Posted on 10/03/2007 1:31:04 PM PDT by Plutarch
NEVADA, Iowa - Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.
Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process.
Meeting with reporters, Thompson acknowledged that he had switched his position on subsidies for ethanol.
"I have voted against subsidies in the Senate," said Thompson. "But I think it's a matter now of national security and we've got to avail ourselves of a lot of different resources, and I think renewable has to be a part of that picture."
Carrie Giddins, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, was quick to point out that Thompson opposed such subsidies as a senator....
Who told you there was a free-market in the energy sector...?
Nucluer power and transportation fuels are at opposite ends of the energy market...for the better part. Unless one tries to correlate electrical vehicles in that equation.
With all fields filled with corn crops all food prices go up. Chicken, eggs, etc.
This proves that CFR member Thompson's successful candidacy would only delay the final demise of our country into third world status.
Do you understand that hydrogen is not an energy source, but only a energy storage medium? To produce hydrogen for fuel, it requires using some other energy source first.
Is it your opinion that you never ever change positions? That you remain the same, even in the face of new information?
Now I’m not saying I know the full context of what he’s saying, but the energy sector is a sticky area...not to be rigid upon.
Do you understand to produce gasoline for fuel, it requires using other energy first?
No he backs wasting taxpayer money to get a few more votes.
To produce gasoline, it requires consuming about 6~10% of the energy contained in the fuel. To produce hydrogen it takes 120~150% of the energy contained in the fuel. A very significant difference.
“However, just to be safe I’d like to hear the entire context.”
Don’t expect that from some of the Rats on board...willing eat anything.
haha...shows you how silly people get.
We should be looking to safe nuclear energy and the increased use of electricity.
Pebble bed reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
Hey, I’ve changed my mind. I found out Les Paul’s raised 5 billion bucks to be President in another thread....
Do you understand to produce gasoline for fuel, it requires using other energy first?
Yes, because they want their candidate to gain points...by hating on others. Isn’t quite the way to win, but that’s what they do. 8/10 times the context is bad or it’s completely wrong.
Although none of the candidates are right on everything...and I believe we can all point things out. Then again, even our vision of perfection is debateable among each other.
Say, Hack -- how about a ''dead pool'' on the number of ethanol distilleries that either close their doors or are cancelled during construction? Beginning about next July, I should think. Just one number to guess every month.
(Hmmmm...now where can we get definitive data on closings/abandonments...?)
This was something that was found when responding to another thread (Forbes Ratings). Notice that no candidate is a perfect 50, even those who people claim are the 'UberConservatives'
Ron Paul
Fred Thompson
Duncan Hunter
Tom Tancredo
Source: http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/01/election-candidates-politics-oped-cz_gm_1002thompson.html
“I am beginning to think that half the people out there believe that the CFR is what they read in the old None Dare Call it Conspiracy or Robertson’s New World Order.”
There’s tons of Ron Paul wackoos out there. I’m not particularly against Ron Paul domestically, but he does tend to have very weird foreign policy views...and his followers tend to have this weird view of the world.
Some other candidates also use the CFR attack, and are quite silly. It’s a glorified debate group...nothing to fuss over.
It’s weird how liberal in thinking people get, when being conservative SHOULD mean you’re prudent in making changes where things work. That should definitely be considered when making choses in personal opinion. That’s one of the reasons I don’t hack away at Duncan, Tom, etc...because while my opinions may differ to some degree, I don’t view them as the enemy. Rudy...yes. Hillary...yes.
Small differences occurred durning our founding, and they worked through. We can work through those differences...now. If we make small problems...big problems...then the Democrats will win against us...like they did with Perot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.