posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:20 PM
reply to post by dominicus
Either you didn't read the article which you cite as the source of your claim, or you are deliberately misleading and misrepresenting the story.
The article says nothing about Republicans blocking a seawater alternative!
You could've quoted it, but then you'd have to change the title and lose the impact of your conservative-bashing B.S.
The article referes to congressional hearing on alternative fuels in the wake of the Solyndra debacle. The Navy didn't ask for support of this
program, but for others with fuel costs as high as $40.00.gallon!
What a pathetic abuse of facts, truth and "analysis."
Here's the true story from your own "source:"
Republican members swarmed in to attack his alternative fuel plans as a waste of precious dollars in a time of austere budgets. Since 2009, the
Navy has been paying anywhere from $16 to $40 per gallon — or more — for its various batches of alternative fuel, but it was
only recently that anyone appeared to take
See anything in there about "seawater conversion?"
This thread is nothing more than a blatant attempt to build a lie out of legitimate news that says more about your motives than any conservative or
Republican defense of "big oil."
The deeper the Obama administration keeps digging its own holes, and the farther back they fall among votera, the more despaerate crap like this gets
thrown at the public walll to see what if anything will stick.
What a waste of bandwidth.