Backtracking with Barack — Corn Ethanol
By Charles Lemos on July 10, 2008 at 4:19 AM in Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Economy, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Environment, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John McCain, Lobbyists
Unexpectedly or perhaps surprising to me anyway, energy policy is actually getting debated. That’s a good thing even though I don’t really expected it to lead to the tough choices we need to make in the time frame we need to make them. To be honest, we are past the tipping point. We’re doomed. The only question left is when does it all unravel. A few wise investments and we might push out the end line a few decades but unless some new technology arrives on the scene in the next twenty years, our way of life will come to a sudden and crashing end.
I have never liked Barack Obama. In fact, I can’t stand Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois either. The reason? They voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, the worst piece of legislation ever to pass the Congress. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.” The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.”
Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry through 2015. Past that, the sum is likely to approach $30 billion.
Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he speaks as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.” In Pennsylvania he ran this deceptive ad.
Here’s Brit Hume debunking the Obama ad:
That’s Obama, one big deception. But Obama probably owes his presumptive nominee status to corn ethanol. Without his support for corn ethanol, it is unlikely that he would have won the Iowa caucuses and without that victory I think it fair to say his candidacy would have been finished by Super Tuesday. Winning Iowa gave him a boost. To win Iowa, Obama touted corn ethanol. From the New York Times:
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer (2007) in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.
In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland.
Not long after arriving in the Senate, Mr. Obama himself briefly provoked a controversy by flying at subsidized rates on corporate airplanes, including twice on jets owned by Archer Daniels Midland, which is the nation’s largest ethanol producer and is based in his home state.
Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s economic policy director, said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said.
Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, “He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.”
Mr. Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition.
Of Mr. Obama, Mr. Daschle said, “He has a terrific policy staff and relies primarily on those key people to advise him on key issues, whether energy or climate change or other things.”
Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona. While both presidential candidates emphasize the need for the United States to achieve “energy security” while also slowing down the carbon emissions that are believed to contribute to global warming, they offer sharply different visions of the role that ethanol, which can be made from a variety of organic materials, should play in those efforts.
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.
“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”
Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.
Corn ethanol only nets 1.3 times the fossil fuel energy required to produce it, sugar-based ethanol can return 8 times the fossil fuel energy. And corn ethanol, while cleaner, than octane, pales in comparison to sugar ethanol.
So how green is Barack Obama really? Not very. In terms of energy policy, Obama is a third term for Bush-Cheney. From the Washington Post:
Given that energy appears likely to be a dominant issue in this election season, Barack Obama’s campaign may want to settle on a more consistent message when it comes to subsidies for ethanol, the corn-based alternative fuel that is hailed by some as a key resource in weaning America off foreign oil and forestalling global warming but lambasted by others as a wasteful boondoggle that is driving up food prices.
Since entering the Senate in 2005, Obama has been a staunch supporter of ethanol — he justified his vote for for the Bush Administration’s 2005 energy bill, which was favorable to the oil industry, on the grounds that it also contained subsidies for ethanol and other forms of alternative energy, and he has sought earmarks for research projects on ethanol and other biofuels in his home state of Illinois, the second-highest corn-producing state after Iowa. Obama’s support for ethanol is shared by many farm state senators (even Hillary Clinton came around after an ethanol industry took root in upstate New York) but it contrasts sharply with John McCain, who has for years been so critical of the subsidies that he decided not to compete in the 2000 Iowa caucuses.
Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”
It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.
Furman came on board the campaign only this month, so it is understandable if he is not entirely on the same page yet with the candidate. The fact is, though, that Obama’s record in the Senate has been very clearly influenced by what he viewed as the needs of his Illinois constituents, particularly those in “downstate” Illinois, where Obama has pointed to his popularity as proof that he can win over voters in more rural and conservative areas. Obama is supporting the new farm bill, which McCain also derides as wasteful, because he believes it will help farmers in his state; he backed last year’s $14 billion Water Resources Development Act (also opposed by McCain) after making sure it included money to upgrade locks on the Illinois and Mississippi rivers) and he backed huge subsidies last year for liquified coal — a highly controversial technology that would be a boon for Southern Illinois mines — before backing away from the idea under fire from environmentalists.
If there is a single issue to care about or to vote on, it is energy. Our lifestyle depends on it and we have wean ourselves off oil as a transportation fuel within 15 years or 20 years tops. If I vote for John McCain it will be because the election is close and because of McCain’s better energy plans and the fact that he didn’t vote for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy, unlike Barack Obama.
From my blog, By The Fault.
on sale for only $16.95.
also comes with a special spatula.)
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
“The story of poker is that of risk-loving America ... a crazy ride in unparalleled detail, driven by wit, wisdom, true love, and sizzling style. As analyst, historian, devotee, and no mean player, James McManus is poker’s most eloquent advocate.”
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
Amazing post. Thanks so much Charles! So many reasons not to vote for Obama.
Hey, what about the war? McCain wants permanent American bases, troops to stay for decades. Meanwhile, the American people (including Obama) want us out and so do the Iraqis. McCain in ‘04 said if the Iraqis want us to leave, then we should abide by their wishes.
He’s flip-flopped on that one. He doesn’t care what they say. Oil is too important. He’s Bush’s third term with a bad temper and a hatred for Iran.
I am not even going to dignify this with an answer except to say that McCain looks like a saint next to Obama, who would prefer to just help blow Israel away. I wish to point out that Israel is the ONLY democracy in the middle east. I find it astounding that anyone in America has a problem with that.
Wait. “For decades” and not 100 years now? Did the Obama camp realize saying US troops would occupy Iraq for a century guaranteed just sounds stupid and reactionary? Obama says US troops will leave when Iraqis can govern themselves and violence has calmed down. There’s probably not an Iraqi who doesn’t wish the war was over, but Maliki’s life depends on our presence there.
Obama’s Iraq war position after much “refining” now clings to a very ideological commitment. At the same time, he has geared up the War On Terror talk. Obama says we must pull US troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan. McCain opposes that. McCain thinks we should finish our commitment in Iraq and bring our troops home. And of course, Obama’s Iraq strategy might change after he visits the country for the first time in almost 3 years. Same with Afghanistan as he is visiting that country for his first time.
And yet, as the chairman of a subcommittee on oversight of the war in Afghanistan, he has not held a single meeting of that committee, his excuse being that he has been too busy campaigning.
A year and a half as chairman and still no meetings, because he’s had to do more important things like dance on the Ellen show, bowl in Pennsylvania, etc. I’m sure the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who he’s so concerned about probably understand… priorities, ya know.
so in a nutshell…
mccain’s energy stance is more environmentally, economically and morally friendly than Baracktracks?
hmm… yes, another reason to vote for mccain…
a. hillary
b. mccain
america first!
I didn’t know McCain voted no on the Bush Cheney energy bill! So Obama the Democrat voted for it and McCain the Republican didn’t.
It’s my understanding Clinton also voted against it!
Also, she is talking about cellulosic ethanol which from the graphic above gives the most reduction in greenhouse gases. Half of the party woke up to the sham this primary was and voted for the right candidate, Clinton and now the other dumb half has put us all in jeopardy. They believe him when he says he does not take lobbyists money but why can’t those buffoons read articles like this and find out for themselves what a fraud he is. Much of his campaign is financed by these rich energy companies (and the mortgage companies).
yes Hill and Big MAC both voted against it
that is part of the incredible irony of the GORE endorsement of Uhhbama and the left wing energy crowd loving him……its unbelievable to me, what was Oregon thinking? Uhhbama voted to allow the LNG pipeline thru its coast….and he didnt know what Yucca Mtn was either, unbelievable
I was shocked Oregon voted the way it did, too.
No surprise here - looks like McCain actually reads the bills before he votes on them. Obama votes according to whichever group he’s pandering to at the time. He changed six votes made in the Illinois State Senate after various interest groups hounded him about his orginal votes. Barack claimed he “pushed the wrong button.” Liar.
He really thinks the voters are fools who will fall for his phony claims about energy policy, that we’ll miss the fact that he voted for the archaic and pork-filled Bush energy bill.
Obama supporters say there is only 5% difference between McCain and Bush, but what a difference that 5% makes when compared to Obama and Bush.
McCain’s policies are, indeed, far more progressive than Obama’s when it comes to energy. He’s also hitting the mark with public opinion on off-shore drilling. See news today for an update on yet another Democratic cave-in on that issue.
As a CA resident, I’m opposed to off-shore drilling. It’s environmentally dangerous and questionable as to production value. However, that’s the CA stance, with good reason, obviously.
They are welcome to drill off of FL. *haha
However, it’s clear that McCain has a much more compelling message than Obama on this all-important issue.
here are some more interesting notes about Baracktrack’s presidential campaign being supported by investment banks tied to the market speculation of oil prices.
no wonder he was against the gas tax break…
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Summer08/BushThirdTerm.html
a. hillary
b. mccain
america first!
Everyone knows ethanol just raises the petroleum use. It’s nothing but an easy and a hypocrite way to show “we’re doing something”. There will be very hard time ahead of us, that’s a fact. There will be wars, recession, unemployment, poverty etc just because the politicians don’t have the balls to make hard decisions when we still have options. Soon we won’t have any. Oil lasts about 70 years, gas about 200 years. Also the minerals we use the most (copper, lead etc) are used up in 50 years, even iron is gone in 200 years. And no one dares to talk about this. I guess the blame is on regular citizens who keep chanting “offshore drilling” as some solution and thinking all these facts are nothing but Al Gore’s propaganda. After all it is they who keep voting for the same “everything’s alright” -politicians time and time again. Truth is that a crisis is coming and we already should be building wind power plants etc. Hell, at least I won’t be making babies and acting like I actually love them by allowing this to happen.
I would be afraid to bring any children into the world we live in now.
I passed a field with wind turbines in it and it was a sight to see-AWESOME! I didn’t see one thing wrong w it. People don’t want these because they think they are screwing up the scenery of their state but they don’t mind all of the nasty pollution from carbon emissions. Another example of stupidity.
I’m with you. Wind turbines don’t mess up the scenery nearly as much as those rusted hulks of oil machinery littering the landscape of “oil states” like Oklahoma. And neither do solar panels although some housing developments ban them in Arizona. I think both methods are clean and neat and have a beauty that oil refineries just can’t match.
I think those wind towers are neat also. There’s a bunch going up down the road from me on Lempster Mountain in NH (near Unity). I’d rather look at those wind turbines than all the cell phone towers, especially the fake tree ones.
Then why did Al Gore endorse the candidate that voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill instead of the one that voted against it? i.e. Senator Clinton.
IMHO that makes Gore just another party whore that puts party before country and evidently party before the environment too.
He has some bitterness towards the Clinton’s? Tough crap Al. Someone that really cared about their country and the environment wouldn’t be so petty.
At this point in time I really truly hate, loathe and despise nearly every politician in the country. If honesty was money not a damn one of them could find the price of a cup of coffee.
Oh Yeah got to love those ethanol plants. They spew waste into the air. Is the waste they are spewing into the air clean waste or more pollutants? Just a question. Does anyone know how clean these plants are?
Check asthma cases in the vicinity. That will tell you something.
Great post. It is always good to see environmental-driven articles.
Using food crops to try and solve energy problems is another expensive catastrophe.
OT: “Orange Bot” says ACLU is going to sue over FISA!
I don’t see how the FISA bill can survive a Constitutional challenge. Good on the ACLU.
I don’t either. This one is like the hand-gun law that just got soundly shot down.
Those strict constitutional judges DO have their uses, eh?
I agree-I am big on the environment and using corn to fuel gas guzzling vehicles is not the answer. For one thing soil gets worn out if you plant too much. There is not enough soil in the US to fuel all of our vehicles anyway. We need to keep advancing renewable energy. Honda is one of the companies making great advances with vehicles that use no gas.
I just heard on cspan that there’s a clause that if the US is in crisis the standing president (Bush) could cancel the elction and stay in power another 4 years. Is this true anyone??
At any rate this whole election cycle has been the most bizarre, strident, fiasco that I have ever witnessed and Obama the most inexperienced and phony candidate that I can ever recall.
I’m a lawyer. That’s not true. But yes, it almost seems as if anything is possible this crazy election season. The worst thing is I’d rather four more years of Bush than one minute of Obama.
You may be a lawyer but you need to go read a recent bill that was passed by congress giving the president just such power.
Indeed, I read the same that in case of a high alert of national security; the Pres. has such powers–maybe a recent bill or martial law.
Larry J. might know for sure. Larry could you clarify this for us?
What is the bill number?
Here’s an article from Sept 2007 has HR 5122, military commissions act and signing statements… http://wordsforfree.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/martial-law-2008/
A relevant part is Executive Directive 51 [which defines a “national emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” It also allows for the President to personally declare when this state is reached without any congressional oversight..]
So, under this, if Iran plugs up the Straits of Hormus, Bush can declare a national emergency and invoke martial law (the suspension of habeas corpus and military tribunal).
Not one mention about the power to cancel elections in any of the laws or EOs cited.
That really is an Executive Order. It is on Whitehouse.gov from May or June 2007. If you read it in its entirety, it actually does say that elections can be postponed, and the Executive Branch can take control of all gov’t functions at a local, state ,& territorial level, as well as federal. The major problem w/it- beyond the audacious nonsense it represents- is that a “national catastrophe” isn’t specifically described, so that just about anything could be characterized as one if the President says so. I just about had a fit when I read this thing. The way it is worded makes it difficult to read & understand. Gee- that must be a coincidence- ya think???
This is one reason why Hillary pledged to repeal the vast majority of Bush’s Exec. Orders. (Still visualizing a reversal of fortunes in Denver…)
Martial Law–
good God, I hope not…
They had elections during the Civil War and the World Wars.
Honestly I been hearing Leftists say since 2001 how bush was going to start putting people in camps and cancel the 2008 elections.
It’s sad how retarded so many people are these days
No, of course he can’t cancel elections. Is there nothing that can be believed by NQ-ers?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States
This article is part of the series:
United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble
Articles of the Constitution
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights
I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V
VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X
Subsequent Amendments
XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV
XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX
XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV
XXVI ∙ XXVII
Other countries · Law Portal
view • talk • edit
Amendment XXII in the National Archives
Amendment XXII in the National Archives
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.[1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945, is the only president elected to more than two terms. Although under the 22nd amendment it would be possible for a president to serve up to ten years (if he succeeded to the presidency of his predecessor with two years or less remaining in that term), in fact no other president besides Roosevelt has ever served more than eight years exactly
Wow….for such complete and stunning ignorance, this article wastes alot of words. Here is the truth of what is going on and what will happen.
1. The price of oil is about to crash. In fact, it’s already started. I make my money tracking the markets and could go on for a good hour as to why oil will crash. But the short answer is its WAY overbought and the large institutionalized investors have been buying up futures contracts preparing to fleece greedy and ignorant investors as the market crashes. They are done doing that and now is the time to start cashing in those chips. A $10 a barrel drop over the last few days is the first sign of this coming trend reversal. When it breaks $130, it will go into free fall.
2. The only viable source of small engine energy is oil. “Alternative” sources are all insufficient to the point of being a scam. It’s the focus on these for the last several decades, at the behest of the democrats, that is the sole cause of the problem. The US has 500 to 1000 years worth of oil within the continental US. If we drill for it, we control the market, not our ENEMIES in the middle east. That is the absolute bottom line.
3. Well….maybe not. We have new technology that can turn coal into gasoline without polluting to do it. It ain’t cheap but it’s alot cheaper than what we pay now. Plus the US has at least 500 years worth of coal within our borders. It costs about $100 per car to convert them so that they can burn this type of fuel as well as gasoline. With a simple stroke of a pen, Congress could immediately break the monopoly on oil and use the free market to force the price back down to under $30 a barrel or so. Why this isn’t done is solely an issue with the democrats not wanting it done….to save the earth, lol. Did I mention that there is no credible evidence that global warming exists?
4. Not that it matters but the US is on the cusp of nuclear fusion. A company named EMC2 Fusion, basically has a working reactor. Although it doesn’t produce a net gain in power, the output of the reactor scales much higher than the input required, as you make it larger. In other words, this proven technology will produce a working 100 megawatt reactor in about 3 years or so. Once that reactor goes live, unlimited, nearly free energy that does not pollute in any way, will become a reality and rapidly replace all other forms of energy. That WILL happen during McCain’s first term…cough. Just as a bonus, this technology can be used to destroy waste from nuclear fission reactors. By 2020, all that nuclear waste they said would last forever and ever, will be destroyed. Y’all can thank one Dr Bussard for spending his last short years on this earth, making that technology work, before dying recently of cancer. The man is the Einstein of our age.
5. I hear good things from a company called Blacklight Power Inc. Supposedly, they have catalyzed a new type of hydrogen reaction that produces FAR more power than it takes to create hydrogen from water. Highly controversial, I can’t ignore the fact that they have a working 50 megawatt prototype that has been confirmed by various third parties (not to mention 60 million bucks of investment money). They have already contracted to build a bunch of these, which should be completed in about a year. Kinda hard to argue the science of this when they are selling working reactors lol. Anyway, this technology, all by itself, replaces fossil fuels. Suddenly, Arnold Schwarzennegars plan to build hydrogen fuel cell gas stations all over California doesn’t sound so kooky.
Our way of life is hardly over. In fact, we are beginning a new age of economic prosperity, if only the democrats would fucking get out of the way.
I think you’re very ignorant where the environment is concerned. In traffic behind a bus you can smell the carbon emissions coming out of the back of those things. You think this isn’t hurting the air and our environment? That’s probably where alot of people get cancer.
As for alternative fuels, I agree, there is plenty of it but our government and other greedy powers wouldn’t make as much money from it as oil.
Bus emissions? What are you talking about? How is that relevant to the post to which you have replied? Was it the comment concerning the lack of credible evidence in support of the existence of global warming?
I’m just curious why you would call someone ignorant and then start talking about being able to smell carbon emissions… Reminds me of the joke concerning the perspective of a midget in an elevator.
You go on to state that you believe that carbon emissions may cause cancer. Do you believe that carbon causes cancer? Should we ban carbon, then?
And, of course, you would anonymously opine that the recent sabre rattling and long range missle testing in Iran is not recklessly calculated to effectively ratchet the price of oil right back up into the stratosphere. Whenever rationality begins to return to the oil market, we can usually count on Iran, Nigerian militants, or other understandably self-interested miscreants to stoke the fear levels and create price inflating jitters in the world oil markets.
Ha ha ha. Very good point.
In 1998 oil went from $30 a barrel to $10 a barrel. 63.33% drop almost over night. Now that OPEC is being threatened again with bio fuels they (OPEC) are warning the researchers that “they had better be careful because OPEC will drop the price of oil”. Thereby making the cost of bio fuels less attractive. AGAIN!
Well, exactly. I have no doubt that if we were on the verge of a major oil-alternative source of energy breakthrough, the price of gasoline would be collapsing. Then, after we’d abandoned research into that new technology and invested in another fleet of gas guzzlers, the price would shoot up again. Doesn’t take a genius to see that has already happened.
Someone please give me an estimate: what would the price of oil be on the world market if 80% of all the cars in North America and Europe were being run on hydrogen or electricity? What would the price of oil be if all the cars and trucks on the PLANET were being run on something other than gasoline?
Could you GIVE it away?
Can someone tell me how many horns I can collect if we replace all the Zebras in Zoos with unicorns?
I feel sorry for your kids if they’ve inherited your narrow little mind.
I bet your ancestors scoffed at the concept of air travel.
Dumbass.
Ah, the fine art of Making Shit Up. Thanks for your contribution, Mr. I’m So Intelligent and On Top Of Things I Won’t Even Give You My Name. Just Believe Me.
You sound like those morons giving testimonials in Become a Millionaire by Working at Home Commercials- “Joan S. from Kansas says…” “Robert Q. from San Antonio says…”
Anonymous | 2008-07-10 07:06:13
Finally, a voice of reason!
And how about this new high-tech substitute for oil:
Sapphire Energy, uses algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide and non-potable water to make “green crude” that it contends is chemically equivalent to the light, sweet crude oil that has been fetching more than $130 a barrel in New York futures trading.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-greencrude29-2008may29,0,1053218.story
Interesting post. I agree with you about the coming crash in price of oil, but I am not savvy. I just figure anything that skyrockets that fast is due for an adjustment.
The most comprehensive and compelling journalism ANYWHERE Charles. Fabulous!
Thank you for your efforts.
When T. Boone Pickens begins to advertise that we must find new sources of energy….having made Billions selling Oil…then people should realize the Oil gig is up!
http://tinyurl.com/6a7sbk
LONG gas lines were fairly common in the early seventies. We began to run out of oil 40 years ago–today we are still “RUNNING OUT OF OIL” but there are no gas lines. WHY? Because the oil companies have their price where they want it. But the minute they want another increase–we will once again began to RUN OUT OF OIL and we may see long gas lines again.
Pickens stressing the point of transfering our wealth to oil producing nations and thereby undermining our national security is playing BIG with me! We need to produce our own energy at home- wind, solar, nuclear, clean coal and wood, and yes our own oil and natural gas for energy needs that can’t be converted away from petroleum. Keep the money in the US, keep the jobs in the US, and make us free from being held hostage by whack job idiots like Chavez, Putin, and the nutcase in Iran.
I read not long ago that T Boone Pickens was into water speculation these days. Personally, I find the notion that any one person can either own or control water highly objectionable.
Water-energy-food…the basics. I don’t think either candidate knows much about any of them.
LPB (Louisiana) had a program on about five days ago. They were showing a meeting of researchers in the bio fuels and there were OPEC representatives there also. the OPEC people warned the bio fuel researchers that –QUOTE:”They had better be careful because OPEC WOULD LOWER THE PRICE OF OIL”.
I think that the vast majority of Americans are happy to simply look the other way when it comes to issues like Global Warming and World Hunger. They take in right-wing radio hosts and head-in-the-sand politicians who tell us that “the wacky liberals” are blowing things out of proportion or “making things up” as Comfort Food which allows them to ignore the serious problems. “Hey, Jim Inhofe says Global Warming is a scam, and he’s a Senator! So I don’t have to worry!”
It’s a lot more comforting to just pretend problems don’t exist, and there will always be people on the radio and tv and in newspapers to tell people that they don’t and that there’s some massive conspiracy to make them think that they do. Turn on any right-wing radio show and when the subject of Global Warming comes up you get a lot of comforting chuckling about Stupid Scientists and Tree-Hugging Morons and Chicken Littles. Then you can switch off the radio and feel so much better about the world- “I was worried for no reason! Thank goodness Mark Levin and Rusty Humphries and Laura Ingraham set me straight!”
In a large respect, we are a nation of grown children who just don’t want to be told there are problems. And there will always be people there making huge amounts of money telling us to just keep doing what we are doing, We’re Number One, Everything’s Wonderful, Sacrifice is Unpatriotic, etc.
I agree. Like recycling, we have 2 recycling bins, one for paper, one for glass and plastic. It is not a big deal for me to throw stuff in these. City picks it up every 2 weeks. I fill both up in 2 weeks. Alot of my neighbors have 3-4 people in the house and recycle NOTHING. No one can tell me that it is good to bury all that shit in the soil. Not only that alot of fuel is used to make the packaging for things. Every thing like this we can do would help the entire picture-alot of people I think are just plain lazy. You still have to throw stuff in the trash can, why not throw it in the recycling bin instead!?
woodiej:
What is the net energy savings of burying garbage versus having to invent massive industrial processes required to chemically alter the garbage and back into a product?
Manmade Global Warming does not exist. Carbon Dioxide increase in the air FOLLOWS increase in air temp, not the other way around.
CO2 does not cause higher temps in any significant way.
Also Sunspot Cycle 24 has not started. It was supposed to last winter. The sun is extremely inactive right now. Global temps have been falling like a rock the past two years.
Accounting for all of the 2000s (2000-2008), there has been a net decline in Global Temps both air and water.
Those are the facts.
Isn’t time you got back to working on your next Holocaust Denial book?
John: What a piece of work you are.. how easy you abuse and dishonor the deaths of 6 million people.
You’re deranged.
This is what you fucked up Global Warming alarmists are doing to people:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html
Climate change delusion a real problemby Andrew Bolt
PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of “climate change delusion” - and they haven’t even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.
Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children’s Hospital say this delusion was a “previously unreported phenomenon”.
“A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events.”
(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)
“The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies.”
But never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What’s scarier is that people in charge of our Government seem to suffer from this “climate change delusion”, too.
Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: “If we do not begin reducing the nation’s levels of carbon pollution, Australia’s economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.”
And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd’s guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: “Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll . . .”
Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd’s next campaign slogan?
Of course, we can laugh at this - and must - but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.
Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide - the gas they think is heating the world to hell.
The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they’re even planning to tax farting cows, so there’s no end to the ways you can be stung.
[See link for rest of article]
I so agree with you about the lack of willingness to concentrate and solve real problems. That’s why Hillary had a tough time initially selling her candidacy. She’s the pragmatic problem-solver. Nobody wanted to deal with the problems.
Obama doesn’t even like policy discussions. In that regard, I have to admit he’s opposite of Jimmy Carter, though I’m fond of the comparison in other respects. He’s not interested in problems or in solutions.
FISA…not to worry is his attitude. I’ll be good. Well, you voted on a bad law that leaves us wide open to yet more Washington corruption. It’s not about you, Obama. It’s about the country and its protections and the separation of powers.
Obama has no real interest in oversight, which we are sorely in need of bolstering after 8 years of neglect. It’s not a mystery why we’re unable to enjoy peppers and tomatoes. Bush gutted the FDA. The Consumer Protection Agency is nothing but a bullpen of resumes waiting to be hired by the private sector. Ditto for energy. Obama passed a nuclear bill that did NOT demand that the plant inform people of leaks in any way other than the plant’s usual method….which is slow. Are we surprised?
No. His attention to detail is appalling. His expectations that things actually work is nil. He reminds me of bad CEOs I worked for who loved the position and the perks and really drove the company into the ground with bad judgment.
And there are plenty of those turkeys around.
Obama’s corn fuel policy stance needs to change pronto. That’s one flip-flop that would be smart.
Don’t forget those smartypants “scientists” who keep telling us that the Sun is better than the Earth and that’s why WE have to revolve around IT instead of the other way around, like in the good old days!
Not to mention all them Intylecktyalls that tell us that Man has driven some animals extinct- yeah right, I see animals everywhere! And they’re tellin me their extinct!
–Signed, VinceP With His Head Firmly Planted Up His Ass
John: Maybe you like to explain to everyone how it is that you claim to be “scientific” however your response is entirely emotional and immature.. and completely free of any data .
Quite a dishonest approach wouldn’t you say? To pretend you’re objective but in reality a cry-baby shill?
But that is all you Global Warming Enviromarxists have left to do.. the world is cooling. You are a fraud.
More pandering by Obama- He is big with the corn lobby. That’s how he won Iowa and got the ball rolling. Pandering to a horrible- morally and economically- policy of diverting food to fuel.
The most moving political cartoon I saw on the subject was a starving boy with an ear of corn and a wealthy man taking it away saying “Sorry, I need that to run my Hummer”.
Food to fuel! think about how ass-backwards that is! Food prices are climbing. People in this country are hungry. There is a global food crisis with people around the world starving and Nobama is pandering to the corn industry.
I am really glad Charles wrote a piece that pointed this out. Political pundits talk about Iowa as a “hotbed of antiwar sentiment.” The whole state votes according to corn. Every election year, both parties commence their primaries by kissing the asses of these evil old farmers who would see global food riots while they push their whack-job ethanol onto the market. Our children have rampant cases of diabetes. Obama talks about how Americans should eat more sensibly and avoid getting sick - the tradition healthcare plan of the US - meanwhile (corn) agricultural lobbyists fill school lunches with high fructose corn syrup; It’s in just about everything you can think of. The Obama girls go to a fancy private school. Their school lunches aren’t pig food. How can he talk down to American voters about their diets when he’s part of the problem? How can Iowa claim to care so much about the tragedy of war when starving a person to death is as effective as putting a bullet in their head?
Obama has gotten a free pass on the odd fact that the special interest groups he panders to, i.e., corn ethanol, commodities traders and mortgage bankers, have caused great harm to the nation as a whole.
The Jackson/Obama and Obama Family Follies on O’Reilly: I Can’t Believe I’m Seeing What I’m Seeing
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rdxzj
Backtracking galore…a twofer from Obama…Really, this is getting ridiculous….And Obama on energy? EXELON, remember???? Another huge sleight of hand for the folks back home in IL, who were pretty irate about it….
And do check out my series on Obama et al rom April 18-21, with a focus on Part II:
“Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5rdxzj
You will really enjoy that one… not!!!
SORRY–wrong URL for the Boren story!!!!
Corrected:
“Part II: Obama’s Adviser David L. Boren–How He Screwed Us Long-term in 1993 re: Energy and More”
http://preview.tinyurl.com/4ytee2
Charles. Thank you for doing this.I thank you because I have been trying to do a piece on this subject for the longest time and just couldn’t get the ducks lined up right. I was mostly hindered by my disgust for Tom Daschle and the way in which he is thieving America for his own gain. I am not sure which angered me more…this thievery or his feigned innocence. He and Comrade are tighter than two sheets of paper with this corn ripoff. Nothing is what it seems to be and it’s horrible to watch everyone be sucked in. Our energy problem will be helped NOT and the world will starve. The cost of substitute grains has already doubled in the past year to the consumer. And they have just gotten started! But pigs like Daschle and Obama will do just fine!
I cannot even tell you how CARTER this all looks to me. It’s practically a rerun of the horror show.
Daschle is a wuss
And is relying on the Saudis preferable, a path that funds the folks who fund anti-western teachings and terrorists?
The issue she is discussing is global starvation you ghoul!
Yuck…a lame debate point in support of Obama is more important than discussing the theft of food from people’s mouths!
I’m done with you….how disgusting!
Ethanol processing requires petroleum, dumb believe. McCain wants to lift the 27-year ban on domestic drilling. Obama wants to keep working with Saudis. That’s why oil companies have him in their pockets. That’s why he is the only candidate to have received contributions from the Carlyle Group. The buck for CIA petro-dollar black ops (Saudis and terrorism) stops right there. Obama is their guy.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates. …Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland. ……Daschle, a national co-chairman of the Obama campaign, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his role advising the Obama campaign on energy matters was limited. He said he was not a lobbyist for ethanol companies, but did speak publicly about renewable energy options and worked “with a number of associations and groups to orchestrate and coordinate their activities,” including the Governors’ Ethanol Coalition. ….Obama has not explained his opposition to imported sugar cane ethanol.”
I remember 14% mortgage rates during the Carter years, and his admonishment to put on a “sweater” and turn down the heat. Reminds me of Barky’s comment that he was just sorry the oil prices were rising so swiftly, not that they were going higher. The energy crisis and related food crisis are two of the greatest issues threatening our nation and the world, and he is woefully ill equipped to handle either problem.
Correction: “gas” prices, not oil
Obama’s comment about Americans not being able to set their thermostats to 72 degrees reminded me of Carter’s “put on a damn sweater” comment. Let them eat change.
And what’s McCain’s position?
I mean, really, how can one compare candidates on this issue if you don’t provide the comparative information? Would you ever make any other decision without comparative data — what house to buy, what airline flight to take, what loans to pursue?
By ONLY focusing on Obama on this site, people’s posts lack the most basic information needed to evaluate.
No probelm solving skills…huh?
Here is a hint.
Then bring something to the table.
Most of your posts can be summed up in a whine…
Waaa…wahhh…wahhh…wahhh. Your post contradicts that post…whhha…wahhh…wahhh. Whhaaa…waaa…abortion…whaa…wahhh.
Google it yourself and bring an original idea here and debate McCain’s energy policy.
Look here is a thread on which you can try and prove that Obama deserves a vote because of his energy policy.
Probelm solved….LOL
Mccain will invest in building more Nuclear power plants. The one we have now are old, but still provide 20% of the nations power. With newer Tech, the new plants can easily handle another 20%. That will free up natural gas for cars(we have a lot at home), which help to decrease the use of oil(imported). It also help advance the goal of putting more electric car on the road, which help the environment. Plenty of electrical power also help put more hydrogen cars on the road, since it takes a lot of power to create fuel cell(it don’t grow from trees in case you don’t know), which also help the environment. It will also help push the research on fusion technology, which unlike current fission reactors, are 100% safe even if it accident happens.
He’s also for wind power and solar power and other long term solution as well. He’s for clean coal technology also.
Now compare that to Obama’s support on ethanol from corn is taking food supply form people who can least afford it around the world, what kind of world leader would you call that?
Hybrid battery require a lot of energy to create, translate into carbon emission, as long as we use natural gas or oil for power generation.
Also, a 50 years energy plan without any solution to the current problem in the short term is just another way to duck responsibility, where new president is elected in 2016.
A threat of drilling(which may not even need to take place) will sent oil future market into a selling frenzy in the short term, and bring relief for the average American.
Tell me how Obama is going to solve the short term problem other then telling people to not heating up their home like they did in Chicago, buying hybrid cars that many can’t afford to while he drives gas hungry cars, and and promise that many never come through in the current economic condition. Just tell me how? Details would be nice, as I am tired of talking points copy from his site. Tell me how his plan could work, substance please.
I just got the tail end of the “Obama for women” event, with Obama and Clinton.
Does anyone know what was said?
From “The Page” http://thepage.time.com/
Obama praises Clinton’s candidacy, says she broke barriers for women. “Because of what Hillary accomplished, my daughters and yours look at themselves a little differently today…”
Clinton speaks first, promotes unity. “Anyone who voted for me has so much in common with anyone who voted for Barack and it is critical that we join forces. Because the Democratic Party is a family. Sometimes a dysfunctional family but it’s a family.”
Says the stakes in this presidential election are “particularly great for women.”
And the site has the full transcript of Obama’s remarks, as prepared:
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-clinton-obama-breakfast-fundraiser/
BELIEVE: GIVE IT UP!!!!
We’re supposed to believe that suddenly, he is so appreciative of Clinton’s candidacy after he ridiculed and demeaned her with his hip-hop disses and his mocking attitude for months? Give me a break.
And the “stakes are high for women” threat falls on deaf ears. If the stakes are so high for women, the corrupt DNC should have chosen the more qualified WOMAN, who has been fighting for women’s rights for almost 40 years, not some self-promoting, condescending, arrested adolescent.
I hope they pay you well, because your efforts are completely wasted here.
As Reagan famously used to say: “There he goes again.”
News report about Obama this a.m.
Apparently, at the recent dual fundraiser with Clinton, he was supposed to make an appeal to his supporters to donate to Clinton’s campaign for the sake of paying down her debt. Instead, he talked entirely about himself, said “good night” to the crowd, and began walking off stage with the music playing. Finally, his aides grabbed him, gave him back the mic, and he had to yell out, “Oh yea, wait. I got carried away and forgot to ask you to help give money to Senator Clinton’s campaign…”
Can we say: totally narcissistic AMATEUR anyone?!
That amateur won two-thirds of the nomination contests, with larger average margins than his nearest opponent, an opponent who started with massive advantages — her friends and supporters in charge of key committees in the Democratic party which set up the front-loaded system for her, 100 superdelegates, a huge list of friends and supporters, 100 million dollars, and incredible name recognition.
It was probably the biggest upset in American political history.
First of all, it wasn’t an “upset”:
SHE WON THE POPULAR VOTE!
He was GIVEN THE NOMINATION. Can you read and absorb actual facts?
Secondly, you think HE did that by himself???? LOL!
I guess the tens of millions of dollars from billionaires like Soros, the Crown family, and all his buddies on Wall St. and in the sub-prime mortgage industry didn’t help. And then there was the entire DNC manipulating the process and forcing him on us 24/7 along with a completely promotional media (owned by the corporations he is indebted to).
You are really a joke. If you can’t see, especially after the past few weeks, what an inexperienced puppet this guy is (and it’s obvious you can’t), then b-bye. I’m not wasting another moment on you.
First, the nomination has NEVER been based on popular vote. If it had been, Obama would have campaigned differently. He campaigned to win the nomination based on the rules of the DNC, rules which was influenced far more than Clinton loyalists than anyone else. If Penn didn’t understand that the delegates were alloted proportionately, he had no business being campaign manager/strategist.
Second, as has been extensively documented, the claim of winning the popular vote is based on flawed means of counting. But - really - that doesn’t matter. The nomination has always been based on delegates - ALWAYS. And Obama put together a magnificent team that designed and implemented a winning strategy.
No one said the nomination was based on the popular vote. I guess Clinton should have better assessed the threat coming from Obama. She should have hired Hells Angels to protect the traditional Democrats who were intimidated and harassed at caucuses by young agitators bused in from other states. Despite this advantage, Obama still could not secure the necessary pledged delegates to win the nomination. He has relied on bought-off superdelegates and 59 delegates (in a close competition) from people who did not vote for him. His handlers are still trying to clench the nomination for him by avoiding taking this to the convention. Spare us the gushing praise for David Axelrod’s dirty campaign.
And, again, where’s the comparison to McCain? He doesn’t go on overseas trips without his buddies Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham, who have to correct his “misstatements” on some pretty basic facts about national security and even geography.
All Presidents are surrounded by their advisers, and Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham are knowledgeable and well-respected. McCain keeping trustworthy people close to him is a reason he is a superior candidate to Obama who has to hold two press conferences in a day to correct his “misstatements.”
p.s. If we are a “family,” I already got a divorce. I would never belong to a family with Obama, Pelosi, Dean, Kerry & Co. What a bunch of spineless hypocrites.
So different from McCain - who has flip-flopped on so many issues so far - and who went from countering Bush to embracing him.
$7/HR
$7/HR
$7/HR
$7/HR
Is that what you get paid?
Interesting.
YUP–U BOT —A TYPICAL BOT
“I know you are, but what am I?”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/barack_w_bush.html
July 10, 2008
Barack W. Bush?
By Victor Davis Hanson
Almost everyone is talking about Barack Obama’s flip-flops, as the Senate’s most liberal member steadily moves to the political center and disowns firebrands like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger.
But less noticed is that Obama is not just deflating John McCain’s efforts to hold him to his long liberal record, but also embracing much of the present agenda of an unpopular President Bush on a wide variety of fronts.
After 15 hours straight of thinking about this without sleep, rest or pause of any sort I have decided that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States of America. I believed him when he said he was a “Constitutional Scholar” and “Lawyer” and would “Filibuster” any and “all” legislation that granted retroactive immunity to the telecommunication giants. I believed him to the tune of nearly $200 worth of contributions to his campaign during the primary.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/10/7383/23073/943/549272
That diarist doesn’t even know what was in the FISA bill. It doesn’t get the president unchecked power. In fact, there are more checks now than there was in the last version of the bill and warrants are required to be issued by the FISA court.
There’s a lot of disinformation out about this bill, a lot put out by the kind of folks who make up crazy stories like the ones promoted by this site.
By the time the election comes around, that diarist will have been educated about what was really in the bill Obama supported.
$7/HR
$7/HR
$7/HR
Here is a blog group dedicated to educating the public about the FISA bill. Somehow, I am more inclined to consider this over anything put out by the same telecoms being granted immunity and also subsidized by our corrupt government.
http://www.squidoo.com/fisaamendmentsact#module10249083
FISA Amendments Act Basics
1. The law retroactively legalizes a massive electronic operation to spy on the personal communications of millions of Americans - within the United States
2. The law allows physical searches of Americans’ homes and places of work without a search warrant or any other proof that anyone being spied upon is suspected of any crime at all
3. The law allows the same kind of unaccountable spying online and by telephone
4. Under the FISA Amendments Act, the only person with the ability to stop the spying is the same person who actually orders the spying to take place: The Attorney General of the United States.
USA Today/Gallup poll gives Obama a 6 point lead but with other significant advantages as well:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-09-voter-analysis_N.htm
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
Don’t feed it?
WTF does this have to do with ethanol subsidies? I’d hardly be excited about a national poll showing Obama consistently within the margin of error for the third week straight. I like John McCain, and I don’t find him so exciting that he should be running about even with ANY Democrat right now.
believe |
believe |
believe |
believe | is a —-
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
TROLL
Allen is a PhD who has worked at some of the most prestigious academic institutions in the country. Under no credible method of evaluating qualifications would she be considered a pseudo-scholar.
People should read the article for themselves. Here is another excerpt. I added emphasis to the main point of the article. Martin poses a valid question. Is someone to be considered a scholar who does not understand the basic principle you can’t ban anonymous speech under the US Constitution?
So now Obama wants to outlaw anonymous internet speech? So his thugs can come after us and threaten us? Lovely. Why do his tactics remind me of Hitler and his Kenyan cousin Odinga? Too bad this alleged constitutional scholar doesn’t recall that there are three co-equal branches of government and America is not a dictatorship.
Many Democrats, now disgusted with the long-predicted rightward swing of Sen. Obama, his dishonesty, and depressed that neither he nor Sen. McCain are the kind of person they wish to see in the White House after our long national nightmare, are calling for the Democratic Party to change its mind and select Hillary Clinton, an almost guaranteed winner among the PEOPLE, WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/93042/4062
What a silly diarist. Everyone knows the nomination contest is over now. Well, some Japanese soldiers didn’t know World War II was over for decades, so I guess there is precedent.
You mock the diarist as being silly yet you fail to understand the fact there is no nominee until the convention.
piss off, troll
Dumbass. The nomination contest traditionally ends with the convention next month. Until then, Obama is the “presumptive nominee.”
I left DailyKos a while back because I thought (and after today have never been more convinced) they are hurting Obama’s candidacy more than they are helping.
I went back only to find out I can’t post diaries nor can I post comments. I still have an account, but I’m silenced. I’m not allowed to be a part of the conversation.
Believe me, I’m not complaining all that much. I’m better off, but there is a part of me that refuses to let kos derail our chances of winning this year.
I’m on record as saying that i thought the fanatics at DailyKos damaged my candidate during the primaries, probably nearly cost him the nomination, and very likely has helped created whatever divide still exists in the party.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/04539/4128
Barack Obama crossed the pop culture/politics divide today by praising Lil’ Wayne’s rhyming ability at a campaign event in Powder Springs, Georgia.
Take the lyrics of Lollipop, the aforementioned song which, if you have not yet heard on the radio, then your children certainly have. As is the habit of most modern Hip Hop, it is a song of sexual conquest, with Lil’ Wayne boasting of his ability to attract women and enjoy their company. Not so interesting, you think? Check out this set of lyrical couplets:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/10/05915/6199
Interesting that Lil Wayne uses her maiden name while he’s lyrically raping Hillary.
Gallup poll today actually shows Obama 46% McCain 44%. That’s a 2 point lead “Believe” - well within the margin of error.
http://www.gallup.com/
The Great Yellow Hype
And, Obama, what ever is good for Corporations, he is all for! Just like he admitted if he was also in the Senate for Bus’s “Clear Skies Initiative” and Illinois Coal Companies benefited, he would have supported it.
And that brings us to hs next chapter of pushing the Liquid Coal Bill a 2nd time, while Environmentalists and AL GORE was calling it the worst, as NRDC says, it would have been like replacing every car with a HUMMER. Thankfully it lost support the 2nd time as well, after 6 months of ignoring the pleas.
And then there is his OTHER Corporate Interest that sweetens the pot, his other BIG donor, Exelon Energy.
Obama is a walking 24 hour jack. He gladly receives money willing to give, while he doles out the paper to benefit them for their donation.
Someone had be on the take to win Iowa’s vote re: Ethanol, Barack is wearing that empty suit.
Thank you, again, Mr. Lemos, for another educational post. I was surprised to find myself thinking McCain had a better energy policy than Obama. I don’t like it all, but I think it is better than Obama’s. From your NYT quote:
The corn lobbyists and Obama have turned to their benefit, not ours, an issue of great importance. If we are going to subsidize ethanol, it should be to bring cellulosic ethanol or algae biodiesel or some other nonfood-based technology on line. McCain wants to offer a prize for a lightweight battery to make electric cars more practical. Again, I agree with him.
As a Mechanical Engineer I would drop Ethanol like a bad habit.
Instead, I would leverage ALGAE. Go to the site and learn about the real Bio-fuel that will change the landscape for the Airline and Automobile industries.
http://www.petrosuninc.com/
PetroSun Announces Recent Algae-to-Biofuel Development
Wednesday June 25, 9:23 am ET
SCOTTSDALE, AZ–(MARKET WIRE)–Jun 25, 2008 — PetroSun, Inc. (Other OTC:PSUD.PK - News) announced today that the company has advanced as a team member to the award consideration phase for the development of jet fuel derived from algae. We anticipate the final award negotiation process to commence after June 30, 2008.
sustainable fuels industry,” stated Gordon LeBlanc, Jr., CEO of PetroSun. “It is frustrating that we are restricted to this generic release of information today based solely on the current status of the alternative jet fuel program. Being a team player is something we understand; being politically correct is not on our agenda during what should be a period of an all out effort to succeed in the development of global sustainable energy resources. PetroSun will continue to move forward independently and with industry partners to fulfill the commercial promise of algae derived biofuels.”
About PetroSun
PetroSun’s operations include oil and gas exploration, development, production, oilfield tubular sales and algae-to-algal oil alternative biofuel production. The oil and gas division is focused on the exploration of the Holbrook Basin of Arizona, the San Juan Basin of New Mexico, Australian based prospects and the development of oil and gas reserves in Louisiana. PetroSun Oilfield, a wholly owned subsidiary, is engaged in the importing of tubing and casing from China for marketing and distribution within the US market. The alternative fuels division has entered the commercial stage of its algae-to-biofuels production technology. The Company plans to establish algae farms and algal oil extraction plants in Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, Mexico and Central America during 2008. The algal oil product will be marketed as feedstock to existing biodiesel refiners and planned company owned refineries. PetroSun is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona with field offices in Shreveport, Louisiana and Rio Hondo, Texas. For more information about PetroSun visit the company’s website at http://www.petrosuninc.com.
Except historical matter contained herein, matters discussed in this news release are forward-looking statements and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements reflect assumptions and involve risks and uncertainties, which may affect the Company’s business and prospects and cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements.
Contact:
Contact:
Investor Relations
Osprey Partners
732-292-0982
Source: PetroSun, Inc.