That RG. He's a giver, that boy.:lol
Printable View
That RG. He's a giver, that boy.:lol
Notice I am not saying that ethanol is not significant to Brazil. It is highly significant. It just isn't 100% of their transportation energy consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat Sagyidev
They still use a LOT of oil.
I once calculated what it would take to get the US to move all of its gasoline consumption to ethanol, using the same production charactoristics as Brazil, modified for the lower efficiency of corn.
It would require 1/3 of the entire land area of the lower 48 states or thereabouts, assuming you had the water for it. That was about the time I realized how pointless it was to do more than a small fraction of our transportation needs on corn ethanol.
It didn't seem to help when I posted that link earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
No reason to believe it'll help clear his fog this time either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue
He has treated the oil industry like a piggy bank to keep himself in power, by giving away massive subsidies to the poor for food and fuel, but he has failed to re-invest in new facilities or infrastructure. It is falling apart and taking the production with it, ala Libya.Quote:
Originally Posted by pdf paper noting recent Chinese investments in Venezuela
The ethanol thing is likely a poorly concieved attempt to make up for the massive under-investment in his own oil industry.
I would like to see the results of Chavez taking Chinese money then "nationalizing" the investments. :corn:
Heh, haven't finished reading the whole thread yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I am just getting to the part where WC is saying the OP is lying because WC wasn't able to find the actual bill. :rollin
My God...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
This is already explained, and I found the text before anyone else did.
You did indeed post this already. Sorry for the repeat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Hell you also beat me :depressed to summarizing the series of posts where Wile E. Cobra goes on about how the "leftist" media is lying. :lol
This has all the makings of a classic politics thread.
Now we just need someone to derail it completely by talking about food/beer/coffee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Bullshit.
You found the text of some other bill, dumbass. You still haven't figured that out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake in post #28
Huehuetenango ftw!Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Edit:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser.
That is indeed the amendment number. But that was the amendment in its original form. When one digs up the actuall congressional record for the day:
(hope the link works)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...DYEOy:e239788:
(senate record, page 3661 or 3662, not sure wich works)
Quote:
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 17, strike line 14 and all that follows through page 18, line 10, and insert the following:
(a) Brightfields Demonstration Program.--Section 218 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3154d) is repealed.
(b) Termination of Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund.--Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall terminate the Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund of the Department of Commerce.
AMENDMENT NO. 436, AS MODIFIED
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as a matter of right, I ask that my amendment be modified with the changes I now send to the desk. Further, I make the point that I retain my right to the floor after the modification is made under the precedents of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify the amendment.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit)
At the end, add the following:
SEC. __X. REPEAL OF VEETC.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.
(b) Repeal of VEETC.--
(1) ELIMINATION OF EXCISE TAX CREDIT OR PAYMENT.--
(A) Section 6426(b)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act)''.
(B) Section 6427(e)(6)(A) of such Code is amended by striking ``December 31, 2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act''.
(2) ELIMINATION OF INCOME TAX CREDIT.--The table contained in section 40(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(A) by striking ``2011'' and inserting ``the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Ethanol Subsidy and Tariff Repeal Act'', and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``After such date zero zero''.
(3) REPEAL OF DEADWOOD.--
(A) Section 40(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(B) Section 6426(b)(2) of such Code is amended by striking subparagraph (C).
(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to any sale, use, or removal for any period after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of the Act.
(c) Removal of Tariffs on Ethanol.--
(1) DUTY-FREE TREATMENT.--Chapter 98 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:
``Subchapter XXIII
Heading/Subheading Article Description Rates of Duty
1 2
General Special
9823.01.01 Ethyl alcohol (provided for in subheadings 2207.10.60 and 2207.20) or any mixture containing such ethyl alcohol (provided for in heading 2710 or 3824) if such ethyl alcohol or mixture is to be used as a fuel or in producing a mixture of gasoline and alcohol, a mixture of a special fuel and alcohol, or any other mixture to be used as fuel (including motor fuel provided for in subheading 2710.11.15, 2710.19.15 or 2710.19.21), or is suitable for any such uses Free Free 20%''.
(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--Subchapter I of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended--
(A) by striking heading 9901.00.50; and
(B) by striking U.S. notes 2 and 3.
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendments made by this subsection apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the later of June 30, 2011, or the date of the enactment of this Act.
CLOTURE MOTION
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending amendment No. 436, as modified, to S. 782.
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the names be waived.
Mr. MERKLEY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John McCain, Richard Burr, David Vitter, Kelly Ayotte, Scott P. Brown, James E. Risch, James M. Inhofe, Bob Corker, Michael B. Enzi, Johnny Isakson, John Barrasso, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions.
Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask my colleague, my senior Senator from Oklahoma--who I do not think is on the floor right now--to allow time for Senator Brown to bring up an amendment.
I yield to him at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Madam President, I thank the Senator who spoke before me.
AMENDMENT NO. 405
My apologies. You got the right amendment number, just not the final form of that amendment.
I'm really really sorry. The imputation was without merit, and I deeply regret any distress this has caused you or your family. I hereby undertake never to utter such slander...
Random, you should stop attacking me on my posts that are before the point I found an error in the LoC.
You're making yourself look like a fool. Jump ahead to post 45.
45>28, ergo you didn't find the text before anyone else did. You found part of it, but not the whole thing, and certainly not before being given the link by Blake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
(edit)
In any event, the OP article proved to have the correct information, contrary to your assertion that it was lying about the amendment, didn't it?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
WC with the goods
On that note, gotta jet.
Yes. So I already implied my earlier words were wrong, so what type of satisfaction do you get saying I'm wrong after admitting it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Twisted aren't you...
No, I was the first to link the amendment text as voted on the failed vote. If I'm wrong, show me. These amendments often have several variations. It wasn't 1057 that was voted on. It was 436.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Don't you see...
Another reason the link in the OP was wrong.
Wrong amendment number
The number of both democrats and republicans voting no was way off.
If you cannot understand why it was not wrong to be suspicious, then you are too trusting of our government.
Random, don't overlook what Coyote says in #54:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Interesting.
what motive do you think the government might have by providing false information regarding an ethanol subsidy repeal bill?
I'm not thinking of anything in particular, except not to trust without verifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Anything could happen if you don't verify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelosi
yes, you can jump to a shitty conclusion that challenges another's integrity and makes you look like a fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
If you mean this thread, that is explained. LoC is the record. The record is wrong. Big difference when assuming bad integrity because of a good source having a very rare mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Still, the journalist of the article in the OP has no integrity. Wrong amendment number, and said 25 democrats voted no when the correct count was 37. Republican count wrong too.
True, but you're forgetting the part that Chavez is doing it on purpose. He wants their reserves to last at least 200yrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Is the record still wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So you are assuming that the journalist in the OP fudged the numbers on purpose.Quote:
Still, the journalist of the article in the OP has no integrity. Wrong amendment number, and said 25 democrats voted no when the correct count was 37. Republican count wrong too.
Throw out a quick opinion as to the motivation of the journalist.
...and does this also mean that the LoC lacks integrity?
You don't trust the government.....why do you trust the LoC as a good source?
OK Chump, you can take off that mask.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
I use to play the "why" game when my kids were growing up. No time for you with that game..
As for the record.
Look for yourself. The record surrounding roll call 90 is correct. I doubt they edit past mistakes, but be my guest and look.
you've been playing this game for 5 pages now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
you obviously have the time.
huh? Why wouldnt the LoC edit mistakes?Quote:
As for the record.
Look for yourself. The record surrounding roll call 90 is correct. I doubt they edit past mistakes, but be my guest and look.
If they don't, they fail as a "good source" and you fail again in whatever argument you think you are making.