Comments for Sovereignty Blog

Comment on IT'S GOOD TO BE ANGLOSPHERED: by Sovereignty Blog » THERE IS NO BRITAIN:

Sovereignty Blog » THERE IS NO BRITAIN: — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:12:04 +0000

[...] It’s hardly a purely economic question, but from an economic perspective there is no question that an island people who were colonized by the Brits will succeed on their own and smallness is a huge boon. [...]

Comment on IT'S ONLY IN THE MIDDLE EAST WE DENY MAJORITIES SUCH DEALS: by erp

erp — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:56:12 +0000

A model for more Moslem terrorism is more likely.

Comment on RIGHT AND TRUE (via Mike Daley): by » Blog Archive » government against Native Americans. He also wonders why

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 10:01:26 +0000

[...] Sovereignty Blog ” 2005 ” October … United States should avoid inflammatory rhetoric such as the war on terror. … a minor cultural victory against the United States yesterday when the UN’s … [...]

Comment on HOMECOMING by jim hamlen

jim hamlen — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:08:36 +0000

Stephen:

Thank you for your part in the BJB!

Comment on THOSE WACKY LEFTIES: by taoist

taoist — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:42:39 +0000

I don’t think that there’s no other option but gasoline. In fact, I favor the development of alternate energies and more efficient technologies, both of which I think are pretty cool developments. I do, however, think that it’s misleading and backwards to claim that a heavily subsidized fuel source is an advancement just because it’s not a fossil fuel. Especially when gasoline prices are also artificially high because we haven’t drilled or opened any new processing plants in the past 30 years. We’ve been taxing our entire economy with a tax that benefits no one.

Comment on THOSE WACKY LEFTIES: by Mike Earl

Mike Earl — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:26:37 +0000

JD:

Because the CO2 released was first pulled from the atmosphere when you grew the corn in the first place. The net CO2 production is nill (unless you burned a lot of fossil fuels to grow the ethanol source, and it’s all a big boondoogle, which I suppose is possible, but I’m pretty sure it’s still a net win).

Comment on THOSE WACKY LEFTIES: by jd watson

jd watson — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:23:04 +0000

"Because use of renewable fuels to replace oil and cut emissions of carbon dioxide ..." Will someone please explain how burning something else reduces carbon dioxide emission? (Especially since you must burn more ethanol to have the same energy output as oil.)

Comment on THANKFULLY: by renagle

renagle — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:53 +0000

He gets an award and our brave troops get raked over the coals by his media mates.

Comment on THOSE WACKY LEFTIES: by Mike Earl

Mike Earl — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:15:50 +0000

Brad:

You’re correct that methanol is the typical wood alcohol. However, it is also possible, but more difficult, to make ethanol (from wood or other cellulose); the same technology would work on corn stalks, various grasses, etc. This wasn’t economical until very recently; advances in chemical engineering and biotechnology are close to making it practical today.

Comment on THOSE WACKY LEFTIES: by Brad S

Brad S — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:48 +0000

Maybe I’m being silly, but I always though alcohol from wood
was Methanol. That stuff’s killer toxic and can burn with a
near-invisible flame, as anyone who ever watched the horror of
a CART-series race car fire can attest.