Why da Urf is, like, hot an' ****...

[Lord Valve]

'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.

Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
go with it. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc (proof)

Lord Valve
Globally Cool

[MarkS]

"Lord Valve" > wrote in message
...
> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
>
> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> go with it. ;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc (proof)
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool
>
>
>


OK,
So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
reason there is a second amendment.
I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.

Mark

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 9, 10:40*pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
> "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> > a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> > ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
>
> > Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> > go with it. *;-)
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>
> > Lord Valve
> > Globally Cool
>
> OK,
> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
> do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
> reason there is a second amendment.
> I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
> jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
> beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>
> Mark

Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ

[Lord Valve]

Andre Jute wrote:

> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
> > "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> > > a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> > > ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
> >
> > > Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> > > go with it. ;-)
> >
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
> >
> > > Lord Valve
> > > Globally Cool
> >
> > OK,
> > So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
> > do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
> > reason there is a second amendment.
> > I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
> > jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
> > beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
> >
> > Mark
>
> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ

Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.

LV

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Lord Valve wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
>>> "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
>>>> a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
>>>> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
>>>> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
>>>> go with it. ;-)
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>>>> Lord Valve
>>>> Globally Cool
>>> OK,
>>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
>>> do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
>>> reason there is a second amendment.
>>> I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
>>> jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
>>> beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>>>
>>> Mark
>> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
>> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ
>
> Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
>
> LV
>
>

Meth-swilling homosexuals usually do.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:47:45 -0700, Lord Valve
> wrote:

>Andre Jute wrote:
>
>> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
>> > "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
>> > > a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
>> > > ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
>> >
>> > > Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
>> > > go with it. ;-)
>> >
>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>> >
>> > > Lord Valve
>> > > Globally Cool
>> >
>> > OK,
>> > So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
>> > do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
>> > reason there is a second amendment.
>> > I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
>> > jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
>> > beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>> >
>> > Mark
>>
>> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
>> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ
>
>Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
>
>LV
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QSLuHVD1M0

funny

d

[boardjunkie]

On Dec 9, 4:44*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
>
> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> go with it. *;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool

Whoa.....that was....like.....cool and ****.....duuude........

[RichL]

MarkS > wrote:

> OK,
> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.

Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the properly
elected government of the United States from behind his keyboard...

YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!

[adminattubezone.net]

On Dec 9, 3:44*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
>
> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> go with it. *;-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>
> Lord Valve
> Globally Cool

He's got his numbers wrong, but the principle is right.

Practically everyone in Iceland gets heat and hot water from
geothermal, the Mexicans generate electricity from it,
there's certainly other examples.

It is hot down there, that's like, you know, where lava
that makes them volcanoes and the heat that makes
water and steam shoot out of Old Faithful comes from.
It's not Disney animatronics effects, believe it or not.

[MarkS]

"RichL" > wrote in message
m...
> MarkS > wrote:
>
>> OK,
>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
>> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
>> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
>
> Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the properly
> elected government of the United States from behind his keyboard...
>
> YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>
>
First of all "Rich" I'll do what I want when I want to, if you don't like
it, shove it. Great thing about this country, isn't it?

My point was to the Command and Control copy only. If our founding fathers
read the same copy, they'd be headed for their muskets. I don't advocate
over throwing anything. The shear gall of C-C is amazing.

MarkS

[sam booka]

"adminattubezone.net" > tapped the mic and amongst
other things, said, "Is this on?"
:

> On Dec 9, 3:44*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
>> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!)
>> jus
> t
>> a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
>> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
>>
>> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
>> go with it. *;-)
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>>
>> Lord Valve
>> Globally Cool
>
> He's got his numbers wrong, but the principle is right.
>
> Practically everyone in Iceland gets heat and hot water from
> geothermal, the Mexicans generate electricity from it,
> there's certainly other examples.
>
> It is hot down there, that's like, you know, where lava
> that makes them volcanoes and the heat that makes
> water and steam shoot out of Old Faithful comes from.
> It's not Disney animatronics effects, believe it or not.

Gee, and nearly every major volcano that pops it top spews more CO2 than
the entire Industrial Revolution. Monserrat... Pinatubo... St. Helens...
egads there's about 3 IR's right there... OMG!!!

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Lord Valve]

flipper wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
> >MarkS > wrote:
> >
> >> OK,
> >> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
> >> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
> >> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
> >
> >Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the properly
> >elected government of the United States from behind his keyboard...
> >
> >YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>
> I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
> choosing dictators.

Why, sure it is.

Problem is, once you do that, democracy is over with.
*That's* what the second amendment is about.

Lord Valve
Seconds, anyone?

[Lord Valve]

"adminattubezone.net" wrote:

> On Dec 9, 3:44 pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> > 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> > a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> > ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
> >
> > Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> > go with it. ;-)
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOST
> >
> > Lord Valve
> > Globally Cool
>
> He's got his numbers wrong,

Gosh - seems to be a whole lot of that goin' on in the Church of Global Warming
lately...

> but the principle is right.
>
> Practically everyone in Iceland gets heat and hot water from
> geothermal, the Mexicans generate electricity from it,
> there's certainly other examples.

Who said differently? This is some sort of big secret?

> It is hot down there, that's like, you know, where lava
> that makes them volcanoes and the heat that makes
> water and steam shoot out of Old Faithful comes from.
> It's not Disney animatronics effects, believe it or not.

Sure - be an ass. No problem.

Like most leftists, you assume you're smarter than
your opponents, and never fail to deliver some sort
of PC/doctrinaire lecture given the slightest opportunity.
After all, it's part of the "compassionate" model to
provide education to the ignorant assholes who fail
to play by your rules.

You want geothermal energy? Fine. Only megacorporations
like Exxon or Haliburton have the machines and the know-how
to make that happen. They'll want to get paid for it, just like
they get paid for sucking oil out of the dirt you're standing on.
Once it becomes a money-making concern, leftist fools
will point out that removing heat from the earth's core will
cool the planet down (and it most certainly will) and they'll
begin to screech with the same stridency they always
manage to achieve when confronted with something
other than windmills and bicycles, and the new meme
will be Global Cooling - just like it was thirty years ago,
when all the most respected scientists were screaming
that we were all going to freeze in the coming ice age
if we didn't do something about it immediately.

Folks would be much better able to stomach your bull****
if the flavor didn't change every thirty years or so. Make
up your ****in' minds, Jeezuz on a Harley...

BTW - oil companies make less profit on a percentage
basis than grocery stores. PERCENTAGES are what
matter, not total sales. Figure it out, rocket scientists.
If you don't want to pay someone's points for your
goodies, keep pushing that socialism bull****. That
way, *everybody* can be equally miserable, and only
top party officials and apparatchiks willl have heat
and air conditioning. And cars. And maybe food, too.

Lord Valve
Globally Cool

[RichL]

flipper > wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>> MarkS > wrote:
>>
>>> OK,
>>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
>>> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
>>> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
>>
>> Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the
>> properly elected government of the United States from behind his
>> keyboard...
>>
>> YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
> choosing dictators.

If you think the present administration is anywhere near close to a
"dictatorship" of any sort, you're even more deranged than I thought.

The administration is clearly in the mainstream of American political
thought as it has existed for the last 80 years or so. Obama could not
have been elected were that not the case, and you know it. You folks
act as if there's some stealthy conspiracy going on, but everything that
Obama has proposed is something that he talked about during his
campaign.

There is nothing whatsoever that prevents the people from changing the
present government within the confines of constitutional procedures
(read: ELECTIONS) if the majority of the people see fit to do so.

You will get your chances to support your candidates and promote their
views when the time comes; in the meantime, you can just COOL YOUR HEELS
like Democrats did for eight years, and be part of a LOYAL opposition.

This "get yer guns" bull**** is precisely that, bull****, and you and
everyone else who promotes it should be ashamed to call yourselves
Americans. It's childish beyond belief.

[Lord Valve]

flipper wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:10:06 -0700, Lord Valve
> > wrote:
>
> >flipper wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >MarkS > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> OK,
> >> >> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
> >> >> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
> >> >> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
> >> >
> >> >Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the properly
> >> >elected government of the United States from behind his keyboard...
> >> >
> >> >YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
> >>
> >> I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
> >> choosing dictators.
> >
> >Why, sure it is.
>
> It would seem, by their actions, that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the
> left in general, agree but I stand by my statement that it isn't.
>
> >
> >Problem is, once you do that, democracy is over with.
>
> Which was my point.

Well, yeah....mine too.

> >*That's* what the second amendment is about.
>
> Never happen.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Consider the monolith that was the Soviet Union in, say, 1960.
It was the largest country on the Earth, spanning 12 time zones.
(Largest country in all of history, in fact.) It fell to pieces.

Mao took China with an army of peasants. Our own founders
had the audacity to challenge the most powerful country on
the planet. They won.

It might not take force of arms; the cash/underground economy
will expand radically as the government becomes more oppressive
and their monetary policies become more confiscatory. The
harder they enforce against it, the more enemies they will
generate among the general populace. How many will they
have to **** over before the tipping point is reached? Perhaps
fewer than you might think.

One thing is certain: if the idiot we have in the whitehouse gets
a second term, the conflict will escalate rapidly. Once people
figure out that there's no upside to toeing the line, they'll also
figure out they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by
trying to *erase* the line.

And there's a *****load* of firearms in private hands.

Lord Valve
American

[RichL]

Lord Valve > wrote:

> One thing is certain: if the idiot we have in the whitehouse gets
> a second term, the conflict will escalate rapidly.

If "the idiot we have in the whitehouse gets a second term", it will
have meant that the majority of people who voted selected him --
*again*. You can't seem to wrap that little dose of reality around your
tinfoil-clad head, can you?

> Once people figure out that there's no upside to toeing the line,
they'll
> also figure out they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by
> trying to *erase* the line.
>
> And there's a *****load* of firearms in private hands.

Thankfully, they're not all as dim-witted as you are.

You're a ****ing bone-headed spoiled-brat child, Willie, puffing your
internet muscles once again, talking a tough-guy game while huddled
behind your keyboard.

YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!

You can't accept the premise upon which this country was founded,
namely, in a democracy, the majority gets to choose its leadership.

YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!

Stop braying about "commies" and "socialism" and work within the system
to convince others of the validity of your views (the real ones, not
your "internet asshole" puffery). That's the way it works, bubba.
That's how Obama got elected. That's how Bush got elected before him.

YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!

Be a real man, Willie. Admit to yourself that the US was never that
monolithic entity that you imagine it was in your dreams; that there has
always been disagreement about political issues, often much worse than
it is now. Whatever happened to "my country, right or wrong"? That
doesn't mean you blindly accept it, it means you work within our
constitutional system to change it, and if the majority disagrees with
you, YOU SUCK IT UP until you can convince them otherwise.

YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!

As usual, you're getting all lathered up because you've got an audience.
It's really a pitiful performance, because in the end when it comes to
politics you're a NO BLOWER.

[TPS]

On Dec 10, 12:54*pm, "RichL" > wrote:
> flipper > wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
> > wrote:
>
> >> MarkS > wrote:
>
> >>> OK,
> >>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
> >>> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
> >>> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
>
> >> Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the
> >> properly elected government of the United States from behind his
> >> keyboard...
>
> >> YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>
> > I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
> > choosing dictators.
>
> If you think the present administration is anywhere near close to a
> "dictatorship" of any sort, you're even more deranged than I thought.
>
> The administration is clearly in the mainstream of American political
> thought as it has existed for the last 80 years or so. *Obama could not
> have been elected were that not the case, and you know it. *You folks
> act as if there's some stealthy conspiracy going on, but everything that
> Obama has proposed is something that he talked about during his
> campaign.
>
> There is nothing whatsoever that prevents the people from changing the
> present government within the confines of constitutional procedures
> (read: ELECTIONS) if the majority of the people see fit to do so.
>
> You will get your chances to support your candidates and promote their
> views when the time comes; in the meantime, you can just COOL YOUR HEELS
> like Democrats did for eight years, and be part of a LOYAL opposition.
>
> This "get yer guns" bull**** is precisely that, bull****, and you and
> everyone else who promotes it should be ashamed to call yourselves
> Americans. *It's childish beyond belief.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well put.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> flipper > wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> MarkS > wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK,
>>>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
>>>> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
>>>> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
>>> Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the
>>> properly elected government of the United States from behind his
>>> keyboard...
>>>
>>> YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>>
>> I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
>> choosing dictators.
>
> If you think the present administration is anywhere near close to a
> "dictatorship" of any sort, you're even more deranged than I thought.
>
> The administration is clearly in the mainstream of American political
> thought as it has existed for the last 80 years or so. Obama could not
> have been elected were that not the case, and you know it. You folks
> act as if there's some stealthy conspiracy going on, but everything that
> Obama has proposed is something that he talked about during his
> campaign.
>

These are roughly the same people who still beleive Vince Foster
Konspiracy Theeeries left over from Clinton. All that
stuff was *planted* directly by Richard Mellon Scaife.

> There is nothing whatsoever that prevents the people from changing the
> present government within the confines of constitutional procedures
> (read: ELECTIONS) if the majority of the people see fit to do so.
>

Yarp.

> You will get your chances to support your candidates and promote their
> views when the time comes; in the meantime, you can just COOL YOUR HEELS
> like Democrats did for eight years, and be part of a LOYAL opposition.
>

People are scared. We've been here too many times
since '82, in a financial winter. As did Reagan, so (more or
less) did Clinton, so did both Bushes.

And given the sheer level of absolute idiocy aimed at
people by the media these days, no wonder they're freaking
out. Advertising and entertainment rely on willing suspension
of disbelief, which creates an aftereffect of cognitive
dissonance.


> This "get yer guns" bull**** is precisely that, bull****, and you and
> everyone else who promotes it should be ashamed to call yourselves
> Americans. It's childish beyond belief.
>
>

Some people on the Left need to be smacked pretty hard - they're leading
people on this way. They're *intentionally* saying that Obama's gonna
do relatively Totalitarian things, both to play to the expanding
audience for Totalitarianism, and to tweak the Righties.

I think people need to watch more CSPAN. You get to see the unedited
things they actually *do*, which are better than even my cynical
self would have expected. The odd "WTF?" comes up, but it's not as
bad as you'd think.

--
Les Cargill

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 9, 11:47*pm, Lord Valve > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
> > > "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> > > > a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> > > > ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
>
> > > > Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> > > > go with it. *;-)
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>
> > > > Lord Valve
> > > > Globally Cool
>
> > > OK,
> > > So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control.....
> > > do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
> > > reason there is a second amendment.
> > > I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
> > > jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
> > > beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>
> > > Mark
>
> > Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
> > only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. *-- AJ
>
> Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
>
> LV

You're still the Boss Troll of the Thermionic Airwaves, my Lord Valve.

Andre Jute
Lost in admiration

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 10, 12:18*am, Les Cargill > wrote:
> Lord Valve wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
> >>> "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >>>> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> >>>> a couple of kilometers down. *An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> >>>> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. *An' that's why it'z hot.
> >>>> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> >>>> go with it. *;-)
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
> >>>> Lord Valve
> >>>> Globally Cool
> >>> OK,
> >>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control.....
> >>> do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
> >>> reason there is a second amendment.
> >>> I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
> >>> jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
> >>> beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>
> >>> Mark
> >> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
> >> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. *-- AJ
>
> > Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
>
> > LV
>
> Meth-swilling homosexuals usually do.

The homosexuals were Roehm's Brownshirts. Hitler purged them because
Captain Roehm thought his gay marching men would replace the
Wehrmacht. -- AJ

[sam booka]

"RichL" > tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" m:

> YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!
>
> As usual, you're getting all lathered up because you've got an
> audience. It's really a pitiful performance, because in the end when
> it comes to politics you're a NO BLOWER.

Tub thumper for disgraced former scientists says WHAT?

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Claude V. Lucas]

In article >,
sam booka > wrote:
>"RichL" > tapped the mic and amongst other things,
>said, "Is this on?" m:
>
>> YOU LOST -- GET OVER IT!
>>
>> As usual, you're getting all lathered up because you've got an
>> audience. It's really a pitiful performance, because in the end when
>> it comes to politics you're a NO BLOWER.
>
>Tub thumper for disgraced former scientists says WHAT?
^^^^^^^^^^^

Spelchek: "Poster Boy"

[Lord Valve]

Les Cargill wrote:

> Lord Valve wrote:
> > Andre Jute wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
> >>> "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
> >>>> a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
> >>>> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
> >>>> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
> >>>> go with it. ;-)
> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
> >>>> Lord Valve
> >>>> Globally Cool
> >>> OK,
> >>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
> >>> do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
> >>> reason there is a second amendment.
> >>> I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
> >>> jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
> >>> beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
> >> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ
> >
> > Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
> >
> > LV
> >
> >
>
> Meth-swilling homosexuals usually do.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Never having been acquainted with anyone in either camp, I'll defer to your
superior experience.

Lord Valve
Neither a Swiller nor a Swisher

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

Lord Valve wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>
>> Lord Valve wrote:
>>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 9, 10:40 pm, "MarkS" > wrote:
>>>>> "Lord Valve" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Cuz Algore sez it's, like, "several million degrees" (direct quote!) just
>>>>>> a couple of kilometers down. An' I guess, like, people dig holes an'
>>>>>> ****, and the heat comes out an' stuff. An' that's why it'z hot.
>>>>>> Makes as much sense as the scammers in Copenhagen - I'll
>>>>>> go with it. ;-)
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc(proof)
>>>>>> Lord Valve
>>>>>> Globally Cool
>>>>> OK,
>>>>> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and Control....
>>>>> do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy ****...this is exactly the
>>>>> reason there is a second amendment.
>>>>> I hear there is a new dress code within the EPA; all black, lots of leather
>>>>> jackets with lightening bolts on the lapels...beautiful, just ****in'
>>>>> beautiful. I don't like it, I don't like it one bit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>> Being blonde and handsome, I rather fancy all-deepest black relieved
>>>> only by silver lightning bolts on the lapels. -- AJ
>>> Whatever you might think about their politics, the *******s had style.
>>>
>>> LV
>>>
>>>
>> Meth-swilling homosexuals usually do.
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Never having been acquainted with anyone in either camp, I'll defer to your
> superior experience.
>
> Lord Valve
> Neither a Swiller nor a Swisher
>
>
>
>

LOL. See "42nd Street".

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Spender > wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:30:05 -0500, "RichL" >
> wrote:
>
>> Lord Valve > wrote:
>>
>>> One thing is certain: if the idiot we have in the whitehouse gets
>>> a second term, the conflict will escalate rapidly.
>>
>> If "the idiot we have in the whitehouse gets a second term", it will
>> have meant that the majority of people who voted selected him --
>> *again*. You can't seem to wrap that little dose of reality around
>> your tinfoil-clad head, can you?
>
> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the majority
> of voters to do with as they please.

Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat to
vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which is as
stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.

Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.

My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some sore
loser who can't get over having lost an election.

[Lord Valve]

Spender wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:10:20 -0500, "RichL" > wrote:
>
> >Spender > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the majority
> >> of voters to do with as they please.
> >
> >Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat to
> >vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
> >filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which is as
> >stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.
> >
> >Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
> >tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.
> >
> >My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some sore
> >loser who can't get over having lost an election.
>
> It seems strange that you assume there will always be enough politicians
> in either party to block actions by the majority. Famous last words.
>
> And it doesn't address the point I made. Not even a 99.9% majority has
> ownerships rights of a human being.

The EPA will have more power over individuals than Hitler's SS ever dreamed
of if Congress (or someone) doesn't stop them *right* *now*.

Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all.
See what Krauthammer has to say about it:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4Y2VlOGU4MDQ3MDc0MWRkN2ExMzIzMjdmZWMwYmE=

The three laws of Socialism:

1) You can't win
2) You can't break even
3) You have to fight a ****ing WAR to get out of the game

#3 is looking more and more likely.


http://www.bikepainter.com/obamasocialism.jpg


Lord Valve
Cheerfully posted from the People's Republic of Obamastan
(Occupied United States of God Damn America)
BaaaaaarrrrrRRRRAAAACCCCCCKKK!! <Safety!!>

O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake,
A merica!

http://tinyurl.com/cv4mbm

Don't forget to nark this fishy post to !

http://www.bikepainter.com/same****.jpg

[RichL]

Lord Valve > wrote:
> Spender wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:10:20 -0500, "RichL" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Spender > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the
>>>> majority of voters to do with as they please.
>>>
>>> Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat
>>> to vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
>>> filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which
>>> is as stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.
>>>
>>> Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
>>> tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.
>>>
>>> My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some sore
>>> loser who can't get over having lost an election.
>>
>> It seems strange that you assume there will always be enough
>> politicians in either party to block actions by the majority. Famous
>> last words.
>>
>> And it doesn't address the point I made. Not even a 99.9% majority
>> has ownerships rights of a human being.
>
> The EPA will have more power over individuals than Hitler's SS ever
> dreamed of if Congress (or someone) doesn't stop them *right* *now*.
>
> Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all.
> See what Krauthammer has to say about it:
>
>
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4Y2VlOGU4MDQ3MDc0MWRkN2ExMzIzMjdmZWMwYmE=


"Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"?
Wow.

Willie, did you read the fine print at the end of the article?

"Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The
Washington Post Writers Group"

Get that? The Washington Post! And it's not just there because he
works for them, it's there because that's where the article originally
appeared!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003163.html

"Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"!
Hah!

See, Willie, those of us who read the "leftist" media get to see all
points of view, including the nutters.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 10, 9:10*am, Lord Valve > wrote:
> flipper wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:32:00 -0500, "RichL" >
> > wrote:
>
> > >MarkS > wrote:
>
> > >> OK,
> > >> So now the big O is threatening Congress with EPA Command and
> > >> Control.... do it or we'll do it and you won't like it..holy
> > >> ****...this is exactly the reason there is a second amendment.
>
> > >Oh good, another internet blowhard who's going to overthrow the properly
> > >elected government of the United States from behind his keyboard...
>
> > >YOU LOST....GET OVER IT!
>
> > I hate to burst your bubble but 'democracy' is not a process for
> > choosing dictators.
>
> Why, sure it is.
>
> Problem is, once you do that, democracy is over with.
> *That's* what the second amendment is about.
>
> Lord Valve
> Seconds, anyone?

The real problem is this country is not a democracy.
It's a republic! Quite a difference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
Gopher anyone?

[sam booka]

"RichL" > tapped the mic and amongst other things,
said, "Is this on?" :

> Lord Valve > wrote:
>> Spender wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:10:20 -0500, "RichL" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Spender > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the
>>>>> majority of voters to do with as they please.
>>>>
>>>> Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat
>>>> to vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
>>>> filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which
>>>> is as stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
>>>> tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.
>>>>
>>>> My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some sore
>>>> loser who can't get over having lost an election.
>>>
>>> It seems strange that you assume there will always be enough
>>> politicians in either party to block actions by the majority. Famous
>>> last words.
>>>
>>> And it doesn't address the point I made. Not even a 99.9% majority
>>> has ownerships rights of a human being.
>>
>> The EPA will have more power over individuals than Hitler's SS ever
>> dreamed of if Congress (or someone) doesn't stop them *right* *now*.
>>
>> Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all.
>> See what Krauthammer has to say about it:
>>
>>
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4Y2VlOGU4MDQ3MDc0MWRkN2ExMzIzMj
> dmZWMwYmE=
>
>
> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"?
> Wow.
>
> Willie, did you read the fine print at the end of the article?
>
> "Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The
> Washington Post Writers Group"
>
> Get that? The Washington Post! And it's not just there because he
> works for them, it's there because that's where the article originally
> appeared!
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR20091
> 21003163.html
>
> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"!
> Hah!
>
> See, Willie, those of us who read the "leftist" media get to see all
> points of view, including the nutters.

Chuck was also a Presidential Adviser to Carter regarding mental health.
If that wouldn't keep a guy busy... You should read his Wiki as a
companion to a nice sitdown meal of crow to see just how wrong you are
about Krauthammer.

--
All the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arise,
not from defects in their Constitution or confederation, not
from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance
of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation,
John Adams

[Lord Valve]

RichL wrote:

> Lord Valve > wrote:
> > Spender wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:10:20 -0500, "RichL" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Spender > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the
> >>>> majority of voters to do with as they please.
> >>>
> >>> Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat
> >>> to vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
> >>> filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which
> >>> is as stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.
> >>>
> >>> Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
> >>> tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.
> >>>
> >>> My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some sore
> >>> loser who can't get over having lost an election.
> >>
> >> It seems strange that you assume there will always be enough
> >> politicians in either party to block actions by the majority. Famous
> >> last words.
> >>
> >> And it doesn't address the point I made. Not even a 99.9% majority
> >> has ownerships rights of a human being.
> >
> > The EPA will have more power over individuals than Hitler's SS ever
> > dreamed of if Congress (or someone) doesn't stop them *right* *now*.
> >
> > Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all.
> > See what Krauthammer has to say about it:
> >
> >
> http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4Y2VlOGU4MDQ3MDc0MWRkN2ExMzIzMjdmZWMwYmE=
>
> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"?
> Wow.
>
> Willie, did you read the fine print at the end of the article?
>
> "Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009, The
> Washington Post Writers Group"
>
> Get that? The Washington Post! And it's not just there because he
> works for them, it's there because that's where the article originally
> appeared!
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003163.html
>
> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"!
> Hah!
>
> See, Willie, those of us who read the "leftist" media get to see all
> points of view, including the nutters.

You've ingested so much leftwing Kool-Aid you never look below the surface of the
tripe-du-jour spewed by MSNBC et al.

The dinosaur media (of which the tree-killing newspaper industry,
wheezing and gasping upon its deathbed, is a very minor portion)
did indeed cover this, but instead of nailing it for the SS-like
implications of near-total control over the individual liberties
of Americans, they hailed it as something wonderful. Krauthammer -
far from a nutter (most of the "nutters" belong to the Church of
Global Warming) - is one of the few to instantly grasp the
implications of awarding such extreme power to an agency
which is many layers removed from public control.

"Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all."

"This" refers to the results of such a power grab (which
Krauthammer addressed) rather than the fact that the
event occurred. At the other end of the EPA's road
lies armed conflict. You think not? Neither did King
George...that worked out rather poorly for him, did it not?

Lord Valve
American

[RichL]

sam booka > wrote:
> "RichL" > tapped the mic and amongst other things,
> said, "Is this on?"
> :
>
>> Lord Valve > wrote:
>>> Spender wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:10:20 -0500, "RichL" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Spender > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, he can. His point is that he is not the property of the
>>>>>> majority of voters to do with as they please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let's see now. (1) All it takes is one disgruntled Democrat
>>>>> to vote along with the Republicans in the Senate and things get
>>>>> filibustered to death; (2) there's always the Supreme Court, which
>>>>> is as stacked with conservatives as it was when GWB was prez.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty of checks and balances, same as it ever was, to prevent a
>>>>> tyrannical majority from riding roughshod over the people.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point? "Dictatorship" my ass. Just more whining from some
>>>>> sore loser who can't get over having lost an election.
>>>>
>>>> It seems strange that you assume there will always be enough
>>>> politicians in either party to block actions by the majority.
>>>> Famous last words.
>>>>
>>>> And it doesn't address the point I made. Not even a 99.9% majority
>>>> has ownerships rights of a human being.
>>>
>>> The EPA will have more power over individuals than Hitler's SS ever
>>> dreamed of if Congress (or someone) doesn't stop them *right* *now*.
>>>
>>> Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all.
>>> See what Krauthammer has to say about it:
>>>
>>>
>>
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjA4Y2VlOGU4MDQ3MDc0MWRkN2ExMzIzMj
>> dmZWMwYmE=
>>
>>
>> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"?
>> Wow.
>>
>> Willie, did you read the fine print at the end of the article?
>>
>> "Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2009,
>> The Washington Post Writers Group"
>>
>> Get that? The Washington Post! And it's not just there because he
>> works for them, it's there because that's where the article
>> originally appeared!
>>
>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR20091
>> 21003163.html
>>
>> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all"!
>> Hah!
>>
>> See, Willie, those of us who read the "leftist" media get to see all
>> points of view, including the nutters.
>
> Chuck was also a Presidential Adviser to Carter regarding mental
> health. If that wouldn't keep a guy busy... You should read his Wiki
> as a companion to a nice sitdown meal of crow to see just how wrong
> you are about Krauthammer.

$am, you really need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

My post made no judgement whatsoever about Krauthammer, I simply pointed
out that his column, which Not-So-Phat Willie said was being ignored by
the "dinosaur media", actually originated in the"dinosaur media", and
was paid for by the "dinosaur media".

HTH.

[RichL]

Lord Valve > wrote:

> You've ingested so much leftwing Kool-Aid you never look below the
> surface of the tripe-du-jour spewed by MSNBC et al.

Well, considering that I actually read Krauthammer's column in the print
edition of the Post well before you posted it here, you'd be mistaken.

> The dinosaur media (of which the tree-killing newspaper industry,
> wheezing and gasping upon its deathbed, is a very minor portion)
> did indeed cover this, but instead of nailing it for the SS-like
> implications of near-total control over the individual liberties
> of Americans, they hailed it as something wonderful.

The news media that I read and watch (NOT including the opinion pieces)
have simply reported on the fact of the EPA's being granted jurisdiction
over excessive CO2 emissions. They did not claim it was either "good"
or "bad".

> Krauthammer -
> far from a nutter (most of the "nutters" belong to the Church of
> Global Warming) - is one of the few to instantly grasp the
> implications of awarding such extreme power to an agency
> which is many layers removed from public control.

Many layers? The EPA Administrator is appointed by the President, like
the directors of many agencies within the executive branch of the
federal government. Nothing new here; it's what the President does in
order to do his job, same as it ever was. The People get to pass
judgement on it come election time.

Krauthammer can sometimes come across as a serious journalist and
commentator, but sometimes he comes across as a nutter. He's
overreaching on this one, in my view.

> "Oddly, none of the dinosaur media are covering this at all."
>
> "This" refers to the results of such a power grab (which
> Krauthammer addressed) rather than the fact that the
> event occurred.

Yet the Post had his column, did it not? In its opinion section, where
it belongs. And it had "the fact that the event occurred" in its news
section, where it belongs as well. "The dinosaur media" would be
betraying principles of objectivity if it had material in its news
section claiming that it represented "a power grab", would it not?

> At the other end of the EPA's road lies armed conflict. You think
> not?

No, this is the usual "I don't like the way the election turned out,
gonna git my gun" blather. Get real, Willie. You know better.

> Neither did King George...that worked out rather poorly for him,
> did it not?

Yes, it did. We didn't have *representation* then. We do now. You got
a Congressman and Senators in Denver these days? You know what to do.
Write 'em. I've done it several times with my own, and I found that, at
least in my case, my messages actually get attention despite the
constant bombardments from lobbyists and special-interest groups.

On a more serious note...
Let's set aside the flames and one-upmanship for a moment. I'd like to
ask a serious question of you and the other conservatives on the group.
Why is it that you think this is a "power grab"? More specifically, why
is it that you think that the EPA's action represents "SS-like
implications of near-total control over the individual liberties of
Americans"? I'm being serious here, I can see how you might think that
it interferes in some respect with the "liberties" of businesses and
corporations whose activities are being regulated, but "individual
liberties of Americans"?

Please explain.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> Lord Valve > wrote:
<snip>
>
> On a more serious note...
> Let's set aside the flames and one-upmanship for a moment. I'd like to
> ask a serious question of you and the other conservatives on the group.
> Why is it that you think this is a "power grab"?

I'm going to respond in parallel.

This is the statement of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to
further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the
organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work
and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to
protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states
that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of
the organization, and will always write the rules under which the
organization functions."

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron

If you consider this to be a rough corollary to various Anthropic
Principles, it should be clear that it's probably true. It requires
those of his "first kind" to almost be self-destructive in redirecting
activities towards the actual goals of the organization.

Throw in that the Pelosi Regime is intimately tied to CARB, and
you have a recipe for abuse of power.

> More specifically, why
> is it that you think that the EPA's action represents "SS-like
> implications of near-total control over the individual liberties of
> Americans"?

There is a different "hockey stick":
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/05/worldgdp10000_2003_2.gif


> I'm being serious here, I can see how you might think that
> it interferes in some respect with the "liberties" of businesses and
> corporations whose activities are being regulated, but "individual
> liberties of Americans"?
>

What is the estimated cost of any of the carbon tax regimes propopsed?
Will that be paid for by increased production? Reduced consumption?

What are the economic implications of that for the poorest people?

> Please explain.
>
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[RichL]

Les Cargill > wrote:
> RichL wrote:
>> Lord Valve > wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> On a more serious note...
>> Let's set aside the flames and one-upmanship for a moment. I'd like
>> to ask a serious question of you and the other conservatives on the
>> group. Why is it that you think this is a "power grab"?
>
> I'm going to respond in parallel.
>
> This is the statement of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
>
> "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
> organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to
> further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for
> the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who
> work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who
> work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron
> Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always
> gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules
> under which the organization functions."
>
>
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron
>
> If you consider this to be a rough corollary to various Anthropic
> Principles, it should be clear that it's probably true. It requires
> those of his "first kind" to almost be self-destructive in redirecting
> activities towards the actual goals of the organization.
>
> Throw in that the Pelosi Regime is intimately tied to CARB, and
> you have a recipe for abuse of power.

Having actually served in a bureaucratic organization, one run by Uncle
Sam, for 27 years, I reject the hypothesis; rather, I suggest that an
equilibrium is established, one that makes the organization less
productive than it would be without those who work "for the
organization", but perhaps still as productive as an organization of
that size can actually be *in practice*. The same was true when I
worked for a large defense contractor; although the equilibrium point
was different, the phenomenon still existed

>
>> More specifically, why
>> is it that you think that the EPA's action represents "SS-like
>> implications of near-total control over the individual liberties of
>> Americans"?
>
> There is a different "hockey stick":
>
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/05/worldgdp10000_2003_2.gif
>
>
>> I'm being serious here, I can see how you might think that
>> it interferes in some respect with the "liberties" of businesses and
>> corporations whose activities are being regulated, but "individual
>> liberties of Americans"?
>>
>
> What is the estimated cost of any of the carbon tax regimes propopsed?
> Will that be paid for by increased production? Reduced consumption?

Ah, you're asking a sensible question, but one that I believe doesn't
impact "liberties" of ordinary Americans but implies a trade-off in
terms of present economic impact vs. perceived benefit (in this case
longer-term survival of the society), which is a separate issue
altogether.

> What are the economic implications of that for the poorest people?

I'd guess they're probably similar to those imposed by our regulation of
other commodities that are necessary for survival.

Analysis of the cost-vs-benefits issue is critical, but doomsday
scenarios of economic collapse without backing with genuine analysis are
simply distractions.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> RichL wrote:
>>> Lord Valve > wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> On a more serious note...
>>> Let's set aside the flames and one-upmanship for a moment. I'd like
>>> to ask a serious question of you and the other conservatives on the
>>> group. Why is it that you think this is a "power grab"?
>> I'm going to respond in parallel.
>>
>> This is the statement of Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
>>
>> "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic
>> organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to
>> further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for
>> the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who
>> work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who
>> work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron
>> Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always
>> gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules
>> under which the organization functions."
>>
>>
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron
>> If you consider this to be a rough corollary to various Anthropic
>> Principles, it should be clear that it's probably true. It requires
>> those of his "first kind" to almost be self-destructive in redirecting
>> activities towards the actual goals of the organization.
>>
>> Throw in that the Pelosi Regime is intimately tied to CARB, and
>> you have a recipe for abuse of power.
>
> Having actually served in a bureaucratic organization, one run by Uncle
> Sam, for 27 years,

I have to wonder why you would preface your response this way,
because it looks like you junked 27 years of investment for
*some reason*. Why might that be?

(he says; knowing full well why). Lord, man, that sucks.

> I reject the hypothesis; rather, I suggest that an
> equilibrium is established, one that makes the organization less
> productive than it would be without those who work "for the
> organization", but perhaps still as productive as an organization of
> that size can actually be *in practice*.

So a "hull speed" argument. Good one. But no. When I argue
the destruction of information, you have to argue a
countervailing force against that.

> The same was true when I
> worked for a large defense contractor; although the equilibrium point
> was different, the phenomenon still existed
>

Defense contractors are much, much worse. Enter into evidence
Eisenhower's final speech...

Because as a Liberal, I can bring that up, you know....

>>> More specifically, why
>>> is it that you think that the EPA's action represents "SS-like
>>> implications of near-total control over the individual liberties of
>>> Americans"?
>> There is a different "hockey stick":
>>
> http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/images/2008/03/05/worldgdp10000_2003_2.gif
>>

Interesting that this gets stepped over. Yo, the Other Hockey Stick gets
no respect ( the one that makes ordinary people's live better).

For those not paying attention, The Other Hockey Stick shows the
wealth effect of industrialization.

"Oooh, there's some lovely filth here , Dennis."


>>> I'm being serious here, I can see how you might think that
>>> it interferes in some respect with the "liberties" of businesses and
>>> corporations whose activities are being regulated, but "individual
>>> liberties of Americans"?
>>>
>> What is the estimated cost of any of the carbon tax regimes propopsed?
>> Will that be paid for by increased production? Reduced consumption?
>
> Ah, you're asking a sensible question, but one that I believe doesn't
> impact "liberties" of ordinary Americans

*Snrrrk*. Oh, yer killin me buddy.


> but implies a trade-off in
> terms of present economic impact vs. perceived benefit (in this case
> longer-term survival of the society), which is a separate issue
> altogether.
>

We cannot effectively project the effects of our behavior upon
future generations any more than previous generations could have
projected theirs on ours.


>> What are the economic implications of that for the poorest people?
>
> I'd guess they're probably similar to those imposed by our regulation of
> other commodities that are necessary for survival.
>

That is not even a sentence. I ask you again - what will be the effect
of all this high level misunderstanding on the people who can least
defend themselves from it?

If it keep on raining, leveee gonna break. If it keep on raining,
levee gonna break. If the levee break, I have no place to say.

If you are not a student of the 1927 flood, then I understand, but it
was "the devil take the hindmost" and make no mistake of it.

> Analysis of the cost-vs-benefits issue is critical, but doomsday
> scenarios of economic collapse without backing with genuine analysis are
> simply distractions.
>
>

And if wishes were horses, beggars could ride.

--
Les Cargill

[Stephen Cowell[_2_]]

"RichL" > wrote
> On a more serious note...
> Let's set aside the flames and one-upmanship for a moment. I'd like to
> ask a serious question of you and the other conservatives on the group.
> Why is it that you think this is a "power grab"? More specifically, why
> is it that you think that the EPA's action represents "SS-like
> implications of near-total control over the individual liberties of
> Americans"? I'm being serious here, I can see how you might think that
> it interferes in some respect with the "liberties" of businesses and
> corporations whose activities are being regulated, but "individual
> liberties of Americans"?
>
> Please explain.

Rich, it has to be made a political question... it has to be about
money, power, votes, etc. If it's allowed to remain in the pure
science domain, they've lost before they've started, since obviously
reality has a liberal bias.

This is their last chance. Can't you smell the desperation?
__
Steve
..

[RichL]

Les Cargill > wrote:
> RichL wrote:

>> Having actually served in a bureaucratic organization, one run by
>> Uncle Sam, for 27 years,
>
> I have to wonder why you would preface your response this way,
> because it looks like you junked 27 years of investment for
> *some reason*. Why might that be?
>
> (he says; knowing full well why). Lord, man, that sucks.

Gotta address this one, since your response seems to indicate a
stereotype that simply doesn't apply in my case.

Simply put, I can't sit still very long in one place.

I joined what is now called the Army Research Laboratory in 1970.
I left in mid-1974 to go somewhere else to finish my Ph. D. It was
considered a "sabbatical" of sorts in that I received partial credit for
"time served" during my absence although I was not paid. During this
time, I worked in a corporate research laboratory. I returned in 1976.

Then in 1985 I went to work for a research laboratory that was part of
the "major defense contractor" for four years. It was an interesting
diversion; I returned to ARL around the time that contractor merged with
another, equally large contractor. A year or so later, the research
laboratory shut down. I wound up arranging for ARL to hire several of
my former colleagues after the shutdown.

I finally left ARL in 2001 to join a startup. That period (1989-2001)
is the longest contiguous time period in which I was at ARL. I left the
first startup in 2003 to join my present company.

A few months ago, we were acquired by a larger company. Before that
happened, I was seriously considering re-joining the ARL staff
(partially because we were in danger of shutting down, partially because
the cut-throat nature of the startup world doesn't sit well with me).
I'm still thinking about it.

Having seen both worlds, to me it's not a clear-cut case as to which is
more effective in terms of R&D. Our present situation is quite tenuous
and largely pressure-driven; we are being asked to do more with the six
remaining employees than we were with the 14 we had before the
acquisition. There are certain economies of scale, especially in an
equipment-intensive area like the semiconductor device industry, that
put small organizations at a severe disadvantage. Yet to return to the
original discussion, large organizations are sluggish because of the
large overhead of both unproductive individuals and massive "support"
bureacracies.

In other words, the jury's still out. I may return to federal
employment if the right opportunity presents itself. I may stick with
the present situation and learn to steel myself better to deal with the
pressures. Or one of my kids may strike it rich and take care of me for
life, in which case I'll retire!

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

RichL wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
<snip>
>
> Having seen both worlds, to me it's not a clear-cut case as to which is
> more effective in terms of R&D. Our present situation is quite tenuous
> and largely pressure-driven; we are being asked to do more with the six
> remaining employees than we were with the 14 we had before the
> acquisition.

Being essentially a masochist, I always kinda liked that sorta thing.
Mainly because you don't have to argue too much about streamlining
out unnecessary, wasteful cruft. Being impatient to start with....

> There are certain economies of scale, especially in an
> equipment-intensive area like the semiconductor device industry, that
> put small organizations at a severe disadvantage. Yet to return to the
> original discussion, large organizations are sluggish because of the
> large overhead of both unproductive individuals and massive "support"
> bureacracies.
>

Government is inherently different. Nobody wants to end up writing the
paper than ends up being the turn of a story on "Frontline" ( extreme
example: the Torture Memo). Government has a very different
standard of accountability.

Agreed; semi is just that way. And companies large enough to do semi can
be much *worse* than government.

> In other words, the jury's still out. I may return to federal
> employment if the right opportunity presents itself. I may stick with
> the present situation and learn to steel myself better to deal with the
> pressures. Or one of my kids may strike it rich and take care of me for
> life, in which case I'll retire!
>
>

But people who work for the EPA aren't necessarily there because they
like clean air. Face it; some people are into power, and they
end up in government.

--
Les Cargill