A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What - Intelligent Thought?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 11th 07, 10:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Joe Cipale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default What - Intelligent Thought?


I do not give a damn what you people say about this post......
It means nothing to my life


I love worthless, cowardly POS trolls who dont have the courage to post
a REAL email address in their electronic flatulation. Makes it sooooo
much easier to place them in the electronic waste basket of stupdidity
where they belong. At least kunuch has the cajones to use a real email
address.
Ads
  #2  
Old February 12th 07, 12:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Joe Cipale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

Howard Kveck wrote:
In article , ST wrote:


And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
windbags.



The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives says she needs a plane that
will make it across country (to her home district) nonstop. The White House says so
too. What's the deal?

_________________
"As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the
members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The
Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of
the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the
presidency.

"In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide
military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her
district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it
continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California
compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for
security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure
communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to
use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security
for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is
exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a
political issue."
_________________

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/012357.php

And:
_________________
"The White House on Thursday defended Pelosi.

"This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker," White House
spokesman Tony Snow said.
_________________


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/

Try to keep up.


You cant argue with a right-wing christo-fascist. Look how long we have
been slapping eunuch's arguments back down to earth.
  #3  
Old February 12th 07, 12:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Joe Cipale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default What - Intelligent Thought?



Wind energy is a domestic source of energy, produced in the United
States. The nation's wind supply is abundant.


Especially when Congress is in session...
  #4  
Old February 12th 07, 05:41 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Tom Kunich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,456
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0207171745.htm

"The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."

""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
variability and change, rather than tinkering at the margins of both
emissions and impacts."

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin Redwoods
would remain unchanged.


  #5  
Old February 12th 07, 05:43 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Richard Cheese
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

Righteous Moral Leader Found Drunk in a Park by a River
Irvine, California (8-February-2007)

Tom Kunich, the official voice of honest, decent, righteous, moral American
goodness, honesty, decency, righteousness and morality, and author of the
book, "EVERYBODY Is A Filthy Slimy Scummy Immoral Piece Of **** Except You
And Me And Sometimes I'm Not So Sure About You" was found drunk in a park by
a river this morning, his hulking girth covered with the droppings and teeth
marks of assorted barnyard animals including, but not limited to, horses,
turkeys, goats, cows and pigs.

According to investigating officer, Lieutenant Joe Dustoyevsky of the Irvine
Police Department, Kunich had been speaking at a special retreat he'd
organized for Republican members of the House and Senate, when the incident
which caused his drunkeness occurred.

"Apparently," said Dustoyevsky, "Kunich was teaching his "flock" of moral,
righteous, decent and honest Republican House and Senate members, various
advanced moral and righteous techniques for scarfing down huge racks of lamb
and whole stuffed pigs and live chickens and cows, in one righteous gulp."

According to Lieutenant Dustoyevsky, one of the cows unexpectedly turned on
Kunich as the righteous moral leader was about to scarf her down in a single
gulp, and bit off the righteous moral leader's moral righteous right ear.

What followed, according to bystanders, was an apparently coordinated
assault by an angry mob of embittered barnyard animals including, but not
limited to, goats, turkeys, chickens, cows and pigs which was, however, much
too gruesome and too immoral and too honest to be recounted in these pages
which are, of course, dedicated to decency and morality and honesty and to
protecting the purity and righteousness of our vicious, murdering,
sanctimonious, scumbag children.

But a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Cows and Pigs told reporters that
the incident was simply "a pure, honest act of retribution against a man who
had, without conscience, and solely for his own personal 'advancement,'
casually scarfed down, whole and live, thousands of their brothers and
sisters, mothers and fathers, and sons and daughters, while on his way to
speak to cheering crowds about what pathetic worthless immoral scumbags they
all were, and how they better all start being moral and righteous and good
and honest and decent like Tom Kunich, if they didn't wanna get their
pathetic asses kicked in like you-know-who."

A spokesman for Kunich's righteous-but-drunken soul vigorously condemned the
actions of the united barnyard animals as a conspiracy of left-wing commie
wackos who were trying to create the false impression that the righteous
moral honest decent kind Mr. Kunich was really some kind of gluttonous,
hypocritical, slimy, scummy worthless piece of dog****.

"Mr. Kunich," said the spokesman, clutching a free case of Amway products in
his right hand, and a free case of Marlboro's in his left, "stands for all
that is decent and good and honest and moral and righteous in the world, and
he stands firmly against all that is slimy and scummy and mother****ing and
cocksucking and ****ty, and therefore is in no way whatsoever the big fat
gluttonous slimy scummy hypocritical lying worthless sack of **** that those
left wing commie wackos keep insisting he is. In fact, THEY are the self
same slimy scummy big fat hypocritical lying worthless sacks of **** they
accuse him of being. Or, having been.


  #6  
Old February 12th 07, 06:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ST
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 8:41 PM, in article
, "Tom Kunich"
cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0207171745.htm

"The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."

""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
variability and change, rather than tinkering at the margins of both
emissions and impacts."

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin Redwoods
would remain unchanged.



It makes no sense...........
The US is responsible for 20% of the worlds greenhouse gases. Nobody is
putting that in perspective to the size of our economy, the amount of wealth
we distribute to other parts of the world, etc..

EVEN IF we were even able to reduce OUR greenhouse gas emissions by a HUGE
25%!! That only equates to 5% of the global total AND China and India will
make that up in less than 5 years!!

AND!! China and India are EXCLUDED (as developing economies) from the Kyoto
limits anyway?!?!?! Have you greeny types said ANYTHING about the constant
massive amount of coal-fired energy plants the Chinese are building??

This crap about Kyoto?? Do not forgot it was ALL of our Senators who shot it
down.. Ds & Rs!

As Gore said on Larry King before....... "This will give us a chance to put
into place things we SHOULD HAVE DONE ANYWAY!"

And your Queen Bitch Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
windbags.

It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......

Most of you do not even think these changes forced on us would even effect
you much.......... And you bitched about $2.50 gas? When it goes up to $5
which corporate right-wing fanatic will you blame then?

I do not give a damn what you people say about this post......
It means nothing to my life

  #7  
Old February 12th 07, 06:32 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST wrote:


It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......





Dumbass -


Ripping our economy to shreds?

Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.

In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in ****holes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.

Nice job of patriotism, you ****ing moron.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

  #8  
Old February 12th 07, 06:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,092
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
it and that therefore man is evil. The fact that trying to hold down CO2
emissions would end up costing millions if not billions of lives just
doesn't seem to register on the do-gooders who are convinced that all we
have to do is turn the therostat down to 68 and we'll all be fine.


I don't think people are evil for causing global warming.
How were they supposed to know? There are some people,
however, who for reasons of their own convenience pretend
that nothing is going to happen and they don't have to
think about it. I don't think these people (mostly) are evil
either, but they are foolish and sometimes selfish.

I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
cost billions of lives. Where did you get that? Your
carbon load now scales more or less with your standard of
living and the vast majority of people in the world have
a fairly low standard of living, but they aren't about
to drop dead from their low carbon emissions. The problem
is reconciling an attempt to keep CO2 down with everybody's
perfectly understandable desire for an improved standard
of living. As long as people like you go around saying
"I don't care, I can afford my big car," this is going
to be difficult.

The rest of what you quoted, of course, completely
contradicts your previous arguments that warming isn't
happening and even if it is we shouldn't do anything
about it. They want to both reduce emissions and adapt
(since even reducing emissions will never get us back
to 20thC climate).


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0207171745.htm

"The science policy experts, writing in the Feb. 8, 2007 issue of Nature,
say adapting to the changing climate by building resilient societies and
fostering sustainable development would go further in securing a future for
humans on a warming planet than just cutting gas emissions."

""To define adaptation as the cost of failed mitigation is to expose
millions of poor people in compromised ecosystems to the very dangers that
climate policy seeks to avoid," the authors state. "By contrast, defining
adaptation in terms of sustainable development, would allow a focus both on
reducing emissions and on the vulnerability of populations to climate
variability and change, rather than tinkering at the margins of both
emissions and impacts."

Nahh, I'm pretty sure that the Liberals would much rather just kill off
2/3rds of the world's population. That way their homes in the Marin Redwoods
would remain unchanged.



  #9  
Old February 12th 07, 06:44 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
ST
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST wrote:


It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......





Dumbass -


Ripping our economy to shreds?

Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?

Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.

In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in ****holes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.

Nice job of patriotism, you ****ing moron.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.


You do not know what I want you piece of ****.......
You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge.

  #10  
Old February 12th 07, 07:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Kurgan Gringioni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,796
Default What - Intelligent Thought?

On Feb 11, 9:44 pm, ST wrote:
On 2/11/07 9:32 PM, in article
. com, "Kurgan Gringioni"





wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:06 pm, ST wrote:


It is just a skewed reading of what is mostly an issue of acceptance to
force a massive socialized lifestyle change.. To even have a country like
China come out and say WE have to bear the burden of ripping our economy to
shreds to do something that they will NOT do and surpass our emissions
anyway is a bunch of crap......


Dumbass -


Ripping our economy to shreds?


Would you rather pay American engineers from General Electric to build
windfarms or pay Saudi Arabian princes $70/barrel for oil?


Exxon tried an oil shale project, the Colony 2 project in the 70s and
80s, in Colorado. The Saudis didn't like the threat to their cash cow
and raised production to such a high level (they have a 12 million
barrel/day capacity) that Exxon had to close the project at a cost of
$5 billion in 1980 dollars. Wind farms and solar are viable at a price
of $60-70/barrel, but only if the price stays up there long term. The
investors know that a repeat of the Colony 2 project will happen if
they try that. So they don't go for it and I don't blame them. There
is only one entity that can change that: our government, by doing a
price support the same way the do for butter and sugar. But it won't
happen. The energy interests that don't have alternative energy
subsidiaries will throw their lobbying against it.


In the meantime, idiots such as yourself will be against alternative
power produced by domestic producers and instead you'd rather give it
to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. And, as
such, we have to get involved in ****holes like Iraq, a place where
we've already spent $400 billion and wasted our good soldiers' lives
when we could just let them fight amongst themselves, like we do with
the entire continent of Africa.


Nice job of patriotism, you ****ing moron.


thanks,


K. Gringioni.


You do not know what I want you piece of ****.......
You KNOW me and where to find me. I am through wasting my time.....
Go try to convince the Chinese, etal. of your vast knowledge




Moron -


You stated that clean energy would "rip our economy to shreds".

I gave you an example of how it wouldn't. Domestic wind power. Made by
Americans, paid for by Americans. Instead you want the status quo,
giving the money to Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia in
exchange for their oil.

Nice job of patriotism, you idiot.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ? [email protected] Racing 21 October 14th 06 02:15 PM
[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design Ernst Noch Racing 63 September 1st 05 06:25 PM
Intelligent comment Mikefule Unicycling 25 July 21st 05 03:05 AM
more intelligent computers Miles General 7 December 8th 04 01:52 AM
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! Mike Vandeman Mountain Biking 7 September 30th 03 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.