TK was exactly right. OT

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 <bob.schwa...@sbcREMOVE.global.net>
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 shit 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 <rcousine@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2-8939-b929819920dd@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 10:08*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> 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 <ea97c000-3cd4-4f5e-83bf-ab9abf89dadf@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 7:08*pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> 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....30d210fe8a95a49

--
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 <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:

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

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2242500...274602#25274602

Howard Kveck

In article <0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2-8939-b929819920dd@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> 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 <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> In article <0b3fc25c-5633-4ef2-8939-b92981992...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> *Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> 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
Hitler, 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/ALeqM5...ceQsVAD91CL8284
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 <tritonri...@verizon.net> 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-ba75-4697-81a5-7b1b9edae30...ooglegroups.com, "Robert
Chung" <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> *Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2242500...274602#25274602


What an assbag!!

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

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 21, 4:35 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> 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

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 22, 8:38*pm, ST <sdst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 6/22/08 6:25 PM, in article
> c0d6984f-ba75-4697-81a5-7b1b9edae...@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com, "Robert
>
> Chung" <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 22, 1:34*pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> *Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
>
> >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2242500...274602#25274602
>
> What an assbag!!




Dumbass -


Are you talking about McCain?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Fred Fredburger

Robert Chung wrote:
> On Jun 22, 1:34 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Michelle Obama's "proud" quote is a perfect example.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2242500...274602#25274602

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/damaging-mccain.html

Michael Press

In article
<ad4ae4f9-6480-4164-9547-0db30b2d8a08@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Kurgan Gringioni <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> 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?
> >
> > > 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.

That is not established. So far no laboratory has produced
petroleum from biomass. Petroleum may be biologically produced
but not from dead biomass, but from bacteria reducing methane
incorporated into the Earth when first formed. The dead
biomass theory also must explain the high pressure
of entrapped methane.

--
Michael Press

Kurgan Gringioni

On Jun 22, 11:47*pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <ad4ae4f9-6480-4164-9547-0db30b2d8...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> *Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 21, 4:03*pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Jun 21, 5:17*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 19, 2:42*pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 19, 10:23*am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 19, 9:47*am, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > That biofuels are a two-edged sword was never disputed. *Tom way
> > > > > > > saying that the whole global warming thing is a myth and thathuman
> > > > > > > activity has no effect on the planet's climate. *So I'm notsure 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?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> That is not established.



Dumbass -


Maybe not all of it. But . . .

From:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/art...1/origin-of-oil

<snip>

The Origin & Rate of Oil Formation
Crude oils themselves do not take long to be generated from
appropriate organic matter. Most petroleum geologists believe crude
oils form mostly from plant material, such as diatoms (single-celled
marine and freshwater photosynthetic organisms)12 and beds of coal
(huge fossilized masses of plant debris).13 The latter is believed to
be the source of most Australian crude oils and natural gas because
coal beds are in the same sequences of sedimentary rock layers as the
petroleum reservoir rocks.14 Thus, for example, it has been
demonstrated in the laboratory that moderate heating of the brown
coals of the Gippsland Basin of Victoria, Australia, to simulate their
rapid deeper burial, will generate crude oil and natural gas similar
to that found in reservoir rocks offshore in only 2–5 days.15

<snip><end>


thanks,

K. Gringioni.