Where I Buy My Gas

| | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0)

I drive a Ford truck with a 5.8 liter engine that gets terrible gas mileage. I love it, and I can sleep at night knowing the insane amount I pay for gas doesn't go to support terrorism or communism.

This is why.

According to the Department of Energy, Shell and Sunoco are the two big companies around here in NOVA that don't get any of their oil from OPEC or Communist Venezuela. So that's where I fill up. And I would encourage my readers to boycott any stations that get there oil from anti-American countries.

I'm sure the marshmallow man is going to say something about how these countries can't make it on their own without their oil industry, so how do we expect them to stabilize if they have no income, blah blah blah.

To tell you the truth, I don't care. Let them stabilize first. Then I'll support them on the free trade market.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Where I Buy My Gas.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/980

30 Comments

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Actually, I was going to congratulate you on your contribution to the Hugo Chavez regime.

Congratulations!

No Relation said:

Poof, did you honestly not know that Hugo Chavez is the communist president of Venezuela...or did you just not read what I wrote.

zimzo said:

I guess if bying your gas based on an Urban Legend helps you sleep better at night, then good for you:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/saudigas.asp

How reassuring it must be to be a conservative unmolested by troubling things like facts.

No Relation said:

Fact: I did not use the source your link discredits.

Fact: The source I did use is valid and comes from the US Energy Information Administration.

Fact: Discrediting a source I didn't use does not make my post an "urban legend".

Who's got a problem with facts, Zimzo?

bloodstomper said:

Hey there, big patriotic dude!

You got Sunoco, which leases it's pipelines to "third parties," and you don't know who those third parties are, do ye! Furthermore, Sunoco may get it's oil from Canada, Nigeria, rutabagania or wherever but it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there is something called the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and I bet you a hundred million dollars when Sunoco or the oil company that runs crude through Sunoco's pipelines buys it on the NYMEX they don't give a goddamn where it comes from, they only want to bone you on the deal and they don't want to kiss you either.

Dream on, big NASCAR patriot dude. Evrytime you fill up, you support terrorism.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Why you gotta get all uppity? I know who Chavez is. Did you not know that Sunoco and Shell both have big operations in Venezuela?

The source you sited shows the percent of oil those companies get from the *Persian Gulf*. You are aware that Venezuela is not in the persian gulf, yes?

Anyway, it's not where the company gets it's oil that benefits those countries. It's the world demand for oil, which keeps prices high. As long as you're driving that gas-guzzler, you're only contributing to that demand, and so you are still helping those countries out, see.

if, for example, everyone in the US drove a Smart Car, that would have a signnificant effect on the global demand for oil, which in turn would slow down Iran's project to enrich uranium, for instance.

So you must hate our troops, because you're helping the enemy by contributing to a system that makes Iran rich.

I know economics are a bit more complicated than, say, pumping gas into your truck, but I hope you can follow along.

No Relation said:

More info on this, click on company level imports:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/cli.html

Looks like I was mistaken about Sunoco and Venezuela, but not Shell. It also appears they only get a very small percentage of their crude from there, so that's better than say, Citgo or ExxonMobil.

Bloodstomper, I don't know the ins and outs of the oil business, and maybe indirectly, they all have to do some business with the Middle East. Too bad we can't just use our own oil sitting up there in Alaska. In the meantime, I'll stick with the companies that do less business with the people who want us dead.

My truck is thirsty for more gas distilled from that fresh, chilled Alaskan oil, and won't be happy until I can provide more of it.

zimzo said:

No Relation, your desperate attempts to rationalize your aiding and abetting the enemies of America because you just can't bring yourself to sacrifice your gas-and-blood-guzzling vehicle are almost touching. But while I realize that wilfull ignorance is necessary to safeguard your bliss, I'm afraid I must further ruin your peace of mind by pointing out that even if not a drop of oil from those companies comes from the Middle East or Venezuela but instead from Nigeria, that still does not let you off the hook. It seems that Nigeria is also playing a role in the great jihad against the all that is good and true. According to several sources (and good Christian ones, not from the liberal media) members of al qaeda who were kicked out of Afghanistan have moved to Nigeria, whose Muslim majority are currently waging war on Christians with the goal of setting up a Taliban-like state there. So your money is helping to fund that. Just thought you might want to know the next time you self-righteously bloviate about liberals being on the side of terrorists.
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1115766242.shtml

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/CWN/050605nigeria.aspx

AFF said:

"I can sleep at night knowing the insane amount I pay for gas doesn't go to support terrorism or communism."

I take it you have no idea where our oil comes from, who we pay for it, not to mention what the rest of the world actually pays for gas?

In other words, we have another post from a wingnut with no basis in reality. Don't you get tired of being wrong so often?

Sleep well

...and BTW -the oil "sittin' up in Alaska" is a drop in the bucket to what this country uses every day. Perhaps we should use the oil in Alaska for national security instead of driving around your lazy ass?


No Relation said:

Wow...looks like no oil source is perfect...I'll just have to walk until they invent cars powered by wizard dust. But wait...walking requires breathing and that produces CO2 and that will hurry up global warming and kill us all.

You guys are lame. Here I am with a little suggestion on how to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern crude, and y'all wanna give me a brain-teaser economics lesson and somehow conclude that oil companies that don't import from OPEC are just as bad.

Jack said:

The oil companies are not bad -- just trying to make a buck. The problem is that the world oil market is interdependent, and buying petrol from one vendor or another won't make much difference. It is the SUPPLY and DEMAND that drives the market.

Drilling offshore and in ANWR would help some, by increasing the non-terrorist supply, but not very much.

The best future I can see is hydogen fuel cell technology, with the hydrogren provided by nuclear power plants. That, however, has problems of its own. First is the disposal of the spent fuel, and second is the byproducts of the electrolysis process (if seawater is used): Chlorine and Sodium Hydroxide.

Jack said:

On the bright side, though, it is said that a solution of Sodium Hydroxide in water will absorb carbon dioxide!

zimzo said:

Sorry for making you think No Relation. I know how that hurts the heads of conservatives. But here's a very simple suggestion that would at least accomplish some of your goal. Why don't you give up your Ford truck that gets terrible gas mileage and replace it with something that gets better gas mileage or even a hybrid?

Rtwng Extrmst said:

You guys are all missing the point. Regardless of where the oil comes from, Hugo Chavez is a very publicly associated person with Citgo. I will not buy from a company that is owned by him if it is at all possible.

Secondly, we as a nation need to develop our own energy resources as a matter of national security. In the short term this means ANWR and coal, along with anything else we can.

I don't care if it gives Al Gore a heart attack. I'd rather that than keep giving my money to terrorists, which because of the world energy market today being so focused in these terrorist countries we have no choice but to buy from them. These idiots in congress that bow to the environazi's are selling our security down the drain! And don't tell me your "clean special fuel" hybrid is the answer. It is at best a band-aid that in the end still burns the same fuel as any gas-guzzler.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

neither hybrids nor ANWR are real solutions.

during world war 2 people were asked to sacrifice, they grew victory gardens and dealt with rations on butter and sugar. Now our very existence is supposedly under threat, where are the gas rations?

we're at war with people who are supplied, in part, from oil sales, and we still have an unlimited supply of the cheapest gas in the world. what the hell?

let's only import as much oil as we absolutely need. let it go to $10 a gallon. That'll give the auto companies an incentive to ramp up their development of electric cars. and the more no relations there are who, because of economic pressures, end up ditching the gas-guzzlers in place of electric cars and bicycles the sooner we will be able to disentangle ourselves from the middle east.

Jack said:

Puffy -- you operate under a profound misconception, that we have "the cheapest gas in the world." We do not. The shipping costs to other nations, particularly European nations, are significantly lower, and their gas is, consequently, cheaper.

It is their TAXES that are higher, not the cost of the gasoline.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

I like how that qualifies as a "profound misconception"

I was taking about the price at the pump. That's the price that drives demand.

Europe has higher gas taxes and, guess what, they use less gas and at the same time they have an economy that rivals our own. We don't need so much gas, we just like having it. It's like our hot fudge brownie with vanilla ice cream an chocolate syrup on top. Good times, but dangerous in excess.

The only reason not to use less gas in this country is because of the effect it would have on our economy. Well, we'd get over it. It's pathetic that we're willing to let 3,000 of our finest die, and spend upwards of $400 billion ( http://costofwar.com/index.html )on a war to keep America safe, but if it means an economic hiccup, or that we'd have to stop driving off-road vehicles (like hummers) on the highway, the response is NO WAY BUDDY!

Jack said:

European economies actually do NOT rival ours. Their higher taxes are a significant reason for that.

As for raising the petrol taxes, that would raise the cost of shipping, and slow our economy.

Now, very few of us drive Hummers. However, some do drive SUV's, which I call "Macho Vans":

Macho, Macho Van!
I've got to drive
a Macho Van.

Anyway, have you calculated the cost in lives of driving smaller vehicles? There are about 40,000 highway deaths per year. (In 2002, it was over 42,000. I'm approximating.) That's 160,000 since we resumed the war in Iraq. CAFE standards are responsible for some of that: http://www.cei.org/pdfs/cafe2.pdf and http://www.aceee.org/pubs/t021full.pdf


How many lives are you willing to sacrifice for your tax revenue?

spmm said:

I'm talking about the EU, it's a big economy.

I said that higher gas prices would effect our economy. I said we could deal with it, and we'd get over it.

I think it's nonsensical to say that auto saftey is a direct function of gas milage.

Jack said:

There you go trying to think again. If you were good at it, you'd be a conservative.

Let me explain. Force equals mass times acceleration. To get better gas mileage, the engines are made smaller, reducing force. Either acceleration or mass must be reduced. Often both are reduced. So the vehicles with reduced acceleration cannot merge as quickly,and those with reduced mass do not survive crashes as well.

Aside from the physics lession, just go to the data I provided. Cars with better gas mileage pose a greater danger to their drivers.

Jack said:

As for the EU, its growth rate in 2006 was 2.8%, ours was 3.4%. The EU countries with faster growth were, of the old countries, Ireland, Greece, and Luxembourg. Almost all of the new states, with their lower tax rates, did better.

17% of the EU population is below the poverty line, where 11.4% of ours is. I realize that, as a Democrat, you want more poverty, so that those people become dependent upon the government. I do not.

The EU unemployment rate is 8.8%, vs. 4.5% for the U.S. Since you support a higher minimum wage, I can only assume you want higher unemployment, too, again so that those people will be dependent on the government. I do not.

So aside from having more people dependent on the government and higher taxes, what do you like about the EU?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

what the hell is this?

as a democrat I like poverty? Are you joking? Here I thought we were trying to have a dialog. Why with the partisan hackery? more Americans are living in poverty since the republicans took over, anyway. Since you seem to like history, I'm sure you know which party got us into the great depression and who got us out.

If I could think I'd be a conservative?

Jack logic: auto companies responded to CAFE by producing smaller, less safe cars, therefore the only way cars can be safe is if they use a more gas.

you ever hear of a hybrid? you ever hear of airbags? ...as if the only way to make the car safe is with a big engine. Nope, the only way to make cars safe is by putting in gas-guzzling engines.

...but I can't hold it against you, if you were capable of coming up with creative solutions to difficult problems you'd be a liberal!

as to the EU, it's not running the kind of debt we are, either. We're living well beyond our means, and it's going to come back to haunt us some day.

but why should you care about that? you'll be dead and gone by then. That's my generation's concern. Thanks for nothin'!

Jack said:

More truth twisted into lies. Yes, there are more people in poverty under Bush than under Clinton, because there are MORE PEOPLE!! The average poverty rate during the Clinton years was 13.29%. Under Bush it has been 12.32%. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

Hybrids are still more expensive: http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=260

So a person with only a certain amount to spend on a car must, if buying a hybrid, buy a smaller car.

Dual front airbags are already required on new cars.

The EU's debt is 64% of GDP, and ours is 66%. Yeah, that's a huge difference, puffy.

If you're worried about "living beyond our means," you'd want the deferal government to stick to spending that is CONSTITUTIONAL. Show me where the constitution allows the deferal government to pay for socialized medicine or retirement. Show me where it allow the federal government to spend money on schools or local police.

spmm said:

by living beyond our means I'm refering to the gov spending more than it takes in.

if people can't afford better cars, I guess we need more mass transit

I don't know why I'm bothering to defend myself against your asinine claim that democrats like poverty, but go back to that poverty rate link you posted. Notice out poverty rate for all people declined throughout the Clinton years and began to rise again after Bush came in?

Jack said:

We agree that the government is living beyond its means. So why do you support so many unconstitutional programs, such as those I mentioned?

I'm also very much in favor of mass transit. This is not a contradiction of my first statement. Mass transit should be paid for by states and localities. The only exception is the DC metro system -- since the feds have constitutional authority to do almost anything they want there.

Yes, the poverty rate did decline under Clinton. He had a booming economy. (The Bush I recession had ended before the election.) Bush II came in at the start of a recession. The rate is now declining again.

The fact is that the Democrat Party is built on taking from the few and giving to the many. It therefore benefits the party to have as many people dependent on the government as possible.

Jesus's Bong said:

Jack- Love the last paragraph.

What strain of america's number one cash crop are you currently a puffin'? I can almost hear the bong bubbling as you type.

No Relation must be a daily smoker too - there is no other way he could refer to his OP in follow up posts as "how to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern crude" if he was not stoned as a monkey.

(Last time I checked the middle east had no countries going by the name of Venezuela)

Good luck with your boycott of oil producing countries that hate us. Where was it that those 9/11 hijackers came from anyway?


No Relation said:

Mr. Bong,

I have always referred to OPEC and Venezuela as two seperate entities. Take an English class.

And the 9/11 hijackers were from the Middle East, mostly Saudi Arabia. A country to which I don't wish to give my money.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

I do believe Venezuela is a member of OPEC.

No Relation said:

I wasn't aware.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM