Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24 Jun 2013, 04:47 pm
cameo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
arguments against EPA's push for E15:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...le-fuel-debate

Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the
millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
food prices.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 24 Jun 2013, 07:12 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid> wrote in news:kqaef5$crf$1@dont-email.me:

> I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
> arguments against EPA's push for E15:




Then again, they also declined to reject Obamacare, so...

They're just a bunch of over-educated twits who are totally full of
themselves.


--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 24 Jun 2013, 08:17 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 06/24/2013 02:47 PM, cameo wrote:
> I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
> arguments against EPA's push for E15:
>
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...le-fuel-debate
>
>
> Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the
> millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
> food prices.


you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:

1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car
after the old one gets ruined.
4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer
subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of
how grateful they are to their political appointers.

all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa
watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah,
the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.


--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 11:21 am
MM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 6/24/13 5:12 PM, Tegger wrote:
>
> Then again, they also declined to reject Obamacare, so...


Why do you care? You live in Canada.

>
> They're just a bunch of over-educated twits who are totally full of
> themselves.
>
>


Unlike any of the twits who post here.

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 01:28 pm
cameo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 6/25/2013 9:21 AM, MM wrote:
> On 6/24/13 5:12 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>> Then again, they also declined to reject Obamacare, so...

>
> Why do you care? You live in Canada.
>
>>
>> They're just a bunch of over-educated twits who are totally full of
>> themselves.
>>
>>

>
> Unlike any of the twits who post here.
>

Are you a twit?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 01:29 pm
cameo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 6/24/2013 6:17 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 02:47 PM, cameo wrote:
>> I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
>> arguments against EPA's push for E15:
>>
>> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...le-fuel-debate
>>
>>
>>
>> Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the
>> millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
>> food prices.

>
> you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:
>
> 1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
> 2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
> 3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car
> after the old one gets ruined.
> 4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer
> subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
> 5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of
> how grateful they are to their political appointers.
>
> all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa
> watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah,
> the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.
>

That's way too cynical even from you, Jim. ;-)

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 03:28 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

MM <junk@is.invalid> wrote in news:kqcg1t$jb3$1@solani.org:

> On 6/24/13 5:12 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>> Then again, they also declined to reject Obamacare, so...

>
> Why do you care? You live in Canada.
>
>>
>> They're just a bunch of over-educated twits who are totally full of
>> themselves.
>>
>>

>
> Unlike any of the twits who post here.
>




I'm an UNDER-educated twit.

I, at least, am aware of my ignorance, unlke them.


--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 08:03 pm
Pawalleye
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 6/25/2013 1:29 PM, cameo wrote:
> On 6/24/2013 6:17 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 06/24/2013 02:47 PM, cameo wrote:
>>> I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
>>> arguments against EPA's push for E15:
>>>
>>> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...le-fuel-debate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about the
>>> millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
>>> food prices.

>>
>> you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:
>>
>> 1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
>> 2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
>> 3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car
>> after the old one gets ruined.
>> 4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer
>> subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
>> 5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of
>> how grateful they are to their political appointers.
>>
>> all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa
>> watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah,
>> the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.
>>

> That's way too cynical even from you, Jim. ;-)
>

Agribusiness lobby will not get righer. Corn growers and processors
probably will but, the season here (ND) was so late it maybe that all
the folks with corn may not get a good crop--we put in beans.

Rick
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 25 Jun 2013, 08:47 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On 06/25/2013 06:03 PM, Pawalleye wrote:
> On 6/25/2013 1:29 PM, cameo wrote:
>> On 6/24/2013 6:17 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 06/24/2013 02:47 PM, cameo wrote:
>>>> I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
>>>> arguments against EPA's push for E15:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...le-fuel-debate
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Though newer car engines would not get damaged by it, but what about
>>>> the
>>>> millions of older cars on the road, not to mention what this will do to
>>>> food prices.
>>>
>>> you don't understand it? that implies you don't understand:
>>>
>>> 1. how the agribusiness lobby wouldn't get richer.
>>> 2. how the politicians wouldn't benefit from the agribusiness vote
>>> 3. how the auto industry wouldn't benefit from selling you a new car
>>> after the old one gets ruined.
>>> 4. how the oil industry wouldn't benefit from selling you taxpayer
>>> subsidized fuel that gives lower mpg's and thus get to sell you more.
>>> 5. how the court's appointees don't from time to time "get reminded" of
>>> how grateful they are to their political appointers.
>>>
>>> all these interests balanced against those of the schlub on the sofa
>>> watching american idol, eating cheetos and scratching his ass? yeah,
>>> the supremes are all about looking after you on this one buddy.
>>>

>> That's way too cynical even from you, Jim. ;-)
>>

> Agribusiness lobby will not get righer. Corn growers and processors
> probably will but, the season here (ND) was so late it maybe that all
> the folks with corn may not get a good crop--we put in beans.
>
> Rick


when i say "agribusiness", i mean the traders. those guys own the
market, and they make big bucks whatever way the market goes. and if
they can sell high priced corn from a poor crop into the ethanol
industry, which they also substantially own, with taxpayer subsidy, they
get even richer.

bottom line, burning food is either an act of war where you want to
starve your enemy, or it's a symptom of complete retardation. when
grain reserves are at their lowest since ww2, and when it's done by
government mandate, and when their actions are egged on by traders, most
of whom are really smart people, you really have to wonder whether some
kind of war isn't the actual objective. the british ruthlessly
exploited the irish potato famine for example.


--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 26 Jun 2013, 12:49 am
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: US Supreme Court rejects challenges to increased ethanol use

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:47:23 -0700, cameo <cameo@unreal.invalid>
wrote:

>I don't understand how the Supremes could put aside all the rational
>arguments against EPA's push for E15:


Increased alcohol use by SCOTUS justices would explain it nicely.

J.


Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The All American Rejects Custom Civic Si skylight Honda Civic Pictures 0 15 May 2009 09:40 pm
Noteworthy News: Supreme Master TV-Episode 666 skylight Honda Videos 0 07 Nov 2008 10:00 am
SEMA: All-American Rejects skylight Honda Videos 0 27 Feb 2008 07:20 am
what type of oil would be best for a 99 civic si. basic, plus, supreme? Hong V Honda Technical 1 05 Nov 2007 01:09 pm
Chevron Supreme 5w20 Robert Honda 3 3 14 Dec 2003 01:33 am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.