Barack Obama

[DonkSlayer 1]

Obama has very good oratory and sweet bowhunting skills and he might be evil, he might be the ultimate pillar of truth, justice, and the American Way. But, just because he has those skills does not give anyone the right to like him. Those skills are irrelevant.

Say that the first time then instead of the Hitler stuff. PR 101.

[hblask 1]

Why? She left out that they both have black hair. That's the most interesting part. I'm jumping in a little late, but care to explain?

I posted a link earlier, but here is the conclusion to the article:Given that ethanol production involves the conversion of massive amounts of energy from one form to another, the contention that the process is an efficient way to make fuel seems to fly in the face of basic physics--so much so that I'm inclined to regard the subsidy program, and the fact that it has survived for a quarter century, with something approaching awe. Money-wasting government schemes are hardly rare. But how many do you know of that flout the second law of thermodynamics.

[hblask 1]

For anyone who is interested in how any politican has voted or what they stand for, be sure to go to Vote Smart. If you can't find info on the site itself, they will generally provide links to other sites to where you can find info. When looking at any incumbant, you can have easy acess to their entire voting record. The one thing though is that we aren't able to find out what riders may be on bills that a legislator voted either for or against. There may be ways to find that info, but it would probably take a lot of digging. Either way, its a great site and I've used it since 2002 to help me in my choices in who I vote for<a href="http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm" target="_blank"></a>

Along these same lines, you can take the quiz here to seehttp://selectsmart.com/president/ to see who you should vote for in the next presidential election.In the past it has been a great tool, it doesn't quite seem to be up to speed yet for the 2008 election. The questions are too black and white and framed in the status quo, so that for those that are not immersed in mainstream politics have no way of expressing their opinion.And oh, Barack Obama is not on there yet.

[Steppin Razor 0]

I posted a link earlier, but here is the conclusion to the article:Given that ethanol production involves the conversion of massive amounts of energy from one form to another, the contention that the process is an efficient way to make fuel seems to fly in the face of basic physics--so much so that I'm inclined to regard the subsidy program, and the fact that it has survived for a quarter century, with something approaching awe. Money-wasting government schemes are hardly rare. But how many do you know of that flout the second law of thermodynamics.

That's clever, but the writer of your article apparently doesn't know what the second law of thermodynamics is.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of...#Time.27s_ArrowThermodynamics laws, and physics in general, are pretty hard to flout. Also, the article you linked has few sources cited :"One might not mind spending the money if it bought us something--energy independence, say, or cleaner air. But based on current evidence, it doesn't. Ethanol contains only about two-thirds as much energy per gallon as gasoline, so cars using ethanol blends get lower mileage. (no citation, but I'll accept this to be the case) Though ethanol can reduce carbon monoxide emissions, the fuel may well (may well? That's convincing) produce more of other air pollutants. True, the ethanol industry drives corn prices up, which helps farmers--but a 1986 USDA study found we'd be better off mailing the farmers checks rather than propping up an entire industry with tax dollars. (Ethanol has since been touted as a substitute for MTBE, an additive that makes gasoline burn cleaner but also causes groundwater pollution. However, skeptics claim (this one's self evident) that due to improvements in engine technology, it'd be better just to dispense with such additives altogether.)" One source the article did cite was Pimentel's study and Graboski's rebuttal. I couldn't find the Pimentel article, but I did find Graboski'shttp://www.ncga.com/public_policy/issues/2...l/08_22_01b.htmInteresting to me was that there are uses for the byproducts of ethanol, which I think should be counted when determining efficient use of the corn.I also came across a CBS show summary about Pimentel and Graboski's debate. There are scientists looking to make ethanol from other plants as well. Obviously, when there's a subsidy, someone is going to get it. If you oppose all subsidies, that's one thing. If you oppose subsidies for ethanol specifically, then I think you should look into it more. Subsidies suck, I'll give you that. My concern however, is that without this ethanol subsidy, it may never make it to a point where it can be a viable alternative source. Case in point: I've mentioned it before, but diesel engines can run on vegetable oil. In fact, the original design of the engine ran on peanut oil. Many plants produce oils - corn oil, soy oil, palm oil, etc, etc.. There is no reason diesels shouldn't be running on veg oil now. But, we're not.

[hblask 1]

Obviously, when there's a subsidy, someone is going to get it. If you oppose all subsidies, that's one thing. If you oppose subsidies for ethanol specifically, then I think you should look into it more.

Yes, I am opposed to all subsidies, the Ethanol one is particularly bothersome to me because it is so clearly based in politics and not in science.When politics and science mix, politics will win.Humans have for centuries made wise choices between alternative technologies, even without the help of wise bureaucrats. In fact, history has performed a very good experiment for us over the last 100 years or so. It is very easy to map "technological prowess" and "economic success" against "government intervention in the economy". It's a slam dunk -- central planning is a failure, at both the large scale of full blown Marxism/socialism/communism, and at the small scale of regulated industries and gov't intervention in markets.So as for ethanol, I have no problem is ADM wants to research it with their own money, and try to convince people to use it in a free market. But instead, they show up in Washington with a few briefcases full of money, and voila, we have federal subsidies of an R&D department of a private company. Sad, really.

[mk 11]

Scientists say White House muzzled them on global warming. Scientists are real biased, yo.

[nutzbuster 7]

You know who you remind me of? Jeffrey Dahmer. Know why? You both like apples.

Did Jeffrey cut them up before he ate them???

[DonkSlayer 1]

Did Jeffrey cut them up before he ate them???

And then had sex with the core 5 days later.Was that over the top? I can really never tell..

[nutzbuster 7]

And then had sex with the core 5 days later.Was that over the top? I can really never tell..

Ummmmm....yeah, prolly should have folded the turn there bro.I do find it amusing how this thread has gone from cheering the merits of the Democrats heir appairent ... to global warming ... to the perverse cannibalization of Apples.Ya gotta love this place.

[socalpoker_j 1]

Ummmmm....yeah, prolly should have folded the turn there bro.I do find it amusing how this thread has gone from cheering the merits of the Democrats heir appairent ... to global warming ... to the perverse cannibalization of Apples.Ya gotta love this place.

Would you have it any other way??

[dna4ever 2]

I'm going to see Barack Obama and Harold Ford Jr speak tomorrow (Sunday) in Nashville, should be good stuff.

[socalpoker_j 1]

I'm going to see Barack Obama and Harold Ford Jr speak tomorrow (Sunday) in Nashville, should be good stuff.

What did you think, what were your impressions?

[Balloon guy 158]

What did you think, what were your impressions?

He still had a Kerry/Edwards sticker on his car....what do you think he's going to say?You know I still you DNA