AZGrizFan wrote:mainejeff wrote:
No f*cking way! I'm just on the Dem side because Republicans want to control who you sleep with, who you worship, and could care less about the environment. Too bad that they made their bed with religious freaks and anarchists.
Then you should be on the Libertarian side.
Probably very little - the ethanol plants are usually based close to the fields. Much cheaper to ship the ethanol than the corn.GannonFan wrote:dbackjon wrote:
Transporting heavy bulk goods, like coal, grain, etc downstream is much cheaper via barge. You have a huge number of barges steered by one tug boat - on the loaded downstream trip, the river current does most of the work - the tug is needed for steering, and a little push in slack water segments
Hey, how much of this corn is going to feed the demand for corn based ethanol?
89Hen wrote:When did everyone become experts in transportation and the economies of rural Kentucky (redundant) and Illinois?
That was the old me. This is the new slimmer, trimmer me.Cap'n Cat wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Then you should be on the Libertarian side.
And be a Conk in disguise like you, Ron, Jr.????
I don't have the time or inclination to be a sheep.Baldy wrote:mainejeff wrote:
No f*cking way! I'm just on the Dem side because Republicans want to control who you sleep with, who you worship, and could care less about the environment. Too bad that they made their bed with religious freaks and anarchists.
You're not fooling anyone, geoffrey. You are a Donk because you're one of the sheep.
mainejeff wrote:I don't have the time or inclination to be a sheep.Baldy wrote:
You're not fooling anyone, geoffrey. You are a Donk because you're one of the sheep.
D1B wrote:mainejeff wrote:
I don't have the time or inclination to be a sheep.
Badly is the worst conk cum slurper. Shit, he doesn't even make an effort to editorialize Rush Limpdick. His post are word for word Limpdickian drivel.
What thread are you reading, Limpdick? Crushed him, again.Baldy wrote:D1B wrote:
Badly is the worst conk cum slurper. Shit, he doesn't even make an effort to editorialize Rush Limpdick. His post are word for word Limpdickian drivel.
Awww....isn't that special. geoffrey #2 coming to the aid of geoffrey #1.
After seeing JJ gape your ass (again) on the other thread, you might need to focus your attention over there.
But I understand.
DSUrocks07 wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
Then you should be on the Libertarian side.
They fear us, for we are rising up.
Conservatism cannot survive a libertarian takeover
Libertarian-leaning bloggers routinely lambast full-spectrum conservatives as “pro-life statists” – with one term a slur and the other merely a condescending shrug. They’re not motivated by two-thirds of the cause that animated the Reagan coalition.
Too many advance a one-note kazoo song instead of a broad-spectrum philosophy and are animated more by intra-party guerilla purges than building plausible strategies to beat Democrats.
This turn is perhaps most ironic for moderate establishment Republicans. Those elites for years turned up their noses at those of us who are social conservatives, pouting at the lack of candidates who talked only about fiscal matters and kept divisive social matters locked in the policy closet. Now they have what they said they wanted – but they may like this new animal a lot less than they liked the Reagan conservatives who dominated primaries for the thirty years
I have more respect for Christie than all the other "pro-life statists" that are out therekalm wrote:DSUrocks07 wrote:
They fear us, for we are rising up.
Conservatism cannot survive a libertarian takeover
Libertarian-leaning bloggers routinely lambast full-spectrum conservatives as “pro-life statists” – with one term a slur and the other merely a condescending shrug. They’re not motivated by two-thirds of the cause that animated the Reagan coalition.
Too many advance a one-note kazoo song instead of a broad-spectrum philosophy and are animated more by intra-party guerilla purges than building plausible strategies to beat Democrats.
This turn is perhaps most ironic for moderate establishment Republicans. Those elites for years turned up their noses at those of us who are social conservatives, pouting at the lack of candidates who talked only about fiscal matters and kept divisive social matters locked in the policy closet. Now they have what they said they wanted – but they may like this new animal a lot less than they liked the Reagan conservatives who dominated primaries for the thirty years
So you're not going to vote for Christie are ya DSU?
Gotcha.DSUrocks07 wrote:I have more respect for Christie than all the other "pro-life statists" that are out therekalm wrote:
So you're not going to vote for Christie are ya DSU?
I'm a realist, a so-called "libertarian utopia" won't happen overnight, but if Christie can prove to me that he can get this country back on the right track toward fiscal responsibility then I will support him. That's what the primaries are for.
Still, one source just replaces the other - this corn is filling the food void left by the corn that gets sucked into the ethanol mandate.dbackjon wrote:Probably very little - the ethanol plants are usually based close to the fields. Much cheaper to ship the ethanol than the corn.GannonFan wrote:
Hey, how much of this corn is going to feed the demand for corn based ethanol?
Another government stimulus that only drives up the cost of corn and has little, almost negligible impact on oil consumption as a whole.GannonFan wrote:Still, one source just replaces the other - this corn is filling the food void left by the corn that gets sucked into the ethanol mandate.dbackjon wrote:
Probably very little - the ethanol plants are usually based close to the fields. Much cheaper to ship the ethanol than the corn.
