You only bring it up because they both had time in the media. Neither was a very valid criticism from day one. If your "point" is fairness, what can you tell us about McCain's church? How about Biden's church? (I haven't even gone to look up Biden's yet. Hrm. Should go do that.)

People on both sides of the aisle need to stop being sounding boards for the candidates of the party they decided they wanted to be associated with! Eesh. For the love of humanity, grow a spine, people! Or grow a brain. Or grow fingers that work and use Google every once in a while. That goes equally for Democrats and Republicans: stop blindly trusting and accepting a candidate's press releases, or the random quips you see on pop culture shows, and CHECK YOUR OWN FACTS. FIND PRIMARY SOURCES. USE THE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS THAT YOUR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHER PREACHED. STOP BEING CATTLE!

Isn't it about time you got back to tech support?

Delicious!

He left because he was going to lose votes. While many conservatives might have been more understanding and less inclined to dump him based on his church choice, his voting base isn't the conservatives (obviously). One of Obama's strengths is that he appeals to a younger, more open minded and impressionable audience, and a frothing at the mouth pastor would send them running for the hills. I don't agree with Obama's faith, but that doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that he bailed on his principles for votes. What speaks to me is when a public figure doesn't back down from something he stands for because it might not be the popular thing. "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life,"- Winston Churchill. What it means to me is that Obama will make promises in his campaign, and when the fickle American public changes their mind, he'll toss out what he promised.

The issue for me isn't the church. What faith the President chooses to practice is his own bussiness, and while it might have some influence in my vote, it's not the deciding factor. The issue is how Obama reacted.

Palin's church isn't a big deal because Palin doesn't try to veil who she is. If it's by accident or on purpose, maybe it's because she's so inexperienced, I don't know. Palin has thrown everything she thinks out onto the table, so when her faith surfaces...no one is suprised. That is why I like that she isn't a polician.

It's not strange. It's common sense. I refuse to completely discredit Palin for not being an experienced interveiwer. Is it important for a Pres or VP to have strong speaking skills and be able to address the issues? Of course. Palin has already proven she can move mountains with her speaches, and she needs work on her interviewing skills. Katie Couric interviews are not politics. Don't confuse CNN or NBC or whatever channel with what actually matters.

And yes, the democrats generally (not always, but often) like to consider themselves more intelligent than the drooling masses called the republicans, and the republicans would have you think the democrats are a bunch of harry legged, over emotional, bra burners. It's fortunate that we are allowed to think for ourselves.

This post has been bothering me a for a few days now, and I just finally wrapped my head around what it was.

Comments like this are not unheard of from many people, for many different reasons, but for some reason, I never remember anyone saying, "If clinton became presidant I'm leaving the country" or "if Kerry became presidant I'm leaving the country" I just don't remember it. (if it's selective memory, please someone show me a link or clip)

Its comments like this one over the years, that has made me say "You know what, forget it, I'm letting the "terrorists" win, I'm voting Democrat from now on."

The reason is this: When you say, "Its my way, or I'm going elsewhere" its as if you are saying "I don't really care about the future of the country, I really only care about the future that I see and want, and if I don't have it my way, I'll take my ball and go home"


It basically says, that if its not my way, its no way, and those who disagree with me, shouldn't be living in the same country as me. Its really a very divisive way of thinking, and really makes me just want to give up for the sake of living in some sort of "unity" where I don't have to hear such negativity every day in the media.

In many ways, I'd rather the "its my way, or the high way" people use violence, so at-least they can be arrested and stopped, and life can move on. Its not something which you can argue against, or even fight against, because its just pure self centered outlook with no desire to even attempt to work with people who see the world differently.

There are different forms of it. I would have moved to Canada if Giuliani became president, but that's sheer self-interest--I am not a conscientious objector, but I object to getting drafted into an offensive war that should have never happened, and draft dodging is punishable by a long prison sentence. Therefore, I will move now and not later.

Palin, by contrast, can't be accused of holding any stances that would systematically abuse Americans.

hmmm, yeah but thats really different I think. Like if gay marriage was actually federally outlawed, I could understand someone moving to a country where it was not, or just trying to avoid prison, sure fine. But I'm really thinking about those actors and media personalities who have often said they will move to another country if so and so becomes president, or governor, or senator. (and ofcourse when said person wins, they never actually move) Though to be honest, I think it would be silly to say that if Giuliani became president you would move, it would be better to say that if Congress were to pass a law initiating the draft, that you would move. Because that is something people can understand and work with, and discussion can be focused around.

I like what Kid Rock said about politics. Celebrities should keep their mouth shut. They're so disconnected, and so uninformed, they make the most inbred retard look like stephen hawking.

EDIT: For clarity, he said the mouth shut part. I injected the disconnected, uninformed, retard part.

In a narrow sense yes, but not when you evaluate how it's produced.

Taken from article three: Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas...

Coal and natural gas are not renewable.


Actually, burning ethanol is probably cleaner than burning gasoline, if only because it's pre-oxygenated to some degree (alcohol group, versus straight carbons and hydrogen).

All of those points aside, the subsidies are not encouraging people to use ethanol, they're direct subsidies to the farmers who produce corn and then sell said corn to the grain elevators that supply the ethanol-making industry, which, incidentally, relies on oil for transport, heating chemical tanks, etc. The incentives are to produce more ethanol, not to encourage people to use it.

Also, I don't think any of the studies take into account the "hidden" costs of using corn ethanol as a fuel.

1.) Ethanol is corrosive to car parts. Faster damage to parts -> needs more replacements -> more energy is consumed.
2.) Arable farmland that could otherwise be used for food is being converted into #2 corn acreage. #2 corn is not for human consumption, it's for animal feed and chemical processing.
2b.) The crop dusters that spray the pesticides on the corn don't run on ethanol.
3.) Much of the ethanol production process still relies on some sort of combustible fuel, , from transportation to pesticides.
4.) Ethanol can't serve the needs of diesel engines.

Thus, the current model for ethanol production is probably at a net energy loss and is not sustainable. When there is a conversion to truly sustainable ethanol production from a crop that does not overlap with food production coupled with easy access to a diesel alternative (i.e. oil from castor beans), then I will agree that ethanol is probably better than gasoline/other oil based products.

Most of that post, while consisting of varying degrees of "missing the point" and "wrong," would take too much effort to respond to when I'm half asleep, so I'm just going to cherry pick the easy one:

All modern American diesel engines run on biodiesel. It's rather beside the point that they use vegetable oil instead of fermented corn sugar.

All? Not unless this started today.

Edit: Unless what you meant is that modern diesel engines are capable of burning bio, which is true. If that's what you meant, the way you wrote it is quite misleading.

Hell, I can run my friend's old 1990 ford diesel on bio.......
It's easy.
In fact, the newer diesels are the least welcoming to biodiesel, with their more sensitive injection systems.

It's been law for a couple years. All modern American diesel engines run on biodiesel, and in a couple more years, you won't be able to buy petroleum diesel.

If so, they forgot to enforce it in this state, I guess?

Interesting, considering if the highway patrol or department of transportation dip your tank, and there is anything OTHER than petroleum based diesel fuel, your wallet is going to hurt for a long long long time. Some mixes of B5 or B20(Meaning B meaning Biodiesel, and X meaning the percentage, so B5 would be 5% bio, 95% petro), are allowed, but if they catch you running full on biodiesel or vegetable oil without jumping through a ton of red tape, you're going to pay dearly.

Second, in the diesel pickup market, GM, Ford, and Dodge will all void your warranty if you run anything more than B5 or maybe B20 IIRC. Unfortunately, the common rail injection systems used are highly sensitive, and might not handle Biodiesel very well yet. That's why I still like the old mechanical diesels. You can run diesel, kerosene, waste motor oil, waste vegetable oil, and biodiesel. They aren't picky.

Watching the second debate, I have to say I think McCain is going to lose substantially.

In this debate, he sounded very patronizing.

Patronizing and it got tiring watching him use every question to attack Obama. I think Obama did use some of the questions to attack McCain, which was really annoying to me, but McCain seemed to do it with every question and every chance given to him.

Hmm. As I recall I believe there was some new evidence suggesting that there may be a mechanism for natural renewal of fossil fuels. However I have yet to nail down the peer reviewed article with data pointing yea or nay on this question unless someone can dig it up.

I did, however find this.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/...df/409327a0.pdf

The summarized news and views is here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/...df/409293a0.pdf

2001 Nature article suggesting that there are deposits of Natural Gas found off the coast of Texas in areas much older than they expected. Briefly speaking they came up with a number for the age of the natural gas based on the age of the CO2 and He that was co-deposited with it. In turn this suggests while we do NOT have inexhaustible natural gas resources, there may be much MORE than we expected.

Still, what I find curious is that the authors suggest that the natural gas identified was magmatic in origin, not a result of organic decomposition. I wonder if there is a mechanism (albiet very slow) for renewal of this resource due to leakage from the mantle.

This is from 2001 and there should be a follow up study somewhere.