|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:52 AM |
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 7 | September 30th 03 04:55 PM |