digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at img244.imageshack.us

Bush vs. Clinton (PIC)

img244.imageshack.us — Farewell, Bush!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ryantiet, on 07/18/2008, -25/+128thats low balling it too. its $4.99 in some parts of LA for 91 octane
    • bysin, on 07/19/2008, -9/+106I think the better contrast is...

      The guy on top won a nobel peace prize, guy on bottom started 2 wars.
      • loudnobnoxious, on 07/19/2008, -17/+42"The guy on top won a nobel peace prize..."

        So did Yasser Arafat.
      • bubut, on 07/19/2008, -26/+9I hate Al Gore. That is all.
      • rollem, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Bubut: I think you should explain what you hate.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1bysin - please repost the link...
    • billyf1, on 07/19/2008, -10/+5Thats the most american thing I've heard all day!
      Congratulations!
    • duckley, on 07/19/2008, -11/+50ALSO

      Clinton leaves $5 TRILLION SURPLUS

      Bush leaves $4 TRILLION DEFICIT !

      Bush $9T wasted into pockets of the Super-Rich.

      YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN will have to pay this back.


      • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -31/+25Huh? a $5 trillion surplus would piss me off more than a $4 trillion deficit (How about some of that back?). It was a $230 billion budget surplus, going back to a $400 billion deficit in four years afterwards. The country was never out of debt at any point, it was just slowly going in reverse. The total public debt is nearly $10 trillion at this point (9.5). When it passes the big 10 it'll be an interesting psychological barrier.
      • RadioFreeOpium, on 07/19/2008, -5/+20And when money goes to the super rich, they hoard it, they don't return it to the economy like the rest of us
      • elnerdo, on 07/19/2008, -8/+16Why have people buried senatorpjt?

        A lot of people don't know what the word 'deficit' means. It does not mean 'debt'. A 'deficit' is how much our debt increases every year. We never had a 'surplus', because that would mean we didn't have debt. The national debt is exorbitant, and will never be paid off.
      • Aikidi, on 07/19/2008, -1/+15dude your numbers are way off.

        there was a 4 trillion debt with clinton, now a 9 trillion debt with bush

        clinton had about a 400 billion budget surplus (different than trade deficit)
        bush has a couple hundred billion budget deficit
      • kolinkoolface2, on 07/19/2008, -8/+5sept 11 and hurricane katrina

        housing bubble

        internet bubble

        credit bubble

        china and india becoming more industrialized.

        Quit acting like clinton was some kind of good president, he didn't do *****.
      • TheReport, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4@kolinkoolface2

        That's funny aside from the internet bubble pop i could of swore everything you just listed there happened under Bush's watch.
      • rearlgrant, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Republican party tax cuts only apply to the already-born.

        One of the reasons Republicans are so focused on the pre-born is that they are necessary for the Republican party's tax revenue policy, er, pyramid scheme.
      • frontporsche, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1@kolinkoolface2

        I think you're listing reasons why the debt happened to grow while Bush was president (though the internet bubble was mostly on Clinton's watch). I think you missed a big one:

        war spending. (and no, the war in Iraq isn't a "sept 11" expense).
    • joeanon, on 07/19/2008, -4/+10Not only does today's gas cost over $4.00 in same places. Bush ain't done yet !!!

      And.

      Gas prices were as low as .65 cents during Clinton not just .89

    • linagee, on 07/19/2008, -9/+3Bush = $4.03+ gas!
    • MarkCiccone, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Seriously I wish it was at $4.00 it's over $4.30 in CT! I drove to All Good festival in West Virginia and found gas for
      $3.93 and thought it was low! I can't imagine $1.00 gasoline
      • bravo1995, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3It wasn't that long ago. I was filling up in NJ for $0.89 as recently as 1999. Some Wawa stores were selling gas for $0.68 a gallon.
    • HughesAP, on 07/19/2008, -6/+5Shouldn't we be happy about high gas prices? People drive less and we invent better forms of energy, what is not to like?
      • brettmurf, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5That the cars that get 4x gas mileage aren't really here yet, and that people can't afford the new cars when they come out anyhow.
      • durandal2005, on 07/19/2008, -0/+8Didn't Al Gore himself suggest something like this? That he wanted to artificially inflate the price of gas to $5.00 / gallon in order to force people to find alternate sources of energy? (I would look up a reference for this, but I'm too lazy at the moment)

        I'm all for alternative fuels, but we have to approach the technology with a shred of reason, not mindless rhetoric. We can't force people to change by artificially manipulating the market price of a basic commodity, that's a great way to ruin an economy (look at the state of the economy now).
    • SolitarySoviet, on 07/19/2008, -2/+14.39 here in Oregon for bottom of the line regular... 54.00 to fill my little 74 02's gas tank....poor bastards next town over had 4.45 for regular yesterday. there are so many cars for sale here its not even funny, people don't even bother to try and sell their diesels, and most suv's dont sell either.
      • pilot3033, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3$4.65 for regular in Los Angeles...at least.
      • wraptor347, on 07/19/2008, -0/+14.39 here in San Jose for the cheapest. Most places it's at least 4.50 or 4.60 for the regular unleaded.
    • homercles337, on 07/19/2008, -0/+5Hey! Why are you guys being so harsh? Bush/Cheney had NOTHING to do with this. Its supply/demand, er...its speculation, er...wait, its because we cant drill an ANWAR. Bush/Cheney have NO connections to oil! Why cant you idiots get this out of your head!?
      • michaelb1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+21) They did discourage, not fund alternative energies which would have increased competition for the oil industry thus hold steady or drive down prices.

        2) They started a war right on top of 25% of the worlds oil reserves. I guess nobody knew introducing that kind of chaos and instability would affect oil prices.

        3) They did nothing to encourage the rest of the world to get off oil (Kobe) thus bringing the price of oil down. As a matter of fact we are the poster child for "If you can do it, we can do it too" attitude of the developing world.

      • theonlywizdum, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0(psst. That was sarcasm)
    • skellener, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1ryantiet is right. We've been hovering right next to $5 since March here in L.A.
      • BevansDesign, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Jeez. Is there ANY reason to live in LA?
      • c1rcasurv1ve, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1We generally get paid more.
      • GliTCH82, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1They also generally get laid more.
    • michaelb1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Well if you look at the signs the cheaper one is self serve. That's always cheaper the full-service.


      • lodeswrath, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1huh? i don't know of ANY full service place in calif. i dont know where you live, but its a thing of the past here, bud
      • bravo1995, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1It's funny, NJ is the only state that's all full service, and they have some of the cheapest gas prices in the country. I never got that.
    • kolinkoolface2, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3maybe you guys shouldn't tax the ***** out of everything and you wouldn't have that problem. I hate when cali bitches about high taxes. MAYBE NOT GIVER EVERYTHING AWAY TO EVERYONE AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HIGH PRICES. jesus, this is not socialism, not everyone is entitled to something.
    • OtterStratton, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2$4.99 for 91? In Santa Barbara it's $4.99 for 89. Consider yourself "lucky."
    • blackcat24, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Gas in Chicago and other large cities is already over $5 for cheap gas.
  • bwjacket, on 07/18/2008, -25/+19There's seemingly a lot of campaigning going on at gas stations.
  • tehbeermang, on 07/18/2008, -65/+19Uh, REPOST. buried.
    • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -7/+29Sorry. Not everyone has seen everything on the internet like you have.
    • lhbaker, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Keep up the good work, tehbeermang.
  • topherdavis, on 07/18/2008, -24/+550http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Clinton_com ...

    MrBabyMan sure loves to repost things right after other people. This is what is wrong with digg :/
    • IllBeBack, on 07/18/2008, -69/+7Yeah, I guess MrBabyMan thought it was actually worth other people being able to see it, and that's why he submitted it.
      • topherdavis, on 07/19/2008, -2/+61Instead of digging and sharing the original?
      • mmijatov, on 07/19/2008, -1/+41Bingo my friend and you've just revealed what makes the Digg community largely ***** . . . A few popular contributors can simply come in and "clean house" so to speak.
      • driftwood07, on 07/19/2008, -3/+21'Instead of digging and sharing the original?'

        amen.
      • fajitamelt, on 07/19/2008, -10/+1@ driftwood07

        Perv.
    • m3mn0n, on 07/19/2008, -4/+63A human would have noticed that.

      This is just more evidence that suggests what many believe to be true:

      MrBabyMan is a cyborg-digg-submitting-drone.
      • Paulish, on 07/19/2008, -3/+27Or more than one person.
      • blackjack75, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Or a baby.
        Or a man.

        Worse, a mutant combining both states. pure evil.
      • sLydE, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1I believe the term is "Gargoyle" as coined by our Snow Crash forefathers.
    • masterm1nd, on 07/19/2008, -5/+14What's wrong with digg is the idiots just waiting to digg it again.
    • theandyj, on 07/19/2008, -10/+108Dugg the orginal, buried mrbabymans. Done and done.
      • Thefatheroftime, on 07/19/2008, -1/+17Agreed! And done.
      • Narrwald, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7Thirded. I've made this common practice in Upcoming, where it actually counts. You all should do the same.
      • ironiridis, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Yep, buried this one and dugg the other.
    • shondell, on 07/19/2008, -29/+7just stop bitching you *****.
    • redslash, on 07/19/2008, -19/+6You know what I love? You, topherdavis, are NOT the poster of the original article.
    • TheLastFreeMan, on 07/19/2008, -12/+382 things, first the comment, then the pic.

      Look, I've done my share of MBM-bashing but it's a fact that he brings more articles to other people's attentions. I might have completely missed this otherwise. I've read in that 1000+ diggs comment the other day about how he can just shout it up to revive it even after 24 hrs but honestly, who hasn't disabled shouts or ignore the 500 you get on a daily basis anyway?

      MBM takes a lot of his content from Reddit and other users, but so does MakiMaki, TalSiach, MSaleem, Badwithcomputer, optimusprime1, pizzler, overmind[random numbers] but no one bashes them, not to this magnitude.

      Everyone just likes to tear down #1 when really they're mad at the whole system. Same goes with this pic, why blame Bush when the economy is going down the crapper because his friends are raping America for all she's worth because of idiots voting him into office because no one wants to turn off American Idol, put down their iPhones and focus on ***** that matters.
      • poopmaster, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5you know ive been wanting to say the exact same thing. I just didnt know how to put it into words. very nice =]
      • Mononuclear, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9I bash all of them that post day old reddit crap and dupes.
      • cambob76, on 07/19/2008, -5/+6MrBabyMan? Is that you?
      • xptoast, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2Check it out... I didn't vote for the dumb bastard Bush. And I sure will not vote for another STD of a person either. ***** loser candidates.
      • thebiggoose, on 07/19/2008, -3/+0don't you dare blame the iPhones!
    • Mononuclear, on 07/19/2008, -4/+41Didn't MrBabyman says he was going to leave after someone posted that cartoon making fun of him?
    • leladax, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1Is he going to reply?
      • driftwood07, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4i dont know what his excuse would be for submitting something obviously already submitted.
    • JasonCox, on 07/19/2008, -14/+3Quit posting this anti-MrBabyMan crap. If you dont like his story then don't digg it.

      Personally, I dont give a crap who posts a story so you shouldnt either.
      • otros, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Could you tell me what t-shirt color are you wearing tomorrow, so I know what should I wear also?
    • chicofaraby, on 07/19/2008, -14/+6Who gives a ***** which submission goes the the front page? It's not like submitting pays.
    • Andyschism, on 07/19/2008, -7/+34Dear Mr. Babyman,

      This is twice within the same week you have done this. I am removing you from my list.
      I will never digg another submission by you. Please take some time out of your day and learn how to use digg. If you see a duplicate, do not submit your story, digg and share the other one you have enough clout on here that it will make the frontpage.

      Sincerely, Me.
    • HypocriteDigg, on 07/19/2008, -14/+3What's wrong with digg is that you diggiots care who submits a story. Who the F#@&% cares who submitted it? Goddamn nerds.
    • fr3ddie, on 07/19/2008, -11/+17LEAVE MR BABY MAN ALONE!!
      • andypop481, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1LEAVE SNEEZING PANDA ALONE!
      • ladon86, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3He lost his aunt, he went through a divorce, he had two ***** kids, his husband turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now he's going through a custody battle. All you people care about is readers and making money off of him. He's a human!

        What you don't realise is that MrBabyMan is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about him. He hasn't made an original submission in years. There's a reason his song is called gimme more, because all you people want is more more more more more!!! LEAVE HIM ALONE!
    • SolitarySoviet, on 07/19/2008, -2/+12what ever happened to babyman saying he was going to leave since people dont want him here? was that just to get ***** sympathy diggs too?

      go to reddit thief... your undermining the whole process here.
    • bexamous, on 07/19/2008, -9/+5Who gives a crap who posted it? Stop whining.
      • bloggerjul, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1insecure people... yep...

        i'll get dugg down BECAUSE I DON'T CARE WHO POST GOOD STUFF....
      • leladax, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0it's about democracy and fair bringing of articles to the front page.
    • Shiftgood, on 07/19/2008, -11/+3People that bash on Mr Babyman just want attention.

      burry me but its a fact.
    • parkermauney, on 07/19/2008, -3/+3Damn it's just a website.
    • TheMightyDane, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2I agree, Buried.
    • veganmegan23, on 07/19/2008, -6/+6i hate mr. babyman burried. screw him
  • Rotzooi, on 07/18/2008, -14/+24Clearly, the Self-Serve part of the upper sign is more appropriate for Bush/Cheney.
    • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -5/+4They've helped themselves, alright.
    • gramks2k, on 07/19/2008, -2/+0It might apply to the way people have to prepay either inside or with credit cards... just a thought.
  • masonexcell, on 07/19/2008, -56/+89This is stupid. If Gore was president the gas prices would still be the same. Remember in 2000 (before Clinton left office; also remeber all the talks he made with the saudis) when the price of gas started to sky rocket?
    • dasdef, on 07/19/2008, -9/+3sky rocket....

      god damn i hate that term
      • charm803, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6I want a sky rocket.
      • philberttheduck, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10(s) in flight. AFTERNOON DELIGHT

        PEAWWWWWW.. WHOOOOOOOOOOOP
      • unreg, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Aaaaaaaafternoon delight
    • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -2/+23Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”

      Heck of a job, Georgie.
      • slayerab, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4Wait wait, aren't there some people who commend Gore for his environmental activism today, and aren't those the same people who say high gas prices are good because they save the environment?
    • Canadian0207, on 07/19/2008, -4/+11exactly. prices were rising already during clinton's term.
      • Whackly, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4wait... was that the point? ***** i missed it.
    • biotch, on 07/19/2008, -6/+31Actually if Gore were president, oil could be whatever price it wanted to be and we wouldnt give a crap cuz we'd of used the trillion dollars blown in Iraq to stimulate running on renewable energy.
      • nocash23, on 07/19/2008, -12/+1hahahaha! what a joke.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -6/+4The trillions of dollars? or your level of intelligence?
      • nocash23, on 07/19/2008, -9/+1no... the delusion that Gore is some kind of environmental guru. nice attempt at critical thinking though. keep it up and one day you'll be able to have your very own opinion, just like a real person... in the mean time you may want to lay off the kool-aid.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7Too bad it's not the US government's place to invest a trillion dollars in energy development.
      • toxicshok, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1OR we could have just not spent the money
      • biotch, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1dexter,
        I never said it was the governments place to invest in energy development. But it sure would have been better to invest it into renewable energy rather than into Iraq. The government for instance "invested" in the internet infrastructure through the 90s and that turned out pretty nicely for us. The government does routinely offer incentives and bailouts for business in various circumstances. Incentives have been shown to very effectively spur development of fledgling industries. In the case of renewable energy, Id be all for it. Bailouts, although sometimes hard to swallow, are all that kept our airline industry afloat for instance after 9/11. So it is sometimes in our best interest for gov. to make that call. In the case of our banking industry, .... well Im not so sure what would have happened had the fed not stepped in but at first glance I didnt consider those bailouts very fair. Again, however, in the case of renewable energy, considering our oil dependence, and who it funds, and how that directly effects our national security, I think it would be a tactful and economically prudent expenditure.

        yeah toxic... not spending the money would have been far better too but unfortunately our president saw our surplus as a kid sees a cookie jar. He just couldnt resist reaching in and eating it all up.

        thirteenthcor,
        Seriously? If you're going to attack someone's intelligence, perhaps try not misquoting and then arguing with irrelevance. I said he'd spend the "trillion" dollars (not "trillion(s)" ) which according to Nobel Prizewinning economist Joseph Stiglitz, is quite lenient. He declared in 2006 the tab was between $1 and $2 trillion when you add rehabilitation for injured vets, replacement of military hardware, and the value of things we could have produced (but didn't) with that money over the years.
        So then you ask if it was either the misquoted "trillions" or my intelligence.... what, like he would spend my intelligence? That doesnt even make sense.
        source:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.ir ...
    • thefangedrabbit, on 07/19/2008, -2/+9What people fail to realize is that high gas prices are, in the long run, good for the country. Although as individuals it is annoying and expensive, ad a whole it can change a lot. People will start purchasing more fuel efficient cars. They will lean towards companies that are doing something to reduce energy costs. Without government intervention, big corporations will begin doing more research into alternate energy.

      The country doesn't just need a quick fix to lower energy prices, it needs an overhaul of its entire model of energy consumption. If our demand wasn't so high, the price would drop.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5 it's people W I T H T H E F U N D S to do so, which purchase new, more efficient cars and trucks. IF your like me (and over 40% of the economy is) you don't have the financial freedom to make those kind of life-changing choices right now.... perhaps I could put the money spent paying the 3.50 dollar difference per gallon into a savings account so i could actually save money to get a more fuel efficient car, instead of losing all my income to expenses, and fuel costs...

        I understand I need something more efficient, now give me a chance, and drop the prices.

        I'm all for renewable energy and greener resources.... but hell if I can afford it. And current fuel costs arent going to make that any more attainable.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -6/+3So get a better job. America isn't built on, "***** is expensive! I'm helpless!" It's historically been a matter of, "I can't afford this... I'm gonna work until I can."

        Also, stop blaming successful people for your inability to make money.
      • toxicshok, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2@dexter411: its just that easy. Get a better job, that all it takes. No new skills are needed, all it takes it what? Will power?
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Oh, new skills are a must. A better job generally requires that, but I thought that was implied. Apparently not for some...
      • thefangedrabbit, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1@ thirteenthcor -

        How hard is it to just buy a small car instead of a large car? I'm not talking about buying a hybrid or an electric car. People just need to start buying small sedans instead of trucks and SUVs they'll just use to drive to the grocery store and Grandma's house with. If you're actually going to use an SUV for off-roading, go for it. If not, buy a small sedan, it's cheaper and more efficient.
      • biotch, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1dexter,
        You can say that but there will still always be a 40% of the public who is poorer than the upper 60%. The issue is whether that 40% can afford to invest in newer more economically viable developments. We want an economy that allows poorer people to still make that choice. Right now its virtually impossible for people even with decently paying jobs to change their lifestyles because everything is hitting people at once. Mortgage problems, high food costs, high oil costs, higher than normal inflation, stagnant income levels, and poor production growth.
      • dexter411, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1The economy is not "fixed" with government intervention; even FDR showed us that.

        People can absolutely change their lifestyles because all the problems you list are ones that can be combated with some smart thinking ahead of time. Mortgage problems? 95% of the country is in good standing with their lenders. High food and gas costs can be mitigated with smarter shopping and use of cars and public transportation. No one said it was easy to better yourself, but America is among the only countries where nothing is actively stopping you from doing it.
    • joeanon, on 07/19/2008, -6/+15Gore would certainly have embraced renewable energy... and perhaps even carbon taxes.

      Gas prices MIGHT be hirer, but if they were it would most likely be because you were paying more taxes on gas to fund a transition to renewable energy. Clearly the automotive market is going to high efficiency diesel and electric. All Bush's efforts cannot stop that. Dumb citizens are all about low cost per unit prices without any grasp on the idea that we are sending billions overseas to oil producing nations and billions more in cheap foreign goods. We must send at least 500 billion a year out... to 'save' money with foreign labor.

      Most of the Gas prices raise is from the dollar's fall not energy policy or the war.

      Most people are going to blame Bush for this. The economy was weakening by the end of Clinton's term, but .. go look at the Dow average for yourself. Clinton administration marks the longest period of economic expansion in US history.

      No only did he generate a surplus, but the Dow was going up faster than it EVER HAS BEFORE, welfare was down, family income up, unemployment was MUCH lower than the Reagan years.

      Bush inherited an economy booming far beyond that of Reagan or Bush SR, but also a economy that was ready to stabilize after this extended boom.

      In 2000 the GOP and it's supporters, mass media, and real estate companies ALL denied the housing bubble. They could not accept the reality that we needed higher interest rates.

      In turn after 911, they over exaggerated the economic impact oh one terroroist attack and rode it out as far as possible. They cut interest rates down FAR LOWER than required.

      So, what happens when you cut interest rates to very low levels on the heels of a natural housing decline ?

      Well... for starters.. you cause massive inflation in American's largest investment... their homes and real estate.

      You can't cut interest rates to artificially stimulate the economy while it's in natural decline and not expect the result to be inflation.

      Instead of deal with the fact that the economy doesn't ALWAYS grow are Clinton level... Bush tried to 'STIMULATE' with tax cuts, interest rate cuts and WAR WAR WAR.

      Well... how is that working for you ?

      Family income was UP under Clinton.

      Now.. income among high school drop outs it's UP and family income is back down while energy and transport prices drive up the cost of EVERYTHING that uses energy and transport... which is ... everything.

      Prices were not rising to any significant degree under Clinton.

      The low gas prices were mostly a result of an OPEC surplus.

      China has been manipulating our currency also by buying it up.

      Then Bush runs the country into the ground, borrowing 5 trillion dollars and acts like a jackass on a global level while the wealthy, religious organization, politicians and the media conspire to attack science in schools, attack evolution (which is globally accepted), attack Islam, attack privacy rights, attack CRUEL AND UNUSUAL punishment and so on and so forth.

      The result MUST be the devaluation of American currency. On one page, we are convincing lenders we are a smart investment, one the other hand we have no balanced budget and allow ourselves to borrow and spend endlessly. On another page, we are a global embarrassment pushing torture and spying from the 'Land of the Free'. Torturing prisoners of war, lying to the public to start the war, fear mongering with biological and nuclear weapon threats. We have destroy our global image of fiscal and moral success. The result is we are a great investment risk and therefore our currency is worth less.

      The result of currency devaluation is a spike in foreign goods.

      GUESS WHERE OIL COMES FROM !!!

      Not Texas anymore good ol boys.

      Bring this entire argument down to Clinton VS Bush and oil prices just show HOW the American public got itself here in the first place.

      Sensational journalism, sensational voting trends, sensational grassroots testimonies, sensational ***** from every corner of America.

      This article and most of these responses CLEARLY show most of you HAVE NO CLUE why gas prices are high.

      If you think it's as simple as a President waiving his hand or creating a policy... you have no clue how things work.

      The ENTIRE nation is representative of it's currency, not just Bush, but every corporation and individual in America.

      We are showing the globe we are stupid and don't have the capacity to manage out nation, hold our leaders accountable or spend out money wisely.

      This is a time of great opportunity for the EU and other up and coming nations to break the binding super power of America.

      Bush, the GOP and it's supporters have all but handed our status of the premier super power over to foreign powers through borrowing money that he simple cannot pay back.

      This is a fundamental flaw in American fiscal understanding. It's not merely energy or medical costs, but the root is sheer fiscal incompetence.

      You simply can't lose money every year and keep the crown of worlds most powerful economy.





      • RegalGSX, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6Excuse me, but could you repeat that?
      • TomRemixed, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1Sorry tl;dr
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3The current economic issues at hand are multi-faceted, which produce a synergistic effect that we would have been able to handle much better if they weren't so grouped.

        -The Falling Dollar (Bushco and Imperialistic Dogma are to blame. Remember What happened to Imperial Britain)
        -The Middle East
        -Imperialistic Dogma (Tied with Middle East; Blame Theodore Roosevelt)
        -Bushco's bungling of the Economy
        -Deficit Spending (Tied with Bushco)
        -Corporate Subsidies (Limiting the Benefit of a Free Market Economy)
        -Our Initial National Resistance to Alternative Fuel Sources.
        -Continuing Issues with Bi-partisanship affecting important national issues (Gotten Worse than It has always been)

        Any Two/Three of these we probably could have handled, Grouped all together, I'm lucky to see the damage caused by these things repaired in my lifetime.

        Home of the "Free", Land of the Shamed.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2You convenient forget a lot of history. For example, while you blame the GOP for being for lower interest rates (which I'm against because of the inflation that always results), it was the Dems over the last five years pushing for the Fed. to lower rates so that "Americans can buy their own American dream." You'll notice how quiet Obama has been about interest rates specifically because it's hard to simultaneously pander to poor people who can't afford that two-story home while also facing reality.
      • Naieve, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4Google Clinton, Budget, and Social Security Administration.

        I can balance a budget too if i borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from the SSA.

        Smoke and mirrors.

        And fyi, neither the Republicans or Democrats control interest rates.
      • biotch, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1fyi naieve,
        I did that and I got this:
        http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c ...

        Explaining the budget was balanced whether you count SS or not.... take your own advice next time.

        Also,
        The president appoints and works with the fed... so yes in fact they are very influential towards interest rates.
        Clinton worked very closely with Greenspan which prompted Greenspan to call CLinton "the best Republican president we've had in a while." ....after he had worked with Bush.

        http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clinton ...
    • duckley, on 07/19/2008, -6/+3WRONG.

      Bush has horrifically weakened the dollar...

      Clinton leaves $5 TRILLION budget SURPLUS.

      Bush leaves $4 TRILLION budget DEFICIT.

      Bush spent $9 TRILLION MORE THAN YOUR TAXES !

      Where did it go? Guess.
      • Farnn, on 07/19/2008, -5/+12Listen *****-for-brains, there is a difference between a deficit and a debt which you seem unable to grasp. Your numbers also seem to be off by about a factor of 10. When leaving office, the budget surplus under Clinton (the amount of taxes taken in that year that weren't being spent) was in the $300 billion range, however we still had a debt, and it was in the $3 trillion range. Today, the budget has a deficit in the $300 billion range, and the debt is around $9 trillion. That is still a considerable amount of money, however when your numbers are off by orders of magnitude and you appear unable to differentiate between two words with significantly different meanings, your argument falls apart.

        I won't even go into how the surplus was the result of Republicans in congress controlling the budget under Clinton, and how under Bush the Republicans fiscal control seems to have disappeared.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3I Think you could have handled that better... The point still does stand though.... Bush is the worst thing that has happened to our country in decades. At least since his father.

        Though your credibility helps to re-affirm it because you back it up with relevant knowledge.
      • p0s3r, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Don't forget all those nifty accounting tricks Congress loves to do. I guarantee you Congress spends every single penny they rob from us then go borrow more. No matter what they print or publish.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -4/+4Not only are you off by a factor of ten, you also don't know the difference between a real budget surplus and a projected one. Oh, and look up the national debt under the Clinton years and then keep trying to convince yourself that Clinton balanced anything. He just moved the debt from one place to another to convince dumbasses like you that his administration wasn't the failure that it was.
      • Farnn, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Sorry for attacking and insulting you, but I saw you post those incredibly wrong figures twice and it pissed me off. I still think you are wrong, but I was wrong to personally attack you.
      • biotch, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Farnn,
        Keep dreaming!
        The budget plan Clinton passed that balanced the budget was passed without a single vote from republicans. The same budget plan was in place throughout the entirety of republican rule in congress during Clinton's terms. All the republicans did was stonewall Clinton from making more moves. They were not able to change the Clinton budget plan though they would certainly of loved to do it.

        Sources:
        Senate vote:
        http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/103/se ...
        House vote:
        http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/103/ho ...
      • biotch, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Dexter ... here you can look at the change in debt for yourself..
        http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg

        And if you think it all came from social security, surprise, you have been lied to by the right. Clinton's budget was balanced whether you count Social Security or not.

        http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_c ...
    • cplusplus, on 07/19/2008, -3/+7No Gore would not have invaded Iraq. He would have improved CAFE standards. He would have encouraged
      alternate energy.
      • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -4/+4"No Gore would not have invaded Iraq" - double negative

        so he would?
      • ironiridis, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Man. "*****" ... you're really selling your side of the aisle. Act like a pedantic nitpicky ass and win all your arguments, right?
    • thenome, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4The prices in those pictures are not accurate. The Clinton prices must be from Indiana and the Bush prices from California. The gas is a dollar cheeper in my town than it is in the picture in this post.
    • hamobu, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Gore himself would have probably gone to Iraq as well. Both Busg and Gore were steadfast supporters of Israel. I remember at one debate between two of them, both of them pledged aliegance to Israel on national TV.
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3prices would be ALMOST the same. They would maybe be $3 instead of $4. The only thing that Bush did to increase oil prices was causing tension in the Middle East, which is only one part of the oil price increase.
  • DJNodi, on 07/19/2008, -17/+6How did they get them to pose next to the gas signs I wonder?
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Photoshop, obviously. However, somehow that doesn't make it not real in this case.
    • Zappaman112, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Hey senatorpjt, it was a joke, do you understand HUMOR?
  • WhiteRaven, on 07/19/2008, -45/+199What is sad is that there are people that think the presidency has *****-all to do with the price of anything.
    • RedHeadedFreak, on 07/19/2008, -25/+141Welcome to digg.com. Bush is responsible for everything.
      • shondell, on 07/19/2008, -6/+18wow I'm surprised you aren't getting buried.
      • flashback99, on 07/19/2008, -6/+1Two mutually exclusive sentences.
      • S4MF1SHER, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8And according to Diggers, Ron Paul is the cure for everything.
      • UltimatrixmaN, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2If that was the case this site wouldn't be spammed with Probama crap and McBush propaganda. This whole site is an advertisement for Obama. Not that I dislike the guy or anything, he's the much better choice than Bush.

        I'll be throwing my vote away for Ron Paul, rather than the Fascist or the Socialist.
      • silverbemr, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3I'm not a huge fan of bush either. The thing is that most people on digg are pretty uniformed and misinformed on reality. They blame bush for speculators, bush for raising the price of gas, and bush for nearly everything. They say the economy is bad, blame bush. They don't know though that in the last 4 or 5 years the GDP hasn't had one negative month. Hence NO RECESSION. That for like 49 months job growth increased. They are like OMG jobless rate has gone up to 6 %, so what! It's been between 3 and 7 since Carter was kicked out of office. Bush is the reason for the housing crisis. Not the banks who lent money to people they shouldn't have, not congress for forcing the banks to, not for the FED for artificially lowering interest rates to entice the banks to make the loans, no no no it's Bush. When Clinton ran for president I was a kid, there was a short recession when the first Bush was in office, only 2 quarters of negative GDP, and Clinton said two years after that recession that we were in bad shape. Look at the facts people, educate yourselves, and put the blame where it is deserved. If we keep blaming it on presidents who can do but so much then members of congress and the senate will continue to be re elected. Bush has an approval rate in the twenties, Legislative Branch???? 9 percent!
      • danomagnum, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Plus, China and India have been industrializing in the last 10 years, and using more of the gas we used to be the only ones using.
      • rossnyc, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Bush started the war with Iraq. Sure he had to have congressional support but it was his idea, his war.

        The whole economy is ***** because of the Iraq war. Put the two together and you will start to see why people are so pissed at Bush.
    • Halsfield, on 07/19/2008, -23/+5what is sad is that people dont think the president of the united states affects things on a large scale.
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/19/2008, -6/+11Explain what either of these two presidents did to influence gas prices in either direction.
      • Halsfield, on 07/19/2008, -2/+10did you say this president? or did you say presidency in general? if you dont think declaring and following through with a war on a major oil producing nation like saudi arabia or one of its allies wouldnt make a difference in gas prices , i dont know what would. While we attacked iraq , an oil producing nation, we gave the oil right back to them and gas is now rising sharply in price.

        The president can also release the emergency reserves of oil, lowering (temporarily) the price of gas.

        Is the president the only factor in the price of gas ? no, but if you dont think foreign policy and the actions of the head of the executive branch of one of the most powerful nations in the world affects prices worldwide, you arent thinking straight.

        Another scenario: president declares war, signs bill to requistion massive amounts of steel, what do you think that would do to the price of things made out of steel for civilians?

      • jerichobp, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Right, cause it's not like Congress had any way to stop the war from starting. It's too bad we don't have any checks on the Executive branch, so he can't just do whatever he wants. You think the founding fathers would've written that down somewhere.

        Post Sarcasm: ITS ALL A COLLUSION. They're ALL making money (or their "friends" are). Bush is just the lackey we blame. It's easier to give one person all the blame then to split it 545 (1 + 100 + 435 + 9) ways (take away a Ron Paul every now and then).
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 07/19/2008, -12/+5"Welcome to digg.com. Bush is responsible for everything."

      co-sign
      • avenu420, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1baa baa bush sheep
      • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1@avenu420: lol. I have just realized that people who use the words "sheep" or "sheeple" are not to be taken seriously.
      • libertao, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Next time just hit the green thumbs up button.
    • Alphabet, on 07/19/2008, -16/+35wtf? One of the main reasons why gas prices are high is because we invaded iraq.

      If I was president, I can increase the price of oil easily. Just attack Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia and voila, ***** expensive gas.
      • siamesedream, on 07/19/2008, -18/+11Please study economics ASAP.

        That goes not only to you, but the vast majority of the digg crowd. Let's hope you all aren't representative of the general population.
      • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -6/+4@siamesedream: Don't worry, most people don't have their heads THIS far up their asses.
      • Risingashes, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7As an economics student I'm curious as to what exactly you think is wrong with the statement that attacks or threats against oil producing nations have a dramatic effect on the price of oil?

        Presidents and lawmakers can do nothing to lower the price of a product (without effectively cutting off availability or destroy their economy), but they certainly can increase it's price. With the massive amount of speculation and the cartel behavior regarding the supply of oil it is one of the most vulnerable commodities in terms of possibility for Presidential tampering.
      • Infidelcastr0, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Maybe YOU should study economics genius.
        Perhaps some proper regulation, not running up inflation, pursuit of alternatives and.... not attacking and threatening the suppliers might help.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -2/+2What's great is that when we went in to war, nearly everyone wanted to share credit for stopping a country developing WMDs.

        Sad how un-American everyone has become in the quest to pin the blame on one guy once they realized the political cost of being wrong.
      • Alphabet, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1@siamesedream and @sonnybobiche

        I have studied economics, so maybe the two of you should stfu. Maybe you two should study it because obviously you two don't know what you're talking about.

        If you decrease the supply while demand stays the same or increases, then the price increases. Hence, attacking kuwait, iran, and saudi arabia will increase the price of oil.

        Why do you think the price of oil increased when Nigerian terrorists attacked the pipelines? Or when Katrina damaged the oil rigs in the gulf?
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2You've studied economics, Alphabet? Where?
      • diggrnumber1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2that's right. it is ONE of the reasons, but it is not the only one. The main ones are growth in demand worldwide and the devaluation of the dollar caused by the subprime crisis.
      • TimeMachine1992, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0and china (they build the oil drums we put the gas in)
      • Alphabet, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1@dexter
        at University of California Riverside

        @diggrnumber1
        yea, that's why I said one of the reasons. I'd also make the point that the war is one of the causes for the devaluation of the dollar.

        It's easy to ***** things up but difficult to fix it.
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Alphabet,

        Under what logic do you think that the invasion of Iraq has risen oil prices? What evidence do you have? Alow me to remind you that under pre-invasion Saddam, Iraq was under and embargo and was contributing very little oil to the world market. Even were it's entire output simply lost, it would not impact the world supply enough to move the price more than a couple dollars.
    • ZenMojo, on 07/19/2008, -11/+64Because lowering the value of the dollar by running up 3 trillion extra dollars in debt and destabilizing an oil rich country after creating heads of executive agencies that give loopholes to energy speculators has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil on the market. That's just something that happens.

      Natch.
      • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -7/+1Buried because I know that you're a self-important sixteen year old boy.
      • hobbitaussie, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Doesn't Congress control the purse strings? That means Congress ran up the 3 trillion extra dollars.
      • diggrnumber1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2the dollar went down because of the subprime crisis - not because of the national debt.
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1First of all, national debt and the value of the dollar are completely independent issues. One has no meaningful influence on the other. Our currency is NOT based on the financial condition of the government.

        Secondly, the rise in the price of oil is many times greater than inflation. It simply doesn't fit the facts to say much of the increase is related to the value of any curancy.
    • kindpastor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4Agreed, blaming bush for the gas prices takes away Ire from the patriot act, fisa, and other issues that will STILL BE A PROBLEM even after Bush is gone.
    • duckley, on 07/19/2008, -7/+4What is sad is that YOU are ignorant !

      Bush has horrifically weakened the dollar, and thus RAISED the number of dollars needed to buy foreign oil.

      Clinton leaves $5 TRILLION budget SURPLUS.

      Bush leaves $4 TRILLION budget DEFICIT.

      Bush spent $9 TRILLION MORE THAN YOUR TAXES !

      Where did it go? Guess.
      • hobbitaussie, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4Congress has the purse strings. Congress spent $9 trillion. Bush has a lot of blame here, but Congress has far more.

        And has anyone noticed that while gas prices were bad during the Republican Congress, they SKYROCKETED when the Democrats took over?
      • JoeVet, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1The biggest budget buster has been Bush's crusades which he has refused to add to the budget that he submits to congress. The congress has been under GOP control and all the Republican congressmen have been lining up for that Texas teabag. It is unfortunate that the Democrats do not have the votes necessary to force the GOP to act responsibly.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2How many more times are you gonna post this inaccurate economic assessment? Clinton PROJECTED a budget surplus 20 years into the future, and if you look at the national debt that GREW during these "surplus" years, you'll quickly realize that fancy bookkeeping, not reality, "balanced the budget."

        Dumbass...
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1duckley,

        Your belief that the value of the dollar is tied to the nation's budget is little more than a superstition. One has nothing to do with the other. It is NOT the nation's coffers that "back" the dollar. And money is only "printed" when there is a demand, that demand demonstrated by the willingness of borrows to pay interest on it.

        The US dollar is backed be the existence of real assets in need of representation. It is backed by the wealth of the *people* of the nation, not the government. And even when the government goes into debt, it is spending that money on actual goods and services that exist. Therefore, the currency is backed in full by the real status of the economy. In relation to the value of the currency, it doesn't matter if the government is in debt, in only matters that there are goods and services to be purchased. The existence of those assets fully justify the "printing" of the money.

        One can certainly question the wisdom of large debt but it is not an issue that has any logical bearing on the value of the dollar.

        @JoeVet,

        Well, given the number of Dems that have been voting for the war funding, your argument doesn't hold water. The Dems are in control. Fortunately, many of them have enough honor and good sense to realize that continuing the work in Iraq is the right thing to do. It is worth the expense.
    • JoeVet, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5Let's see....two oilmen in the white house and oil companies have record profits while gas hits record highs. Yes you're right, just coincidence.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Record profits? Hardly.

        $17 billion in profit for Exxon seems like a lot until you realize that 1) inflation makes $17 billion in line with years past and 2) They are spending over $22 billion this year in new exploration and development. In fact, their profit margins are still at 7% (industry average over the last 20 years).

        Read a book or two before thinking it's as simple as what you read on the Huffington Post.
      • Zappaman112, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1Hey Dexter, I think YOU should read a book, or perhaps Exxon's annual profit reports. I don't feel like finding 2007's profit report, but in 2006, Exxon set an all time record for the largest profit (PROFIT not revenue like what you think profit is) an american company received, with $39.5 billion. Like I said, I'm not sure about 2007's profits but I was pretty positive they were close to $60 Billion. So, try brushing up on your facts before you think someone else is in the wrong. And just to let you know, spending money on oil exploration and development comes out of a company's budget, not their filthy rich executives' pockets.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1Sorry, dear, I meant to write Chevron. I'm not familiar with Exxon.

        Way to go with class jealousy, though. Yes, those filthy evil rich people who keep clean noble poor people like you down. What do you care what they make? More importantly, though, what do you propose is done to stop CEOs from making money?
      • Zappaman112, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1Have fair laws that don't let the taxpayers have to pay a ***** ton for gasoline when they don't need to. Why would you stand up for people whose only duty in life is to get rich and they'll stomp on anyone that gets in their way? Those people don't even pay taxes. I cannot believe you would act like there is nothing we can do to stop them, have you ever heard of boycotting products, or are you too caught up with being a prick to think of solutions to world problems?
      • WhiteRaven, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1JoeVet,

        Do you have any actual evidence that it's NOT a coincidence? What actions has Bush taken to rais the price of oil?

        By the way, let me remind you that pre-invasion Iraq was under embargo and was contributing little to the world supply of oil. Even the worse-case scenario of the invasion... the loss of ALL Iraq production... would have only had a long term effect on the price of oil of a few dollars. And that worse-case scenario did not come to pass.

        There is no logical way that ANY of Bush's actions could have risen oil prices.
      • Zappaman112, on 07/20/2008, -1/+180% of the rise of the price of oil has to do with inflation of the US dollar. So, it wasn't totally our current administration's fault in the way you guys are looking at it, but it is our administration's fault for ruining the American dollar and making gas prices go up in America.
      • jerichobp, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Actually, Oil Companies do a better job of hiding their wealth than most others. All of those tax free "charitable organizations" are like a completely tax free banking system. So really, those numbers are probably highly depressed.
    • tehsilentcircus, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I wont necessarily argue your point but I would like to see you explain how this would have happened under anyone else, especially Gore (since the election in 2000 was pretty much stolen from him and he more thank likely would have had a second term).

      Bush may not be the whole reason, but seeing how things have gone in these past 8 years it's hard to believe he had almost nothing to with it.

      I would like to add that if you refuse to do this and don't attempt to back yourself up, you are no better than the "uniformed" people you graciously criticize around here. I like to think the people going around saying everyone is wrong would take pride in doing their part in correcting others and informing them with the facts.
    • hamobu, on 07/19/2008, -4/+1US president is responsible for economy, price of gas, stock market, etc. Pretty soon president will be responsible for sports scores, schedules for TV programs, boy scouts, girl scouts, etc.
      • Halsfield, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1yea, the president of the united states is just a mascot, he doesnt have any real power.

        are you high?
      • hamobu, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1I am not hight, I just paid some attention in the high school Civics. President has certain powers and duties. Managing price of gas, and stock market are not listed in constitution.
  • Lavarock, on 07/19/2008, -16/+381My mother was alive during the Clinton Administration, and now she's dead. What the ***** Bush/Cheney?
    • robdazomba, on 07/19/2008, -37/+4Are you saying your mother's death caused the gas prices to go up?
    • GorfTron, on 07/19/2008, -47/+10Did she work in the WTC?
    • ledguitar, on 07/19/2008, -41/+4I'm not sure if what you said was true... but if it is, then that's a sick joke. Don't be proud of that.
    • shondell, on 07/19/2008, -49/+2Are you being sarcastic? I really can't tell if you are actually blaming the current Presidency for you're mother's death. I suggest you look at RedHeadedFreak's reply to WhiteRaven above you.
    • inobla, on 07/19/2008, -3/+104You guys need better sarcasm detectors.
    • pintomp3, on 07/19/2008, -16/+2was she sent to iraq by bush/cheney?
    • imnojezus, on 07/19/2008, -4/+11Well played, Lava.
    • tatinthehat, on 07/19/2008, -1/+18Somehow the lack of sarcasm comprehension doesn't really surprise me anymore on digg.
      • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -4/+3how about any comprehension at all? If it has Obama's name on it, it gets dugg. "Obama releases his I-tunes play list"(which was clearly looked over by his advisers to make sure he got every genre to appeal to everyone). Seriously?!
      • ironiridis, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1Man, I-love I-tunes. I-use i-t every day.
    • chicofaraby, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6Yeah, it's not like Bush started that war in the world's oil producing region. How could he have known that a war would cause uncertainty that would drive prices through the roof? After all, what else could he do after Iraq used WMD against the WTC?
      • jerbaker, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Lava's got a point. It's not like our government was hijacked by oilmen who started a war in the world's main oil producing region. And it certainly isn't like they benefit from higher oil prices. Next, all you crazy liberals are going to claim that this President's lifting of the ban on offshore drilling is really a clever attempt to use public opinion about high gas prices to give his oil buddies the green light to make even more billions by selling out even more of America's public lands. You'd all be a bunch of crazy liberals to believe any of that.

        If they really believe that offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR will reduce prices, let's put a provision on the bill that adds a 100% tax on each dollar a barrel of oil costs over the price when the bill was passed. That way, if the price goes up, they can't make additional money. What is also needed is a repeal clause, that states if after X years of offshore drilling the price doesn't go down, the act is automatically repealed and the drilling rigs must be dismantled.
      • aklu, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2HOLY ***** TANGENT, BATMAN!
    • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Must have bought it on her 4th tour in iraq... poor old lady.
    • lhbaker, on 07/19/2008, -5/+1Did she hang herself in a garden shed?
    • cowholio4, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1lol
  • allstarcac, on 07/19/2008, -10/+46its kinda vague to say that the gas prices are souly dependent on who is in office. theres a lot of other factors around the world that we have no affect on that change the price of oil
    • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -7/+12like the fact Bush has put this country on the brink of economic collapse by spending hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on wars. you would think that by tapping into iraqs massive oil reserves it would lower gas prices. somethings not right.
    • pensel, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2Everything is right on schedule. Our oil firms will secure the deal on time.

      Enjoy.
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Maybe, who knows. They still won't say a word about what went on in those Energy Task Force meetings.
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1What are you talking about? The ever growing middle class in China and India is purely BECAUSE of Bush and the military industrial oil complex elite corporate masters.
      When Clinton was pres (the good ol' days) our puny population consumed 50% of the worlds resources. That's the way it should be. How dare other people use oil.
      Anyways, in the meantime, we shouldn't allow increased oil extraction in our country (increase supply won't decrease prices) but we should sue OPEC for not increasing supply, wait.. oops
      • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3"increase supply won't decrease prices"

        one question: Are you retarded?
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8Oh God. Souly. I thought after they invented the spell-checker, I would be able to die happy.
      The word is SOLELY.
      • ScottMitchell, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2They're is no need to be so uppity. To much complaining looses the affect of you're argument.
      • zooplibob, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1You mean "loses."
    • zooplibob, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2In addition, GORE is the one who wrote in his book that he wants gas prices to be high. He and the other environmentalists are LOVING this, because it cuts consumption and CO2 emissions. If Gore had his way, the prices would actually be higher.
    • crapmatic, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1"souly"? ha ha!
  • skamper, on 07/19/2008, -13/+5Clinton banged a hot chick (not Hillary)
  • wtbuser, on 07/19/2008, -20/+116This is the dumbest comparison I've ever seen. Regardless of Bush, the Federal Reserve would still have inflated the currency, we still wouldn't be drilling in ANWR or offshore, and international demand would have increased.
    • UnbiasedDigger, on 07/19/2008, -4/+22thank you. at least someone in here has some brains.
    • imbob, on 07/19/2008, -7/+5what are you talking about?? clearly! the bush administration made gas prices go up!

      silly logical person

      /sarcasm
      /dance
    • saggyb, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Obviously Bush isn't responsible for oil prices, but many of the things his administration has done certainly haven't helped, and has probably made the situation worse than it is. The weakened u.s. dollar thanks to ridiculous fiscal policies is probably the best example of this.
      • twomeyw23334, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Obviously Clinton isn't responsible for oil prices, but many of the things his administration has done certainly haven't helped, and has probably made the situation worse than it is. The anti-drilling in the U.S stance, the ultimate real estate collapse due to the administrations ridiculous HUD program (that subsidized the sub-prime lending industry) and helped lead to the current collapse of the u.s. dollar are probably some of the best example of this (noticed how I gave actual examples). And lets not forget about the mandated ethonal use, which in addition to doing nothing to help our energy needs or help slow global warming at all, have increased the price food as well!
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2However, we might have an alternative to gasoline-powered cars.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Yes, because who's in office has any effect on private R&D.
    • pintomp3, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2but we might not have started more wars than we can handle. and anwr drilling wouldn't have effected the price for at least 5 more years. and only by 3 pennies anyway.
    • duckley, on 07/19/2008, -7/+2Bush has horrifically weakened the dollar...

      Clinton leaves $5 TRILLION budget SURPLUS.

      Bush leaves $4 TRILLION budget DEFICIT.

      Bush spent $9 TRILLION MORE THAN YOUR TAXES !

      Where did it go? Guess.
    • sethorama99, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Gasoline was $0.18/gal. in Calvin Coolidge's day. He's a hero!
    • kmiller7, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1While it isn't totally the President's fault, his faulty-at-best diplomacy skills certainly aren't helping to convince those with oil to drill more.

      And btw, drilling in ANWAR would solve nothing.
  • MasterTroll, on 07/19/2008, -6/+15789 cents... fap fap fap fap...
  • phyx726, on 07/19/2008, -1/+54Ooo, its the dollar menu.
  • Obzerva, on 07/19/2008, -8/+17I realize that the ***** that's going down in the middle east is partly responsible for high gas prices, but don't forget inflation, which isn't really something any president can control with much success.
    • xNarrowSoulx, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5Gold standard?
    • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -8/+5Are you kidding me! Bush controls it along with his NWO cronies... plotting, stealing, scheming, for total world domination. You seroiusly think Bush is not complicit to all that is happening? It's all part of their MASTER plan they are putting together. Don't be so naive!
    • xmodem2, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7You do realise that its the other way round, right? That inflation is high because gas prices are high, and also because gas is involved in the production and distribution of, well, almost everything.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Really? I thought it has to do with these ridiculously low interest rates that were lobbied by Democrats trying to help poor people buy expensive houses.
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6What? The president appoints the chairman of the Fed. He controls it as much as anyone.
      • biotch, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2senatorpjt you are the only other person Ive ever seen on digg who seems to know that.
      • lajaw, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3So the failing of the Supreme Court to uphold Eminent domain can be blamed on Clinton because he appointed Ginsberg who was an ACLU lawyer?
      • biotch, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Well lajaw,
        He has some part in it. However the President has a much more influential role in how the fed runs. Once a judge is appointed to the supreme court, its for life. Also one judge only holds 1/7th of a vote on any particular subject. The fed is not a life long appointment and also resides within the same branch. The judicial branch is a separate equal part of our government and our President has much less of a role once someone is appointed. Clinton was known through the 90s as working very closely with Greenspan through many of his major fiscal decisions. Greenspan later called Clinton, "the best Republican president we've had in a while." Note that he said that in 2007 after working under Bush as well.
        So in short, yes he can be blamed, but not nearly as much as a President can be blamed for the Fed's actions ... or inaction.
    • slyzxx, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4So spending trillions of dollars in another country and 2 wars is not the source ?
  • toetagger, on 07/19/2008, -8/+15And so there you have it. One is an oil man, the other isn't.
    • Hangly, on 07/19/2008, -6/+6Nope. Clinton is more of a drug man. The oil interests support him too though.

      Here's a rule you should always remember. The four largest drug markets in the US are Texas, Florida, California and New York. The states with the most banking activity are also Texas, Florida, California and New York. That's not a coincidence.

      It's also not a coincidence that the Governors of two of those states (Texas and Florida) have been Bushes, or that Hillary Clinton ran for Senator in New York as opposed to, say, Arkansas.

      Both families are part of the same big cabal. What superficial differences there are between them are just theater.
      • jman583, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10The states with the most people are Texas, Florida, California and New York.
      • biotch, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2uhhh ... you claimed Clinton was an oil man and then supported it with irrelevance. If Clinton had oil interests he sure did a bad job for the oil companies. Oil was at about 30 bucks a barrel when he left. It hovers at around 140 these days.
    • barf1, on 07/19/2008, -1/+0toetagger, you're a simpleton and an idiot
    • sethorama99, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1One's an oil man, the other is a slimeball. Both suck.
  • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -3/+14I want to cry.
  • feoren, on 07/19/2008, -11/+32This clearly illustrates the failed economic policies of the Clinton administration. Under Clinton, premium-gas pumpers payed 27% more than those pumping standard gas. Bush has helped to close the socioeconomic gap in this country, with premium-gas pumpers now paying only 5% more than standard-pumpers! Go Bush!
    • biotch, on 07/19/2008, -9/+2hmm ... not sure if that was a joke or not..
      But just in case it wasnt,
      Here is a graph showing the income gap skyrocketing in both administrations
      http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2008/07/13/inc ...

      This one shows GDP and compensation both declining as a percent of total wealth... (shows the wealth gap widening for the past 30 years)
      http://www.nabe.com/graphweek/2008/gw080406.html
      • unreg, on 07/19/2008, -1/+2You are obviously incapable of detecting sarcasm. Please swith of the internet.
      • biotch, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Calm down unreg...
        Static text does not lend itself to sarcasm very well. Ive heard far more ludicrous claims on digg from people who were completely serious. And sorry, cant say Ill be leaving the internet anytime soon but you are welcome to do so yourself and go around making ignorant absolutest remarks about people to their faces if you like.
    • aussieNickuss, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Thank god I have a good sense of sarcasm.....unlike some.
  • kujo740, on 07/19/2008, -6/+6sigh...
  • BreatheRhetoric, on 07/19/2008, -7/+68The Clinton photo is from when he was first elected in 1992. The Bush one reflects the current gasoline price. If this was a fair comparison you'd see the price of gas when Bush was elected in 2000 or when they both left office.
    • Amadeus2490, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7Well, gasoline was about a dollar a gallon back in 2000. It's jumped up about 3 dollars and 50 cents within the last 7 years. There's a strong rumor that it's supposed to hit 5.50 a gallon by October.
      • CptBuck, on 07/19/2008, -4/+5a strong rumor according to whom? The price of gas isn't something there are typically rumors about.
      • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -1/+9@CptBuck

        Are you actively avoiding paying attention?

        There are more rumors about gas prices than the next iProduct.
      • ChiefUCF, on 07/19/2008, -7/+5I have no idea where you lived in 2000 but in 1999 I was paying $2.33 a gallon for regular in Illinois.
      • bxblox, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5@ChiefUCF: *****... http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usM.h ...
      • JYoungest1, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1CheifUCF will you stop making ***** up




        unless your telling the truth the we can all laugh at you
      • Albo23, on 07/19/2008, -0/+6***** speculators like you will make it jump to 5.50 so if you would just shut the ***** up it might keep lowering like it has been over the past three days. It has lowered about 30 ***** cents over the last three days here in Michigan.
      • JazzCatDRP, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2He's right...though not in 2000 that I recall. In the summer of 97 I gassed up for as low as 75 cents a gallon. Most of the summer it hovered just under a dollar.
      • dexter411, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Chief isn't off by much. Chicago has held the title of "highest gas price in the nation" pretty frequently.
      • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2ChiefUCF isn't ***** you.

        http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/07/midwest.shtm

        "With consumers in some Midwest markets such as Chicago and Milwaukee seeing gasoline prices rise from an average of $1.85 in Chicago to nearly $2.13 per gallon between May 30 and mid-June, before falling back under $2.00 in early July, he said, "increases as dramatic as those seen ... without any obvious complete explanation, call for scrutiny by antitrust enforcement authorities to determine whether they result from collusion or other unlawful anticompetitive conduct."

        It's called Google, people. It's not hard to use.
    • dime, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4I'm not sure if that's entirely true... I remember gas was always over a dollar for most of the 90s...

      EXCEPT around 1997... Japan had an economic crash that dumped a ton of gas onto the market and we saw prices in the 80-90 cent range for a while....
    • avenu420, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Not true. In Murfreesboro, TN, right before going on a road trip, in the summer of 1997 I paid $.85 for a gallon of gas. In Fall of 97 in Atlanta, GA, I paid $1.05 for super premium. It extended well beyond 1992, my friend.
      • rald84, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3this is true, along I-24 between nashville and chattanooga, it was almost always below $1 and sometimes below 90 cents in the late 90s.
      • unreg, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4I remember working a project in Charleston SC during 1998, $0.84.
      • ScottMitchell, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Word. When I started my first real job (1998) I kept records of my gas purchases (total cost and # of gallons). In Kansas City gas ranged from $0.97 to $1.06 most of that year.
    • thisissami, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1i'm pretty sure both of the billboards have been photoshopped into the pictures... as in regardless of when the picture of the guys were taken, you can't tell when the gas prices were taken...
    • waterdrop, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1In 1997 gas in New Jersey was 79 Cents a gallon for regular. Premium was also under $1.
    • Kanele, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1someone fails at humor here
  • visionaryIX, on 07/19/2008, -13/+45It might come as a surprise to some, but we can't blame everything on Bush.
    • bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -7/+4You're right, that really would be a surprise. Sorry, but yes, we can blame the gas prices as well as most of our other current problems on Bush.
      • Pake, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3You can't blame oil dependency on Bush. You can only blame American consumers for wasting it in SUV's and not fighting for renewable and alternative fuels.
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1Hey I don't drive a SUV, Crossover, massively jacked up truck, or any other useless vehicle, but I don't know where I would be without the utility of my truck, and I don't have the money to afford my truck (which i need) and another efficient reliable vehicle. I'm attempting to save up for a motorcycle.

        I've also been SCREAMING for hydrogen for years...

        Remember, both the good and bad are getting bent over a barrel by bush and our current economical situation.

        I didn't vote for him.
      • grammarpolice, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1@ pake, in 2003 bush passed a law where certain people got tax credit for buying suvs and big trucks. Many people I know did that, a lot of suvs around are from that time. why would people fight for renewable fuels when gas was cheap, and for some, buying an escalade was even cheaper. In fact, you can argue that they did that knowing we were going to get more dependent on fuel, but with bigger tanks under our ass.
      • Pake, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2grammarpolice, all Bush did was renew the law. It's been there for decades and the loophole that labeled SUV's as light trucks was advertised mostly during the late 90's. Crazy enough, it was actually republicans who made the loophole smaller by taking away people's ability to claim anything they wanted, but unfortunately they weren't expecting 6,000 lb SUV's to be the family's vehicle of the late 90's to now.
    • SolituSneiku, on 07/19/2008, -3/+10America, where everyone blames anyone but themselves
      • avenu420, on 07/19/2008, -4/+2The people who should be blaming themselves are the people who voted for Bush.
      • supradave, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3I'm glad to know it's my fault that I am making the price of gas so high. I'm sorry to all of you that I made the price of gas so high. If I'd only had billions of dollars to stop those speculators and energy policy types from, then I could absolve myself from blame. I'm sorry. Please forgive me.
      • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -3/+1No thats just democrats. They never take personal responsibility for ANYTHING.
        Just look at their policies:
        Welfare - Why get a job when the government can pay you to do nothing!
        Legalizing abortion - When acting like an adult means you take none of the responsibility or consequences
        Affirmative Action - It's not your fault for being black and retarded!
        Title 9 - Those evil men shouldn't have all of the sports! (look at how awesome the WNBA is now compared to the NBA....)
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2No I'm SPARTACUS!
    • DeadBabySoup, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3well, thats what comes with being a leader, accepting responsibility. You cannot tell me there was nothing he could have done. So who is to blame for the hole America is in?
      • popz41, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Congress. Fire all those moneybags and get some people that actually have values.
  • Maximilian000, on 07/19/2008, -7/+6Pretty rushed photoshop job on Cheney, don't you think?
    • Sneezyx, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Are you kidding? Haven't you seen his sinister black aura before?
      • TheReport, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2I think Max was referring to the fact that the guy who shopped this image forgot Cheney's Darth Vader helmet
  • MaximusIGN, on 07/19/2008, -12/+10I really wonder how many of the 50% of the population that voted for Bush regret their decision...
    • LuckyKarma, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3Unfortunately, not many of them, at least who I've talked to/argued with. I still see tons of Bush/Cheney bumper stickers....
      • winnestow, on 07/19/2008, -2/+1i wish i would have voted for him, he's been a good president
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2Sadly same here. They seem much more fanatic and depraved now though. But that may be because bush has changed and their opinions haven't.

        Though someone in the parking-lot at my apartments did scrape the bush bumper sticker off their jeep!
    • Pake, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1This isn't a political problem, it's a consumer problem and what it comes down to is the lack of consumer support for alternative fuels and hybrid systems. It takes easily 10 years to transition to a new system entirely and 10 years ago we already knew fuel prices were going to be on the rise, but we weren't sure by how much.

      The only thing people should be regretting as far as oil goes is their lack of conserving when it was cheap.
    • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -1/+1nope, not at all
    • Damian91, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Actually I spoke to a few and many of them regret ever voting for him.
  • TinternAbbot, on 07/19/2008, -14/+7Gore looks like a big fag in that picture.
    • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -3/+7Ann? Is that you?
    • bsmang, on 07/19/2008, -2/+3That's not relevant. The point is that when he was in office, I could drive for a whole month on the same money that almost keeps me going for a week now.
    • sonnybobiche, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3"I'm totally cereal, you guys!"
  • squidcore, on 07/19/2008, -11/+17clearly photoshopped.
  • shithitinthefan, on 07/19/2008, -6/+1Can your spot the difference...besides the gas prices.
    Yeah, people will always crowd around someone who appreciates a good cigar.
  • ctrl247, on 07/19/2008, -0/+67Wow, where the hell do I get gas for $4.03 !?
    • WhiteRaven, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5Most of the country (by area at least). I have yet to pay over $4.00.
      • perfectrapture, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4You're going to make me cry. Last time I checked, gas here was $4.59.
    • Amadeus2490, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Ohio.
    • samcrut, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3$3.95 average here in Dallas, Texas.
    • Raz4Life, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2It's been $3.899 here for at least a month...
      • krwlngindark, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3dugg for 10th cent accuracy
      • fuckliberals, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Iowa?
      • Raz4Life, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Rural North Dakota. Best part is: every single gas station has the same price, so there's never a need to hunt for a good price. I use the term 'good' lightly.
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -0/+4Get the ***** out of California. http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
      • Jough, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0No! Stay in California. We don't need anymore of your kind here.
    • Jo9100, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3$5.29 just across the North border, in Montreal, Quebec.
    • ryanpq, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1$3.85 here in eastern iowa. That is 89 octane with 10% ethanol though. 87 octane regular is $3.95
    • LordoftheLoo, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I pay $4.03 on the spot near Boston
    • nickbyfleet, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Ohio
    • waterdrop, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1New Jersey. Regular is under $4.
    • koenigje, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2The Past
  • henrikakselsen, on 07/19/2008, -6/+31It's time for a cap on how many submissions that can be made in one day. Mrbabyman submits what, 50/day now?

    That would be perfectly fine if it were original stuff, but it's only leeching of other posters and social networks (from what I can see).It kills the fun of Digg if the only things that matter is 'underground networks' to get things on the frontpage.

    I dugg the original article instead: http://digg.com/political_opinion/Bush_Clinton_com ...
  • Confusinator, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7Holy crap, I thought I would never see gas prices so low. I just became a driver two years ago, I never knew gas prices were that low in the 90's.
    • Pusod, on 07/19/2008, -0/+10ahhh you have much to learn young skywalker. like, did you know that will smith was once a rapper and had his own tv show?
      • imover, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1Just to let you know I lived in Arizona in 2002 and I was paying only $.99 per gallon - then after we went to war with Iraq the cost of gas started skyrocketing!!
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1yup, i remember that too imover.

        that's why i don't blame us or the economy.

        did you know mil HUMV's get close to 10mpgs? less if they are speeding.

        Abrams tanks get less than 7 and deuces also make it below 10.

        Fuel conservation has apparently never been too large of a concern for the American military, unlike the Germans....
      • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1And that, Imover, is why i blame bush and not us our economy

        did you know that HUMV's get around 10 mpgs? less if they are in a hurry.

        abrams tanks get around 7 and deuces also get under 10.

        apparently our military have never been too concerned with fuel conservation... which shows they either know something we the public don't... or we really are awful.
    • beatleman, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2And if you didn't know the Will Smith fact from the guy above me, watch this video and you'll figure out why people do that crazy dance whenever you hear the song "Jump On It."

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=BWiqnPIxIdM
    • thirteenthcor, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1And Mark Walberg was once called marky mark and made rap too!! Now he just does good performances in crappy movies.
  • xartion, on 07/19/2008, -2/+20please don't post a picture of 89 cent gas, it makes me cry :-(
  • lukedamonkey, on 07/19/2008, -5/+13Bush has everything to do with it. If there was no war, Our economy would be very different,inflation has a cause, and we made 1 trillion dollars out of thin air last year alone. You think a OIL man isn't making profit of off the increased cost of gas? ***** no, Oil companies are reporting RECORD profits. Oh, but bush is the most innocent person in the world right? Why do you think gas price in texas is so lower than that in california? If you digg me down, I would love to see your argument.
    • bjornski, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Don't forget Cheney and his back-room secret meetings with the oil execs to help write our "energy policy".
    • senatorpjt, on 07/19/2008, -2/+4Not arguing with the rest but the reason the price is so high in California is because of California taxes.
    • twomeyw23334, on 07/19/2008, -3/+2Yeah, the damn war for cheap oil!!!!
      Oh wait.. uh, which conspiracy are we on now?

      Ok, seriously, if you want to "see my arguement." I guess (maybe because I'm a mindless robot) I just put more faith in Alan Greenspan saying that if we weren't in Iraq we'd be paying double digits right now over lukedamonkey saying otherwise. Also, due to the fact that we actually know what caused oil prices to increase.
      1-hugely increased demand in China/India (damn BUSH!)
      2-non-increasing supply to match increasing demand (we'll ignore this one as this is primarily Democrats fault)
      3-devaluation of the U.S. dollar (you're right about this, it's ALL because Bush. The housing and banking crash (partially led to by Clinton's HUD program which subsidized sub-prime loan lenders (supposedly sub-prime loans are good for the little guy) has absolutely nothing to do with this). And the FED (who we know act purely at the discretion of the president) haven't based any of their inflation policies on whats happening in the housing/banking sector or on wall street, they're just trying to combat Bush's WAR!!!!
      4-Speculation, which is driven by the 3 above, as well as tensions between Iran and Israel. Speculation in commodities don't have the same regulation as in companies but thats how it was before evil Bush came around.

      "Why do you think gas price in texas is so lower than that in california?" Are you really being serious
      Ummmmm