So Gas here in Utah is now $3.18

[Investigator]

So ive wanted to buy a hummer, and now is my chance. ive got enough money and worked everything out. but now gas is 3.18 a gallon and that kinda scares me. for sure i thought this was the end of hummers, but nope i see people driving them around, proably accually even more. so im wondering. how much more expensive is it to drive those tanks. is there a limit to how high it will go before you limit how much you drive or sell. do you have to. i dont know. i just want to know your thoughts. is it worth it?

[NewHummerGuy]

Listen, if gas prices EVER cross the mind of a potential hummer owner then the truck isnt right for you. Just like a Suburban, Tahoe, etc. The difference between 2.75 a gallon and 3.25 a gallon in the grand scheme of things doesnt make a damn difference to me. Picture if you drive 15,000 a year. The cost increase (.50/gallon averaging say 13mpg) isnt that great when looked at over the course of a year. Does it suck??? Sure it does. I didnt buy a hummer thinking of gas cost. I bought it because I love the truck.

If this is what is on your mind then buy something else. Honestly.

[DennisAJC]

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

WE WIN!!!

[NewHummerGuy]

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

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

WE WIN!!!

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I agree. If you have to think about it too hard, it probably won't be enjoyable for you.

BTW: Gas is like $3.05 in Burlington, VT now.

[MDimitri]

Who Cares...in Canada overall the new car sales of "Gas Guzzling" SUV's has increased by 25% over 2006 sales. Your way better off in an accident with a big vehicle rather than a little vehicle. A really neat vid was posted some time back about how a Smart car survived a 70mph impact against a concrete barrier. The car was destroyed but the drivers compartment stayed intact, this is fine and dandy, but for a person to survive a sudden impact like that going from 0 to 70mph is extremely unlikely. All your internal organs would slam into your rib cage and burst causing massive internal bleeding because the crumple zone can only absorb so much, the rest of the impact wave resonantes through the rest of the vehicle including the drivers cab and that's just so happens to be where you sit. These vehicles have been labelled as "disposable". This includes alot of other small cars that fit into their category. Fine and dandy, you save cash at the pumps, but the day you get into an accident the odds of a little car impacting a larger vechicle is very high...somewhere in around 92%. Hell, some motorcylces are even bigger than some of these smaller cars. So forget about the savings and worry more about you and your family surviving an accident and walking away from it.

Cheers!.

[johndjmix1]

Lets be honest here, most of us here I would think make 6 digits, but come on gas prices affect us all. Ive been driving very gentle, and setting the cruise at 55. Im getting around 17-18 MPG in the H2.

--John

[NewHummerGuy]

"Lets be honest here, most of us here I would think make 6 digits"

Nope, 2 digits here. Mowing lawn and delivering papers. I can really make my money stretch

[Mr_Pat]

Try being an E5 in the millitary.

[usetosellhummer]

Cut back on stupid things you waste money on. Cook food at home more, cut back the super cable package. When we quit spending money on Sh*t the price will come down. It is all tied together. One way to get your Hummer is buy it and with the fuel savings buy a small comuter car for work. I barely make six figures but I love my truck so I will cut back on other things to afford it.

This sounds like the car for you http://www.fordpinto.com/
Oh by the way it get about the same gas milage as an H3

[MDimitri]

Gas here in Calgary is right now around $1.20/litre (Canadian), that equates to approx $4.43/US Gallon (1 gallons (US) is equal to 3.79 liters). Since as of today we are trading Canadian dollars at $1.09US that means it would cost approx $4.87/US Gallon here in Canada. So don't feel so bad! You could always come up here and buy your gas!

[IRA51]

Hummers get 12 mpg ,you can lust in your heart (like that a hole jimmy carter) or grow a sack and enjoy yourself . simple as that .

[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

[audiofetish]

Originally Posted by johndjmix1

Im getting around 17-18 MPG in the H2.

--John

You got a diesel in that thing?

[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.

[IRA51]

When the oil companys make more profit than they have B4 Bush and more profit than any time in thier history under the Bush administration it has to make you wonder WTF is going on .I voted for him and a'm a republican and I a'm very dissapointed in him to say the least.we are being screwed without a kiss or any 4play ,and with out lube. but since this is the Best country and form of government at least we can question the gov and it's current president who will probably go down in history as a greedy,inept moron of the fist order . maybe we can get hime to go hunting with the VP.

[MarineHawk]

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.

Yeah, those fools, like a former Democratic Senator who was on the 9/11 Commission. He must just love oil and Bush. Or wait, maybe he's just not a moron, who reflexively and stupidly says it's all about oil, while knowing nothing about world history, the policy of military deterrence, etc.:

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