Obama has the lowest approval ever

[elrod817]

Can you fucking read?

I'm not arguing that the country was or was not against the war, just your basis for coming to that conclusion.



EDIT: not you Red, we posted at the same time, that was meant for the dumb one above you.

I still believe your congressman listens to their constituents. Obviously you don't. There wasn't any uproar from the side opposed to the war and the vote was something like over 70% in favor. That's huge...Unlike Obamacare, even though passed, the people showed up to town halls and voiced the opinion against it prior to the vote. The people who didn't listen were voted out.

History is on my side and so is my argument......sleep well

Your post is confusing...you're saying that those opposed to the war created no uproar? Do you mean congressmen or constituents? Many constituents were opposed to the war but in reality have no voice. Therefore the congressmen who voted on their "behalf" did not comply with their belief.

Comparing Obamacare to a war is apples and oranges. I agree with neither, but two different subjects all together.

When it comes to war Hermann Goering was spot on:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Funny thing is...you can actually replace war with Obamacare in this instance. Right or wrong, tell the people it's wrong in a medium that they believe it and bam it's the worst thing since unsliced bread.

History is on my side and so is my argument....sleep well.

 

[martmay]

I still believe your congressman listens to their constituents. Obviously you don't. There wasn't any uproar from the side opposed to the war and the vote was something like over 70% in favor. That's huge...Unlike Obamacare, even though passed, the people showed up to town halls and voiced the opinion against it prior to the vote. The people who didn't listen were voted out.

History is on my side and so is my argument......sleep well

Your post is confusing...you're saying that those opposed to the war created no uproar? Do you mean congressmen or constituents? Many constituents were opposed to the war but in reality have no voice. Therefore the congressmen who voted on their "behalf" did not comply with their belief.

Comparing Obamacare to a war is apples and oranges. I agree with neither, but two different subjects all together.

When it comes to war Hermann Goering was spot on:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Funny thing is...you can actually replace war with Obamacare in this instance. Right or wrong, tell the people it's wrong in a medium that they believe it and bam it's the worst thing since unsliced bread.

History is on my side and so is my argument....sleep well.

2004 Election was a referendum on Bush and Iraq......I believe the american peoples voice was heard, even 18 months after the fact

 

[byco42]

Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, it is a way to turn hydrogen and oxygen into electricity. You can create hydrogen and oxygen from water, but you need electricity to do it. The energy still has to come from somewhere.

That's backwards.

"A hydrogen fuel cell converts hydrogen gas to electricity, which then powers an electric motor. Could not be simpler

 

[redandguilty]

[quote:z9edc0we]

Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, it is a way to turn hydrogen and oxygen into electricity. You can create hydrogen and oxygen from water, but you need electricity to do it. The energy still has to come from somewhere.

That's backwards.

"A hydrogen fuel cell converts hydrogen gas to electricity, which then powers an electric motor. Could not be simpler

 

[elrod817]

Your post is confusing...you're saying that those opposed to the war created no uproar? Do you mean congressmen or constituents? Many constituents were opposed to the war but in reality have no voice. Therefore the congressmen who voted on their "behalf" did not comply with their belief.

Comparing Obamacare to a war is apples and oranges. I agree with neither, but two different subjects all together.

When it comes to war Hermann Goering was spot on:

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Funny thing is...you can actually replace war with Obamacare in this instance. Right or wrong, tell the people it's wrong in a medium that they believe it and bam it's the worst thing since unsliced bread.

History is on my side and so is my argument....sleep well.

2004 Election was a referendum on Bush and Iraq......I believe the american peoples voice was heard, even 18 months after the fact

Hahahaha...funny stuff. Approximately 55.3% of eligible voters voted in 2004. A lot of voices go unheard, probably because they've lost faith, or never had it, in the plutocracy.

 

[byco42]

[quote="Red and Guilty":5iiqu6ku]
[quote="smayschmouthfootball":5iiqu6ku]

That's backwards.

"A hydrogen fuel cell converts hydrogen gas to electricity, which then powers an electric motor. Could not be simpler

 

[cheeno]

How is it backwards? We said the same thing about fuel cells. Compare your 1st sentence to my 1st sentence.

The 2nd sentence is a response to the idea that they run on water.

A hydrogen fuel cell is an energy source. You said is was not an energy source.

"Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, it is a way to turn hydrogen and oxygen into electricity."

Actually even this sentence is contradictory, the second clause is somewhat accurate, though the oxygen has nothing to do with the generation of electricity. Compressed Oxygen is merged with the hydrogen after its electrons and protons are reunited to form the water that is expelled into the atmosphere.

The fuel cell is where the electricity is generated.

Yeah you are right Smaych. There are other problems with Hydrogen FC but getting electricity is not one of them. Making it (in the cell) is one maybe that is what you were thinking Red.

 

[byco42]

Not to mention the hydrogen fuel cell that had such a big buzz then went away when rich ppl realized they cant make much money off of selling water.

Not to change the subject but, I thought the problem with Hydrogen Fuel Cells was more of a safety issue, than anything else.

How many hydrogen stations are on street corners in the U.S? That's the main issue.

 

[Michchamp]

you have to excuse Red; he's been using a defective science book.

it has a picture of dinosaurs getting out of Noah's Ark on the cover. It was approved by the Bob Jones University department of science.

 

[cheeno]

Not to change the subject but, I thought the problem with Hydrogen Fuel Cells was more of a safety issue, than anything else.

How many hydrogen stations are on street corners in the U.S? That's the main issue.

That's 1, but the fuel cell tech isn't quite there yet and is really $$$. You want to by a quarter million dollar Toyota Rav 4?

 

[byco42]

How many hydrogen stations are on street corners in the U.S? That's the main issue.

That's 1, but the fuel cell tech isn't quite there yet and is really $$$. You want to by a quarter million dollar Toyota Rav 4?

The technology is there: it's ready now. Many automakers have Hydrogen-powered vehicles that are road-ready. But, you're right, they cost a lot because they are not mass-manufactured.

 

[redandguilty]

How is it backwards? We said the same thing about fuel cells. Compare your 1st sentence to my 1st sentence.

The 2nd sentence is a response to the idea that they run on water.

A hydrogen fuel cell is an energy source. You said is was not an energy source.

"Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, it is a way to turn hydrogen and oxygen into electricity."

Actually even this sentence is contradictory, the second clause is somewhat accurate, though the oxygen has nothing to do with the generation of electricity. Compressed Oxygen is merged with the hydrogen after its electrons and protons are reunited to form the water that is expelled into the atmosphere.

The fuel cell is where the electricity is generated.

That's like saying a car engine is an energy source, it's not, it's an energy converter. It converts the chemical energy in gas into usable mechanical and electrical energy. A fuel cell also can't do anything without fuel. The fuel is hydrogen and oxygen which it converts into usable electrical energy.

When people talk about fuel cells as a substitute for oil, that's a mistake because you have to substitute the fuel cell for a gas engine and hydrogen and oxygen for oil. The hydrogen and oxygen have to come from somewhere just like oil. We have massive infrastructure pumping, processing, and distributing oil. We'd need something comparable for hydrogen.

 

[redandguilty]

you have to excuse Red; he's been using a defective science book.

it has a picture of dinosaurs getting out of Noah's Ark on the cover. It was approved by the Bob Jones University department of science.

You're way off. Fuel cells are covered in Leviticus. Noah's Ark is on the cover of my Biology textbook.

 

[redandguilty]

Actually even this sentence is contradictory, the second clause is somewhat accurate, though the oxygen has nothing to do with the generation of electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell
"A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent.[1] Hydrogen is the most common fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used."

 

[byco42]

A hydrogen fuel cell is an energy source. You said is was not an energy source.

"Hydrogen fuel cells are not an energy source, it is a way to turn hydrogen and oxygen into electricity."

Actually even this sentence is contradictory, the second clause is somewhat accurate, though the oxygen has nothing to do with the generation of electricity. Compressed Oxygen is merged with the hydrogen after its electrons and protons are reunited to form the water that is expelled into the atmosphere.

The fuel cell is where the electricity is generated.

That's like saying a car engine is an energy source, it's not, it's an energy converter. It converts the chemical energy in gas into usable mechanical and electrical energy. A fuel cell also can't do anything without fuel. The fuel is hydrogen and oxygen which it converts into usable electrical energy.

When people talk about fuel cells as a substitute for oil, that's a mistake because you have to substitute the fuel cell for a gas engine and hydrogen and oxygen for oil. The hydrogen and oxygen have to come from somewhere just like oil. We have massive infrastructure pumping, processing, and distributing oil. We'd need something comparable for hydrogen.

The entire apparatus is an energy source--it's like a NiCad battery. That's an energy source, right? That needs recharging? H fuel cells are nothing like an internal combustion engine. And only hydrogen is the in the fuel tank. Oxygen is in the fuel cell.

The cell--the energy source--generates electricity to power an electric motor that actually powers the vehicle.

 

[redandguilty]

That's like saying a car engine is an energy source, it's not, it's an energy converter. It converts the chemical energy in gas into usable mechanical and electrical energy. A fuel cell also can't do anything without fuel. The fuel is hydrogen and oxygen which it converts into usable electrical energy.

When people talk about fuel cells as a substitute for oil, that's a mistake because you have to substitute the fuel cell for a gas engine and hydrogen and oxygen for oil. The hydrogen and oxygen have to come from somewhere just like oil. We have massive infrastructure pumping, processing, and distributing oil. We'd need something comparable for hydrogen.

The entire apparatus is an energy source--it's like a NiCad battery. That's an energy source, right? That needs recharging? H fuel cells are nothing like an internal combustion engine. And only hydrogen is the in the fuel tank. Oxygen is in the fuel cell.

The cell--the energy source--generates electricity to power an electric motor that actually powers the vehicle.

A battery is an energy storage device. In a fuel cell system, the energy is stored chemically, not in the fuel cell, in the fuel.

The conversation was about replacing oil with fuel cells. In that analogy, the fuel cell is analogous to a car engine, not the oil. A fuel cell does not make or store energy. It converts chemical energy to electrical energy. If you want to call it an electrical source, that would be technically accurate.

 

[cheeno]

The entire apparatus is an energy source--it's like a NiCad battery. That's an energy source, right? That needs recharging? H fuel cells are nothing like an internal combustion engine. And only hydrogen is the in the fuel tank. Oxygen is in the fuel cell.

The cell--the energy source--generates electricity to power an electric motor that actually powers the vehicle.

A battery is an energy storage device. In a fuel cell system, the energy is stored chemically, not in the fuel cell, in the fuel.

The conversation was about replacing oil with fuel cells. In that analogy, the fuel cell is analogous to a car engine, not the oil. A fuel cell does not make or store energy. It converts chemical energy to electrical energy. If you want to call it an electrical source, that would be technically accurate.

Yeah I think technicalities is where everyone went off the rails.

Electricity or other fuels is used to make hydrogen.

Fuel cells make electricity from hydrogen.

 

[redandguilty]

A battery is an energy storage device. In a fuel cell system, the energy is stored chemically, not in the fuel cell, in the fuel.

The conversation was about replacing oil with fuel cells. In that analogy, the fuel cell is analogous to a car engine, not the oil. A fuel cell does not make or store energy. It converts chemical energy to electrical energy. If you want to call it an electrical source, that would be technically accurate.

Yeah I think technicalities is where everyone went off the rails.

Electricity or other fuels is used to make hydrogen.

Fuel cells make electricity from hydrogen.

If I had just left the word "source" out of my 1st post (or added "energy cannot be made or destroyed"), I bet nobody would have had a problem with it...it would have been about the same as this post.

(Actually, I should say "energy cannot be made or destroyed...expect maybe by God", just to see if this thread can get any more hijacked.)

 

[tinselwolverine]

At this point in his presidency, Obama has the lowest approval rating of all time.

He is at 43%. I went to Gallup interactive and looked at all the others (goes back to Truman) and Obama is the most unpopular president at the Thanksgiving/early December mark in the year b4 the election.

Truman: 54% (1947)
Ike: 78% (1955)
JFK: 58% (1963)
LBJ: 70% (Nov. 20-25, 1963), 46% (Dec, 1967)
RN: 50% (1971)
Ford: 46% (1975)
Carter: 51% (1979)
Reagan: 53% (1983)
Bush 41: 52% (1991)
Clinton: 53% (1995)
Bush 43: 55% (2003)
Obama: 43% (2011)

I actually just re-looked at the OP, on this thread that doesn't end
(yes it goes on and on, my friend;
some people started posting here, not knowing what it was,
and they'll contine posting here forever just because

This is the thread that doesn't end,
yes it goes on and on my friend...)

What's the link to this table?

According to its description...

Something is VERY wrong with this picture...

Who can raise their hand, and tell me what it is?

 

[TheVictors]

I took the OP to be a relatively useless and stupid FACTOID, given the relative "approval ratings" of other presidents, including Bush Sr at 52%, considering he was in the 70s or 80's in early 1992 before getting whomped by Clinton in the Election.

These kind of stats are truly, truly meaningless ...and it doesn't take a poll to tell me the American people are frustrated with things in general or that the economy is, relatively speaking, in horrible condition.

I bet Congress has the "lowest approval rating" in history too .... and would add that we're Polled to Death these days, numbers changing weekly, if not daily or even intraday.