Originally Posted by DennisAJC

Gas here in B.C. is $5.20US/Gallon

WE WIN!!!:D

Originally Posted by johndjmix1

Im getting around 17-18 MPG in the H2.

--John

Originally Posted by devilsfan

Here's a newsflash: Gas prices fluctuate. Remember when all the Honda dealers had wait lists for a Prius? A month ago they were offering incentives because gas prices had dropped so low. My gas was up to $3.09 on Saturday. The same station today was at $2.91. It will come down again after the Memorial Day rush, and drop even further after the summer travel season halts. If you're really that concerned, then have a second vehicle that you use for your longer trips that gets better gas mileage. You can also plan your errands better so you're on the road less. It does hurt to pay $70 to fill up, but I think the trade off is well worth it.

Stacy

Originally Posted by devilsfan

Here's a newsflash: Gas prices fluctuate. Remember when all the Honda dealers had wait lists for a Prius? A month ago they were offering incentives because gas prices had dropped so low. My gas was up to $3.09 on Saturday. The same station today was at $2.91. It will come down again after the Memorial Day rush, and drop even further after the summer travel season halts. If you're really that concerned, then have a second vehicle that you use for your longer trips that gets better gas mileage. You can also plan your errands better so you're on the road less. It does hurt to pay $70 to fill up, but I think the trade off is well worth it.

Stacy

Originally Posted by The Juice

What I don't get is why the canasian dolla is almost at par with our us dollar. I always see them as a cold version of mexico.

Originally Posted by NOMOYELLO

IT IS CALLED A BURKA.....OSAMA.....

Originally Posted by OldHiker

Don't understand all the pissin and moanin. Everyone (except me), complains about the price of gas as they are sipping on a liter of water that they just paid $1.50 for. WTF is that all about?

Originally Posted by stagger_lee

I think the only solution is to rid the country of a leader and vice leader who profit on a personal level from high gas prices. We get fed the stories they want us to hear. Fools believe them. :beerchug:

Originally Posted by BOB KERREY

The Left's Iraq Muddle
Yes, it is central to the fight against Islamic radicalism.

BY BOB KERREY
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

At this year's graduation celebration at The New School in New York, Iranian lawyer, human-rights activist and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi delivered our commencement address. This brave woman, who has been imprisoned for her criticism of the Iranian government, had many good and wise things to say to our graduates, which earned their applause.
But one applause line troubled me. Ms. Ebadi said: "Democracy cannot be imposed with military force."
What troubled me about this statement--a commonly heard criticism of U.S. involvement in Iraq--is that those who say such things seem to forget the good U.S. arms have done in imposing democracy on countries like Japan and Germany, or Bosnia more recently.


Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.
Some who have been critical of this effort from the beginning have consistently based their opposition on their preference for a dictator we can control or contain at a much lower cost. From the start they said the price tag for creating an environment where democracy could take root in Iraq would be high. Those critics can go to sleep at night knowing they were right.
The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. Suppose we had not invaded Iraq and Hussein had been overthrown by Shiite and Kurdish insurgents. Suppose al Qaeda then undermined their new democracy and inflamed sectarian tensions to the same level of violence we are seeing today. Wouldn't you expect the same people who are urging a unilateral and immediate withdrawal to be urging military intervention to end this carnage? I would.
American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.
The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."
This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.


Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq. If our purpose had been to substitute a dictator who was more cooperative and supportive of the West, these groups wouldn't have lasted a week.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn't exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.
The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them. Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska and member of the 9/11 Commission, is president of The New School.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010107

Originally Posted by OldHiker

Don't understand all the pissin and moanin. Everyone (except me), complains about the price of gas as they are sipping on a liter of water that they just paid $1.50 for. WTF is that all about?

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

Durka durka!

Originally Posted by NOMOYELLO

IT IS CALLED A BURKA.....OSAMA.....

Originally Posted by MDimitri

Your up to 156 tard...it's spelled BURQA, and its a cloak that covers or envelops the body...remember this word:PERPENCOCULATED...so far your livin up to it's meaning...ya goofy window licker!

Originally Posted by NOMOYELLO

Maybe your so called meat should cut off your head 4 a trophy.Then leave your meat behind for the scavengers...........:mad:

Originally Posted by h2co-pilot

Durka
.
.
Durka Durka Mohammad Jihad.