Excellent post caseagainstbushcom glad to see the attacks out, I realise they come from both sides and sometimes it's so tempting to attack back which I myself do and can gladly admit Not sure if it's the exact facts that you posted, but the only way to determine it is to put some hours in and research it instead of totally discrediting it. Hope pro Bushers are willing to even take one point and look up some of the info in actual raw data and not just a right wing site, same for the dems not just on a left wing site. How about weighing in on the new debate thread Zman so graciously started. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=31528
I started CaseAgainstBush.com as an honest effort to find the truth. That's exactly what it is. Unbiased research. Check the facts yourself. That's why I provide sources. If there's a factual error, I want to know about it so I can correct it. Anything you find that is not factually correct is an honest mistake. I used to be a Republican, never a Democrat. Registered "No party" in California. I also usesd to be a Rush Limbaugh fan. Then I saw his Clinton predictions turn out to be BS. The simple fact is Republicans are bad for the country. That's what the facts say. I didn't make it that way. I just did my research and that's the result.
Actually, people like you are bad for the country. Your facts are flawed because you fail to take into account the context of the stats.
You're right. I didn't "take into account the context of the stats." I applied the same standard to all, regardless of any excuses. No Republican wants to take anything in context when it comes to ridiculing Carter. Why should I take anything into consideration when it comes to the Bushes? Same standard across the board. Beginning to end. If all you CON critics can't provide specific examples of what is wrong with my facts you should all stop your criticizing. Put up or shut up.
A consistent pattern of deception: Snake oil math used to fabricate numbers. No reference to any economists or news sources to verify. Unsourced numbers (an inflation calculator is not a source). Loaded with spam links, as usual. Still NO REFERENCE to ANY source that uses snake oil math by economists or news sources to gage performance. Not one, after repeated requests.
Are you really that fucking stupid or are you just trying to be annoying? "The national average retail regular gasoline price was 147.1 cents per gallon on January 22, 2001." Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline in August 2005 was 248.6 cents or $2.486. What cost $1.47 in 2000, 22 days before Bush took office, would cost $1.68 in September 2005. The $1.68 figure may flucuate to $1.67 occasionally. - CPI Inflation Calculator 2.486 - 1.68 = 0.806 / 1.68 = 0.47976190476 or 47.98% Average Retail Price per Gallon of Gasoline in August 2005 was up 47.98% since Bush took office. The raw price of gas is up 69%. 248.6 - 147.1 = 101.5 / 147.1 = 0.69000679809 or 69% If you can't follow that without the help of an economist or a news source you really are a fucking idiot. Does anyone have anything intelligent to say?
http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/ACF18B.pdf Found this chart to be very informative on the price of gas and it's historical trend, it does show a huge jump during Bush's administration though
According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, what cost $1.42 in 1981 would cost $3.07 in 2005. 3.11 - 3.07 = 0.04 / 3.11 = 0.01286173633 or 1.29% The CPI Inflation Calculator is off by 1.29% from the article cited. Considering that the CPI Inflation Calculator cannot be adjusted monthly, only annually, and national polls tend to have a margin of error of ±3% or more and yet are considered accurate any reasonable person would conclude the CPI Inflation Calculator is an excellent source for comparing prices over time. As of 09/05/05 the Retail Average Regular Gasoline Price was 306.9 cents per gallon. That is only 1.32% below Reagan's record high of $3.11 in 2005 dollars! 311 - 306.9 = 4.1 / 311 = 0.01318327974 or 1.32% Wow! Notice the snake oil math James Beck, Economic Analyst from the Statistics Department employs. 3.11 - 2.975 = 0.135 / 3.11 = 0.04340836012 or 4.3% Those damned snake oil economists!
I posted in the previous thread he had. Will make my way over eventually, but in summary...legalize it and let's focus the money efforts on more important things. It should have been legalized, with similar controls such as alcholol a long time ago. I'm out of town at a client site with a heavy work load, so not as much time this week.
Goes to show the polls correct showing most Americans think this way especially when conservatives agree it should be legalized and the money put to better use, or possibly even a tax break down the road in my opinion Just wanted to see your take on it, thanks for the responce.
There's nothing quite like the profound ignorance of a CONservative who wants to support a man and a party, not the truth. You have nothing of value to contribute here. George W Bush has not seen a net improvement in unemployment since taking office more than four and a half years ago. Begin 4.2% January 2001, end 4.9% August 2005. Still up 16.67%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ and S & P 500 are all still down after four and a half years of George W Bush. DJIA begin 10,578.24 22Jan01; end 10,317.36 05Oct05, -2.47% NASDAQ begin 2,757.91 22Jan01; end 2,103.02 05Oct05, -23.75% S & P 500 begin 1,342.90 22Jan01; end 1,196.39 05Oct05, -10.91% NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil Futures Prices begin $28.14 22Jan01; end $64.64 04Oct05; raw price up 129.71%, up 101.43% adjusted for inflation; high: $70.41; low: $18.27 source: EIA National Debt 10/03/2005 $7,970,524,003,272.50 up 40.47% U.S. dead 1,943, wounded 14,755, WMD found 0
On another note: move caseagainstbush.com to wordpress or host the blog on the domain (blogger has been down for ages now)
I tried to host another blog at my another domain as a test for CAB and it was a major pain in the ass so I just blew it off. Too time consuming to figure it out. I'm more concerned with research than web design. I have many electronic devices and many tech issues. Keep it simple.