gas prices?

TrappedUnder Ice

Ok..this is crazy...yesterday morinin...gas at the EXxon was 1.89, comming home it was 1.97, this morning it was 2.04

wtf

hoping the chevron closer too me is still 1.89 when I get home

I will say...that gas being this high will curb my traveling and my spending on other items....HERE THAT you dumb red neck pres?:eek:

AustinKP

Originally posted by TrappedUnder Ice
HERE THAT you dumb red neck pres?:eek:

You think he frequents this website? Maybe he's PBD in disguise...he's not really a gnome with a woman's voice after all

TrappedUnder Ice

I know....I did it more for humor and stir a possible bee's nest! never know where them Republicans hide out...ya know:p

AustinKP

Not a start a political debate or anything, cause I generally don't care too much about politics, but hold up..."hide out"? Aren't republicans the majority leader right now? And I happen to like Bush. He's not an exemplary speaker, but I think he's doing a great job. You have to admit he's better than the competition. "I don't have a Suburban, my family does..."

neomagus00

Originally posted by AustinKP
You have to admit he's better than the competition.

no you don't

given the choice - wait, i do have the choice this year! - i may have to pick the known evil over the unknown, i haven't decided yet. on the right hand, you have a president whose policies are set, and you know what he's after. on the left, who knows how he'd deal with the situation he'd be moving into?

although, i would have to disagree with the statement that he's doing a "great job." i simply cannot justify to myself how getting hundreds of our people killed is great. granted, he may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he may have gotten bad advice, and even allowing a whole host of other things - he was dead-set on iraq from the moment he set foot in that office. i find it difficult to support a representative of the people that doesn't represent them; or, assuming that public opinion does support him - i haven't looked lately - he didn't even ask. that bothers me. eh, so it goes...

exalted512

i think hes right by attacking iraq
i wasnt there during 9/11, but im sure if you saw ppl jumping from windows to kill themselves rather than burn to death, youd feel the same way too
and also, the guy that got his head sawed off
yes, sawed, it was not cut
they put him on his side and started sawing at his neck from the side with a 5" blade
he was screaming the whole time and then his murderers proceeded to put their foot on his shoulder and yank his head from his body
bush will get my vote any day
-Cody

MacLeod

Damn, this is 2 political threads now! Y'all cant get me started, I wont shut up! And by the way, Im a damn proud Republican hiding out here!

9/11 happened. arab-muslim, human debris, flew two planes into the trade center, another into the Pentagon and one into the ground killing over 3000 people. Before that there was the US Embasys, the USS Cole and the first trade center bombing. These pieces of garbage are not human. Theyre animals. They are sworn to kill us all and they will sacrifice their lives to do it. You cant reason, argue or negotiate with animals that are sworn to kill you! Israel has been trying to do it for about 40 years!

We take out the Taliban which is bankrolling and supporting bin-ladin. Saddam is next. Terrorists operate out of the mid east and Iraq is (was ha-ha) the middle east! Of course they were hooked up with terrorists. On top of that he DID have weapons of mass destruction. Dont think so? Well he gassed his own people years ago so that proves he had them. Still not convinced? Well to date weve found chemical weapons labs, centrifuge for making nuclear weapons, pesticides in mass quantities in places where there shouldnt be pesticides. Ive lost count of all the nuclear weapons scientists weve arrested. Why would he need nuclear weapons scientists? We just recently found a stash of saran (spelling?) gas in unmarked howitzer shells! No doubt about it he had them. Now do you really think that if Sadamm was left in power and he developed a suitcase nuke that within days of it there would not have been a mushroom cloud over D.C.?

MacLeod

Two more points.

1) back in 1979-80, if you adjust for inflation, gas was $2.90 a gallon. It still sucks but it could be worse

2) we get about 2 thirds of our oil from the middle east. Weve got huge oil finds in Anwar, Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California. Each with an estimated 30 year supply! Now we lock all the hippies up, start drilling, break OPECs back and then watch the price drop, drastically!! Thas how Reagen got it down in the 80s. Why be dependant on their oil when weve got plenty of our own? OPEC is worse than the UN. They are the ones price gouging. Everybody is getting pissed off at Exxon. Why is nobody getting pissed off at the human debris in the mid east that is selling it to us at record prices?

exalted512

back to the original topic, gas jumped from 1.85 yesterday to 1.93 today for 87octane
but the gas station outside of town was still 1.83
i put $5 in because thats all I had on me...got me an entire 2.74 gallons
thatll get me 35 miles...
all the more reason why i might be getting a car instead of a truck next summer...
-Cody

MacLeod

Tennessee is up to $1.93

Georgia at $1.89

Im not giving up my truck. I dont care if it goes to $4 a gallon! I may only be able to sit in the driveway and stare at it because I cant put gas in it to go anywhere but......:D

exalted512

...its still a truck!
lol
i know how ya feel man...im going to some crazy extremes here...its going to be a lifted z71 on 35s or a WRX that is going to be HEAVILY modified
it IS only a 2L...but i really dont consider a WRX to be rice....
its got to be the AWD
lol
either way...its GOING TO BE 4X4...
lol
-Cody

MacLeod

No doubt about it. WRX is bad ****! If Im not mistaken, they make like 300 horsepower and are basically rally race cars taken off the track and put on show room floors!

I still vote for the Z71!!!

exalted512

227 for the WRX
the 300 might be the WRX STi
wrx=2L
sti=2.4(i think)
if i could get my hands on a sti, im taking it
lol
-Cody

exalted512

since were on the subject...







thought you guys might like these
-Cody

TrappedUnder Ice

Its funny...Our fearless leader is the only one...with his admin... for the us to actually attack another country to prevent them from attacking us! WE actually iniciated the war with Iraq
The war against the Talibhan...that was thier starting

Bush is puppet. All I can say is that if bush gets re-elected... the democrats could put Jerry springer in there and he'd win office by landslide in 2008:D

exalted512

well...look at it this way
do you change your oil in your car before it goes bad or do you wait til your engine blows?
all Bush is doing is "preventive maintenance" on the US, something of which I have no problem with
and how did we initiate the war?
Iraqi people ARE the taliban if im not mistaken(well...in some way related)...THEY hid the terrorists that we are going after...just like here in the US...if someone escapes from jail and you let them stay in your house knowingly...you are just as guilty
-Cody

MacLeod

Originally posted by TrappedUnder Ice
Its funny...Our fearless leader is the only one...with his admin... for the us to actually attack another country to prevent them from attacking us! WE actually iniciated the war with Iraq
The war against the Talibhan...that was thier starting

Bush is puppet. All I can say is that if bush gets re-elected... the democrats could put Jerry springer in there and he'd win office by landslide in 2008:D

Thats possibly the dumbest thing Ive ever heard.

Remember the 1st Iraq war back in 90-91? Well when we whooped his ****, one of the conditions of him remaining in power was that he disarm and allow weapons inspectors in to verify. The UN set this condition and was to enforce it. Well 12 years passed and Saddam would only let the inspectors into certain areas and he kicked them out of the country several times. The UN passed resolution after resolution stating that if he didnt prove that hed disarmed then we would come in and take him out. Well finally after 12 years of this, we get a president with balls. Knowing the threat Saddam posed he went to the UN and they passed resloution 1441 which was the final and last straw. Let the inspectors in or else! He refused. So we took him out.

This was not an initiated conflict. This was a RESUMPTION of the first Desert Storm. We couldve finished him then with the approval of the UN and all the panty waist Eurpoean countries that are now crying abot this (because most of them were making a ton of cash illegally off the "Oil For Food" program) but we all thought wed give him one last chance. He blew it so we finished what we started!

The burden of proof was on Saddam, not us. He started this **** when he gassed his own people and invaded Kuwait. The UN backed the first war and the UN set the conditions. They just didnt have the balls to enforce them. We, along with 30 other nations, enforced them because we knew the threat Saddam is. The world is a much better place now that he is gone.

When in doubt, ask yourself this. Who would Osama vote for?

TrappedUnder Ice

ITs the first war that we were not provoked! The war with the Taliban...that was provoked. Not meating some verbal agreements is not "provking a war" ...look at us history? Y'all can vote for Whom ever you like..thats what makes this country decent... but dont blame or complain about the choice you made.

Kinda funny. Jimmy carter won pres over Gerald ford... but I have yet to meet anywone who'd actually admit they voted for carter?

U.S. is funny like that

MacLeod

Lets just pretend Desert Storm never happened and the agreement with the UN never existed. We STILL shouldve gone in there and wiped the floor with him.

Its ok that we attacked Afghanistan because of 9/11. Great. Who do you think the A-#1 honcho terrorist is? Saddam maybe? The most powerful (was, ha-ha) arab muslim in the world! He was neck deep in Al-Queida. If you dont think so then why is it that there are just oodles of terrorists in Iraq now fighting with our troops? The most common answer is they werent from Iraq but they came from Iran, Syria, Egypt and the other bordering countries. So you mean to sell me that all the 3rd world countries bordering Iraq were hooked up with terrorists but the most powerful, anti American country was not? Not very logical. I mean these guys brutally tortured and murdered his own people and he has been wagin war on Israel for decades with terroists and by helping Palestinians. Of course he was hooked up big time with terrorists!!

I just dont understand why there are some people that are sad that one of the most evil, dangerous, barbaric, psychotic, brutal and oppressive rulers in the history of the world is now gone?

Why stop there. Lets mourn Stalin, Musolini and Hitler!

AustinKP

Last I heard, the death count in Iraq was around, what, 800 deaths? Of course, we don't want anyone to die, but compared to other wars, that is extremely low. When Bush was proposing to go into Iraq, he said up front, that it could be a long, drawn-out process and everyone supported him and seemed to be cool with it. Now that people are realizing that it really is taking a little while, they all piss and moan about it. We took over Iraq very quickly, and are already turning the government back over to the people.
Meh, never mind me. It's late and I'm just rambling I think. Hope that all made sense. I'm too tired to proofread

neomagus00

Originally posted by MacLeod
I just dont understand why there are some people that are sad that one of the most evil, dangerous, barbaric, psychotic, brutal and oppressive rulers in the history of the world is now gone?

at least in our time... for more details, see The Romans, The English, and in fact most of the rest of civilization...

i don't see how anyone can have a problem with removing the man from power - this was a very good thing to do. the preventative maintenance bit was a great point as well, except for this - if you don't keep up your car, you know it'll break; we don't know that he was planning anything. it's very likely, but not a sure thing; btw, i'm not disagreeing here, i'm just playing devil's advocate. my sole problem is bush's independence. no matter what, he was going in. he had bad information and didn't care what the public said, he was gonna do it, come hell or high water. the actual war itself is only a side issue in a discussion about this facet of the election; my thing is, well, if he did it with iraq, what's to stop him from doing it with something else? i see it as the same thing the fcc's doing now - they're cracking down on potentially-offensive broadcast materials (tv, radio, etc.). i oppose them not because i advocate the use of every swear word on every tv channel, but because i don't know how far they want to push this. same with bush for me.

btw, i just want to make it clear that i'm behind our soldiers 100%; they're giving their lives out there, and it's for people that don't even live in the same country that they do - they're fighting for people they'll never meet, that don't speak the same language, and, more often than not, hate them for the simple fact that they're American. ::insert appropriate athiest/agnostic version of "god bless america" here, 'cos i can't think of one::

MacLeod

OK, point by point.

"Bush was going in hell or high water." I keep hearing people say this. So how do you know? Did you ever hear Bush say he plans to wipe out Iraq from the onset? The first time I heard him mention Iraq in a big way was the Axis of Evil comment in the State of the Union back in Jan 02.

"He knew he had faulty information and lied anyway." He was using the information that Clinton used when he bombed Iraq back in 98. Back then all the democrats and the media were fine with it and never questioned it. Now that Bush uses the EXACT SAME intelligence, hes a big fat lyar? Well then I guess so was Clinton and all the democrats that supported him then.

"Bush is gonna do what he wants no matter what the people think". Well then why did he spend months going state to state talking to people trying to build support for this. He went to the UN many times and tried to persuade support. Bush is not a dictator. He will do what he has shown he has done before. He states a plan then goes around and tries to build support for it. Once he has it he goes with it. Besides, with a bunch of raging, foaming democrats in Congress just itching for an excuse to impeach, you really think Bush is gonna go start invading Belgium or Austrailia in hopes he can make his oil buddies richer?

Im sick of the way Bush is portrayed these days. Its the same way Reagen was, stupid cowboy that want to kill everybody except for his oil buddies. He is made fun of because he is from Texas and doesnt vacation in the Hamptons with the Speilbergs and dine on fine quisine. Hed rather go to his ranch in Texas and eat bar-b-que! He isnt a pointy headed intellectual that thinks hes always the smartest man in the room. Hes spent most of his life in the private sector rather than in politics. Hes made fun of as being stupid, uneducated (with degrees from Yale and Harvard!!!) and some stupid redneck cowboy. Its ridiculous! Maybe hed be better off if hed ran to England to avoid the draft, never held a real job outside politics, chased 20 year old interns around the Oval Office, lied thru his teeth at every opportunity or got drunk and drove himself and a girlfriend into a river and then let her drown! Then hed get some respect!!

neomagus00

This is Bush, from the a September 20, 2001 speech: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And "...the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows." It doesn’t seem like he’s trying to persuade people to support him, that sounds to me like a demand. “I've asked Congress to provide the largest increase in military spending since Ronald Reagan was the President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.” This is from a speech he gave in August of 2001 – before 9/11. From his Inaugural Address: “We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.”

Then there’s Clinton’s first Inaugural Address: “When our vital interests are challenged… we will act—with peaceful diplomacy when ever possible, with force when necessary.” In his second Address, he mentions terrorism: “[Prejudice and contempt] have nearly destroyed our nation in the past… They fuel the fanaticism of terror… We shall overcome them. And we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another.” I was seven and eleven, respectively, when these speeches occurred, so I sure don’t remember the guy, but these quotes seem to speak for themselves.

Now that Bush uses the EXACT SAME intelligence, hes a big fat lyar?

no, but don’t you think he should have used intelligence that was less than three years old??

Im sick of the way Bush is portrayed these days. Its the same way Reagen was, stupid cowboy that want to kill everybody except for his oil buddies. He is made fun of because he is from Texas and doesnt vacation in the Hamptons with the Speilbergs and dine on fine quisine. Hed rather go to his ranch in Texas and eat bar-b-que! He isnt a pointy headed intellectual that thinks hes always the smartest man in the room. Hes spent most of his life in the private sector rather than in politics. Hes made fun of as being stupid, uneducated (with degrees from Yale and Harvard!!!) and some stupid redneck cowboy. Its ridiculous! Maybe hed be better off if hed ran to England to avoid the draft, never held a real job outside politics, chased 20 year old interns around the Oval Office, lied thru his teeth at every opportunity or got drunk and drove himself and a girlfriend into a river and then let her drown! Then hed get some respect!!

I’ll let this pass as a standard rant…

Originally posted by AustinKP
Last I heard, the death count in Iraq was around, what, 800 deaths? Of course, we don't want anyone to die, but compared to other wars, that is extremely low. When Bush was proposing to go into Iraq, he said up front, that it could be a long, drawn-out process and everyone supported him and seemed to be cool with it. Now that people are realizing that it really is taking a little while, they all piss and moan about it. We took over Iraq very quickly, and are already turning the government back over to the people.

true, the death count is extremely low compared to other wars. is it necessary? kind of a moot point now, but still worth considering. i mean, we can't exactly take it all back, but we can try to ensure that we don't end up in a position like this again. which, perhaps, is the point of iraq - get rid of the problem at the source, and it's no problem afterwards. this i agree with. you've convinced me. the thing i don't agree with is the independence of the President; all i'm worried about is what may come, so it's kinda the evil you know over the one you dont here. hmmm...

MacLeod

Hmmm, so were you this worried that the President will go crazy and start invading countries left and right, back in 98-99 when Clinton went to war with Kosovo? Or was that ok?

neomagus00

let's see, in 1998 i was... 11? 12? i can't say i cared much then .

my worry is not more invasions, my worry is less drastic things. a president certainly has to have independence, in order to make effective and rapid decisions. I can't tell you where that line is exactly, but i do think that bush has crossed it. my worry is that he will cross it again for something else - if it's okay to cross it to fight terrorism in iraq, how far across will he go to fight it here?

exalted512

ok lets put things into perspective...i actually heard a bunch of stuff concerning bush on the radio this morning
in january, there were 35 murders in detroit
in the same month, there were 39 war related deaths
it took 51 days to take Iraq
51...thats less than 2 months
thats less time than it took time to count the votes in florida
if someone on here...or anywhere...can convince me that bush is doing a bad job, id be surprised...the man is doing a great job...hes running the most dominant country in the world...kicking ****...and the only thing i dont like right now are the gas prices
bush says that he wanted to get some type of plan passed years ago that would have prevented that but the democrats wouldnt let it go through
would this have worked...i dunno...
seems to me that it was a convenient way for the democrats to drop bush's public ratings
and bush stated that he was going to kick some ****...clinton didnt...but did he attack?
yes he did...because as commander-in-chief....he can attack anywhere he wants without congress' approval...he just cant officially call it a war
and to say the war was unprovoked is ridiculous, but think about this
when we joined WW2 we were semi-unprovoked
in the sense that Japan attacked us, we attacked Germany...Germany never did anything to us aside from the Lusitania...which can be compared to the USS Cole...but the Lusitania did have weapons...or things for weapons at least on board when it wasnt supposed to
North Korea was unprovoked
Vietnam was unprovoked
theres a few more i just cant think of right now
control of Iraq will be handed over shortly, and as i understand it, they can kick out US troops if they want to
if the UN wouldve gotten involved in this a long time ago it might already be over
i am not sorry that our president is not a ****...i am sorry that the leaders of the united nations are
if you dont want to fight...go to france
-Cody

neomagus00

Originally posted by exalted512
bush says that he wanted to get some type of plan passed years ago that would have prevented that but the democrats wouldnt let it go through

of course he does

WWII - now that i sit back and consider it, the similarities between pearl harbor and 9/11 are quite unnerving. yet, no one questions our response to the pearl harbor bombing. was 9/11 different enough to warrant a different response? i'm not so sure anymore. in some ways, 9/11 almost requires a more extreme response. consider:

pearl harbor - we were helping the allies. so, the axis attacked a military base and killed military personnel. we then fought the axis and essentially took control of their countries, then gave them back.

9/11 - an unprovoked attack against civilians by a paramilitary group. we fought a primary host country and took control, and we are now (hopefully) going to return it.

looking at it from this standpoint, the only reason i can fathom not to go to the middle east is the fact that we will never destroy terrorism. some people hate us, and some of those people are willing to die to hurt us, and there's nothing we can do about that.

eh, i don't know what to think anymore.

MTXMAN

IMO Bush is a better president than Carey (check spelling) would be. I have no faith in a man who could fight in a war, be decorated for his service and return home to burn his medals and uniform because he didn't agree with the war. This man WILL severly weaken our armed forces, he will take away one of the defining factors of our country, our strength. I am a peacefull man but i believe in justice and protection. When a wrong is commited it must be righted, if we are attacked we must punish our attackers. The last fight i got into was because one of my good friends was hit by her boyfriend... needless to say i beat the living crap out of him, what he did was wrong, the police couldn't do anything about it, so i tought him his lesson. Justice must be served.

As far as the gas crisis goes i think we need to drill in some of our oil fields to relieve the situation for now during which time the oil companies need to be researching alternative energy sources. I'm sure that they already own the patents to several devices that would save on gas or eliminate the need for it but due to greed they have suppressed that technology. I have a friend who's uncle developed a carburated engine that got 40mpg, this was in the 60's, the company that he developed it for sold the patent to one of the oil companies for a rather large sum of money, the oil company promptly supressed the design. free enterprise is a great thing and i love it, however when your sole priority is to increase the size of your own pocket book without regard for others then you've crossed the line into pure greed. One of the reasons that i'm a psychology major is cause yeah, i'll be able to make a realy good living well into the 6 figure range once i have my doctorate, the main reasons though are that i truly have a desire to help people, that since i'll be able to bring in good money from my paying clients i'll be free to do pro-bono work for those who can't afford counseling, and that i'll be able to keep a good amount of time free to spend with my family.


well that's my rant for the day....

neomagus00

hmm... i agree with most of that; i don't with the medals bit. perhaps look at it in this way: the man was so willing to fight for his country that he put aside his own personal beliefs and laid it all on the line, winning a few awards along the way. then, when he'd completed his duty, he protested the reason he was there in the first place. id support a guy that can separate duty and emotion in that way.

props for beating the beejaysus out of the jackass.

on the oil crisis - i heard recently of a new machine that's been developed; apparently, one puts in nearly any organic material - the designers tested it with chicken guts - and it spits out various refinements of fuel at the other end (natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc.). it then uses some of the produced fuel to power itself. thus, put garbage in one end, get gas out the other. and if i remember correctly, this was out of popular science or the like, so it very well may be true. this was several months ago, and i havent heard anything about it since.

mbdyer12

Freakin A.... 87 octane is $2.35 at the cheapest place around.