Are There More Christians or Atheists in Law School? Forum

[sinfiery]

So your claiming something is "most definitely statistically true" meanwhile you don't have any statistics to back it up. That's not the way to be taken seriously.

I don't have the energy to take myself seriously. Pay me and I will go find the statistics for you. For free, I can only tell you that they would exist in such a manner I stated.

Actually its a widely accepted fact. TTTs flooding the market with graduates because they will take anybody who can click the 'agree' button on a loan application, and making a five digit surplus in graduates to legal jobs every year.

Just because part of an argument can be argued as to be possibly true does not make your argument anything but absolute illogical blubber. Sorry.

Your making the comparison between hard sciences and the rest of society, what I said was that hard sciences do not have an IQ advantage compared to every other graduate field. And last I checked there are no statistics that say academia is more secular than religious, more liberal maybe, but there are plenty of liberals that prescribe to one religion or another.

You changed the scope of the argument. I ignored it and changed it back. Everything is being compared to society in general. That's where we began, that is where we will end.
There are statistics that say people in academia are more secular than the average person in society.

Your just acting like a troll now...

You attempted to steal the power that comes with labeling someone an idiot and use it to your advantage. I didn't let you. Now I am the troll?

Oh dear. Oh my. Silly little person you are.

[John Mill]

Pay me and I will go find the statistics for you. For free, I can only tell you that they would exist in such a manner I stated.

You made the claim not me, it's up to you to actually provide the statistics if you are going to claim that something is statistically true.

Just because part of an argument can be argued as to be possibly true does not make your argument anything but absolute illogical blubber. Sorry.

My argument was "people in law school do not have a higher IQ than average because X"

Your response is now "Well yes X is true, but your argument is still illogical blubber"

What part of my argument was not true or did not make sense? What I said about TTTs, the legal market, and law students in general are all widely accepted facts, so idk what your talking about.

Everything is being compared to society in general. That's where we began, that is where we will end.
There are statistics that say people in academia are more secular than the average person in society.

First of all stop saying that there are statistics if you don't back them up. Secondly what are you talking about when you say "society" high school graduates? UG graduates? You're being too general and disparately vague.

You attempted to steal the power that comes with labeling someone an idiot and use it to your advantage.

No I said you were acting like an idiot, and you kind of are. Do you think that saying that religious people have generally lower IQs is going to do anything but hurt you if you say it anywhere besides the internet? Plus it belies an attitude of arrogance that will get you chewed up and spat out if you carry it into law school with you.

Then there's the other thing you said about law students having generally higher IQs, which I proved was not true, and you still refuse to accept. Again, kind of making yourself look like an idiot when you spout off about statistics you refuse to back up, counter everything i say with "nuh uh" and make stupid claims in general.

I didn't let you.

Actually your kind of proving me point...

[sinfiery]

You made the claim not me, it's up to you to actually provide the statistics if you are going to claim that something is statistically true.

No, I said they were assumptions. You said my assumptions were false, as a matter of fact. It is your responsibility to provide the statistics.

I'm waiting.

My argument was "people in law school do not have a higher IQ than average because X"

Your response is now "Well yes X is true, but your argument is still illogical blubber"

What part of my argument was not true or did not make sense? What I said about TTTs, the legal market, and law students in general are all widely accepted facts, so idk what your talking about.

Well, the logic part of it. Not the factual part of it. So let's begin with how the TTTs, legal market, and law students in general, are connected to IQ and why that changes in lieu of "X"

First of all stop saying that there are statistics if you don't back them up. Secondly what are you talking about when you say "society" high school graduates? UG graduates? You're being too general and disparately vague.

They exist, I won't do the leg work. Sorry.
America. Average American.

No I said you were acting like an idiot, and you kind of are. Do you think that saying that religious people have generally lower IQs is going to do anything but hurt you if you say it anywhere besides the internet? Plus it belies an attitude of arrogance that will get you chewed up and spat out if you carry it into law school with you.

There you go again, maybe you don't realize you are doing it. That would be....better I guess.

Once again, I don't need life lessons. Thank you though.

Then there's the other thing you said about law students having generally higher IQs, which I proved was not true, and you still refuse to accept. Again, kind of making yourself look like an idiot when you spout off about statistics you refuse to back up, counter everything i say with "nuh uh" and make stupid claims in general.

Wow, you actually believe that terrible argument proved LS students don't have higher IQs than the average person in society? Damn. I can't retort. I am in shock.

Actually your kind of proving me point...

Glad I could help.

[John Mill]

I've spent enough time arguing this with you, you wont show statistics, and yet claim they exist, your 0L so you have no first hand experience, and you won't even make any sensible arguments. You haven't given me a single reason to believe a word that you've said besides "because I say so" all i can say if that you're wrong, and you're in for an ugly surprise if you pull this same crap in the real world.

Like I said I'm done arguing about it though, good luck and I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with everything you've said.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Pay me and I will go find the statistics for you. For free, I can only tell you that they would exist in such a manner I stated.

You made the claim not me, it's up to you to actually provide the statistics if you are going to claim that something is statistically true.

Just because part of an argument can be argued as to be possibly true does not make your argument anything but absolute illogical blubber. Sorry.

My argument was "people in law school do not have a higher IQ than average because X"

Your response is now "Well yes X is true, but your argument is still illogical blubber"

What part of my argument was not true or did not make sense? What I said about TTTs, the legal market, and law students in general are all widely accepted facts, so idk what your talking about.

Everything is being compared to society in general. That's where we began, that is where we will end.
There are statistics that say people in academia are more secular than the average person in society.

First of all stop saying that there are statistics if you don't back them up. Secondly what are you talking about when you say "society" high school graduates? UG graduates? You're being too general and disparately vague.

You attempted to steal the power that comes with labeling someone an idiot and use it to your advantage.

No I said you were acting like an idiot, and you kind of are. Do you think that saying that religious people have generally lower IQs is going to do anything but hurt you if you say it anywhere besides the internet? Plus it belies an attitude of arrogance that will get you chewed up and spat out if you carry it into law school with you.

Then there's the other thing you said about law students having generally higher IQs, which I proved was not true, and you still refuse to accept. Again, kind of making yourself look like an idiot when you spout off about statistics you refuse to back up, counter everything i say with "nuh uh" and make stupid claims in general.

I didn't let you.

Actually your kind of proving me point...

JSM--You're getting way too worked up here. The second claim isn't that controversial at all. I would be shocked if the average law school student wasn't more intelligent than the average American, since it's just basically saying the average college graduate is smarter than the average American. I agree with you that education does not automatically mean intelligence, but I would think that restricting the pool to people who have graduating college would remove more "below average intelligence people" than it would remove "above average intelligence people" from the pool. In any case, OP was asking about T50 schools, which would restrict the pool even more.

I was under the impression the first claim wasn't controversial as well, but after 2 minutes googling I guess I was wrong. More here: http://www.volokh.com/2010/02/28/are-mo ... -atheists/
I think I've seen other studies as well that support the first claim, but I don't know if they had issues with their methodology as well.

[sinfiery]

I've spent enough time arguing this with you, you wont show statistics, and yet claim they exist, your 0L so you have no first hand experience, and you won't even make any sensible arguments. You haven't given me a single reason to believe a word that you've said besides "because I say so" all i can say if that you're wrong, and you're in for an ugly surprise if you pull this same crap in the real world.

Like I said I'm done arguing about it though, good luck and I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with everything you've said.

0Ls rule.

I said they were assumptions. You said my assumptions were false, as a matter of fact. It is your responsibility to provide the statistics.

I'm waiting.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I've spent enough time arguing this with you, you wont show statistics, and yet claim they exist, your 0L so you have no first hand experience, and you won't even make any sensible arguments. You haven't given me a single reason to believe a word that you've said besides "because I say so" all i can say if that you're wrong, and you're in for an ugly surprise if you pull this same crap in the real world.

Like I said I'm done arguing about it though, good luck and I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with everything you've said.

1) You ignored most of what she said regarding the second claim (average member vs. law school student).
2) I have first hand experience, but that's hardly something to draw major conclusions off of since it's a small sample size. (But, for the record, it's been my experience that the average law school student is less religious, but there's still a fair mix of christians, jews, muslims, mormons, etc. I don't have a comparison point for the other religions besides Christianity, but I can say that the christians are more likely to disagree with a decent amount of popular church beliefs and stances.)

ETA: My bet is that there is an above average number of militant atheists in law school, but the number is still low. (I know only a few.)

[NoodleyOne]

I hate the phrase "militant atheist". Unless they are physically attacking religious people, that term should be left for people that actually do kill in the name of religion.

[John Mill]

JSM--You're getting way too worked up here. The second claim isn't that controversial at all.

I never said it was controversial, just that it was wrong.

I would be shocked if the average law school student wasn't more intelligent than the average American, since it's just basically saying the average college graduate is smarter than the average American.

For top 50 schools I would agree with you, but there are plenty of TTTs that will let you in with terrible grades and test scores, as long as you can sign a check.

1) You ignored most of what she said regarding the second claim (average member vs. law school student).

Not really, I said why I disagreed with it. Some people might say that a great artist with no formal education is more of a genius than somebody who studied hard sciences or law. Education takes too many variables into account (price, age, living situation, etc.) to make comparing it to the average American who hasn't had a chance to hone their intelligence a fair judge of IQ. Although again IQ and education are two very different thing. There could be some tribal in a jungle in Africa who has a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking and simply never had a chance to be educated.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

JSM--You're getting way too worked up here. The second claim isn't that controversial at all.

I never said it was controversial, just that it was wrong.

I would be shocked if the average law school student wasn't more intelligent than the average American, since it's just basically saying the average college graduate is smarter than the average American.

For top 50 schools I would agree with you, but there are plenty of TTTs that will let you in with terrible grades and test scores, as long as you can sign a check.

1) You ignored most of what she said regarding the second claim (average member vs. law school student).

Not really, I said why I disagreed with it. Some people might say that a great artist with no formal education is more of a genius than somebody who studied hard sciences or law. Education takes too many variables into account (price, age, living situation, etc.) to make comparing it to the average American who hasn't had a chance to hone their intelligence a fair judge of IQ. Although again IQ and education are two very different thing. There could be some tribal in a jungle in Africa who has a higher IQ than Stephen Hawking and simply never had a chance to be educated.

1) People who go to TTTs are still college graduates (and if there are exceptions to that, they make up a small amount). It's not controversial to claim the average college graduate is more intelligent than the average american.
2) We're talking about averages here, not possible exceptions. And there are a few points to address here. First, IQ isn't a perfect measurement of intelligence, but, like standardized tests in general, it provides a useful way of talking about intelligence in a comparative way. Second, education is not synonymous with IQ, but like most standardized tests, an education will improve your score. Third, I'm a firm believer that intelligence is not static, thus, education can be a way of improving your intelligence. Fourth, we're not talking about Africa, we're talking about the U.S.

Sure there are probably plenty of very smart people with very little education, but we're talking about comparing two large groups here.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I hate the phrase "militant atheist". Unless they are physically attacking religious people, that term should be left for people that actually do kill in the name of religion.

My bad, to me it's just a word that has a particular meaning, like bible-thumper--though maybe that term should be left for people who just really like to punch bibles.

[John Mill]

1) People who go to TTTs are still college graduates (and if there are exceptions to that, they make up a small amount). It's not controversial to claim the average college graduate is more intelligent than the average american.

Then the proper way to say that is "your average college graduate has a higher IQ than the average American". Since all law students are college gradates, its not a fair comparison to match them up against non college grads as an indicator of IQ. The right test for that would be to compare law students against your average college graduate.

And I never said it was controversial...

Second, education is not synonymous with IQ, but like most standardized tests, an education will improve your score

No it will not, your IQ stays the same, you can't raise it through education. It's just a test of your mental capabilities, it has nothing to do with knowledge.

Third, I'm a firm believer that intelligence is not static, thus, education can be a way of improving your intelligence.

Of course it can, but only to a certain degree. No matter how many weights you life, it won't make your arms any longer, just increase the amount of muscle that is on the arm itself, same deal with IQs, you can increase the amount of knowledge you have, but you cant increase your mental capabilities past a certain age.

Fourth, we're not talking about Africa, we're talking about the U.S.

I was just using that as an example.

Sure there are probably plenty of very smart people with very little education, but we're talking about comparing two large groups here.

But it's a flawed comparison. 100% of law students graduates college, something like 30% of Americans have a bachelors degree. That's not how you preform an experiment because there are multiple variables. The only thing that you prove with a test like that is that the average college graduate is smarter than the average non college graduate.

[NoodleyOne]

Wow John Stuart Mill... you're... way off. I really have no interest in contributing to the discussion other than saying you sound like a dude that just took his first philosophy class and finally understand what Utilitarianism is.

[John Mill]

Wow John Stuart Mill... you're... way off. I really have no interest in contributing to the discussion other than saying you sound like a dude that just took his first philosophy class and finally understand what Utilitarianism is.

First of all I don't think you're picking at my post because of my screen name

Anyway I said earlier I'm sick of arguing about it, I still think I'm right law students in general don't have any higher IQ than your average American, IQ is just a measure of potential not intelligence, its how big the glass it, not how much water is inside of it. A 12 year old child can have a higher IQ than a college professor, and no comparing law students against a group of which only 30% have graduated college is not the proper way to judge law school acceptance as a test of IQ.

Anyway I'm done for the night.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Then the proper way to say that is "your average college graduate has a higher IQ than the average American". Since all law students are college gradates, its not a fair comparison to match them up against non college grads as an indicator of IQ. The right test for that would be to compare law students against your average college graduate.

What the fuck is wrong with you? The statement was:

Second assumption being greater IQ than average for society = more likely to be in law school

The comparison isn't meant to be "fair." It was just one of two assumptions she made to reach her conclusion. You said both were wrong. This one is not.

And I never said it was controversial...

You're right. I was trying to be nice, instead of saying something like--you have to be fucking stupid to think the average american is smarter than the average law school student.

No it will not, your IQ stays the same, you can't raise it through education. It's just a test of your mental capabilities, it has nothing to do with knowledge.

You most certainly can. And you most certainly can improve your IQ by practicing the type of mental skills they typically test for.

Of course it can, but only to a certain degree. No matter how many weights you life, it won't make your arms any longer, just increase the amount of muscle that is on the arm itself, same deal with IQs, you can increase the amount of knowledge you have, but you cant increase your mental capabilities past a certain age.

This analogy is a failure for the point you were trying to prove (and the point you seem to be trying to make is wrong). Improving your muscle mass improves your overall strength (and increases the upper limits of your strength). The length of your arms is not as important. Now compare this to the brain and intelligence: studies have shown that education/studying can cause physiological changes to your brain, and these changes seem likely to increase the upper limits of your intelligence. I'm not saying anyone can become Einstein through hardwork, but you can improve on what your brain is capable.

But it's a flawed comparison. 100% of law students graduates college, something like 30% of Americans have a bachelors degree. That's not how you preform an experiment because there are multiple variables. The only thing that you prove with a test like that is that the average college graduate is smarter than the average non college graduate.

Once again, what the fuck is wrong with you? That's why it's easy to say the average law school student is smarter than the average american. The latter group includes non-college graduates in it and the law school student group only includes college graduates. It's a pointless thing to argue about, and you have to be a fucking idiot to think that statement is wrong.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Wow John Stuart Mill... you're... way off. I really have no interest in contributing to the discussion other than saying you sound like a dude that just took his first philosophy class and finally understand what Utilitarianism is.

First of all I don't think you're picking at my post because of my screen name

Anyway I said earlier I'm sick of arguing about it, I still think I'm right law students in general don't have any higher IQ than your average American, IQ is just a measure of potential not intelligence, its how big the glass it, not how much water is inside of it. A 12 year old child can have a higher IQ than a college professor, and no comparing law students against a group of which only 30% have graduated college is not the proper way to judge law school acceptance as a test of IQ.

Anyway I'm done for the night.

I don't think you understand what IQ really means. It's a score. Based off of a standardized test. The score can be calculated differently for children to indicate their potential, but for adults is not based on potential whatsoever. It's a test to try and estimate intelligence. It's not too different from the LSAT, though the purposes behind the two tests have their differences.

[John Mill]

First of all, take it down a notch, no need to fucking rage at me, I think we're just misunderstanding each other a bit.

The comparison isn't meant to be "fair." It was just one of two assumptions she made to reach her conclusion. You said both were wrong. This one is not.

You have to take it in the context of the original comparison. sinfiery was claiming that less religious people are more intelligent, and that based off of this, law students on average would be less religious. Law students being more intelligent than your average American is incidental if you take the fact that they have graduated college and the average American has not, even if it is true. What I was trying to say is that even if the average law student is more intelligent than the average American, law school itself is not the reason why. I'm sure there are many schools in the lower TTT that would accept your average American, if they only had a degree and a loan.

See what I'm trying to say? The average law student may well be more intelligent than the average American, but law school itself is not the test of that, so the argument that: religious people = less intelligent (which I'm not saying is true) + law schools only accept intelligent people = less religious people in law school is false.

You most certainly can. And you most certainly can improve your IQ by practicing the type of mental skills they typically test for.

Actually the research on that is still up in the air, but the current consensus is no, if the test is administered properly you cant increase your numbers by any significant degree, and that after you reach a certain age your kind of locked in place.

This analogy is a failure for the point you were trying to prove (and the point you seem to be trying to make is wrong). Improving your muscle mass improves your overall strength (and increases the upper limits of your strength). The length of your arms is not as important. Now compare this to the brain and intelligence: studies have shown that education/studying can cause physiological changes to your brain, and these changes seem likely to increase the upper limits of your intelligence. I'm not saying anyone can become Einstein through hardwork, but you can improve on what your brain is capable.

First of all the length of your arm does effect the maximum amount of strength you can gain in it. What I was trying to say that your IQ (the length of your arm) is a test of the maximum level of intelligence you can operate at. Your knowledge (muscles) effects how much intelligence you currently have.

And there's a big leap from saying that that study can cause physical changes in your brain, and that they seem to increase maximum intelligence, to holding it a as a solid fact.

I am not an expert on this subject and neither are you, I was under the impression that IQ does not change, that's what I had always learned and that's what my research has shown me, and that's what I predicated a bit part of my argument on. If you show me where you read that study can increase your IQ then i will happily admit I was wrong and we can move on. But based on everything I've read, at best your ideas of IQ are still under debate in the scientific community, at worst the consensus seems to be that IQ doesn't change by anything more than very small degrees, small enough to be attriubuted to the margin of error in individual tests.

Once again, what the fuck is wrong with you? That's why it's easy to say the average law school student is smarter than the average american. The latter group includes non-college graduates in it and the law school student group only includes college graduates. It's a pointless thing to argue about, and you have to be a fucking idiot to think that statement is wrong.

As I said in the beginning I agree with this, but the numbers are not attributed to law schools themselves as much as to having graduated undergrad school. Now calm down and stop flipping out/cursing over a miss communication.

[John Mill]

Wow John Stuart Mill... you're... way off. I really have no interest in contributing to the discussion other than saying you sound like a dude that just took his first philosophy class and finally understand what Utilitarianism is.

First of all I don't think you're picking at my post because of my screen name

Anyway I said earlier I'm sick of arguing about it, I still think I'm right law students in general don't have any higher IQ than your average American, IQ is just a measure of potential not intelligence, its how big the glass it, not how much water is inside of it. A 12 year old child can have a higher IQ than a college professor, and no comparing law students against a group of which only 30% have graduated college is not the proper way to judge law school acceptance as a test of IQ.

Anyway I'm done for the night.

I don't think you understand what IQ really means.

Maybe I don't, maybe you don't, but whichever is the case it just makes most of this a misunderstanding, and for the millionth time I would rather just drop it.

[fruitoftheloom]

You have to take it in the context of the original comparison. sinfiery was claiming that less religious people are more intelligent, and that based off of this, law students on average would be less religious. Law students being more intelligent than your average American is incidental if you take the fact that they have graduated college and the average American has not, even if it is true. What I was trying to say is that even if the average law student is more intelligent than the average American, law school itself is not the reason why. I'm sure there are many schools in the lower TTT that would accept your average American, if they only had a degree and a loan.

See what I'm trying to say? The average law student may well be more intelligent than the average American, but law school itself is not the test of that, so the argument that: religious people = less intelligent (which I'm not saying is true) + law schools only accept intelligent people = less religious people in law school is false.

JM - you seem to have misunderstood Sinfiery's original post. S/he stated that more education (-> she correlates more education with more intelligence than the 'average American' which is probably correct) correlates with less likely to be religious. She did not say that being less religious means you're more intelligent or that being less intelligent means that you're more religious.

There are studies that both support and refute this idea, and part of the problem is that nobody can agree on what "religious" means.

ETA: Canadian study referenced that shows more education means less likely to practice "religious participation" (whatever that means): http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/25/ ... -religion/
CNN says the opposite: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/1 ... -measures/

Oh, and PS, your thing about all "great men" (ie Presidents) being religious is really only true for the US, Latin America and the Middle East. There are many secular Presidents in Europe (and in some parts of Latin America). (Since I can see citation is important to you, see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... n-uruguay/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_at ... cs_and_law) Unless you think only "great men" are Americans?

[calidancer2]

You have to take it in the context of the original comparison. sinfiery was claiming that less religious people are more intelligent, and that based off of this, law students on average would be less religious. Law students being more intelligent than your average American is incidental if you take the fact that they have graduated college and the average American has not, even if it is true. What I was trying to say is that even if the average law student is more intelligent than the average American, law school itself is not the reason why. I'm sure there are many schools in the lower TTT that would accept your average American, if they only had a degree and a loan.

See what I'm trying to say? The average law student may well be more intelligent than the average American, but law school itself is not the test of that, so the argument that: religious people = less intelligent (which I'm not saying is true) + law schools only accept intelligent people = less religious people in law school is false.

JM - you seem to have misunderstood Sinfiery's original post. S/he stated that more education (-> she correlates more education with more intelligence than the 'average American' which is probably correct) correlates with less likely to be religious. She did not say that being less religious means you're more intelligent or that being less intelligent means that you're more religious.

There are studies that both support and refute this idea, and part of the problem is that nobody can agree on what "religious" means.

ETA: Canadian study referenced that shows more education means less likely to practice "religious participation" (whatever that means): http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/25/ ... -religion/
CNN says the opposite: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/1 ... -measures/

Oh, and PS, your thing about all "great men" (ie Presidents) being religious is really only true for the US, Latin America and the Middle East. There are many secular Presidents in Europe (and in some parts of Latin America).

also just to add in, there's a lot of speculation that Obama is likely an atheist/agnostic and is "Christian" in the media since that is what is currently socially acceptable in the US. that's a whole 'nother can of worms most likely, but just wanted to add that in.

and since when are Presidents all "great men?" This classification seems randomized and contrived.

[jkpolk]

and since when are Presidents all "great men?" This classification seems randomized and contrived.

they are all better than you or me

[John Mill]

also just to add in, there's a lot of speculation that Obama is likely an atheist/agnostic and is "Christian" in the media since that is what is currently socially acceptable in the US. that's a whole 'nother can of worms most likely, but just wanted to add that in.

and since when are Presidents all "great men?" This classification seems randomized and contrived.

jeez all the rumors with Obama... First he was supposedly a secret Muslim or something, then there was that crap with his birth certificate, then they were going on about his fundamentalist preacher, now hes supposedly an atheist.

Also I wasn't the one who said the presidents were great men, I don't even think out last batch of presidents were even all that good men tbh. First we had Clinton, who together with Monica Lewinsky brought the country to its knees (lol), then we had the Texas oil man who had us paying 3.50 a gallon for gas, and now we're on to Obama... the guy who thinks windows on airplanes should open and has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas.

Man we need another president like Lincoln...

[fruitoftheloom]

Those guys aren't extremely successful. I am talking presidents. Until you get to the extreme success level you see weird deviations, but people who run for president and get elected are religious.

Doh, in my head I thought that was JM talking about great men = presidents. The point still stands. There are non religious world leaders, just not so much within the US.

[John Mill]

There have been great and brilliant men (and women) of both secular and religious natures, same deal with world leaders.

@OP This thread has gone way of topic, but I think the gist is that there are people of all faiths, as well as atheists, agnostics and people with vague beliefs mixed in with every walk of life, including law school.

[ScottRiqui]

then we had the Texas oil man who had us paying 3.50 a gallon for gas, and now we're on to Obama... the guy who thinks windows on airplanes should open and has us paying 4.00 a gallon for gas.

Man we need another president like Lincoln...

The "windows on airplanes" guy was Romney, not Obama. And although national average gas prices under Obama did kiss $4/gallon a few times, it's down to $3.52 and trending downward.