|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#2
June 23rd 06, 04:46 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,alt.conspiracy,sci.space.history
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
(Eric Chomko) wrote:
:Fred J. McCall ) wrote: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote: : :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote: :: : :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote: :: :: :: h (Rand Simberg) wrote: :: :: : :: :: :: :On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:28:52 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my :: :: :: :monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: : : :We'll see what Libby gets away with next spring. :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: : : Go read the charges, Eric. :: :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: : Lying. Why is he being held, Fred? Why isn't he at home? :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : He's not at home? Where is he? :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: At home in McLean, VA :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about (as usual). :: :: :: : :: :: :: :He'll be in court in early 2007, right? :: :: :: : :: :: :: :You still haven't explained why you asked why he wasn't at home, when :: :: :: :he was at home. You can't just sweep sand over this like cat turds, :: :: :: :Eric. :: :: : :: :: :: Of course he can't, Rand. That's why you don't killfile him and do :: :: :: killfile me. It's easy to make El Chimpo look stupid. :: :: : :: :: :Yet you're killfiled like the scurvy dog that you are... :: : :: :: And he keeps you around because you're so easy to make look stupid. :: : :: :Yes, I'm so crushed I go away. : :: Only in our dreams, Eric. Only in our dreams. : :I know you really don't mean that as I provide a way for you to snipe at :Rand. Face it, you NEED me. For what? Comic relief? ::  o you think kissing Rand's ass with comments like the one above will get:: :you out of his killfile? Your so transparent... : :: Uh, Eric? Since I'm in his killfile Rand doesn't see them (unless :: someone like you stupidly echoes them). Only you would be so clever :: as to think I gave a **** what Rand thinks AND would think that I'm :: somehow trying to 'kiss up' by saying things RAND DOESN'T SEE! : :He sees them through my posts you buffoon. But you know that and I'm :letting you know that I know that as well. As I said, Rand doesn't seem them (unless someone like you stupidly echoes them). :: Jesus, you're a real rocket scientist, aren't you? : :No, just much smarter than you, and therefore smarter than you're capable  f giving me credit for.El Chimpo, you'd HAVE to be smarter than you seem here. From the intellect you show here, I wouldn't believe you have enough brain to even have autonomic reflexes. :You sort of live the "dog philosophy", 'if you can't screw it or eat it, :then **** on it'. LOL! I manage to stay one step (at least) in front of :you. Think about what you just said, El Chimpo. I don't want to screw you. I don't want to eat you (I suspect the meat is too rancid, even if I overcook it). Men **** to the front, which is just where you stay. Of course, since Eric squats to pee he probably didn't realize that he just expressed pride in his ability to stay in the golden showers. :: :: :: :And you think he's innocent to :: :: :: :don't you Rand? :: :: :: : :: :: :: :I have no idea. For all I know, he did lie to the grand jury, since :: :: :: :that's all he's been charged with. It may be a hard case for the :: :: ::  rosecutor to win, though, and it's going to make many members of the:: :: :: ress look pretty bad when all the conflicting stories come out.:: :: :: :: :: :: Oh, I expect he'll get convicted of SOMETHING. I also expect that :: :: :: they'll drag it out to try to make it peak in the latter half of 2008. :: :: : :: :: :Who is they? So the Dems used independent counsels for political gains and :: :: :the Republicans don't is that it, Fred? :: : :: :: Well, if you're going to make **** up and pretend it was said, I :: :: suppose we're done here. :: : :: :Run, like the dog you are... : :: Run? You're having a debate with YOURSELF, Eric. What's there to run :: from? : :Being a dog... Being a fungus... :: :: :A sickness to partisanship is what has created this latest GOP swell. See :: :: :the sins of the other side and ignore the sins of those on my side. THAT :: :: :is the Republican way! :: :: :: :: No, the culture of the victim is your way. Poor Eric. The cry of the :: :: three year old. "They did it too!" :: : :: :More like payback is hell. You don't know who you're posting with... : :: snicker : :: Unfortunately for you, Eric, what you are is obvious to pretty much :: everyone. : :Funny way of speaking about you and that turd in your pocket. How can someone with so little brain manage to hallucinate so freely? :: :: Yeah, that makes it all better. :: : :: :It isn't about looking bstter it is about what is. Impeachment over lying :: :about sex while Bin Laden and Al Qeada were planning 9/11 deserves some :: :fallout on the right. Sorry, but THAT is the way it's going to be. You :: :deserve nothing less. : :: Eric, I'd ask what the **** you think you're talking about, but I :: really don't care. : :Sure you do... Sorry, but no. :: :: :: Nope. Nothing political about THIS investigation, no sir! :: :: : :: :: :And Clinton's witchhunt was justified, right? Go on Fred tell me how :: :: :Clinton's case was all about proper justice and this Libby ordeal is a :: :: artisan ruse by the Dems. Go ahead, I dare you!:: :: :: :: Ok. I will. :: :: :: :: Clinton got impeached. Libby has 5 minor charges that amount to less :: :: than Clinton was accused of. :: : :: :...until he starts naming names. : :: And why's he going to do that, Eric? : :Plea baragin rather than serve jail time. It happens all the time. What charges are there that he needs a plea bargain on? After Clinton it's going to be real hard to do much to anyone for what amounts to accidental misstatements. :: :: I'd tell you to figure it out at this point, but I know you can't. :: :: :: :: :: :: : You do nothing to clarify. Why doesn't more gasohol make us less dependent :: :: :: :: : on foriegn oil? :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : Because it takes more fossil fuels in fertilizer to grow the corn to :: :: :: :: : make it than the resulting alcohol contains, energetically. :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: Fossil fuels in fertilizer? I think mistake your bull**** with gasoline. :: :: :: : :: :: :: :: No, once again you demonstrate your ignorance. :: :: :: : :: :: :: :Are you trying to say that it requires the expenditure of more fossil :: :: :: :fuels to grow corn than the corn produces gasohol of equal value? :: :: :: : :: :: :: :No, I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that. I say that because :: :: :: :it's true. :: :: : :: :: :: Whether or not that's true rather depends on whose numbers you think :: :: :: are right. Studies are about evenly split and cover a broad range of :: :: :: values. Ho (1989), Pimentel (1991), and Keeney and DeLuca (1992) all :: :: :: arrive at the conclusion that it costs more energy to produce a gallon :: :: :: of ethanol from corn than you get when you burn the ethanol. On the :: :: :: other hand, Marland and Turhollow (1991), Morris and Ahmed (1992), and :: :: :: Shapouri, Duffield and Graboski (1995) come to the opposite :: :: :: conclusion. :: :: : :: :: :Let's makes enough and see where it goes. If it isn't cost effective then :: :: :we stop. :: :: :: :: And how much evidence does it take before you admit "it isn't cost :: :: effective"? :: : :: :One year of time. : :: Eric, you dumbass, we ALREADY produce *3,000,000,000* gallons of :: ethanol in this country, year in and year out. : :: You've had your year and then some. : :Yes, and still gas is over $3 gallon. This adminsitration could care less :about ethanol or any other alternate form of fuel. The status quo with :more profits for Big Oil is all they care about. And like the bobble head :that you are you go right along with them. And ethanol is over $5 per gallon. Yeah, let's switch! Dumbass... :: :: :The key is the govt. must first foot the bill :: : :: :: Why? The government didn't foot the bill for petroleum. :: : :: :Yes they did, it's called the "War in Iraq" and we are still paying there :: :and at the pump. : :: Hint: If it was 'all about oil' we'd have declared war on Canada. : :The problem with that the way this administration runs things we'd be aying $6 gallon and have lost over 5000 troops by now, not to mention:even deeper anti-American sentiments. El Chimpo, you aren't even bright enough to know what YOU do. :: They're closer, we get more oil from them than from anyone else, and :: the women are generally friendlier. : :Leave it to you to discuss attacking a fellow NATO country even in a :joking (you ARE joking, right?!) manner. If Canada joined OPEC and :accepted only euros for oil, then you'd at least have a point, until then :you are full of ****, as usual... Dumbass, we got practically no oil from Iraq. We get practically no oil from Iraq. We get more oil from Canada than anywhere else. Look it up. :: :Bush's energy policy is to allow Big Oil to do whatever they want and :: :he'll go along with it. Some leadership. Luckily they have useful idiots :: :like you that blindly support them. : :: Reading the preceding, it's pretty obvious that the only blind person :: here is you. : :: Facts just never intrude on Planet Chomko.... : :The fact is that Cheney had his talks with Big Oil early in the first term  energy task force). Did we ever get a chance to read what was outlined:for us, the people. NO! That was off limits. Excuse me! Who does this :administration serve? Elections are a bothersome chore required to keep :the same corrupt leadership in power, by any means necessary. El Chimpo, if it's going to get published, NOBODY talks. Well, except you, but being a judgment-proof juvenile who's obviously too stupid to be considered as anything other than a joke is how you get away with that. :: :: :and then stop is :: :: :there is loss or turn over the profit making potenial to private :: :: :insdustry. :: : :: :: At which point you and your ilk will be screaming about how the :: :: government is giving stuff away to business. :: : :: :Yeah, like we did with the internet... moron... : :: Wait for it. They're not charging you based on traffic yet, Eric. : :No just for the connection. I wish they DID charge the spammers, don't :you? We might even balance the budget again if they did. Oh wait, Reagan roved that a balanced budget isn't important (Cheney's words). Yeah, no:**** as long as Democrat president follows up the fiscally conservative :ethic of not spending more than you make, unlike the current crop in ffice!If they charge enough to shut down spammers, most of whom use hidden and 'zombie' machines, what do you think YOU are going to get to pay for traffic, El Chimpo? I remember the days when we paid by the minute for access through a pad. Not days I want to see return. :: :We like when govt. turns things over to the private sector as it generates :: :tax revenue. You just want a tax break. : :: 'We'? You got a turd in your pocket? : :I thought I flushed you... You left reality after your second word. :: Who you want 'em to turn it over to, Eric? The oil companies? : :No, they end up buying then later like EXXON did with Zilog and then romptly killed the company.: :No. I'm talking about a case where a new industry is created and in the :fallout of that some large companies go the way of Standard Oil. It is :neccessary. Right now the IT industry is much worse off than it should be. :This admisinstraion knows nothing other than oil. Look at the whole lot of :them. So who do you think they should give it to, Eric? Why are you so stupid as to think the government should be in the business of destroying companies and giving gifts to others? :: :: :Bush, being tied to Big Oil by the hip, won't do it! He's an oil :: :: :businessman first that moonlights as a politician. The whole damn :: :: :administration is like that! We, the People, are second in the mind's of :: :: :this administration. And second at best! :: : :: :: I see that reality still doesn't intrude for you. Bush has done more :: :: to push ethanol as a fuel than anyone before him. You merely deny the :: :: facts. :: : :: :Push ethanol? What like defending Argentina? You're a joke, McClod... : :: Factual rebuttal? Not in ChomkoWorld. : :: :: :: In general, studies that conclude the balance is positive in favour of :: :: :: ethanol assume low energy costs for conversion (Marland and :: :: :: Turhollow), high values for the co-product energy credit (Shapouri, :: :: :: Duffield and Graboski), or both (Morris and Ahmed). In the latter two :: :: :: studies the co=product energy credit was responsible for virtually all :: :: :: of the net positive energy for a gallon of ethanol. They also tend to :: :: :: assume lower fertilizer usage rates (which are probably in accord with :: :: :: current practice) and higher crop yields. :: :: : :: :: :Hold the studies and simply try it for a year. See what happens. :: :: :: :: Eric, we produce ethanol NOW. The studies look at the numbers from :: :: that. :: : :: :But we don't produce anything nearly enough to make gas become cheaper. We :: :still pay $3 or more at the pump for fossil fuel. : :: And about $5 per gallon for ethanol, you dumb *******. : :Because you're drinking it you fool! Wrong. That's the price for INDUSTRIAL ETHANOL, you stupid ****. :: Eric, could you JUST ONCE have a clue what the **** you're talking :: about? : :And make your life easier. Not on your life McClod. You being an ignorant idiot is supposed to make MY life harder? BWAAAAAHAAAAAHaaaaahaaaaahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!! :: :: :: If there is a net positive energy gain in producing a gallon of :: :: :: ethanol from corn, it is quite small. :: :: : :: :: :Again why not just try it? HAve the govt. sponsor it initially and then :: :: :stop if it is a loss or turn it over to private industry when it succeeds. :: :: :: :: One more time. Read the following closely: :: :: :: :: WE ALREADY PRODUCE OVER 3,000,000,000 GALLONS OF ETHANOL IN THIS :: :: COUNTRY. THE ENERGY USED TO PRODUCE IT IS ROUGHLY EQUAL TO THE ENERGY :: :: THE ETHANOL CONTAINS. :: : :: :Rand said it was more. Go figure... : :: Depends on which study you go with. It's pretty much a lose without :: an 'associated product credit'. : :Butanol? Where is the push for that in this administration? What are you gibbering about now, Eric? You really know less than nothing about the whole oil/ethanol issue, don't you? :: :: Is it starting to sink in yet, Eric? Calls to 'just try it for a :: :: while' merely display your ignorance. :: : :: :Yet you have no cites or references. You remind me of the crowd that says :: :there is no such thing as Global Warming. More right-wing-speak... : :: I posted cites to six studies, you dumb *******. They're the six :: preeminent studies of the issue. I can't MAKE you go read them and I :: certainly can't endow you with the ability to understand what you :: read. : :Six studies? Like the ones you posted here? Thought so... Eric, how many do you think there have been. How many have YOU read? You're not only ignorant AND stupid, but you're inordinately stubborn about remaining that way. -- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson 
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | History | 158 | December 13th 14 09:50 PM |
| Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 2nd 06 06:35 AM |
| EADS SPACE acquires Dutch Space | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 3rd 05 12:12 PM |
| Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
| International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Hybrid Mode
