Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Hogwash....

Do you give a new coach some slack when he takes over a bad team?

SuperHornet wrote:Hogwash....

Don't forget former V.P. Cheney

Those god damned oil men in the white house!

andy7171 wrote:Those god damned oil men in the white house!

Black gold. Texas tea.

Forgive me for having a photographic memory, but...

Gas prices went from around 60 cents to over a dollar/gal under Carter. They pretty much stayed around a dollar, give or take 20 cents, through Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, gas dipped below a dollar. Under Bush it skyrocketed over $3/gal (global demand and the rise of China and India) and then dipped just under $2/gal again at the end of Bush the Younger's second term due to a decrease in worldwide demand due to a shitty global economy. Now we're back in the low $3's again.

So gas is basically triple what it cost in 1980. Aren't most things?

SuperHornet wrote:Hogwash....

just the bad stuff...

SuperHornet wrote:Hogwash....

Repukes will belive anything. The last time Regular unleaded Gas hit 4.00/ Gal. Bush was in Office. In fact, Look at Gas prices before and after Katrina.

mrklean wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:Hogwash....

Repukes will belive anything. The last time Regular unleaded Gas hit 4.00/ Gal. Bush was in Office. In fact, Look at Gas prices before and after Katrina.

Regular unleaded gas is $3.79 near my parents house in Columbia, MD. Just saying. My parents fill up by my house for $3.32. 15 miles away in Catonsville.

SuperHornet wrote:Hogwash....

Of course, if this was a real photo, they'd be legally obligated to sell at that price.


And, as others have noted, gas was very high during most of Dubya's term.

CAA Flagship wrote:Do you give a new coach some slack when he takes over a bad team?

When the new coach has had over 5 years and the team still sucks, its time for a new coach...

US oil production at its highest level ever....under Obama. Not sayin', just sayin', know what I'm sayin'?

Such a volatile commodity, you can't blame any US prezzes for prices. People bitched about $1 a gallon years ago.

Cap'n Cat wrote:US oil production at its highest level ever....under Obama. Not sayin', just sayin', know what I'm sayin'?

Such a volatile commodity, you can't blame any US prezzes for prices. People bitched about $1 a gallon years ago.

We were told 10 years ago we had to increase U.S. crude production so we could lower the price of Gas at home (right here in the good old USA) Only one problem - When we did that - and increased production to its highest levels EVER gas prices didn't go down...

Why..? I'll tell you why / but first I want to see some responses

Chizzang wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:US oil production at its highest level ever....under Obama. Not sayin', just sayin', know what I'm sayin'?

Such a volatile commodity, you can't blame any US prezzes for prices. People bitched about $1 a gallon years ago.

We were told 10 years ago we had to increase U.S. crude production so we could lower the price of Gas at home (right here in the good old USA) Only one problem - When we did that - and increased production to its highest levels EVER gas prices didn't go down...

Why..? I'll tell you why / but first I want to see some responses

Yeah Capn! Eat that! There's your Obesogen.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
We were told 10 years ago we had to increase U.S. crude production so we could lower the price of Gas at home (right here in the good old USA) Only one problem - When we did that - and increased production to its highest levels EVER gas prices didn't go down...

Why..? I'll tell you why / but first I want to see some responses

Yeah Capn! Eat that! There's your Obesogen.

It's interesting:
In 2003 leading up to the Iraq War we were clamoring to jump-start the US refinery deliverables
the goal was something like 33% more US crude production
because (we were told) this would free us from Foreign dependance

But here's the thing: We don't necessarily profit from total Oil independence...
In a few key ways we thrive on our OPEC trading partners

1) All OPEC transactions are in U.S. Dollars / This creates artificial - but critical - demand for US Funds
2) OPEC is relatively insulated from the CFTC Hedge Monkeys and Speculators / we like that
3) With OPEC (in its present state) we can track oil transactions and global movement of large quantities

All this equals = Good
and none of it is OIL INDEPENDENCE

CAA Flagship wrote:Do you give a new coach some slack when he takes over a bad team?

Maybe for one term. Obama is in his second term, he owns it now.

93henfan wrote:Forgive me for having a photographic memory, but...

Gas prices went from around 60 cents to over a dollar/gal under Carter. They pretty much stayed around a dollar, give or take 20 cents, through Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, gas dipped below a dollar. Under Bush it skyrocketed over $3/gal (global demand and the rise of China and India) and then dipped just under $2/gal again at the end of Bush the Younger's second term due to a decrease in worldwide demand due to a shitty global economy. Now we're back in the low $3's again.

So gas is basically triple what it cost in 1980. Aren't most things?

Low $3s, my foot. Our best price in town just went back back over $3.40.

mrklean wrote:The last time Regular unleaded Gas hit 4.00/ Gal. Bush was in Office. In fact, Look at Gas prices before and after Katrina.

Hogwash. We've hit $4 SEVERAL times under Obama.

SuperHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:Forgive me for having a photographic memory, but...

Gas prices went from around 60 cents to over a dollar/gal under Carter. They pretty much stayed around a dollar, give or take 20 cents, through Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, gas dipped below a dollar. Under Bush it skyrocketed over $3/gal (global demand and the rise of China and India) and then dipped just under $2/gal again at the end of Bush the Younger's second term due to a decrease in worldwide demand due to a shitty global economy. Now we're back in the low $3's again.

So gas is basically triple what it cost in 1980. Aren't most things?

Low $3s, my foot. Our best price in town just went back back over $3.40.

mrklean wrote:The last time Regular unleaded Gas hit 4.00/ Gal. Bush was in Office. In fact, Look at Gas prices before and after Katrina.

Hogwash. We've hit $4 SEVERAL times under Obama.

We were talking about the United States, dipshit, not California. Yes, everyone knows you all get raped in the PRoC and are willing to bend over and take it.

CAA Flagship wrote:Do you give a new coach some slack when he takes over a bad team?

Well, in all honesty, college football fans associated with a down program typically don't give a new coach more than maybe four years. And it's probably even shorter in the NFL.

Having said that I don't think we know that gasoline prices wouldn't be about where they are now regardless of who had been President since January, 2009. I think there are other reasons for lamenting the fact that Obama is President; not the least of which is the fact that we have developed a population of people that would elect somebody like that.

And no, I'm not talking about the fact that he is a half-breed. I'm talking about his outlook on the role of government and the Constitution as well as the fact that he was totally unqualified for the office. It really said something about the state of the American population that Obama ever got elected President and what was said is not positive.

Same M.O. as always, 93. Leave out one VERY important point, and whine when you're called on it.

SMH....

SuperHornet wrote:

93henfan wrote:Forgive me for having a photographic memory, but...

Gas prices went from around 60 cents to over a dollar/gal under Carter. They pretty much stayed around a dollar, give or take 20 cents, through Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Clinton. Toward the end of Clinton's second term, gas dipped below a dollar. Under Bush it skyrocketed over $3/gal (global demand and the rise of China and India) and then dipped just under $2/gal again at the end of Bush the Younger's second term due to a decrease in worldwide demand due to a shitty global economy. Now we're back in the low $3's again.

So gas is basically triple what it cost in 1980. Aren't most things?

Low $3s, my foot. Our best price in town just went back back over $3.40.

mrklean wrote:The last time Regular unleaded Gas hit 4.00/ Gal. Bush was in Office. In fact, Look at Gas prices before and after Katrina.

Hogwash. We've hit $4 SEVERAL times under Obama.

We haven't.

JohnStOnge wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:Do you give a new coach some slack when he takes over a bad team?

Well, in all honesty, college football fans associated with a down program typically don't give a new coach more than maybe four years. And it's probably even shorter in the NFL.

Having said that I don't think we know that gasoline prices wouldn't be about where they are now regardless of who had been President since January, 2009. I think there are other reasons for lamenting the fact that Obama is President; not the least of which is the fact that we have developed a population of people that would elect somebody like that.

And no, I'm not talking about the fact that he is a half-breed. I'm talking about his outlook on the role of government and the Constitution as well as the fact that he was totally unqualified for the office. It really said something about the state of the American population that Obama ever got elected President and what was said is not positive.

He deserves a 3rd term.

Jan 2009 Today

7,949 The DOW 16,459

7.8% Unemployment 6.7%

-5.4% GDP Growth 4.1%

9.8% Deficit GDP 3.3%

37.7 Consumer Confidence 78.1


Oh those pesky facts....Well done, Mr. President!

If he were white you'd be slopping his knob in the Rose Garden, John.

He deserves a 3rd term.

Jan 2009 Today

7,949 The DOW 16,459

7.8% Unemployment 6.7%

-5.4% GDP Growth 4.1%

9.8% Deficit GDP 3.3%

37.7 Consumer Confidence 78.1

I've consistently posted over the years that I think people ascribe too much of a cause and effect relationship between what happens with the economy and who the President is at the time. I also posted, after Obama was elected and before he took office, that he was in good shape because people do tend to think there's a relationship and he was taking over at or near the bottom of an economic oscillation. It was pretty much guaranteed that things had to get better in terms of economic statistics regardless of who the President was. Also he was pretty much guaranteed to be somewhat insulated from being perceived as "at fault."

I've always maintained that people should think about the long term effects of who is in power and what they're doing to the system. What is the long term direction in which that person or party wants to point? You look at someone like Obama, who has stated that he doesn't think the Warren Court went far enough because it didn't establish a doctrine of "positive rights" and you don't want him that that office doing, among other things, nominating Supreme Court Justices. Or at least you shouldn't.

Clinton benefited from the perception of cause and effect too, by the way. He took office at a time when a mild recession had ended nearly two years earlier but public perception was that the recession was still in place. Trends in economic growth, declining unemployment, declining inflation, and declining interest rates were already firmly in place when he took office but people did not perceive things that way. So he got credit in the public mind for turning things around when he clearly did not.

When things are down they are always going to go up again and when they are up they are always going to go down again. The President most at risk in terms of public perception is one who takes over after an extended period of positive news. Near the top of the oscillation. That happened to George H.W. Bush after the Reagan years. Happened to some extent to his son after the Clinton years. Then there were signs that things were turning downward near the end of the Clinton term while Clinton was still in office. Like a stock market decline began about a year before Bush took office.

Not saying a President couldn't affect the economy; especially in a negative way. But they don't want to do that. They are all trying to make things look positive. And I think it really is a mistake to think that when the economy is good it's better than it would be if somebody else were in that position or that when the economy is bad it'd be better if somebody else was in that position. Just too many factors involved to legitimately ascribe what's going on to the person who occupies the White House.