Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Find Hummer Fuel Consumption
1 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
2 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
3 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
4 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
5 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
6 Hummer Fuel Consumption Loading
Best Answers
fuel consumption? I am writing this on my laptop while sitting at toys r us and waiting for my mistress to do her shopping for our two illegitimate children while idling my brand new Hummer.I am burning a lot of gas but I have to run the heater so thats the way it goes, my question is this: why do people say I should save fuel ? I have plenty of money and I dont really care how much it costs because I can buy anything I want, whenever I want it. whats the big deal? I should go without something so that the elites like Al Gore can buy whatever he wants? screw him. I have just as much right as he does to burn fossil fuels right? who made him the king of the world anyway? My house in maine has 12 bedrooms and 8 full baths, two hot tubs one outside and one in, a heated indoor pool and a 2000 square foot treehouse with heat and air for my real children, my house in Virginia also has all of these amenities, and I dont have any problem using these resources when it comes to my comfort, why should I care?

David F replied: "fram fuel"

Ty H replied: "I love your attitude. Right on !"

how much is a 2006/56 hummer H2 (september) with 900 miles on the clock worth?? I have a hummer in my garage and am getting bored with its ridiculous fuel consumption and insurance ( and tax ) charges please tell me how much its worth?

doug b replied: "its worth what you paid for it ,only problem is on a trade thy will offer 25 to 30% less for depreiciation,try selling it privately"

Thin Kaboudit replied: "It'll be worth more if you keep it for another 4-5000 miles, since any potential customer is going to be VERY suspicious of a car with only 900 miles on the odometer, and immediately assume you are trying to unload a lemon..."

Charles W replied: "go to kbb.com or go to nada.com most accurate prices on used car value"

sarasvah replied: "Go to"

Which is a fast luxurious 4X4 car for putting style on other people? Bmw x6,porsche cayenne or hummer h3.dont write about the fuel consumption

papa doc replied: "the hummer h3 is as slow as it gets so i would definatly go with either the porsche cayenne gts or turbo, the x6 is very nice too but the cayenne outperforms it. also check out the jeep grand cherokee srt8 its like 45,000 or less and its as fast than the cayenne turbo but not good offroad at all. the jeep also has twin turbo kits available from hennesy that give it seven hundred horsepower. my advice is to test drive the two cars and see what you think."

Stupid Flanders replied: "The Porsche Cayenne S, by far, is the most luxurious and fastest. It is also the most expensive. I can't believe you put a Hummer H3 in there."

Car Experts ! What is the Top Speed of These Vehicles? I'll Choose Best Answer!? Porsche, Mustange, Lamborghini .. 2007 any model Range Rover, Hummer, Trailblazer .. 2008 any model Impala, Grand Am, Monte Carlo .. 2009 any model Also, if it isn't too much too ask, can anyone tell me the safety rating and, or fuel consumption? Thank you ahead of time!!!

rogersdavid replied: "http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/ will tell you most of what you require...."

c420wizzle replied: "2007 Ford Mustang GT top speed 149MPH There are too many Porsche and Lambo models to list top speeds 2008 Range Rover top speed 125MPH for N/A and 130MPH for SC"

Why is Obama on the WRONG side of so many issues? Obama seems to be against EVERYTHING ordinary American believe! Guns - he voted to take up all handguns, and nearly all rifles. Abortion - he wants to kill babies Iraq - he thinks the war is illegal Taxes - raise them Property rights - confiscate property Healthcare - ration care after eliminating private choice Terrorists - just treat them as criminals instead of killing them Internet - censor hate speech (ie. censor all speech) Radio - force Rush off the air, fire talk show hosts New York - against NYC, the Donald is against him, so there! Welfare - increase it Unions - told canada that NAFTA is good, while lying to unions Oil - against drilling Hillary - really held a grudge on this one Cars - wants to limit your fuel consumption, say goodbye to Hummers Death Penalty - wanted to spare Tookie Wealth - chastises McCains while hanging with Hollywood elite Race - said McCain was playing race card, not true, Obama did. God - attended a RACIST church with his kids. Tobacco - smoker Drugs - did lots of drugs Crime - wants no guns in inner cities so families can't defend. Foreign policy - wants to be meeting with dictators What can't the Obama campaign see that ANY one of these issues is enough to vote against Obama for an ordinary American? Who's disputing that Obama has his thugs call into a Chicago Radio Station and tell them to fire a talk radio host? This is free speech? No, it's Stalinism! = Also, Trump is a harsh Bush critic, but he sees that Obama is far worse. He's going with McCain! I love that no liberal REFUTES the above. Just trash talk like they do against Sarah Palin!

Information Police replied: "Like deregulationg the mortgage industry? Oh, no that was McCain."

Bull Fighter replied: "Just Keep following McCain/Palin on that Bridge to Nowhere !"

ms. sarcasm replied: "you really just pulled this stuff out of your anal cavity huh?"

James replied: "At least half of "ordinary Americans" agree with Obama on most of those issues..."

Mark K replied: "because he has Marxist Leanings"

Jimmy Jam replied: "I think you need to check your facts there Cletus."

Debra Erics replied: "He isn't. 2"

Richard_SM replied: "Hmmm - these are the reasons I will be voting for him. You missed out the economy. Bit of a raw nerve huh,"

Bringing The Truth replied: ""Terrorists - just treat them as criminals instead of killing them" Of course because he's friends with some!! As far as Islamic Extremists go, he won't even say the word (in fear of offending his muslim friends) so how is he going to protect us from them?"

thanks, but no thanks replied: "lol...a rant from someone who doesn't dig any deeper than the surface, or what you've been told."

Walter D replied: "He is against what the Bushites are for. To me that is a good thing, considering Bush's record."

Teddyben replied: "Why can't ordinary Americans wake up and see the real Obama. This man is not ready to become President. There has never ever been a candidate with so many red flags. It amazes me that he has even one supporter in light of all the information that we have about him."

SFC_Ollie replied: "I can't figure out how he has gotten this far. America is more right center than anything else and here is this super far left nut case so close to the presidency that its almost scary."

sweetlilonebaby replied: "If you choose to base your vote on this, then that is YOUR choice as an American. But I suggest you do your research. But I must say, you are showing your true colors as a Republican. Congrats Republicans... this is who represents the majority of your party, lol!!!"

Tokolosh replied: "Jeeeeeeeeeeeez! What a load of cr*p!"

MD replied: "are you sure its not you thats on the WRONG side of so many issues?"

philbertpheinstein replied: "Let me guess, you're either in the military with a couple kills, work for a bomb maker, or own a share of big OIL.. Obama/Biden 08!.."

Kurt S replied: "Because he is the typical stereotype of a Northern Liberal that southern evangelists have burned into their subconscious, am I right?"

Dave C replied: "How do you know you're on the Correct side of the issue? Looking at your list... you have such a screwed up sense of values that I don't know where to start."

Chicken Little's Acorn replied: "Socialism is easier to institute where there has been a great upheaval. Socialism is what you do when a dictator takes over to "protect" its citizens. Obama is a Socialist, he wants to enslave America."

Jacob replied: "It is extremely irritating that so many people worship the ground he walks on, when he is nothing but a fraud. I hate the fact that he wants to turn the USA into a socialist country. There is no way I am voting for him."

2 letters to the congress please help me out!!? Using this infomation write two good letters to the congress one for rasing the standards and one against the standards. now they dont have to be perfect or long but whoever does it I will send you a great deal of money when finished ill give you my link to send to you! please help I promise I wont let you down just pleas dont let me down! Use the information below to succeed! thank you Issue Background: CAFE Standards (Source: npr.com) CAFE standards—short for Corporate Average Fuel Economy—dictate the number of miles per gallon that an automaker should get for the range of vehicles it sells. Originating during the energy crisis of the 1970s, they represented the federal government's attempt at reducing fuel consumption by boosting the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The standards ushered in an early surge in fuel economy for new cars and trucks. But CAFE requirements haven't changed much in more than a decade—and neither has the gas mileage of the vehicles Americans drive. Current Standards ▪ The current standard is 27.5 mpg for passenger automobiles. The light-truck standard—a classification that also includes SUVs under 8,500 pounds—rose to 22.2 mpg for model-year 2007. ▪ Large vehicles—those weighing more than 8,500 pounds—aren't covered by fuel-economy standards at all. Back in the '70s, lawmakers assumed that anything that large would only have industrial uses. It was inconceivable that an American family might actually cruise around in a vehicle the size of a Ford Excursion or Hummer, which get very low gas mileage. The Hummer, for example, is not officially tested for fuel efficiency, but reports suggest it gets only 11 mpg. Issues with CAFE Standards ▪ The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long been criticized for the testing procedure it uses to gauge fuel economy. The current EPA method, introduced in the 1970s, is based on outdated assumptions: that motorists drive slower than they really do, that they never use air-conditioning, never go up a hill, never start their cars in the cold, never get stuck in traffic jams, etc. ▪ In 1985, the EPA tried to make up for these shortcomings by adjusting fuel-economy numbers downward by 10 percent for city driving, and 22 percent for highway mileage. The revised figures were slightly more realistic, but critics argued that they still failed to account for real-world driving conditions that can drag down gas mileage. ▪ In 2006, the EPA proposed adding tests to simulate high-speed driving, rapid acceleration, and stop-and-go traffic, among other factors. The new system will likely slash mileage ratings for many models by 10 to 20 percent for city driving. These tests are expected to go into effect for model-year 2008. ▪ However, the new tests won’t affect whether vehicles are judged to be in compliance with CAFE standards, since the auto industry won a lawsuit against the EPA to prevent it from using new mileage numbers for CAFE purposes. CAFE Standards and Actual Fuel Economy ▪ The average fuel economy of new vehicles—cars and trucks combined—has actually declined slightly since 1990. The reason: American drivers have increasingly switched to driving SUVs and trucks (they account for half of all new vehicles sold), which use more gas than passenger cars. ▪ CAFE standards also haven't changed much. Supporters argue that the standards would be more effective if lawmakers would raise current standards to account for the extra fuel economy that is feasible using new technologies. But others say the whole program has been a failure; they want to do away with the standards altogether. Technology for Improving Fuel Economy ▪ Supporters of higher CAFE standards note that the technology already exists to make vehicles get at least 10 more miles per gallon, and it could be incorporated into cars in a cost-effective manner. ▪ One study found that, when gas costs more than $2.30 a gallon, technologies that raise fuel-efficiency to around 33 mpg across the fleet pay for themselves within three to four years. ▪ According to at least one expert, even big cars could save a lot of fuel with improvements, such as six-speed automatic transmissions, cylinders that shut down when they are not needed, and improved aerodynamics and materials. For an extra $1,000, a conventional, gas-powered car could potentially go 25 percent better fuel economy. The Debate over Raising CAFE Standards Pro ▪ Lawmakers who want to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil argue that boosting fuel economy in transportation—which accounts for about 27 percent of U.S. energy usage—would go a long way toward that goal. ▪ Environmentalists say that easing our addiction to gas would reduce air pollution and help fight global warming. ▪ CAFE supporters contend that the world's demand for oil—especially in places such as China—is increasing, but its supply is inexorably dwindling. They say American automakers need to get on the fuel-efficient b

Lizella J replied: "Don't waste 2 stamps. The congress isn't going to read your letters. They will just get trashed. Congressmen and Congresswomen are just busy trying to line their own pockets with bribes, pac money, speaking engagements, free gifts, their next book deal, etc. They don't care about the citizens."

lisaloop77 replied: "if you cant do this, you will not be able to do the job. tough it out and spend a few hours learning about the topic so you can write decent letters."

Do you get tired of people with big vehicles complaining about gas prices? Big = excessive according to their needs (no one needs a Hummer, most single people and people who don't have kids don't need SUV's, communters don't need a V-8 engine, etc.) I guess I kind of feel like complaining about something that you can change is rude. I drive a midsize sedan with 4 cylinders. It costs me a lot more now than ever to fill her up, but when my friend with an SUV that she doesn't need complains, I don't feel her complaint is really valid. After all, she can trade in her SUV for a smaller car. This would help not only the environment, but it would cause less fuel consumption. Does it seem as if the surge of SUV sales might have had an impact on our gas prices 5-8 years ago? I am aware that it is not the ONLY thing that has caused gas prices to soar, but I feel it did have something to do with itIf everyone with larger-than-needed vehicles did this, perhaps prices would go down (if only a little), as there would be less demand. What do you all think? Cloud CC, as you clearly don't live in the States, I'd hardly expect you to know what does or does not effect gas prices in the States. Also, please note that I did say the rising popularity of SUV's, large trucks, and Hummers were by no means the only thing that might have effected gas prices.

Orc replied: "Tired of hearing it... yes. I agree."

Cuteasapup replied: "Oh yeah, if they can afford to have the vehicle, than they should afford to have the gas. In other words, they are both way to expensive and neccessary (the big vehicle and the amount gas, not the need for a vehicle itself)"

Maltese Breeder replied: "I feel that the gas prices are ridiculous that everyone has the right to complain, big car little car whatever! The gas prices are a rip off! no matter what your driving!"

Unafraid ○●○●○●○●○ replied: "People with big cars should shut their mouths and bear it. (That is how I feel) I didn't force them to buy that SUV. No one NEEDS an Suv. If they were intelligent they would buy a cheaper smaller car in the first place. I sound angry because I am. They should buy a cheap little car like most people. Large vehicles have always been excessive."

orderly logic replied: "They brought it upon themselves. I don't feel sorry for anyone who bought much more vehicle than they need and now the price of gas is hurting them. They have been selfish all along, making traffic more congested, taking up too much parking space, using up finite resources for a fad, knowing a higher demand for gas would eventually increase prices for everyone. And all those huge vehicles have to be junked somewhere when they're worn out or people can't afford to drive them anymore. Anyway, they should be complaining about stupid George W. Bush destabilizing a Middle East nation for no reason."

Cloudcity CC replied: "Gas prices are not high due to people with large vehicles. Gas is not running out (not for a few hundred years) in the world. Prices have risen due to demand increases in the worlds population of those people with vehicles (In particular, China and India). Higher demand without changes to Supply to accomodate equals higher prices. ... That and the greed of oil companies, but that more or less goes without saying... Personally I merely hate when americans complain, when they pay less for gas then the rest of the world. In regards to the environment; the entire world could change over to Hybrids and it would have a negligible impact. Most pollution comes from Industry. Edit: No, I live in Canada. What affects your prices affects ours (Just to a larger extent. We pay far more for gas then the US due to taxes)."

PaoloPH replied: "Yes, but here's another thing that annoys me: People who have ski/bike, etc racks on the car, even when they are not carrying bikes or skis......but won't even consider removing the racks [saying "they look cool"] when not in use so they could get better fuel economy. To clarify, I'm not talking about the racks that were mounted on top by the auto manufacturer...I'm talking about the aftermarket racks that take 3 minutes to remove. I guess it's easier for people to complain than to spend a few minutes to do something that would help mitigate the problem."

porschefraulein replied: "I have no sympathy for people like these... People like a friend of mine who is a contractor and actually needs his huge pickup truck-- yeah, them I feel for. But to me this is just the end result of a typical attitude in the US. Here people tend to buy a car because it's "cool", or some other stupid reason, not because they've considered their actual, practical needs for a car. It's one thing if you buy a "toy" car (i.e. you're knowingly buying a car for the fun of it, not for practical use), but to buy something that is way beyond what you could ever need need is stupid. I currently drive a 2000 Civic. Would I have liked to have a bigger or more fun and sporty car? Sure. But I needed something cheap, reliable as heck, and practical. An SUV would've been nice, as that was what I was driving previously (inherited from parents). But it was costly, broke frequently, and I didn't really need one. Gas prices have always been going up, and they're likely to keep doing so. To think that's going to change in an instant is moronic and short-sighted. Gas milage wasn't the main reason I bought my Civic, but it was certainly part of it. My old SUV had a 35 gal tank that typically got used up in about 2 weeks. I never let it get below half a tank because even back in the 1990s it was too expensive to fill up from empty. My Civic will also go about 2 weeks on a tank of gas, but it has a 14 gal tank. It averages 30 mi/gal for both highway & local driving. (It's rated at 27mpg city, 33 highway.) I've also diven in Europe, where they have super-efficient diesel cars. They get milage as good as or better than some hybrids (45-60 mi/gal), and are very clean-- no black cloud of exhaust. But we can't get them here in the US because everybody thinks diesel is dirty and smelly. Nobody can be bothered to do a little research... Sorry for the rant.... this is just one of my pet peeves...."

GingerGirl replied: "Yes. I'm also tired of people complaining about the price, but yet they continue to drive all over and make unnecessary trips. Just stay home once in awhile!"

CrunchyCon replied: "Well first of all there are single people who have SUVs for a reason, like living in the country and needing four wheel drive in the winter but wanting something more practical than a truck. And I'd like to see my kayak on top of a Prius or try to fit all our camping gear in the back. I don't think so. Keep in mind they serve a purpose for people with active lifestyles before you go bashing people for owning a particular vehicle. (Although I'm with you on Hummers, unless you're in Baghdad you don't need one of those.) And second of all, if you bought the SUV/Truck/Whatever when gas prices were fine it's NOT cost effective to trade it in, the cost of getting a new vehicle (especially when your existing one is paid off) is more than it's worth to save on gas. Driving an SUV without a monthly payment is still cheaper than trading it in to save a few miles a gallon and all of a sudden having a car payment again. It doesn't make financial sense. So you need to think a little bit about other people's situation and whether it would really make sense or them to get another vehicle before you go bashing others. Or better yet, let it go and mind your own business."

Inherent Contradictions ? I understand what they sell, the question is why people buy these ? Some one talked about Hybrid Hummer for better fuel economy. This reminded (i) Low fat Cheese and all assortment of low fat items (ii) Sugarless (diet) soda (iii) Sugarless cookies (iv) Zero transfat fried chicken (v) Non buttery butters. Most of these use synthetic substitutes which have some other complications. Do these items sell in the market as they allow a false sense of complacency to user regarding control on consumption ?

sunny w replied: "Kinda like Jumbo Shrimp."

bearsdentulsa replied: "There are different answers for different people. Some are told by their doctor to be on a low-fat diet. Diabetics can't have sugar. "Trans fats" have been shown to be harmful to our health; I think that avoiding them will soon be "mainstream" if it isn't already. I also think that the general public tend to believe what they are told, if not by advertisers then by "experts" and professionals. They told us that butter is bad for us, margarine is better, so, wanting to live longer and be healthy, we switched to margarine. Now, of course, the truth - small amounts of butter are probably healthier than the hydrogenated oils in margarine - is coming out! Personally, I'm trying to lose weight following the Weight Watchers plan, and on WW foods that are higher in fat count more "points." So I use foods like reduced fat cheeses to help me stay within my daily points allowance. It is very true that "low fat" and "sugar free" can be misleading; these foods are often not reduced calorie foods (which fact you may find in the fine print if you get out your magnifying glass) and may not be any healthier than their regular counterparts, but there are valid health reasons for some people to eat sugar free foods and/or low fat foods."

Will we eventually go into a dictatorship....naturally? It seems that a dictatorship will arise, not as an exterior imposition. But one demanded as an imposition from the citizens themselves. This will not happen from one moment to the next, lest a nuclear bomb levels a city. It will happen gradually, from one day to the next it would seem. Take oil for instance. It would have been helpful, economically, if someone had imposed an 'oil' tax some years ago to inoculate the population and start directing people to a more fuel efficient consumption. The oil tax could have been acheived by say, taxing single drivers so people would use greater mass transportation (buss), etc. However, democratically, the measure was voted down because it was not popular at the time. What happened? A few years later, the price of gas rises due to the greater demand, and a NATURAL tax is imposed on the population through a higher gas price. Perhaps nowadays, people would be willing to vote in a bill that would tax, say, hummers. Similarly, right now, a one child policy instituted or imposed from the exterior would be rejected and visciously attacked by human rights groups. Just image pro-life going after the one child policy. However, as population slowly creeps to 9 billion worldwide, people will start DEMANDING a measure such as the one child policy. It will start becoming economical. Because if you half the amount of people with the same amount of resources, you double standard of living, it would be an excellent policy promoter politicians could use as a result of the immesurable debt we would have left them due to our generation's spending and borrowing=it would also be a good way to attack america's debt. Look at this way, the people that were once favored...or customs that were once the accepted status quo, have now become unpopular. We were very willing to go invade a country after 911 because we felt attacked...but ocne the psychological impact and the real economic toll took its effect (it was only 5000 people compared to 50,000 car deaths each year in the united states)...people started wondering, is it really worth it to go invading countries because of two towers? Imagine what would have happened if a nuclear bomb had levelled New York city? What I am hinting at, is that the mores of the time are not defined by any absolute and irrevocable 'moral' ...but that such principles arise due to the circumstances of the time. So, it would be natural that the day a nuke goes off in new york, people will DEMAND someone pay. Right now, we have the luxury to say that we would not invade or do this or that, but when the chips are down, the demeanour of the country could change completely. What democracy doesn't anticipate is the future and long term trends. It only lives in the moment...what people 'feel' like...it doesn't plan, 5, 10 years ahead. Thus, things could have been killed when small, end up growing up into large problems So as we impose restrictions on our selves as time goes by, does it not make sense we will end up in a 'mob dictatorship'.... As the situation in the 21st century gets increasingly hairy .. our entire population is on aritificial life support with oil.....it went from 1 billion to 6 billion....crop yields are supported due to the energy invested in them in fuel...... it seems we will impose on ourselves a dictatorship....and not some harsh measures today, may become commonplace and acceptable....For example, as the value of human life declines, perhaps it will be economical to reduce the population by having them drafted and die in wars....Furthermore, eugenics might become a viable alternative to 'equalize the wealth gap'.... Perhaps people will grow weary of politicians trying to cator and agree to their every whinning and temporary whim....and want someone who will instruct them, teach them.....who has a greater intellect... perhaps the 'best and the brightest' will take a different meaning, be turned on its head, and only people with high IQ, hard workers, and morally endowed...reach office. if you think about it, as a leader, you want someone who will teach you, not someone who will cator to your every moronic and irrational whim.....this is analogous to a father being held by the balls by his kid and doing everything the kid desires, no matter how immature or moronic. As people see the benefits of 'enlightened electorates' and grow tired of now one agreeing under democracy (perhaps people will grow frustrated in face of slow reaction in a catastrophe)....they will set up a check and balances system that is democratic, yet meritocratic... say, high IQ, compassionate people reach office as people who control the population.....they are given many millions of dollars, but if they are found to abuse their power or be corrupt, they would be put to death or sent to jail. It seems as problems multiply this century, a dictatorship will not 'creep' and impose itself....but will perhaps, be demanded by the citizens themselves? it will be that, or leaving it up to 'God' which would be quite irresponsible and lead to complete chaos...such as the end of fight club. And then the population....would naturally....'rectify' itself...through a very rapid increase in homocides.

ToYou,Too! replied: "Fascism is in the works. One more breakdown in fair elections and the fate is sealed."

Freya replied: "Could be a world dictator one day? When things go crazy. No oil etc. who knows??"

giginotgigi replied: "This is a problem in democracy which does not get into the human nature. Dictator come when he thought he is the only truth in the universe. With a bit of progressive misleading, he can bring people into his truth. Examples: Hitler & Stalin. They looked wonderful during election. Afterward, people were forced into their world. It needs a great observation skill to spot them during election."

palmipedes replied: "I read a monologue but no earnest question."

poopsie replied: "we started out as a republic, not a democracy, and we have way to many taxes now, and oil, isn't that what we are fighting for, or did bush forget, why we are over in iraq, If his dad had done the job right in the first place, we would own kuwait today, so what happened??? don't blame people who drive hummer's, blame the corrupt govt. of this country, we have plenty of resources right here in the USA!!!!!!! but because of the corrupt govt, of this country, they would rather start a war, for oil, again, for the second time,!!!!!"

treadthewater replied: "i see alot of people have been reading my answers yea facism is growing and getting greater do to corporate america they have the money and power to get who ever they want in their just think corporate america is planning to put RFID chips in everthing including people in other words all you have to do is sit in your drive way cop drives by he doesnt have to ask you your name he will just punch it in his computer gps whatever you wanna call it and no who you are where you are and what you are doing and corporate amerca (wallmart for one wants it) and their is many others i can chat about but have some very interesting conversations going on right now and like i said on a few other answer things its not oil we are over their for if it is OIL where the hell is it all ??? but think about it prices of everything has went up way up but their is only one thing that remains the same people and that ?????? is your wages the rich keep getting richer and everyone else keeps getting the shaft so dont say oil because according to gas prices we sure are not recieving any oil from iraq just a coverup to make more money for corporate america gold has tripled but then again alot of things have went up accept the peoples wages"

Popular Links
Popular Tags
Hummer Fuel Consumption © 2009