Project Wonderful Banner

Monday, July 09, 2012

That damned Substance

What's Mallard raving about today?

EPA, Oil refiners

I don't have time to debunk what is no doubt utter nonsense.

In lieu of that, I'll tell you what, Mallard...how about these poor little oil refiners give up their tax breaks first. Then we can talk about doing away with pesky EPA fines for whatever bug Fox has planted up your cloaca.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I love how the "News" part of "Fox News" in the footnote is basically illegible.

"What's your source on that?"
"Uh, Fox N*cough*cough*."

CW in LA said...

I see *Fox News is his source. That inspires confidence.

Aren't the poor oppressed oil companies still making record profits*? Funny how Brews and his duck don't mention that.


*The internet. Or I heard it someplace.

Frank Stone said...

It's really quite a phenomenal time-saver you've developed there, Mallard: Whenever we see a footnote reading "*Fox News" or "*Townhall.com" or "*Newsmax" or "*Heritage.org", we don't have to spend any time wondering how much of what you're "reporting" is bullshit, because seeing one of those footnotes means pretty much ALL of it is. Way to go, ducky.

NickE said...

(Sigh) Okay, let me help there, Mallard.

1. The mandate was signed into law by G.W. Bush, after being agreed to -- and, with the history of that administration well known, probably written by -- the oil companies.

2. Yes, the substance DOES exist. Despite the huge grants and subsidies sent to the oil companies by Bush, they're not making a lot, but they're making some.

3. Last year the EPA, which has the authority to revise the mandates, reduced the 2011 requirement from 250 million gallons to a 6.6 million, because the oil companies haven't come through on their promises. This year, the EPA is expected to lower the mandate from 500 million gallons to 11.2. So there's no outrage here.

The WSJ (a notorious left-wing publication) has some of the story.

Fox "News" has a version in which the name "Bush" is totally absent (as is most of the truth). Looks like Tinz "researched" as far as the first paragraph, then transcribed the paragraph into some cut-and-paste graphics and called it a day.

Rootbeer said...

Funny, on the Earth that I live on, commercial processes for converting cellulose to ethanol have existed since 1898.

We could debate whether it's financially and ecologically advisable to mandate the substance's inclusion in fuel blends, but that's not the issue we were presented with. Captain Dipshit here has asserted that "cellulosic ethanol" is an imaginary substance, and it indisputably is not.

Kip W [Muffaroo] said...

NickE, my research (and how often do I get to say "my research"?) matches yours. I didn't go so far as to see the Fox distortion of events, but it appears that Mallard simply doesn't understand what happened and thinks that a free market failure represents some kind of horrific scandal.

He is protected by his Cloak of Ignorance, which — appropriately — is powered primarily by ethanol, alternative fuel at its finest.

dlauthor said...

Day Five of "Sorry, I Have A Massive Open Head Wound So I Can't Remember Federal Holidays And Also It Explains My Personality" Watch. Tinshley chooses just to hallucinate, babble incoherently, and vomit on his chest, proving that he's writing what he knows, at least.

At this point, I'm expecting we'll see the "holy shit, July 4!" strip no earlier than the 22nd, but probably not until the actual 25th.

rewinn said...

Key point: the Republican President signed into law a MANDATE that turned out to be commercially impractical, so the Democratic President's EPA cut the mandate to about 2% of the original.

This is a scandal. How DARE the executive not enforce the law!!!

Steve-O said...

At this point Tinsley has devolved into a right wing Facebook poster who just copypastas whatever insane crackpot Fw:Fw:Fw: email he got from his NRA loving drunken uncle.

Steve-O said...

Also, hey look, another awesome "footnote". Instead of citing an actual specific source of information where data can be found supporting your claim, just crap out the name of a right-wing news organization. Super!

You fail Tinsley.
F-

Andrew said...

This might be the most awesome piece of shit Tinsley has come up with.

As others have mentioned, he is completely wrong- not on opinion, but on simple fact. And he can't even justify his ignorance from his source- since the article he's referring to makes it clear it is a real substance, that it only "doesn't exist" in terms of "it isn't being manufactured in the the amounts the EPA requires".

His only potential defense is the fact that the Fox news article is so poorly written that, until about five (one-or-two sentence) paragraphs down, you would never know it's an actual substance. In other words- Bruce failed because Fox News didn't spell out the facts in an easily-digestible way.

They must be sum'a damn elites!

DiR said...

Well, this certainly sounds made-up.
-or-
Spelvin: Unbelievable
Cyril: Yeah, I can be pretty amazing sometimes.
Spelvin: No, I mean I literally don't believe you.

*Archer, E206 'Tragical History'