You are being unfair. Bush has an up-to-date, 19th century energy policy that will serve America's needs for days and days to come. [/sarcasm]
Scientifically, researchers said ethanol and other alternative fuels were still years away from widespread commercial use.
Which is what I've been telling you folks.
Posted by muckdog at February 2, 2006 03:32 PMWhy would anyone believe anything that comes out of Dumbya's ass... er, mouth?? He the dumbest fuck on the planet.
Posted by red_neck_repub at February 2, 2006 04:25 PMThis just another diversion. Bush is a problem but the biggest problem is the U.S. public's refusal to hold these republicans accountable. Everyone knows the challenges facing this nation and everyone knows the republicans and the public refuse to address the problems themselves or hold their leadership accountable for setting the right direction. After failing miserably on 9/11, the public didn't ask it's incompetent leadership for answers (like the Spainiards). The public rallied behind these losers and keep on losing. Since we all know worldwide oil production has peaked, would we be better off spending $ 1 trillion to find solutions instead $1 trillion in welfare to the special interest while we steal oil from Iraq.
Posted by smooth at February 2, 2006 04:40 PMSay not so! You mean that Bush didn't really mean anything he said in the SOTU the other night? That's so hard to believe.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2006 04:54 PMthe piece of shit aint told the truth so why start now
Posted by pablito at February 2, 2006 05:21 PMsmooth is right. At bottom, there's just no getting around the fact that the failures piling up everywhere one chooses to gaze are ultimately the failures of the American citizen.
I don't think Republicans can throw elections where 2/3 of the citizens vote against them. Given the level of the corruption and incompetence, that's the percentage that should be voting against them.
Until the citizens change, the Republicans never will.
If the "independents" don't keep their eye on the ball and vote overwhelmingly against Republicans in 2006, it's game, set and match for this country.
Posted by euzoius at February 2, 2006 05:22 PMPresident Bush's promise to move us off our addiction to oil is not serious and I will not pretend otherwise.
Switchgrass? Uh, well, sorta...
Fucking pabulum.
HEMP FOR VICTORY!!!
Posted by Toby Petzold at February 2, 2006 06:14 PMMuckdog, doesn't sound like years away to me.
Other countries are either producing and using ethanol in large quantities or are
providing incentives to expand ethanol use. Brazil and Sweden are using large
quantities of ethanol as a fuel. Some Canadian provinces promote ethanol use
as a fuel by offering subsidies of up to 45 cents per gallon of ethanol. India is
in the beginning stages of initiating the use of ethanol as an automotive fuel.
In France, ethanol is produced from grapes that are of insufficient quality for
wine production.
Prompted by the increase in oil prices in the 1970's, Brazil introduced a program
to produce ethanol for use in automobiles in order to reduce oil imports.
Brazilian ethanol is made mainly from sugar cane. Pure ethanol is used in
approximately 40% of the cars in Brazil. The remaining vehicles use blends of
22% ethanol with 78% gasoline. Brazil consumes nearly 4 billion gallons of
ethanol annually. In addition to consumption, Brazil also exports large
quantities of ethanol.
http://www.nwicc.com/pages/continuing/business/ethanol/Module1.htm
Posted by Judith at February 2, 2006 06:39 PMSee, this is the sort of problems you get when you have a chimp-human hybrid as President. That's why we need to fully fund the War on Chimeras.
Posted by biggerbox at February 2, 2006 06:41 PMDown with mutants! Thunderhawk must die!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2006 07:00 PMI go back to what I have said before. Although we are fairly knowledgable about what is going on in this Administration, millions of Americans are going on about their business not realizing or knowing the truth. How did every American in this Country know about the bj Clinton received? It was the fucking media that made damn sure they knew. Without the media, there is no chance that many Americans will ever know the truth, because they are aiding in the secrecy of this WH.
Posted by Judith at February 2, 2006 07:06 PMWhy should the government support any research? Let those who think it is profitable finance it. National security excuses are just a way to make all of us pay for corparate welfare. If the free market is good enough for prescription drugs for the elderly, then it should be good enough for the energy industries.
Let them do it themselves.
yipyhit,
There is no “free market”. The government subsidizes the market. Without the roads, bridges, police protection, courts, public education, the national guard, the military, etc. there will be no market as we know it. The “free market” is an illusion geared to make us resist the regulations that keep capitalism from destroying itself and the country. Imagine a violent game with no rules or penalties. Without the rules capitalism will destroy itself. We walked down this road during the "gilded age".
Developing technology for an alternative fuel should be the highest priority for national security and preserving this nation as we know it. Without fossil fuels (we are about 40 years away), we are looking at chaos. This effort is too important to leave to unethical selfish republicans and short cited greedy corporate executives that are focused on next quarters report and their stock options. Real leaders that are truly concerned with the country should initiate and lead this effort.
The founders correctly separated “church and state” and didn’t foresee the need to separate “corporations and state”. Although I agree we should separate “corporations and state”, the state should make strategic technology investments that pay for themselves and provide revenue streams to the state.
This Washington Post Editorial speaks truth to bush's sotu "oil addiction" lies.
Posted by smooth at February 2, 2006 11:16 PMsmooth, I believe that's the troll dipshit, so you're not obligated to answer.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 05:47 AMWhat is a story that most everyone here knew to be true, won't be reported on or discussed here by the US mainstream media as it will be deemed "old news", and will be deflected by Bush apologists using the same schtick that this somehow aids the terrorists-hurts troop morale-doesn't support them and/or clinton had the same policy?
Here.
emal, I found that story at the Guardian and posted on it yesterday. I especially like Bush's idea to fly planes over Iraq with UN colors, hoping Saddam would shoot it down and eliminate the need for a second UN resolution. They were hoping to stop the inspections before anyone found out there were no WMDs.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 06:03 AMiamcoyote, I have been away (work does call unfortunately)and have been unable to respond or post about the story yesterday. I just found the video interesting...mostly thinking as I watched it how I would long for in depth news reporting from our news media like this. I also meant to post my comment in the open thread up above, but messed up.... (again).
Anyway, I like the part about the 3 options, the fake airplane, the fake expat story, and the small possibility of a Hussein assassination. Yes this discussion took place in January 2003 on Blair's visit. Plus this totally contradicts the fact Bushco said this at a Press conference in March 2003
Ms. Rice's recollection corresponds with Mr. Bush's contention made in a televised news conference on March 6, 2003, that he had not yet decided whether to invade Iraq. "I've not made up our mind about military action," he said at the time.
Effing liars these people are (I know nothing we didn't already know) but to see it so done blatantly about something like War, and to see the US media excuse the lying....arrrrrghhh..someone get the man lying about a consensual blowjob please!!!
emal, I remember my head nearly exploding when I heard Cheney in what? August '02 saying Saddam had nukes. I knew then that it was a done deal. After the election, it was only a matter of time, and I think they were waiting on the weather for their "shok-n-awe" and assasination attempt of Saddam.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 10:04 AMiamcoyote,
thanks.
Posted by smooth at February 3, 2006 10:21 AMNo problem! I hate being pushy about it, but I'll be damned if I'm driven from my favorite blog by the likes of trolls.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 01:31 PM