AAA Asks EPA To Stop Sales Of New Ethanol Blend

[Reality]

For you Vred; "Some people are educated well beyond the level of their intelligence." - Jerrry Clower.

[Stinger]

My initial post still stands Vred. "Progress from Progressives". Yeah right.

No, it doesn't. We just posted dozens of ways that conservatives were part and parcel of this whole ethanol process.

Vred, you can knock of the brave Veteran crap. Your obvious intent was to insult me and all other Vets and you have done a good job of doing so. The next time you see a Vet, don't thank him/her. Just kick him in the nuts, slap the female, or invite them to this forum where you can do the same thing while taking cover behnd your keyboard.

Stop confusing and conflating what we think of you with what we think of other vets.

Don't flatter yourself.

We've never met another vet who runs as fast and as often as we do.

Do you still have your medal from the All Air Force Track and Field competition?

[Stinger]

For you Vred; "Some people are educated well beyond the level of their intelligence." - Jerrry Clower.

Translation: I made an error, got my ass handed to me again, refuse to admit it, and now am trying to twist it into somehow being your fault that I screwed up.

SSDD.

[Colonel Taylor]

I wonder how much this stuff has cost the consumers in repairs? Cars, mowers, chain saws and the list goes on.

I wonder if it will make you, Leo Lyons and "Reality" any less likely to vote GOP?

Burr (R-NC), Dole (R-NC), and Taylor (R-NC11) all voted for it.

And how dems voted for it that were also wrong?
Anyhow I have said several times farm subsidies should be eliminated and that would eliminate much of the nonsense.

[bannination]

For you Vred; "Some people are educated well beyond the level of their intelligence." - Jerrry Clower.

Just admit you were wrong and move on, you'll get much less flack for it.

[O Really]

Gee, where did "Reality", Leo Lyons and Colonel Taylor go once we established that the ethanol law that bugs them is more of a GOP thing than a "progressive" thing?

I'm a happy liberal, and unquestionably partisan in national politics issues, but life's a lot more fun once you realize you don't have to look at every single thing through right/left filters.

[Colonel Taylor]

I wonder how much this stuff has cost the consumers in repairs? Cars, mowers, chain saws and the list goes on.

I wonder if it will make you, Leo Lyons and "Reality" any less likely to vote GOP?

Burr (R-NC), Dole (R-NC), and Taylor (R-NC11) all voted for it.

And how dems voted for it that were also wrong?

:?: :?: :?: Banni and I told you above, signed by Shrub and:

Wow so you're finally admitting laws and such signed under the POTUS makes them responsible. Sure am glad you are admitting Obama has been an utter failure the last four years.

...Banni is referring to the Energy Policy Act of 2005:

the Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion US gallons (15,000,000 m3) by 2006, 6.1 billion US gallons (23,000,000 m3) by 2009 and 7.5 billion US gallons (28,000,000 m3) by 2012...

It passed in the GOP-dominated Senate with only 5 Republicans opposing it while the Dems were divided on it. In the House, the vote was GOP: 200-31 in favor, Dems: 125-75 opposed.

...Your GOP, not "progressives", did it.

...Progressive environmentalists were the first and loudest to oppose corn ethanol. You may have been duped by the corn staters' "green" claims, but we weren't.

And I discussed Dems with my very first post:

Yet another thing that "Reality" is ignorant of. The support for ethanol has largely come from Dems and Republicans in corn states and has long been opposed by environmentalists here and social justice progressives worldwide.

Does he come up with this crap on his own or is he just falling for someone else's lies, again?

C'mon, you can do it, Colonel Taylor, just post: "Reality" was wrong about it being progressives and the GOP is more at fault than Dems.


I unlike you am not a mind reader know it all. If that's his opinion so be it, I can't change it. So now gone telling all what they are thinking.

(just kidding, we all know that you can't do it)

Anyhow I have said several times farm subsidies should be eliminated and that would eliminate much of the nonsense.

That's a different but not unrelated issue. It's a farm state and deal-cutter thing, not a "progressive" thing as "Reality" foolishly claims.

You ducked my question. Even Supsalemgr was able to admit the GOP was wrong.

[Supsalemgr]

Gee, where did "Reality", Leo Lyons and Colonel Taylor go once we established that the ethanol law that bugs them is more of a GOP thing than a "progressive" thing?

Speaking of energy subsidies:

Make Exxon Pay for Climate Change — Not Our Children! (petition)

To the Congress and the President:

The time is now to stop fueling climate disaster on US taxpayers’ dime. We demand Congress and the President work together to eliminate ALL subsidies to fossil fuels. We, and our children, cannot afford the more than $10 billion per year in handouts from the US government to Big Oil, Gas and Coal.

With Vrede being against subsidizing handouts to the fossil fuel industry does he feel the same way about the handouts to the human debris that pollutes our country?

[Supsalemgr]

Quite frankly, I am for doing away with all subsidies to corporations and reduce the corporate income tax levels to align with other countries. This would be a good start to balancing the budget.

Now let's also deal with entitlements that Obama and the dems are cowardly about and will not address.

[O Really]

Now let's also deal with entitlements that Obama and the dems are cowardly about and will not address.

Funny you should consider sticking with your principles to be "cowardly." I thought your side liked that sort of thing. Didn't like "caving," wanted some "leadership." No?

[Supsalemgr]

Quite frankly, I am for doing away with all subsidies to corporations

Including the massive Pentagon budget you have supported to date? Think it's really all about "defense"?

Those defense spendings are not in the same category as what we are discussing


and reduce the corporate income tax levels to align with other countries.

The marginal rate is largely a chimera. It's the effective rate that matters.

Diverting again

This would be a good start to balancing the budget.

What, no mention of the current issue - the tax cuts for the 2%? Imagine that.

Why are you libs so jealous of successful people? What does raising the rate on these do for you, other than provide another lib orgasm opportunity?

Now let's also deal with entitlements that Obama and the dems are cowardly about and will not address.

I'm not getting any. I have discussed theirs with Colonel Taylor and "Reality" but they seem to feel entitled. If you wish to call them "cowardly" for that, so be it.

Yep. Obama is a coward because he will not address the real deficit issue.

[O Really]

Yep. Obama is a coward because he will not address the real deficit issue.[/color]

He has said he's not going to discuss cuts to safety net programs until or unless the Republicans accept tax increases for the "2%". That's a position that many of us agree with. Obviously not you. However, from a "courage or coward" standpoint, it is exactly without exception the same as the anti-tax Republican leadership says, yet you don't call them cowards. I don't think either is a coward. I think they're posturing for show while working on a plan they can each live with. The Republicans are afraid, with good cause, of Norquist and his money. Obama doesn't have to worry about being elected again. Which side do you think might be more politically motivated?

[Reality]

Vred, what's your definition of an entitlement?

[Supsalemgr]

O Really, have you not been keeping up? The GOP has already put revenues on the table. It is Obama's move.

[Stinger]

O Really, have you not been keeping up? The GOP has already put revenues on the table. It is Obama's move.

Soupy Sales, have you been keeping up?

Obama gave a specific proposal. He said exactly what he wanted. The Pubs gave some nebulous, "Well, yeah, but we'll do something somewhere?" It doesn't amount to a proposal.

[Stinger]

Yep. Obama is a coward because he will not address the real deficit issue.

The Pubs are the cowards for not dealing with the debt when they had full control of the White House and the Congress for 6 years, for doubling the national debt by spending like crazy and putting two wars on the national credit card and not coming up with a way to pay for any of it. The Pubs are cowards now because they're so scared of Grover Norquist that they won't do the primary thing necessary to address the deficit.

[Supsalemgr]

You that guys are in such denial there really is not much need for further debate with you. Which party refuses to address the primary driver of our deficit - ENTITLEMENTS? Answer: The dems.

If there has been a specific plans from the dems to address please share it with us.

[Colonel Taylor]

Yep. Obama is a coward because he will not address the real deficit issue.

The Pubs are the cowards for not dealing with the debt when they had full control of the White House and the Congress for 6 years, for doubling the national debt by spending like crazy and putting two wars on the national credit card and not coming up with a way to pay for any of it. The Pubs are cowards now because they're so scared of Grover Norquist that they won't do the primary thing necessary to address the deficit.

Let go back to the ole BLAME GAME right, since that's all you have after 6 years. Obama is bent on the ruination of this country and it will be done by getting more folk on the guvmit dole.
stinger help I need more koolaid, Obama said so.

So what is the difference where the tax money comes from, rates being raised or loop holes being closed? Obama and company will only spend it anyway on more welfare programs to repay his buds, remember Solyndra? Instead of cuts the libs want more spending, the are a laugh a minute.

[O Really]

O Really, have you not been keeping up? The GOP has already put revenues on the table. It is Obama's move.

"Putting revenue" on the table in the form of smoke and mirror "deductions and loopholes" isn't the same as agreeing to a tax rate increase. They're in a box of their own making. Time to pack it in and come back to fight another day.

[O Really]

You that guys are in such denial there really is not much need for further debate with you. Which party refuses to address the primary driver of our deficit - ENTITLEMENTS? Answer: The dems.

If there has been a specific plans from the dems to address please share it with us.

Some would disagree that ENTITLEMENTS, in either upper or lower case is at the heart of the problem. Some would disagree with what you (collectively) include in your term "entitlement." Some would prefer to look after the least strong in our society first, and chop up safety net programs as a last resort - not a starting point. Some can look at the chart of federal spending and see the proportion allocated to unnecessary foreign military adventures.

I have no particular problem with increasing the eligibility age for Social Security or Medicare (as long as private insurors are required to continue same-price coverage up to the Medicare eligibility age. I do have a major problem with cutting funding to doctors, unless insurers have to provide an affordable supplement plan. I have a major problem with cutting benefits when medical costs have risen dramatically over decades. If insurance companies can increase premiums by 300% since 1990, why is it so awful to increase the Medicare tax? Costs are what they are.

Now the Republicans in NC want to reduce the unemployment benefit amount and length of eligibility - why? Because they wouldn't raise the unemployment tax to a sustainable level. And I'll bet a lot of those who'll have reduced benefits voted for those same Republicans. "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?"