<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Colorado Independent - Latest Comments in Gas Wars</title><link>http://coloradoindependent.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://coloradoindependent.disqus.com/gas_wars/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 13:55:16 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Gas Wars</title><link>http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3627/gas-wars/#comment-1678263</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Gas was cheap under Clinton&lt;/strong&gt; I remember the late 90s fondly, when gas prices were under $1 a gallon.  Blame the Dems if you want, but 18 months of a Dem Congress did not cause the gas prices that have been climbing since Bush took office.  Half of America elected two oil men, and they took care of their oil company buddies just fine.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Mehringer</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 13:55:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Gas Wars</title><link>http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3627/gas-wars/#comment-1678262</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Oh, and please explain...&lt;/strong&gt; ...how a lack of growth for nuclear power -- which has had 20 years worth of GOP administrations since Three Mile Island to get back on its feet -- has driven up gasoline prices.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmenezes</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 13:45:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Gas Wars</title><link>http://www.coloradoindependent.com/3627/gas-wars/#comment-1678261</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Misinformation from Truthteller 2.0&lt;/strong&gt; Umm, "facts" tend to carry some substantiation, of which you've provided none for your assertion that gas prices are high because exploration and unbridled drilling have been "blocked."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;In contrast, here's some substantiation that, as usual, you're providing factually inaccurate statements to support your position:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/apr2008/bw2008041_945564.htm"&gt;http://www.businessw...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">bmenezes</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 13:43:18 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>