermath of the Great Mississippi Flood of
> 1927, the United States Congress gave the United
> States Army Corps of Engineers supervision and
> control of design and construction of flood control
> throughout the Mississippi Valley. Local levee
> boards remained, however, in charge of day to day
> inspection and maintaince of the levee systems in
> their areas.
Which is rather the point of Don's post, you know -- that the *local*
authorities are the ones who were responsible for inspection and maintenance,
and, thus, also responsible for the failures of the levees that resulted from
their failure to perform said inspection and maintenance.
Elmo
> In article <e98ggn$e...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu>, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>>Doug Miller <spam...@milmac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Elmo <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In 1973 I was pumping gas and saw the price more than double (from a starting
>>>>point of $.409) in less than a year.
>>>
>>>BS. Regular gas was only around 44-45 cents a gallon in 1974.
>>
>>That has little to do with Elmo's statement. Around 1963, my father had
>>a price war, selling gas for 19.9 cents per gallon at his Esso station
>>vs 17.9 for an independent across the street.
>
>
> Irrelevant. I'm talking about normal, everyday prices. Gas did *not* "more
> than double ... in less than a year" starting in 1973. More like a ten percent
> increase in one year.
>
>
>>Our first US "oil crisis"
>>started around 1973.
>
>
> But it did *not* double the price of gas in a year. Elmo's just plain wrong.
>
I was working. I started there in August 1973 and by the following summer we
were forced to state the price per half-gallon because the computation mechanism
on the dispensers only went up to $0.999. Customers then paid double the amount
displayed. If the price had merely doubled, .819 would have been adequate.
Around Thanksgiving of 1973 President Nixon requested that stations close from
9:00 Saturday to midnight Sunday. Working that Sunday shift was fun -- almost
as much fun as being able to put the traffic cones up Saturday night.
Of course we usually had stopped selling gas long before that because we had a
daily "allotment" and once that was sold, we closed the pumps.
The ABC evening news on December 26, 1973 reported
(Chicago, Illinois) Many stations out of gasoline; to remain closed till January
[Illinois gasoline dealers' association Robert JACOBS - says it's hard to
voluntarily ration gasoline to customers.] [Gas station owner Jim LEON -
explains he tried to ration to customers, but motorists angry over attempt.]
[Stn. owner Mick WINFREY - says he pumps gasoline till daily allotment reached.]
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1973-12/1973-12-26-ABC-3.html
Did the price stay that high? No but it did get that high.
Elmo
http://cogdogblog.com/alan/archives/2003/08/19/1973_flashback_where.php
"The events in '73 are a bit fuzzy, but I recall my Dad waiting in long lines
for hours to get gasoline that had spiked from 35 cents a gallon to (oh my gosh)
more than $1.00 a gallon."
Don Staples
> Don Staples wrote:
>
>
> Yes - you shitbag.
>
>
there ya go, bringing you mother back into the conversation.
Bob Yates
> "Elmo" <DoNo...@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
>>So which one of those is the thing that Bush got right?
>>Changing the subject doesn't answer the question.
>
>
> Changing the subject? Just pointing out that Lief the Clueless was wrong on
> all counts.
>
>
Don, you seemed to have missed Elmo's point. As a Republican he should
have known that Democrats are totally inept administrators and should
have made his first priority the correction of Clinton's mistakes. The
levees were stated as safe by the Clinton administration, so obviously
they were suspect. The Government leaders in Mississippi were
Democrats, so obviously they were incapable of handling a crisis. I
could go on and on, but by just examining the facts it is obvious that
it is Bush's fault for not cleaning up after the Democrats and treating
them as the incompentents that they are.
Leif Erikson
Get off it. The levees were seriously deteriorated and
needed to be rebuilt, far beyond any piddling
"maintenance" that the "Levee Board" might have done.
The Corps of Engineers knew the condition of the
levees, and a reconstruction was their responsibility.
Don, a partisan hack, is illicitly trying trying to
shift the responsibility for the levee failures from
the federal government, where it squarely rests, onto
"...a [Democrat] state." It's crap.
Don Staples
> Doug Miller wrote:
> > Don, a partisan hack, is illicitly trying trying to
> shift the responsibility for the levee failures from the federal
> government, where it squarely rests, onto "...a [Democrat] state." It's
> crap.
Lief the Clueless, a partisan idiot, is illicitly trying to shift the
responsibility for the levee failures from the idiots that live beneath sea
level and should pay attention to their levee's and their lives, to the
federal government. It also probably believes the police will protect him,
and that there is a Santa Claus.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:BBuug.5173$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>Don, a partisan hack, is illicitly trying trying to
>>shift the responsibility for the levee failures from the federal
>>government, where it squarely rests, onto "...a [Democrat] state." It's
>>crap.
>
>
> Lief the Clueless, a partisan idiot,
Nope.
> is illicitly trying to shift the
> responsibility for the levee failures from the idiots that live beneath sea
> level
The people who live there are hardly responsible for
the failure of the levees, you asswipe.
> and should pay attention to their levee's
Levees. No apostrophe for plurals, you dumb fat fuck.
> and their lives, to the
> federal government.
The integrity of the levees *IS*, by law, the
responsibility of the federal government, assmunch.
Don Staples
> Don Staples wrote:
>
>> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>> news:BBuug.5173$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> federal government, assmunch.
Yeah, and so is your protection. Walk out naked, dumb fuck, and see how
long that protection lasts. The feds react to state requests, you are from
the USA right, and not on call to stand on the levee's banks days on end
watching.
Such a clueless dumb fuck, you must be europeon.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
> news:5_Dug.507$bP5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Don Staples wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>>news:BBuug.5173$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>The integrity of the levees *IS*, by law, the responsibility of the
>>federal government, assmunch.
>
>
> Yeah, and so is your protection.
What "protection", you stupid assmunch?
> Walk out naked, dumb fuck, and see how
> long that protection lasts.
You're babbling.
> The feds react to state requests,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers doesn't strengthen or
fail to strengthen levees on basis of state requests.
You dumb fuck.
> you are from the USA right,
Yes. Your point...?
> and not on call to stand on the levee's banks days on end
> watching.
The words are English, but you didn't write an English
sentence. Are you an American public high school
graduate, by any chance?
> Such a clueless dumb fuck, you must be europeon.
I thought you said I was "from the USA right"?
In fact, stupid bozo, I'm more American than you,
although Europeans get things like levee building much
more right than the U.S.
Doug Miller
>
>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>news:BBuug.5173$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>> > Don, a partisan hack, is illicitly trying trying to
>> shift the responsibility for the levee failures from the federal
>> government, where it squarely rests, onto "...a [Democrat] state." It's
>> crap.
Watch the attributions, buster. I didn't write that.
Leif Erikson
> In article <12blh0p...@corp.supernews.com>, "Don Staples" <dsta...@livingston.net> wrote:
>
>>"Leif Erikson" <pi...@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message
>>news:BBuug.5173$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don, a partisan hack, is illicitly trying trying to
>>>
>>>shift the responsibility for the levee failures from the federal
>>>government, where it squarely rests, onto "...a [Democrat] state." It's
>>>crap.
>
>
> Watch the attributions, buster. I didn't write that.
>
I wrote it. Donnie fucked up the attributions.
Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass
Yes Goo. We know.
Doug Miller
Thank you, Captain Obvious.