Casper Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 why are we $0.20 - $0.30 higher per gallon there everywhere else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excell Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 why are we $0.20 - $0.30 higher per gallon there everywhere else? Go to Atlanta. $5 a gallon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 dublin soccer moms in thier suvs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04r1 Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 dublin soccer moms in thier suvs. And Im sure your boat gets much better gas mileage than my SUV!!! People need to stop blaming gas prices on people driving SUVs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex1647545498 Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I just got back from Atlanta GA. I filled up before I left. paid 2.99 / gallon. I paid more for gas in Kentucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOLLAR BILL Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 And Im sure your boat gets much better gas mileage than my SUV!!! People need to stop blaming gas prices on people driving SUVs i dont i blame bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desperado Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 i dont i blame bush. OK?!?! I fail to see how it's his doing. But I am sure you have your reasons. Seems that since Bush has taken office, we now get a tax break for using renewable resources. That's not a good thing for the oil industry. There has been alot of money spent by the government in research of BIO diesel, fuel cell technology and other fuels that are not petrolum. What did Clinton do on these fronts? And I bring up Clinton because the ones I hear blaming Bush always say by default that Clinton wouldn't be handling it the way Bush is/did. Which is the truth, Clinton would have made a bunch of empty promices and done nothing. I suppose that you will say something about this war being about oil, so why are we paying so much for it, we took over the country over there? We are paying through the nose for gas because we lost 25% of the ability to product gas during the hurricane. And since Bush didn't build the refineries below sea level, I don't see you being able to blame him for that. So we have left the hurricene it's self, I suppose you could say that Bush caused the hurricane. After all it's about as reasonable a statement as saying that you blame Bush for what we are paying for gas. What would you have him do, he's trying to get it through that we drill for oil in Alaska, that we build refineries, that we find better renewable resources. So what's left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli1647545497 Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I blame SUVs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lustalbert Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 And Im sure your boat gets much better gas mileage than my SUV!!! People need to stop blaming gas prices on people driving SUVs Not as bad as one would think. 20 in that tank is alot better than a h2 or any other large suv can ever hope for. Also I am driving a car that gets 30+ right now, and bike to work if it isnt shitty out. The gas guzzling is for play time. Btw, what suv do you drive? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 We are paying through the nose for gas because we lost 25% of the ability to product gas during the hurricane. wrong, much less. As much as I'd like to, I cant blame bush specificaly. Blame his buddies, domestic oil producers. Throughout the last decade, oil companies around the world have been looking for excuses to cut production. Why? Cutting production lowers overhead, obviously, because your refienries are doing less. It also raises prices...alot. So you're making more and saving more. Opec et al has realized that we will pay, oh will we pay, because we need it. They'd love to just ream our asses outright, but cant, so they look for every little excuse there is to raise prices. 16% of the nations domestic oil comes from the effected area. Only 2-3 of the 17 refineries are actualy damaged, and both pipelines are unscathed, though one is claiming power problems, and is pumping less. So, combined with foreign oil supplies, we're looking at about a 1-2% loss in gasoline production capabilities....yet prices have gone up 20-30%, more in some places. Gasoline began being used in private vehicles in the 1890's, it took over 100 years to rise to a dollarIn the past 10 years gas prices have risen 400%. At that rate, a gallon of gas will soon surpas minimum wage. When did the big climb begin? Desert Storm. OPEC got their shit together and stopped competing with each other, and began working with each other, slowly raising it about 10-20% every year. in 1992, 10-20% = about 8-15 cents, now its a dollar. This is that capitalism that everyone seems to like so much. Oil companies are gutting the country to fatten thier pockets. Since they cant afford it, people are buying less gas, but since the prices are so high, proffits are still the same, if not better. On top of that, overhead is actualy down. When will gass prices stop going up? When they stop making more money. When we're brok ass enough that we simply cant pay anymore, and sales go down, then they will stop raising prices. They're seeing just how high they can go, and will untill they cant go higher and make a profit. And we the people suffer. As far as the disaster, Bush can only be faulted for the effected states being shorted tens of thousands of National Guard troops. The idea of the Guard is to have troops always here to defend us, even if our armies are deployed elsewhere. They never should have been sent overseas. "Oh, be we couldn't have seen this coming", shut up, yes some one DID see this coming. They saw it coming 300+years ago when the colonial national guard was founded. "hmm, what if someting happens when the army isn't here? Lets have some soldiers that stay here to protect us." This is a reminder of how thin our forces are spread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash1647545504 Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I blame Ben Stillman. You bastard:mad: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
04r1 Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 Not as bad as one would think. 20 in that tank is alot better than a h2 or any other large suv can ever hope for. Also I am driving a car that gets 30+ right now, and bike to work if it isnt shitty out. The gas guzzling is for play time. Btw, what suv do you drive? GMC Yukon, gets about 17mpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 Which is the truth, Clinton would have made a bunch of empty promices and done nothing. wow it's getting thick in here, and your trying to spread your ignor'propaganda'ance. Read some news, as apposed to blind partisan lit. Read up on Bushs propsed changes to the clean air act. The new regulations, finalized by the Bush Administration at the end of last year, would exempt thousands of industrial air pollution sources from the NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act. Under NSR, power plants and other industrial facilities are required to upgrade air pollution controls when the facilities themselves are upgraded or modified in ways that substantially increase air pollution. Republican want so much to convince eeryone that Bush is awsome and Clinto was the devil. Truth of the matter is, things are shitty now, ut they were good under Clinton. The proof is in the pudding sucka dog, I dont care if he got head, America was more secure and had more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted September 2, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 wow, you're retarded. did clinton work a deal with honda for hydrogen cell vehicles? did clinton push for alternative fuels? nope. nada. he was too busy getting head. he really didn't do awhole lot. i'm not republican, so you can't use that "republicans try to make clinton look like the devil" bullshit. i'm not a democrat either. i think both are full of shit and only out to line their own pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I <3 erric....sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 wow, you're retarded. did clinton work a deal with honda for hydrogen cell vehicles? did clinton push for alternative fuels? nope. nada. I'm not going to berate you,I'm just going to call you Wrongy McWrongface. 4 words, Cee Aye Eff Eee. Alternative fuels? Nope, yo indeed are correct there. Did he work with honda? No, he worked with all of the automakers by raising the CAFE to 45 mpg by 2015......of course, that's pretty much been ignored. The fact of the matter is, Clinton couldn't do much during his terms because he met partisan opposition every time he tried to get anything done. He was even accused of wasting taxpayer dollars and munitions by attempting to pursue alquaida and Bin Laden. He sends a couple cruise missles to a Pharmy plant thought to be making chemical weapons, and is berated by the right when it turns out the intel was wrong...but bush invades and entire country and burns thousands of American lives based on made up shit....and they think he's the greatest ever. Clinton left the country in much better shape then he found it...but got head an lied about it, OMFG Noez!!11!!1 I'm not saying he isn't a douschebag, but he did his job well. Look at it this way; Now, in 2005, what are you worried about? In 1999, what were you worried about? One list is much much longer then the other. (that's a question geared more toward people who weren't highschool kids in 99, but you get the point.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old dirty bastard Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I blame Ben Stillman. You bastard:mad:I agree he is behind everything thats evil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 2, 2005 Report Share Posted September 2, 2005 I agree he is behind everything thats evil well, he is Der Teufel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted September 3, 2005 Report Share Posted September 3, 2005 I'm not going to berate you,I'm just going to call you Wrongy McWrongface. 4 words, Cee Aye Eff Eee. Alternative fuels? Nope, yo indeed are correct there. Did he work with honda? No, he worked with all of the automakers by raising the CAFE to 45 mpg by 2015......of course, that's pretty much been ignored. CAFE is a bunch of BS. Some people think that manufacturers hold some knowledge that will allow every vehicle to get xx mpg but they hold back on it. Fact of the matter is that the manufacturers struggle to meet the CAFE standards, mostly because of consumers buying habits. If a majority of people gave a shit about CAFE they would stop buying SUV's. Some manufacturer's (I believe BMW is one of them) doesn't even try to make CAFE. They build the cars they want and charge more for each so they can afford the fine from the US government. Plus, fuel economy is not the same as low emissions, so don't even try to link that to the clean air act. Although it would help conserve supply. Look at it this way; Now, in 2005, what are you worried about? In 1999, what were you worried about? One list is much much longer then the other. (that's a question geared more toward people who weren't highschool kids in 99, but you get the point.) You can't even compare those times. Clinton was pre-9/11 and times were much different. Most people didn't even know about a terrorist threat. People were more carefree, not because of Clinton, but because 9/11, Russia, Britian, etc. scared the shit out of people and now they worry about safety and security. In reguard to the topic question: I'm not sure why you think you're paying more where you are, but there are some stations around here charging 3.40/gal for regular. Not to mention in Britian it's over $6/gal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 3, 2005 Report Share Posted September 3, 2005 You can't even compare those times. Clinton was pre-9/11 and times were much different. Most people didn't even know about a terrorist threat. Umm yes, we did. You might not have, probably because you were too enthrawled with the blowjob scandal to notice. The Kenyan embassy and the WTC were hit during Clintons term. The difference was, Ken Star and his bitches had everyone scowering Clintons personal life. Any mentions of a terrorist threat were met with cries of "wag the dog!" Remeber the huge ass kicking machine set into motion after 9/11? ALL of the intell they used to respond was gathered during the Clinton administration. Everything from find out who the hijackers were to where to bomb in Afghanastan. For 6 years a fella by the name of John O'Neil headed the FBIs counter terrorism unit. And for those 6 years, he warned of Al Quaida's potential. After the first WTC hit and the Kenyan Bombing, there were great strides made in what we knew, and there was freedom to use it. But, then there was the USS Cole in 2000. The FBI team was actualy sent back home by our Ambasador to Yemen because they were making too much progress, basicaly they stepped on the ambasodors toes. We've never realy heard much about it since. "Terrorism is a new problem" is bullshit...but in a way it's not. The way it's being handled now is the new problem. More americans have been killed by terrorists in the past 5 years then in the past 224. The WTC attack was not a suprise, the warnings were just ignored. The afore mentioned John O'Neil, the guuy who knew more about Al Quaida then anyone in the country, left the FBI and became director of security at the world trade center, making no secret that he knew it was going to be hit again. He was right, and now he's dead, along with 2000 civilians and 1800 troops (and 26000+ Iraqi civilians) that didn't have to die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted September 3, 2005 Report Share Posted September 3, 2005 The loss of life on american soil was far greater during 9/11 then any other terrorist attack. Plus it was broadcast all over television from start to finish. Every American that had a tv was sitting in front of it for hours in horror. Yes, a terror threat existed before 9/11, but it didn't hit home for most Americans until that day. That's why I'm saying most peoples fears changed on that day. You can call everyone that disagrees with you a Bush supporter that was too wrapped up in blowjobs to notice, but that would be far from the truth. I watched the news and I knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11. In fact, when I woke up to see what happened I said to my roommate, "It had to be bin laden." His response was, "WHO??" I had to explain to him that he was the guy responsible for the attacks on US ships in the middle east, etc. etc. The fact of the matter is, yes, some people knew of the threat, but the average American was ignorant until that day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supldys Posted September 3, 2005 Report Share Posted September 3, 2005 I blame clinton...I blame bush...I blame everyone but myself, because I am an almighty CR know-it-all. I will rule the world and dominate its people. Think gas prices are high? wait until I take over and raise the price of wiper fluid mo fukkas!!! mwahahahahah!!!!!!!!~1212112`!!112 The reason gas is expensive is because people are stupid. Same reason we will most likely not see an abundant alternative fuel source in our lifetime. I dont remember the point, but seriously, people are stupid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 4, 2005 Report Share Posted September 4, 2005 Mallard; agreed, that was pretty much the point. The information was there, but sparse, the media chose what to cover, and they covered blowjobs. On Sept 10, more people knew who Linda Trip was then Osama Bin Laden. The threat was there, the federale' knew, but average people just didn't. If anyone wants to blame the countries woes on someone/thing, blame the Democratic party. Blame them because the fucktards nominated Al Gore to run against Bush in 2000. Anyone else would have beat him. Conversely, anyone but bush would have won in a landslide against gore, it would have saved us the trouble to the recount. So blame the Democrats. If you can prevent something from happening and choose not to, it's as much your fault as anyone elses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelloman4571647545499 Posted September 4, 2005 Report Share Posted September 4, 2005 i want a scooter that runs on carrots...that is all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Science Abuse Posted September 4, 2005 Report Share Posted September 4, 2005 i want a scooter that runs on carrots...that is all http://www.wjcc.k12.va.us/rb/dross/images/trip/jackalope.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.