AAA: E15 could really fark up your car, void warranties

Page 6 of 7  
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:46:24 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

No one accused you of having a brain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's because the stupid troll just changed his email addy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:52:37 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

You to liars should get a room. If either of you had half a brain you'd figure out that it's two different systems, this one having been used continuously for at least a month before a couple of weeks ago.
But neither of you are smart enough to make a decent filter. It's really not surprising that you're having trouble.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:44:49 -0500, krw wrote:

2 = two Idiot!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tupo, bitch.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, it is an idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:36:46 -0600, " Attila Iskander"

You really do need help.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

All kinds of useless shit Try Solyndra and all the other companies that got Obama largesse only to go bankrupt

And ? But Obama has continued them Oh wait, it doesn't matter that he let it continue since you can blame Bush for starting it.

Maybe to you But let's have some fun and do tell us why it was "clearly unnecessary" (this should get us a repeat of all the horshit that has been previously debunked)

That was a waste as well, that Obama should have stopped Oh wait, it doesn't matter that he let it continue since you can blame Bush for starting it.

Not so sure about that Government Motors is struggling

What "tax cuts for the wealthy" Are you stupid, ignorant or dishonest ? The LIE about "tax cuts for the wealthy" in fact were tax cuts were for ALL, except that 47% that doesn't pay income taxes. So by your claim the Middle Class is part of the 'wealthy" ? (pinky lies are so telling)

Just about all, one way or another Unless naturally, you're just looking for ANY reason to excuse him for abyssal non-performance. (which we know is the case)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TinyURL was created! The following URL: http://www.policymic.com/articles/15723 / obama-and-the-national-debt-president-mi sleads-public-on-his-role-in-exploding-t he-national-debt
has a length of 136 characters and resulted in the following TinyURL which has a length of 26 characters: http://tinyurl.com/cn63j3r [Open in new window]
Not surprisingly, President Obama is blaming the Bush administration for the debt racked up under his own presidency. Recently, on 60 Minutes, the president was asked to respond to critics who point out that the debt has gone up $5.2 trillion since he took office. In response, Obama claimed: "Over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren't paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren't paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush." Fact checkers from the Washington Post, Factcheck.org, and Politifact.com all agreed these claims are simply false. Obama's assertion is based upon a Congressional Budget Office projection from January of 2001. The CBO had projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses from 2001-2011. As is so often the case, the government agency grossly overestimated revenue and underestimated costs. By 2002, the CBO was projecting a surplus of $313 billion. Instead, there was a deficit of $158 billion, a net change of $471 billion. Considering the 2001 CBO projection was so wildly off just a year later, it is striking how often it is cited by Obama and his allies. So why was the CBO's 2001 projection so horrendously misguided? When the CBO put out their budget projection in 2002, they explained, "[I]nvestment plunged beginning late 2000. A sharp drop in profit margins, probably tied to excess capacity stemming from over-optimism ... worsened that fall ... the contraction in the share of GDP claimed by corporate profits is expected to be one of the worst since World War II." The economy entered a recession in mid-2001; then came September 11, 2001. "Investors, consumers, and businesses lost confidence. As a result, stock prices fell, consumers bought less, and firms sharply reduced orders for new equipment. Lower demand in turn led business to reduce their workforces." Also, "[C]apital gains realizations in calendar year 2001 fell by nearly 20%." Corporate tax receipts fell from 2.1% of GDP in 2000 to 1.7% in 2001, and were projected to fall to 1.5% by 2002. The CBO also grossly underestimated outlays in their 2001 projection. As a result of the recession and September 11, spending increased significantly. By 2002, the CBO was projecting unemployment compensation to soar 67%, and those on food stamps to increase 19%. Of course, there was also the war in Afghanistan. Authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan was bi-partisan and virtually unanimous. As we are all too aware, that $5.6 trillion in surpluses never materialized. The increased spending, tax cuts, wars, economic downturn, interest payments, and September 11 all contributed. As indicated above, we have added $5.2 trillion to the national debt since Obama took office. For the president's claim to be accurate, only $520 billion of that amount would be attributable to his policies. Obama attributes all of the war spending to Bush. Since taking office, President Obama has actually increased spending on the war in Afghanistan, sending more troops to the country.Spending in Afghanistan went from $38 billion in 2009 to $87 billion in 2010 and $98 billion in 2011. Obama requested $115 billion for both wars in 2012. "The cost from 2010 to 2012 is more than $400 billion, excluding interest." Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone in January of 2011, and cut payroll taxes, reducing projected revenues by nearly $800 billion. He also proposes to continue the Bush/Obama tax cuts for everyone making less than $250,000 in 2013. The Recovery Act cost $800 billion through 2011, and his health care reform actually increased funding for Medicare Part D, closing the "doughnut hole." In these measures alone, Obama's policies account for more than $2 trillion in deficit spending. Meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts reduced expected revenues by an estimated $369 billion from 2009 to 2010. Medicare Part D cost $150 billion from 2009 to 2011. Secondary to the recession, "economic and technical changes" accounted for $1.96 trillion in reduced revenue from 2009 to 2011. As such, Bush's policies amounted to a total of $519 billion (reduced tax revenue + Medicare Part D) in added deficit spending, together with some portion of the Iraq war spending, which was essentially wound down by the time Obama took office. In his claim, Obama had the 10% part right. However, that 10% was more properly attributed to his predecessor's role in creating the deficits from 2009-2012. The remainder is attributable to Obama's policies (~40%), the recession (~40%), and other (~10%). Similarly, the president's claim that federal government grew at a slower pace than at any time since the Eisenhower administration has been widely debunked. The Washington Post, Associated Press, and Factcheck.org all agreed the statement is patently false.
.
Stormin Mormon wrote:

On what? The wars were not started by Obama and the one in Iraq was clearly unnecessary. TARP, for better or worse (and was probably necessary) was signed by Bush. Auto bailout was Obama but has been or is being repaid. Tax cuts for the wealthy was Bush and the GOP forced Obama to continue them lest they shut the government down. So what part of the 6 tril was a choice made by Obama?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's the Obama party line. Behave irresponsibly, and blame every one except yourself.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:

Caused almost entirely by the Bush recession.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Can you provide such documentation?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, tell me. When was the last time I watched Fox news?
Since you're telling me about myself, be specific.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Stormin Mormon wrote:

You watch FOX "news", and know nothing about the real world. It is well documented the Fox viewers are wrong more than people that don't watch any news.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 30, 3:00pm, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

How about the starving children, dying in Africa? Is that a good enough reason? Diversion of crops to ethanol has tripled the price of grains. That hits everyone from those struggling in this country who buy corn flakes, to those hungry children in Africa. Don't forget to factor in that increased cost in corn flakes, beef, bread, and lives lost.
As for the good hard-working American farmers, sounds like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting. A lot of the farmers producing the bulk of the ethanol crops and making money off it better fit the profile of the 1% that the libs hate. Meaning they are multi-millionaires and/or large corporations that are profiting.


That's a new and crazy concept. Last time I checked, it's not conservatives that want to punish success.


Nonsense. A system of low tax rates and less govt benefits EVERYONE.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the pockets of good hard-working patriotic American farmers, so I don't know why people get so hot over it...

For once, we are in violent agreement. Corn based ethanol is a disaster. We are burning food.
If it becomes cost efficient to get ethanol from cellulose, that's another story. But we ain't there yet. The only positive thing about ethanol in gasoline is that it is not as bad as the alternative: MTBE.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
History repeats. A couple generations ago, we used to call MTBE gasoline "ethyl".
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote:
Corn based ethanol is a disaster. We are burning food.
If it becomes cost efficient to get ethanol from cellulose, that's another story. But we ain't there yet. The only positive thing about ethanol in gasoline is that it is not as bad as the alternative: MTBE.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. "Ethyl" is short for tetraethyl lead, an additive to used to increase the octane of gasoline. MTBE is an acronym for methyl tertiary butyl ether, an additive used make gasoline burn cleaner.
Ethanol is the other additive allowed for cleaner burning. It has the side effect of increasing octane slightly, 2-3 point at the 10% level.
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Douglas Johnson wrote:

But it's good for Archers Danial Midland and that's what matters. They give a lot of money to Republicans in Congress to keep the Ethanol scam and HFCS scams going strong.
The biggest finger the U.S. gave to the Arab oil sheiks is what happened during the Obama administration. Higher fuel economy standards, huge increases in oil drilling and domestic oil production, and the Iran nuclear deal. All of these are bringing down the price of oil because of increased supply and decreased demand, though the declining price is hurting Russia, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela a lot more than the Arab oil sheiks. Goldman is predicting that oil prices will hover at around $50 for decades, and may fall to $20 for a short time to clear out some of the present glut.
I never understood how lower prices could clear out a glut. Other than countries filling strategic oil reserves, to clear out a glut someone has to stop pumping so much. People aren't going to rush out to buy 15MPG vehicles just because oil prices are lower than what they've been.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/19/2015 4:40 PM, sms wrote:

Surely you jest? Look at how many people buy "half cars" (we call them pickup trucks :> ) despite the fact that they are no cheaper than "whole cars" and will typically NOT be used *as* trucks (to haul things).
Our 2003 model vehicle got better gas mileage than our 2016 model. Because fuel costs are low enough that SWMBO could rationalize one set of "requirements" over the previous set (fuel efficiency).
Folks still buy Hummers. I've never seen any one used as a light utility vehicle!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 09/19/2015 6:40 PM, sms wrote: ...

Nonsense. Check the mercantile markets...corn closed yesterday CBOT under US$3.80. ...

More nonsense...most of the corn converted to ethanol is being grown specifically for the purpose.
...

Checked out the employment figures and rig count in US oil patch recently????
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per dpb:

But wouldn't that be taking land out of production for food-type crops ?
--
Pete Cresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.