Court’s Ethanol Decision Jeopardizes Historic Vehicles, Specialty Parts

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Court’s Ethanol Decision Jeopardizes Historic Vehicles, Specialty Parts
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 09:27 am:

Thanks to Sam Goforth for bringing this to my attention.

The SEMA Action Network (SAN) Urges Congress to Ban E15. The U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit which challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to permit 15% ethanol (E15) content in gasoline for 2001 and newer model year cars and light trucks. Over a year ago, the EPA raised the amount of ethanol permitted in gasoline from 10% (E10) to 15% (E15). The agency has approved applications to sell the fuel and it may soon appear at a gas station near you.

SAN opposes E15 based on scientific evidence that it causes corrosion with incompatible parts. In light of the court’s decision, the SAN is now seeking passage of congressional legislation (H.R. 3199) that would prevent the EPA from permitting E15 sales until the National Academies has conducted a study on how E15 may impact gas-powered vehicles. The bill has been approved by the U.S. House Science Committee and is pending on the House floor. With little time to address the bill before the fall elections, it is important that lawmakers hear from you on this important issue.

We Urge You to Contact Your Members of Congress to Request Their Support for H.R. 3199
The EPA permits ethanol in gasoline to be increased from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15). Ethanol increases water formation that can then create formic acid and corrode metals, plastics and rubber. Older cars and certain high performance specialty parts are not constructed with corrosion-resistant materials or able to tolerate the higher temperatures at which E15 may burn.

The EPA has acknowledged the dangers and made it “illegal” to put E15 in pre-2001 vehicles. However, the EPA is willing to risk destruction of the vehicle/parts by relying solely on a gas pump label cautioning motorists not to misfuel their older vehicles. The EPA estimates that there are 74 million such vehicles in harm’s way, along with millions more boats, lawnmowers and other gas-powered engine products.

Many auto enthusiasts have complained for years about damage caused by E10, which is now in over 90% of gas sold in the U.S. For example, corrosion has time to damage the engine, fuel line, fuel tank and exhaust systems when classic cars are infrequently driven. E15 increases the risk of corrosion by 50 percent.
The EPA permitted the sale of E15 before there was conclusive information with respect to materials compatibility, tailpipe emissions and fuel efficiency.

H.R. 3199 would stop the sale of E15 until the National Academies has conducted a study on how gasoline blended with 15 to 20% ethanol may impact gas-powered vehicles.
DON’T DELAY! Contact your members of Congress immediately by phone or e-mail to request their support of HR 3199.

To identify your federal Representative and Senators in the U.S. Congress, click here: http://semasan.com/lookup.asp?g=semaga
Please e-mail a copy of your e-mail to Stuart Gosswein at stuartg@sema.org. Also, please forward this Alert to your fellow car enthusiasts. Urge them to join the SAN and help defend the hobby! Thank you for your assistance.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:02 am:

What chance does this have in the do-nothing US CONgress?

In favor of limiting ethanol:

SEMA and a relative handful of collector car people.

"Tax takers" who don't buy and can't afford new cars.

------
Against limiting ethanol:

Big Ag, and the likes of Dow and Monsanto.

New car makers. The biggest competition for a new Toyota is an old Toyota.
----

I don't know where Big Oil stands on this; they profit either way, but probably get their share of ethanol subsidies.

Now, if there were a bill to kill the ethanol subsidies that were started under the Bu$h Admin, that would be better.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:05 am:

Instead of being an ass Ralph, why not try and help fix the problem?

Write a letter to your congressman, your senator, and pass this along to the editor of your local T club newsletter, if indeed you belong to one.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dick Lodge - St Louis MO on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:16 am:

Royce, I do believe in communicating with my congressman because I have read that they keep close track of constituent letters, e-mails, phone calls, etc. Unfortunately, my congressman is Todd Akin and he's pretty preoccupied with other things these days....


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:29 am:

Killing ethanol subsidies will fix the problem, Royce.

"The SEMA Action Network (SAN) Urges Congress to Ban E15. The U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit which challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to permit 15% ethanol (E15)..."

Permit is not "require". Ethanol would cost more without subsidies, and then it wouldn't be used at all, and we can save all that welfare (subsidy) money going to Big Ag.

CONgress is already in the middle of this, legislating technical solutions, requiring that 30% of corn be used for ethanol. Look what, the corn crop is down about 30% this year. We're all gonna' pay more for groceries.

I won't pass your statement along, because it is not the fix needed.

I'll accept your apology, Royce.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jay - In Northern California on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:40 am:

As far as I see it the EPA is a environ-nazi organization hell bent on stamping out all fossil fuel use in America and returning us to the stone age. This is especially true under the current wacko far far left administration!!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 11:24 am:

Ralph

'ethanol subsidies that were started under the Bu$h Admin'

The voting in Congress in 2007 was Democrat majority, Republicans didn't have enough members to stop it, although they tried. Don't blame Pres. Bush for ethanol subs.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the most significant energy legislation in a generation, was signed into law in December 2007. That law included the first congressional increase in vehicle fuel efficiency standards in more than three decades, improved energy efficiency, promoted the use of renewable energy, and increased investment in transportation alternatives.

Since the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Democratic Congress has repeatedly voted to increase the use of renewable energy, increase efficiency and conservation, end speculation, restore fair payments from oil companies, and on other measures to increase supply and transition the country to a cleaner energy future. These bills have been opposed by Republicans in either the House or the Senate


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 12:42 pm:

Thanks, Dan. Which Prez signed it? What's your source of that?

I don't see ethanol mentioned there. In fact, as Royce and others have seen, it decreases efficiency. The ethanol industry got big well before 2007, based on subsidies, while Bush's war was destroying the Iraq oil output.
--------------------
from wiki:
The United States became the world's largest producer of ethanol fuel in 2005...

The steep growth in twenty-first century ethanol consumption was driven by federal legislation aimed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 required use of 7.5×10^9 US gal (28×10^6 m3) of renewable fuel by 2012, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raised the standard, to 36×10^9 US gal (140×10^6 m3) of annual renewable fuel use by 2022.
-----------------------------
CONgress should be legislating as you quoted above, while not being too specific. Obama is wrong to push for something as specific as electric cars. Instead, he should be talking about greater efficiency, conservation and renewables.

President Kennedy set the goal of sending a man to the moon, not how to do it, nor what fuel to use.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Cole ---- Earth on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 03:40 pm:

Corn is for eating,the squezzens are for drinking.
Lets burn the dino drippings.We have plenty in North Dakota if our so called leader would let the pipeline happen to employee 1000's of our neighbors.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 04:40 pm:

Uh, how many people are employed on pipelines? Are they pumping that sludge by hand?

That pipeline is for getting tar sand sludge from Alberta to the closest port for shipping to the ChiComs. That stuff has to be heated, or dissolved in a solvent to flow. Then the solvent has to be extracted and sent back to the source in a second pipeline for re-use. It's pretty ugly.

Canada should build their own refineries and ship finished product.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Craig Anderson, central Wisconsin on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 05:05 pm:

On the contrary.
Canada is the major provider of imported crude.
WE (the U.S.), like dummies, are EXPORTING oil!
Canada provides more of our imported oil than any other country...... :-) ........followed by Mexico.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_a.htm


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael Thomas on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 09:46 pm:

Doesn't South America and Brazil in particular, produce a lot of ethanol and burn it in their cars? Don't they drive a lot of American and European made cars? Funny how we don't hear of all these problems down there. They must be keeping it a secret.

During WWII didn't people burn alcohol in their cars, even using wood alcohol? I am a firm believer in scientific research, but sometimes history tells a more honest story...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Cole ---- Earth on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:04 pm:

Ricks,I cant quote numbers,but I know folkes from around here went and worked on the Alaska pipeline and came home when it was done and lived well.Good money was made by alot of folkes then.
It takes man power to build them.
But I will aggree 100% Canada has the option,as we do,to build refineries which would also mean jobs.

Moonshine burns well in a car.But from what I heard Grandpal tell me,it could burn up a engine.
Didnt they march in Brazil a few years back because they couldnt afford corn to eat because it was all going for fuel?
The stuff left from makeing alcohol can be made into cow feed,but I dont know about human food.Anyone know?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Bohlen, Severn MD on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 10:25 pm:

Mack,

Most of the ethanol in Brazil comes from sugar cane, or so I have been lend to believe. The sugar cane yields a greater amount of alcohol than corn pound for pound.

Larry


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mack Cole ---- Earth on Sunday, August 26, 2012 - 11:23 pm:

Well,Maby they need to look at doing that here to then.Sugar cane can make good molassas but we could burn it to!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Fred Schrope - Upland, IN on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 12:26 pm:

Few people seem to realize that this country is running out of farm ground. Forty years ago or even less, the government paid you to not put crops out. Now it seems that every thing is farmed - even small lots. Yesterday, I saw a guy making hay in a woods. It wasn't good hay, but with the drought and the high prices, someone's horse will eat better.
Before Ralph jumps in here to condemn farm subsidies, I'll just say that I, and all the other farmers that I know, don't want them. The politicians cram them down our throats. They are typical politicians, they want to have us under their thumb.
Mack said it right - corn is for eatin' or feeding livestock for us to eat. It is stupid to make ethanol to run a car on. Stupid.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 02:30 pm:

Yes, Fred, it's been on 60' and other shows that the small farmer isn't getting the subsidies; it's the big corporates that are getting the big welfare payments, except for the 10 acre estates in Texas that get cotton subsidies, even though they don't grow cotton.

Cotton is the worst subsidy of all. We don't use that cotton in American mills anymore. US cotton is sold on the world market, where our subsidies depress the world price, making it more difficult for people like the Egyptians to make a living.

Not only that, cotton is sucking up the Ogalalla Aquifer, and much of California's precious water at subsidized prices.

rdr


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Royce in Dallas TX on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 03:23 pm:

All of the ethanol in Brazil is made from labor provided by peasants. It does not make economic sense there either, and if you ever spend any time in Brazil you know that all the cars older than 10 years or so are already off the road, ruined by peasants trying to operate their cheap transportation on "cheap" E85.

Ten years ago in Sau Paulo you could have seen lots of blue smoking, poor running cars from the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. Now you don't.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Danial - Veneta OR US Earth Solar System on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 03:27 pm:

Sol what is the Messiah doing to kill the ethanol subsidy?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Max L. Christenson on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 03:56 pm:

Cut the adjective-laced B.S., Royce urges your support of H.R. 3199, a copy of which is attached hereto as an attachment.

application/pdfhr 3199
hr 3199 -- BILLS-112hr3199ih.pdf (132.9 k)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 03:57 pm:

Those who have pledged to Grover Norquist's "No New or Increased Taxes" argued earlier this year that removal of subsidies for big oil was a new tax. Same would go for removal of any farm subsidy.

If a CONgressman reneges on his pledge to Grover Norquist, he faces a mighty onslaught in his next primary. In that way, the Norquist pledge is stronger than a CONgressman's pledge to uphold and defend the Constitution.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Danial - Veneta OR US Earth Solar System on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 04:02 pm:

Was that the removal of all subsidies or just the ethanol subsidy? The thrust of your argument changes depending on the context of your assertion. Be clear.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jim Kelsey on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 04:54 pm:

Kind-of off topic, but piggy-backing on what Fred said, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) came with the farm bill of 1985. I know because I was there working on my parent's dryland wheat farm in eastern Washington. As I recall, the objective of it was twofold: 1) to take the ground out of production that had minimal yields and to return the ground to it's "native state:" 2) there was too much wheat in production and it was saturating the market. Many of the world-producing nations do not have the same stringent OSHA requirements that our US farmers must adhere to. That drives the costs up for our farmers and with the wheat prices so low in 1985, it was to the point that the farmers were not breaking even (as an aside, the price of wheat in 1940 was $2.00 a bushel;in 1985 it hovered around the $3.00 mark)

Though the idea was good, it met with a myriad of problems. Counties had different rules on what farmers could and could not plant, how they could plant the new seed, if sprays and fertilizers could be used, if they could touch the ground after planting, etc. The contracts were for ten years. My parents had ground in both Adams and Franklin counties and, due to the restrictive rules, the CRP in Adams county was quickly laden with non-native, invasive weeds, like Russian thistle, cheat grass, and skeleton weed. When Al Gore was running for president and threatening to permanently leave all of the CRP ground in its current state if he was elected, my parents pulled out.

I don't know if we're running out of farm ground, but we have lost a LOT of good ground to due improper urban planning and development. I live in Puyallup now and it's a travesty to see the rich farm land in the valley being steadily built upon. It seems like it's all about those immediate tax revenues and not about how we will feed ourselves some twenty years from now.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Max L. Christenson on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:01 pm:

To Ricks -- Surf City -- Bottom line is Obama says YOUR earnings (as well as those of any other individual or entity) do NOT belong to the person or entity that produced those earnings. Therefore, under Obama's way of thinking, anything that is a tax deduction is regarded as SPENDING by the U.S. Government: therefore, under Obama's way of thinking, taxes paid by an individual or entity to the U.S. Government are INVESTMENTS. Depending upon your point of view, tax "deductions" can be viewed as "subsidies" (SPENDING), IF you regard YOUR earnings as NOT being yours to begin with (As Obama does). Are your earnings YOURS? Under Obama's way of thinking, YOUR earning are NOT yours, because "Y0U DIDN'T BUILD" that. Obams's way of thinking is totally F---ed. Got it? Therefore, you train of thought is totally F---ed. Got it?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Vince M on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:19 pm:

Perfectly put Max.

Vince


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Max L. Christenson on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:25 pm:

Thank you, Vince.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:25 pm:

Jim, I have long lamented that we take the best farmland in the world and put houses on it. There's probably not a single orange grove left in Orange County. Like Will Rogers said about land, "They're not making any more of it."

--------------

There you go, Max, quoting out of context. Look at Obama's whole statement, which you won't find on Fox Noise. He was talking about infrastructure, like roads, utilities, etc. He used "That" instead of "Those", which he meant. "You didn't build those" is true.

No, you cannot build a business without the infrastructure we have, including police and fire protection. Without government, this would be a country of barbarians. Maybe that's what you want?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dick Lodge - St Louis MO on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 05:27 pm:


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Monday, August 27, 2012 - 06:18 pm:

Well, I have found some even in my family, if your folks were far left, the off spring don't have a chance to think for them selves, and what Cinchs it is, if you watch CNN, MSNBC, Ect., as they Lie to you, and some people eat it up, and never find out the truth.

Cool, Max, you are over flowing with facts, and common sense.

Royce, I will call in tomorrow, thanks for bring it to our attention! Herm.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dave Hjortnaes, Men Falls, WI on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 12:22 am:

I find it so hilarious that Romney/Ryan are going to pay for a 16 trillion dollar deficit with an across the board tax cut.

I wonder what they are smoking down in Tampa?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 01:02 am:

It would be Funny, if that is the way it was, the Tax cuts are not going to pay for the Deficit, directly, but indirectly. The tax cuts will jump start the tax flow.

Drill our own oil Ect.

The real bucks will come from getting rid of government agencies that over lap each other, and thousandths of rules, and regulations.

There are a thousand things, like fair trade with china.

Some body is watching to much CNN!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ricks - Surf City on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 01:08 am:

Speaking of Tampon, Florida:

George W. Bush as Hurricane Isaac

There is nothing Republicans would rather the American people forget more than George W. Bush, who doesn’t even have a bit-part at the GOP convention opening in Tampa.

But W’s ghost may be there, anyway.

The National Weather Service says tropical storm Isaac is now heading for New Orleans, and Isaac is projected to become a Category 1 hurricane by the time it makes landfall late Monday or early Tuesday.

Isaac is very likely to revive memories of the Bush administration’s monumental incompetence in dealing with the needs of Americans caught in Hurricane Katrina.

And if the public remembers the Bush administration’s incompetence with Katrina, they may also recall the Bush administration’s incompetence and its lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — which led us into that devastating war.

And the public may recall how George W. Bush took the $5 billion surplus Bill Clinton bequeathed to him and turned it into a $6 trillion budget deficit by slashing taxes, mostly on the rich, and by creating an expensive new Medicare drug benefit that helped drug companies more than it helped seniors.

The public might even recall how the Bush administration tried not to see what Wall Street was up to when the Street went on a rampage of risky bets, and then, when Wall Street was about to melt down, pushed Congress into approving a no-strings bailout — both of which cost the nation billions more.

Indeed, we’re still living with George W. Bush’s legacy — the last Republican to occupy the White House — which is a truth that Romney is desperate to put out of our minds. He wants to blame the bad economy, and most of everything else, on Obama.

The GOP was intent on not even bringing up Bush’s name at the GOP convention, because the former president might also remind Americans how little the Republicans care about average Americans, like those caught in Hurricane Katrina, and how much they care about top corporate and Wall Street executives, like those being entertained in Tampa.

But Hurricane Isaac seems likely to remind Americans anyway.

Let us hope and pray Isaac doesn’t cause the disaster of Katrina. We can at least be confident that the Obama administration will respond as the Bush administration didn't...

R. Reich, 27 Aug '12


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Danial - Veneta OR US Earth Solar System on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 01:59 am:

I'm still wondering what the Messiah is doing to repeal the dreaded ethanol decision made by your apparent arch enemy, Bush.

You saw fit to point out it was a Bush mandate. Now please see fit to point out what your hero is doing to repeal it.

Fair is fair. Grin...


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ned Protexter on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:35 am:

Ya Ricks, because Obama helped us so much with all of the flooding last year along the Missouri River and the drought this year. (both natural disasters) Please take your political rants to a political forum.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dick Lodge - St Louis MO on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:03 am:

"To a guy with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Or, "to a guy who hates Bush, everything looks like Bush's fault." What I took from Katrina was confirmation that big, unwieldy federal bureaucracies don't do "quick on their feet" very well (if at all). If the logistics of Katrina had been turned over to Walmart, Lowes and a few other companies, stuff would have been where it was needed when it was needed. Oh, and "Bush didn't care enough to go to New Orleans right away." I always figured he cared enough not to divert necessary law enforcement and other emergency personnel from the task at hand to protect him while he grandstanded off someone else's problems. One thing that will help if Isaac does do a Katrina reply, I think, is Landrieu instead of Nagin and Jindal instead of Blanco.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Luke Dahlinger on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:15 am:

Ricks,

Like Ned said take your political bullshit somewhere else.

Why do you even come to a Model T site to post political crap? It seems to be 98% of what you post.

On the same note your little cutesy pie nicknames for everything aren't funny. It's TAMPA not TAMPON, oh how original.

This is not unlike me calling your town "Shit City instead of Surf City".

This is the kind of BS that drives away active forum posters, and the main reason I don't post here as much as I did in the past.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Jay - In Northern California on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:34 am:

Ralph, I think your deep into the Kool Aid and need to spend less time dialed into the distorted reality the Huffington Post and MoveOn.org pukes out in a steady drum beat. It sounds like you would be happier living in a totally Socialist country rather then AMERICA.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Michael W. Herndon on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 04:26 pm:

Hey!! Wait a minute, Ralph!! I was BORN in Tampa! Ha... Nice to see yall worked up here still!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By James A. Golden on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 08:19 am:

Ralph, Congress is doing something, they are giving away millions every day, but mostly to foreigners.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Rob Heyen - Nebraska on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 08:33 am:

My God, CNN is the great Satan. I should have known, Fox News (not) is the only "true" news station.

What a bunch of crap. I suppose ETV and NPR are left wing propaganda sources too?

I'm done with this thread.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Kohnke Rebabbitting on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 12:49 pm:

It has always amazed me that, some people just can't figure out who is screwing them.!

And it is so easy, but they are blinded buy, I have always done it that way mind set. The truth will set you free!

What Really is a let down, is I have to use my vote to Void somebodies uninformed vote!


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ed in California on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 02:25 pm:

The liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;

satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual,
subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

Dr. Lyle Rossiter,M.D.,
FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIST


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Garrison on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 - 03:35 pm:

I can't believe Robert Scott Owen hasn't been on here chastising You vulgar, Godless people. My God, please forgive them for they have been mislead by other sinful members of your flock. Amen.

Hotdamn I said a pretty damn good prayer there didn't I.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration