Do You Approve Or Disapprove Of The Job George W. Bush Is Doing?

[Deus te Amat]

Then don't blame Bush for high gas prices. Blame the Democrats in congress.

[Roamin Catholic]

[quote name='kujo' post='1569553' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:39 AM']How can you substantiate that claim? What methods of analysis are you using?[/quote]

how about the fact that the partial birth abortion ban never would have made it through with a Democrat in office...That for me is enough of a reason.

[Deus te Amat]

Thank you Roamin, I didn't see that post.

We have the man who invented global warming, and another who changed his stance on everything. How would they act in office?

I made the claim on Common Sense, and the fact that neither is pro-life.

[kujo]

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' post='1569572' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:51 PM']how about the fact that the partial birth abortion ban never would have made it through with a Democrat in office...That for me is enough of a reason.[/quote]

I don't think counterfactual reasoning is a smart thing to do in this situation; however, IMHO, the fact that Bush signed into law the ban on partial birth abortion is on the very short list of positive things about his presidency.

[kujo]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1569567' date='Jun 12 2008, 12:49 PM']Then don't blame Bush for high gas prices. Blame the Democrats in congress. [/quote]

I'm sorry...when did I blame Bush for high gas prices? He has nothing to do with the price of gas.

[geauxsaints26]

He has very much to do with high gas prices. I find it quite easy to blame him.

Speculation drives prices.

Ever heard of the War in Iraq?

Threatening Iran?

Totally destabilized ME?


All thanks to W's foreign policy. More drilling here would mitigate the problem but it was a problem originally created by yours truly. I like what Moyers said on it jokingly, What happened to the $20 a barrel oil we were suppose to get from the war?

What is crazy is that there are people out there who agree with Bush that we should go to war with Iran. Can you imagine gas prices after that one? Everytime bush mentions Iran oil goes up a dollar as it is right now.

Edited June 12, 2008 by geauxsaints26

[rachael]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1569567' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:49 AM']Then don't blame Bush for high gas prices. Blame the Democrats in congress. [/quote]
Blame the Dems? Are you serious?

[quote name='Roamin_Catholic' post='1569572' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:51 AM']how about the fact that the partial birth abortion ban never would have made it through with a Democrat in office...That for me is enough of a reason.[/quote]
You're right, it's a great thing, but what else? A single reason can't hold here.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Deus_te_Amat' post='1569561' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:46 AM']True, but there is only so much relief to be had before they go up again. Do you want the relief now, when it's four bucks a gallon? Or do you want the relief later, when its even higher. The question is When is it too high.[/quote]

this is the ultimate points.
i don't know many who make the creatures argument, animals, other than superficially not knowing much about it.

there were people who were for drilling ten years ago. i hope they feel silly now, now that the relief able to be given is so much more effective.

the question now... is do we want to wait and get it when it's evne more effective or take the cake now?

it's getting up there so i think either position has merit to it.

i'd rather wait though, cause i don't see any alternative energy viable out there yet.... and so it's only gonna get worse. i'd rather have a gallon of alaska oil relieve me from 10 to five dollars a gallon instead of 4 to 3 or whatever.
eg. ten years ago it costs ten dollars to fill up, and now it costs forty. had we did it then, curbing half a filling, we'd save five dollars, but now we'd save twenty. the future's only gonna exacerbate that scenario.
i'd rather wait till it's higher, or till there's omething viable to replace it starting. cause once that makes its head, it's still gonna take time to infilitrate our infrastructure and we will indeed be using the alaska oil and don't have to worry about the new energy taking over right away, and negating the use of the alasa oil ever.

if it takes a long time to drill, i'd probably be for drilling now, in anticipation. i heard it'll take five yeras recently till it's up and running.
i wonder if that five year point is just a false rationalization to get around the solid arguments i feel i've presented.... cuse i just don't see how it could take five years. but, if it did, i would be for drilling now. probably.

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

I forget now, but what year was it that the Democrats took over control of the Congress. Was it two years ago, or longer?

[MissScripture]

[quote name='rachael' post='1569894' date='Jun 12 2008, 05:15 PM']You're right, it's a great thing, but what else? A single reason can't hold here.[/quote]

Maybe it's not enough for you, but maybe it is for him. This is an opinion thing. He never said it had to be enough of a reason for anyone else, just for himself.

[Roamin Catholic]

[quote name='rachael' post='1569894' date='Jun 12 2008, 05:15 PM']Blame the Dems? Are you serious? [/quote]

The Dems had a chance to drill in Alaska when Clinton was in office but they choose not to. within the past year or two there has been nothing that Bush could have done to lower prices. Yea, he could try to drill in Alaska, but by the time we get past all of the red tape, and start drilling, you are looking at least a good 3 years before we would even begin to feel relief from the prices.

Another thing that people don't realize, is that the price of a barrel of oil is the cheapest in the United States. We trade ours at a lower price than any other country out there.

[The one pump wonder]

Personally I think a dead enemy allways smells good. And my browsky W-Man concurs

[geauxsaints26]

[quote][b][size=3]Strategic Insight
Oil Prices and the Iraq War: Market Interpretations of Military Developments[/size][/b]

Pre-Iraq War Oil Scenarios
As the 2003 Iraq War became more and more likely, there was increased speculation as to possible oil price outcomes. Clearly, predicting what would happen to oil prices should the United States and its allies attack Iraq is not an exact science. As a result a wide range of outcomes have been suggested (Hebert, 2003), depending on the length of the war, state of oil markets (supply/demand balance) at the time of the war, and the amount of damage to Gulf oil fields stemming from the war. While there are too many of these scenarios to summarize here, they generally fall into one of three broad categories.

[b][color="#0000FF"]Optimistic.[/color][/b] A U.S.-led military campaign against Iraq is concluded successfully within two months of its onset, with fewer than 1000 casualties on the coalition side and without any heavy damage to Iraq's non-military facilities (Behravesh, 2003). Variants of this scenario usually assume President Saddam Hussain's government falls quickly; the Iraqi oil fields remain intact and the country's already dwindling oil exports—about two million barrels a day—disappear for a few months; Venezuela's exports resume; and other countries, led by Saudi Arabia, boost production to make up any losses. Prices briefly spike to over $40 but within three months recede to normal levels or even lower with supplies plentiful. This scenario appeared to coincide with the Bush Administration's position in the months leading up to the launching of the war (although when Presidential adviser Larry Lindsey noted that with Saddam gone, 3 to 5 million barrels per day could be added to world supplies—suggesting that war would be good for the economy—the White House retreated from the comment, and Lindsey was later replaced).

[b][color="#0000FF"]Highly Optimistic.[/color] [/b]Because he is a Nobel Prize winner writing in a respected and widely circulated magazine (Business Week), Gerry Becker's oil scenarios have received considerable attention (2002). Becker felt that an oil scenario would unfold that is similar to the one at the time of the first Gulf War, with prices rising as war became more certain. However, Becker projected that if the war's first few days indicated that Saddam would be decisively and quickly defeated, as he felt was highly probable, then oil prices should fall sharply as the "war premium" disappeared and uncertainty about world oil production diminished. "Cutbacks in Middle East output would be much smaller than during the Persian Gulf war since Kuwait's facilities would not be destroyed, and Saddam has much less power to damage other facilities than a decade ago".

[b][color="#0000FF"]Worst Case.[/color] [/b]The basic version of this scenario assumes that the invasion meets stiff resistance, Iraqi oil fields are set aflame, production is disrupted elsewhere in the Persian Gulf, and global supplies fall by 6 million barrels a day. Emergency stocks cannot close the gap. [b][size=4]In such a case, oil prices could climb to $80 a barrel and stay above $40 well into 2004, halting the U.S. economic recovery and triggering a global recession. Perry (2001) analyzed a similar "worst case" possibility and forecast and a potential loss of 7 million barrels a day, a tripling of crude prices and $3 per gallon gasoline.[/size][/b]No doubt, these alternative scenarios were in the back of the minds of many oil traders as they watched events unfold in the days up to the conflict and the period immediately afterward.[url="http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/apr03/middleEast.asp"]http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/.../middleEast.asp[/url][/quote]

[url="http://www.freeimagehosting.net/"][img]http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6b166cd6a5.jpg[/img][/url]
Oil before Iraq war was what 30 bucks a barrel?

And now its climbing past 130, The experts say we can crack 200 if we strike Iran. Wooot!

Thank you Mr. President

How many here would take the worst case scenario of 80 a barrel and 3 bucks a gallon gas today?

Edited June 13, 2008 by geauxsaints26

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1569932' date='Jun 12 2008, 04:59 PM']I forget now, but what year was it that the Democrats took over control of the Congress. Was it two years ago, or longer?[/quote]
The House of Representatives was basically controlled by the Democrat party from 1932-1994, then by the Republican party from 1994-2006, and by the Democrats again from 2006 to the present.

There was 40 years of uninterrupted Democrat party control of the House from 1954 to 1994.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1570141' date='Jun 12 2008, 08:43 PM']Oil before Iraq war was what 30 bucks a barrel?

And now its climbing past 130, The experts say we can crack 200 if we strike Iran. Wooot!

Thank you Mr. President

How many here would take the worst case scenario of 80 a barrel and 3 bucks a gallon gas today?[/quote]
Oil prices are not controlled by the president of the United States, they never have been and never will be.

Nixon and Carter were not responsible for the increase in oil prices in the 1970s, nor is Bush responsible for it today.