Ethanol credit, subsidy, and tariff voted down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

I read where the many Dems supported the bill but objected to some procedures, and that very probably it will be presented, maybe by the Dems, in different form.

Sounds like typically overcomplicated BS, bowing to corporate $$.

kill the subsidy, kill the tariff, period.

---

The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?

I'm assuming by corporations you mean oil companies. You do realize that they're buying foreign right now, right? You don't think all that oil we buy is domestic, do you? The only reason we're blending ethanol right now is because it's subsidized. Without the subsidy, it's not feasible economically. Imported ethanol might be, but that case hasn't been made yet.

I'll vouch for WC's googling skills on this one. Transcripts from the congressional record clearly show a debate specifically about ethanol, but the text of the amendment on the LOC website doesn't have anything to do with ethanol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I'll vouch for WC's googling skills on this one. Transcripts from the congressional record clearly show a debate specifically about ethanol, but the text of the amendment on the LOC website doesn't have anything to do with ethanol.

---

neh, he couldn't do a simple search of conservative sources that also reported the story, even when ChumpDumper basically laid up what to put in the search box for him.

thus the fishy smell reported by his conspiracy nose.

I'm just vouching for his googling of the LOC website. Not any conspiracy theories or other conclusions he's trying to draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

STFU you moron.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

neh, he couldn't do a simple search of conservative sources that also reported the story, even when ChumpDumper basically laid up what to put in the search box for him.

thus the fishy smell reported by his conspiracy nose.

---

If WC omitted to check Fox or Right Blogistan before googling that's to his credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I am baffled. I tend to believe the title had nothing to do with the text, but was an intentional misdirection.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

My God. The votes listed don't match roll call 89. There is clearly something fishy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

It was never voted on, the OP is lying about which bill:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I showed you the OP is wrong.

[you] Need to stop believing leftist media without verifying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

There are plenty of right wing sources in the 800 or so stories that verify what happened
and verify that you are completely wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Show me.

---

No credit.

WC treads thin ground when he relies upon his own lights, no doubt. We all do. I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity. That is worth something.

Without the daily spectacle of jackassed absurdity in all its human and post-human forms, this forum would be no fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I salute WC's attempts to think for himself.

---

I salute anyone that thinks for themselves.

I make fun of anyone that doesn't think twice before double checking and posting their stupid conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Without the daily spectacle of jackassed absurdity in all its human and post-human forms, this forum would be no fun.

---

I would never encourage it, but I agree that it would suck without it.

(urp)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I make fun of anyone that doesn't think twice before double checking and posting their stupid conclusions.

---

If that was all you did you'd be indistinguishable from ChumpDumper. :wow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

WC treads thin ground when he relies upon his own lights, no doubt. We all do. I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity. That is worth something.

---

If thats what constitutes thinking for one's self I'm deeply saddened.

Does the word "ethanol" have to be in a bill that could include ethanol?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?

---

I want to stop using corn for ethanol. The only reason it is being used is because it is heavily subsidized and protected by tariffs. Brazil's ethanol scheme may not be perfect, but it's much better than this stupid corn business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I salute WC's attempts to think for himself. Gruesomely misfired though they may be, they are occasionally fountains of hilarity.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I want to stop using corn for ethanol. The only reason it is being used is because it is heavily subsidized and protected by tariffs. Brazil's ethanol scheme may not be perfect, but it's much better than this stupid corn business.

---

X2

WC, this is one you should really give up on and hope it just fades away into the archives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The tariff needs to stay, or do you want the corporations to buy foreign instead of local?

---

If you support a tariff on imported sugar cane ethanol to protect local industry, then would you support an tariff on imported oil?

Americans aren't mature enough to reduce their driving consumption on their own, they need to be beat with price stick, like taxing transport fuel to $6 or $7 a gallon. Short-sighted, infantile, greedy Americans are already switching back to lowest-mileage land yachts and other vehicles as the price of gas has dropped recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

:lol

---

FWIW, the salute was sincerely meant.

That is not an endorsement of anything it has caused WC to say then or subsequently, nor is it a defense of the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

I read where the many Dems supported the bill

---

The article said 25 voted yes when only 5 did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

If WC omitted to check Fox or Right Blogistan before googling that's to his credit.

---

People will believe what they want, but I never seek their sites out. When I seek out a specific source, I prefer USA Today and the likes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

No credit.

---

Blake, I based all that on the fact I couldn't find anything related in the material linked to the amendments talked about.

The Library of Congress had the wrong amendment linked. I never expected them to do that!

After I explain that, you still have to rail against me.

You most certainly have some poor morality and ethics.