TK was exactly right. OT

[RicodJour]

On Jun 21, 8:17 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem. It's pretty rare when TK is right on the money, but he could
> point out that the road we're riding on is basically black, and
> usually rational folks would line up to say he's wrong.

So, in a nutshell, what you're saying is that TK cries wolf a lot, and
then when there's an actual wolf he gets the same ****? Wow - never
could have imagined that happening!

> I was in the "We'll have to see camp, I'm not sure." because
> historically the problem has not been a lack of food, it's been one of
> distribution, transport, and politics. I'm still not sure that ethanol
> is sucking off enough of the excess production (Our govt. is still
> paying folks to NOT grow crops) to cause a disaster. I'd guess a much
> bigger problem is the cost spikes due to the cost of oil. Modern
> farming, and transport, is incredibly dependent on petroleum and it's
> price.
> It's easier to go after biofuels than the folks producing the oil,
> and the huge national taxes most places that are on top of that.

If I haven't mentioned it already, and even if I did, you should read
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Pollan. He covers food chains and the real
costs of industrial, organic and local foods. Excellent reading.

R

 

[Paul G.]

On Jun 20, 3:03 pm, ST <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/19/08 9:47 AM, in article [email protected],
>
>
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "RicodJour" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:9178567b-ebb9-4abb-9098-d966eac4b768@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com....
> > | On Jun 19, 9:36 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> > | > While just about everyone lined up and relentlessly hammered on him,
> > | > with just a few allowing they had some doubt, he was the one who was
> > | > right on the money.
> > | >  Hope he doesn't hold his breathe waiting for folks to admit being
> > | > mistaken, since I happen to like having him around.
> > | >
> > | >http://tinyurl.com/6mnu2p
> > | >
> > | > New study to force ministers to review climate change planExclusive
> > | > Official review admits biofuel role in food crisis
> > | > Julian Borger and John Vidal The Guardian, Thursday June 19 2008
> > | > Article historyBritain and Europe will be forced to fundamentally
> > | > rethink a central part of their environment strategy after a
> > | > government report found that the rush to develop biofuels has played a
> > | > "significant" role in the dramatic rise in global food prices, which
> > | > has left 100 million more people without enough to eat.
> > |
> > | That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed.  Tom way
> > | saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > | activity has no effect on the planet's climate.  So I'm not sure why
> > | you're awarding the medal...
> > |
> > | R
>
> > Agreed. Biofuels, when not derived from waste product, are an abomination
> > and an insult to humanity. The idea that it's more important to feed our
> > cars than our mouths... what could be more absurd? And not only do the
> > economics not work out, but it's tough to show that you're actually gaining
> > energy too, after you factor in everything that goes into growing crops..
>
> > But as you say, what does this have to do with awarding points to TK? His
> > attitude is simply that global warming itself is a myth. The only reason
> > he'd care about biofuels is if it puts cheaper gas into his tank. Not that
> > there's anything wrong with that concept, to a point.
>
> > --Mike--     Chain Reaction Bicycles
> >www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> You guys are so full of **** and yourselves!
>
> HE SAID... (and I agreed) "This biofuels **** is gonna take all the corn the
> USA gives to feed the worlds hungry and they are gonna starve!!!"

He MAY have said something LIKE THAT, but he didn't say THAT. Don't
put something in quotes unless it's truly a quote.

On the other hand, a cursory search turns up a different poster who
was "exactly right":
"Discussion subject changed to "Nascar considering starving the world"
by Howard Kveck"

That was a post about NASCAR considering a switch to ethanol.
-Paul

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 5:17 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed.  Tom way
> > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate.  So I'm not sure why
> > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > discussion.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> problem.

Then you can use the google archives to find out where
somebody said that.

TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
mass genocide. It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.

There are reasons to advocate limited use of biodiesel
and so on, but it's not gonna affect global warming
very much, and it's not the same thing as corn-based
ethanol making the farm lobby rich and driving up
the price of food.

If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
what you're criticizing.

Ben

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 21, 7:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> what you're criticizing.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.
You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 7:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > If you want to give TK credit for knocking down strawmen,
> > that's fine, but if you want to flip off people who argued
> > with him, be prepared to show examples of them saying
> > what you're criticizing.
> >
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm too lazy to do that for what was intended as a troll. It's there
> though. You look it up. I'm tempted to, just to make the point, yet
> again, that a shitload of folks here would be ice skating on hell
> before they'd admit to having been wrong, or mistaken.

Then make the point, Bill. Why should Ben be expected to go find things to prove
*your* statement that everyone treated Kunich like an idiot for saying that the trend
toward use of biofuel had drawbacks. The main reason that is a nonstarter as an
argument is that Kunich didn't actually say anything like that. Ben is corrrect to
point out that he (TK) was raving about how biofuel stuff was going to cause mass
genocide and liberals/progressives didn't care. In other words, Kunich was being his
usual hysterical self. You know, if he'd said, "I think that the redirection of corn
and soy to the biofuel industry might have consequences for less priviliged people in
the Third World" he would have gotten little disagreement. But he had to go into
full-on drama queen mode and say things like, "There you have it as I was predicting.
Guilt ridden middle class white men are planning on starving the world in order to
pretend that they're going to fight world use of oil and global warming." Oh, and
that was a mild one for him.

Anyway, as for the biofuel/food isue: One point is that in Asia, the price of rice
is skyrocketing due to a limited supply (for example, drought has destroyed
Australia's rice industry, leading to the closure of the largest rice mill in the
Southern Hemisphere). This is *not* due to anything to do with biofuels. Rice does
not convert into biofuel, although the ricestraw has shown possibilities (and
ricestraw is a leftover from the harvest). Additionally, the land that rice is grown
on is very rarely converted into use by other crops, as it's unsuitable for such
things as corn (or pretty much anything but rice).

Another point is that the price of corn in Mexico and South America has been going
up for several years. This isn't due to them converting over to the use of corn as a
biofuel, as it started happening at least five or six years ago and there was no
corn/biofuel industry there then (and not much now). Brazil uses sugar cane for its
biofuel ethanol.

There are certainly a number of liberals/progressives calling for greater use of
biofuel but the driving force is companies like ADM. They get huge subsidies for
growing corn for biofuel. The subsidies they got for simply growing corn is one
reason why corn producers in Africa are out of business: food aid does not show up as
dollars, to be spent were the receiving country chooses (like buying from local
sources). It invariably is set up to show up as a comodity, sourced from here. And
that means subsidised ADM corn.

> You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??

No, he's not. Strawman.

Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the road is basically
black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more than everyone
combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that ****. He continues
to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in the air where
airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jun 21, 4:03 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:17 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 19, 2:42 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 10:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 9:47 am, RicodJour <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed.  Tom way
> > > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and that human
> > > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate.  So I'm not sure why
> > > > > you're awarding the medal...
>
> > > > > R- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > The biofuels, and their effect on food production were a seperate
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > You want to give that moron a medal for that conclusion?
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > Nah, I want to give a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign." to all the
> > folks who argued he was an idiot for even suggesting it might be a
> > problem.
>
> Then you can use the google archives to find out where
> somebody said that.
>
> TK said that Liberals want to fix global warming by
> mass genocide.  It turned out he meant biofuels (I think).
> I don't think there are any liberal greenies who seriously
> advocate biofuels as a cure for global warming.

<snip>



Dumbass -


Biofuels are potentially a solution. The problem is the solution isn't
any that the government is spending $$$ on (like the corn based
ethanol).

If they manage to get the enzyme going that'll convert the cellulose
products into ethanol, that'll be a help. The biggest thing is what
Craig Venter is working on: genetically engineering bacteria so that
they convert CO2 and sunlight into hydrocarbons. It sounds a bit
science-fiction-ish until one considers that fossil fuels themselves
are a form of biofuel. Oil started out as dead phytoplankton on the
bottom of an anaerobic ocean.

Eventually the problem is going to be solved. There will be some
backwards looking oil companies that won't like it.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

On Jun 21, 7:08 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:

> He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF



Dumbass -


That's his engineering degree?!

omg. hahahahahahahahahaha!

Jesus.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 21, 10:08 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> I
>
> >  You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> > haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??
>
>    No, he's not. Strawman.
>
Yes it was meant to be, it's a twist to the argument, like branching
it off into TK's genocide rant.

>    Oh, and furthermore, people don't criticise TK for saying the roadis basically
> black, they do so for the way he says it. He earns the abuse he gets by being an
> overbearing asshole more often than not. He squawks that people in here act like they
> know more than experts in any subject, yet he is guilty of that more thaneveryone
> combined. Christ, Bill, you've been on the receiving end of that ****. Hecontinues
> to perpetuate false arguments (like the ICC report was modified to reflect the
> conclusions of the summary that was written before the report) even though he has
> been corrected on them multiple times. The way he alwasy seems to have worked at some
> place or on some thing that is relevent to a discussion, which implies *his*
> expertise is more valuable than the rest of the "idiots" (as he sees us, "us" being
> everyone but Tom) in here is absolutely laughable. He claims, for example, to have an
> engineering degree from the USAF but he thinks there are "pockets" in theair where
> airplane wings don't have lift. Ha! I could go on, but why bother?
>
> --
>                               tanx,
>                                Howard
>
>                    The bloody pubs are bloody dull
>                    The bloody clubs are bloody full
>                    Of bloody girls and bloody guys
>                    With bloody murder in their eyes
>
>                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
may do that.

Going back through and rereading everything, it's my memory that's
faulty in detail. You and Ben are much closer to accurate. The attacks
were on him, his sources, etc...not directly at the actual argument.
Thanks for the civil slap upside the head, and forcing me to go get
it right.

I did get something great out of it, other than the correction.
I'd missed this bit:

http://tinyurl.com/59jy46

The stuff at the end of the thread, from D-y is truly classic, and
highlights your points Howard. Maybe a bit subtle, since it doesn't
accuse you, and anyone left of Attila the Hun of wanting to
exterminate life on the planet, but it's good.
I'm sorry I missed it because it, instantly, brought back memories of
driving for miles with no lights since the electrical system was
terrible, but would generate enough electricity to keep the fuel pump
going and things like that if you shut off the lights for quite a
while before it cut out totally. Several alternators and other
charging system components just prolonged the agony.
The final and, for me, fatal flaw, (D-y's Chevy "three on the tree"
linkage bit is SO accurate you KNOW he's been there), was the at the
shifter in the Rabbit was held into the tunnel by a plastic gimbal
which allowed the stick to float and shift. Not a good idea to have
the pivot point, and sole support for the shifter to be made of cheap
plastic.
I was at a busy set of lights, headed for elctrical parts, pretty
****** off, and when the light changed I slapped it into first. I'd
had it in neutral, revving it, hoping to see some charging activity,
no luck there. When I did the shifter shot through the floor, out onto
the ground taking the "leather" boot and all with it.
Can you say "red faced"? Even with replacement plastic parts this
continued to be a problem. Most likely due to worn **** holding the
gimbal assembly. It wasn't worth detailed troubleshooting after the
new one did the same thing after a while.

PS I really do hate it when I run with something from memory, and end
up red faced, again. I keep saying "That'll teach me", but it doesn't
seem to work. And yes I would expect people who claim to be better
than him to say "You got it right on this one." when he, or anyone
else does. Even the blind squirrell gets credit for finding a nut once
in a while. I keep being told it's worse when we do it because we are
supposed to be better, so I'd say that applies here too.
IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
much less provocation.
I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
does it apart, it validates their integrity.
It's easy to laud someone you like, it's much harder to give
recognition to someone you don't, particularly someone who attacks
you, but it's the right thing to do IMO, and makes you a better, more
credible person for being able to do it.
It really doesn't cost anything to give credit, in proportional
measure, where it's due.
My Bad
Thanks
Bill C

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 10:08 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I

> IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
> the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
> totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
> you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
> react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
> makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
> much less provocation.

TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
John Tesh CD.

> I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> does it apart, it validates their integrity.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Donald Munro]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
> John Tesh CD.

To be really effective you should have sent him a best of Rush
Limbaugh along with the Tesh cd. However the UN might object.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
>> John Tesh CD.
>
> To be really effective you should have sent him a best of Rush
> Limbaugh along with the Tesh cd. However the UN might object.

I've got TK killfiled, so if he says something worthwhile I'll
probably miss it.

I just wish all you retards would stop following his stuff up,
so that the chance that I'd miss it would be better.

Bob Schwartz

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 22, 4:08 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I've got TK killfiled, so if he says something worthwhile I'll
> probably miss it.
>
> I just wish all you retards would stop following his stuff up,
> so that the chance that I'd miss it would be better.
>
> Bob Schwartz

Guess you don't want the links for folks like the Traditional Values
Coalition, and the rest of those folks?
They're out there, they pay politicians and think-tanks, and they
vote. You got TK killed, but some of the **** they come up with makes
him look liberal.
People know about Westboro Baptist, but they are nothing. Lots of
groups out there, real close to them in ideology, that are
"respectable" and massively larger. Like TK they grab selected quotes,
actions, etc...to paint a distorted picture, and there is plenty of
that to use that's accurate.
Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
Scary thing is they are on both fringes, and do matter.
Bill C

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <rcousine-F87A3E.11152122062008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 10:08 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I
>
> > IMO that doesn't apply to you and TK though. The, I want to choose
> > the words carefully here, brutally hostile, psychopathic maybe,
> > totally irrational reaction you provoke from him just for living puts
> > you in a different situation. I'm really surprised that he doesn't
> > react that way to more people too. I'm not sure what, in particular,
> > makes you the target since others have been much nastier to him, with
> > much less provocation.
>
> TK has never been as mad at HK as I have. I got so mad, I sent Kveck a
> John Tesh CD.

I still don't know what I did to you to deserve having my home sullied with that
(heh).

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Kurgan Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 7:08 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > He claims, for example, to have an
> > engineering degree from the USAF
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> That's his engineering degree?!
>
> omg. hahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Jesus.

If you think that's funny, you'll get a huge laugh out of this (for two reasons):

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/630d210fe8a95a49

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Robert Chung]

On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>  Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25274602#25274602

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
> wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
> of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
> That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
> information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
> here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
> may do that.

> I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> does it apart, it validates their integrity.

I see it very differently. He may have more or less said that biofuels would have
an effect on world food supplies but that wasn't the point he was making. His point
was (once again) that liberals/progressives are bad people. Based on my reading of
TK's posts, he couldn't care less if people in Africa or Asia are going hungry,
except insofar as the darkies might get mad and rise up and inconvenience him in some
way.

The two most important things in Tom's life are 1) making himself seem important,
bigger, stronger, smarter and more moral than everyone else, and 2) bashing liberals
(which is a means to the first). This is how the logic works: if the people who
advocate the use of biofuel didn't foresee that it would lead to food supply
problems, they're stupid. If those food supply issues lead to problems in less
advantaged countries, then it's a simple step to consider that "genocide" and
everyone knows genocide is evil. So the people who advocate biofuels are both stupid
and evil. That means every cause they support is equally stupid and evil. The main
thing he was trying to do was associate biofuel advocacy with was global warming and
we all know that Tom is a global warming denier. Therefore, anyone who would advocate
the use of biofuels (which in Tom's simplistic worldview is everyone who ever
disagreed with him) is an immoral global warming hysteric and liar and Tom WINS
AGAIN!!!

So saying he was right about something that was a peripheral issue to his main
point is like saying that his use of the word 'the' was right and he was correct
about whatever thing he used it in.

--
tanx,
Howard

The bloody pubs are bloody dull
The bloody clubs are bloody full
Of bloody girls and bloody guys
With bloody murder in their eyes

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 22, 9:35 pm, Howard Kveck <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >  TK's point was that biofuels are bad for the world's food supply. I
> > wasn't sure about that then, and still am not sure about it, but lots
> > of supposedly credible people are agreeing with him on that point.
> >  That's almost always the point with TK. There's a solid kernel of
> > information there, then it explodes into something else, which it did
> > here, but that doesn't invalidate his original point. More research
> > may do that.
> >  I guess in this case, in particular, when he is right I feel he needs
> > to be recognized for it. It's intellectually honest, it sets whoever
> > does it apart, it validates their integrity.
>
>    I see it very differently. He may have more or less said that biofuels would have
> an effect on world food supplies but that wasn't the point he was making.His point
> was (once again) that liberals/progressives are bad people. Based on my reading of
> TK's posts, he couldn't care less if people in Africa or Asia are going hungry,
> except insofar as the darkies might get mad and rise up and inconveniencehim in some
> way.
>
>    The two most important things in Tom's life are 1) making himself seem important,
> bigger, stronger, smarter and more moral than everyone else, and 2) bashing liberals
> (which is a means to the first). This is how the logic works: if the people who
> advocate the use of biofuel didn't foresee that it would lead to food supply
> problems, they're stupid. If those food supply issues lead to problems inless
> advantaged countries, then it's a simple step to consider that "genocide"and
> everyone knows genocide is evil. So the people who advocate biofuels are both stupid
> and evil. That means every cause they support is equally stupid and evil.The main
> thing he was trying to do was associate biofuel advocacy with was global warming and
> we all know that Tom is a global warming denier. Therefore, anyone who would advocate
> the use of biofuels (which in Tom's simplistic worldview is everyone who ever
> disagreed with him) is an immoral global warming hysteric and liar and Tom WINS
> AGAIN!!!
>
>    So saying he was right about something that was a peripheral issueto his main
> point is like saying that his use of the word 'the' was right and he was correct
> about whatever thing he used it in.
>
> --
>                               tanx,
>                                Howard
>
>                    The bloody pubs are bloody dull
>                    The bloody clubs are bloody full
>                    Of bloody girls and bloody guys
>                    With bloody murder in their eyes
>
>                      remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Hard to argue against your case for him using everything to further
his politics, accurate or not. He does everything you say, I'm just
not sure what's cause and what's effect.
On politics he's on the same plane as the folks trotting out Bush is
******, and this is a Nazi police State hysteria we keep hearing too.
They don't want to hear the reality either, because it doesn't fit
their wishes. Anyone who disagrees is an idiot, or worse.
Noone's actually listening, looking, and learning. It's all about
ideology and propaganda.
Sweden is "1984", Bob Barr is a Libertarian???? Obama says we should
be use the Nuremburg trails as a guide. Well they have been illegal
under International law for decades. Those nice tolerant EU folks who
savaged the US on immigration are doing this:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iGHSDjGyjTSOztumXT57DcceQsVAD91CL8284
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_9647726

and we wont even get into McCain's complete dive into the Bush agenda.
Everyone needs an oil well in their yard, and NO you don't need no
stinkin' National Parks, they belong to the real Americans, the oil,
gas, mining, and timber companies, damnit!
I'll be not voting at all this time. Mass. will go Obama by a
landslide so JT need not fear that I'm gonna cost him the election, as
it did against Bush both times. That is a big factor in my decisions
BTW.
So TK really isn't that odd, unfortunately.
Maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all.
Bill C

 

[Bill C]

On Jun 22, 10:18 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

>  So TK really isn't that odd, unfortunately.
>  Maybe global warming isn't such a bad thing after all.
>  Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Just want to make sure that you know I'm NOT excusing, or minimizing
any of TKs behavior Howard. I may not have said it clearly enough, and
I agree with you almost completely. He does not allow for differing
points of view, and attacks the people, rather than the arguments they
are making.
Global warming is typical. I saw a poll today where the majority in
Britain are still unsure that humans are the primary cause, despite an
admitted campaign by the government to force this view on them. It's
impossible to argue against the warming trend credibly. it is possible
to reasonably be skeptical as to what the exact causes, and their
percentage of contribution to the trend, if any. That doesn't make
anyone a villain, despite the rhetoric from both sides, and TK is
virulent on this one.
Hysteria, propaganda, and personal attacks don't accomplish a damned
thing except to make damned sure the problem doesn't get solved, and
that works for people who exist, as public figures, and make their
money based on there being problems and hysteria they can exploit.
The only thing I know for sure is that anyone who's absolutely
convinced they are exactly right is going to be wrong in the end. I
can't count the times I've heard, and read from people who do know
things that "The more you know about anything the less sure you are,
and the more questions you have." There's always new research and
information out there and if you aren't willing to adjust to it, and
pretty damned quickly then you are ignorant, but hey it's easier to be
right when you are ignorant, no? Can't let facts, and reality
interfere with faith and ideology.
Bill C

 

[ST]

On 6/22/08 6:25 PM, in article
c0d6984f-ba75-4697-81a5-7b1b9edae30e@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "Robert
Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>  Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/25274602#25274602


What an assbag!!

If you can't make a f*ckin Chung Chart for this you ain't got ****!!

 

[[email protected]]

On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're making the argument that progressives and environmentalists
> haven't called for alternative energy/fuels??

Not at all. Wind, solar, running your Microbus off
used vegetable oil. It's just that right now, biofuel
mostly means corn-based ethanol, and apart from some
early misguided enthusiasm, I don't think there are
many serious environmentalists who think that is a good
idea. It doesn't reduce emissions in the long run and
it's basically a way to subsidize farming conglomerates
that already grow too much corn.

Other energy sources have their own tradeoffs (rich greenies
would rather put wind farms where they don't have to
look at them, etc) but that has always been the case.
Oil had tradeoffs too. It's just that oil was so
valuable that if oil was under some land, you could
just pay the owners to leave, or pay off the powers that
be to let you steal it. That goes on with ANWR drilling
too. The effect on the oil supply will be minimal, but
some people will make bank.

Ben