What - Intelligent Thought?

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

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?

_________________
"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 [email hidden],

Paul Cassel said:

Tom Kunich said:

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 [email hidden],

Curtis L. Russell said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

"Fred Fredburger" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

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
[email hidden], "Kurgan Gringioni"

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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.

[censored] -

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 said:

On 2/11/07 10:14 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

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?

_________________
"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:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And your Queen [censored] 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 <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

"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?

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 <[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

There is one point I've been trying to make here and elsewhere: 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 said:

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.

Fred Fredburger said:

Quoted message said:

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

William Asher said:

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

Refried beans - the ultimate energy source.

ST said:

Quoted message said:

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?????

Dumbass -

I already stated that massive investment in wind farms would need
federal price supports because the energy market is subject to OPEC
manipulation. If they see too many alternative sources coming on line,
they raise production until the price goes down far enough to kill the
alternative projects (like the Exxon Colony project I referenced
earlier). Then they cut their production again after the alternative
projects are dead.

Nice to see that you are pro-OPEC.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

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

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, ST <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And your Queen [censored] Pilosi wants a BIGGER plane?!?!?! Hypocritical
windbags.

Quoted message said:

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?

Dude,

If you'd ever tried to drive through Tysons Corner,
you'd know that is a perfectly reasonable request.

Ben

Jack Hollis said:

Howard Kveck said:

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.

Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

Gee.. how fscking funny.

Considerinmg that your hero, g.w . the lesser not only suggested a
military plane but thinks the non-stop flight is a good idea as well.

Gotta love con-hypos. As long as something serves their party, then all
is good.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:31:26 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

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".

See, you're not as stupid as they say. When you can't defend your
argument, attack an argument that I didn't make.

But you knew that - I think (giving you the benefit of the doubt).

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

On 12 Feb 2007 14:32:59 -0800, "Bill C" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Hey Curtis WTF do those wild eyed communists at the WSJ know. They
don't know [censored] and are just anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda
purveyors. They never research anything with anyone other than liberal
commie plotters.
Neither do those damned Germans who suck at engineering and never get
anything right. That's why they use windpower everywhere. Only people
with no understanding of engineering would go there.
Bill C

I knew that. Just checking to see if you did. Since I invented the
stock market, I knew it all along.

For me, life has been a bear. Mr. Bull should be along any moment.

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

ST said:

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

I'm not sure where you got from my comments that I own a wind turbine
or even do research on it. And while I've done my share of odd jobs in
my life, I don't claim to be a research anything or ever to have done
it in my past, once I got out of business school. Unless the odd tax
question counts.

Try again - I read an article in the WSJ. My sole claim to authority
was that I read an article in the WSJ. My choice is to believe you
(congratulations on a post without obscenities, BTW) and Mr. Bull, or
believe the WSJ. In this case, I choose, yes, the WSJ.

To actually anser your question (to differentiate me from Mr. Bull),
no, I can't control wind stability enough to keep my Stetson on my
head. Storage of power is plugging the phone and tablet PC to the wall
at night. Do either of these count?

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

Howard Kveck said:

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?

The Democrats in Congress aren't complaining - they just ask he use an
Osprey next time.

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

Howard Kveck said:

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.

Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another
$200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour?

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And ale wives are painful. In case anyone was wondering about that.

Wait until you date a candiru.

--
Bill Asher

On Feb 12, 4:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
(just to keep the context in mind):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 11, 11:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

There are still Redwoods, after Reagan/Watt?

Watt was it Watt avoided jail time for, again, as a part of the most
corrupt (indictments, etc.) administration up to that time?

How many of those Marin Redwoods homes actually have "conservative"
owners, do you think? Since "conservatives" are the only productive
people on the planet, one would expect the cost of these dwellings
would be overwhelmingly affordable only to the financially successful.
Just a guess.

(someone posted, excuse my being lost in the forest):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Do you really think so? The USA provides about 60% of the surplus food in
the world. Most of the conveniently arable land in the world is now under
cultivation. While we could expand farming it becomes considerably more
expensive and because the farmed areas are marginal they become far more
sensitive to climatic variations.

That actually sounds rational, on the surface. However, "provides"
covers a vast complexity. As usualy, "it's all political", starting,
perhaps with "what we 'provide' and why".

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Amberwaves/September04/Features/usfoodaid.htm

Just a quick read from the above:

The amount and types of "surplus" food in the USA has changed in
recent times. There have been drops in our "supply"; I didn't see
mention in the conservative-owned/controlled media of any Somali heavy
bombers attacking the Marin Redwoods.

Food is "provided" from government to government, at least the huge
grain "surpluses" that are the ordinary understanding IRT this
subject. Political ends are served, and distribution systems can be
very poor, even with best intentions. IOW, even of what amounts might
be "donated, free", an equal amount is not "received, free" by
individuals.

"Provided" food is often not just given away, including delivery (as
our generation was led to believe in 4th grade "Uncle Sam"
propaganda), but sold in national/local markets. This can be
disruptive in terms of effect on local production, and can cause
complications when "surplus" is used to feed animals intended for
human consumption.

Not to mention, if your figure of 60% is accurate (some recent years,
USA percentage was 50%), if US food surplus stopped, there would still
be about half of the "surplus", "provided" food in the pipeline, for
better or worse.

Quoted message said:

If we were to remove the entire corn and soybean output from our food
production it would almost wipe out our surplus food production. Entire
areas of Africa and Asia that are presently being supported by the surplus
food in the world would be without food so that white middle class Americans
could feel like they're saving the world.

As above, the "without food" is wrong.

Quoted message said:

Do you suppose those people would quietly starve to death? Digging deep into
your own intellect what would YOU think would be the result of cutting off
the food supply to massive areas of the world?

Lots of people in the world, including many in the USA, have deficient
diets, with no apparent ill effect on the homes in the Marin Redwoods.

Quoted message said:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
At the same time, we need to reform and
modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks --
and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."

That's bass-ackwards. Fuel economy and emissions controls for light
trucks need to catch up to those for cars. Well, there's your poor
management, including driving markets with advertising (domestic
makers of SUV's, light trucks), and lobbying dollars (domestic makers
pushing for easy requirements for the vehicles they're making money
on) at work.

Quoted message said:

The only sources of energy which is clean and efficient is nuclear energy.
We are in great need of about a thousand nuclear generators over the USA and
then we'd be in a position to cut oil and coal use by a lot.

Nuclear energy is not clean by any stretch of the imagination. Or,
maybe we could bury the waste in your back yard? If it's OK with the
neighbors, of course.

Quoted message said:

But the bottom line is this - if you expect to use the US surplus of food to
replace our present use of fuels then you had better be ready for a world
war. And it won't be a nice small clean war.

Baloney.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fatus/monthlysummary.htm

We import nearly as much food as we export, with the trend being to
import more of the percentage.

The old "America Feeds the World" slogan seems not to be true. Well,
imagine that.

I wonder why "water" hasn't been mentioned as a power source. --D-y