The right are not united behind Bush

Posted by: Zapata_

The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 01:27 PM

like some deluded fools seem to want to believe. In fact, it has been the 'right' which has opposed bush the most.<br><br>But hey, who cares about reality when ideological myths need to be worshipped <br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 01:46 PM

It would seem obvious that the Repubs are often disunited and have intraparty factions and disagreements. I'm a conservative, but some of the Republicans' programs make me puke, such as the push for ethanol in gasoline.<br><br>But, as someone once said, politics is the art of the possible.<br><br>Sadly, Democrat unity consists entirely of negativity, obstructionism, and hissy fits over any positive news about the state of the union, without having any sort of constructive proposals of their own to offer.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: Zapata_

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 01:56 PM

Yeah, some people just want the truth, especially when it comes to war. Even if the truth stinks. Imagine that! <br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 02:06 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>....such as the push for ethanol in gasoline.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Hmmm...best place for that is in the sintax aisle of the local grocery or in my refridgerator - not the gas pump!!<br><br><br><br>We all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time.
Posted by: DLC

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 02:55 PM

what the matter with ethanol in gasoline ?<br><br>more fuel efficient... gives corn farmers more cash crop.<br>we give the Saudis and terrorists less of our $$<br><br>I don't get it? what wrong with those? (curious)<br><br><br>Many of the Dems are acting like the GOP did under Clinton !<br>Politics is predictable... each wants power and will do most anything to get and KEEP it. Have the GOP said squat about "term limits " the past 10 years? gee that was a big thing to Newt and others in the late 80s' mmmm why are they so quiet now? <br>Have any said anything about deficits (big GOP talk in the 80's). <br> reducing the size of Govt? (big GOP talk in the 80-90's). <br>getting Govt off our backs? (big GOP talk in the 80's). <br>once the GOP took over Congress, all the rhetoric changed.<br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 05:12 PM

How can EtOH be more fuel efficient when a liter contains fewer BTUs than a liter of gasoline and it requires more energy to produce than the EtOH yields?<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: hayesk

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 05:41 PM

Agreed. We're better off promoting clean diesel than ethanol/gasoline blends. The cleaner kind they have in Europe, not in North America. Although I believe we're heading that way anyway.<br><br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 05:54 PM

it has to do with more efficient burning of the hydrocarbons in the gasoline, not the ethanol itself..<br><br>also burns cleaner.<br>supoposed to leave less engine deposits.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: newkojak

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 06:09 PM

I'm curious about that comparison, so if you could oblige me with where that comparison comes from, I'd appreciate it. I haven't researched it myself, so the only thing I know is that here in the midwest, ethanol equals political success.<br><br>I want to know where the comparison starts. Let's say you start with a hopper of corn and some barrels of crude. The ethanol is going to be at a marked disadvantage because its production cost advantage would seemingly be in the acquisition of the raw materials. So if you just start with the source product, ethanol looks horrible. However, I wonder how the cost compares when you bring in the total energy/capital spent. Crude oil needs to be explored, drilled, and secured before it's refined. Corn only needs to be grown.<br><br>I'm also curious about the meaningfulness of energy comparisons. I'm sure oil has an advantage in that regard, but the whole point of ethanol or gasoline is not only that it is energy, but that it is energy to go. An energy-negative (in terms of production) product is still important so long as you can find ways to use renewable or abundant sources to process it.<br><br>Those are some pretty uninformed thoughts, but ideas nonetheless. I also wouldn't mind seeing ethanol or some other gas-ahol become successful since it would be big for my state.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 06:19 PM

No doubt EtOH produces less energy than gasoline hydrocarbons, (its more oxidized to begin with), but I don't think its advantages lie in economics. From what I understand it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.<br><br>But, from your previous signatures, you LIKE global warming, so that is still a bad thing for you. <br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/16/05 08:42 PM

I must echo DLC in his answer to:<br><br>Sadly, Democrat unity consists entirely of negativity, obstructionism, and hissy fits over any positive news about the state of the union, without having any sort of constructive proposals of their own to offer.<br><br>How does this differ from any of the rhetoric of a minority party?<br><br>And while we are at it, please define for me what a conservative is these days, I've lost track. And what about a liberal? I wouldn't count myself in either camp except out the necessity to oppose the righteousness and mendacity that has gripped this country. <br>Do you support "right to life" in your conservative advocacy? Then what about the Iraqi intervention? Harping on about the right to life while innocent Iraqis with an equal right to life are killed every day is the worst kind of righteous hypocrisy. We knew we were going to kill a lot of Iraqis in the course of this experiment and we did it anyway... Were their lives worth it? Is it worth the human cost. Then why aren't the embyros? If the embryos were Iraqi embryos would that be okay? I can see someone defending embryo research. This can be rational, but not when someone tries to defend what we did and are doing in Iraq in the same breath.<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 04:20 AM

To get the same energy out of Ethanol as Gasoline you need to burn more of it. Will that not make more CO2?<br><br><br><br>We all do what we do for the same reason: because it seems like a good idea at the time.
Posted by: DLC

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 06:01 AM

excellent question, but I don't think so<br><br> example (simplified) <br>Octane = C8H18<br>burn it and you get 8 CO2<br>C8H18 + 12.5 O2 -----> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O<br><br>to get close to that energy, you need 4 ethanol - C2H5OH<br><br>4 C2H5OH + 12 O2 -----> 8 CO2 + 12 H2O<br><br>you still get the same 8 CO2.<br>the only missing part is the BTU you get from EtOH... but if you balance the carbons (4X), it can't be that much less than octane... AND from what I read it is supposed to make the octane burn better... the gas mix is only 10% EtOH... so the overall composition isn't drastically changed.<br>the other thing is ethanol is renewable- oil is not.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 12:07 PM

Well, now, there is so much to answer in this thread that in my present foul mood I'll try to restrain myself to a few salient points. (Recent athroscopy went badly.)<br><br>Pigeonholing a liberal or conservative by the gamut of their beliefs is of course futile, except for the fringe elements to whom the politics is more of a religion. As has been noted many times, many of the most ardent communists becamee the most rabid fascists in Hitler's Germany. If you haven't done so, I would strongly recommend Eric Hoffer's book of about 60 years ago, "The True Believer".<br><br>The original thrust of this thread was that Bush doesn't have universal backing of all his programs from his own party, which is obvious. And in a democracy, it's also a good thing.<br><br>Prolife v. Prochoice has become such a totally emotional issue that it's hardly even worth the acrimonious pissing contests that always ensue whenever the subject is brought up. (My own views are totally irrelevant. There actually are many conservatives who are prochoice, proflouridation, believe in evolution, and don't go to church. As a further aside, I would venture that I'm probably the only member of this board who has actually performed abortions.)<br><br>Finally, a good summary of the EtOH boondoggle is from Audubon Magazine here. I find it highly amusing also that for all it's alleged benefits, current legislation before congress prohibits the import of foreign ethanol from countries that can supply it at lower cost to the US consumer.<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 03:04 PM

One huge downfall to alcohol is that it's a drying agent and would ruin the seals in an engine, which in turn made the engine burn oil and hence pollute a lot more. Not to mention it pretty much required you to replace the engine, as that would cost less in labor than tearing it apart and rebuilding.<br><br>I think that issue has been worked out for awhile now and all cars can run on up to 20% ethanol, but the stigma looms and those that had an engine ruined won't likely be happy putting it in their tank.<br><br>Not sure about the numbers in this article, but it says this about ethanol:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University and one of the foremost critics of ethanol, has conducted numerous cost analyses on ethanol production. He's made a name for himself mostly by driving the ethanol industry raving mad. From its very beginnings, when hoe enters soil, ethanol production has not changed much since the nineteenth century. Pimentel found that one acre of U.S. corn field yields about 7,110 pounds of corn, which in turn produces 328 gallons of ethanol. Setting aside the environmental implications (which are substantial), the financial costs already begin to mount. To plant, grow, and harvest the corn takes about 140 gallons of fossil fuel and costs about $347 per acre. According to Pimentel's analysis, even before the corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock alone costs $0.69 per gallon of ethanol.<br><br>More damning, however, is that converting corn to ethanol requires about 99,119 BTUs to make one gallon, which has 77,000 BTUs of available energy. So about 29 percent more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than is stored in that gallon in the first place. "That helps explain why fossil fuels (not ethanol) are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies that artificially lower the price." All told, a gallon of ethanol costs $2.24 to produce, compared to $0.63 for a gallon of gasoline.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Link<br><br>**edit - oooo wait here's a PDF of his research on the subject ->> Click me!!<br><br><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by SgtBaxter on 06/17/05 06:22 PM (server time).</EM></FONT></P>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 03:29 PM

Touche, Walrus. I really wasn't trying to pigeonhole you, which is why I asked you what you thought a conservative was, if indeed you have a conservative bent. I am still curious.<br><br>I am from Iowa originally where Ethanol is huge issue, as Iowa is the number one corn grower in the nation. I don't know the science, but from my understanding it was never what it was cracked up to be, and in some ways is worse than regular gasoline. The only thing keeping it alive is the corn farmer vote.<br><br><br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 03:51 PM

I have to add to my previous post that I guess what gets me is that people want to talk about anything but Iraq, which is why I brought it up (and have brought it up before). People will go on about much smaller problems like Ethanol or Terry Schiavo (or Michael Jackson!) but they don't want to touch Iraq directly. I am talking about people in general, not just the crowd in the macminute forum. People will say that Iraq is all talked out and there is nothing we can do. Well, Ethanol and Terry Schiavo are all talked out too aren't they? And what could anyone do about Ethanol or Terry Schiavo either? If the reason that people don't want to talk about it is because it has become obvious to so many what a disaster it is, I would be glad to hear this. I live outside the US and only get to hear general opinions from people back home when I come home once in a blue moon<br><br>
Posted by: DLC

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 06:46 PM

Well Sarge - I know a little but I'm no expert on ethanol... maybe it is all hype for the corn growers and ADM. I haven't researched it, so I'll take all this into consideration.<br><br>Thanks !<br><br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: watcher

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 07:23 PM

Who says that those opposed to Bush have to be either right or left? Bush is a disillusioned man but a very rich one.. What was ever his agenda? It certainly wasn't for the good of Americans or the rest of us either.. it was for GWB. Not dissimilar to Saddam nor Hitler, in fact not even dissimilar to Osama Bin Laden.<br><br>
Posted by: Walrus

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 08:05 PM

I certainly take no offense from your remarks. I just feel that trying to fit someone into a little labeled box stamped "Liberal" or "Conservative" based on short list of yes/no questions is demeaning to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and who understands that there are rarely simple answers to compex questions.<br><br>I am conservative on some issues, liberal on some, and don't-give-a-sh*t on many.<br><br>.......<br><br>Now, did I hear right? - that the Indy 500 is going to run on ethanol next year instead of methanol?<br><br>[color:red]Bibo, ergo sum</font color=red>
Posted by: DLC

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/17/05 08:17 PM

Walrus I totally agree about the little box labelling !!<br><br>tell that to Matt !... anyone disagrees with him get labeled a liberal !!<br>That's fine with me, but he acts like they're lepers.<br><br>Like you, I'm conservative on some issues, liberal on others,..<br><br>I criticize Bush, and I criticize some Dems... neither Party is perfect - in fact both have their disfunctional sides- IMHO ! <br>anyone who believes either is better and that ONE has no faults, doesn't have any intelligence or common sense.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/18/05 03:02 AM

"I certainly take no offense from your remarks. I just feel that trying to fit someone into a little labeled box stamped "Liberal" or "Conservative" based on short list of yes/no questions is demeaning to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and who understands that there are rarely simple answers to compex questions."<br><br>Agreed.<br><br>
Posted by: TreeBeard

Re: The right are not united behind Bush - 06/18/05 04:03 AM

You are spot on. lanovami. It is all about votes and lobbying for Government to supply an income for the farmers.<br>It is not about Ethanol being a route out of this mess.. it is all about making the intractable mess more inextricable at the expense of the average human for the purpose of finding a way to sell an overproduction of corn or sugarcane or whatever they are proposing the making ethanol from.<br>There is nil in the way of evidence that ethanol is any kind of better alternative other than a dubious way of extending the time limit of the crisis point.<br><br><br>but where will we be when the future comes?
Posted by: watcher

Re: Ethanol - 06/24/05 02:21 AM

Actually, 20% of ethanol will ruin most engines.. a figure between 10% and 15% may make a better mix.<br>Yes Ethanol costs more to produce and the only real reason for looking down this ethanol avenue is that of finding ways to keep farmers who have non-viable incomes from worn out farms, to continue to do the same things.<br><br>