What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
, "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.


Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!

On 2/12/07 6:56 AM, in article ,
"Paul Cassel" wrote:

Tom Kunich wrote:
At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is causing
it and that therefore man is evil.

No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
of this.

-paul


Oh really?!?!?!?!
Where is this mentioned in the hysteria? At what percentage is the man-made
contribution compared to the cyclic climate changes going on now?

On 2/12/07 8:48 AM, in article ,
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:


Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...


You have some kind of controls to keep the wind stable? Storage of power?

On 2/12/07 2:18 PM, in article
, "
wrote:

On Feb 12, 4:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in
messagenews:h351t2lmlh32t4gbchhrpqvv31mqmh7v97@4ax .com...

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".

dumbass,

you could've made the same claim about the canadian oil industry. it
crept along for years on massive govt. subsidies ...until the time was
right. now it's booming. of course it pollutes like a mother****er.

in ontario it's relatively easy for a schmoe to get into the wind
energy game. if you can get the permit to build one you can run your
meter backwards :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energyfaqs.html

and perhaps even sell energy :

http://greenbreeze.ca/energystandard.html

but i agree, i'd like to see where people (including you) put their
money. that is a better test of what they really believe (of course
they can still be wrong).

lately, energy shortages, and extreme temperature events (hot or cold)
have been making traditional energy companies rich, so that's where
i'd put my money.





Dork!
That is just a sales pitch! you know...... Like the guy selling tapes to get
rich! If it was that great now WHY don't they do it themselves instead of
selling the startup to someone else?

"Fred Fredburger" wrote in
:


You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a
fine power source.


Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind.

--
Bill Asher

On 2/12/07 8:17 PM, in article
, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

On Feb 12, 8:12 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.



****head -

It's from the Department of Energy. They know more about it than 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.




Well Hell!! I am SURE that is enough info for YOU to plunk down your initial
100K investment right?????

In article , ST wrote:

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
, "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.


Because it does not fit in with her environmental arguments!

!!!!!

Seriously, Steve, why is it so hard to comprehend the above info? Pelosi said she
was fine to take commercial flights - the security issues are what this is about.
Did you have a problem with Dennis Hastert using the same military flight
arrangements when he was Speaker of the House? The only difference is that she would
need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further.
It's really pretty simple.

By the way:

And your Queen Bitch Pilosi

No issues with women in power, Steve?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"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?

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would
take commercial flights. The Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and
the White House believe she should fly on a military plane for security reasons.
Former Speaker Dennis Hastert had the same arrangement - the difference being the
plane Pelosi is to use needs greater fuel capacity for the longer flights. What's
the deal?

If you want to complain about a politician flying in military planes, why didn't
you complain about George W. Bush using an S-3B Viking to get to the USS Abraham
Lincoln back on 22 May, 2003?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Paul Cassel" wrote in message
. ..
Tom Kunich wrote:
At the basis of the global warming hysteria is the idea that man is
causing it and that therefore man is evil.

No. The basis of the concern is that the contribution man makes is
accelerating the warming. Nobody thinks that man alone is the sole cause
of this.

Paul, the earth started warming about 1880 long before man had any input
into the situation.

Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were
marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion
engines was in the 1880s.

I cited a New York Times article from 1932 telling the world how we were
going to burn up and drown by the 21st century. The article actually said
that.

Then another article was published in 1970 proclaiming that we were about to
enter an ice age. The New York Times has only shown consistency in one
area - leftist political propaganda.

There were a bunch of articles in many publications that seemed to indicate that
we would be using fling cars by now. They were wrong. So were those articles. Does
it seem reasonable to cherry pick those to suit your agenda and not mention the ones
that talked about the flying cars?

There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhe The earth
isn't something that is easily effected by man.

Here your brush it aside, but earlier you were catastrophizing about the loss of
billions of lives. Hmm.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

ST wrote:
To teach you how to argue on the Internet..

Now there's an entrepreneurial opportunity for rbr. Charge dumbasses (I
mean clients) to argue over the Internet. Perhaps we can even get funding
from the special olympics.