What - Intelligent Thought?

Howard Kveck said:

In article said:

And your Queen [censored] 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.

Quoted message said:

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... 😉

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/2007/02/070207171745.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.

On 2/11/07 8:41 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Tom Kunich"

cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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/2007/02/070207171745.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 [censored] 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 [censored] 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 [censored]......

Most of you do not even think these changes forced on us would even effect
you much.......... And you [censored] 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

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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).

Quoted message said:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.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.

In article said:

And your Queen [censored] 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?

Howard Kveck said:

In article said:

And your Queen [censored] 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.

"Howard Kveck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

And your Queen [censored] 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?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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/2007/02/070207171745.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 said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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.

Quoted message said:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070207171745.htm

Quoted message said:

"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."

Quoted message said:

""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."

Quoted message said:

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

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

😉 <<< This means you are a dumbass!

"Joe Cipale" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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... 😉

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 06:31:25 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

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.

And you appear to believe that everyone in the USA is incapable of
doing anything that rises above their own self-interest. Frankly, I've
never known anyone with such a constant low opinion of US citizens in
particular and the human race in general.

I'm starting to think that the reason you hold us liberals in such low
esteem is that some of them were on a sidewalk on their own time once,
protesting for a cause other than their own self-interest, and they
slowed you down for a second or two - no doubt enough reason to hold a
grudge for a lifetime.

At least be consistent. If your issue that nothing is needed to be
done and nothing is really all that wrong, don't quote an article
that, in fact, proposes action. If it ain't people, then the people
can keep right on keeping on, just as they are. I happen to disagree,
especially if the concern is that we will only have two TVs in every
house rather than three. I think our economy will adapt to all that
un-American conservatism.

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

email hidden said:

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.

If TK had ever shown the inclination towards hyperbole, I could mark
it down to that. But every time I made that assumption in the past, he
ended up being dead serious (and defending the hyperbole for days if
not weeks, maybe years). I guess that he expects to hear sometime in
the future a broadcast along the lines of, "Today the loss in lives
due to CO2 emissions reduction passed the 900 million mark, but the
U.N and its U.S. liberal lackeys have vowed to hold the course..."

I think a Chung chart showing worst case intersection between "lost
lives" and and resulting reduced CO2 emissions from just the reduction
in population alone would be useful. With luck, we can go back to our
former ways when only 400 or 500 million are dead. We liberals are an
optimistic lot.

Curtis L. Russell
Practicing liberal [censored]...

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

At the basis of the global warming hysteria (snip)

Hysteria??? Hysteria???

Here's *your* hysteria right here:

--D-y