I think the stated purpose was to reduce dependance on foreign oil.
So, they drive tractors up and down the field to plant, and harves.
More fuel to haul the corn to the distillery. More fuel to heat the
mash to get the alcohol out. And then more fuel to haul the alcohol to
the gasoline factory.

They would be better off, to encourage drilling and oil production on
US soil, and off the coasts. If that really is the agenda, of course.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
...


I wonder why there is ethanal in gasoline to begin with?



The corn lobby.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there
is
enough left over to pay them.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the stated purpose was to reduce dependance on foreign oil.


With 20% lower energy, don't we burn 20% more fuel to get there?

On 9/2/2010 12:57 PM, CaveLamb wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the stated purpose was to reduce dependance on foreign oil.


With 20% lower energy, don't we burn 20% more fuel to get there?

Is plot to make us lose weight. Same price for less miles means we have
less to spend, higher food price means can't buy as much with it. Damn
do-gooders.

Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental _Protection_
Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of September, a few weeks from
now. They're going to protect us by making a decision on whether or not to
propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for ethanol in our gasoline.

I have a better suggestion. If the EPA really wants to protect us, they should
ban the use of ethanol fuels as they are currently produced. I haven't heard of,
seen or read anything in the last several years that tells me this movement is
in any way actually protecting the environment.

The only thing as near as I can tell, that's being protected with this movement
are a few big time corn farmers that produce the raw material for making the
ethanol.

Science can do way better than this and use other plants to produce ethanol if
they must. Why not use the corn to feed some of the starving millions around the
globe? That'll keep farmer John busy.

Please people, we're running out of time here. Read the link above and then call
or write your congress person and tell them you really want this whole idea
squashed. Its not helping us, and the EPA to date has shown no real grasp of the
science and economics involved in this matter. I'm afraid they'll just sign off
on the 15% requirement. There's a whole lot more than how well your engine runs
at stake here.

On 9/3/2010 12:01 AM, CaveLamb wrote:
Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental
_Protection_ Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of
September, a few weeks from now. They're going to protect us by making a
decision on whether or not to propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for
ethanol in our gasoline.

I have a better suggestion. If the EPA really wants to protect us, they
should ban the use of ethanol fuels as they are currently produced. I
haven't heard of, seen or read anything in the last several years that
tells me this movement is in any way actually protecting the environment.

The only thing as near as I can tell, that's being protected with this
movement are a few big time corn farmers that produce the raw material
for making the ethanol.

Science can do way better than this and use other plants to produce
ethanol if they must. Why not use the corn to feed some of the starving
millions around the globe? That'll keep farmer John busy.

Please people, we're running out of time here. Read the link above and
then call or write your congress person and tell them you really want
this whole idea squashed. Its not helping us, and the EPA to date has
shown no real grasp of the science and economics involved in this
matter. I'm afraid they'll just sign off on the 15% requirement. There's
a whole lot more than how well your engine runs at stake here.

1. If you are going to ask people to "read the link above" then provide
the link.

2. Calling or writing Congrescritters without having a docket number is
generally a waste of effort as they have no idea what you're on about.
When there's actually a bill before the Congress, then calling or
writing can make a difference.

chastised and chagrined...My apologies...


Web link
http://blog.motorists.org/epa-consid...l-limit-to-15/

Growth Energy link
http://www.growthenergy.org/


EPA link:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/...y-21/a9115.htm
otice of Receipt of a Clean Air Act Waiver Application To Increase the Allowable
Ethanol Content of Gasoline to 15 Percent; Request for Comment
..
..
..
Context of Growth Energy's Waiver Application

On March 6, 2009, Growth Energy and 54 _ethanol manufacturers
submitted a waiver application to the Administrator, pursuant to
section 211(f)(4) of the Act, for ethanol-gasoline blends containing up
to 15 percent ethanol by volume (``E15'')._

Growth Energy maintains that under the renewable fuel program
requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which
is now primarily satisfied by the use of ethanol in motor vehicle
gasoline, there exists a ``blend barrier'' or ``blendwall'' by which
motor vehicle gasoline in the U.S. essentially will become saturated
with ethanol at the 10 volume percent level very soon. Growth Energy
maintains that a necessary first step is to increase the allowable
amount of ethanol in motor vehicle gasoline up to 15 percent (E15) in
order to delay the blendwall. They also claim other ways of delaying
the blendwall could include adding more stations offering E85 blends
and bringing in the renewable fuel mandate specified in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. For its part, Growth Energy
claims that the ``blendwall'' will make those renewable fuel mandates
unreachable and that there are substantial environmental benefits
associated with higher ethanol blends.

Growth Energy states in its waiver application that its supporting
studies and extensive experience with ethanol support a conclusion that
E15 will not cause or contribute to the failure of an emission control
system such that the engine or vehicles fails to achieve compliance
with its emission standards. In addition to the information that Growth
Energy submitted, EPA is aware that several interested parties are
investigating the impact that mid-level blends (e.g., E15 or E20) may
have on vehicles and equipment. These testing programs are evaluating
emissions impacts as well as other types of impacts (i.e., catalyst,
engine, and fuel system durability, and onboard diagnostics) on
vehicles and equipment. The Department of Energy, working in
conjunction with the Coordinating Research Council and other interested
parties, is leading a substantial testing effort. Results from this
program to date are referenced in Growth Energy's waiver request, and
we expect additional data will be added to the docket as it becomes
available.

..
..
..

Request for Comments

EPA invites public comments and data on all aspects of the waiver
application that will assist the Administrator in determining whether
the statutory basis for granting the waiver request for ethanol-
gasoline blends containing up to E15 has been met. EPA specifically
requests comment and data that will enable EPA to:
(a) evaluate whether an appropriate level of scientific and
technical information exists in order for the Administrator to
determine whether the use of E15 will not cause or contribute to a
failure of any emission control device or system over the useful life
of any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine (certified pursuant to
section 206 of the Act) to achieve compliance with applicable emission
standards;
(b) evaluate whether an appropriate level of scientific and
technical information exists in order for the Administrator to
determine whether the use of E15 will not cause or contribute to a
failure of any emission control device or system over the useful life
of any nonroad vehicle or nonroad engine (certified pursuant to
sections 206 and 213(a) of the Act) to achieve compliance with
applicable emission standards; and,
(c) evaluate whether an appropriate level of scientific and
technical information exists in order for the

[[Page 18230]]

Administrator to grant a waiver for an ethanol-gasoline blend greater
than 10 percent and less than or equal to 15 percent by volume.
EPA also requests comment on:
(d) all legal and technical aspects regarding the possibility that
a waiver might be granted, in a conditional or partial manner, such
that the use of up to E15 would be restricted to a subset of gasoline
vehicles or engines that would be covered by the waiver, while other
vehicles or engines would continue using fuels with blends no greater
than E10. EPA seeks comment on what measures would be needed to ensure
that the fuel covered by the waiver (i.e. a partial or conditional
waiver) is only used in that subset of vehicles or engines. EPA
acknowledges that the issue of misfueling would be challenging in a
situation where a conditional waiver is granted. To the extent a
partial or conditional waiver may be appropriate, please provide
comments on the legal and technical need for restrictions of this
nature. Comments are also requested on how the Agency might define a
partial or conditional waiver. For example, assuming there is
sufficient technical basis, should the subset of vehicles or engines
that is allowed to use the waived fuel be defined by model year of
production, engine size, application (e.g., highway vehicle vs. nonroad
engine), or some other defining characteristic.
(e) Any education efforts that would be needed to inform the public
about the new fuel that would be available if a waiver is granted. To
address the possibility of a grant of a conditional or partial waiver,
the Agency requests specific comments on public education measures that
would be needed if the waiver allowed the fuel to be used only in a
subset of existing vehicles or engines.
Commenters should include data or specific examples in support of
their comments in order to aid the Administrator in determining whether
to grant or deny the waiver request. In order for any testing programs
evaluating emissions impacts, as well as other types of impacts (i.e.,
catalyst, engine, fuel system durability, or onboard diagnostics), to
be useful in EPA's evaluation of Growth Energy's waiver application,
any mid-level ethanol blend testing or other analyses should consider
such impacts across a range of engines and equipment (including the
fuel systems) that are currently in service and that could be exposed
to mid-level ethanol blends. Such testing and analyses should also
assess the long-term impacts of such blends. EPA specifically solicits
the data and results from such testing and analyses.
Although it is not a specific criterion by which to evaluate a
waiver request under section 211(f), any approved waiver could require
program changes to accommodate this new fuel. EPA seeks comment on the
effect of a potential waiver for ethanol blends above 10 percent and up
to 15 percent on existing fuel programs (e.g., gasoline detergent
certification, protection of underground storage tanks, etc.) and on
the gasoline production, distribution and marketing infrastructure. For
example, would EPA need to modify its RFG and anti-dumping regulations
to account for a higher blend? EPA also seeks comment on the dynamics
of the blendwall concern raised by Growth Energy, the extent to which
the use of an E15 blend would in practice help address this concern,
and what additional steps would have to be taken to bring E15 to market
should a waiver be granted.

Dated: April 15, 2009.
Elizabeth Craig,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. E9-9115 Filed 4-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:56:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
snip
2. Calling or writing Congrescritters without having a docket number is
generally a waste of effort as they have no idea what you're on about.
When there's actually a bill before the Congress, then calling or
writing can make a difference.
snip
=======
Problem is that when a proposal reaches the stage where a
docket # is assigned or legislation has been proposed, it
tends to be a "done deal," and even when defeated at this
stage, the individual provisions tend to be administratively
implemented.

AFAIK the only "remedy" is to have Congress do its job [and
pigs fly in formation] and enact legislation with all
provisions in place, with the nominal "administrators"
limited to enforcing what the legislation explicitly
requires, with criminal penalties including prison for
violation and/or mis-, mal-, and non- enforcement, rather
than passing vague, voluminous, internally contradictory and
ambiguous "enabling" acts with no accountability that can be
(and frequently are) interpreted and expanded (or ignored)
at the whim of the regulatory agency. The recently enacted
health care and financial reform legislation are two prime
examples of this.

-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

CaveLamb wrote:
Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental
_Protection_ Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of
September, a few weeks from now. They're going to protect us by making a
decision on whether or not to propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for
ethanol in our gasoline.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6907#more

A very good essay on the hypocrisy of ethanol.

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:01:25 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental _Protection_
Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of September, a few weeks from
now. They're going to protect us by making a decision on whether or not to
propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for ethanol in our gasoline.

I have a better suggestion. If the EPA really wants to protect us, they should
ban the use of ethanol fuels as they are currently produced. I haven't heard of,
seen or read anything in the last several years that tells me this movement is
in any way actually protecting the environment.

The only thing as near as I can tell, that's being protected with this movement
are a few big time corn farmers that produce the raw material for making the
ethanol.

Science can do way better than this and use other plants to produce ethanol if
they must. Why not use the corn to feed some of the starving millions around the
globe? That'll keep farmer John busy.

Please people, we're running out of time here. Read the link above and then call
or write your congress person and tell them you really want this whole idea
squashed. Its not helping us, and the EPA to date has shown no real grasp of the
science and economics involved in this matter. I'm afraid they'll just sign off
on the 15% requirement. There's a whole lot more than how well your engine runs
at stake here.
=============
Indeed there is.

There appears to be two immediate problems: (1) Internally
[to the government] in that this is being driven by
fanatical ideologues, and it is no more possible to reason
with these people than with the witch hunters in Salem or
the communists in the Ukraine under Stalin. (2) Externally
this is being driven by corporations headed by avaricious
psychopaths in deep denial of the damage they are causing to
the economy/culture and environment, believing they are
doing "god's work," all looking for their "piece of the
action" and their share of the "profits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collect...e_Soviet_Union

The larger problem, IMNSHO, is that the existing energy
companies are doing their best to sabotage, or at least
co-opt and preempt, any meaningful actions to control energy
costs through expanding the energy supply, preferably
through domestic sources.

A major complicating factor is that the vaunted "free
market" is no longer viable because it is impossible to tell
what "energy" actually costs the consumer because of special
tax treatment of the suppliers, subsidies, and state/local
tax abatements, among many other factors.

This also has serious national defense implications, and
minimal to no contingency planning to maintain minimum fuel
requirements for civil emergency services and vital military
operations appears to have been done.

While there are many specific items/areas, a few of the more
important a

(1) Coal liquefaction and gasification using well-known
technology.
http://www.sasol.com/sasol_internet/...vid=1&rootid=1

(2) Renewable energy such as solar, wind, and wave, all of
which are well known and tested, and available as "turnkey"
packages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
http://www.bosch-solarcells.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/...tc=usccc021710

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power
http://www.pelamiswave.com/

(3) Replacement of petroleum with bio feed stocks for the
production of plastics, textiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic
http://www.teamburg.de/bioplastics/index.php


(4) Construction of thorium based nuclear reactors. This
is second-generation technology that eliminates many of the
problems with uranium-fueled reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle


When pigs fly…





-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 23:01:25 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Our good friends at the EPA (let me spell that out: Environmental
_Protection_
Agency) are scheduled to protect us by the end of September, a few weeks
from
now. They're going to protect us by making a decision on whether or not to
propose an increase of from 10% to 15% for ethanol in our gasoline.

I have a better suggestion. If the EPA really wants to protect us, they
should
ban the use of ethanol fuels as they are currently produced. I haven't
heard of,
seen or read anything in the last several years that tells me this
movement is
in any way actually protecting the environment.

The only thing as near as I can tell, that's being protected with this
movement
are a few big time corn farmers that produce the raw material for making
the
ethanol.

Science can do way better than this and use other plants to produce
ethanol if
they must. Why not use the corn to feed some of the starving millions
around the
globe? That'll keep farmer John busy.

Please people, we're running out of time here. Read the link above and
then call
or write your congress person and tell them you really want this whole
idea
squashed. Its not helping us, and the EPA to date has shown no real grasp
of the
science and economics involved in this matter. I'm afraid they'll just
sign off
on the 15% requirement. There's a whole lot more than how well your engine
runs
at stake here.
=============
Indeed there is.

There appears to be two immediate problems: (1) Internally
[to the government] in that this is being driven by
fanatical ideologues, and it is no more possible to reason
with these people than with the witch hunters in Salem or
the communists in the Ukraine under Stalin. (2) Externally
this is being driven by corporations headed by avaricious
psychopaths in deep denial of the damage they are causing to
the economy/culture and environment, believing they are
doing "god's work," all looking for their "piece of the
action" and their share of the "profits."

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep corn
prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a Chinese
soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on those days, of
course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep corn
prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

Who is still running a family farm, Ed?
Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.


The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a Chinese
soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on those days, of
course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.


None of which is good for you or me...

Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???
--

Richard Lamb

"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep
corn prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

Who is still running a family farm, Ed?
Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.

That issue actually is often misrepresented. Very large family owned farms,
which are incorporated, produce most of the food crops in the US. The
percentage owned or leased from non-farmer, non-family corporations actually
is fairly small.

But don't tell that to a politician out to make hay.



The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a
Chinese soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on
those days, of course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.


None of which is good for you or me...

Well, those corporations are highly self-serving and socially ruthless. But
then, so are oil companies.


Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???

Libertarians think that corporations should be able to spend all they want
on political elections. It's well documented that those who spend get
favorable treatment. If we want to be run by a corporatocracy, we'll
continue with the same election laws we have now. A number of people here
defended corporate spending on First Amendment grounds, you'll recall.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:35:09 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep corn
prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

Who is still running a family farm, Ed?

A lot of people are still running family farms.
I live in Ag country.


Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.


The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a Chinese
soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on those days, of
course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.


None of which is good for you or me...

Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

CaveLamb wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep
corn prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with
"family farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to
make it all a hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

Who is still running a family farm, Ed?
Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.

I flew into St. Paul last week. 100 acre
family farms as far as you can see. I have
to admit that I was surprised.

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:08:45 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:35:09 -0500, CaveLamb
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep corn
prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.

Who is still running a family farm, Ed?

A lot of people are still running family farms.
I live in Ag country.


Likewise here in Waterloo Region - Ontario.
However, many farmers have to rely on some "off-farm" income in order
to survive.
Even the Old Order Mennonites run small manufacturing (about the only
real manufacturing left in North America) plants on the farms.
Anything from furniture to machine parts and anything else you can
imagine.

Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.


The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a Chinese
soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on those days, of
course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.


None of which is good for you or me...

Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???


I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

Ed Huntress wrote:
"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
It appears to be much simpler than that, George. The point is to keep
corn prices high so we don't get into a deeper subsidy trap with "family
farmers." That would be political disaster. It's easier to make it all a
hidden tax that we pay in higher food prices.
Who is still running a family farm, Ed?
Those days are long gone.
These are corporate farms now.

That issue actually is often misrepresented. Very large family owned farms,
which are incorporated, produce most of the food crops in the US. The
percentage owned or leased from non-farmer, non-family corporations actually
is fairly small.

But don't tell that to a politician out to make hay.


The Republicans would trot out Farmer Brown at every political rally and
tell everyone how Democrats forced him to sell the family farm to a
Chinese soy sauce corporation. He'd leave the Lincoln in the barn on
those days, of course.

Then there would be the charges of hypocrisy about Dems calling for
alternative energy while stopping the expansion of "clean, safe, green,
home-grown" cornholeum, or whatever it is.

What's good for Cargill is....good for ADM. And so on.

None of which is good for you or me...

Well, those corporations are highly self-serving and socially ruthless. But
then, so are oil companies.

Makes me wonder if the Peter Principle applies to governments as well???

Libertarians think that corporations should be able to spend all they want
on political elections. It's well documented that those who spend get
favorable treatment. If we want to be run by a corporatocracy, we'll
continue with the same election laws we have now. A number of people here
defended corporate spending on First Amendment grounds, you'll recall.



t'wern't me!

--

Richard Lamb

On Sep 3, 8:54*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


They weren't limited in spending on advertising. They were limited on
spending on *political* advertising.


So if you want to limit the amount corporations and unions can spend
on political advertising, also limit the politicians on how much they
can spend on political advertising. If you are going to limit free
speech on a topic, limit it for everyone.

I'm all for a free market here, too, Dan. Every person should have an equal
right to contribute to political advertising. The people in those
corporations and unions have equal rights. But corporations and unions
aren't people. And many of those corporations are owned more by foreigners
than by Americans, fer chrissake.

--
Ed Huntress

And I thought you were for equal rights for people in the US
regardless of whether they were citizens or not citizens.
So why do you complain about foreign corporations? You just have a
very parochial view.


Dan

wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


They weren't limited in spending on advertising. They were limited on
spending on *political* advertising.


So if you want to limit the amount corporations and unions can spend
on political advertising, also limit the politicians on how much they
can spend on political advertising. If you are going to limit free
speech on a topic, limit it for everyone.

I have no objection to putting limits on what a politician can spend on
campaigns. But calling it "free speech" is a twisted metaphor. There's no
limit to free speech. The limit is on the marketing expenditures they can
employ. I'm all for equal treatment in that regard.

I'm all for a free market here, too, Dan. Every person should have an
equal
right to contribute to political advertising. The people in those
corporations and unions have equal rights. But corporations and unions
aren't people. And many of those corporations are owned more by foreigners
than by Americans, fer chrissake.

--
Ed Huntress

And I thought you were for equal rights for people in the US
regardless of whether they were citizens or not citizens.

Basically, human rights are universal. They aren't exclusive to Americans.
Participation in the American political process is not a universal human
right.

So why do you complain about foreign corporations? You just have a
very parochial view.

If it wasn't true that advertising share of voice had an influence on
elections, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. But it does, and
you know it, which is why you think that limiting share of voice is a
restriction on speech.

So if foreign interests can share in this influence on American politics,
then you would turn over this influential force to foreign interests that
may be, and probably are, antagonistic to the interests of Americans. They
don't share in our responsibilities as citizens and they don't have to live
with the consequences of our political decisions; thus, they are not part of
our democratic process and should not have a role in our political decision
making.

Now, since you are a libertarian, you probably will engage in some sophistic
nonsense and absurd syllogistic deductionism to stand this obvious good
sense on its head. Have at it. I'm waiting for the libertarian who can
convince us that water really is wine, but I'll try to enjoy whatever you
have to offer. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 3, 10:57*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


So why do you complain about foreign corporations? You just have a
very parochial view.

If it wasn't true that advertising share of voice had an influence on
elections, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. But it does, and
you know it, which is why you think that limiting share of voice is a
restriction on speech.

So if foreign interests can share in this influence on American politics,
then you would turn over this influential force to foreign interests that
may be, and probably are, antagonistic to the interests of Americans. They
don't share in our responsibilities as citizens and they don't have to live
with the consequences of our political decisions; thus, they are not part of
our democratic process and should not have a role in our political decision
making.

When you are talking about foreign corporations are you talking about
corporations that have their headquarters overseas, but have factories
in the US?
Companies like Mercedes Benz. Companies that employ thousands of US
workers. Do you not think that they have a right to have a role in
the political decisions that affect their employees? Or are you
talking about companies that have their headquarters in the US, but
have factories overseas? Companies like AMD.

You want to have an unequal playing field, and have different rules
for different companies. Why do you want that? So foreign
corporations will not open plants in the US? Where is that bit about
liberty and justice for all?




Now, since you are a libertarian, you probably will engage in some sophistic
nonsense and absurd syllogistic deductionism to stand this obvious good
sense on its head. Have at it. I'm waiting for the libertarian who can
convince us that water really is wine, but I'll try to enjoy whatever you
have to offer. d8-)

And then you go Ad Hominem. Trying to label me as a libertarian and
libertarians as people that engage in sophistic nonsense. Can't you
come up with better arguments than that? ................ I suppose
you can't. Your views are tribal. The US against the rest of the
world.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Sep 3, 10:57 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


So why do you complain about foreign corporations? You just have a
very parochial view.

If it wasn't true that advertising share of voice had an influence on
elections, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. But it does, and
you know it, which is why you think that limiting share of voice is a
restriction on speech.

So if foreign interests can share in this influence on American politics,
then you would turn over this influential force to foreign interests that
may be, and probably are, antagonistic to the interests of Americans. They
don't share in our responsibilities as citizens and they don't have to
live
with the consequences of our political decisions; thus, they are not part
of
our democratic process and should not have a role in our political
decision
making.

When you are talking about foreign corporations are you talking about
corporations that have their headquarters overseas, but have factories
in the US?

I'm talking about all companies that are owned in whole or part by foreign
investors.

Companies like Mercedes Benz. Companies that employ thousands of US
workers. Do you not think that they have a right to have a role in
the political decisions that affect their employees?

They have no such right. Their interest is the financial interest of their
shareholders, period. And that applies to US and foreign shareholders alike.

They don't have the full scope of interests or responsibilities of
individual citizens. They are not part of our democratic process. They are
institutions created to serve one interest only: the financial interests of
their shareholders. If they don't like how things are going, they can
dissolve the corporation, divvy up the proceeds, shut their doors and leave.
They don't have to face responsibility. They don't even have financial
liability beyond the amount invested in their common stock.

Or are you
talking about companies that have their headquarters in the US, but
have factories overseas? Companies like AMD.

No corporation is a person. No corporation has any right to be involved in
the democratic process for citizens.

Their *shareholders* do. So do their executives, and their employees. But
the institutions make their decisions, and employ their treasuries, based on
their perceived financial interest, and the decisions are made by a handful
of people whose responsibility, and whose jobs, depend upon serving the
financial interests of their shareholders -- everyone else be damned.


You want to have an unequal playing field, and have different rules
for different companies.

No. I want a level playing field for all US citizens. Corporations don't
belong in the process at all. Foreigners don't belong in the process at all.

Why do you want that? So foreign
corporations will not open plants in the US? Where is that bit about
liberty and justice for all?

We don't let foreigners vote; why should be allow them to be involved in our
political propaganda? Corporations in general have few of the
responsibilities of citizens. Why should they be part of the democratic
process?

The government is of, by, and for the *people*. Not for corporate
institutions.


Now, since you are a libertarian, you probably will engage in some
sophistic
nonsense and absurd syllogistic deductionism to stand this obvious good
sense on its head. Have at it. I'm waiting for the libertarian who can
convince us that water really is wine, but I'll try to enjoy whatever you
have to offer. d8-)

And then you go Ad Hominem.

Nope. Look up "ad hominem." If I said you were likely to engage in sophistic
arguments regarding voting and rights because you were a hairdresser, that
would be ad hominem. But your political leanings are directly consequential
in what you conclude about voting and rights.

Thus, there is no ad hominem. Like taking offense, this is one of the
stupidly overused ideas in our society today. And most people don't even
know what it really means. You don't, or you just made a mistake.

Trying to label me as a libertarian

You've labelled yourself through your many positions.

and
libertarians as people that engage in sophistic nonsense.

That's not ad hominem. That's observation.

Can't you
come up with better arguments than that? ................ I suppose
you can't. Your views are tribal. The US against the rest of the
world.

Your views are simplistic and sophistic nonsense. The idea that foreigners
should have the same "liberty" to engage in US politics as citizens is, to
put it mildly, over-the-top reductionism.

As a consequence, I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with
sophisticated arguments. It isn't necessary.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 1:28*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
...
No. I want a level playing field for all US citizens. Corporations don't
belong in the process at all. ...
...
Ed Huntress

How about unions?

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 1:28 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
...
No. I want a level playing field for all US citizens. Corporations don't
belong in the process at all. ...
...
Ed Huntress

How about unions?

Same thing. Unions are institutions, not people.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 1:28*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a consequence, I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with
sophisticated arguments. It isn't necessary.

--
Ed Huntress

You are an idiot.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 1:28 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a consequence, I'm not going to waste a lot of time coming up with
sophisticated arguments. It isn't necessary.

--
Ed Huntress

You are an idiot.

Actually, not. But I don't suffer foolish arguments for very long. I'll go
one round, but if you persist and dodge off onto sidetrips (as you almost
always do), I'll just call it for what it is. Your arguments about this
subject are nonsense, Dan. No one in his right mind is going to forfeit his
country's domestic politics to foreign corporations, and any such argument
is transparently, and blindingly, stupid.

You seem to enjoy taking extreme ideological positions, generally
libertarian in their bent, and they lead into bizarre, time-wasting box
canyons. If I were 30 I might continue. But I'm 62, and I marshall my time
better than I used to.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 6:26*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
You are an idiot.

Actually, not. But I don't suffer foolish arguments for very long. I'll go
one round, but if you persist and dodge off onto sidetrips (as you almost
always do), I'll just call it for what it is. Your arguments about this
subject are nonsense, Dan. No one in his right mind is going to forfeit his
country's domestic politics to foreign corporations, and any such argument
is transparently, and blindingly, stupid.

You seem to enjoy taking extreme ideological positions, generally
libertarian in their bent, and they lead into bizarre, time-wasting box
canyons. If I were 30 I might continue. But I'm 62, and I marshall my time
better than I used to.

--

Actually you are an idiot. The Supreme Court ruled on this and not
the way you think it should be. My arguments are is accordance with
the law as it is.
You are the one saying that you know better than the Supreme Court and
the the Supreme Court is transparently, and blinding, stupid.

Dan


Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Sep 4, 6:26 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
You are an idiot.

Actually, not. But I don't suffer foolish arguments for very long. I'll go
one round, but if you persist and dodge off onto sidetrips (as you almost
always do), I'll just call it for what it is. Your arguments about this
subject are nonsense, Dan. No one in his right mind is going to forfeit
his
country's domestic politics to foreign corporations, and any such argument
is transparently, and blindingly, stupid.

You seem to enjoy taking extreme ideological positions, generally
libertarian in their bent, and they lead into bizarre, time-wasting box
canyons. If I were 30 I might continue. But I'm 62, and I marshall my time
better than I used to.

--

Actually you are an idiot. The Supreme Court ruled on this and not
the way you think it should be.

Actually, they ruled on it three times. The first two times, they got it
right. The third time, they blew it.

My arguments are is accordance with
the law as it is.

So you think that being in accordance with the law makes you right? What a
fool.

You are the one saying that you know better than the Supreme Court and
the the Supreme Court is transparently, and blinding, stupid.

No, your arguments are. They made much more cogent arguments. Sophistic and
misguided, but, again, they got it right the first two times. Two out of
three ain't bad.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 4, 9:25*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:



Actually, they ruled on it three times. The first two times, they got it
right. The third time, they blew it.

Or as I see it, the third time is the charm.


My arguments are is accordance with
the law as it is.

So you think that being in accordance with the law makes you right? What a
fool.

And youe think that not being in accordance with the law makes you
right? What an idiot!

You are the one saying that you know better than the Supreme Court and
the the Supreme Court is transparently, and blinding, stupid.

No, your arguments are. They made much more cogent arguments. Sophistic and
misguided, but, again, they got it right the first two times. Two out of
three ain't bad.


They learned from their mistakes and finally got it right!

The Federal Government says you are wrong. Live with it.

Dan

--
Ed Huntress

You are far too intelligent to be elected to any office.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"CaveLamb" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the stated purpose was to reduce dependance on foreign oil.


With 20% lower energy, don't we burn 20% more fuel to get there?

I think the stated purpose was to reduce dependance on foreign oil.

With 20% lower energy, don't we burn 20% more fuel to get there?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
You are far too intelligent to be elected to any office.



HMPF! And I had such hopes...

--

Richard Lamb