This topic contains 17 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by Anonymous 14 years, 8 months ago.
- May 29, 2004 at 1:34 am #1557
No, I’m serious! I am dying to know how much everyone is paying for gas right now around the country. I want to know if we’re getting ripped off up here.
$2.12-$2.23 in Soldotna. The gas stations are all out of two’s, so they gleefully substitute upside-down fives and hand written numbers to display their new-found prices.
- May 31, 2004 at 6:05 am #14842
I’m paying about $1.90 here. Back home on the border between Maryland, Delaware and Pennsylvania, they’re paying about $2.05.
- May 31, 2004 at 1:51 pm #14843
The last three fillups 1.74 1.84 1.89 (three weeks)
Gas is never coming down again….and it will probably shoot up Tuesday.
- June 2, 2004 at 2:08 pm #14844
We in southeastern Wisconsin are paying about $2.15 a gallon. I have seen some Z’s used for the “high quality” gas that was $2.2?.
- June 8, 2004 at 9:46 pm #14845
We’re paying about $1.80 around here now following the Memorial Day weekend. Alas, OPEC voted to increase production by about 8%, I believe. I heard a figure somewhere that about 36 cents of the ~$2.00/gallon everyone was paying before the holiday was speculative fear by petroleum futures-analysts; glad to see it works both ways, somewhat.
- June 11, 2004 at 3:48 pm #14846
Would you believe I filled up yesterday for less than $2/gallon? OK, so it was $1.999/gallon but much better than the $2.159/gallon I was filling up for. Made me think about getting a Civic hybrid for a while.
- June 11, 2004 at 8:04 pm #14847
Made me think about getting a Civic hybrid for a while.
I was thinking about getting one of those (either the civic or the prius) until I saw that dealers are tacking between $5000 and $10,000 onto the sticker price due to the demand for those cars. Did you realize that the tax breaks on the 6,000 lbs+ vehicles like the H2 are as much as $50,000? It’s no wonder people are buying them, the price of gas becomes insignificant compared to the cost of the vehicle.
- June 15, 2004 at 2:00 pm #14848
I pay £0.829 per litre. That’s around £3.77 per gallon, which is around $7 dollars to the gallon. So no complaining about the price of fuel guys!!! – British taxation sees to the demise of large engined cars over here. The average car here is a 1.8 petrol, or a 1.9td diesel…
- June 15, 2004 at 2:09 pm #14849Rich wrote:That’s around £3.77 per gallon, which is around $7 dollars to the gallon.
A good reminder. One of the local news stations interviewed a few people from Europe when everyone was complaining about prices and they all said if we only knew how good we had it. If Americans had to pay that much for gas, I bet Detroit would be pumping out hybrids and alternative fueled vehicles left and right instead of building vehicles bigger and less fuel efficient all the time.
FWIW, Lisa and I have been talking a lot about hybrids and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they weigh in heavily on our future purchase decisions. Yes, they cost more but Congress is also expected to pass an extension on the $3000 tax incentive for buying hybrid vehicles and, as those vehicles become more popular, I’m sure the price differences will level off.
- June 17, 2004 at 2:02 am #14850
I’m on my third Honda (Civic), and I love it. 180,000 miles, ’94, kicking like an race car. Once I got 60 mi/gal on a road trip, but usually it gets around 40. I want my next car to be a Honda. I think a hybrid is an excellent idea, but the biggest downfall of driving these small vehicles that I love so much is that if ever I’m in an accident, I lose automatically. These fuel efficient cars could be dangerous on the highway as far as the crumple factor goes.
- June 17, 2004 at 12:32 pm #14851puffintoad wrote:I think a hybrid is an excellent idea, but the biggest downfall of driving these small vehicles that I love so much is that if ever I’m in an accident, I lose automatically. These fuel efficient cars could be dangerous on the highway as far as the crumple factor goes.
Remember, hybrids aren’t just small cars anymore. In fact, Ford is already making a hybrid Escape (their smallest SUV, even lighter than the Ranger, but still an SUV) and others are following suit. Personally, I don’t think I could drive a compact car. Between the conditions I find myself driving in at times and the hauling I do for myself and others, I just need a bigger vehicle. Just remember, as I say that, I am not exactly the typical truck/SUV driver. I realize I have a vehicle that could be dangerous to others and drive accordingly. Knock on wood, I have never been in an accident yet. Came close yesterday when a FIB wanted to merge into my front fender without checking his blind spot but that’s what horns and brakes are for.
- June 18, 2004 at 12:32 am #14852
It’s good to know there are still some considerate drivers in this country. I’m not one of them. Sometimes. 😈
I didn’t know hybrids were being made in larger sizes. I prefer to drive small cars because of their maneuverability. What kind of mileage would the Ford Hybrid SUV get?
I’ve been in four accidents. I was a passenger, first in a head-on collision with a drunk driver on the highway, then in a car that flipped three times on black ice in Kansas (that was a trip!). In both of those terrible accidents I left without a scratch. One was in a Volvo, and one was in some other older model that also held up pretty well. When I was sixteen, I wrecked my Honda twice at nearly a standstill. The front just crumpled before my eyes. Gee, I’d hate to hit a moose.
- June 18, 2004 at 12:55 am #14853
Official ratings haven’t come out yet but they are expecting to be rated at over 35 mpg city. Better than my mother’s late 90s model small Japanese car with a 4-cylinder.
- June 19, 2004 at 10:19 pm #14854
I thought going to Iraq was to make gas cheaper- I mean since there wasnt weapons of Mass Destruction. I dont think it was because we were liberating the people or trying to stop terrorism because there were no links to Al Queda before we went to Iraq and there are plenty of other countries with links to Al Queda that need liberating worse than Iraq.
What do you guys think am I not seeing something?
Click this link if u wanna play a fun game (nothing to do /w gas).
- June 20, 2004 at 4:58 pm #14855High School Runner wrote:I thought going to Iraq was to make gas cheaper- I mean since there wasnt weapons of Mass Destruction. I dont think it was because we were liberating the people or trying to stop terrorism because there were no links to Al Queda before we went to Iraq and there are plenty of other countries with links to Al Queda that need liberating worse than Iraq.
What do you guys think am I not seeing something?
Yep. There most certainly are links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, there is no direct link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, but don’t confuse that with links that aren’t associated with that. The popular media tends to flaunt the fact that Saddam ran a scular regime while Osama is (at best) a militant fundamentalist; while that does make it tough for them to chill at family picnics, that doesn’t exclude them from cooperating. It’s indisputable that members of Saddam’s Fedayeen, Iraqi officers, are members of Al Qaeda (proof: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp, more proof: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/, and thank you may I have another: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm. Again, be careful when saying there are/aren’t links. Terrorism is not wholly reducible to 9/11 and Saddam’s secular government doesn’t negate the chance of the Militants working together with them.
Where I agree with you is that we seem to have lost a lot of momentum since capturing Hussein. As soon as that was done, we should have kept going down the list. “Lessee… Iraq’s done. North Korea, you want a piece?” Actually, NK should have come first but it’s an imperfect world.
- June 20, 2004 at 10:16 pm #14856
AnonymousScattershot wrote:Where I agree with you is that we seem to have lost a lot of momentum since capturing Hussein. As soon as that was done, we should have kept going down the list. “Lessee… Iraq’s done. North Korea, you want a piece?” Actually, NK should have come first but it’s an imperfect world.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the typical American mindset. Forget negotiations, forget compromises to make both sides happy. It’s my way or the highway. For those who have been paying attention, this is why a bipartisan group of former military and diplomatic officials, several of whom served directly under Reagan and the first Bush and even stated they voted for the second Bush, stated Bush can not remain in office. Regardless of how Iraq turns out, he is ruining America’s alliances built up over the past 4 decades.
- June 22, 2004 at 11:49 am #14857
‘America’s Alliances’ don’t seem to mean a whole lot when those alliances back down in the face of war. I have the utmost respect for Tony Blair right now because he’s following the lead of a man who is not afraid to make an unpopular decision for the good of not just the nation, but the entire world.
I’d rather have one ally who will have my back than 10 who just say they do.
Talk is cheap. A cliche to be sure, but I find most cliches have a good measure of truth to them. How many times during the Clinton administration did Saddam turn away weapons’ inspectors from his country? You can see where diplomatic negotiations would have gotten us, there. As for North Korea, we’re talking about nuclear weapons development in the hands of a tyrannical dictatorship who doesn’t seem to notice or care that his country is starving. You don’t play nice in that situation and hope for the best, you stick it to him. All that stalling NK did while claiming the US was being unreasonable about *where* and *with whom* to discuss the situation has me nervous. Doesn’t it seem like an incredibly petty thing to stall over?
- June 22, 2004 at 2:36 pm #14858
So the fact that every country other than the United States wanted to at least give diplomatic means a chance means that every country other than the United States was wrong? Why did the United States decide to go after Iraq first when North Korea, Iran and other countries posed more significant immediate threats? Why does the Bush administration keep talking about these ties between Iraq and bin Laden while CIA officials say the ties the Bush administration talks about were never there? Why, contrary to the Bush administration’s initial reports, were terrorist attacks against United States concerns higher than ever last year if we are winning the war against terror?
I’m all for making the world a safer place but many military and diplomatic officials, including several Republicans, have stated that the Bush administration is doing the exact opposite. You don’t make the world a safer place by trying to beat everyone you feel is a threat into submission. This will only make more people angry with you and spur on more terrorist attacks. The Israel/Palestine situation has been escalated through Israel’s attempts to beat Palestineans into submission. Compromises, reached through diplomatic means, have shown great promise for a peaceful solution. The Cold War was fought to gridlock until Gorbachev made great strides through compromises. It took a while for Gorbachev to convince the Reagan administration that he was sincere but, once he did, a peaceful solution was reached quite rapidly. The Bush administration has a lot to learn about diplomacy and giving up the “do it my way or I’ll bomb the hell out of you” attitude.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.