An as yet unpublished report from Ottawa, Canada, suggests that there is absolutely no ecological advantage to using ethanol blends in cars versus conventional unleaded gasoline.
Think this will make headlines here in America?
Regardless of the answer, the Canadian Broadcasting Company reported on Friday (video available here, emphasis added throughout):
An unpublished federal report appears to undermine the belief that commercially available ethanol-blended fuel produces cleaner emissions than regular gasoline.
The piece marvelously continued:
Scientists at Environment Canada studied four vehicles of recent makes, testing their emissions in a range for driving conditions and temperatures.
“Looking at tailpipe emissions, from a greenhouse gas perspective, there really isn't much difference between ethanol and gasoline," said Greg Rideout, head of Environment Canada's toxic emissions research.
"Our results seemed to indicate that with today's vehicles, there's not a lot of difference at the tailpipe with greenhouse gas emissions."
Shocking. Think Katie, Brian, and Charles will do such a report anytime soon?
While you ponder, read on:
The study found no statistical difference between the greenhouse gas emissions of regular unleaded fuel and 10 per cent ethanol blended fuel.
Although the study found a reduction in carbon monoxide, a pollutant that forms smog, emissions of some other gases, such as hydrocarbons, actually increased under certain conditions.
Amazing. Ethanol blends could actually release MORE hydrocarbons into the air? Shocking.
Bill Rees, an ecology professor at the University of British Columbia and longtime opponent of ethanol, has read the report and thinks Canadians need to know its conclusions.
"I must say, I'm a little surprised at that, because it seems to fly in the face of current policy initiatives," he said.
"People are being conned into believing in a product and paying for it through their tax monies when there's no justifiable benefit and indeed many negative costs."
Hmmm. Seems the con is universal.
Now, consider just how detrimental to America this is if it turns out to be true. After all, given the federal government's ethanol blend requirements during the summer, gasoline prices are significantly higher than they should be.
Furthermore, as a result of the dramatically increased demand for corn, corn prices have skyrocketed across the world making all foods using this commodity much more expensive.
As such, this con -- if it indeed is the case that ethanol blends are not any cleaner -- has done nothing but cost Americans and people across the globe moneys that could have been spent elsewhere.
Isn't that special?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dumping my corn futures as we
April 3, 2007 - 11:02 ET by MightyMouthDumping my corn futures as we speak.....
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Add to this the amount of fos
April 3, 2007 - 11:11 ET by GalvanicAdd to this the amount of fossil-fuel that has to be burned to produce ethanol. I saw a figure about 10 years ago that for every 1 gal. of ethanol produced, it took 1.2 gal. of petroleum.
Have the ethanol producers gotten more efficient?
Good point ,I almost forgot a
April 3, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Quidnunc SavantGood point ,I almost forgot about how inefficient corn based ethanol was . The switch grass based is apparently more so, only because no seeding or tilling is needed every year.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
And as we all know by now f
April 3, 2007 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoAnd as we all know by now from the unbiased news media & our perfect politicians, other choices for biomass fuel simply do not exist....(After all, the Creator of All Things occasionally created a few politically-incorrect mistakes, and our holy political leaders need to fix all of His mistakes!)
JMR
The only problem sith switchg
April 3, 2007 - 12:00 ET by tpmintxThe only problem sith switchgrass-based ethanol production is that they have been trying to do this since the 20's, but there has been no industrial-level success yet.
Brazil uses sugarcane pretty effectively, because sugarcane actually GROWS there. Sugarcane does not grow in the US. (Well, maybe in Hawaii!)
Corn is a lousy feedstock for Ethanol.
Don't forget Florida, we drai
April 3, 2007 - 12:23 ET by dscottDon't forget Florida, we drained part of the Everglades to grow sugar cane. The lowly sugar beat is also very high in sugar, greater than cane, I can't think of a more fitting use for this foul tasting root.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Florida's "Big Sugar&q
April 3, 2007 - 12:29 ET by sarcasmoFlorida's "Big Sugar" can't compete in the worldwide sugar marketplace -- they're impotent in the face of Brazil's efficiency & productivity. That's why they buy so many "major" party politicians. Sugar subsidies (which mostly hurt poor people) are an untold scandal, IMO. But as I keep saying, politicians are holy, and unlike God, politicians don't make mistakes (see above). They're perfect!
JMR
Any subsidies usally hurt mor
April 3, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Quidnunc SavantAny subsidies usally hurt more people than they help but sugar prices have been so artificially high in this country for so long that it has driven out and hurt many businesses (candy , chocolate) that couldn't use high fructose corn syrup as a replacement(soda,baking). Of course the consumer ultimatly pays the price for all subsidies. (not to mention all the job loses )
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
tpxAt the moment sugarcane is
April 3, 2007 - 13:48 ET by upcountrywatertpx
At the moment sugarcane is grown only on Maui.. The stalks (bagasse) is burned in the mill to sell electricity to Maui county, been doing that sense 1982.
The power plants also burn coal, fuel oil and wood chips if available.
DENIER!
April 3, 2007 - 11:12 ET by RJNOEL, I'M SHOCKED. HOW COULD YOU, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE POST THIS? YOU'RE OBVOUSLY JUST A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER!
But, but, but, the Brazilians
April 3, 2007 - 11:17 ET by dscottBut, but, but, the Brazilians are running a mostly ethanol based fuel system. So are we saying their emissions problems have not changed or improved???
So we are back to the electric car... I sure hope those Lithium Ion batteries will do the job.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Brazil uses sugar cane-based
April 4, 2007 - 03:14 ET by KimberlyBrazil uses sugar cane-based Ethanol. The only reason I remember this is that it was actually a "detour" on The Amazing Race one year--teams had to press enough sugar canes to get enough juice to be exchanged for fermented juice that is distilled into Ethanol. They then had to add that Ethanol to their car before driving to their next task.
However, as has been pointed out, Ethanol not only isn't as efficient as gasoline as an engine fuel, but it actually consumes energy (which often comes from the consumption of fossel fuels) to get made. Gotta love the alternate fuel crowd.
Interesting results but, this
April 3, 2007 - 11:18 ET by Quidnunc SavantInteresting results but, this was done with 10% ethanol blend not the 15%-20% found in the US not to mention E85%.
It makes no difference anyway because if you processed every bit of corn produced in this country into ethanol you would only supplant 20% of the gasoline.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
I'd say a completely expected
April 3, 2007 - 13:37 ET by taznarI'd say a completely expected result. The ethanol percentage won't change anything.
If you completely burn hydrocarbons (including ethanol) you get CO2 and water. That's it. And they're both greenhouse gasses. When people say ethanol "burns cleaner" they mean it burns more completely, leaving few partial products such as carbon monoxide (CO). One of the primary purposes of the catalytic converter on an automobile is to convert CO (a pollutant) to CO2 (considered a non-pollutant in years gone by). So if the catalyitic convertors are working as expected, why would there be a difference?
No surprises, just marketing speak gone amuk.
Very good points. Especiall
April 3, 2007 - 13:39 ET by steviep831Very good points. Especially your second one. I had considered buying an E85 SUV recently until I started digging a little deeper. However, I am still considering the car as it also has the ability to shut off 4 of the 8 cylinders during certain conditions... But I obviously want to be as informed as possible. Still researching it.
Third World is already compla
April 3, 2007 - 11:22 ET by Cool ArrowThird World is already complaining we are diverting their food into our gas tanks.
And then there's the energy expenditure in producing Ethanol.
Put Iowa Caucus in the back of the pack and leave it there. It's gotten to the point you can't be President unless you worship at the altar of ethanol.
Since when is it their food i
April 3, 2007 - 11:29 ET by dscottSince when is it their food if it is produced in the US???? It's ours to do as we please. Of course, the increasing price of corn does wipe out the price support subsidy to farmers, so that's not a bad thing for the tax payers. Agricultural subsidies have been dropping in the budget for a few years.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
The upward pressure on world
April 3, 2007 - 11:47 ET by Quidnunc SavantThe upward pressure on world prices as a result of demand for grain based ehthanol makes the food prices unreachable even in their own countries.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
But the Time article of 51 id
April 3, 2007 - 12:38 ET by dscottBut the Time article of 51 ideas to fight Global Warming told us to turn food into fuel. Is the MSM contradicting itself??? I'm sooooo confused. <sarcasim on> I guess some poor people have to starve for our energy independence???? Population control measure number 25.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Ha. Then I am adhering to o
April 3, 2007 - 13:47 ET by steviep831Ha. Then I am adhering to one of the ideas to fight GW. I am actually converting food into fuel as we speak... Don't you love lunch?
Third World is already compla
April 3, 2007 - 13:51 ET by taznarOf course this corn would otherwise be going to feed livestock or not grown at all. An interesting side note is that corn by itself doesn't have a high enough protein content to optimal in "fattening up" livestock. But when the sugar and starch from corn is turned into ethanol, one is left with a substance which is very high in protein that can be used as a protein supplement in feed. That side of the equation is often forgotten in discussions on the economical viability of using corn for ethanol -there is more than one end product.
Third world complaining
April 3, 2007 - 21:15 ET by nkviking75In the first place, the third world has learned to blame all of its problems on the US, whether we deserve it or not. In the second place, economics is working as one would expect. There is expected to be a huge increase in the amount of corn planted this year in the US. Barring a major drought or some other factor that would cut yield, there will be more corn available by fall, and prices will drop sometime this summer.
I haven't seen any study that accounts for the rapid increase in production capacity for ethanol. I wonder what that will do to efficiency.
Wait a minute!There must be
April 3, 2007 - 11:36 ET by MightyMouthWait a minute!
There must be hard science behind the use of Ethanol, right? I mean it can't be politically based, such as... oh say...Global Warming? Right?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
rain forests are being cut down to produce palm oil for ethanol
April 3, 2007 - 12:40 ET by RJOne of the most ironic things about this feel good junk science is that rain forests are being cut down to produce palm oil for ethanol.
Oil independence...
April 3, 2007 - 11:44 ET by heldmywI don't recall emissions being part of the equation before this anyway! I thought the point was to reduce oil dependence and make us more self-sufficient.
Oil companies can't be happy at the prospect of a 20% reduction in their sales if ethanol is maxed out by commercial producers, but they have to be terrified of the 'home brewer", converting vegetable waste to X number of gallons of fuel-grade alcohol in a hot water heater-sized still...
At $3+ a gallon, I'd take a stab at it. Might be fun!
I mean, we all have garbage, and there is a certain deliciousness to the idea of running my car on my trash (that isn't going to the local landfill, too! Al Gore? Are you listening?).
THAT would be a body blow for big oil, and one that they'll probably fight tooth and nail.
I don't recall emissions bein
April 3, 2007 - 14:41 ET by taznarThey always have been -but it was carbon monoxide that was the evil gas and CO2 was good. Burning ethanol produced less carbon monoxide. In many ways, better engines and catalytic convertors have mooted that benefit. The possiblity that it could reduce dependency on foreign oil was seen as icing on the cake.
Emissions were not the reason
April 3, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Indiana JoeEmissions were not the reason for the original addition of ethanol to gasoline. I burned "gasohol" in my car in the late '70s/early '80s. It was everywhere. The car actually got worse mileage with the blend, so I would look for pumps NOT labeled "Contains 10% alchohol." They weren't easy to find.
And the sole reason for this was to save gasoline and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Emissions were not "part of the equation."
Besides, catalytic converters preceded the "gasohol" craze by several years. They're why unleaded gas was created, and they were aimed at emissions. But not "gasohol."
And lead (I was going to sa
April 3, 2007 - 15:24 ET by sarcasmoAnd lead (I was going to say "unlike CO2" here, but lately I've been reconsidering...) makes people even-more stupid than they already-are, so doing something to limit particles of lead in the air is probably one of the few government actions on the environmental front I can support. And IMO it's something that would have naturally happened, possibly via something like class action lawsuits in the federal courts instead of an expensive, Nixonian big-government agency, in a freer market than we had back-then (which, while better than the hellholes of most of the rest of the world, wasn't-very!). Yes, this requires sensible judges, but those are a better bet than sensible EPA bureaucrats.
JMR
"...doing something to l
April 3, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Indiana Joe"...doing something to limit particles of lead in the air is probably one of the few government actions on the environmental front I can support."
Ah, but the reason lead was removed from gas is because it clogged catalytic converters. I agree, spewing lead into the air sounds like a really stupid thing to do. And eliminating it probably was a good environmental move. But it was a purely ancillary effect; lead was eliminated to protect the converters, not for any health reasons (at the time).
One "unintended consequence" of environmentalism that was actually a good thing!
I guess my memory of the time
April 3, 2007 - 15:58 ET by taznarI guess my memory of the time is different than yours. I remember it being billed to reduce CO production. And even though I lived in the midwest at the time, where gasohol was really pushed, I never had trouble finding gas without ethanol. What did get to be hard was finding "regular" (leaded) gas for the old car I drove.
Well, I was (and am) in the M
April 3, 2007 - 16:51 ET by Indiana JoeWell, I was (and am) in the Midwest, but near Chicago. That may have had something to do with the prominence of "gasohol" around here. Also, I looked for the cheapest gas... IIRC, most of the major brands were 100% gas, but were more expensive, naturally.
And they'd even pump it for you! <sigh> ;^)
The main attraction of ethano
April 3, 2007 - 11:50 ET by dan708The main attraction of ethanol is that it might wean us off of foreign oil. If we can ever get to the point that we only need our domestic oil, ethanol will be doing its job.
I say the main attraction i
April 3, 2007 - 12:03 ET by sarcasmoI say the main attraction is corn subsidies and various other political pork, because nature & physics seem to both say ethanol's not the way to reduce foreign oil dependance and can't do the job it (politically) took via bipartisan "affirmative action." As I said above, since our politicians know best for all of us, obviously God does occasionally create mistakes -- good thing we have big government to fix 'em when He does, eh?
JMR
"The main attraction of
April 3, 2007 - 12:31 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"The main attraction of ethanol is that it might wean us off of foreign oil. If we can ever get to the point that we only need our domestic oil, ethanol will be doing its job."
Might is not compelling enough for me, nor should it be for America's taxpayers.
From what I've read even if we converted all of the nation's corn crop to ethanol, we would still have to import oil, it wouldn't even come close to substantially reducing imports. The only chance we have of "weaning" ourselves off of foreign oil is to drill in ANWR, off-shore, and anywhere else in our territories and to build more and modern U.S. refineries. We have the reserves, we just aren't using them. If we tap our own oil reserves we WILL be able to reduce/eliminate our dependency on foreign oil.
Ethanol is a tremendous waste of a food resource, time, and money. It is not worth it.
The differences between might and will are substantial, and Congress needs to hear our voices on this issue.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Ethanol is a tremendous waste
April 3, 2007 - 14:08 ET by taznarActually, growing corn to be fed to livestock so we can eat meat is the biggest waste of a food product. But I like a good steak now and then...
At this point, I think its too early to tell if its worth it or not. Even reducing oil use by a small percentage would have a major impact not only on our dependency on the whims of other countries, but also impact the price of oil. Having ethanol as a "threat" sets an upper limit on the price of a barrel of oil. In fact, one of the "fears" you often hear for investors in ethanol is that if it gets too succesful, the oil companies can easily drop the price of oil and bankrupt the ethanol industry.
How can you say it's too earl
April 3, 2007 - 14:26 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveHow can you say it's too early to tell whether it is worth it or not?
The ONLY reason the ethanol companies are not bankrupt right now is because of the subsidies they are getting from our tax dollars.
That fact alone tells me ethanol is not worth it.
Feed the corn to livestock...don't seek after the Holy Grail of energy independence through bankrupt ethanol when we already sit on an energy solution with the billions upon billions of barrels of crude oil within our own territories. Crude is cheap...it is proven...it is readily available.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Its too early because questio
April 3, 2007 - 16:23 ET by taznarIts too early because questions remain.
What will the cost savings be (if any) when scaling up production?
How much more efficient (both cost and resource -wise) can we be in ethanol production?
What will be the price of oil in 10 years? 20?
What would even a 5% reduction in oil imports do to oil prices in the global market?
You're right, it isn't cost-effective now. But if oil goes to $70-80 a barrel as it did last summer and stays there, it will be.
You're also right that ethanol companies are currently existing on subsidies. That often happens when a new industry enters the picture. That doesn't mean the new industry is not worth the investment. At least for now, I think its woth it. If it doesn't look like its going anywhere in a couple years and oil prices remain low, I'll change my mind. I just don't like the fact that we're still as dependent on oil imports now as we were in the 70s durng the last "crisis" (what happened to those nuclear power plants that were going to save us?).
With regard to the US sitting on its own oil fields, I also agree. On the other hand, imagine down the road when the Middle East is pumped dry, the world needs oil, and the US is sitting on the biggest untapped supplies remaining. Talk about strategic reserves... Then again, when I was in grade school I seem to remember being told we would run out of oil in 2010 or thereabouts.
If ethanol is a sound inves
April 3, 2007 - 23:14 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"It is too early..."
If ethanol is a sound investment, private investors would finance the R&D without taxpayer subsidies...corporations all over the world do it various products every day, those that don't pan out or are otherwise impractical lose investors. Ethanol (as fuel) has been produced since at least 1980 in the U.S., how much more time do we need? You said "if it doesn't look like its going anywhere in a couple years and oil prices remain low, I'll change my mind." So, we've had at least 27 years and it still isn't practical nor profitable and oil prices in the U.S. are still lower than the majority of the world...are you changing your mind? Taxpayer subsidies are never worth it. Additionally subsidies tend to continue perpetually.
Nuclear power is a sore subject with me. Environmentalism and scare tactics (especially in the reporting of Three Mile Island and later Chernobyl) are the biggest reasons we don't have nuclear power on a larger scale. We should have a nuclear power program as good or better than the one France has (80% of their power is nuclear). This is the one area where we can learn a lesson from France (I still shudder at that idea of France teaching the U.S. a lesson). However, nuclear power wouldn't make the slightest dent in our oil use as only 2% of our electricity is generated by buring oil (10% from natural gas). Currently between 70 to 80% of our electricity is derived from coal-fired plants, so while nuclear power will not solve the "oil problem" it will reduce air pollution though.
"when the Middle East is pumped dry..."
Don't count on it. It is a common misconception that crude oil is a finite resource. The term "fossil fuel" is confusing to many people...they assume (or in some cases are misinformed) that crude oil is the entirely composed of the decomposed remains of dinosaurs. In reality it is the result of perpetual geological processes. Check out Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) it is a man-made technology that mimics the natural geological process. It looks promising in its own niche, but I think it will never become a viable replacement for crude oil. It may be a great way to recycle our wastes and to reduce the size of landfills. Last time I read up on it, they were not receiving subsidies and they were operating at a loss...if they can get more investors they may be able to turn a profit. The problem is that even with the required investment, they may find that while it is a great technology, it is not worth the costs even on a larger scale.
The best and proven solution to our "oil problem" is to drill and refine domestically. We have proven reserves...we are sitting on the solution thanks to our politicians and environmentalists.
The people that told you we would run out of oil in 2010 are they same people telling us we are going to fry the earth with CO2...I hope you don't believe that too.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Ironically, TDP might becom
April 3, 2007 - 23:31 ET by sarcasmoIronically, TDP might become viable if "free" heat from something like "pebble bed" nuclear reactors (being developed by the capitalist/communist Chinese, but sadly not being developed at all in the USA) were a component. I love the idea of getting fuel from turkey guts. I've always suspected the antinuke hysteria was at least partially funded by coal mining interests, but I've never found any definitive proof. Or disproof...
JMR
From what I've read the TDP
April 4, 2007 - 00:00 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveFrom what I've read the TDP is self sustaining, it just doesn't produce enough additional by products to be profitable yet. I hope it does become a profitable technology, it would be great to have a TDP plant at the local landfill to break down our trash into usable resources...kind of like an industrial compost pile.
I'm going to have to read up on "pebble bed" reactors.
I think the coal miners themselves are too busy working in the mines to generate any anti-nuke hysteria. From my research the environmental lobby and scare-mongering politicians aided by the mining unions were the two biggest things blocking nuclear power.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
Miners work, yes, but union
April 4, 2007 - 00:19 ET by sarcasmoMiners work, yes, but unions (as you say) and mine owners (as I suspect) have time on their hands for political mischief, and their likely interests/political affiliations would make said mischief bipartisan. Those 2 sides' ability to pay-off only 2 parties' scare mongering politicians for results is yet another reason for the USA to have more viable political choices than just tax-&-spend or borrow-&-spend in the political marketplace. The much maligned Wikipedia has some good stuff on pebble bed reactors. No nuclear reactor design is malice-proof, but the history of accidents like TMI & Chernobyl indicates being stupid-proof would be a major improvement.
JMR
Corn is not just used for food
April 3, 2007 - 21:22 ET by nkviking75"Ethanol is a tremendous waste of a food resource..."
According to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, corn is used for more than food and ethanol. For a chart, click here. If we eliminated ethanol tomorrow, not all corn would be used for food. This winter some people used corn-burning stoves for heat.
Heck viking...Used for heat y
April 3, 2007 - 21:37 ET by bigtimerHeck viking...
Used for heat you say?
Why would anyone need that when we have GWing here!
LMAO!
Btw...Dairy producers say they are going to raise the price of milk a gallon by 60 cents because of the cost of the ethanol they are having to use....
Tell me again how this doesn't affect everyone...rich or poor...what a dumb nation we live in at times...of course we have the socialist news leading the way with their propaganda.
President Bush didn't help any today talking... once again about getting off of our oil addiction....I just shake my head anymore...
I give up.
I don't think ethanol is the answer
April 3, 2007 - 21:44 ET by nkviking75At best, ethanol is a stop gap measure. We need to be drilling our own domestic petroleum, increasing refining capacity, and clearing away the patchwork of laws that requires so many gasoline formulas, just to start. Generating electricity with nuclear plants would also help.
Don't expect corn prices to remain permanently higher. Demand will drive increased supply. It'll just take time.
You and I agree viking.You ha
April 3, 2007 - 21:58 ET by bigtimerYou and I agree viking.
You have been here long enough to know how I feel about our own oil dependency in this country...and Lord knows we have oodles and oodles of it.
I am so disgusted he President does not even mention drilling here anymore and being self-reliant...especially during the particular war.
Oil went down a dollar foutry five today...big f'n whoppee...it is to around 65 a barrel again.
Drill Often...Drill Everywhere! (thanks BD once again...lol!)
Question is...when will we?
I want to know how Thompson feels about this...I know how he voted in the Senate..but I do wonder what he will say on the campaign trail if he runs.
I love Duncan Hunter...a few others too...Tancredo, Romney...but I want to know what they will do to make us self-reliant...
More refineries....I agree totally with you about Nuclear too.
Ethanol is not the answer. It
April 3, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Clear thinkerEthanol is not the answer.
It takes over 2 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol. But selling a lot more corn sounds great to the voters in Iowa.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Nonsense! I find lots of an
April 3, 2007 - 22:26 ET by NL207Nonsense! I find lots of answers in ethanol, particularly that derived from barley!
Ethanol came in to replace the last con-job - MTBE
April 3, 2007 - 11:55 ET by tpmintxPrior to last year, the EPA required many so-called non-attainment areas to use MTBE as an "oxygenate" which helps to cut down on carbon monoxide emissions. However, they don't tell us that CO is not really a problem in well-tuned cars and trucks. CO is a problem in high-altitude areas, in the winter. This is the reason that the concept of oxygenates was developed.
So now we have a fuel additive that was developed to solve a problem in Denver in the winter as a mandatory additive for "summer blend" gasoline?
How did this happen? Was there science involved, or just consensus?
Then we all found out that MTBE was highly carcinogenic, and did not degrade or break down when spilled into the environment. So they mandated Ethanol instead.
Ethanol was not introduced into our gasoline in order to save petroleum, it was introduced to cut down on pollution. Only it does not do this. It only makes it worse. CO does not contribute to smog. NOx does. Burning ethanol blended gas causes more NOx emission than pure gasoline.
Ethanol is a 100% pure farm-state vote-grabbing scam!
Maybe it's just me...I'm not
April 3, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveMaybe it's just me...I'm not a scientist...but, wouldn't corn and corn products be more beneficial to the economy and to mankind as food products? Less processing means lower cost. More people in the world eat corn and it's other products on a much larger scale than people that would use ethanol in their cars. A person can throw a corn cob into a pot of boiling water or on a grill for a few minutes and have a tasty and nutritious side-dish. Livestock and poultry love corn, and it fattens them up nicely. Corn is the only vegetable many kids willingly eat.
So why are we wasting a valuable food crop to this junk science?
I'm guessing that the costs and the time involved in processing the corn stock into ethanol is many times more expensive and lengthy than the costs and time involved in packaging corn for culinary use/livestock fodder. In the summertime I can typically buy 5 or more cobs of corn at my local mega-mart for a dollar. I'm guessing that the amount of ethanol extracted from the same corn cobs cost a lot more than a dollar, which means when purchased as fuel it costs the consumer even more...if the government wasn't aggressively subsidising ethanol it would be more expensive than any consumer would be willing to pay.
So why are we wasting our time an tax money sacrificing an extremely valuable food crop for a financial loss?
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
One word Love Dr:POLITICS!!
April 3, 2007 - 12:21 ET by MightyMouthOne word Love Dr:
POLITICS!!!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Simple! Because big governmen
April 3, 2007 - 12:21 ET by sarcasmoSimple! Because big government is holy, and politicians don't make mistakes.
JMR
Iowa Caucus
April 3, 2007 - 12:24 ET by Cool ArrowIowa Caucus
Thanks guys(/gals?). My quest
April 3, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThanks guys(/gals?). My questions were rhetorical, but it is nice to see that people read my posts.
Speaking of Iowa...my brother-in-law lives there and was trying to preach to me the virtues of and salvation through ethanol. He wouldn't listen to anything I had to say in rebuttal...and he's not even in the corn business. He only parrots what he's been told...he hasn't done any of his own reading or research/thinking to form an honest opinion. It makes me wonder if he really is my wife's brother because she is exactly the opposite.
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
dear mean gene
April 3, 2007 - 12:57 ET by tumbler_2007I've read a lot about Patton. He was known to tell all his subordinates and even the dogfaces on the eves of battle: "Do not take counsel of your fears." What a man!
Yeah, I've met a few dudes here in NB, similar in mind-set to your brother-in-law. It's seemed to me that all you see in him is what I discovered (sadly) in some otherwise fine folks here. It's merely human pride, their vainglorious egoes. You can rebut and you can restate; you can clarify every truth of your case. --But nothing will cause them to correct their hardened first impressions. Obstinacy isn't only seen on the Left. The Right is replete with stupefied and hidebound fanatics too.
Mean Gene, I spent 6 months
April 3, 2007 - 13:01 ET by John in CAMean Gene, I spent 6 months in Minnesota a couple of years ago. My buddy's in-laws are farmers, and according to him, by their account, there is nothing better than corn ethanol.
This whole corn ethanol movement is fueled by ADM (Archer, Daniels, Midland). The governor of Minnesota, Pawlenty, can't talk for five minutes without bringing it up. Norm Coleman was one of the Republican Senators who helped defeat the drilling in ANWR bill. He of course hid behind environmental concerns, which being from Minnesota, does provide him some cover. However, IMO, it had to do with the ethanol industry in Minnesota.
Just a note, Pawlenty has been mentioned quite often as a possible running mate for John McCain. Ugh! Just another reason not to vote for Maverick.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Contrary to popular belief,
April 3, 2007 - 13:56 ET by steviep831Contrary to popular belief, our country alone produces enough food to feed the world. There's no shortage of food in this world. Just a shortage of means to attaining that food.
Dear Dr., even more than that
April 3, 2007 - 14:11 ET by kimschDear Dr., even more than that, if subsidies and incentives are given to farmers to produce corn for ethanol versus producing corn for consumption, the costs of many food items will go up because farmers will get more for ethanol than for food. Consider the many items that contain corn products: All "sugared" soda-pop contains corn syrup and there are many other products sweetened with corn syrup, it's an ingredient in cakes and cookies, candy, beverages other than soda-pop as well. Then there is corn oil and all the products that contain it, and corn flour and tortillas, corn bread, corn meal, and niblets and corn on the cob, and pop corn too. The prices of all these products will go up for ethanol which costs more in fossil fuels to create than it saves by adding it to fossil fuels and it's not really any better for the environment either.
Subsidies for domestic sugar beets are the main reason that most of the candy companies have left the United States. These companies couldn't import cane sugar (high tariffs = sugar beet subsidies) and so they just moved across the border into Canada.
Not to mention beef , pork a
April 3, 2007 - 14:35 ET by Quidnunc SavantNot to mention beef , pork and poultry prices will increase also because they will have to compete for higher feed prices.
"Go f*#& yourself , I say what I want." Oriana Fallaci
Don't you understand, it's a
April 3, 2007 - 14:41 ET by dscottDon't you understand, it's a Rovian plot to deal with the obesity problem in the country, since sugar is at the heart of the crisis, jack up the price of sugar by creating an artifical shortage from turning sugar into fuel, so companies will put less of it in the foods we eat. Splenda, yummmmm. That evil Karl Rove!!!!
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Something I've been wonderi
April 3, 2007 - 12:26 ET by John in CASomething I've been wondering about for a few months, went looking for the answer this morning and really can't find. What has happened to the commodity price of corn over the last 2-3 years? Does anyone know a good place to find that in a chart form, or have access to that information?
Looking at the corn futures market this morning, it looks like going into 2008 the commodity price is going up, but I'm not real familiar with futures markets.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
John, not sure about all that
April 3, 2007 - 12:33 ET by JABJohn, not sure about all that either, I just know that less than three years ago I would walk into my local farm feed store and pay under $3.50 for a 50 pound bag of whole corn, yesterday I paid $7.78 for the same thing.
Sounds as though we might want to invest in those corn futures you were discussing.
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
JAB, you're experience is a
April 3, 2007 - 12:55 ET by John in CAJAB, you're experience is as real world as it gets. After all, you're the guy hanging onto the end of the corn commodity price whip.
Added to your anecdotal evidence, I've heard a couple of others. One being the price of corn tortillas in Mexico getting so expensive some there can't afford that staple of their diet.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
the case of mexico
April 3, 2007 - 13:04 ET by tumbler_2007The fact is, Mexico's gov't has always fixed the price of corn on behalf of the country's poor. Now that corn is much higher-priced, the new administration has merely raised by some small amount the fixed price. Even that cautious move has alarmed everybody in Mexico. The demagogues all see it as a starvation measure, and use it to defame the opposing party, PAN.
It's like Democrats were always saying back in Reagan's day, "The Republicans steal your children's lunches."
The stories I've read, Tumbler
April 3, 2007 - 13:08 ET by RJThe stories I've read, Tumbler, indicate that end user corn prices in Mexico have gone up much more than "some small amount."
we should read some more
April 3, 2007 - 13:16 ET by tumbler_2007I'll try to inform myself; --I only recall what reports were some weeks ago in Mexican journals.
The price of their corn was deliberately set at a pittance before, so that even the humblest household would never face starvation. It might seem an exhorbitant price to some today, compared to the price in the past.
It can't rise higher than the fixed price though. No matter what corn brings on outside markets. It's gov't subsidized.
Read this.This story is all o
April 3, 2007 - 13:52 ET by Roger the ShrubberRead this.
This story is all over the board. But, the basic gist is this: NAFTA and the United States are to blame for illegal immigration, for starving backward-ass farmers, and George Bush is to blame for promoting biofuels.
HA! You're hilarious!
April 3, 2007 - 14:01 ET by tumbler_2007And you're to blame for American bordellos.
You mean, I get credit for th
April 3, 2007 - 14:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou mean, I get credit for them, right?
No TB, crabs, or VD from my girls. And your wife is my top earner.
Don't come to a gunfight with a knife, El Guapo.
Hey! I'm the one around her
April 3, 2007 - 14:15 ET by sarcasmoHey! I'm the one around here who deserves that credit!
JMR
I'm all for sharing that, Sar
April 3, 2007 - 14:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberI'm all for sharing that, Sarc!
credit to el WASPO
April 3, 2007 - 14:34 ET by tumbler_2007My wife, el WASPO?
I drempt I was standing on your wife's shoulders. Recurring dream. We had fallen in the tychopotamic scum called your house, and I was up to my neck in your maggots.
My dear wife shook me, saying. "Wake up ! It's only a dream! You're hanging round that NB blog too much; stay away, please!"
I said sweetly, Don't worry my love. Just cleaning Roger's plough again. Nasty job but somebody's gotta do it. (He's the resident Mex-basher.)
Wow. This only reinforces wh
April 3, 2007 - 14:56 ET by Roger the ShrubberWow. This only reinforces what the majority of NBers already know: your brain is one big fajita. Over-cooked in the sol del Baja. You make absolutely no sense, and have serious mental/emotional issues.
No wonder your wife keeps working so cheaply.
Rog, I think you should let
April 3, 2007 - 15:03 ET by MightyMouthRog, I think you should let tumbler "clean your plough", since he is unable to clean your clock!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I've sent Roger a PM
April 3, 2007 - 15:25 ET by tumbler_2007He's not responding yet.
I don't think this line of comedy is called for, or in good taste. Let's cut it out.
Like I said, don't bring a kn
April 3, 2007 - 15:36 ET by Roger the ShrubberLike I said, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.
You are ill-equipped to handle me, yet you try to stir things up, and when it gets demasiado caliente en la cocina, you are the first to cry ¡tío! ¡tío!
Calling people "Nazis" at the drop of a sombrero is a-ok, but bring someone's wife into it, look out! Perhaps that is what it took to finally get through su cabeza por completo de rocas.
So, take your tychopotamic drempt crap home with you, and stop the homoerotic fantasies about cleaning my plough, okay?
i didn't bring a knife, el waspo
April 3, 2007 - 15:53 ET by tumbler_2007Your so-called GUN was a tacky hit at my wife, mister. My wife never said anything to you. Is it your custom among white supremacists to smear the messengers' wives too? Better lay off.
You may suppose I brought a knife to your gun. But I can surprise you. I haven't cried uncle. I've merely tried to defuse a bad situation here. Furthermore I haven't "called" anybody a Nazi; that's an invention of your cry-babies. I took you for a man, el WASPO. You are in fact, pond scum. Here you are, acting exactly like it. The joke is, you really think I'm ''ill-equipt to handle you." --How you flatter yourself, mocozo. Haha! Schrubber, you slay me, with that gunfight of yours. You're all raring to shoot me? In your dreams, go ahead. Shoot.
Wahhhh wahhh wahhh!
April 3, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Roger the ShrubberWahhhh wahhh wahhh!
...your brain is one big fa
April 3, 2007 - 15:40 ET by Dave R...your brain is one big fajita.
Gees, and I always thought it was guacamole.
I mean, I like fajitas. Guacamole has always looked to me like snot in a bowl.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
if Dave R had brains
April 3, 2007 - 15:56 ET by tumbler_2007His would be a Dorito.
Tumbler,Why is it you remin
April 3, 2007 - 16:38 ET by Dave RTumbler,
Why is it you remind me of this guy?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
wonder if tumbler should click on DR's link ?
April 3, 2007 - 16:52 ET by tumbler_2007Should I ?
Nah . . ! I say it in your face, Dave: You're a racist. But nobody's perfect.
Tumbler,You are the one run
April 3, 2007 - 16:57 ET by Dave RTumbler,
You are the one running around here calling Roger El Waspo, and you are calling me racist?
Puuuuuhhhhhhhhlllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze!
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
on any given day, davey
April 3, 2007 - 17:15 ET by tumbler_2007On any day I choose, I can take over all of the Schrubber's turf and have him under the table barking like a dog. He's just an ordinary jerk.
But it won't be his wife barking;
I'm older generation, not a Baby Boomer like you fellows. We knew where to draw the line, and women-folks weren't used as cannon fodder. A jerk like Rog is always out of control; & I'm under control. After our latests exchange, I got my senses back and stopped. And if he knows what's good for him, he'll stick to pithy comments like el Guapo. (El WASPO is an equivalent, not very vicious.)
Racist is fair. It only comes from associating with Rog and you over weeks and observing the immense hatred you've both expressed for downtrodden illegals out of Mexico. HEY, a racist is not unusual. The guy's not Quasimodo; you aren't a child-molester. You boys simply have it in for the harmless ethnic group that never fights back.
Trust me, Roger'll say ANYTHING hateful about me and Mexicans. If I were a Black American, he would always pussy-foot around that subject. He'd just control his racist bent. There are millions of guys in America just like that. They only strike at the helpless one. He can't even deny it, Dave. Nor can you. (And I'm not helpless.)
LMAO Tumbler
April 3, 2007 - 17:25 ET by RJ"We knew where to draw the line and women folk weren't used as cannon fodder"
LMAO! Tumbler, you've done exactly that on multiple occasions on this board. But I won't call you a liar, because I realize that your dementia allows you to conveniently forget your regular episodes of crazed posting.
nonsense, RJBS
April 3, 2007 - 18:32 ET by tumbler_2007You have to admit, my words always stop short of your usual bottom-feeding croak.
I respect women, even when they come at me with vile abuse and lies, such as Blonde did. I've never made snide remarks about any of your wives or children. Those are off-limits. These guys have no scruples about that.
Since the charges of racist hate speech, injustice and lying are well--documented here in NB, they have to sink to beating up on an opponent's wife. Not very manly, and sure not very American. That's even cheaper than reviling another man's race and country.
Um telling you; some of you chiggers sink lower than garden fertilizer.
Wow, I wonder what forum tumb
April 3, 2007 - 18:37 ET by Clear thinkerWow, I wonder what forum tumbler is talking about.
I have always found Blonde to be funny, intelligent, courteous, civil, and very good at slapping dummies up side their head. In my book, she's the perfect woman.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Wow, thanks, Clear.A lovely c
April 3, 2007 - 18:41 ET by BlondeWow, thanks, Clear.
A lovely compliment, you've made my day!
Blonde...No problem, especial
April 3, 2007 - 18:48 ET by Clear thinkerBlonde...
No problem, especially since it's all true.
I bet you like the "slap' bit the best, right ;- )
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
For Blonde
April 3, 2007 - 19:12 ET by UnsaneThis IS an open thread and all...
Blonde, my memory is rusty. Who won the game last night?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Oh yeah, Unsane.....Guess!GO
April 3, 2007 - 19:20 ET by BlondeOh yeah, Unsane.....
Guess!
GO GATORS, GO GATORS, GO GATORS!
I need to clear my calendar to do some serious shopping for NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP gear!
LOL.
Archives
April 3, 2007 - 18:41 ET by Mr. BishopCT, you have to search the archives wherein Blonde has been called a feminazi. Since the definition of a feminazi could not be applied to Blonde, the only other possible definition that could be applied was that of a female nazi. Blonde didn't take it too well (neither has anyone else accused of being racist by tumbler in the past, including myself), and has responded in kind to the racist labeling. That is what he is referring to. However, he neglects to mention the fact that he has always labeled someone else as being nazi, racist, etc., before anything else has occurred.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Mr. Bishop...I understand wha
April 3, 2007 - 18:46 ET by Clear thinkerMr. Bishop...
I understand what he was trying to say. I just love taking any opportunity to mess with tumbler, plus... I could care less what he says.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
My bad
April 3, 2007 - 18:49 ET by Mr. BishopOh well, I actually took what you said seriously... what was I thinking? ;)
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Well hello Bishop.Of course I
April 3, 2007 - 18:51 ET by BlondeWell hello Bishop.
Of course I didn't take to being called a Nazi.
Thanks for the non-feminazi statement. I appreciate it.
Yo...
April 3, 2007 - 18:56 ET by Mr. BishopYou know me... I don't blame anyone for not taking well to being labeled a Nazi, a racist, or anything of the like because they think a wall should be erected to stop illegal immigration. Good to see you. As I imagine you have talked to the old man, I have been away due to computer, moving and internet issues. As I have moved, have the internet now that I have moved, and am getting new computer components tomorrow to make a new computer, I can be on a little bit more now... Yay me.
Nonetheless... the echo, somewhat, what CT said previously... I too have found Blonde to be a perfect lady. I certainly do not expect a lady to not snap at personal insults flung at her, any more then I expect a lady to ignore when a person is rude to them. I would much rather give her an M4 so that she can perform a butt stroke to the head of the offender, but that's merely my own personal wish.
Time for dinner now... steak -- it's what's for dinner.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
hi there, mr. bishop !
April 3, 2007 - 19:16 ET by tumbler_2007Fancy meetin ya here, Mr. Bishop. (You're the mormon bishop aren't you? FINE.)
Blonde has no kicks coming, my friend. As for labelling somebody Nazi, racist, etc.,
I haven't called anyone a Nazi. YES, racists. It's not so inconceivable. A few here defended KKK militants spying on the border in So Calif. Another few made racist remarks about Mexico and our illegal Mexican immigrants right here on NB. -- Some clearly advocated violence & even murder of Mexicans, if they were seen crossing the border illegally. (These were no peace officers, they were Mexico-haters.)
Nobody except me called them on this. So, they want to shoot the messenger. Instead of setting out to demonstrate good will toward the ethnic group they detest, they launched open attacks on ---Tumbler !
Some here will ignore what my whole posts says, and insist on their "Nazi" calumny. So, I'll set that one straight, at least for one or two thinking people who might stumble on my post:
I only said, CLEARLY, --that to hate a helpless ethnic group on the basis of race-- in this case Mexican illegals, was not unlike the way Nazis once hated and denigrated Jews (circa 1936 Germany.) THAT's not "calling you," or anyone here Nazis. You know that's a stretch. But these liars glommed on that lie and keep on repeating it. Not unlike Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, who made the "BIG LIE" part of our western lexicon. REPEAT and keep repeating the Big Lie, until everyone thinks it must be true. Please don't play dumb, Mr. Bishop.
"I haven't called anyone
April 3, 2007 - 19:25 ET by RJ"I haven't called anyone Nazi" LMAO! Well, I won't call you a liar, Tumbles, because you're clearly insane, and you clearly believe your own BS.
the Big Lie
April 3, 2007 - 19:28 ET by tumbler_2007Take it to the next level, Goebbels clone. Keep lying until you drop.
Hrn...
April 3, 2007 - 23:34 ET by Mr. BishopUnlike thost who say they won't call you a liar, I will. By anyone who has advocated a fence around the country, you have called them jack-boot thugs. This is a Nazi reference. You have called me a racist, and now you are calling me dumb? Oh, no... you are saying, "don't play dumb". That's right, I forgot... you are the only enlightened person on matters of immigration, illegal or otherwise.
No Tumbler... it's not hard for anyone to search the archives. You ought to do that sometime. You have said that I hate Mexicans, that I am racist, and a superiorist. You have said this on several occassions Tumbler. The reason for you libeling me with this? Simply because I advocate a strong defense against illegal immigration, which you wanted to change to "undocumented worker" in one thread. Stronger defense... yes, I do think we need a strong defense against illegal immigration. I have said many times, I don't care what nationality comes into this country illegally, they need to get their collective butts kicked out. However, and I use this analogy again for you, simply bailing out the canoe from a massive hole in the side, won't save the boat from sinking. You have to patch the hole. We have a hole to the south... it's called the border between the US and Mexico. It needs to be patched up. It needs to be blocked so that no flood of illegals can come into this country. Yes, I said flood... when you have untold millions of illegals from one country alone, in another country, that is a flood, whether you choose to believe it or not. Now, we can bat this back and forth all day long, it's up to you. However, the bottom line is, you are wrong, and you will never win this argument until Mexicans in their own government, decide they want to fix their own economic problem. It is not up to me, as a US taxpayer, to fix the economic problems of another country. When they (they meaning the Mexican government) fix their own financial distress, and it stops their own citizens from coming into this country illegally, then we can discuss other options. Your own argument supporting the influx of illegals as "undocumented" and "impoverished" workers, has always contended the economic distress of Mexico, as being a reason that illegals should be allowed to cross the border into this country.
Now, if you really want to pick up this fight, we can do it again, all over, once more. However, I have better things to do with my time, then listen to some whiny racist "latino" complain about the people of this country, that want to uphold the law, and deem them racist for having the audacity to stand up to people like yourself.
Now, instead of more insults, just go back to your racist rantings on another website, where they are more welcome.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
that's a real long spiel, mr. bishop
April 4, 2007 - 00:00 ET by tumbler_2007Too long to waste a lot of time on. I hope you enjoyed writing that crap. But since it's late and you've back-pedalled from what I said before, I'll rewrite the core essence for you:
I respect women, even when they come at me with vile abuse and lies, such as Blonde did. I've never made snide remarks about any of your wives or children. Those are off-limits. These guys have no scruples about that.
Since the charges of racist hate speech, injustice and lying are well--documented here in NB, these creeps sink to beating up on an opponent's wife. What other choice have they? Not very manly, and sure not very American. That's even cheaper than reviling another man's race and country. And, after all. It has only been ONE man, me;
Who got them all to soil their Pampers. One guy; and they call out all the artillery. No lie is too silly to post, no insult too juvenile. Of a dozen possibly racist types easily five are convicted by their own words; and you're here sweeping up behind them. --You're here as their garbage-man ? --Good servant; you might have chosen to support those who are unjustly persecuted. I'm sorry for you.
Heck, Tumbler, your scrambled up brain protects you from
April 3, 2007 - 18:45 ET by RJHeck, Tumbler, I wouldn't expect you to admit or even remember the times you've attacked family members. Your well-known dementia protects you. In your scrambled up brain, events are twisted around until they come out unrecognizable by anyone on the board. The really funny thing is that you obviously believe your own BS. ;^>
another "clear" day at CT's
April 3, 2007 - 18:53 ET by tumbler_2007intelligent, courteous, civil, --Blondie ?
Funny, maybe; like Lucie was. Intelligent? Come on. Her intelligence keeps up with you, possibly. Not much to brag about.
Courteous & civil? Haw haw! Like when she twice called an elderly man "Dickhaid" and was not woman enough later to admit it and apologize? But she cries about being called a Nazi, which nobody called her.
OK, no accounting for taste. Kiss up to her. In your book, up is down.
If the shoe fits, Cinderella.
April 3, 2007 - 18:58 ET by BlondeIf the shoe fits, Cinderella.......
I admit it...and as for the apology.....Jimmy Carter will be re-elected before you ever see that. I said it, twice, and I meant it twice. I think it again every time I see you post. It is a perfect description of you.
Get over it. You whine like a two year old. That was nine months ago. Keep it up....it's really getting to be hilarious.
Blonde, Tumbles continues to
April 3, 2007 - 19:05 ET by RJBlonde, Tumbles continues to behave just like the leftists. He sees no problem with his own constant screeching and name calling, but, heavens, let someone slap a name on him and he never stops whining. It's just like the liberals who demand certain behavior from us but feel themselves to be exempt from the same thing. ;^>
Righto, RJ.I've been known to
April 3, 2007 - 19:17 ET by BlondeRighto, RJ.
I've been known to have a potty mouth from time to time...guess it's the company I keep (at work).
But I don't regret for one second that I called him what he clearly is! LOL.
He just whines incessantly about it though....did you notice the "elderly man" bit.
Sheesh.
These libs can dish it out, but they surely can't take it!
Woo hoo....I'm still on a big high from the Gators last nite. Today was soooooo much fun. Boo hoo, FSU!
I have to spend some quality
April 3, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Clear thinkerI have to spend some quality time with my granddaughter watching American Idol. Otherwise I would stay and watch tumbler get his clock cleaned by my fellow NBr's.
My comments stand as written about Blonde. She could outwit tumbler with both of her brains tied behind her back. Tumbler is just a white woman hater.
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
goodby, thinker in a fog
April 3, 2007 - 19:21 ET by tumbler_2007Nobody has yet cleaned Tumbler's clock. Maybe in your less than sober dreams?
Blonde least of all. Her usual retort is to call you a nasty name and utter, "Ta,ta." Really busts loose with the WIT ! Ha ha!
Maybe that's her real problem. Her brains are tied behind her back. Nah. Her brains aren't much to start with. Only slightly handier than clear as fog.
a little p.s.
April 3, 2007 - 19:26 ET by tumbler_2007Clear thinking is foggy thiking at CT's house;
and watching American Idol is high culture. Wow; his "quality time." A deep thinker.
Oh, right, Tumbler.You are su
April 3, 2007 - 18:39 ET by BlondeOh, right, Tumbler.
You are such a paragon of virtue. Never attacking women.....riiiiiiighhht!
It's just fine for you to call me a Nazi. And all of the other ugly things you've posted here.
Keep it up....you are looking stupider (a la your new pal Rupert) by the minute.
ROTFLMAO!
Tumbler, I found a much better shot of you.
April 3, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Dave RThis is even better. Gotta admit I like the juxtaposition of this one.
An omen, perhaps?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
get yourself juxtaposed
April 3, 2007 - 18:42 ET by tumbler_2007With a brain, Dave. Meet a medulla oblongata and get in bed with her, Lol!
I've got the right one Dave
April 4, 2007 - 01:28 ET by SportPoliticsI've got the right one Dave.
Now the activist who speaks up for those who can't speak for themselves ( his little race followers like Jesse Jacksons color crew ) can give himself absolution, pray an open pharisee prayer, lecture on religion, and bow his head and imply a claim he's a poor trodden under lowlife loser in the hopes that we'll all cry with him, for his shame of being a spic, and for all spics, who all just want to eat, not starve, and make a living for their family, that they all have, somewhere, because foul jowls said so, and it's all so true, if you aren't a racist
After his personal open absolution, 4 plenary indulgences, bragging about taking everyone on, hurling invective, claiming he never does or only goes so far, screeding everyone is a racist except him, babbling he has no relatives in mexico, then crying like a pathetic loser, he will pull his last and final smart off by claiming he'll pray for the racist, or say he already did, thereby earning another open plenary indulgence and personal high ground self congratulation.
roflmao - add 40 years to the age, and there you have the truth.
Sport,LMAO-Gotta hand it to
April 4, 2007 - 06:19 ET by Dave RSport,
LMAO-Gotta hand it to ya. That pic pretty much nails him.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
"Tell us we will die lik
April 3, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Airforce_5_O"Tell us we will die like dogs"
"You will die like dog
April 3, 2007 - 19:07 ET by Mean Gene Dr. Love"You will die like dogs!"
"There is a time to take counsel of your fears, and there is a time to never listen to any fear." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
So it's Bush's fault for not
April 3, 2007 - 14:06 ET by dscottSo it's Bush's fault for not signing Kyoto and it's his fault that the price of food is increasing??? It's not the fault of Mexico's government artifically keeping down the price of corn for umteen years, not letting it rise with the cost of living and just abritarily hiking the amount, nor is it Iran's fault for high oil prices by funding terrorism and instigating tensions (Hezbollah, Hamas, bombings in Iraq, kidnapping people) in the ME. Yeap, it's all Bush's fault... We just can't wait until Nov 2008 when the Dems take the presidency, usher in world peace and prosperity allowing us to to get together OBL to sing Kumbiyah because they will tax us and spend the government's (it was never ours in the first place) money in the best possible manner to eliminate Global Warming. Al Gore will be appointed the head of the EPA and we will all breathe easier...
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Yep. Told ya that story dance
April 3, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Roger the ShrubberYep. Told ya that story danced all over the place.
At least on the "he di
April 3, 2007 - 14:10 ET by sarcasmoAt least on the "he didn't veto stupid corn/ethanol subsidies" issue, I think it's safe to assume I can construct an "it's Bush's fault" argument for part of the problem...
JMR
John
April 3, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Noel SheppardJohn,
As evidenced by the following chart (http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CN/W), corn futures have almost doubled in price since the end of 2005.
How do you think that has impacted the price of gasoline, as well as everything made with corn (tortillas, corn meal, etc.) and everything that eats corn (chicken, beef, pork)? ns
Thanks Noel. Look at how th
April 3, 2007 - 13:29 ET by John in CAThanks Noel. Look at how the price has taken off since autumn of 2006. I think that's telling. Confirms my suspicions.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Great. Just in time for the s
April 3, 2007 - 13:43 ET by Dave RGreat. Just in time for the summer corn to hit the store shelves. Guess there won't be any 10 ears for $1.00 deals this summer. Too bad. :-(
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.- Neal Boortz.
What's worse, Noel, is that
April 3, 2007 - 14:09 ET by steviep831What's worse, Noel, is that this means next growing season, farmers will want to grow more corn (because they get a higher price than another commodity) meaning there will be less of other commodities such as wheat, soybean, sorghum, etc. Prices for these other commodities will also increase. People don't realize how agriculture touches our lives and effects us so close to home. The good news, if there is even a shred, is that the higher prices will allow farmers to experiment with different technologies, for example, genetically modified crops or allow them to use more costly, but effective pesticides. All these things mean higher quality foods. Corn growers made a killing last year.
Actually, is that really true
April 3, 2007 - 14:15 ET by dscottActually, is that really true they might switch from wheat to corn? Consider that the government has been paying farmers "not" to plant for years to keep down the amount they have to shell out for subsidy payments or forced to store at government expense. So the real question here is how many idle farm fields is the government still paying for??? So actually this is a good thing, no more payments not to farm and no more payments to prop up the price of corn or wheat or anything else. Correct??
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I don't think the govenment p
April 3, 2007 - 15:57 ET by steviep831I don't think the govenment pays for a farmer not to plant in general, but tax revenues are given to farmers in exchange for not growing
a particular commodity (negative subsidy). I think they are then free
to plant another crop of their choosing. So if I'm a farmer that will
not be planting wheat this year, then by all means I'll be planting
corn because the prices are through the roof and I can make a killing.
The government then is not only paying for the farmer not to plant
wheat (in my example) but then if the farmer requests, he can also be
given a positive subsidy for the corn he will grow. In the mean time we
get stuck with higher prices.
I'm not sure how reactive these
trends are though. Knowing the government it will take them a few years
to react. Positive farm subsidies are intended to stimulate
overproduction to help lower the cost of these food items. There are
about 12 commodities that farmers can get subsidized for. Corn, of
course, being one of them. A recent example where the government paid a
farmer not to grow a crop is in the tobacco industry where the
government paid tax funds for farmers in NC not to grow tobacco. The
situation with corn for ethanol production is a rare occurance. It'll
be interesting to see how it affects prices this year and next.
A couple of weeks ago I read
April 3, 2007 - 14:45 ET by ahusserA couple of weeks ago I read an article that farmers were starting to complain about the cost of corn which was being diverted to the making of ethanol. Farmers use corn as a feed grain. If they cant feed their animals and make a profit they will cut back or kill their stock making beef, dairy products, etc. more expensive. The mechanism of price is always a mystery to a democrat feeling that evil corporations and other conspiracies of "the rich" are always to blame for price rises and not their own flawed regulation and ignorance.
All these comments (as well
April 3, 2007 - 14:57 ET by sarcasmoAll these comments (as well as all the Republican pork before & all the Democrat pork now...) are why America needs to force-feed the next President a Line Item Veto. Believe me, despite all of 'em mouthing empty words to the contrary, none of the presidents in my lifetime so-far have actually wanted a Line Item Veto power. They're not stupid, so none of 'em wants to take individual responsibility for various stupid spending bills they still really do want to sign. I'm glad Bush has finally figured out that he had a veto, but (see, among other things, the effects of these dimwitted corn/ethanol subsidies) it's far too late at this point.
JMR
There is only two ways the Co
April 3, 2007 - 15:08 ET by dscottThere is only two ways the Congress and the Supreme Court will ever give the POTUS the line item veto: 1. A tax revolt where everyone refuses to pay or 2. a Rostenkowski moment where every representative and court judge get their cars shook for 10 minutes by an angry public sick and tired of all the give away programs and debt payments. So when's that going to happen??? I'd say never.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Not never, but looking at h
April 3, 2007 - 15:17 ET by sarcasmoNot never, but looking at history IMO it's probably going to take some sort of financial meltdown-disaster, and it's hard to hope for that, although it gets easier to predict every day...
JMR
Heh heh heh...Imagine what'
April 3, 2007 - 15:14 ET by sarcasmoHeh heh heh...Imagine what's left of just about any spending bill out of this congress after Ron Paul got to carve it up with a line item veto. Sweet! (For fiscal conservatives like me, that is!) I'm thrilled he'll be in the debate. And he's finally back on Pajamas Media & even getting (ok, Rog, I know you'll click it so let me say it first because I'd never heard of the guy either: minor!) endorsements!
JMR
For anyone interested: Dunc
April 3, 2007 - 17:32 ET by John in CAFor anyone interested: Duncan Hunter will be on Hugh Hewitt's radio show in the next hour (up until 430PM Pacific time). You can listen here via streaming.
Crudbutt's. Meant to put this in the open thread. Sorry.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
Corn prices will probably fall
April 3, 2007 - 21:39 ET by nkviking75For those of you yelling about the price of corn, true, it's higher. For now. The Iowa Corn Growers quotes a USDA survey of farmers' planting plans for the year. Corn planting will be up 15 percent nationwide, ten percent in Iowa alone. Unless some complication like drought comes along, corn prices should drop.
I am ambivalent about ethanol, despite being an Iowan, but I know enough to see that many opinions here are not based on complete information. The MSM, including the business media, give short shrift to agriculture news. When they do report on agri-business, it usually has to do with big companies like ADM. Most people have an idea how the stock market prices are doing, but unless you live in a farm state, how often do you hear how corn or beans or wheat or cattle or hogs or milk are doing? And millions of people trade futures in those commodities every day.
If the people behind CNBC or the planned Fox Business Channel would get away from New York, it might occur to them to devote some attention to agriculture at least once a week.