Survey: $4.50 gas will pull commuters off the road

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup, there it is again.
I wasn't trying to be the grammar police. You stated your "credentials," and I called you out on it because (based on your posts) I don't believe you have the level of education you claim to have.

YUP???????? u mean YES right ? lol

UMD Dogs wrote:

<quoted text>
Phil,
Al Gore,**** and top democrats are leading the march to drill and extract domestic oil as we speak. They just told the environmentalists wacko Sierra Clubbers that global warming is a hoax.
Solid argument in the land of make believe.

Spoken like a typical right-wing parrot. Do they give you **** when you repeat the party line like that?

What is make believe is the claim that if only we could tap our domestic reserves we wouldn't have these high fuel prices. You right-wing blowhards have been suckered by the Republican politicians on this one. Just keep blaming the Democrats. That way maybe nobody will notice that there hasn't been an effective energy policy for the last 7 years. Yeah, solid argument.

By the way, one of the reasons the area of the Gulf of Mexico closest to Florida was restricted from drilling was because Jeb Bush objected to it. Yep - the President's brother wanted drilling restricted. Is he a Democrat?

Here's an article describing this, and also mentioning the other areas of the gulf opened to drilling - by the Democratic congress. The article mentions that the Democratic congress opened an area quadruple the size of the President's request. Does that sound like those evil Democrats are holding us back from drilling to you??

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/08/03/sena...

Wow. Who would have guessed that the word c-r-a-c-k-e-r-s would be censored??

Phil wrote:

Wow. Who would have guessed that the word c-r-a-c-k-e-r-s would be censored??

Or c-o-c-k-r-o-a-c-h.

Jerami wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha...I just re read your posts on this topic...You know what you add nothing!!!!! You don't say a word about the topic at all...you sit and talk smack about me for my opinions...yet you don't have the gull to add any input at all...your pathetic...enjoy your miserable life.

To be honest, I didn't really have anything to contribute on this topic. The entire reason I began to comment was because of your bone-headed comment about how you thought that George Bush could single-handedly solve the high gas problem, and that the high cost of fuel was solely his fault. My initial post was challenging you to explain yourself, and you came back with another bone-headed comment about how price-fixing would solve all of our problems. Which, as it was explained by others, causes supply issues, and as I pointed out, would raise the cost in the end.

So the offer is out: Explain yourself on your position (because you haven't). I'm not here to bully or call people names (which I haven't done, although you've resorted to doing so). You said that if we didn't have a bad relationship with the middle east, GWB could pick up the phone and lower our fuel prices. Yes, you actually said this; re-read your post.

It would also be fair to ask for you to explain why you think GWB sent us to Iraq to "finish what old pops didn't." Seriously - that is such a ridiculous statement, and it deserved the comment I left about it. I don't even feel the need to try to explain why that comment was dumb. There may not have been great answers to why we went to Iraq, but believe me, that is not one of them. That is something that I'd expect some old paranoid conspiracy theorist to say.

And for the record, I don't support GWB for everything we've done when it comes to Iraq. But I feel that he was doing what he thought was best for us and the Iraqis, based on the knowledge he had at the time. I am also not ignorant enough to blame him for every downfall our country has had. Believe it or not, there are MANY things out of his control.

Josh V wrote:

your bone-headed comment about how you thought that George Bush could single-handedly solve the high gas problem, and that the high cost of fuel was solely his fault.

Of course he could solve it, or at least put a substantial dent in it, and he clearly is a major factor in its current price levels.

It's not an ideologically-driven perspective in the least. It's about policy and economics and the power of the president.

To think that nothing is amiss is also a willful delusion into the sort of thinking that believes in highly improbable coincidences about who supports whom and who benefits and who suffers.

Seems gas price is getting to the point at which people are finally starting to use it smartly.

I suspect around $4.50 the use in the USA will start to tumble and prices will also receed.

Remember when houses were $200,000 for a shack not worth $50,000, well prices are now headed down with the "Investors" out of the market.

Also remember need is the mother of invention and new fuel efficent cars/trucks are on the way.

If you drive a Prius today the cost of operting it is real cheap.

To bad US car companies didn't get in the hybrid game when Toyota did.

Better days are coming, you will see them!

Josh V wrote:

<quoted text>
It would also be fair to ask for you to explain why you think GWB sent us to Iraq to "finish what old pops didn't." Seriously - that is such a ridiculous statement, and it deserved the comment I left about it. I don't even feel the need to try to explain why that comment was dumb. There may not have been great answers to why we went to Iraq, but believe me, that is not one of them. That is something that I'd expect some old paranoid conspiracy theorist to say.
And for the record, I don't support GWB for everything we've done when it comes to Iraq. But I feel that he was doing what he thought was best for us and the Iraqis, based on the knowledge he had at the time. I am also not ignorant enough to blame him for every downfall our country has had. Believe it or not, there are MANY things out of his control.

I'm no fan of GWB, but I think it's fair to say that he went into Iraq with good intentions. The British historian Bernard Lewis heavily influenced Bush on Iraq. The idea was that most of Arab terrorism could trace its roots to the repression that exists in the Middle East. That part of the world has some of the most repressive governments on our planet. For example, Egypt has had martial law for over 20 years. So if we could get democracy to take root there, it might attack the root cause of terrorism.

Unfortunately, I think the Bush administration had no real concept of what they were doing when they invaded and occupied Iraq, and they have only made a bad situation even worse.

I think Bush had good intentions, but he is just too much of a fool to pull of what he really intended.

Oil companies need to be taxed on their profits and I find $4.50 a gallon a crime against americans. Real americans cant afford this during the summer and what happens when it starts to get cold?

Government makes more per gallon than the gas companies, I think there should be a windfall profit tax on the government.

First of all...when I stated that George Bush could do something about the cost of oil. I meant it and Im correct. He can. Now whether thats the right thing to do or not...Im not sure. But if you actually read my post you would have noticed when I mentioned the price freeze that was to show that in fact Mr. Bush could do something about if he wanted to. And I also stated the Price Freeze was a failure but it validated my point that something could be done...right or wrong...the President of the United States can do something about it. I don't recall saying he could give Iraq a call and it would reduce the price instantly...but if he wasn't so disliked among the Middle Eastern countries they might be more inclined to help us.

Now do I believe Bush went to war to just finish what daddy started...no not completely...but I think any other president wouldn't have went in so hastily...I think there was some other motive. Thats my opinion...and I don't see how that is idiotic. Its actually a fairly common observation.

I will give Bush this though...I thought he handled the events of 9/11 great...I think he said the right things and I felt he did a great job for such a terrible event...but what hes done after that day I don't support. IMO (IN MY OPINION) he got America into another Vietnam...and its the same thing...we don't want to admit defeat so we stay there...and no one wants to back out because when we do it will go down as an utter failure. So he stays in and lets the next president deal with it.

And what has happened to our economy is horrendous. If I remember correctly it was quite the same during Daddy Bush's term...we were in a Recession or close to one...now some would say Daddy Bush got us out of it before he left office and Clinton reaped the benefits...but I don't know if I believe that or not.

Ok...people do want to back out...but they are scared too essentially...we will see if our next president actually does it...im not sure when it will happen...

It comes down to approxiamtely 20.5 gallons per soldier per day. So 20.5gallons x 170000 = 3,485,000 gallons of fuel daily multiply this x 365 = 12,720,250,000 gallons of fuel per year. Multiply this x $4.50 per gallon (Pentagon pays)=$5,724,112,500 per year at todays prices approx. However Iraq provides very little fuel to the american forces. Hope this is what you wanted I also hope you didn't support the man who put us into this situation.

A retired Veteran of 26 years

I agree with you Bush could affect the costs but why would he or the congress do anything when they also are making huge money. The american people are being robbed and until we decide that we rule this country and reestablish this constitutional freedom we will continue to be hurt. So america pull hard on your ears and look around before its to late.

Common Sense wrote:

Government makes more per gallon than the gas companies

Rubbish.

Jerami wrote:

Ok...people do want to back out...but they are scared too essentially...we will see if our next president actually does it...im not sure when it will happen...

It is not up to the president it is up to the people this is our country not his. they are only one person. wake up before it's to late. This is not the first time these things have happened to a country. remember we are the oldest living democracy and are about to lose it.It's bigger than fuel.

SGMOtter wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not up to the president it is up to the people this is our country not his. they are only one person. wake up before it's to late. This is not the first time these things have happened to a country. remember we are the oldest living democracy and are about to lose it.It's bigger than fuel.

How is ending the War in Iraq a possibility for us "little" people? Its actually up to the President to pull out...right?

SGMOtter wrote:

I agree with you Bush could affect the costs but why would he or the congress do anything when they also are making huge money. The american people are being robbed and until we decide that we rule this country and reestablish this constitutional freedom we will continue to be hurt. So america pull hard on your ears and look around before its to late.

What you want a Revolutionary War or something?

SGMOtter wrote:

Oil companies need to be taxed on their profits and I find $4.50 a gallon a crime against americans. Real americans cant afford this during the summer and what happens when it starts to get cold?

The federal tax on a gallon of gas is more than the oil company profit on that gallon of gas. But the federal tax is used to pay for the federal highway system. The federal highway system is not cheap to maintain. Putting a tax on gasoline seems like a fair way to charge the users of that system for it's maintenance. That cost has no relation to the oil company profit on a gallon of gas, so it's pointless to compare them.

Oops. That last post was a reply to the post from Common Sense, not SGMOtter. I was clicking wildly.