Biden Shoots himself in the foot, a HUGE Gaffe
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181710
Printed Date: 18 November 2025 at 1:26pm Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Biden Shoots himself in the foot, a HUGE Gaffe
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Subject: Biden Shoots himself in the foot, a HUGE Gaffe
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:39am
|
Naa, the media isn't biased. Shoot, they focus on both parties the same. Except, they don't. If this had been a republican who just gave away classified information, there would be people calling for his resignation. And that would be just the media.
I remember all to well the drama surrounding Dan Quayle and his "potato" gaffe.
But, that was nothing compared to this... And yet, The ONLY media outlet to cover it...
Fox news...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/ - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/17/oops-biden-reveals-location-secret-vp-bunker/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Replies:
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:44am
Meh, any fairly intelligent person would already assume that there is a bunker below the VP's house.
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 9:25am
There's a bunker under the White House! Arrest me for assuming the highly-probable!
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 9:30am
mbro wrote:
Meh, any fairly intelligent person would already assume that there is a bunker below the VP's house. |
-------------
 irc.esper.net #paintball
|
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 9:31am
only one media outlet reported it, probably a reason for that..
------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 9:48am
|
glad to see you guys have no problem with public officials leaking classified information. I wonder what it will cost us to build him a "new" secret location? 100 million of our money?
Here are some more of his gaffe's.
-- On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a **edited**ing break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone.
-- During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number."
"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view. "I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."
-- At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day.
"Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff -- and not cabinet members -- the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama.
-- On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens -- not Stewart -- swore Biden in as vice president.
-- When criticizing former GOP nominee John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."
-- In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929.
"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said. Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929.
-- During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up."
"Oh, God love ya," Biden said, after realizing his mistake. "What am I talking about?"
-- At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."
-- Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va.
"I heard a very, by the way I mean this sincerely, a very strong and a very good political speech from a lieutenant governor of Alaska who I think is going to be very formidable, very formidable not only in the campaign but in the debate," Biden said.
-- Biden said he was running for president -- not vice president -- during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa.
"Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said.
-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co. "Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip," he explained.
-- Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan.
"Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?"
-- During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"
-- On Jan. 31, 2007 -- the day Biden announced his presidential bid -- the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/bidens-list-political-blunders/ - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/17/bidens-list-political-blunders/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 9:50am
|
ugh. Seriously, you need to find a new hobby.
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 10:16am
http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm - http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 10:41am
oldpbnoob wrote:
ugh. Seriously, you need to find a new hobby. |
Heh. I was thinking the exact same thing.
I like political arguments as much as the next guy, but reading FE's illogical collections of copypasta stopped being amusing some time ago.
-------------
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".
Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 11:07am
|
SNL already rips on Biden all the time. It's already a well known fact that the man is a gaffe machine.
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 2:24pm
You realize while they may have a bunker under the whitehouse, it is MORE than likely that his safehouse for when the world ends is no-where near the whitehouse. I'm sure he's got more than 1 or 2 anyways.
And I agree, with Peter 100%, it's just sad and questionable now.
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 2:39pm
If you'd ever been over to dinner there, you would already know this.
------------- BU Engineering 2012
|
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 2:51pm
OMG you speak out against the chosen ones right hand man, how dare you!
so what he let one secret out that might be classified, its not like any of them have sold secrets to china or anything...
its not like they are giving money we dont have to countries that have sworn to kill us...
its not like they have been cutting our enemies slack and distancing ourselves from our allies...
------------- saving the world, one warship at a time.
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 3:40pm
Peter Parker wrote:
oldpbnoob wrote:
ugh. Seriously, you need to find a new hobby. |
Heh. I was thinking the exact same thing.
I like political arguments as much as the next guy, but reading FE's illogical collections of copypasta stopped being amusing some time ago.
|
You are one to talk, especially with those page long posts.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 3:53pm
|
So for YEARS we got bush bashing daily... And only a little over 100 days in and you guys can't take it anymore...
Duly noted, and ignored. Don't like my threads, then stay out of them...
Hey, you elected the village idiot. At least be proud of your selection! Woot, we got us the biggest dummy vp ever...
And a President who has spent more than every other President combined. And we will be paying more in taxes than ever before...
Gooooooo! Libs.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 3:59pm
FE, no, we didn't get DAILY bush bashing. Not even weekly. And when we did, they were someones own thoughts or opinions for the most part, not just some blind rightwing puppet that sees someone say something in the media, and wets himself running here to post it to feel even more "right"
You just copy/paste stupid points and arguments, then dodge the questions when you're shot down.
|
Posted By: StormyKnight
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:00pm
And none of that makes up for 8 years of Bushisms.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:11pm
choopie911 wrote:
FE, no, we didn't get DAILY bush bashing. Not even weekly. And when we did, they were someones own thoughts or opinions for the most part, not just some blind rightwing puppet that sees someone say something in the media, and wets himself running here to post it to feel even more "right"
You just copy/paste stupid points and arguments, then dodge the questions when you're shot down.
|
Oh, please... You couldn't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag...
Most of your "questions" revert back to "nuh huh" followed by your best pathetic attempt at name calling/flaming...
Case in point, this thread, Biden's loose lips divluge CLASSIFIED information. And you guys are like "shrug, no big deal".
When that is a very serious offense, and will cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars while they build another "secret" location for the baffoon.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:18pm
Posted By: Enos Shenk
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:28pm
Hm. Anyone know Java? Ive been kicking around an idea for a Firefox addon that would just not render FE threads.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:31pm
I have a Java 2 for dummies book I could send your way. I still have this to send your way too from years ago:
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:31pm
Enos Shenk wrote:
Hm. Anyone know Java? Ive been kicking around an idea for a Firefox addon that would just not render FE threads.
| Hmm. I might know enough to at least get started.
-------------
 irc.esper.net #paintball
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 4:33pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
choopie911 wrote:
FE, no, we didn't get DAILY bush bashing. Not even weekly. And when we did, they were someones own thoughts or opinions for the most part, not just some blind rightwing puppet that sees someone say something in the media, and wets himself running here to post it to feel even more "right"
You just copy/paste stupid points and arguments, then dodge the questions when you're shot down.
|
Oh, please... You couldn't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag...
Most of your "questions" revert back to "nuh huh" followed by your best pathetic attempt at name calling/flaming...
Case in point, this thread, Biden's loose lips divluge CLASSIFIED information. And you guys are like "shrug, no big deal".
When that is a very serious offense, and will cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars while they build another "secret" location for the baffoon. | This is one of the lulziest things you've ever said. You're the one that calls people names, FE. It's sad you don't realize it.
-------------
 irc.esper.net #paintball
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 5:21pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
blabbity blah blah blah, blah blabbity blah ......... | For the umpteenth time
I am not a liberal. I did not vote for Obama.
And I believe Dan Quayle still holds the title for most ignorant VP ever. I submit: http://www.spike.com/video/dan-quayle-bloopers/1022585?cid=YSSP - http://www.spike.com/video/dan-quayle-bloopers/1022585?cid=YSSP
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 5:30pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co. "Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip," he explained. |
That's not a gaffe, that's a joke that you're not educated enough to understand.
The neighbors knew about it anyways. And it's now a guest room. Sounds totally relevant.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 5:48pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
And a President who has spent more than every other President combined. And we will be paying more in taxes than ever before... |
You must have really done quite terribly on reading comprehension tests in school.
First, I would like to direct your attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions
Note the 2010 Budget of $3.6 trillion dollars by Obama, and the 2009 Budget of $3.1 trillion dollars by George.
Now, the 2010 Budget includes ALL spending, the 2009 budget does NOT include war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of $750 million dollars. So $3.1 trillion dollars + $750 million dollars is quite a bit more than the 2010 Budget.
But why stop there? Look at the percent increase of Bush's budget over his terms, the largest in history.
And if you think you're such a hot shot paper distributor, I'd love to hear some of your brilliant ideas to reduce all of the debt, fix the current recession, and lower taxes all at the same time.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 5:54pm
|
FE, even if it is a problem security-wise, what were your thought on the Valerie Plame issue? I didn't happen to think that was much of a problem myself, and this certainly isn't either in my book. I fail to see your point here at all. Are you planning to continue posting about every single irrelevant bit of poorly sourced or misinterpreted crap you can find about the administration for the next 4-8 years? The constant Bush bashing was insufferable at times, but you're well on your way to outdooing 8 years of that in less than 8 months while simultaneously degradingthe debate standards of this forum. If the republican party is doomed, it's because of idiots like you. I sincerely hope you have some sort of documentable learning disability (which you probably consider hippie left-wing made up conditions anyways) otherwise I can think of no logical excuse for some of the crap you post. If there's a reason you simply get flamed it's because you either ignor counter arguements or are simply too dense to comprehend them. After your repeated rantings against "moral relativism" a thread of this type, using previous retarded Bush-bashing to justify your current retarded Obama-bashing....see if you can follow my logic here....makes you a hypocrite. I hope for your sake that you're one of the smitty's posing as a right-wing wackjob as some sort joke, or possibly as a plot to make conservatives look ignorant.
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 6:13pm
FE has converted me. I am now a Republican. I swear.
-------------
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 6:37pm
|
Years ago, wasnt debating politics a strikeable offense? I want to say around the 2004 elections...
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 6:42pm
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:02pm
Me neither....
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:31pm
oldpbnoob wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
blabbity blah blah blah, blah blabbity blah ......... | For the umpteenth time
I am not a liberal. I did not vote for Obama.
|
To the current conservative base of the Republican Party, you are just a worthless RINO, like Alan Specter.
God wrote:
Years ago, wasnt debating politics a strikeable offense? I want to say around the 2004 elections...
|
Making threads concerning elections in November 2004 was banned,
because we already had about 5 threads that were 20+ pages. There was
no reason to make any more.
As for the topic of this thread: Yes, FE, we, the evil media, did
discuss this topic at the last all-encompassing OMG LIBRUL MEDIA
meeting at Applebees. We decided to cover it up and not report it.
Apparently FOX had one too many 2-for-1 drafts to remember our
agreement. Oh well. You caught us!
|
Posted By: Gator Taco
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:56pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
choopie911 wrote:
FE, no, we didn't get DAILY bush bashing. Not even weekly. And when we did, they were someones own thoughts or opinions for the most part, not just some blind rightwing puppet that sees someone say something in the media, and wets himself running here to post it to feel even more "right"
You just copy/paste stupid points and arguments, then dodge the questions when you're shot down.
|
Oh, please... You couldn't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag...
Most of your "questions" revert back to "nuh huh" followed by your best pathetic attempt at name calling/flaming...
Case in point, this thread, Biden's loose lips divluge CLASSIFIED information. And you guys are like "shrug, no big deal".
When that is a very serious offense, and will cost the American taxpayers millions of dollars while they build another "secret" location for the baffoon. |
Behold:
mbro wrote:
Meh, any fairly intelligent person would already assume that there is a bunker below the VP's house. |
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/trailgator01 - last.fm
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:08pm
|
FE, Biden is a far better VP than that moron Palin could ever dream to be. Hell, ANYONE is a better pick than Palin.
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:09pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Hey, you elected the village idiot. At least be proud of your selection! Woot, we got us the biggest dummy vp ever... |
I'm not saying biden is the best, but the last VP shot a man in the face.....
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:10pm
Eville wrote:
FE, Biden is a far better VP than that moron Palin could ever dream to be. Hell, ANYONE is a better pick than Palin. |
Well, what exactly makes a person a good or a bad VP? "One heartbeat away" issues aside, the job isn't exactly clear. How can you tell if Biden is a good or a bad VP?
-------------
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".
Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:13pm
Eville wrote:
FE, Biden is a far better VP than that moron Palin could ever dream to be. Hell, ANYONE is a better pick than Palin.
|
I had to post this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
I know people like that, it's scary. I'd have been seriously concerned if she had wound up in a position of power. Can you imagine if she had to take over as pres? Good god....
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 8:41pm
Monk wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Hey, you elected the village idiot. At least be proud of your selection! Woot, we got us the biggest dummy vp ever... |
I'm not saying biden is the best, but the last VP shot a man in the face.....
|
qft. i laughed
-------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 10:28pm
I would to say I am very, very, sick of the "they did it first" argument.
Half of us were like 12-15 when Bush was elected the first time. I am sure we made threads bashing him EVERY DAY.
I did a search of any date trying to find "Bush"
I'll list the topics I found:
forum_posts.asp?TID=90715&KW=Bush - Presidential Poll (Bush or Kerry) April 2004
forum_posts.asp?TID=98814&KW=Bush - American Invasion? May 2004....Bush isn't mentioned in OP
The states isn't that powerful July 2004...Not a Bush thread forum_posts.asp?TID=108655&KW=Bush - If Bush get elected! May 2004..."I'm going to Canada"
forum_posts.asp?TID=109349&KW=Bush - Sick of Political Threads? August 2004
forum_posts.asp?TID=109322&KW=Bush - Please think of America! August 2004...."Reelect George Bush"
forum_posts.asp?TID=109224&KW=Bush - george bush military record August 2004
forum_posts.asp?TID=109157&KW=Bush - republicans August 2004...."Republicans are idiots"
I see a trend. That trend is that most of the threads are coming from right around Re-election time, and aren't even Bush Bashing. There in only one thread coming up in search from 2003. It is a "Sig Too Big?" Thread by Hwayhzrd.
In fact, up until page 5(the last page to come up) is all August and September.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: IMPULS3.
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 11:03pm
Canada citizens, who cares what you you think.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 11:48pm
IMPULS3. wrote:
Canada citizens, who cares what you you think. |
Good foreign policy
|
Posted By: bravecoward
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:11am
Have you ever seen 24?
-------------
|
Posted By: *Stealth*
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:42am
My god, who knows - Biden might just slip and admit the existence of Area 51.... Can you imagine how earth shattering THAT would be?
------------- WHO says eating pork is safe, but Mexicans have even cut back on their beloved greasy pork tacos. - MSNBC on the Swine Flu
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 7:38am
Bolt3 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
And a President who has spent more than every other President combined. And we will be paying more in taxes than ever before... |
You must have really done quite terribly on reading comprehension tests in school.
First, I would like to direct your attention to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget#Total_outlays_in_recent_budget_submissions
Note the 2010 Budget of $3.6 trillion dollars by Obama, and the 2009 Budget of $3.1 trillion dollars by George.
Now, the 2010 Budget includes ALL spending, the 2009 budget does NOT include war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the tune of $750 million dollars. So $3.1 trillion dollars + $750 million dollars is quite a bit more than the 2010 Budget.
But why stop there? Look at the percent increase of Bush's budget over his terms, the largest in history.
And if you think you're such a hot shot paper distributor, I'd love to hear some of your brilliant ideas to reduce all of the debt, fix the current recession, and lower taxes all at the same time.
|
First off, in debating using credible information is important. Wiki is not credible...
Second, Look at what was spent SO FAR this year alone, the budget is only a small part. You have to include all the bailouts ("failouts", lol) Tarp 1 was passed by democrats who made the mess, so I would include that figure but bush signed it... So for arguments sake I won't. But, massive spending democrats have run the congress for the last two years, only Bush was in the white house, and he doesn't craft budget bills...
But, you have the porkulus bill (yeah, it created LOTS of new jobs... Catapillar just had more work hours cut, so much for that massive "rehiring" they would do with the stimulus money)
Tarp 2
Massive budget
And next on the agenda is health care, and cap and trade, both of which will further destroy our economy, and make your living costs go through the roof.
But, regardless of what is spent, you need to realize that the government is only in trouble when they spend more than they bring in. That is when the real problems begin, and that is called deficit spending.
Obama has been using last years numbers to figure what he had this year... Bad idea in a down economy, tons of jobs lost and way less gdp. Any dummy can tell you that is what will happen.
Now we have deficit spending in the trillions per year... First time in history, and more debt than every other President combined.
And here are some facts proving those statements. (see you need to use references that prove your facts, just stating something as fact is useless unless it is provable as true).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/budget-deficit-forecast-hit-trillion-year/ - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/budget-deficit-forecast-hit-trillion-year/
"President Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year over the next decade, according to the latest congressional estimates, significantly worse than predicted by the White House just last month.
The Congressional Budget Office figures, released Friday, predict Obama's budget will produce $9.3 trillion worth of red ink over 2010-2019. That's $2.3 trillion worse than the White House predicted in its budget.
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level."
This is where we are right now... Before health care "reform", and before cap and trade.
Get ready to watch your gas prices go over $4.00 a gallon again... They have already gone up 50% in the past month.
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:40am
Gas prices going up is probably a sign of summer driving season and summer fuel blends than anything else. It's gone from $2 to $2.40 in the past couple of months here; no where near a 50% increase.
The only reason gas prices are still low is because world demand is still suppressed due to the recession. Once demand goes back up, so will the prices.
That's one reason why right now is the time to invest in alternative energy (like hemp biodiesel ). If we can get converting in the next few years, we can drastically reduce demand and thus cut price before it ever skyrockets again.
-------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:10am
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Get ready to watch your gas prices go over $4.00 a gallon again... They have already gone up 50% in the past month. |
FAIL. You have no evidence to back this claim up. its gone up 20 cents here, and im pretty sure i wasnt paying 40 cents a gallon a month ago.
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:15am
|
I wasn't planning on getting involved in this circular self-gratification event, but I can't let this pass...
FreeEnterprise wrote:
First off, in debating using credible information is important. Wiki is not credible...
...
And here are some facts proving those statements. (see you need to use references that prove your facts, just stating something as fact is useless unless it is provable as true).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/budget-deficit-forecast-hit-trillion-year/ - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/budget-deficit-forecast-hit-trillion-year/
|
A blanket statement that Wikipedia is not credible is both silly and wrong. Wikipedia is an excellent source and an excellent reference, if used correctly.
In this case, the Wiki article included footnotes with direct links to the underlying primary sources - as the good Wiki articles usually do. A better way to phrase the source might have been "see the various Federal publications, as linked and summarized in this Wikipedia article." While linking to Wiki, Bolt was actually basing his argument on official publications of the Federal government, which, when discussing Federal budgeting, is a pretty credible source indeed. His citation format may have been off, but the substance was there.
You, on the other hand, claim as "fact" a news article. A news article with only limited source identification and no linking to hard data.
Bolt is saying "here are the data as presented by the Federal government." You are saying "here is what Fox and AP say about it." As between the two, Bolt's source is by far the more credible.
You are not in a position to question the credibility and proper usage of sources. -------------
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".
Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:21am
Bunkered wrote:
That's one reason why right now is the time to invest in alternative energy (like hemp biodiesel ). If we can get converting in the next few years, we can drastically reduce demand and thus cut price before it ever skyrockets again. | Like Canada and Europe... oh wait. Europe is still paying over $5.00 a gallon for Diesel and Industrial Hemp is legal and grown there. Hmm.
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:49am
^^^ That may have something to do with local fuel taxes...
-------------
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".
Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
|
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:21pm
I lol every time i see this thread title. It's so ridiculous i can't help but laugh.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:26pm
|
^^^ to PP's post:
Or because it isn't financially feasible to use in biofuels. Due to the low yield per acre compared to such crops as Canola, Camelina and even Pumpkin seeds, it is cost prohibitive. The vast majority of the oil produced is actually used in the health and beauty markets. It's food uses continue to keep the prices too high to be viable. Perhaps looking in to WVO or other crops that are not used as food would be a better argument.
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:34pm
oldpbnoob wrote:
^^^ to PP's post:
Or because it isn't financially feasible to use in biofuels. Due to the low yield per acre compared to such crops as Canola, Camelina and even Pumpkin seeds, it is cost prohibitive. The vast majority of the oil produced is actually used in the health and beauty markets. It's food uses continue to keep the prices too high to be viable. Perhaps looking in to WVO or other crops that are not used as food would be a better argument. |
The "real" price of biofuels is an interesting topic - but my point was simply that fuel taxes in Europe are drastically higher than here. In most Northern/Western European countries the various taxes amount to $5/gallon or more. Taxes are more than half of the pump price in many countries, upwards of 70% of the pump price in others.
As a result, it is difficult to compare apples to apples to the US fuel market.
-------------
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".
Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:49pm
|
I agree that taxes are higher, however, considering the same countries that are the largest producers of Hemp are also the largest importers of oil would point somewhat to the irrelevance of Hemp productions affect on the lessing of dependence on oil imports.
|
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 3:00pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
So for YEARS we got bush bashing daily... And only a little over 100 days in and you guys can't take it anymore...
|
Obama's in for 8, get busy..
------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here.
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 5:08pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
So for YEARS we got bush bashing daily... And only a little over 100 days in and you guys can't take it anymore...
|
what do you mean we? you werent around then
-------------
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 8:56pm
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 9:36pm
does the term "gaffe" get on anyone elses nerves? why cant we just go back to saying _____ <poopy>?
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 12:02am
|
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/anatomy-of-a-myth.html - COUGH
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:40am
What?
Fox News blew something trivial out of proportion?
Well, I never...
-------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:43am
FE, bit of advice when dealing with the majority of the people here, ignor them as this admiration of Obama and the distain for Bush still prevails, they have not fully, nor are they going to in any reasonable sense of time, understand what the country is dealing with. We will calmly walk to the lifeboat, as these people here continue to use thier pails of wisdom and insight to attempt to bail out the Titanic spending policies and other holes being punched into our country and economy.
If McCain and Palin won there would be a daily flood of anti-administration postings and gaff detection, look someone still uses Bushism's so you know what we are dealing with, let the kids run around the deck, they are they ones who will eventually end up paying for this fiasco, we can just sit back and laugh as they try and attach blame elsewhere in 3 and a half years.
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:02am
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Oldsoldier acts pompous in a political thread.
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 11:24am
oldsoldier wrote:
attach blame elsewhere in 7 and a half years.
|
fixed
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 11:36am
slackerr26 wrote:
oldsoldier wrote:
Amount of time it will take slackerr26 to pay Free his $5 is 7 and a half years.
|
fixed
|
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 12:38pm
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:51pm
oldsoldier wrote:
FE, bit of advice when dealing with the majority of the people here, ignor them as this admiration of Obama and the distain for Bush still prevails, they have not fully, nor are they going to in any reasonable sense of time, understand what the country is dealing with. We will calmly walk to the lifeboat, as these people here continue to use thier pails of wisdom and insight to attempt to bail out the Titanic spending policies and other holes being punched into our country and economy.
If McCain and Palin won there would be a daily flood of anti-administration postings and gaff detection, look someone still uses Bushism's so you know what we are dealing with, let the kids run around the deck, they are they ones who will eventually end up paying for this fiasco, we can just sit back and laugh as they try and attach blame elsewhere in 3 and a half years.
|
Did you miss the part where he was wrong? Because he was wrong. And if Palin had any power, beside ANY president, she would deserve to be complained about. She was a hugely weak link, and I'm glad she doesn't have any significant role in world politics.
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:45pm
Hey look my post got deleted.
I wasn't even flaming anyone.
Thanks.
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:54pm
I'll link it again:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/anatomy-of-a-myth.html - myth
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:57pm
A HUGE Gaffers tape.

|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:58pm
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:59pm
choopie911 wrote:
Eville wrote:
FE, Biden is a far better VP than
that moron Palin could ever dream to be. Hell, ANYONE is a better pick
than Palin.
|
I had to post this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
I know people like that, it's scary. I'd have been seriously
concerned if she had wound up in a position of power. Can you imagine
if she had to take over as pres? Good god.... |
Well . . . there'd be at least three days out of every month when nobody would screw with the U.S.
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:03pm
slackerr26 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Get ready to watch your gas prices go over $4.00 a gallon again... They have already gone up 50% in the past month. |
FAIL. You have no evidence to back this claim up. its gone up 20 cents here, and im pretty sure i wasnt paying 40 cents a gallon a month ago.
|
I just saw you quote this so I just quoted you instead of finding where FE said it.
Umm...last summer and part of the year before that I was paying $4.50+ for gas. Currently sitting at $2.50, thank you.
For someone who mocks people using wikipedia as a source (which is credible in most cases) I find it sad that you come up with such ragtag data. Anyone with a car...heck...a gas powered lawn mower, knows that you are wrong.
As for the 50% increase in the last month...no. That's not accurate. Price have gone up abou t15-30 cents in the last month.
-------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:12pm
Mack wrote:
choopie911 wrote:
Eville wrote:
FE, Biden is a far better VP than
that moron Palin could ever dream to be. Hell, ANYONE is a better pick
than Palin.
|
I had to post this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
I know people like that, it's scary. I'd have been seriously
concerned if she had wound up in a position of power. Can you imagine
if she had to take over as pres? Good god.... |
Well . . . there'd be at least three days out of every month when nobody would screw with the U.S.
| Well, they would just have to put a towel down first. Then afterward jump in the shower without looking down while pretending everything is just dandy. Not that I would know about that.
-------------
 irc.esper.net #paintball
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:20pm
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:50pm
The truth is no one knows how to fix the current economic problem.
Sure, the bailouts might have not been the most ideal thing to do, but I would be terrified to see what would have happened if there was no intervention. Global economies would have tanked, and lives would have ultimately been lost. (Metaphorically and physically)
Nothing is a guarantee, you cannot say that the economy would have pulled out of it overnight. And it would be reckless of you to say we should have tried.
And OS, I don't know what era you're from, but the true conservatives ran from the republican party in 1980.
------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:02pm
oldpbnoob wrote:
^^^ to PP's post:
Or because it isn't financially feasible to use in biofuels. Due to the low yield per acre compared to such crops as Canola, Camelina and even Pumpkin seeds, it is cost prohibitive. The vast majority of the oil produced is actually used in the health and beauty markets. It's food uses continue to keep the prices too high to be viable. Perhaps looking in to WVO or other crops that are not used as food would be a better argument. |
Low yield per acre?
A plant that grows up to twenty feet tall in four months and contains 70%+ of cellulose is not low yield by any means.
If it was legal to grow, far more would be grown.
Too bad the gov't doesn't even allow it to be grown for research purposes, even when the proper permits are applied for (the DEA has been blocking several research permits for years now).
-------------
|
Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:51pm
Remember FE's argument here. All the righties will be screamin' this stuff when gas prices go back up, which they will as soon as the economy picks up, no matter what Obama does....
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 11:05pm
Bunkered wrote:
oldpbnoob wrote:
^^^ to PP's post:
Or because it isn't financially feasible to use in biofuels. Due to the low yield per acre compared to such crops as Canola, Camelina and even Pumpkin seeds, it is cost prohibitive. The vast majority of the oil produced is actually used in the health and beauty markets. It's food uses continue to keep the prices too high to be viable. Perhaps looking in to WVO or other crops that are not used as food would be a better argument. |
Low yield per acre?
A plant that grows up to twenty feet tall in four months and contains 70%+ of cellulose is not low yield by any means. If it was legal to grow, far more would be grown. Too bad the gov't doesn't even allow it to be grown for research purposes, even when the proper permits are applied for (the DEA has been blocking several research permits for years now). | Yes, that is what I said. There are many crops that yield significantly higher per acre than hemp. I had the info the other day, but really don't feel like looking for it again. Do some actual research and there are severl articles regarding other much higher potential Biofuel crops that aren't in demand for other purposes. Camelina was one of the major ones mentioned and yields nearly twice as much oil per acr than Hemp. And can be grown in the same areas... and is already legal.
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:17am
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:49am
That.
Also, upon doing some more "actual research," I'm further convinced that hemp would make a great biofuel product. Soy, Flax, and camelina (similar fuel-making processes to hemp) are all pretty small plants.
It seems to me that a 1.5 foot soy plant cannot stack up against a 20 foot hemp plant in sheer biomass. Camelina seeds are roughly 40% oil, while the much larger hemp plant weighs in at 35%.
And that's aside from the facts that hemp can be grown anywhere in the US, requires no herbicides or pesticides, is a good rotational crop, and could help reduce deforestation for paper-making.
If you can show me a link that would refute my research, perhaps I would be more inclined to think that you did any of your own.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:32am
|
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - explains why Hemp, due to its demand in other sectors is not truly viable.
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - discusses why Camelina is superior to other bio'sj. Essentially because it has great yield and will grow where other crops don't. Helps eliminate bumping prices of other products such as soybeans, corn and canola which are heavily consumed by the food and health industry.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html - http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html -- demonstrates how far down the list hemp is in regards to yield per acre.
I have not looked at the other arguments such as paper production etc in regards to Hemp. Specificaly, I was searching for articles only pertaining to the use in biofuels.
Tag out.
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:53am
oldpbnoob wrote:
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - explains why Hemp, due to its demand in other sectors is not truly viable.
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - discusses why Camelina is superior to other bio'sj. Essentially because it has great yield and will grow where other crops don't. Helps eliminate bumping prices of other products such as soybeans, corn and canola which are heavily consumed by the food and health industry.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html - http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html -- demonstrates how far down the list hemp is in regards to yield per acre.
I have not looked at the other arguments such as paper production etc in regards to Hemp. Specificaly, I was searching for articles only pertaining to the use in biofuels.
Tag out. |
Hmmm. Not enough available for use...
Wonder how we could increase global supply quickly?
Legalize it and join the modern world? No, that makes way too much sense for the US government to comprehend.
-------------
|
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:54am
|
One saggy boob turns to the other and says, "If we don't get support soon, people are going to think we're nuts!"
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 9:09am
Bunkered wrote:
oldpbnoob wrote:
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - explains why Hemp, due to its demand in other sectors is not truly viable.
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - discusses why Camelina is superior to other bio'sj. Essentially because it has great yield and will grow where other crops don't. Helps eliminate bumping prices of other products such as soybeans, corn and canola which are heavily consumed by the food and health industry.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html - http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html -- demonstrates how far down the list hemp is in regards to yield per acre.
I have not looked at the other arguments such as paper production etc in regards to Hemp. Specificaly, I was searching for articles only pertaining to the use in biofuels.
Tag out.
|
Hmmm. Not enough available for use... Wonder how we could increase global supply quickly? Legalize it and join the modern world? No, that makes way too much sense for the US government to comprehend. |
Read what you want and ignore the other facts. Take another hit and pass it on.
For those not too stoned to be unbiased:
excerpt from 2002 paper wrote:
Biomass
It has been contended that hemp is notably superior to most crops in terms of biomass production, but van der Werf (1994b) noted that the annual dry matter yield of hemp (rarely approaching 20 t/ha) is not exceptional compared to maize, beet, or potato. Nevertheless, hemp has been rated on a variety of criteria as one of the best crops available to produce energy in Europe (Biewinga and van der Bijl 1996). Hemp, especially the hurds, can be burned as is or processed into charcoal, methanol, methane, or gasoline through pyrolysis (destructive distillation). As with maize, hemp can also be used to create ethanol. However, hemp for such biomass purposes is a doubtful venture in North America. Conversion of hemp biomass into fuel or alcohol is impractical on this continent, where there are abundant supplies of wood, and energy can be produced relatively cheaply from a variety of sources. Mallik et al. (1990) studied the possibility of using hemp for “biogas” (i.e. methane) production, and concluded that it was unsuitable for this purpose. Pinfold Consulting (1998) concluded that while there may be some potential for hemp biomass fuel near areas where hemp is cultivated, “a fuel ethanol industry is not expected to develop based on hemp.” |
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html - http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html
Note again that it is a MINOR use, second to last only beaten out by Silage. It is legal in parts of Europe and they use 0% as a biofuel. Wonder why that is?
AGAIN, I am not saying that there are not commerical/industrial uses for Hemp. However, it is not the fuel of the future, no matter how much you claim it to be. Check the chart in the middle of the page in the third link I gave:
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html wrote:
]
|
Table 1: OIL PRODUCING CROPS Adapted from Joshua Tickell, From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank: The Complete Guide to Using Vegetable Oil as an Alternative Fuel. 3rd Ed. 2000. |
| Plant |
Latin Name |
Gal Oil/ Acre |
Plant |
Latin Name |
Gal Oil/ Acre |
| Oil Palm |
Elaeis guineensis |
610 |
Rice |
Oriza sativa L. |
85 |
| Macauba Palm |
Acrocomia aculeata |
461 |
Buffalo Gourd |
Cucurbita foetidissima |
81 |
| Pequi |
Caryocar brasiliense |
383 |
Safflower |
Carthamus tinctorius |
80 |
| Buriti Palm |
Mauritia flexuosa |
335 |
Crambe |
Crambe abyssinica |
72 |
| Oiticia |
Licania rigida |
307 |
Sesame |
Sesamum indicum |
71 |
| Coconut |
Cocos nucifera |
276 |
Camelina |
Camelina sativa |
60 |
| Avocado |
Persea americana |
270 |
Mustard |
Brassica alba |
59 |
| Brazil Nut |
Bertholletia excelsa |
245 |
Coriander |
Coriandrum sativum |
55 |
| Macadamia Nut |
Macadamia terniflora |
230 |
Pumpkin Seed |
Cucurbita pepo |
55 |
| Jatropa |
Jatropha curcas |
194 |
Euphorbia |
Euphorbia lagascae |
54 |
| Babassu Palm |
Orbignya martiana |
188 |
Hazelnut |
Corylus avellana |
49 |
| Jojoba |
Simmondsia chinensis |
186 |
Linseed |
Linum usitatissimum |
49 |
| Pecan |
Carya illinoensis |
183 |
Coffee |
Coffea arabica |
47 |
| Bacuri |
Platonia insignis |
146 |
Soybean |
Glycine max |
46 |
| Castor Bean |
Ricinus communis |
145 |
Hemp |
Cannabis sativa |
37 |
| Gopher Plant |
Euphorbia lathyris |
137 |
Cotton |
Gossypium hirsutum |
33 |
| Piassava |
Attalea funifera |
136 |
Calendula |
Calendula officinalis |
31 |
| Olive Tree |
Olea europaea |
124 |
Kenaf |
Hibiscus cannabinus L. |
28 |
| Rapeseed |
Brassica napus |
122 |
Rubber Seed |
Hevea brasiliensis |
26 |
| Opium Poppy |
Papaver somniferum |
119 |
Lupine |
Lupinus albus |
24 |
| Peanut |
Ariachis hypogaea |
109 |
Palm |
Erythea salvadorensis |
23 |
| Cocoa |
Theobroma cacao |
105 |
Oat |
Avena sativa |
22 |
| Sunflower |
Helianthus annuus |
98 |
Cashew Nut |
Anacardium occidentale |
18 |
| Tung Oil Tree |
Aleurites fordii |
96 |
Corn |
Zea mays |
18 | |
Heck, Opium is ridiculously high on the chart for oil/acre. If you want a bio fuel, lets Hooka it up! Point being, there are MANY other crops that can provide better yeilds and again, grow in places that will not displace current crops. Even if more permits were issued by the DEA to grow Hemp, where do you think they will grow it? Probably where other crops are currently being grown. In which case it will displace other crops, causing their costs to go up. So we now have a biofuel source, that not only provides less yield, than other crops, but is now driving the prices of those other crops up. Whereas something like Camelina that can grow in very arid areas WHERE NOTHING ELSE IS GROWN would not displace other crops and therefore, not drive up their prices.
If you are still arguing the point in regards to a source of BIOFUEL, you will have to argue with yourself. I have more tan proven my point.
Have a happy.
An in regards to the OP.... who cares. It's not like 99% of any person with a brain didn't assume that the VP had a bunker under his house. Duh.
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 9:21am
oldpbnoob wrote:
Bunkered wrote:
oldpbnoob wrote:
http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=1434 - - explains why Hemp, due to its demand in other sectors is not truly viable.
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2008/08/15/ag_news/production_news/duc14.txt - - discusses why Camelina is superior to other bio'sj. Essentially because it has great yield and will grow where other crops don't. Helps eliminate bumping prices of other products such as soybeans, corn and canola which are heavily consumed by the food and health industry.
http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/biodiesel_sustainable.html - -- demonstrates how far down the list hemp is in regards to yield per acre.
I have not looked at the other arguments such as paper production etc in regards to Hemp. Specificaly, I was searching for articles only pertaining to the use in biofuels.
Tag out.
| Hmmm. Not enough available for use... Wonder how we could increase global supply quickly? Legalize it and join the modern world? No, that makes way too much sense for the US government to comprehend. |
Read what you want and ignore the other facts. Take another hit and pass it on. |
Sorry, now I read the other two links that weren't broken.
Leave biofuel aside, despite the fact that it COULD be used.
This is the United States of America. The government shouldn't be dictating what crops are grown. If there is a market for hemp, US farmers should be allowed to grow it and profit off of it, whether it's for fiber, food, oil, whatever.
This is not Soviet Russia.
The FACT is that hemp's illegality is a sham, and anyone who supports it is blind to this country's founding principles.
-------------
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 10:18am
|
And for clarification, Hemp is not illegal to grow. However, you must attain a license from the DEA to do so. As far as the government dictating what crops are grown, ummm yeah, they do. There are markets for Coca and Poppy as well, but I would think most people would agree that they should be banned. Before anyone jumps on it as a statement putting them in the same category, we have already gone over this. I am not saying that it should be illegal to grow hemp, but I do believe the government should have some control over what crops are grown.
|
Posted By: Bunkered
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:09pm
Yeah, except the DEA refuses to give the permits out...
I can KIND OF see why weed could be outlawed, but industrial hemp?
It's a well-documentedly corrupt law that should have been overturned by now.
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 11:09am
Frozen Balls wrote:
slackerr26 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Get ready to watch your gas prices go over $4.00 a gallon again... They have already gone up 50% in the past month. |
FAIL. You have no evidence to back this claim up. its gone up 20 cents here, and im pretty sure i wasnt paying 40 cents a gallon a month ago.
|
I just saw you quote this so I just quoted you instead of finding where FE said it.
Umm...last summer and part of the year before that I was paying $4.50+ for gas. Currently sitting at $2.50, thank you.
For someone who mocks people using wikipedia as a source (which is credible in most cases) I find it sad that you come up with such ragtag data. Anyone with a car...heck...a gas powered lawn mower, knows that you are wrong.
As for the 50% increase in the last month...no. That's not accurate. Price have gone up abou t15-30 cents in the last month.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/wl_time/08599190144600 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/wl_time/08599190144600
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 11:17am
FE's Article wrote:
For those feeling the pain at the gas pumps, however, there is one
piece of good news. Oil is unlikely to hit $147 a barrel again - at
least not during the coming decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
said on Wednesday that oil prices would likely rise to $110 a barrel by
2015 and $130 a barrel by 2030. By that time the world oil markets
might once again follow the normal rules of economics. |
Now, I quoted this because I did not see anywhere in there that gas prices were up 50% in the last month. I did see that oil futures were up 36%, but that was it.
This seems to be arguing more against you than for you, if you're still saying that oil prices are crazy high and going higher.
------------- BU Engineering 2012
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 11:40am
|
Gas was $1.79 last month here in Cincy.
Today when I filled up it is $2.69
You do the math...
http://www.cincygasprices.com/ - http://www.cincygasprices.com/
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: RenegadeGopher
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:02pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Gas was $1.79 last month here in Cincy.
Today when I filled up it is $2.69
You do the math...
http://www.cincygasprices.com/ - http://www.cincygasprices.com/
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fallacy+of+composition - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fallacy+of+composition
-------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:08pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Gas was $1.79 last month here in Cincy.
Today when I filled up it is $2.69
You do the math...
http://www.cincygasprices.com/ - http://www.cincygasprices.com/
|
yea im calling shens because that is exactly a 50% increase. and the local price snapshot says that you paid 2.63 today, and a month ago it was 2.04.
oh and what does the trend say? it says prices falling...
-------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:16pm
Well, maybe I wouldn't be so worried about it, if you would just pay up that $5.00 you owe me...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:33pm
^lol
------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx
~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~
|
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:42pm
Id rather have the VP make stupid blunders that don't really matter than the president thats been "running things" for the past eight years. Call me crazy, but I'm okay with that.
------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata
<keep the sigs friendly, please>
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 2:47pm
OH HAI. ITS THIS THREAD AGAIN
-------------
 irc.esper.net #paintball
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 5:13pm
|
all i know is that you spelled giraffe wrong in the title.
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 6:00pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Well, maybe I wouldn't be so worried about it, if you would just pay up that $5.00 you owe me... |
OK. Win.
------------- BU Engineering 2012
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:14pm
|
I heard Obama was a secret Mooslim,
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:28pm
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Frozen Balls wrote:
slackerr26 wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Get ready to watch your gas prices go over $4.00 a gallon again... They have already gone up 50% in the past month. |
FAIL. You have no evidence to back this claim up. its gone up 20 cents here, and im pretty sure i wasnt paying 40 cents a gallon a month ago.
|
I just saw you quote this so I just quoted you instead of finding where FE said it.
Umm...last summer and part of the year before that I was paying $4.50+ for gas. Currently sitting at $2.50, thank you.
For someone who mocks people using wikipedia as a source (which is credible in most cases) I find it sad that you come up with such ragtag data. Anyone with a car...heck...a gas powered lawn mower, knows that you are wrong.
As for the 50% increase in the last month...no. That's not accurate. Price have gone up abou t15-30 cents in the last month.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/wl_time/08599190144600 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090529/wl_time/08599190144600
|
Drove past a gas station today...$2.58. Oh no!
Also, I didn't really read that long and irrelevant article.
-------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 29 May 2009 at 8:31pm
Basically, I don't care if prices are going up. They are still lower than they were.
-------------
|
|