first of all, i'm not failing to recognize anything oh neutral one, i haven't supported ethanol. i'm talking about your quickness to insult obama supporters with the lame ass "oh he's for change" sarcasm. regardless of what the thread is about. you didn't know obama real stance on ethanol, and i would think you would at least back off the he's taking money from the industry because he copped a plane ride when in fact he said brazil sugar based ethanol was better in a corn growing state.
Just a thought: Let's drop the Obama Messiah rubbish and talk about the issue at hand and Obama's incorrect position (I assume nobody here will defend his stance). "Transitional" doesn't do much for me because you can't logically rationalize it in any way. If you want to chalk it up to him representing Illinois, then fine, but I want McCain and the media to call him out and demand a clearer explanation.
the one thing I would say is that we're here, there is alot invested in ethanol, this isn't a new technology. we went the wrong way on this well before obama and the correct way to go isn't to now buy up brazil's sugar.
The tired old argument is the whining about "he's not for change". He's never said he's going to change every single thing about government, so pointing to a specific thing that he's not planning to change and then saying "see, the change thing is BS!" is both absurd and idiotic. I believe in his first post, that's what pgabriel is referring to. He's not planning to change the country into a zoo either, so I guess he's "not for change" right? As for the ethanol issue, specifically, Obama and everyone other Presidential candidate not named McCain is absolutely wrong on the issue. Ethanol is a disaster waiting to happen, or in some cases with food, already happening. To his credit, McCain was the one candidate that was anti-Ethanol for virtually his entire career. The only problem is that when he started running for President this time (not in 2000), he changed his tune: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/512797.aspx 2006: McCain in a speech in Grinnell, Iowa in August 2006: "I support ethanol, and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects." (Associated Press via Fortune Magazine). 2007: May 13, 2007: Meet the Press with Tim Russert: RUSSERT: In 2007 you go to Iowa and say this: ‘I support ethanol. I think it's a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects.’ Is the switch because you're entering the Iowa caucus? MCCAIN: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense. RUSSERT: So you've changed your mind. MCCAIN: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today. Here's another article: McCain's farm flip The senator has been a critic of ethanol. That doesn't play in Iowa. So the Straight Talk Express has taken a detour. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm To his credit, though, more recently he's come back out and started criticizing ethanol again.
I find this funny. "To his credit, he's recently said something different again. So he may be thinking differently. Or not. We think this time he's serious. Maybe. ****, who knows what the heck he's thinking."
Yeah - I thought about that. But even if he took a detour for political reasons, at least he's coming out against it again. More people need to be talking about how ethanol sucks if we're going to fix this mess, regardless of what they really believe!
I don't see that much specific in that piece regarding ethanol. The only specifics I see are him saying he will charge polluters and reinvest the proceeds but does that mean he will charge ethanol producers? Other than saying that ethanol isn't all that great and the Brazillians I'm not seeing a policy proscription there. It sounds more like he is acknowledging the facts but is planing on staying with the current course regarding ethanol as its transitional.
we would be buying their ethanol. there is also a lot "invested" in the war in iraq but we need to get the hell out of there too.
He came out against it when he said that Brazilian sugar cane version was superior to the American corn version, and added that it should only be transitional.
This BS makes me want to see a detailed and planned energy policy from him. I'd want to see McCain's too if he were my current and likely pick.
we'd be relying on another country for fuel, but the main point i'm getting to is that sugar ethanol isn't pratical for the u.s. yes, and just hopping up and leaving without phased withdrawl would be a mistake
what is the basis of his entire campaign? change and hope. and why do you say i don't know his stance on ethanol? he is for it. nothing you posted said he was against it. he is for the brazilian tariffs. he also said it was a good transitional technology and he was from a corn producing state which implies he is for it because of the people he represents (even if it is to the detriment of america and the world).
Right now, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is superior to all of our energy sources, because Brazil subsidizes it. If you can get the Brazilian taxpayers to pay $.25/gallon of the price of US fuel, you do it.
Well, that and getting out of Iraq, changing our approach to foreign policy, changing our approach to education, changing our approach to tax policy, changing our approach to energy policy, etc. You can disagree with him on the issues, but every challenger is about change and hope - that's the whole point of challenging the incumbency - to change the status-quo. Obama is just better at that part than most people, as were Reagan and Clinton, for example.
i guess we have different ways of defining against an issue. mccain flat out said we need to drop corn ethanol subsidies and drop the tariffs. obama said it was transitional and inferior to brasilian ethanol. he didn't say we need to stop corn ethanol nor did he give any sort of vague time table to stop producing corn ethanol. he just said it wasn't as good. that means nothing. hell if he were to give a clear statement on this then i would act and buy a crap load of cosan but he has not given that statement.
tran·si·tion (trn-zshn, -ssh-) n. 1. Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another. so if you want to keep focusing on this word, it means to go from one place to another, meaning you don't want to stay where you are, meaning eventually corn ethanol bad. maybe that is too much lawyer speak, but by definition he doesn't want to stick with ethanol
