Hat tip to the spammer for bringing my attention back to this thread.

You heard it here first.

The problem with ethanol subsidies is that they are a waste of resources that have all sorts of market distorting effects. Notably, they artificially inflate the price of corn, which causes many to suffer, some rather severely.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the government subsidizing alternative fuel research – but subsidizing the fuels themselves creates a heavy incentive for the production and use of fuels that are less economical than the alternatives – leading to a massive waste of resources. If they weren’t less economical, they wouldn’t need a subsidy.

If Congress wishes to advance national security by reducing foreign oil consumption, there are far better ways that do not waste resources. For example, we could streamline the process for the licensure of new nuclear power plants. Some countries economically produce almost all of their electricity from nuclear power – there is no reason why we couldn’t. No subsidy required.

Repent, wayward Arkansans: Vote Romney 2012!

I ask again, why should anyone here follow you when you treat us so spitefully? Where’s the love of Christ, dude?

Do you mind if I ask you another political question? I once had an interesting conversation with a guy who reminds me of you. He claimed that Ronald Wilson Reagan was obviously the anti-Christ because his name had three words, all with six letters, 6-6-6, just like it says in Revalations. Pretty sneaky, huh?

For all I know, the same think holds true for your name. Are you an anti-Christ?

There’s nothing self-contradictory about appealing to an authority recognized by one’s argumentative opponents in order to prove that they’re wrong. St. Paul, for example, does this quite often in his epistles and in the accounts that we have in Acts of his sermons.

The point in our appeal to something that you consider authoritative is to show your hypocrisy: You’re the one who claims to consider it infallible, yet you don’t even behave in a way consistent with its teachings. We do — notwithstanding everything that you claim to be true about our approach to the Bible. Thus, by your own standard we’re better Christians than you are (though I must admit, your behavior doesn’t present a very high standard).