PDA

View Full Version : gas prices here are outrageous


TRChik
01-09-05, 15:32
i cannot believe that i just spent $3 a gallon on gas! the place i usually go to, which is always the cheapest, was $3.29!! another gas station was $3.39!!!!

this is friggin nuts.

ughhhhh http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/c-1.gif

is gas that expensive where any of you're at??

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-05, 15:42
Oh please! One gallon of gas in Croatia is $8!!! But I'm not driving yet so I'm not interested in gas price that much.

TRChik
01-09-05, 16:21
:eek:

wow

nomedo
01-09-05, 16:57
about $6 here in sweden http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

scoobyjo19
01-09-05, 17:04
It got up to $3 here in Florida. *Sigh* I can still remember when they were only $1.70 a gallon.
http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/clown.gif

Greenkey2
01-09-05, 17:17
Petrol at my local station is currently about 95p, and diesel about 1 PER LITRE.

tazmine
01-09-05, 17:33
Yesterday we were paying $1.11 per liter (about $4.50 per US gallon). Today we're paying $1.30 per litre (about $5.20 per US gallon).

laracroft8290
01-09-05, 18:03
I remember when it was $1.02/gallon now its $2.89...I can find it @ $2.79 if I'm lucky.

interstellardave
01-09-05, 18:10
$3.00+ is outrageous to us U.S. folk because we're used to driving long distances in this vast land of ours, sometimes our jobs depend on it... and the prices have been kept relatively low until now. The speed at which they've climbed is what's giving us fits!

I'm don't drive a lot besides going to and from work though so it doesn't effect me as much as some people I know who go places all the time just for the heck of it. I think those days are coming to an end!

[ 01. September 2005, 19:11: Message edited by: interstellardave ]

interstellardave
01-09-05, 18:17
Originally posted by Tomb Raider Master:
Oh please! One gallon of gas in Croatia is $8!!! But I'm not driving yet so I'm not interested in gas price that much. Interesting note: I drive a distance equal to half of Croatia (at it's longest stretch) just to get to and from work each day! And that is NOT considered a long commute at all here in the U.S.! So you can see that the lifestyle here is much more severely impacted by our price being $3.00+ a gallon than you'd think (even compared to your much higher price)--especially when a year ago it was (I think) less than $1.50!

[ 01. September 2005, 19:41: Message edited by: interstellardave ]

Greenkey2
01-09-05, 18:18
I vote we lobby for hamster-power http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif . An easy conversion for a modern car - strip out the engine and replace with rows of hamster wheels complete with carrots dangling just out of reach. All of this could be hooked up easily to the drive shaft to provide clean, reliable power.

We're used to dealing with horse-power in our engines - it's not a huge leap to hamster-power (OK so I wouldn't vote on one to win the Grand National, but hey who cares?)

Hands up all in favour. :D

Mary CF
01-09-05, 18:54
Gas prices everywhere are outrageous, even in oil-rich places. I can't remember the current rates here, but I know from all the moaning and groaning I hear, it isn't good.

Lara Croft Snape Raider
01-09-05, 19:30
Even in the midwest its horrendous..on the way to work yesterday I about had a heart attack..

Hell, I remember when gas was like... $.89 a gallon. Granted, I was like...6, maybe, But I remember it.. this is just outright bull**** and highway robbery. I can only imagine what its going to look like on Labor Day.

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-05, 19:32
Originally posted by interstellardave:
Interesting note: I drive a distance equal to half of Croatia (at it's longest stretch) just to get to and from work each day! And that is NOT considered a long commute at all here in the U.S.! So you can see that the lifestyle here is much more severely impacted by our price being $3.00+ a gallon than you'd think (even compared to your much higher price)--especially when a year ago it was (I think) less than $1.50!Well OK. I still think that prices are very high (in Croatia and in USA). And our government has stopped the continuing price raising for now. In the last few months, gas was getting more expensive once in a week or two!

Catlantean
01-09-05, 19:34
I actually think these high prices of gas are a good thing. Why? Because way too many people have a car today, and all those cars are going to be the end of us. I live in an undeveloped Balkan country and still, streets here are positively choked with cars. I don't even dare to imagine what it looks (or smells) like in the USA and alike countries, in cities that have twice as many people as my entire country.

Down with the cars! Go trains & trams!

TR Master, ako zivis u Zagrebu onda znas o cem pricam. Iako je sad po ljeti situacija mozda mrvicu bolja http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[ 01. September 2005, 20:38: Message edited by: Catlantean ]

Catapharact
01-09-05, 20:01
Basic law of supply and demand. The Petrolium Oligoopolies now have less competition to deal with since Hurricane Catrina have shattered much of the outsea refineries and oil platforms. The Cartals as well as the local distributers have less competition to worry about and so they can take advantage of the situation and jack up prices.

However, even without the effects of Catrina, do know that China has entered the Gas-guzzling market as well, and that means more customers and less supply. Be ready to see almost no change in current prices.

[ 01. September 2005, 21:03: Message edited by: Catapharact ]

Tomb Raider Master
01-09-05, 20:07
Originally posted by Catlantean:
TR Master, ako zivis u Zagrebu onda znas o cem pricam. Iako je sad po ljeti situacija mozda mrvicu bolja http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif :eek: Nisam znao da govoris Hrvatski! Ne, ne zivim u Zagrebu, ali vrlo dobro znam o cemu govoris.

laracroft8290
01-09-05, 20:54
Originally posted by Catlantean:
I actually think these high prices of gas are a good thing. Why? Because way too many people have a car today, and all those cars are going to be the end of us. I live in an undeveloped Balkan country and still, streets here are positively choked with cars. I don't even dare to imagine what it looks (or smells) like in the USA and alike countries, in cities that have twice as many people as my entire country.

Down with the cars! Go trains & trams!

TR Master, ako zivis u Zagrebu onda znas o cem pricam. Iako je sad po ljeti situacija mozda mrvicu bolja http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif I wouldn't mind mass transit like trains and trams but it doesn't work here because everything is spread out. I have friends who drive 60 miles one way to get to their job everyday.

Even then when I get into Houston there is...lets see light rail (monorail really) that only goes maybe five or six miles from where it starts in the middle of downtown...unless you live there or work in the medical center it doesn't really help at all.

Then there are all the metro buses. There is a park & ride about 26 miles from me where I could park my car for a fee and then take the bus into downtown or where ever I needed to go. But it doesn't help because I can't depend on the bus being on time and I can't depend on it dropping me off close to where I work. Even if I got to the stop early enough, took the bus into houston and walked to my job (note: 100 degree weather on concrete) it would still take less time if I just drove my little honda into houston.

Either way you go, you get screwed. If I lived somewhere live NYC where mass transit is a reality then it could probably work but the overall cost of living there is outrageous compared to that of where I live currently so it wouldn't be viable.

"Work where you live." Okay fine but that doesn't pay the bills. In the small ass town that I live in you have a choice of working at wal-mart for minimum wage ($5.15/hour...also consider that gas is $2.89/gallon and that the minimum wage standard was set back in 1997 when the cost of living was exceptionally better than it is today) or working at the local fast food places for the same amount. The reason I live in this small town is because rent is cheaper than in the city and it's relatively quiet. It was also the right distance from my jobs so that I wouldn't be spending more money on commuting than I take in.

Tramp
01-09-05, 21:05
At the moment here in Australia it's about $1.30 per litre but if fluctuates from day to day. Thats $AU 4.92 per US gallon which is about $US 3.45 per US gallon. They say that it will be $1.60 per litre by the end of the year.

xMiSsCrOfTx
01-09-05, 21:40
Right now in Illinois it's about $3.50! I really hope it doesn't get any higher, but I know it will. I'll have to start carpooling more often to school with some friends..

Draco
01-09-05, 22:35
I would love to see less cars.

BoyTRaider
01-09-05, 22:39
Yeah...OMG! The place where I am the gas price is $4.00! :eek:
I wonder what it'll be a couple of months from now. :rolleyes: Maybe $10.00 http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/yikes.gif

TombRaidingJenn42
01-09-05, 22:51
It's $3.09 here now...if it keeps going up, I won't be able to afford to drive to work. :( I don't make much money as it is.

Croft Raider
02-09-05, 00:29
It's $3.09 here. The govenor came on television today and said that tomorrow we maybe looking at $4.00, of course that produced panic in people and the gas stations were over crowded and many fights broke out. And they're also concerned that people might start syphoning gas out of other people's cars. It's ridiculous!

tombraider_roxs
02-09-05, 00:36
"Work where you live." Okay fine but that doesn't pay the bills. In the small ass town that I live in you have a choice of working at wal-mart for minimum wage ($5.15/hour...also consider that gas is $2.89/gallon and that the minimum wage standard was set back in 1997 when the cost of living was exceptionally better than it is today) or working at the local fast food places for the same amount. The reason I live in this small town is because rent is cheaper than in the city and it's relatively quiet. It was also the right distance from my jobs so that I wouldn't be spending more money on commuting than I take in. I don't even have a Walmart within 30 miles, let alone any public transportation at all. :( Its going to be cheaper to order things online, if they haven't had time to increase shipping rates too much in the past few days.

yesrushdt
02-09-05, 00:52
Gas prices around this time 3 years ago were a little over a dollar, now look at this ****. I have to wonder if we would be in the same situation with John Kerry as President. My guess would be no. :(

Mary CF
02-09-05, 02:29
Since we go by litre, not gallon, it's different... I don't know the US to Canadian dollar exchange rate or what a litre is to a gallon... but I think we're around at least $1.00 per litre if not more.

Flipper1987
02-09-05, 02:38
Originally posted by yesrushdt:
Gas prices around this time 3 years ago were a little over a dollar, now look at this ****. I have to wonder if we would be in the same situation with John Kerry as President. My guess would be no. :( Yes, if Kerry was president the hurricane would have taken a completely different course & the U.S. Gulf Coast (& the refineries along it that lost power) would have been spared. Also, if Kerry was president, the worldwide demand for gas would miraculously decrease & OPEC producers would produce more because they were tired of gouging everyone. :rolleyes:

FLIPPER

[ 02. September 2005, 04:08: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

TRChik
02-09-05, 02:52
when i passed by the gas station i got my gas at TODAY, it went up 10 cents within hours.

im getting nervous about winter time. my family isnt exactly that well off at the moment and i dont want to know how expensive our gas bill will be because of heating the house. :( its a scary thing.

Olvidarse
02-09-05, 02:56
...Unless someone had actually provided the funding to reinforce the levees in an area that had the third highest ranking for a natural disaster. If Kerry was president, at least I wouldn't see a smirk on his face while talking about the need for aid relief- an actual smirk on live television. :mad: I hate that man in the oval office.

Whatever, politics + hurricane = storm for disaster. Perhaps we should lay off the fuel and donate that gas money to the Red Cross? It's not like the rest of the world is going to help the US ... :(

Jon A
02-09-05, 03:06
Oh, I do remember the days when gas was $0.89/gal! That was the good life, sadly I didn't drive then. Now it is about $3.20 here... not good.

Obviously the storm goes where it goes no matter who is president, but what happens after the storm can be changed! G. Bush smirks everytime he talks about something serious! It is rediculous; he must think we are blind. He promised relief from the Oval Office as soon as he could, but a real leader would have flown down to New Orleans himself and personally promised all those affected that help was comming immediatly! He wastes time and resources in Iraq to destroy their country, when he could be spending that to improve our own. He does not care for the people; he only cares for the war.


Why didn't they realize it the first time around. It is the fault of all of those who have voted to keep him in a second term. Now we have to live with the mess! "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well Bush voters, shame on you... he fooled ya twice!


Jon

Flipper1987
02-09-05, 03:21
Originally posted by Olvidarse:
...Unless someone had actually provided the funding to reinforce the levees in an area that had the third highest ranking for a natural disaster.I was watching CNN this evening & a reporter brought up that issue. The reduction of funds to reinforce the New Orleans' levees has been going on for quite some time (before Bush became pres.). Then the reporter went on to say that the portions of the levees that collapsed were sections that engineers WEREN'T expecting to break (& thus wouldn't have been reinforced if funding actually increased for the levees).

If Kerry was president, at least I wouldn't see a smirk on his face while talking about the need for aid relief- an actual smirk on live television. :mad: I hate that man in the oval office.Smirk? You're ticked off about a smirk? I watched his first speech about the disaster & don't recall seeing one. Would you be more forgiving of Bush if he didn't smirk? I don't think so.

Whatever, politics + hurricane = storm for disaster. Perhaps we should lay off the fuel and donate that gas money to the Red Cross? It's not like the rest of the world is going to help the US ... :( I largely agree with that statement because it would assist the unfortunate in the affected areas & stick it to OPEC countries & greedy oil companies. By the way, Israel & the EU have offered assistance to the US so far.

FLIPPER

Olvidarse
02-09-05, 03:27
No, it was an interview on ABC. And, yes, I would be more forgiving of Bush if he didn't smirk. It's not like he can do anything (within his given power) that will allay this problem as of late. I'm not an extreme leftist. :rolleyes: Forget about it. :(

Flipper1987
02-09-05, 03:52
Originally posted by Jon A:
He promised relief from the Oval Office as soon as he could, but a real leader would have flown down to New Orleans himself and personally promised all those affected that help was comming immediatly!That would be the dumbest thing for any president to do considering what is actually going on in New Orleans.

First, if the Pres. did show up in New Orleans during the early hours (as you are suggesting), many valuable resources & workers would have been pulled away from their rescue/assistance work to deal with the president's arrival. I'm sure Bush haters like yourself would have criticized that endlessly.

Second, the situation is so bad in New Orleans that it would be a major safety risk for him to go there, and the Secret Service would have vehemently recommended against it. There is still no organized security in New Orleans & you want the Pres. to go there??? Everyone is trying to get the hell out of there.

Third, what would have actually been accomplished if Bush (or any top government official) would have shown up? Would the flood waters have receded? Would the looting have stopped? Would the roving gangs of thugs have given up? The Pres. knew that he would only be exacerbating the numerous problems in New Orleans if he showed up. The people in New Orleans don't want a speech....they want a bus ticket.

By the way, Bush is going back to visit the affected areas very soon. Lots of areas outside of New Orleans got flattened.

He wastes time and resources in Iraq to destroy their country, when he could be spending that to improve our own.Funny, I thought terrorists & insurgents were trying to destroy the emerging democratic society in Iraq. Perhaps I need to read Michael Moore's website more often.

He does not care for the people; he only cares for the war.That's ridiculous & purely a political statement.

FLIPPER

[ 02. September 2005, 05:03: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Draco
02-09-05, 04:15
What smirk?

Jon A
02-09-05, 05:44
Bush always makes dumb and innapropriate remarks when giving a speech.

He doesn't have to go right into New Orleans, obviously that's not the solution. He needs to go to the place outside of the New Orleans to where the people are being evacuated.

The Presidents security force doesn't help in relief efforts anyway, so who cares if they have to protect him, or sit on their arses?

NO! I would not have criticized Bush had he actually went there and tried to help, but instead he sat there in the security of his little White House, and make promises he will be unlikely to keep any time soon. I think I remember hearing that he had asked for about $20-$25 million more to fight the war in Iraq.

Insurgents, terrorists? They are there trying to get us OUT! Remember, the people responsible for 9-11 are in Afghanistan.

Finishing Daddy's war is no excuse for not helping out the Americans at home.


Jon

Draco
02-09-05, 06:09
Now you are complaining that he is actually in the White House? Weren't you lot complaining last week that he wasn't?

Jon A
02-09-05, 06:24
We most certainly were. He should have been in the White House last week, instead of taking a vacation. And now, he should be out of the White House actually trying to show his support. A poorly-presented speech doesn't show support. The rest of the population has done more than the President. A President shouldn't be so transparent, his position should be at the top, instead of behind the scenes.


Jon

Thorir
02-09-05, 09:26
One gallon costs about $7,50 here now.

Glad I don't drive. :eek:

Flipper1987
02-09-05, 12:25
Originally posted by Jon A:
Bush always makes dumb and innapropriate remarks when giving a speech.I guess when you have an intense, irrational hatred for someone like you do for Bush, I guess I can sorta understand why you get all bent out of shape when Bush does something that is largely, if not completely, insignificant. Wait a second....no I can't.

He doesn't have to go right into New Orleans, obviously that's not the solution. He needs to go to the place outside of the New Orleans to where the people are being evacuated.That's NOT what you said in your original post. You criticized Bush for not going into New Orleans in the middle of all that chaos to give a symbolic speech.

The Presidents security force doesn't help in relief efforts anyway, so who cares if they have to protect him, or sit on their arses?Uh...your lack of knowledge about how the Secret Service operates is mind-boggling. Secret Service agents are 100% responsible for the President's safety wherever he goes. They hardly spend their time sitting "on their arses." If you actually had a clue of what their responsibilities are, you would be completely ashamed of making the above comment.

I would not have criticized Bush had he actually went there and tried to help, but instead he sat there in the security of his little White House, and make promises he will be unlikely to keep any time soon.Well he flew over the area in Air Force One before giving the Rose Garden speech promising to send all sorts of help & assistance to the affected areas. As I said before, he will be traveling to many of the affected areas very soon, including the New Orleans airport. And your suggestion that he's not going to keep his promises in this time of national emergency is flat-out ridiculous.

Insurgents, terrorists? They are there trying to get us OUT! Remember, the people responsible for 9-11 are in Afghanistan.You sound a little confused. WHY do you think that murderous terrorists & violent insurgents want to get US troops out & kill as many Iraqi security forces & civilians as possible? Come on, get in the game & get yourself informed of the basic facts.

Oh yeah, by the way, many military experts believe that Osama is hiding in Paskistan. Also the Al-Qaeda network is spread throughout the world, including Iraq (Zarqawi). The War against Terror didn't end in Afghanistan.

Finishing Daddy's war is no excuse for not helping out the Americans at home.What? No "blood for oil" rant?

FLIPPER

[ 02. September 2005, 15:24: Message edited by: Flipper1987 ]

Mary CF
02-09-05, 15:21
Originally posted by Flipper1987:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />He wastes time and resources in Iraq to destroy their country, when he could be spending that to improve our own.Funny, I thought terrorists & insurgents were trying to destroy the emerging democratic society in Iraq. Perhaps I need to read Michael Moore's website more often.

FLIPPER </font>[/QUOTE]Hey, I thought we all realized the terrorists weren't IN Iraq? Do you realize that the Al Queda's supposed connections to Iraq were... well... just 'supposed' and were in fact nonexistent? Of course, my information could be wrong, but this is just the impression I was under. The point being, at the time they decided to invade Iraq for this reason, there were no Al Queda hiding there, and no 'connections'.

As for giving Iraq democracy... how many of the Iraqi people are actually happy with what the US has done there? Not many, I'm willing to bet. So unhappy, in fact, that the war in Iraq has many times been compared to the Vietnam War, which was seen by many as an almost completely unjustified waste of a war and people's lives.

Not to mention all the other reasons the US threw at everyone saying 'Iraq has WMDS' (they never did) and when that didn't pan out, they claimed it was a 'humanitarian' effort - something that their careless, destructive actions didn't support.

Anyway, that's my two cents, I'm not about to get involved in this. I'm leaving for a camping trip later today :D

[ 02. September 2005, 16:47: Message edited by: Mary CF ]

Mary CF
02-09-05, 17:03
Emmm... I think I might've misread what you said. So what I'm saying and what you are saying might not be related except for the names of the countries we are discussing.

Eh, oh well. If that's the case, just ignore what I said. As I said before, I'm not interested in getting involved in this debate, Bush is a doofy head and a dink in my opinion though I won't go into why. And yeah, I pg-d my comments about him. I could do worse, but I won't. http://www.tombraiderforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Jon A
02-09-05, 19:16
Um... I actually didn't say into the middle. I said to New Orleans. I am not sure of how you talk where you live, but here, we can be a little bit more general about our speech. Apparently, though, you take things to mean 100% absolute! Well, I don't, nor do many other people for that matter.

I am not sure how you took what I said about the President's security, but it would seem as though you did get my meaning a little wrong. I will rephrase to see if that makes it easier.

The People of the United States (including those in New Orleans... or should I say, the New Orleans area) don't care whether the President's security is protecting him, or doing something else (not saying that they actually do do something else!), because his security will never help them in any way.

If you need another rephrasing, I will be glad to provide one.

Mary, you are right on the issue; not the one the thread was started for, but the one it has become. I agree with what you say. I also don't believe it was shotty intelligence; I think it was a flat-out lie to the American people to get them reved up for a war... the only sad thing is that it worked.

I did just read on MSN that a "convoy" of support just floated in to New Orleans. Perhaps something will happen. Really though, the convoys should have been assembled and ready to go before Katrina hit! The weather people actually predicted it to be worse that it was. There is NO excuse for not having people ready to help... ABSOLUTELY NONE AT ALL!


Yahoo, yippee, yeeha!
Jon

[ 02. September 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: Jon A ]

Tramp
02-09-05, 22:14
I just can't believe that it has taken this long to mobilize help for the people of New Orleans, after all the hipe that America puts out about how great they are. They got troops into Iraq quicker than this. What was the problem with sending in food and water by either parachute drops or helicopter.

They are threatening to shoot people for looting, for gods sake these people are not looting they are desperate for food and water. What do they expect them to do starve or die of thirst waiting for help.

Australia got help and aid into Indonesia quicker and we weren't even prepared for the tsunami.

And by the way Australia has offered assistance to the US.

Jon A
02-09-05, 22:25
Right you are. I can't be sure of my sources, but I have heard that the U.S. has not gotten back on the U.N.'s offer of help. Stuck up! They probably won't accept it. Fools!

I seen just today that Mr. Bush has finally gotten down there and actually started to interact with the people. I can't remember if he was visiting a Red Cross centre or that of the Salvation Army, but it was one of those. It would seem as though the rough comments about how he is handling this thing have convinced him to do something. Too bad though, it would seem as though he is only doing this for his image. I am not surprised. The latest poll showed that his approval rating had dropped to 41%. Some democracy. It would seem as though less than half the people are holding a majority say.


Jon

katmandoo
03-09-05, 00:38
In Mississippi the gas here is 2.94 for diseal and that is only the cheapest place! It is 2.99 there for regular. This is soooo crazy!!! If it keeps doing this in 2 years I wont be able to drive!

galaxia2999
03-09-05, 00:39
Originally posted by Mary CF:
Since we go by litre, not gallon, it's different... I don't know the US to Canadian dollar exchange rate or what a litre is to a gallon... but I think we're around at least $1.00 per litre if not more. Same same, it's funny cause they don't put up the prices in the price windows anymore...just because that extra digit can't fit in...so now we have 0.0 it prb means 100.0 haha funny. (This is Toronto)

And as to the rest of the world-------my deepest sympathies...

Draco
03-09-05, 01:45
Originally posted by Tramp:
[QB] I just can't believe that it has taken this long to mobilize help for the people of New Orleans, after all the hipe that America puts out about how great they are.Em...I don't know many of us who hype America like that.

They got troops into Iraq quicker than this.Uh...I don't think so.

What was the problem with sending in food and water by either parachute drops or helicopter.Knowing where to send it?

They are threatening to shoot people for looting, for gods sake these people are not looting they are desperate for food and water.Are you blind? How does Electronics merchandise translate into Food and Water?

What do they expect them to do starve or die of thirst waiting for help.That deserves no responce.

Australia got help and aid into Indonesia quicker and we weren't even prepared for the tsunami.Do you have proof, or just the typical hype?

And by the way Australia has offered assistance to the US.After all that you said before this, I wouldn't want it.

Draco
03-09-05, 01:52
Originally posted by Jon A:
Right you are. I can't be sure of my sources, but I have heard that the U.S. has not gotten back on the U.N.'s offer of help. Stuck up! They probably won't accept it. Fools!We all know how effective the UN is. As for accepting the aid...why should we burden the world with our problems?

I seen just today that Mr. Bush has finally gotten down there and actually started to interact with the people.You say 'finally' as if it really indicates something important...it doesn't. You can't just treat disasters like a campaign speech you know.

I can't remember if he was visiting a Red Cross centre or that of the Salvation Army, but it was one of those. It would seem as though the rough comments about how he is handling this thing have convinced him to do something.I'm sure that criticism by the more snide of the world's population was at the top of his 'To Fix' list.

Too bad though, it would seem as though he is only doing this for his image. I am not surprised. The latest poll showed that his approval rating had dropped to 41%.Doesn't matter what he does, to you he is only doing it for himself. Nevermind the clear evidence otherwise.

Some democracy. It would seem as though less than half the people are holding a majority say.


Jon [/QB]You do know the elections only happen every 4 years right? Not every CNN broadcast. This democracy functions, whether you like it or not.

Flipper1987
03-09-05, 01:53
Originally posted by Jon A:
Um... I actually didn't say into the middle. I said to New Orleans. Uh....I know you didn't say that Bush should go to the "middle" of the city (when I mentioned the word "middle" in my response, I was referring to the "middle of the chaos" in New Orleans). Usually when people say they are going to a city, that means they are going INTO the city. That's what you said Bush should do (which he did...do you think he's a leader now or are you going to change your definition of what a "leader" is?)

I am not sure of how you talk where you live, but here, we can be a little bit more general about our speech. Apparently, though, you take things to mean 100% absolute!A little testy are you? You know words mean something & therefore people need to clarify what they say. Hiding behind semantics and attacking your opponents for following the basic rules of the English language doesn't strengthen your argument.

I am not sure how you took what I said about the President's security, but it would seem as though you did get my meaning a little wrong.OR....you did a poor job in presenting your opinion on this topic the first time around. Your correction helped to clarify your thoughts and probably would have altered my initial response.

I also don't believe it was shotty intelligence; I think it (presence of WMDs in Iraq) was a flat-out lie to the American people to get them reved up for a war... the only sad thing is that it worked.In a recent thread I gave a partial list of all the people & intelligence agencies who believed Iraq had WMDs. That list included prominent Democrats such as Bill Clinton, Al Gore, & John Kerry, and foreign intelligence agencies from Britain, France, Germany, & the UN (to name a few). You just keep on repeating that tired old "Bush lied" argument & watch how quickly historians relegate that piece of propaganda to the "ash heap of history" where it belongs.

Really though, the convoys should have been assembled and ready to go before Katrina hit!....... There is NO excuse for not having people ready to help... ABSOLUTELY NONE AT ALL!You're right! It's a shame that the Democratic governor of Louisiana completely failed to amass a significant rescue force to go into New Orleans (she actually did prepare such a force but there was no way it could have adequately handled the humanitarian crisis that erupted in New Orleans). It's also a shame that she didn't federalize these search & rescue troops before the hurricane hit. If she would have done that 2 days BEFORE the hurricane hit (which was the same day that Bush declared the soon-to-be-affected areas of the Gulf Coast a "federal disaster area") then the US military would have had the green light to organize & mobilize their troops faster & get involved much sooner.

Funny but I can't find any criticism of this prominent Democratic governor in any of your posts. I'm sure it's a simple oversight on your part.

FLIPPER - who can also play this childish "let's blame the other political party & its leaders for this unfortunate disaster" game.

Jon A
03-09-05, 04:12
I'm not trying to play semantic games at all; doing so gets one nowhere, and only wastes my valuable finger power for typing.

Yes! The convoys should have been assembled. Remember just how bad the situation was going to be. Not that it's not bad now, but it was planned to be a lot worse. If they had been prepared for the one they thought would happen, what did happen wouldn't have been a problem.

And I thought I told you what I thought about Bush going there. I believe I said that it had nothing to do with his concern for the people of his own country, and instead was just to look good and because the people were mad at the way he originally handled it. I wonder if Mr. Bush thinks he can get elected a third time...


Jon-Not understanding why people always say that debating political policy is pointless. Go BLUE!

sshh
03-09-05, 13:35
It went up by 50c last night in ireland.

Jon A
03-09-05, 14:36
Well, it is my understanding that the reserves here in the U.S. are soon to be opened, and the price is going to drop. It already dropped in Minneapolis, back to its old price. It is only a matter of time before it reaches here.


Jon