[OT - US/Canada] E-85

William Graham wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:

"All Things Mopar" wrote in message
31...
Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, TMG laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...

What do you mean by "eliminate deficit spending?" there was
no way in hell he was going to pay off the national
multi-trillion dollar debt, if that's what you mean.....If
you mean that he was going to have a year where the
government's outgo was equal to or less than their tax
dollars in, well, sure. That's possible for selected years
where there is no war,

Maybe the key is to stop spending on war.

Exactly. And, it will have the much more important benefit of
saving the lives of countless hundreds more uniformed men and
women, for which no dollar value can ever be place, especially
since they are dying and being maimed for life for no good
reason.

And how about the 2 million Iraqis that Saddam managed to do in over the
last 30 years?

If you can't defend Bush without lying then you really shouldn't be
trying to defend him at all.

Bush is responsibel for the deaths of over 100,000 innocent Iraqis.
He's just about even with Saddam. AND he's burned through a few
hundred BILLION dolalrs of our tax money to do it.

Clearly then, our argument is stalled on the facts. I have personally
calculated that Saddam Hussein has been responsible for over two million
lifetimes of his people.

I have "personally calculated" that you're an idiot.

I have also heard others estimate figures similar
to that. My figures came from my mathematical background and the National
Geographic Atlas of the Middle East published in 2001.

That atlas says that Saddam killed 2,000,000 people? Do tell!

If a dictator keeps his people living at a
starvation level,

The result of US-imposed sanctions?

which is approximately 1/3 the ME average income, while
sitting on all that oil, then he is responsible for their poor health and 13
year shorter lifetime than the average.

The standard of living has DROPPED even from the low level that was
the result of sanctions.

If you discount this out of hand,
then I suggest that you are being blinded by your own prejudice against
Republicans

Or, more likely, you're blinded by your devotion to your republican
cult. That fact that you're trying to excuse Bush's killing of
100,000+ innocent people by claiming that Saddam killed more is ample
evidence that you're not firing on all cylinders.

--
Ray Fischer

William Graham wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
All Things Mopar wrote:

What is most horrifying about the national debt is that it is owed to our
enemies!

Ah, he hears the alarm. Does he _know_ what it means? Does he have the
balls to do the right thing? er, well. No.

I think a large portion of the national debt is owed to US citizens and
corporations who have purchased T bills and other government bonds.

And why is that supposed to matter?

--
Ray Fischer

William Graham wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
.. .
William Graham wrote:

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Like the $10,000,000,000,000 US debt run up by the "responsible"
forward-planning conservatives?

Come on, Ray....This country started the deficit spending route with
Roosevelt during WW-II, and hasn't been even since.

Clinton managed to reduce spending, reduce the size of the government,
and was just about to eliminate deficit spending when the Republicans
took control.

What do you mean by "eliminate deficit spending?"

Annual revenues exceed annual expenditures.

there was no way in hell
he was going to pay off the national multi-trillion dollar debt,

That's why I wrote "deficit" and not "debt".

..If you mean that he was going to have a year where the
government's outgo was equal to or less than their tax dollars in, well,
sure.

And since Bush took office the annual deficit has gone from zero to
$350,000,000,000 and the national debt has doubled.

Yes.....He has had to make up for Clinton's lack of action in an world of
ever increasing hostility.....

What a typically stupid statement. Clinton went after terrorists.
What has Bush done?

That's possible for selected years where there is no war, and no
reason to spend a lot of money.

"Possible"? Clinton is the only one to have done it in the last 50
years.

But that happens under
republican administrations, too.

It happens ESPECIALLY under republican administration that there is
excess spending and increasing debt.

But given the choice between a president
who is too wishy-washy to declare wars on idiots who are murdering people

Bush declared war on innocent people and has been responsible for the
deaths of about 100,000.

Saddam killed 2 million over a thirty year period,

Crap.

and he and his sons would

Are you trying to say that Bush is no worse than a corrupt and
murderous dictator?

--
Ray Fischer

Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Brace wrote:



I miss no main points, believe me. However, your assertion that I missed
them because I take you to task for your narcissistic view that we all
should blindly accept your "solutions", is naive in the extreme.

Since you haven't proposed anything better you're in no position to
criticize.

So: What do you propose to reduce oil consumption, reduce pollution,
reduce dependance on foregin oil?

US car makers STILL oppose increased federal fuel economy standards.
Forr the last half century US car makers have opposed almost every
efficiency and safety standard advanced by the government. If they
had their way we'd still be driving cars with no seatbelts, no
airbags, no ABS brakes, and 12MPG fuel economy.

How do you reduce oil consumption? Make it more expensive. Eliminate
all subsidies and make drivers pay ALL of the costs.

JAPANESE car makers seem to have little difficulty in making cars that
get 30 to 60 miles per gallon. Maybe if the execs of the US companies
were more concerned about running the business than justifying their
obscene salaries then they'd see about producing better cars.

--
Ray Fischer

All Things Mopar wrote:
The problem with E-85 at the start of this thread is still the
same now, and will be the same years from now: ethanol is
negatively efficient so it doesn't matter how many million cars
can burn it, the net result will be more waste, not less.

Propaganda and disnformation. Aside from the fact that that claim is
highly suspect and probably wrong, it doesn't actually matter if if
ethanol is "negatively efficient" since that is part of the cost of
making a portable fuel. It is not feasable to put a regenerative gas
turbine, a nuclear power plant or a hydro dam in a car. And, unlike
oil products, ethanol is environmentally neutral when it comes to
greenhouse gas - any carbon in ethanol has come from the atmosphere.

--
Ray Fischer

William Graham wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news:0rMeg.12671

It is an unneccesary war as proven by the lack of hard evidence showing
that the "sketchy" pre-war evidence for WMD's meant little to nothing.
(And THAT was the PRETEXT) Was Saddam an asshole? Certainly. Was
getting rid of him worth all the lives paid since the beginning of round
II worth it? Absolutely not.

I think those 2 million Iraqis who are dead because of Saddam's rule over

Why not claim 10,000,000? It'd be just as credible.

--
Ray Fischer

For everyone in this NG, reading about E-85, ethanol, is very corrosive
toward any kind of non-metallic substance not specifically designed to
withstand it's effects. That said, it would be assumed, that vehicles
approved for E-85 fuel, have had the necessary modifications. I doubt it
very much, since Ford for instance has not acknowledged the "cackle" issue
in any of its turbo diesels either in the 7.3 or 6.0L engines and refuses to
acknowledge it. One example of American Car Companies shoving something
down the consumers throat with not "Heimlich maneuver" for rescue.

Second, we are not out of oil, but we are quickly running out of available
resources to keep the present and future populations of this planet from
wholesale famine.

My suggestion is to not have any babies, anywhere for at least 10 years so
at least half of the current population dies and the planet gets back into
equilibrium.

Since most will ignore this idea, I have secured a sizable piece of land for
my retirement, cross the fence line, and I will use you for target practice.
Because at it's present expansion, the population will double in 15 years,
and I plan on being alive then too. This in a nutshell is the reason, we
are running out of everthing, oil, sugar, etc. This is the reason,
thousands die, in weather diasters, floods, earthquakes, etc. Balance, the
earth was never designed to support the current and projected populations.
Bird flu, or some other event will even the playing field. Mother Nature
always finds a way!

Old Man River


"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

For the North American audience
60 Minutes will present a segement on E-85 (Ethanol) fuels,

Sunday May 7 (19:00 EDT, CBS).

I halfheartedly apologize for the OT posting, but you know how sensitive I
am on this topic.

E-85 is 85% ethanol. The vehicle must have a fuel mix sensor and
controls. This is a growth trend area in North America which, while it
doesn't reduce consumption, it at least displaces it with a renewable fuel
that burns cleaner than gasoline.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ray Fischer wrote:


Yes.....He has had to make up for Clinton's lack of action in an world of
ever increasing hostility.....


What a typically stupid statement. Clinton went after terrorists.

We saw with hindsight that blowing up some tents and mud huts with
cruise missiles after the Africa embassy bombings wasn't an effective
strategy against Al Qaeda.

What has Bush done?

For one thing toppling the Taliban government. While their is still a
long road ahead to try and bring Afghanistan out of the middle ages, it
was a start.

ALV

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message news:447d2661$0$65448

Why not claim 10,000,000? It'd be just as credible.

Oh no it wouldn't. The 2 million estimate is very credible. It is based on
statistics about the ME countries in general, and Iraq in particular. But it
doesn't make any difference to you, Ray, because you are blind to anything
that justifies anything that Bush has done, so it is a waste of my time to
try to tell you anything.

"Old Man River" wrote in message
...
For everyone in this NG, reading about E-85, ethanol, is very corrosive
toward any kind of non-metallic substance not specifically designed to
withstand it's effects. That said, it would be assumed, that vehicles
approved for E-85 fuel, have had the necessary modifications. I doubt it
very much, since Ford for instance has not acknowledged the "cackle" issue
in any of its turbo diesels either in the 7.3 or 6.0L engines and refuses
to acknowledge it. One example of American Car Companies shoving
something down the consumers throat with not "Heimlich maneuver" for
rescue.

Second, we are not out of oil, but we are quickly running out of available
resources to keep the present and future populations of this planet from
wholesale famine.

My suggestion is to not have any babies, anywhere for at least 10 years so
at least half of the current population dies and the planet gets back into
equilibrium.

Since most will ignore this idea, I have secured a sizable piece of land
for my retirement, cross the fence line, and I will use you for target
practice. Because at it's present expansion, the population will double in
15 years, and I plan on being alive then too. This in a nutshell is the
reason, we are running out of everthing, oil, sugar, etc. This is the
reason, thousands die, in weather diasters, floods, earthquakes, etc.
Balance, the earth was never designed to support the current and projected
populations. Bird flu, or some other event will even the playing field.
Mother Nature always finds a way!

Old Man River

Not to worry....about 2% of us have AIDS already, and the number is
increasing asymptotically. - Bird flu is only waiting in the wings. (no pun
intended)....