The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: November 8, 2006

313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Keithster100 on November 8, 2006 - 11:00am

The ads on TV did a good job of portraying the backers as shady backroom profiteers.

I voted no too. Ethanol has enough money and support right now, it doesn't need anymore.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Todd on November 8, 2006 - 11:21am

RR,

I have to disagree with your assessment. As I noted a few days ago, I voted against it (absentee ballot) because it is/was a poorly written proposition that was a neubulous pit of verbiage. I would have voted for it had it been directed toward conservation and buy-downs for AE systems. I wouldn't have cared if the price of gas went up.

Todd

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

313 comments on DrumBeat: November 8, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Search The Oil Drum with Google

Support The Oil Drum

Click the button to learn about supporting The Oil Drum with a secure donation.

Peak Oil Primers

Beware email scams!

Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.

“The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

—James Madison, FEDERALIST #57 (1787)