Comments on: Presidential Gas prices

By: outofocus

outofocus — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:30:26 +0000

@vygramul

I was paying .99/g in 1995 at Chevron (which is always more expensive than Arco) in Northern California in a not backwoods area.

Course, I remember when gas was 35c/g. I wasn’t driving then but I remember it.

By: Ben1605

Ben1605 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:38:25 +0000

22 new emails, why the hell did I leave the box ticked to be subscribed to this damn picture? D:

By: vygramul

vygramul — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:25:51 +0000

$0.899? They found some backwoods gas station to have had it so cheap in 1993 when Clinton took office. This is the problem with people: they can’t restrain themselves. Why did they need to take the $0.899 price (a price I would have loved to find around here in 1993) when $1.099 would have been just fine? And you don’t need $4.039 when you could have used $3.899. What, a $2.80 rise in prices is not bad, but a $3.05 rise is unforgivable?

By: Pants

Pants — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:34:53 +0000

shoop

By: awfulintentions

awfulintentions — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:57:05 +0000

How about instead of bitching about oil, let’s go demand fuel efficient vehicles, or demand cars that don’t use fossil fuels. That’s the key, rather then being fixated on freaking gas. The US has the technology for years to build cars that didn’t need such means. GM, specifically the Chevrolet division, built a couple hundred electric trucks which were leased to farmers and such, and despite rave reviews from those that tested them, they deemed the vehicles a failure and confiscated the vehicles once the leases were up. Why? Because of fossil fuels and the oil giants making deals with car manufacturers to keep with oil and gasoline.

By: Ollie

Ollie — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:11:44 +0000

I hate the Bush government as much as the next guy, but blaming them for the current oil prices is really a cheap shot. Oil prices were always going to rise as the demand exceeded the supply. The current situation was set in motion years before either of these governments were even in office. (the current situation has been mirrored in the UK, where Brown is getting the brunt of the blame) That said they have had plenty of warning this was going to happen, instead of securing supplies abroad bush should have focused on making America more independent for it’s energy sources (yes, that means nuclear). Oh shit I mean FUCK BUSH!!! SOLAR POWER FTW!!!

By: wookie_x

wookie_x — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:44:21 +0000

@ Threlia

Who do you think was put in charge of rebuilding Iraq? HALLIBURTON! Who provides private security forces in Iraq? A subsidiary of HALLIBURTON. And who was the CEO of Halliburton before becoming Vice President (this should be obvious)? DICK CHENEY! Are you beginning to see a pattern developing here?

By: Caio

Caio — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:28:30 +0000

Thrella, you just answered your own question.

By: Thrella

Thrella — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:52:06 +0000

How is giving those companies money a bad thing? You’re allowed to buy their stocks and make money out of it just like anyone else, the last thing you can do is complain about money in a war.

And isn’t Halliburton an oil technology provider, not an oil extractor? Or did they buy all the oil wells in the middle east from the Sheiks and suddenly and gave it all to Exxon for free so they could reach record profits (Unlike, say, them having a pretty good strategy and investing wisely)?

I’m not saying there’s no bad things coming out of it, but look at military contractors before you look at oil companies. Those are the most likely to make money out of this. If anything Exxon’s profit comes from supplying the most oil to the most people, and being the biggest i wouldn’t doubt it. Plus, we’re looking at them making record profits on a weakened dollar, so if anything they’re almost even with before.

By: wookie_x

wookie_x — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:42:51 +0000

@ Exacerbate

Where did you get a 9% approval rating for Congress? As of 8/20, the Congressional approval rating has been hovering just under 20%. I’m not saying that’s great, but at least have some sense of accuracy.

www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html