What - Intelligent Thought?

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.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Feb 11, 10:14 pm, 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?




Dumbass -


He's a Dittohead or some derivative of such. To the Dittoheads,
everything the "liberals" do is evil, even if the conservatives agree
with it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in message
oups.com...
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......

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?

In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind generator.
Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient as
the most modern one's today.

The ran it through the war and then after a decade of records they put it
all together, wrote a complete report on it and their report showed the wind
generators will never be able to earn their own expenses. So they tore down
the wind generator they built and sold off the scrap. They gave the patents
and the records to the public. Nasty good for nothing capitalist pigs.

The wind power people of today have read all of the records and ignored
them. They built the generators that we see today in several places around
California. And sure enough - it costs more to build a wind generator than
they can return in energy.

So the Liberals sit around and blame the laws of economics on capitalism.

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.

In case you missed it - shale oil and tar sands are hydrocarbon fuels like
coal and oil. Oh, that's right, you don't even know what the issues are that
you're so quick to talk about.

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.

Let's put it this way - if it takes 10 barrels of Saudi oil to produce 1
barrel worth of wind power, it makes a great deal more sense to just use the
single barrel to generate power.

Tough concept for someone without much on the ball for sure.

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
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?

The fact that she wanted to fly it to Virginia from Washington DC?

wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

Why do I get the idea that you're trying to unburden yourself?

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.

Since the worst case scenarios from the UN is that the oceans will ride 17
cm (9 inches) in the next century exactly what is it that you believe they
should worry about?

I can't see any way that holding down CO2 emission would
cost billions of lives.

That's because you don't understand the issues. And I'm tired of explaining
it to you since you don't really want to know anything about it. You only
want to pretend that the USA is composed of evil people who should be
stopped at everything they're doing. You seem to prefer those nice honest Al
Qaida members.

On Feb 11, 10:26 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

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

In the 1930's the Morgan Company built the world's biggest wind generator.
Until a decade ago it was the largest on record. It was also as efficient as
the most modern one's today.


snip


Dude, you're an idiot. 1930's tech=2000 tech?

Jesus.

That's like saying the propellor of a 1930s plane moves air as
efficiently as a modern jet turbine (the same fluid dynamics advances
apply to both turbines that move air and turbines that are moved by
air).

The snippet below is from a US federal government site. The same
government that is governed by Bush and Cheney, not exactly two
environmentalist extremists when it comes to energy. And yes, I will
believe the Department of Energy on this before I believe a blowhard
like you.

From:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html

Advantages and Disadvantages of Wind Energy
Wind energy offers many advantages, which explains why it's the
fastest-growing energy source in the world. Research efforts are aimed
at addressing the challenges to greater use of wind energy.

Advantages
Wind energy is fueled by the wind, so it's a clean fuel source. Wind
energy doesn't pollute the air like power plants that rely on
combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal or natural gas. Wind turbines
don't produce atmospheric emissions that cause acid rain or greenhouse
gasses.

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

Wind energy relies on the renewable power of the wind, which can't be
used up. Wind is actually a form of solar energy; winds are caused by
the heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the rotation of the earth,
and the earth's surface irregularities.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies
available today, costing between 4 and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour,
depending upon the wind resource and project financing of the
particular project.

Wind turbines can be built on farms or ranches, thus benefiting the
economy in rural areas, where most of the best wind sites are found.
Farmers and ranchers can continue to work the land because the wind
turbines use only a fraction of the land. Wind power plant owners make
rent payments to the farmer or rancher for the use of the land.

Disadvantages
Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost
basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or
may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has
decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a
higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the
wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is
needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and
not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity
demands.

Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities
where the electricity is needed.

Wind resource development may compete with other uses for the land and
those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity
generation.

Although wind power plants have relatively little impact on the
environment compared to other conventional power plants, there is some
concern over the noise produced by the rotor blades, aesthetic
(visual) impacts, and sometimes birds have been killed by flying into
the rotors. Most of these problems have been resolved or greatly
reduced through technological development or by properly siting wind
plants.

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.

Collateral damage is a terrible thing. But what the heck does this have to
do with bicycle racing? I could see an interesting thread if someone was
trying to talk about the ethical implications of taking money from various
sponsors (the French are certainly having a go at this with gambling at the
moment), but nothing like that in your post. And it's not like you're going
to change anyone's mind in rbr anyway; the last time that happened there
were still DoDo birds roaming Australia.

So why post this sort of thing here?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Feb 11, 11:41 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.

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.


dumbass,

this article says what i thought should be paramount, the need to
adapt whatever the situation is (instead of stalling the debate), but
you dismissed it saying so what ? the climate changes just like the
sun rises.

it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
invented by you.

Richard Cheese wrote:
Joe Cipale? As if that's your real name. What a dumbass! While your at
it, why not give full disclosure of all your personal information dumbass
including your social security number, credit card number, expiration date,
PIN, and mother's maiden name.


"Joe Cipale" wrote in message
...

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.



~yawn~ Is that the best you can come up with cracker?

good bye, cheesewiz.

On Feb 12, 2:14 am, "
wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:41 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.

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.

dumbass,

this article says what i thought should be paramount, the need to
adapt whatever the situation is (instead of stalling the debate), but
you dismissed it saying so what ? the climate changes just like the
sun rises.

it however does not say that "trying to hold down CO2 emission would
end up costing millions or even billions of lives". that part is
invented by you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Haven't you heard that the sun still orbits the earth and that
Copernicus guy was a heretic created by the devil to make us question
our faith.
You have to BELIEVE!
Bill C