[wheelmannn]

Yes Bush and Cheney have received no money from oil companies. The no bid contract to haliberton was not a coflict of interest and while oil prices sky rocketed during the clinton years they have decreased quite a bit since bush came into office. But that's just my point of view here in backwards land.

[geos]

Please delete.

[geos]

Originally Posted by pslOldTimer

Good for you -- God helps those who help themselves.

Back during the oil shortages of the 70's, probably before some of the members were born, there were plenty of folks who were seriously concerned and begged people to get serious about oil conservation and alternative fuels. In the U.S. pretty much no one listened. In Brazil, the government did something about it. They mandated that cars be constructed for dual-fuel use ("flex-fuel"), and slowly started to develop their ethanol resources.

Brazil has vast resources of rain forest which they are decimating quickly to make this possible and the whole planet will suffer the consequences. "Flexfuel" is a marketing ploy. If you had a choice of CNG, propane, gas, ethanol or H2 that would fit the description better.

Ethanol is essentially alcohol, which can be distilled from a number of sources. It's very efficient and clean burning. At one point, Indy race cars were fueled with alcohol. They went to a methanol mixture, but next year they will be 100% fuel grade ethanol. All of those fuels make a faster race car than gasoline. We have some ethanol available in gasoline in most areas, but the goal here (and in Brazil) is what is called E85, which is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Both Ford and GM (and maybe Daimler-Chrysler, I'm not sure) make a variety of models that are flex-fuel capable and can run on E85. Cars that were not built for it can't be run on E85 without a fairly expensive conversion, so there is a certain amount of "chicken and egg" problems -- there won't be wide-spread availability of the fuel until there are enough cars to run it, and there won't be enough cars to run it unitl there is enough fuel availability. A government more friendly to the environment might pass some incentives to use E85 instead of gasoline, but that would probably mean that some of the tax cuts would have to be reversed.

Ethanol also gets 30% worse gas mileage than gas. A government more friendly to the environment would support solar, geothermal, hydro, wind and hydrogen much more than the token gestures it's making today. You can make H2 relatively cheaply and easily from water with a hydrolyzer and the low carbon producing sources mentioned above. Current engines require very little modification to run H2 and actually REDUCE pollution as they're running. The best ethanol crop is miscanth but of course there's no miscanth lobby in Washington.

Brazil bit the bullet, passed the laws and offered the incentives, slowly sold enough cars to replace the older technology, and developed efficient distillation measures. In their case, they have an ideal climate to grow a lot of sugar cane, so that's what they use. In the U.S., we're pretty good at growing corn, and most of our climate favors corn, so that would likely be our primary source. A significant amount of Florida sugar cane in now being converted, however.

So, today, we're being held hostage to foreign sources for our oil. It's ironic, but there seems to be a connection between oil rserves and goverments that don't like the U.S. But, Brazil, which started 30 years ago, is now almost entirely free of foreign oil.

It's sometimes hilarious that we consider ourselves the smartest people in the world...

I agree. This sums up the greed and gullibility that keeps perpetuating the ethanol myth: http://www.energyplanet.info/blog/20.../ethanol-myth/

[geos]

Originally Posted by wheelmannn

Yes Bush and Cheney have received no money from oil companies. The no bid contract to haliberton was not a coflict of interest and while oil prices sky rocketed during the clinton years they have decreased quite a bit since bush came into office. But that's just my point of view here in backwards land.

Where do you get your information in "backwards land"? You think it's sheer coincidence that virtually everything this administration has done has benefited the military contractors, oil and other industries they have intimate ties with at the expense of the environment and economy? Oh, I forgot, there's no global climate change in backwards land. Inflation adjusted Oil Price Chart

[wheelmannn]

I agree with what you say. I was being sarcastic hense the backwards land.

[geos]

Originally Posted by Ten

Evidence, please.

Which is what corporations do and must do unless you're still implying they are illegally colluding to prevent competition. May we have that evidence? I'm sure the FBI will want to see it.

Are you suggesting we replace the free market with a collective of some sort? If so, is that structure enumerated in the Constitution anywhere that you can cite?

That anyone would suggest we have a free market with bailouts left and right and billions in corporate and military welfare and a military budget obscenely out of proportion to what we need is laughable.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by SirenSong71

people come on here to share their own opinion and personal views on things.

Definition of 'forum'

fo·rum –noun [fawr-uhm, fohr-uhm]: an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.

Source: Dictionary.com

No where does it say that people 'present evidence' with every opinion they give.

It goes both ways you know. How about YOU giving evidence of the point YOU'RE trying to make?

Instead of 'policing' the Florida forum boards (which is the mod's job), how about you just share your point of view? We'll all listen...ummm...read what you have to say.

You gotta admit...to just go around demanding evidence from people for their point of view is sort of obnoxious...

Shorter SirenSong71:

Opinions count. Facts don't.

Since sauces thereby differ for geese and ganders around here, my evidence (since you demand it and as borne out by your fallacy) is that...opinions count and facts selectively may or may not, depending on who you are.

Thanks for publishing the ground rules.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by geos

That anyone would suggest we have a free market with bailouts left and right and billions in corporate and military welfare and a military budget obscenely out of proportion to what we need is laughable.

Actually, that'd be more unsubstantiated opinion, geos. "Need" is your subjective construct.

[Jungle George]

Originally Posted by Ten

Shorter SirenSong71:

Opinions count. Facts don't.

And do you actually believe that the "facts" available to the general public on government officials and corporations are "unaltered", unbiased and the God's honest truth & that all of the above are honest as the day is long?

As Siren said, this is a forum for people to voice their opinions and to give aid to people looking to relocate. If I see a post that I disagree with or one that intrigues me I do research myself to see for myself.

This is one of the main reasons I don't post much here...I could say "the sky was robin's egg blue" & there's always someone who will post back that "no...it's royal blue...prove that it's robin's egg blue".

Life is too short...

[Ten]

Shorter Jungle George: By making (1) opinion trump fact, (2) we then ridicule fact. When somebody (3) posts unsubstantiated conjecture, it's the reader's job to look up said ignorance in order to (4) disprove it.

Ever hear of proving negatives?

Indeed, I agree with you: Four fallacies in a row are perhaps one of the main reasons you may want to consider your limited posts more carefully...