If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   And it is a bargain at only $59 a gallon   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 18
    More: Asinine, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, fixed price, jet fuel, renewable fuels, U.S. Air Force, Defense Logistics Agency  
•       •       •

15810 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2013 at 5:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-05-04 01:25:40 PM
6 votes:
Printer ink?

/DNRTFA
2013-05-04 05:55:32 PM
5 votes:

cman: thamike: It's renewable.

Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable


Don't be silly. Even fossil fuels are renewable. This layer of topsoil that we humans inhabit now will eventually be covered by others, and the lizard and/or cockroach people of the future will use us to run their SUVs after we've turned into hydrocarbons.

I'm sure the occasional Twinkie will pop up through the wells, though.
2013-05-04 05:54:46 PM
3 votes:

"It's green!"

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

"But $59 a gallon? Oh what the hell, I'm drunk."
2013-05-04 07:18:11 PM
2 votes:

untaken_name: Summercat: So, a testing phase of a product that is not mass produced, so there is no economy of scale from infrastructure...

And paying a fairly low price per gallon of a replacement for a *STRATEGICALLY VULNERABLE AND IMPORTANT* product that lacks, as said above, the economy of scale infrastructure?

Please, do go on about wasteful spending. While this does seem like a large cost to you and me, it's a drop in the bucket for the DOD *AND* targets an item that has strategic implications based on bottlenecks from a traditionally(1) unstable region.

(1) Traditionally in this sense meaning since the late Modern Period.

There are at least 7.2 billion gallons of recoverable oil in South Dakota. Why wouldn't we just pump that instead of relying on that unstable region? That would be much better than paying $59/gallon for gas now in the hopes that eventually it would be cheaper.


Wow, 7.2 billion gallons, that's a lot.

Will it be enough to get your SUV to *and* from K-Mart?
2013-05-04 06:59:54 PM
2 votes:

fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.


Obama's a Democrat, so it's not excessive.  It's well thought out and reasonable expenses because Bush.
2013-05-04 06:30:03 PM
2 votes:
Do the Koch brothers fund these young conservative stars because they look creepy?

Or do they cultivate that look after they get hired?

content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com
photos1.blogger.com
img805.imageshack.us
www.freeadsindiabiz.com
2013-05-04 05:42:43 PM
2 votes:

cman: thamike: It's renewable.

Renewable does not automatically mean sustainable


Every fossil fuel is zero-emission, those damn hippies just aren't taking into account a several hundred million year carbon cycle, am I right?!
2013-05-04 07:48:19 PM
1 votes:

untaken_name: There are at least 7.2 billion gallons of recoverable oil in South Dakota. Why wouldn't we just pump that instead of relying on that unstable region


Almost worth linking to snopes, but I prefer to leave him ignorant; the world needs a laughing stock or two.
JVD
2013-05-04 07:15:13 PM
1 votes:
You know, I've never really liked paying taxes. I don't think I'm gonna do that, either.
2013-05-04 07:09:42 PM
1 votes:

Lee Jackson Beauregard: fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.

The incumbent president is a dagburn Dimmycrat varmint, and a ni*BONG* to boot.  So we're supposed to hate it, and hate him for not attacking Iran and/or Syria.


Only until he DOES attack Iran or Syria. THEN it becomes an illegal action or something.
2013-05-04 06:38:06 PM
1 votes:

jaytkay: Do the Koch brothers fund these young conservative stars because they look creepy?

Or do they cultivate that look after they get hired?

[content.washingtonexaminer.biz.s3.amazonaws.com image 165x190]
[photos1.blogger.com image 352x240]
[img805.imageshack.us image 352x146]
[www.freeadsindiabiz.com image 352x426]


You got the order wrong.  They're young conservatives BECAUSE they're creepy looking.
2013-05-04 06:05:29 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.


If it's made in your district it's patriotic. If not it's an outrageous abuse by the military/industrial complex.
2013-05-04 05:59:20 PM
1 votes:
Wait, are we supposed to love or hate excessive military spending? I always get confused on that one.
2013-05-04 05:59:16 PM
1 votes:

zerkalo: zerkalo: Article doesn't give the price for standard jet fuel so I can decide for myself if this is an outrage? Why am I not surprised?

/infromed

Never mind. It's right there buried at the bottom, under the fold
/double infromed


[sigh] the comments, they appear too quickly
2013-05-04 05:58:39 PM
1 votes:
I keep telling you idiots to stop patronizing Starbucks.

/dnrtfa
2013-05-04 05:50:27 PM
1 votes:

iheartscotch: Av gas is expensive; it's leaded 110-120 octane. I have no idea what jet fuel consists of.


high fructose corn syrup and ethanol

it's quite delicious
2013-05-04 03:47:12 PM
1 votes:

propasaurus: Printer ink?

/DNRTFA


that's quite a sale.  stuff normally goes for $302 a gallon
2013-05-04 01:25:12 PM
1 votes:
or you could just use Mountain Dew
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report