neo con, pro big business? god, diano, you really do take those conspiracy theories too far. How about pro-common sense? Seems the left is lacking a lot of it these days...
Why didn't you also post the story from your own news paper yesterday? "Oil drilling no shore thing"
In a nut shell, the analysts quoted in the article say that the current supply of rigs, engineers, personell and equiptment are being pushed to the limit. It goes on to say, it would take years before any marked activity would take place. , and even at todays current rate, by 2010 there will be 10 to 15 percent fewer engineers than we need.
yes, and if we practice "hypermiling" and just hope REAL HARD that some other format becomes the new transportation standard, maybe, just maybe some magic (and a lot of weed) will resolve the situation. Ignore the fact that you're only going to get a small percentage of people to do it, trucking and MANY other pockets of the country will commute the same, produce and other goods will continue to rise in cost due to the gas increases and the next wave of technology needs plenty of time to implement. What am I missing here?
I feel a lot more confident in Newt than I do with any of these so-called leaders in Washington. And you have to admit that the GOP in DC hasn't been the same without him (Despite his backing of the impeachment that I didn't agree with)
Only a blindly partisan dope like Dave would criticize Gingrich for trying to do something about our pressing problems while standing with the obstructionist LibDem donothingers. Lol…
Do you really wonder why everyone dismisses you, DD?
You make a good point. Even if we do find something to ween us off of fossil fuels, it will take a while, and we will still need petro products for our trucks and cars until we make the transition. But then is the real problem a current shortage of fuel, or a shortage of refineries? Or is it those trying to make a huge profit in the market? Sure would be nice to get a straight answer minus the political spins.
Or is it those trying to make a huge profit in the market?
You have been brainwashed by anti-Capitalism Libs into thinking this is a problem. We've been over it here a number of times before how the fuel industry profits are regulated and are less % than other products while their overhead is much greater. They just make their "obscene" (as Lib like to call it) profits on sales volume. But the Socialist LibDems salivate at all that cash and have set about vilifying them so as to soften their extortion target.
OK. I get Randal. He has a bumper sticker mentality, and a miasma filled cranium. Everything is a left wing, socialist lib-dems, lib-communist, marxist, muslim, terrorist, Lib Lib Lib, conspiracy. Oh, did I mention Lib?
Randal aparently can't seriously discuss a topic without name calling, expressing his desire to spit in peoples faces, or referring to perverse sexual acts. I'd say he might be good for comic relief, but I doubt he posesses a sense of humor.
OK. Back to a serious discussion about this. I agree with you that we need to find a solution to the gas situation while we work on alternative forms of energy, but I've heard from multiple souces that the problem is a shortage of refineries, not a shortage of oil. I've also heard from multiple sources that it would take about 10 yrs. to see a benefit from new drilling. I'm a reasonable man. I'm not one sided on this issue. I'm angered when a Ted Kennedy opposes wind turbines being placed off the coast of his lovely resort town, or so called energy conservationists, Al Gore being one, leave a massive carbon footprint. I believe that if you're going to talk the talk, then you should walk the walk. I don't have the solution, but how do you not question record oil company profits at a time like this?
From the federal governments Energy Information Administration-
EIA: The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.
Didn't liberal Chuckie Schumer say that if we got a million extra barrels of oil a day from OPEC it would reduce gas prices by about 60-65 cents? And didnt he also say that if we pumped our own it would only reduce the price by about a penny? Why do they lie so much?
We have plenty of oil here, and we can save alot of oil by promoting nuclear power.
Well C. Scott Shields Esq. We might agree on something here. Maybe Nuc. is the way to go.
Just out of curiosity, I've been wanting to ask you this. This Pro Christ, Pro Gun. How does that work. I was always taught that the message of Christ was love, peace, forgiveness,and non violence. You know. That turn the other cheek thing. All that hokey liberal stuff. So, I mean, I could see you being an athiest or an agnostic and wanting to pack, but Guns and Christ? Just doesn't seem like a logical mix. Can you explain that to me? Also, why do put Esq. after everything you write?
You are so right on this one. I wish the Lib-Dems would just stop lying. Why can't they be more like the guys on the right and just "misspeak", or blame everything on "faulty inteligence"? You know, like Bush, "the decider" or is that Bush "the maker upper" Not sure. I'll have to fact check that one. Anyway, I'm gonna have a long talk with that muslim guy thats running for president. Coaching sessions. Have him watch videos of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi so he can get this misspeak down.
Case in point: Vice-President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged he was wrong when he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday that China was drilling for oil off Cuba's coast, just 60 miles from Key West.
Republicans used that talking point this week as they pushed for opening more of the Outer-Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. That talking point brought some intra-party push-back from Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican, who took to the Senate floor to refute it.
Lol… You boys have ZERO room to talk about bumper sticker mentality in others! “Bush lied!” “Bush’s war!” and he and Cheney are “war criminals”… “windfall profits” “Change”… on and on. It’s all you dopes know how to do. You have been programmed. If Obama had promised everyone “plywood” rather than hollow change you simpletons would now be repeating “plywood, plywood, plywood… is good!” Lol…
King George really gave it to the obstructionist LibDems today over their opposition to domestic drilling!
Again calling names without adding any substance to the discussion. Still waiting for you to answer my question. You said you wanted to spit in the face of the mother of a soldier who lost his life in Iraq. A very manly and Chritian thing for you to want to do Randal. I'm sure you're proud of that statement. Well, Mary Tillman publicly accused the administration of using her sons death to bolster and recruit for a war (Iraq), that her son didn't believe in. Here's what she said. ""The Administration used Pat," Mary Tillman told me in a phone interview on Monday from San Jose. "They tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him." So answer the question Randal. You want to spit in her face too?
You still weeping and whining, BB? My, aren’t you sensitive. (Hehe) I just addressed your silly question in one of the other threads you’ve been humping my leg about it. Find a new whine. Preferably something of a 2008 vintage.
Tillman joined the rangers under his own choice. Nobody from anywhere made him sign up so he could be a poster boy.
And who really ran with that story? Most of the MSNBCs, Clinton News Networks, etc. Everyone is to blame for the exploitations of Tillman in the media, but does that really surprise you?
Aren't there pics of celebs all day leaving Starbucks or Mr. Chow's? What newsworthiness do those stories hold? Nothing. They just grab attention. What did anyone expect when a pro NFL player joined the military? It could have been Flavor Flave who joined and there would be media surrounding it.
You miss the point. R, being the mature adult that he is, said he would spit in the face of Sheehan. I asked if he would do the same to Mary Tillman, who publicly shares Cindy Sheehans disgust with the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. He's a big boy. Let him answer the question. In reality, Randal is a chicken hawk who never had the courage to serve his country, and he tries to make up for it by wrapping himself in the flag. His comments are the equivelant of spitting in the face of every parent and every serviceman and woman who serves this country.
Hey, all these calls for drilling of the coast- what ever happened to all the cheap oil that we were going to get from Iraq. We were told it would even pay for the war. Remember that?
wow, diano's got some interesting spin on this blog's Fab Four. Here an honest and un-spun take:
Mayor C. Scott's got attitude and a strong ego, and refuses to back down on his morals and beliefs, despite constant attempts by Dave to get him to submit. I initially found his remarks harsh, but have found Scott to be an interesting poster and enjoy reading his opinions.
Randal says controversial things on the blog, and takes the role of the Conservative Conspiracy theorist head-on on the blog. While he's not putting together long, cut-and-paste style posts like diano, his post are short, sweet and to the point he's making.
The almighty king of Spencerblog, Gil Spencer, is our resident Op-Ed with a conservative mind that drives diano crazy to the point where you see frequent insults. Where once he used to post frequently in the comments section, we don't see much of him anymore. He occasionally comes back to delete some of randal's more controversial posts.
jonas is our resident oil expert and takes the time to prepare longer, well assembled arguements on various issues. I once believed that he had a connection to big oil, but he has mentioned that he too welcomes new technology with open arms. I think Diano knows his alter-ego better than anyone else. Unfortunately, I know him only by this board. He mentions his accomplishments more than necessary on a blog, though.
I can't comment on Franny Ward, I know little about him based on his occasional posts.
Diano is a consultant in the computer science area (Assuming websites). He's the resident left-winger of the group and frequent antagonist to randal, C. Scott and jonas. Uses Wikipedia and his left-wing newsletters a little too much to concieve his points. Posts frequently come with a serving of arrogance (e.g. "read this, maybe ytou'll learn something"), and is known to go into personal attacks when he has nothing else to bring to the table. Major supporter of Joe Sestak, I think he handled Joe's election web presence. Also the manager of a couple "Delco Watch" blogs honoring our "Progressive Patriot". Would make for a terrible elected servant as his arguements show a strict refusal to compromise, fully believing that his deep left beliefs are always correct. Tends to stay out of municipality issues except when there are attacks on C. Scott or Spencer.
Myself (trying to be unbiased) - started posting here complaining about local government in Media, continued to post about everything else Spencer brings up. Accoridng to diano, I have a terrible sense of humor. I have a terrible habit of typing quickly, frequently mis-spelling throughout and lazily refusing to check my typing. My posts are short and (allegedly) to the point, and I love to include sarcasm. I tend to lean to the right but try to be reasonable, maybe I truly am a moderate at heart(go figure).
Bob, my assessment of you is a little premature, but I find that you lean to the left but also can be reasoned with. You come from a family line who has served our country proudly, this should never be critized or questioned amongst any of us, although it shouldn't be inserted to any of our discussions as a way to quell issues. I look forward to seeing more of your posts.
Your assessment is much more fair, S, but you are too generous in that you neglected to mention a few key elements that regularly appear in a couple of posters offerings.
You neglected to mention how Dishonest Dave Diano regularly employs blatantly dishonest distortions in his failed efforts to bully through his angry brand of childish Modern Libism and radical racial/gay apologistism. Oh, and he also sees the President of the United States as the enemy, a war criminal, and advocates the murdering of big business executives only because he personally does not like their products. These are not minor gaffs that should be overlooked but key recurring elements of his un-American offerings. When we fail to indict such Fascism we end up giving it a pass.
And Bob, well, he’s become like Dave’s Mini Me, a card-carrying member of the Hurt Feelings crowd. He may as well just post “Me too!” each time after Dave’s posts and spare himself all the typing. That he tries to leverage his soldier son’s service in a despicable effort to cut off honest dialog on the war is, well, downright Cindy Sheehan-esque. Yep, shameful, dishonest and despicable.
my take on C. Scott is more along the lines that he's very opposed to the whole PC-movement (Which he will openly admit) and that he's protecting the rights he believes in before they're swallowed up in bureaucracy. He's mentioned before (and Spencer has in an article) that while do doesn't believe in the gay lifestyle, he's not out condemning gays he meets, nor will he refuse representation. Based on that I give him the benefit. He's very high on religion and morals, why criticize him on that and back away from someone of the opposite stance?
I like Randal, although I will admit to cringing to a couple of his own posts (The Chelsea was one of his best!). He makes a point that a lot of people want to ignore (or the minds chooses to believe what it sees). There is a political bias in the media, and the bias is the the left. You want to slam Fox News for going to the right? Maybe you should complement Rupert Murdoch for being so brilliant and capturing the backing of the conservative portion of the country just by having something different!!!
I base jonas on more of a moderate platform because he really does welcome new technologies and isn't stating that oil should remain the standard for the forseeable future. he and I share a similar thought that while we want more environmentally friendly and affordable technology, we have to be reasonable and inderstand that it's not readily available, we have a major bloodline and depend on others to fuful the demand - therefore, short term solutions are necessary for long term stability.
Dave, i based your background on what little I have read (and so much moe I'm sure I missed), so I figured I was off-base. i missed your letters to the editor about sestak. I persoanlly have no issues with him to date, I don't see enough problems to warrant his ouster in November.
I made the elected servant comment mainly because you, randal and scott can never find middle ground, always clinging to your side, showing little in compromise. So I guess it would be fair to say the same with scott and randal in terms of ever running for office.
From my end, I always try to keep an open mind on issues, I don't let candidates, strategists, 529's, Olberman or Hannity affect my own decision. I try to strive for the straight facts (hard to do in a spin-full world) and base my own decisions on common sense first. I don't believe the right is always right, I don't believe the left is always wrong, and vice versa. I don't believe in one party controlling everything, either, because our government tends to adjust to that extreme, which is bad for our overall health. My favorite candidates are always the moderate types that recognize the good from both sides of the aisle and try to mold compromises to keep all of us moving forward. In that respect, I think Clinton and Reagan were very successful, I think Bush has been horrendous despite bragging in 2000 about his bi-partison work in Texas.
Oh, I suspect that even if Williams was anti-war that Dishonest Dave still wouldn’t vote for him because that would mean pushing a button on the “R” side of the machine. Which is fine, he can be a radical blind partisan dope if he wants –this is America, we’re free to do/be such things- but he shouldn’t lie about it.
Kinda like how blindly racially partisan blacks can vote for the Black Candidate because 'he looks like them' if they want to but that doesn't make it right and the Apologist Daves shouldn’t try to lie about it and apologize for them.
randal, i'm writing you in for the next common pleas court opening.
diano, will you choose a write-in candidate in November for the 13th district? I follow the theory that if you don't like either, don't ignore the opportunity to vote, write someone in.
I think it's funny how fearful Libs are of FOX. ONE centrist channel in the sea of Lib bias we call "news" and it makes them weep endlessly about it and spout untrue slander. Lol...
diano, i cringe at all three networks anymore - fox is overly right, msnbc is overly left, and cnn took a 1.5 year timeout from the war to cover 24/7 election news right down to minor speeches. I can't stand any of them, maybe that's why KYW-1060 is still the best to me.
My point about Murdoch is as follows - who knows or cares about his political views? He's a business man and saw the need for a channel that caters to the right-wing viewers. That, in of itself, was brilliant. While we complain about these news stations, he's rolling in it.
Boy, Hypocrite Dave is in full form today. He sees FOX as this great big threat while ignoring the hundreds of Lying Lib Media outlets and their influence. And he wonders why no one takes him at all seriously. Lol...
Why do you even bring me into this argument? With comments like this:
Jonas is the intellectual powerhouse of this rather weak group. He's got a college education and a Wharton MBA. No science here either. He likes to toss out all the pro-Big Corporation economic theories, lax regulations, lax pollution, special huge tax breaks for the rich (with a handy example of a rare non-rich that got a tiny break). Jonas is intellectually dishonest as his true allegiance is to the Fortune 100 companies because he is a bought-and-paid-for shill. He'd fit in on Fox Business News, with all the prerequisite biases.
Where's my bias Dave? Intellectually dishonest? Weren't you the one admitting you weren't arguing based on facts as it was a "political" debate and as such "facts" weren't needed? You're such a douchebag it's not even funny....
Let alone the audacity of your comments and your consistent hypocrisy. Why does everyone know you have 2 degrees in <4 years? Oh wait, cause you brought it up. Now I'm an FOX News pig because I speak of my background when you attack my intelligence? Atleast I was bringing it up upon being attacked and not trying to flaunt my intelligence. You're just pissed because I'm smarter and have done better than you.
It must suck waking up being you with all the lies you live.
1 "handy" take break? Capital gains tax on homes has been that way for ages. More like the norm that the Democratic congress and president put into place to help the "little guy." All I asked was for you to recognize the fact the capital gains tax isn't only on stock options for the rich. You're just angry I proved your false point wrong infront of everybody. It's not my fault you try to use peoples idiocricy to influence their views based on lies you put into their head. Reminds me of, "I don't take money from oil companies.... Vote for me!" ha ha ha douchebag, NO candidate can. You and Obama live off the fact that people don't know the facts behind arguments.
When did I argue pollution? Haven't; therefore, you don't know my stance on that. Bad guess genious. I'm actually all for Obama's planned carbon fees against heavy polluters. WOW, who's the douchebag full of nails now clown?
And yes Dave, I'm bought and paid for because I am a paid consultant. Aren't you the same? The only difference is I'm successful; therefore, large companies want my services. You can't say you'd stop doing what your doing if you got offers from Fortune 500 companies in a year and Fortune 100 in three years. What are you, a little punk who thinks his favorite artist is a "sellout" because they did a song for the mass popularity and money? That's the lamest argument in the world, but that goes hand in hand with your clown ass.
Is crude oil still sold in gallons Dave?
Truthfulness here right. On that note, I'm going to Swiss Farms for a kilometer of lemonade.
Pick me up a tanker of iced tea while you’re there, J! ;)
You sure have Dishonest Dave down.
In all seriousness, where I come from things like honor and integrity and character –honesty- matter most, more than anything else. To call someone a “liar” is the lowest insult and you’d better know what you’re talking about before you sling it. So I find it remarkable that DD regularly spouts his untruths here in order to make his feeble points in silly arguments on a message board. And the way the charges of “dishonesty” and “liar” –heck, his name has become Dishonest Dave!- roll off him and he doesn’t even blink really speaks of the quality his character lacks. I guess maybe he’s used to being called such things. One can just imagine how he conducts his business and what he instills in his kids.
Being fairly new to this blog, I appreciate your opinion of the lineup. However, I must disagree with several assesments. I have followed, and written rebuttles to many of the C. Scott Shields Esq. letters to the times. Come on Steve. I am very familiar with his political and social beliefs. This man is the ultimate hypocrite. Just look at his handle "Pro gun pro Christ"! He's interesting in the same way that going to the zoo and watching monkeys is interesting. As for Randal, I get the impression that he would prefer to insult and call names rather than have an above board discussion. I believe Dave to be a reasonable poster who isn't afraid to research before he posts. You also seem to be a reasonable person, looking for intelligent dialogue. Me? Ok. I was a registered Republican up until W. Split ticket voter all my life. Historicaly, I like Ike (with the exception of his administrations involvement in the overthrow of the Govt. of Iran in 53), never cared much for Kennedy or Johnson. I considered their actions in Nam to be crimes against humanity. Was in the service during the Nixon administration and liked certain things about Nixons foreign policy efforts (China), voted for Carter, didn't like Reagan, voted for Bush Sr. (wish the kid was a lot more like the old man), voted for Clinton twice, became a Democrat after Clintons first term, proudly campaigned AGAINST W., and became an Independant after the Dems buckled under, and gave W. the go ahead in Iraq. In my opinion, but for a few, it was an act of political cowardice. I'm pro gun ownership up to a point. I'm aware that the best weapon to protect the home with is a shotgun, and gun ownership for hunting is fine, but I don't believe any person has a legitimate use for an assault weapon (semi or automatic weapon)unless they are law enforcement or military. I am pro military, supported going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but I believe a much better use of the troops would be defending our own borders rather than fighting this senseless war in Iraq. Haven't made my mind up on the imigration issue, believe in the death penalty in certain cases, abortion in cases of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother and under other extroadinary circumstances, but not as general means of birth control. I think Michael Moore is an ass, Olberman is overboard, as are Hannity and Rush, Pat Buchanan comes up with interesting viewpoints, as does Tom Friedman, Trudy Rubin and Gene Lyons, and I thought Tim Russert was fairest guy on TV. There's a lot more, but now you have an idea as to who I am.
OK. I know this was hard for you to grasp, so I'll clarify it. I thought Clinton did a fine job first term, so I changed parties and voted for his second term. So yes, technicaly I was a Democrat before W. got into office. Leave it to you to take exception to that. R- the proctologist of the blog.
I wasn’t being nit-picky, BB. What you wrote was plainly contradictory and appeared to be a lie. Ya can hardly blame that on me. But then, you are Dishonest Dave’s Mini Me, so I would expect no more from you.
My integrity is not for sale.
OMG! LMAO! This is because you have none, DD! You have showed us this many times.
Your wrong. The only way you could throw in your arguments was to base your arguments on a political debate which throws out any factual basis and and of itself.
Feel left out? When was the last time I posted on this article? 5 days ago. I think my comments were long gone by then.
And you also "bring someone" into a topic by discrediting everything about them? Yeah, sounds reasonable. It's okay though, keep making those comments. It just shows the lack of your thoughts here. All you can do is try to make others feel bad about themselves.
That's okay though, my ego is very high and little people like you don't really bother me.
And it shows how dumb you are that now your argument is "welllll if its the same unit of measurement it must be the same thing." Is that what you tell women when you give them the microscope? It's 12 inches.... Well 12 centimeters, but the same thing!
Yeah, I'm bought and paid. How to I lobby for my companies? I'm in management consulting idiot. I improve companies processes. I have nothing to do with what happens outside of the company. When would I sit in a meeting with 2 companies like you propose to "whore myself out?" I NEVER sit in a meeting with 2 companies. There's no point in that for me. Why would I meet with company 1 and 2 to discuss what company 1 does internally with company 2? That's the dumbest thing ever and a breach of integrity.
You are right, I get my clients based on my company. Oh that's right, you didn't know I owned my own management consulting company. When a Fortune XYZ company hires MY company, they are hiring us based off of what I (and my workers) have accomplished. I started out walking in off the street with 3 other employees and built my company up. Then again, since I "worked" at McK you assumed I still do. Wrong again Dave.
Since you want universal healthcare, do you work for clients who do not provide 100% insurance coverage? Most small businesses don't as they don't have the resources.
And you are right Dave, I'm not too worried about the waste from nuclear reactors. Then again, nobody that is for hybrids is against the waste from large batteries and the lead inside. So you and Al are just as environmentally un-green as I am based off of what you propose.
I am for offshore drilling. What "global warming" does that contribute to that building roads that we drive on with electric cars doesn't? Absolutely none. So lets drill, tax the polluters in order to help subsidize the green programs until they are ready to be used by us. What is so complicated about that? It's called logic. We aren't going from gas cars on Sept 30, 2014 to electric cars on Sept 31, 2014.
I'm also for putting wind turbines in the ocean (please refer to the story in the NE area where a town wasn't allowed to). If we can't put anything anywhere that is open now, where can we build any of this "green" technology to use? If you can't put a wind turbine in the ocean (as environmentalists have disagreed with) where do you put it? You can't put it in that open field as geese or foxes use that area.
And you still haven't addressed how basically all overseas "green" companies went under upon losing the subsidation from their governments. Are we going to keep them alive by taxing the rich more too? Before we know it, the rich will be taxed at 90% and it will basically be a communistic society.
Well Dave it's finally good you realized people not in the 35% tax bracket have capital gains tax also. And by the way, nobody calls it "CBT". And you are right, that is the problem with cap gains. That's not what you were arguing prior though. Glad you finally jumped onto the bandwagon of people who understand how the tax works.
And Dave, you are wrong about genius. I mispoke when I said genious. There's no problem with that.
What we are witnessing here is a classic battle between Good and Lib. Jonas brings his A game and employs measured logic and reason and facts and yummy stuff like that. While Dishonest Dave relies on emotion, wiggle and spin and slant and untruths and personal attack and distractive petty nit picking when he’s losing the argument. Yep, classic.
Wow Dave, did you come up with, "There once was a braggart named Jonas Who thought corporations should own us Let's drill for Big Oil! Let the environment spoil! The Homer Simpson result: "Doh!" us" all by yourself? That's pretty amazing! You might get more clients being a poet than your current job.
You've still never shown how I'm a braggart though, so that's a false claim. Corporations own us? Like the government when the wealthy pay 60+% of wages to taxes? Seems similar to me. Let the environment spoil....
I'm not too sure about this, but has global warming been "proven" yet? I'm sure we can go interview Biden about it and he'll tell us how it is. But he won't respond when asked why his top scientist disagrees with that point of view.
LOL! A limerick in a thread that touched on nuclear power!
Don’t even try to take credit, DD, I know it was by happenstance. You’re not that sharp. And Jonas is clearly brighter than you. And for the record, Jonas has displayed more humorous humor here than you, DD, while your “humor” usually relies on lies. And that’s not so funny. And you have no room to jump anyone for boasting, DD.
What has not been “proven” and what the Left continues to lie about is the human causes behind global sky falling.
Can you find 1 single global warming "fact" that all scientists agree upon?
Remember, a scientific fact is, "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." (from your fav website)
Now when a "fact" is verifiable, it means that when carbon levels were the highest, that would also constitute the highest temperature levels on the Earth as many argue increased carbon = increased temps.
So from that basis, please show me any "fact" about global warming. Upon you showing this "fact," R and I will look to find any scientist who disagrees with this "fact." If we find any who disagree, it is not a true "fact" as it cannot be proven over and over again in scientific tests.
If R and I can't find someone who disagrees with science, I'll agree you proved me wrong.
And no Dave, saying temps have risen the past 50 years doesn't count because everyone knows that the Cretaceous period was hotter than it is today. And that occurred before we drove cars or even had an engine.
And also, how am I the braggart? You were the one who said you were more successful than me. I proved your companies income, then referenced my income based upon my hourly bill rate multiplied by the hours worked last year. That's not bragging at all, that's just showing the point of you being more successful false.
And I brought out Wharton when you called me a high school drop-out idiot. Again, I didn't bring up the subject, but you did.
Apparently when I defend myself against your accusations, that leads me to be a braggart. How should I defend them then Dave? Just not respond to something that's false?
You call it bragging because I've proven your arguments wrong about my intelligence. If I would have said I received my mba from UD or Drexel it wouldn't be an issue. The fact I received it from a Top 3 business program brings out your anger towards my education as it shows my superior success to you. It's okay Dave, everyone who reads this knows I'm better than you at what I do. I don't need to brag to do that.
Then again, I guess my maserati does that. Woops, sorry, I just had to brag right there.
That's bragging Dave. Defending yourself isn't bragging. You only feel it's bragging because my educational and career background is of the highest degree.
For every one of your scientific claims there is a scientific rebutal. But Lying Libs have worked overtime to see to it that all oposing views are stifled. One would think that if the Lying Lib stance were so solid that they would welcome other views. They very much do not.
Do you really run around yelling that the sky is falling?
Wow Dave, you used the carbon dioxide argument. That's wonderful!
Fill a glass ball with air, then increase the carbon dioxide and carbon in the ball and see what happens to the temperature. Not a single thing. Disproof of your fact #1 by me.
Now fill that glass ball with air, raise the temperature. What happens? Oh that's right, carbon dioxide and carbon levels will increase. Disproof of your fact #2 by me.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what you claim happens.
Now thousand of scientists have completed this experiment with the same results. And those results dispute your claim, which mean it isn't factual because when a scientist replicates your circumstance, they should see only your result happen. In fact, they are seeing the opposite happen. Yeah, I guess my wharton MBA did me well. It allowed me to show the un-educated population (like yourself) how things are really done.
Please throw another "fact" my way.
By the way, I don't do organizational charts Dave. All Fortune 100 companies are public, so they are SOX compliant, which means they do their own org charts (govt mandated). Very pitiful try at a diss though I must say.
What management consultant would do that anyway? But then again, you thought I'd sit in on meetings between my clients and other companies (your "proof" that I'm bought & sold by corps), which never happens. You have really no idea what I do on a daily basis, but you try to make it out as if I do high school work to belittle me to make yourself sound awesome. Who's the braggart now Dave?
I keep seeing the same thing from you DD. You can't prove facts, so you try and belittle someone. Again, I'm more successful than you, belittle me all you want. I'll just keep throwing out facts that show how wrong you are. Just like how my cars are worth more in FV than your house is.
Could you show me how I'm bought by corporations again? Now that you can't use the fact I'll sit in a meeting with another company and defend my company to no end, what other "facts" do you have to prove this?
Then again, I spoke to a few friends and found out Vanguard doesn't have 100% healthcare coverage. If you'd never associate with a company which doesn't have your ideals, why did you work there? You are for national healthcare, and the equivalent of that today would be 100% healthcare coverage by a company. Vanguard definitely doesn't do that and I'm 80% sure the other company you worked for didn't. So that's 2 incidents where you lied about who you'll work for. Recurring theme much?
Oh and another fact, the highest carbon dioxide levels to date were right after WW2. So I guess, we're technically global cooling right now based on your arguments, right Dave?
Again, disproved your argument based on your facts with very little research or effort. Shouldn't your "scientifically proven" points be a little tougher to dispute?
R, Wish I could. If you get Dave to let us blow up any cannister of 4000+psi air that we please next to him (as it's 100% safe per him), I'll definitely consider it though.
On the other hand, I found this crazy website on dave that you may find interesting: www.david.diano.isgay.com
Seems like he's on the internet a little too much.
And Libs have created the liability crisis by blocking efforts to rein in predatory jackpot fishing trip lawsuits that has devastated the healthcare delivery system in this country. This is but another Lib created crisis that they then turn around and offer to “fix” with their Socialism.
Isn't it funny how healthcare costs have risen drastically since 1980, but it is all George Bush's fault for 2000-present? What about the other 20 years? I guess they don't count.
Then again, if Clinton let an intelligent person run with healthcare, maybe something could have been accomplished in his term.
How do you say that you won't work for a company that has different "values" than yours but you also say, "Being an outside consultant, I wasn't briefed by HR on the particulars of their health care policies, and the health care system then wasn't the issue it is today"
So you're basically saying you have plausible deniability in any company you work for as you don't read their HR policy.
Doesn't that go EXACTLY against what you said earlier about "knowing" what a company is all about and then deciding whether you will work with them or not?
It pretty much does. It's your "out" excuse for working for them which shows your original comment in trying to belittle me was just a ploy and lie to make me look bad.
I'm glad I took the time to show you for who you are.
As for your being more "successful" than me, you've based your measurement on income rather than the accumulation of knowledge or even the most basic understanding of the physical world around you. I guess the rules of physics are different in your fantasy world.
How do you base "success" David? You haven't scored higher than me on the LSAT, SAT, MCAT, or GMAT. So in any measurable knowledge test, we are equal at best. S
o the next thing to test "success" would be what? I understand the physical world around me. If you want to say knowing the physics behind that, sure a physics major would know more than me on detailed info. But then again, in that physical world, there is the business world that drives the present physical world which I'd know more than them.
So yes Dave, we base success on $$$.
If we don't, which is fine with me, lets tax the middle class more than the rich because they are more "successful." I'll fully be taxed at a 25% tax rate on my gross income if it means I'll admit to being more dumb than every middle class income person in the USA. Why don't you propose that great idea to Sestak or Obama.
I must be taxed at a higher rate for some reason. And I'm sure there's a reason my income is in the top 5% of the US population. You don't get there by just luck.
Here's the biggest kicker of all: you still can't prove how I'm "bought" by corporations, you can't prove how crude is sold in gallons, and the list goes on for about 20 other things.
The only thing you can prove is you know engineering more than R or I. Wonderful Dave, BRAVO! Round of applause. I'm glad you learned your undergraduate degree area better than R and I have. Must be very difficult.
And Dave please stop with the "consulting for Vanguard" and thinking it's the same as what I do. Any outside company is considered a consultant these days. They took that naming after seeing how successful McK, Bain, and BCG were. I do management consulting, of which there are maybe 10 top firms in the US (of which, mine is one). There's millions of "IT support" (caugh consultants caugh) out there.
So no, don't compare anything you've ever done with me. I'm above you, always have, always will.
I'm still waiting for that "global warming caused by humans" fact still. After 2 days, you'd think it'd be easy to show me anything since it has been "proven" and all.
HERE YE HERE YE: And just for the kicks: I challenge you to an overall intelligence test. You put up your company and I'll put up my maserati's pink slip. Winner takes all. What say you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the obstructionist LibDaves against progress?
ReplyDelete“DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.”
Go here: http://www.americansolutions.com/
Sign the petition, make a donation, get the free bumper sticker.
neo con, pro big business? god, diano, you really do take those conspiracy theories too far. How about pro-common sense? Seems the left is lacking a lot of it these days...
ReplyDeleteGil
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't you also post the story from your own news paper yesterday?
"Oil drilling no shore thing"
In a nut shell, the analysts quoted in the article say that the current supply of rigs, engineers, personell and equiptment are being pushed to the limit. It goes on to say, it would take years before any marked activity would take place. , and even at todays current rate, by 2010 there will be 10 to 15 percent fewer engineers than we need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyes, and if we practice "hypermiling" and just hope REAL HARD that some other format becomes the new transportation standard, maybe, just maybe some magic (and a lot of weed) will resolve the situation. Ignore the fact that you're only going to get a small percentage of people to do it, trucking and MANY other pockets of the country will commute the same, produce and other goods will continue to rise in cost due to the gas increases and the next wave of technology needs plenty of time to implement. What am I missing here?
ReplyDeleteI feel a lot more confident in Newt than I do with any of these so-called leaders in Washington. And you have to admit that the GOP in DC hasn't been the same without him (Despite his backing of the impeachment that I didn't agree with)
Only a blindly partisan dope like Dave would criticize Gingrich for trying to do something about our pressing problems while standing with the obstructionist LibDem donothingers. Lol…
ReplyDeleteDo you really wonder why everyone dismisses you, DD?
Steve
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. Even if we do find something to ween us off of fossil fuels, it will take a while, and we will still need petro products for our trucks and cars until we make the transition. But then is the real problem a current shortage of fuel, or a shortage of refineries? Or is it those trying to make a huge profit in the market? Sure would be nice to get a straight answer minus the political spins.
Or is it those trying to make a huge profit in the market?
ReplyDeleteYou have been brainwashed by anti-Capitalism Libs into thinking this is a problem. We've been over it here a number of times before how the fuel industry profits are regulated and are less % than other products while their overhead is much greater. They just make their "obscene" (as Lib like to call it) profits on sales volume. But the Socialist LibDems salivate at all that cash and have set about vilifying them so as to soften their extortion target.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDave
ReplyDeleteOK. I get Randal. He has a bumper sticker mentality, and a miasma filled cranium. Everything is a left wing, socialist lib-dems, lib-communist, marxist, muslim, terrorist, Lib Lib Lib, conspiracy. Oh, did I mention Lib?
Randal aparently can't seriously discuss a topic without name calling, expressing his desire to spit in peoples faces, or referring to perverse sexual acts.
I'd say he might be good for comic relief, but I doubt he posesses a sense of humor.
Steve
ReplyDeleteOK. Back to a serious discussion about this. I agree with you that we need to find a solution to the gas situation while we work on alternative forms of energy, but I've heard from multiple souces that the problem is a shortage of refineries, not a shortage of oil.
I've also heard from multiple sources that it would take about 10 yrs. to see a benefit from new drilling. I'm a reasonable man. I'm not one sided on this issue. I'm angered when a Ted Kennedy opposes wind turbines being placed off the coast of his lovely resort town, or so called energy conservationists, Al Gore being one, leave a massive carbon footprint. I believe that if you're going to talk the talk, then you should walk the walk.
I don't have the solution, but how do you not question record oil company profits at a time like this?
From the federal governments Energy Information Administration-
ReplyDeleteEIA: The projections in the OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.
Didn't liberal Chuckie Schumer say that if we got a million extra barrels of oil a day from OPEC it would reduce gas prices by about 60-65 cents? And didnt he also say that if we pumped our own it would only reduce the price by about a penny? Why do they lie so much?
ReplyDeleteWe have plenty of oil here, and we can save alot of oil by promoting nuclear power.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Well C. Scott Shields Esq. We might agree on something here. Maybe Nuc. is the way to go.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, I've been wanting to ask you this. This Pro Christ, Pro Gun. How does that work. I was always taught that the message of Christ was love, peace, forgiveness,and non violence. You know. That turn the other cheek thing. All that hokey liberal stuff. So, I mean, I could see you being an athiest or an agnostic and wanting to pack, but Guns and Christ? Just doesn't seem like a logical mix. Can you explain that to me? Also, why do put Esq. after everything you write?
C Scott Esq
ReplyDeleteYou are so right on this one. I wish the Lib-Dems would just stop lying. Why can't they be more like the guys on the right and just "misspeak", or blame everything on "faulty inteligence"?
You know, like Bush, "the decider" or is that Bush "the maker upper" Not sure. I'll have to fact check that one. Anyway, I'm gonna have a long talk with that muslim guy thats running for president. Coaching sessions. Have him watch videos of Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Condi so he can get this misspeak down.
Case in point:
Vice-President Dick Cheney's office has acknowledged he was wrong when he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday that China was drilling for oil off Cuba's coast, just 60 miles from Key West.
Republicans used that talking point this week as they pushed for opening more of the Outer-Continental Shelf to oil and gas exploration, including the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. That talking point brought some intra-party push-back from Sen. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican, who took to the Senate floor to refute it.
Lol… You boys have ZERO room to talk about bumper sticker mentality in others!
ReplyDelete“Bush lied!” “Bush’s war!” and he and Cheney are “war criminals”… “windfall profits” “Change”… on and on. It’s all you dopes know how to do. You have been programmed.
If Obama had promised everyone “plywood” rather than hollow change you simpletons would now be repeating “plywood, plywood, plywood… is good!” Lol…
King George really gave it to the obstructionist LibDems today over their opposition to domestic drilling!
Randal
ReplyDeleteAgain calling names without adding any substance to the discussion. Still waiting for you to answer my question. You said you wanted to spit in the face of the mother of a soldier who lost his life in Iraq. A very manly and Chritian thing for you to want to do Randal. I'm sure you're proud of that statement. Well, Mary Tillman publicly accused the administration of using her sons death to bolster and recruit for a war (Iraq), that her son didn't believe in. Here's what she said.
""The Administration used Pat," Mary Tillman told me in a phone interview on Monday from San Jose. "They tried to attach themselves to his virtue and then they wiped their feet with him."
So answer the question Randal. You want to spit in her face too?
You still weeping and whining, BB? My, aren’t you sensitive. (Hehe) I just addressed your silly question in one of the other threads you’ve been humping my leg about it. Find a new whine. Preferably something of a 2008 vintage.
ReplyDeleteR
ReplyDeleteInteresting how you avoid my question about Mary Tillman.
Bob,
ReplyDeleteTillman joined the rangers under his own choice. Nobody from anywhere made him sign up so he could be a poster boy.
And who really ran with that story? Most of the MSNBCs, Clinton News Networks, etc. Everyone is to blame for the exploitations of Tillman in the media, but does that really surprise you?
Aren't there pics of celebs all day leaving Starbucks or Mr. Chow's? What newsworthiness do those stories hold? Nothing. They just grab attention. What did anyone expect when a pro NFL player joined the military? It could have been Flavor Flave who joined and there would be media surrounding it.
Of course, J. But then, all that doesn't fit with Bob's determination to leverage his fragile hurt feelings for Bush and the war.
ReplyDeleteJonas
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point. R, being the mature adult that he is, said he would spit in the face of Sheehan. I asked if he would do the same to Mary Tillman, who publicly shares Cindy Sheehans disgust with the Bush administration and the war in Iraq. He's a big boy. Let him answer the question. In reality, Randal is a chicken hawk who never had the courage to serve his country, and he tries to make up for it by wrapping himself in the flag. His comments are the equivelant of spitting in the face of every parent and every serviceman and woman who serves this country.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoring Bob still weeping and Dishonest Dave still casting untruths. Nothing new here. Moving along...
ReplyDeleteHey, all these calls for drilling of the coast- what ever happened to all the cheap oil that we were going to get from Iraq. We were told it would even pay for the war. Remember that?
ReplyDeletewow, diano's got some interesting spin on this blog's Fab Four. Here an honest and un-spun take:
ReplyDeleteMayor C. Scott's got attitude and a strong ego, and refuses to back down on his morals and beliefs, despite constant attempts by Dave to get him to submit. I initially found his remarks harsh, but have found Scott to be an interesting poster and enjoy reading his opinions.
Randal says controversial things on the blog, and takes the role of the Conservative Conspiracy theorist head-on on the blog. While he's not putting together long, cut-and-paste style posts like diano, his post are short, sweet and to the point he's making.
The almighty king of Spencerblog, Gil Spencer, is our resident Op-Ed with a conservative mind that drives diano crazy to the point where you see frequent insults. Where once he used to post frequently in the comments section, we don't see much of him anymore. He occasionally comes back to delete some of randal's more controversial posts.
jonas is our resident oil expert and takes the time to prepare longer, well assembled arguements on various issues. I once believed that he had a connection to big oil, but he has mentioned that he too welcomes new technology with open arms. I think Diano knows his alter-ego better than anyone else. Unfortunately, I know him only by this board. He mentions his accomplishments more than necessary on a blog, though.
I can't comment on Franny Ward, I know little about him based on his occasional posts.
Diano is a consultant in the computer science area (Assuming websites). He's the resident left-winger of the group and frequent antagonist to randal, C. Scott and jonas. Uses Wikipedia and his left-wing newsletters a little too much to concieve his points. Posts frequently come with a serving of arrogance (e.g. "read this, maybe ytou'll learn something"), and is known to go into personal attacks when he has nothing else to bring to the table. Major supporter of Joe Sestak, I think he handled Joe's election web presence. Also the manager of a couple "Delco Watch" blogs honoring our "Progressive Patriot". Would make for a terrible elected servant as his arguements show a strict refusal to compromise, fully believing that his deep left beliefs are always correct. Tends to stay out of municipality issues except when there are attacks on C. Scott or Spencer.
Myself (trying to be unbiased) - started posting here complaining about local government in Media, continued to post about everything else Spencer brings up. Accoridng to diano, I have a terrible sense of humor. I have a terrible habit of typing quickly, frequently mis-spelling throughout and lazily refusing to check my typing. My posts are short and (allegedly) to the point, and I love to include sarcasm. I tend to lean to the right but try to be reasonable, maybe I truly am a moderate at heart(go figure).
Bob, my assessment of you is a little premature, but I find that you lean to the left but also can be reasoned with. You come from a family line who has served our country proudly, this should never be critized or questioned amongst any of us, although it shouldn't be inserted to any of our discussions as a way to quell issues. I look forward to seeing more of your posts.
Your assessment is much more fair, S, but you are too generous in that you neglected to mention a few key elements that regularly appear in a couple of posters offerings.
ReplyDeleteYou neglected to mention how Dishonest Dave Diano regularly employs blatantly dishonest distortions in his failed efforts to bully through his angry brand of childish Modern Libism and radical racial/gay apologistism. Oh, and he also sees the President of the United States as the enemy, a war criminal, and advocates the murdering of big business executives only because he personally does not like their products. These are not minor gaffs that should be overlooked but key recurring elements of his un-American offerings. When we fail to indict such Fascism we end up giving it a pass.
And Bob, well, he’s become like Dave’s Mini Me, a card-carrying member of the Hurt Feelings crowd. He may as well just post “Me too!” each time after Dave’s posts and spare himself all the typing. That he tries to leverage his soldier son’s service in a despicable effort to cut off honest dialog on the war is, well, downright Cindy Sheehan-esque. Yep, shameful, dishonest and despicable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletemy take on C. Scott is more along the lines that he's very opposed to the whole PC-movement (Which he will openly admit) and that he's protecting the rights he believes in before they're swallowed up in bureaucracy. He's mentioned before (and Spencer has in an article) that while do doesn't believe in the gay lifestyle, he's not out condemning gays he meets, nor will he refuse representation. Based on that I give him the benefit. He's very high on religion and morals, why criticize him on that and back away from someone of the opposite stance?
ReplyDeleteI like Randal, although I will admit to cringing to a couple of his own posts (The Chelsea was one of his best!). He makes a point that a lot of people want to ignore (or the minds chooses to believe what it sees). There is a political bias in the media, and the bias is the the left. You want to slam Fox News for going to the right? Maybe you should complement Rupert Murdoch for being so brilliant and capturing the backing of the conservative portion of the country just by having something different!!!
I base jonas on more of a moderate platform because he really does welcome new technologies and isn't stating that oil should remain the standard for the forseeable future. he and I share a similar thought that while we want more environmentally friendly and affordable technology, we have to be reasonable and inderstand that it's not readily available, we have a major bloodline and depend on others to fuful the demand - therefore, short term solutions are necessary for long term stability.
Dave, i based your background on what little I have read (and so much moe I'm sure I missed), so I figured I was off-base. i missed your letters to the editor about sestak. I persoanlly have no issues with him to date, I don't see enough problems to warrant his ouster in November.
I made the elected servant comment mainly because you, randal and scott can never find middle ground, always clinging to your side, showing little in compromise. So I guess it would be fair to say the same with scott and randal in terms of ever running for office.
From my end, I always try to keep an open mind on issues, I don't let candidates, strategists, 529's, Olberman or Hannity affect my own decision. I try to strive for the straight facts (hard to do in a spin-full world) and base my own decisions on common sense first. I don't believe the right is always right, I don't believe the left is always wrong, and vice versa. I don't believe in one party controlling everything, either, because our government tends to adjust to that extreme, which is bad for our overall health. My favorite candidates are always the moderate types that recognize the good from both sides of the aisle and try to mold compromises to keep all of us moving forward. In that respect, I think Clinton and Reagan were very successful, I think Bush has been horrendous despite bragging in 2000 about his bi-partison work in Texas.
Oh, I suspect that even if Williams was anti-war that Dishonest Dave still wouldn’t vote for him because that would mean pushing a button on the “R” side of the machine. Which is fine, he can be a radical blind partisan dope if he wants –this is America, we’re free to do/be such things- but he shouldn’t lie about it.
ReplyDeleteKinda like how blindly racially partisan blacks can vote for the Black Candidate because 'he looks like them' if they want to but that doesn't make it right and the Apologist Daves shouldn’t try to lie about it and apologize for them.
randal, i'm writing you in for the next common pleas court opening.
ReplyDeletediano, will you choose a write-in candidate in November for the 13th district? I follow the theory that if you don't like either, don't ignore the opportunity to vote, write someone in.
lol, my Montco past is revealing itself once again! I meant to say 7th district, apolgies to all!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust making it up as you go along, eh Dave?
ReplyDeleteI think it's funny how fearful Libs are of FOX. ONE centrist channel in the sea of Lib bias we call "news" and it makes them weep endlessly about it and spout untrue slander. Lol...
diano, i cringe at all three networks anymore - fox is overly right, msnbc is overly left, and cnn took a 1.5 year timeout from the war to cover 24/7 election news right down to minor speeches. I can't stand any of them, maybe that's why KYW-1060 is still the best to me.
ReplyDeleteMy point about Murdoch is as follows - who knows or cares about his political views? He's a business man and saw the need for a channel that caters to the right-wing viewers. That, in of itself, was brilliant. While we complain about these news stations, he's rolling in it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBoy, Hypocrite Dave is in full form today. He sees FOX as this great big threat while ignoring the hundreds of Lying Lib Media outlets and their influence.
ReplyDeleteAnd he wonders why no one takes him at all seriously. Lol...
David,
ReplyDeleteWhy do you even bring me into this argument? With comments like this:
Jonas is the intellectual powerhouse of this rather weak group. He's got a college education and a Wharton MBA. No science here either. He likes to toss out all the pro-Big Corporation economic theories, lax regulations, lax pollution, special huge tax breaks for the rich (with a handy example of a rare non-rich that got a tiny break). Jonas is intellectually dishonest as his true allegiance is to the Fortune 100 companies because he is a bought-and-paid-for shill. He'd fit in on Fox Business News, with all the prerequisite biases.
Where's my bias Dave? Intellectually dishonest? Weren't you the one admitting you weren't arguing based on facts as it was a "political" debate and as such "facts" weren't needed? You're such a douchebag it's not even funny....
Let alone the audacity of your comments and your consistent hypocrisy. Why does everyone know you have 2 degrees in <4 years? Oh wait, cause you brought it up. Now I'm an FOX News pig because I speak of my background when you attack my intelligence? Atleast I was bringing it up upon being attacked and not trying to flaunt my intelligence. You're just pissed because I'm smarter and have done better than you.
It must suck waking up being you with all the lies you live.
1 "handy" take break? Capital gains tax on homes has been that way for ages. More like the norm that the Democratic congress and president put into place to help the "little guy." All I asked was for you to recognize the fact the capital gains tax isn't only on stock options for the rich. You're just angry I proved your false point wrong infront of everybody. It's not my fault you try to use peoples idiocricy to influence their views based on lies you put into their head. Reminds me of, "I don't take money from oil companies.... Vote for me!" ha ha ha douchebag, NO candidate can. You and Obama live off the fact that people don't know the facts behind arguments.
When did I argue pollution? Haven't; therefore, you don't know my stance on that. Bad guess genious. I'm actually all for Obama's planned carbon fees against heavy polluters. WOW, who's the douchebag full of nails now clown?
And yes Dave, I'm bought and paid for because I am a paid consultant. Aren't you the same? The only difference is I'm successful; therefore, large companies want my services. You can't say you'd stop doing what your doing if you got offers from Fortune 500 companies in a year and Fortune 100 in three years. What are you, a little punk who thinks his favorite artist is a "sellout" because they did a song for the mass popularity and money? That's the lamest argument in the world, but that goes hand in hand with your clown ass.
Is crude oil still sold in gallons Dave?
Truthfulness here right. On that note, I'm going to Swiss Farms for a kilometer of lemonade.
Pick me up a tanker of iced tea while you’re there, J! ;)
ReplyDeleteYou sure have Dishonest Dave down.
In all seriousness, where I come from things like honor and integrity and character –honesty- matter most, more than anything else. To call someone a “liar” is the lowest insult and you’d better know what you’re talking about before you sling it. So I find it remarkable that DD regularly spouts his untruths here in order to make his feeble points in silly arguments on a message board. And the way the charges of “dishonesty” and “liar” –heck, his name has become Dishonest Dave!- roll off him and he doesn’t even blink really speaks of the quality his character lacks. I guess maybe he’s used to being called such things. One can just imagine how he conducts his business and what he instills in his kids.
Steve
ReplyDeleteBeing fairly new to this blog, I appreciate your opinion of the lineup. However, I must disagree with several assesments. I have followed, and written rebuttles to many of the C. Scott Shields Esq. letters to the times. Come on Steve. I am very familiar with his political and social beliefs. This man is the ultimate hypocrite. Just look at his handle "Pro gun pro Christ"! He's interesting in the same way that going to the zoo and watching monkeys is interesting. As for Randal, I get the impression that he would prefer to insult and call names rather than have an above board discussion. I believe Dave to be a reasonable poster who isn't afraid to research before he posts. You also seem to be a reasonable person, looking for intelligent dialogue. Me? Ok. I was a registered Republican up until W.
Split ticket voter all my life.
Historicaly, I like Ike (with the exception of his administrations involvement in the overthrow of the Govt. of Iran in 53), never cared much for Kennedy or Johnson. I considered their actions in Nam to be crimes against humanity. Was in the service during the Nixon administration and liked certain things about Nixons foreign policy efforts (China), voted for Carter, didn't like Reagan, voted for Bush Sr. (wish the kid was a lot more like the old man), voted for Clinton twice, became a Democrat after Clintons first term, proudly campaigned AGAINST W., and became an Independant after the Dems buckled under, and gave W. the go ahead in Iraq. In my opinion, but for a few, it was an act of political cowardice. I'm pro gun ownership up to a point. I'm aware that the best weapon to protect the home with is a shotgun, and gun ownership for hunting is fine, but I don't believe any person has a legitimate use for an assault weapon (semi or automatic weapon)unless they are law enforcement or military. I am pro military, supported going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but I believe a much better use of the troops would be defending our own borders rather than fighting this senseless war in Iraq. Haven't made my mind up on the imigration issue, believe in the death penalty in certain cases, abortion in cases of rape, incest, to save the life of the mother and under other extroadinary circumstances, but not as general means of birth control. I think Michael Moore is an ass, Olberman is overboard, as are Hannity and Rush, Pat Buchanan comes up with interesting viewpoints, as does Tom Friedman, Trudy Rubin and Gene Lyons, and I thought Tim Russert was fairest guy on TV. There's a lot more, but now you have an idea as to who I am.
I believe Dave to be a reasonable poster
ReplyDeleteI was a registered Republican up until W.
-vs-
became a Democrat after Clintons first term
voted for Carter, didn't like Reagan
Gene Lyons (has) interesting viewpoints
Yeah, we see who you are, BB. Lol…
R
ReplyDeleteOK. I know this was hard for you to grasp, so I'll clarify it. I thought Clinton did a fine job first term, so I changed parties and voted for his second term. So yes, technicaly I was a Democrat before W. got into office. Leave it to you to take exception to that. R- the proctologist of the blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t being nit-picky, BB. What you wrote was plainly contradictory and appeared to be a lie. Ya can hardly blame that on me. But then, you are Dishonest Dave’s Mini Me, so I would expect no more from you.
ReplyDeleteMy integrity is not for sale.
OMG! LMAO! This is because you have none, DD! You have showed us this many times.
Dave4
ReplyDeleteR only took exception to three of my statements. I think we're making progress.
Dave,
ReplyDeleteYour wrong. The only way you could throw in your arguments was to base your arguments on a political debate which throws out any factual basis and and of itself.
Feel left out? When was the last time I posted on this article? 5 days ago. I think my comments were long gone by then.
And you also "bring someone" into a topic by discrediting everything about them? Yeah, sounds reasonable. It's okay though, keep making those comments. It just shows the lack of your thoughts here. All you can do is try to make others feel bad about themselves.
That's okay though, my ego is very high and little people like you don't really bother me.
And it shows how dumb you are that now your argument is "welllll if its the same unit of measurement it must be the same thing." Is that what you tell women when you give them the microscope? It's 12 inches.... Well 12 centimeters, but the same thing!
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm bought and paid. How to I lobby for my companies? I'm in management consulting idiot. I improve companies processes. I have nothing to do with what happens outside of the company. When would I sit in a meeting with 2 companies like you propose to "whore myself out?" I NEVER sit in a meeting with 2 companies. There's no point in that for me. Why would I meet with company 1 and 2 to discuss what company 1 does internally with company 2? That's the dumbest thing ever and a breach of integrity.
You are right, I get my clients based on my company. Oh that's right, you didn't know I owned my own management consulting company. When a Fortune XYZ company hires MY company, they are hiring us based off of what I (and my workers) have accomplished. I started out walking in off the street with 3 other employees and built my company up. Then again, since I "worked" at McK you assumed I still do. Wrong again Dave.
Since you want universal healthcare, do you work for clients who do not provide 100% insurance coverage? Most small businesses don't as they don't have the resources.
And you are right Dave, I'm not too worried about the waste from nuclear reactors. Then again, nobody that is for hybrids is against the waste from large batteries and the lead inside. So you and Al are just as environmentally un-green as I am based off of what you propose.
I am for offshore drilling. What "global warming" does that contribute to that building roads that we drive on with electric cars doesn't? Absolutely none. So lets drill, tax the polluters in order to help subsidize the green programs until they are ready to be used by us. What is so complicated about that? It's called logic. We aren't going from gas cars on Sept 30, 2014 to electric cars on Sept 31, 2014.
I'm also for putting wind turbines in the ocean (please refer to the story in the NE area where a town wasn't allowed to). If we can't put anything anywhere that is open now, where can we build any of this "green" technology to use? If you can't put a wind turbine in the ocean (as environmentalists have disagreed with) where do you put it? You can't put it in that open field as geese or foxes use that area.
And you still haven't addressed how basically all overseas "green" companies went under upon losing the subsidation from their governments. Are we going to keep them alive by taxing the rich more too? Before we know it, the rich will be taxed at 90% and it will basically be a communistic society.
Well Dave it's finally good you realized people not in the 35% tax bracket have capital gains tax also. And by the way, nobody calls it "CBT". And you are right, that is the problem with cap gains. That's not what you were arguing prior though. Glad you finally jumped onto the bandwagon of people who understand how the tax works.
ReplyDeleteAnd Dave, you are wrong about genius. I mispoke when I said genious. There's no problem with that.
Don't get your panties in a bunch!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat we are witnessing here is a classic battle between Good and Lib. Jonas brings his A game and employs measured logic and reason and facts and yummy stuff like that. While Dishonest Dave relies on emotion, wiggle and spin and slant and untruths and personal attack and distractive petty nit picking when he’s losing the argument.
ReplyDeleteYep, classic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere's some more of that DD depth.
ReplyDeleteWow Dave, did you come up with, "There once was a braggart named Jonas
ReplyDeleteWho thought corporations should own us
Let's drill for Big Oil!
Let the environment spoil!
The Homer Simpson result: "Doh!" us" all by yourself? That's pretty amazing! You might get more clients being a poet than your current job.
You've still never shown how I'm a braggart though, so that's a false claim. Corporations own us? Like the government when the wealthy pay 60+% of wages to taxes? Seems similar to me. Let the environment spoil....
I'm not too sure about this, but has global warming been "proven" yet? I'm sure we can go interview Biden about it and he'll tell us how it is. But he won't respond when asked why his top scientist disagrees with that point of view.
Right, proven "facts" by DD again.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOL! A limerick in a thread that touched on nuclear power!
ReplyDeleteDon’t even try to take credit, DD, I know it was by happenstance. You’re not that sharp. And Jonas is clearly brighter than you. And for the record, Jonas has displayed more humorous humor here than you, DD, while your “humor” usually relies on lies. And that’s not so funny.
And you have no room to jump anyone for boasting, DD.
What has not been “proven” and what the Left continues to lie about is the human causes behind global sky falling.
David,
ReplyDeleteCan you find 1 single global warming "fact" that all scientists agree upon?
Remember, a scientific fact is, "In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts." (from your fav website)
Now when a "fact" is verifiable, it means that when carbon levels were the highest, that would also constitute the highest temperature levels on the Earth as many argue increased carbon = increased temps.
So from that basis, please show me any "fact" about global warming. Upon you showing this "fact," R and I will look to find any scientist who disagrees with this "fact." If we find any who disagree, it is not a true "fact" as it cannot be proven over and over again in scientific tests.
If R and I can't find someone who disagrees with science, I'll agree you proved me wrong.
And no Dave, saying temps have risen the past 50 years doesn't count because everyone knows that the Cretaceous period was hotter than it is today. And that occurred before we drove cars or even had an engine.
ReplyDeleteAnd also, how am I the braggart? You were the one who said you were more successful than me. I proved your companies income, then referenced my income based upon my hourly bill rate multiplied by the hours worked last year. That's not bragging at all, that's just showing the point of you being more successful false.
ReplyDeleteAnd I brought out Wharton when you called me a high school drop-out idiot. Again, I didn't bring up the subject, but you did.
Apparently when I defend myself against your accusations, that leads me to be a braggart. How should I defend them then Dave? Just not respond to something that's false?
You call it bragging because I've proven your arguments wrong about my intelligence. If I would have said I received my mba from UD or Drexel it wouldn't be an issue. The fact I received it from a Top 3 business program brings out your anger towards my education as it shows my superior success to you. It's okay Dave, everyone who reads this knows I'm better than you at what I do. I don't need to brag to do that.
Then again, I guess my maserati does that. Woops, sorry, I just had to brag right there.
That's bragging Dave. Defending yourself isn't bragging. You only feel it's bragging because my educational and career background is of the highest degree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMan, all them prehistoric cars and factories really did a number on our environment!
ReplyDeleteHey, once this natural warming cycle ends, who are you lying Libs going to blame in your shrill cries about "global cooling"? Hehehe...
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStill spreading them myths as facts, eh, DD.
ReplyDeleteFor every one of your scientific claims there is a scientific rebutal. But Lying Libs have worked overtime to see to it that all oposing views are stifled.
One would think that if the Lying Lib stance were so solid that they would welcome other views. They very much do not.
Do you really run around yelling that the sky is falling?
Wow Dave, you used the carbon dioxide argument. That's wonderful!
ReplyDeleteFill a glass ball with air, then increase the carbon dioxide and carbon in the ball and see what happens to the temperature. Not a single thing. Disproof of your fact #1 by me.
Now fill that glass ball with air, raise the temperature. What happens? Oh that's right, carbon dioxide and carbon levels will increase. Disproof of your fact #2 by me.
Isn't that the exact opposite of what you claim happens.
Now thousand of scientists have completed this experiment with the same results. And those results dispute your claim, which mean it isn't factual because when a scientist replicates your circumstance, they should see only your result happen. In fact, they are seeing the opposite happen. Yeah, I guess my wharton MBA did me well. It allowed me to show the un-educated population (like yourself) how things are really done.
Please throw another "fact" my way.
By the way, I don't do organizational charts Dave. All Fortune 100 companies are public, so they are SOX compliant, which means they do their own org charts (govt mandated). Very pitiful try at a diss though I must say.
What management consultant would do that anyway? But then again, you thought I'd sit in on meetings between my clients and other companies (your "proof" that I'm bought & sold by corps), which never happens. You have really no idea what I do on a daily basis, but you try to make it out as if I do high school work to belittle me to make yourself sound awesome. Who's the braggart now Dave?
I keep seeing the same thing from you DD. You can't prove facts, so you try and belittle someone. Again, I'm more successful than you, belittle me all you want. I'll just keep throwing out facts that show how wrong you are. Just like how my cars are worth more in FV than your house is.
Could you show me how I'm bought by corporations again? Now that you can't use the fact I'll sit in a meeting with another company and defend my company to no end, what other "facts" do you have to prove this?
Then again, I spoke to a few friends and found out Vanguard doesn't have 100% healthcare coverage. If you'd never associate with a company which doesn't have your ideals, why did you work there? You are for national healthcare, and the equivalent of that today would be 100% healthcare coverage by a company. Vanguard definitely doesn't do that and I'm 80% sure the other company you worked for didn't. So that's 2 incidents where you lied about who you'll work for. Recurring theme much?
Oh and another fact, the highest carbon dioxide levels to date were right after WW2. So I guess, we're technically global cooling right now based on your arguments, right Dave?
ReplyDeleteAgain, disproved your argument based on your facts with very little research or effort. Shouldn't your "scientifically proven" points be a little tougher to dispute?
Lol. Nice smackdown, Jonas.
ReplyDeleteHey, J, you don't happen to have an extra Maserati sitting around that you no longer need, do ya? Just figured I'd ask.
R,
ReplyDeleteWish I could. If you get Dave to let us blow up any cannister of 4000+psi air that we please next to him (as it's 100% safe per him), I'll definitely consider it though.
On the other hand, I found this crazy website on dave that you may find interesting: www.david.diano.isgay.com
Seems like he's on the internet a little too much.
Wow. I knew Dave was a idiot but it turns out he's a pervert too. No wonder he's against the death penalty for child rapists. The sick f...
ReplyDeleteYeah it was pretty sickening upon finding.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe health care system then wasn't the issue it is today.
ReplyDeleteYou mean the healthcare system wasn’t the issue the Socialist Libs have made it into today. Get it right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd Libs have created the liability crisis by blocking efforts to rein in predatory jackpot fishing trip lawsuits that has devastated the healthcare delivery system in this country. This is but another Lib created crisis that they then turn around and offer to “fix” with their Socialism.
ReplyDeleteR,
ReplyDeleteIsn't it funny how healthcare costs have risen drastically since 1980, but it is all George Bush's fault for 2000-present? What about the other 20 years? I guess they don't count.
Then again, if Clinton let an intelligent person run with healthcare, maybe something could have been accomplished in his term.
And David, no police report references a person with just their first name. It shows another horrible lack of understanding of basic concepts by you.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteHow do you say that you won't work for a company that has different "values" than yours but you also say, "Being an outside consultant, I wasn't briefed by HR on the particulars of their health care policies, and the health care system then wasn't the issue it is today"
So you're basically saying you have plausible deniability in any company you work for as you don't read their HR policy.
Doesn't that go EXACTLY against what you said earlier about "knowing" what a company is all about and then deciding whether you will work with them or not?
It pretty much does. It's your "out" excuse for working for them which shows your original comment in trying to belittle me was just a ploy and lie to make me look bad.
I'm glad I took the time to show you for who you are.
As for your being more "successful" than me, you've based your measurement on income rather than the accumulation of knowledge or even the most basic understanding of the physical world around you. I guess the rules of physics are different in your fantasy world.
ReplyDeleteHow do you base "success" David? You haven't scored higher than me on the LSAT, SAT, MCAT, or GMAT. So in any measurable knowledge test, we are equal at best. S
o the next thing to test "success" would be what? I understand the physical world around me. If you want to say knowing the physics behind that, sure a physics major would know more than me on detailed info. But then again, in that physical world, there is the business world that drives the present physical world which I'd know more than them.
So yes Dave, we base success on $$$.
If we don't, which is fine with me, lets tax the middle class more than the rich because they are more "successful." I'll fully be taxed at a 25% tax rate on my gross income if it means I'll admit to being more dumb than every middle class income person in the USA. Why don't you propose that great idea to Sestak or Obama.
I must be taxed at a higher rate for some reason. And I'm sure there's a reason my income is in the top 5% of the US population. You don't get there by just luck.
David,
ReplyDeleteHere's the biggest kicker of all: you still can't prove how I'm "bought" by corporations, you can't prove how crude is sold in gallons, and the list goes on for about 20 other things.
The only thing you can prove is you know engineering more than R or I. Wonderful Dave, BRAVO! Round of applause. I'm glad you learned your undergraduate degree area better than R and I have. Must be very difficult.
And Dave please stop with the "consulting for Vanguard" and thinking it's the same as what I do. Any outside company is considered a consultant these days. They took that naming after seeing how successful McK, Bain, and BCG were. I do management consulting, of which there are maybe 10 top firms in the US (of which, mine is one). There's millions of "IT support" (caugh consultants caugh) out there.
So no, don't compare anything you've ever done with me. I'm above you, always have, always will.
I'm still waiting for that "global warming caused by humans" fact still. After 2 days, you'd think it'd be easy to show me anything since it has been "proven" and all.
HERE YE HERE YE:
And just for the kicks: I challenge you to an overall intelligence test. You put up your company and I'll put up my maserati's pink slip. Winner takes all. What say you?