tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post4809473011778371948..comments2024-03-27T21:14:20.537-04:00Comments on Dave Dubya's Freedom Rants: Not-so-fast-but-but-furiousDave Dubyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comBlogger174125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-58252051476185451932012-08-27T15:38:52.810-04:002012-08-27T15:38:52.810-04:00FandB: "OK, Jefferson, let me ask you a quest...<b>FandB</b>: "<i>OK, Jefferson, let me ask you a question. When you talk about "CEO's", are you talking about all CEO's...</i>"<br /><br />No, not unless the shoe fits. Working for a technology start-up in the past, I've <i>also</i> reported directly to a CEO. The guy was definitely a sociopath. But, predominately, I'm referring to CEOs of Fortune 500 size multinationals. I think you probably already knew that.<br /><br /><br />"<i>There appears to be a basic contradiction in the thought process when, on the one hand you profess to distrust government and CEO's, but on the other hand you seem to think government is better suited to control businesses that are private citizens.</i>"<br /><br />There's no contradiction at all. I never indicated I distrusted "We the People", the purported owners of our government according to our Founders, <i>but rather</i> the two major political parties that really serve <i>one</i> consideration -- "Big Money". But I'm repeating myself, aren't I?<br /><br />Government, in the form of "We the People", <i>has to</i> regulate business, because self-regulation, as we've seen fail time-after-time again, does not work. You've said it already: The primary function of business is increasing shareholder's equity; it's <i>certainly not</i> serving the public interest.<br /><br /><br />"<i>...how do you think the U.S. business environment should be structured so that we are capable of maintaining our current lifestyle and level of innovation without having large corporations or CEO's?</i>"<br /><br />First, I've never campaigned against "largeness", per se, but rather monopoly and oligopoly; companies <i>so large</i> and <i>so powerful</i>, that they are more than in the business of being a business -- they're unduly influencing our elected (and unelected) government representatives with Big Money. I don't believe their corporate charters say anything about <i>this</i>.<br /><br />As far as your term "our current lifestyle", even as just a <i>Global Technology Director</i>, this shows how <i>out of touch</i> you are with the working class in this country. Congratulations! You've passed the first test to becoming CEO material! You tried on the latest style of narcissistic shoe-wear and it fits perfectly!Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-72285487552666193922012-08-26T18:46:33.910-04:002012-08-26T18:46:33.910-04:00F&B,
Yeah, but one difference between Obama a...F&B,<br /><br /><i>Yeah, but one difference between Obama and me is that I actually have brought some jobs back to the U.S.</i><br /><br />Feeling grandiose are we? And could you help us out by showing where I compared my “exploits” to a president’s accomplishments? We understand it was sensitive and defensive of you to throw the mud...<br /><br /><i>So, Dubya, if someone talks about having accomplished something contrary to your preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world, in your mind they are 'blowing their own horn'? I'm not surprised then that you don't blow your own horn more often about all your conspiratorial little world. Oh, wait, that's right, you do that quite often.</i><br /><br />...but please feel free to expound on all your accomplishments. <br /><br />One accomplishment that eludes you is attaching any clear meaning to “preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world”.<br /><br />What “preconceived thoughts” would those be? What is meant by the “way things are”? What things and in what way? And what “conspiratorial little world” are you talking about? Is the reality of corporate and Big Money influence on politicians that “conspiratorial little world”?<br /><br />And again, what ‘security guard exploits” have I “quite often” blown my horn about?<br /><br />Really, can you cite even one “exploit”, let alone where I come off comparing myself to a president? Sheesh! <br /><br />I once listed some aspects of the job in response to a troll’s cowardly spewing of disrespect and hate for me and members of the profession. Was that blowing my own horn? <br /><br />So please, put up or shut up with accusations. It lowers you to the level of a mean and nasty troll. <br /><br />I know you’re better than that. <br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-62116292279355587542012-08-26T16:17:29.132-04:002012-08-26T16:17:29.132-04:00So, Dubya, if someone talks about having accomplis...So, Dubya, if someone talks about having accomplished something contrary to your preconceived thoughts about the way things are in your conspiratorial little world, in your mind they are 'blowing their own horn'? I'm not surprised then that you don't blow your own horn more often about all your security guard exploits. Oh, wait, that's right, you do that quite often.<br /><br />Just for fun Jefferson, I'll answer some of your questions. Bear in mind that sometimes the details are more complex than can be discussed fully in a blog setting. No, I am not a CEO, but I do report to the CEO as I have for many years. My current title is Global Technology Director.<br /><br />Twenty years is a long time in the business world, and during that time my company has gone from one location in the U.S. to two locations in the U.S., 2 in Mexico, 1 each in Germany, Turkey, China, and Brazil. So, yes, we have created many jobs in the U.S. as well as many jobs in the countries mentioned above. Our move overseas was driven by the fact that our customer base was moving into those areas and we had the choice of moving there to support them or losing their business. The latter would have been irresponsible from the standpoint of increasing shareholder's equity (which is the primary function of every employee, whether they realize it or not). Also, our product has a rather limited shelf life, about 60 days, so shipping globally from the U.S. is not a good long-term option.<br /><br />OK, Jefferson, let me ask you a question. When you talk about "CEO's", are you talking about all CEO's, even the CEO's of 260K/year start-ups that employ 2 or 3 people? Or do you limit your definition to some specific size corporation, maybe 1 million/year? 100 million/year? 1 billion/year? I'm just curious at what level of success these nefarious CEO's become evil.<br /><br />There appears to be a basic contradiction in the thought process when, on the one hand you profess to distrust government and CEO's, but on the other hand you seem to think government is better suited to control businesses that are private citizens. <br /><br />Bearing in mind that small mom & pop shops would never be capable of building a safe car, much less an airplane or space shuttle, how do you think the U.S. business environment should be structured so that we are capable of maintaining our current lifestyle and level of innovation, without having large corporations or CEO's? Again, I'm just curious as to how you would accomplish this.<br /> FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-55378215205999942652012-08-25T16:37:04.181-04:002012-08-25T16:37:04.181-04:00LMFAO Dave!LMFAO Dave!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698117410778232102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-63063375199116434752012-08-25T07:52:54.158-04:002012-08-25T07:52:54.158-04:00FandB, There was an interesting article in Forbes ...<b>FandB</b>, There was an interesting article in <i>Forbes</i> about the conservative mindset, more specifically the psychological profile of CEOs. Research has revealed that the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent -- four times what it is in the population at large. Basically, these researchers found that when you get them talking, they [i.e., CEOs] are different than human beings. They lack the things that make people human: concepts such as empathy, remorse, loving kindness, etc., etc. <br /><br />Other research has confirmed, if not psychotic, they're sociopaths. The article asserted that the incidence of sociopathic and narcissistic personality disorders increased dramatically the higher the rank of an individual in a corporation. In the view of the authors, there was a greater proportion of sociopaths among the CEO population they studied than in the general population in the <i>average state prison</i>.<br /><br />My question for you is this: Are you a CEO? If not, what is your title in your organization? <br /><br />Oh, by the way, has your organization outsourced jobs to other countries within the last ten to twenty years, with the prime motivation being to save labor and benefit costs? <br /><br />You also stated:<br /><br />"<i>Jefferson: So, you're saying that the 4.5 million jobs that Obama claims to have created do not exist and Obama is a liar. OK, another thing we agree on.</i>"<br /><br />I claim that <i>both</i> parties collude and serve their benefactors, whoever they may be. In a word, they serve "Big Money". As much as I distrust the Democratic Party, I distrust the Republican Party a whole hell of a lot more. It won't be good for middle-class and working class America that Obama is reelected, but <i>it'll be a lot worse</i> if Romney gets in.<br /><br />Remember, I'm a conspiracy theorist! <b>;-)</b>Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-84703460006960501422012-08-25T02:53:42.232-04:002012-08-25T02:53:42.232-04:00F&B,
Whew! Thank you for reassuring us that co...F&B,<br />Whew! Thank you for reassuring us that corporations' lobbying and campaign contributions are only a reflection of their good-hearted and compassionate sense of sharing, and their patriotic and civic-minded support of public interests.<br /><br />At least that's what I hear under the din of your blowing your own horn.;-)Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-37400200478059998042012-08-25T00:26:19.798-04:002012-08-25T00:26:19.798-04:00There was an interesting article in a recent Scien...There was an interesting article in a recent Scientific American about the Conspiracy mindset. People who believe that a particular conspiracy exists, for example that 911 was an "inside job", are very likely to believe in other conspiracies, e.g. that corporations control America. The bad news is that there isn't really a cure for it, once you get hooked on a conspiracy, you will tend to see conspiracies everywhere, even where none exist.<br /><br />Dubya: Yeah, but one difference between Obama and me is that I actually have brought some jobs back to the U.S. from China (and Mexico, and Europe).<br /><br />Jefferson: So, you're saying that the 4.5 million jobs that Obama claims to have created do not exist and Obama is a liar. OK, another thing we agree on.<br />FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-18682488640658884272012-08-23T15:48:24.976-04:002012-08-23T15:48:24.976-04:00Dave Dubya: "I'm pretty sure conservative...<b>Dave Dubya</b>: "<i>I'm pretty sure conservatives have sent jobs to China.</i>"<br /><br />Of course...almost all of 'em! Remember, they're proud of their misleading title of "job creators", they just never finish and tell you the jobs created are in China, in India, in Singapore, in Brazil, in Vietnam, in Jordon, in Malaysia, in...(name a place <i>other than</i> the U.S.A.)<br /><br />If FandB were honest, and assuming he works within a company that actually manufactures something, he'd admit his company has undoubtedly done the same thing within the last ten to twenty years.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-38374060262142797602012-08-23T15:19:03.274-04:002012-08-23T15:19:03.274-04:00F&B,
I'm pretty sure conservatives have se...F&B,<br />I'm pretty sure conservatives have sent jobs to China. But I am happy you agree with the President.<br /><br />http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html<br /><br /><i>“I don’t want those jobs taking root in places like China, I want those jobs taking root in places like Pueblo,” Obama told a crowd gathered for a campaign rally at the Palace of Agriculture at the Colorado State Fairgrounds here.<br /><br />He made the remark while pushing for the renewal of a tax credit for wind energy manufacturing – something Romney opposes – and for the creation of credits for companies who bring jobs home from overseas, as well as the elimination of loopholes for offshoring.<br /><br />“Gov. Romney brags about his private sector experience, but it was mostly invested in companies, some of which were called 'pioneers of outsourcing,'” Obama said. “I don’t want to be a pioneer of outsourcing. I want to insource.”</i><br />Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-85154192142568023362012-08-23T13:27:49.886-04:002012-08-23T13:27:49.886-04:00I haven't been here for a while, been busy doi...I haven't been here for a while, been busy doing one of my favorite conservative things, bringing jobs back to the U.S. from China.<br /><br />Anyway, dang, I had no idea there were still so many Truther nutjobs still out there.<br /><br />ROTFLMAO!<br /><br />Go get 'em you wacko truther nutjobs :-)<br /><br />FandBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670188784974843231noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-50775147965773352302012-08-22T21:35:29.821-04:002012-08-22T21:35:29.821-04:00Gee, Heathen, we'll surely miss ya'! Just ...Gee, Heathen, we'll surely miss ya'! Just so there's no hard feelings, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CidRpQI1SB8" rel="nofollow">this song's</a> for you... <b>;-)</b>Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-8177778319174627912012-08-22T21:08:43.658-04:002012-08-22T21:08:43.658-04:00Unsubscribing from this conspiracy nutter thread.Unsubscribing from this conspiracy nutter thread.Eric Norenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14648635662703229678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-55509058726561704752012-08-22T20:35:53.083-04:002012-08-22T20:35:53.083-04:00Free007 "Not only have [buildings collapsed u...<b>Free007</b> "<i>Not only have [buildings collapsed upon themselves], they are most likely to do so.</i>" <br /><br />Please cite examples with pictures or illustrations. <br /><br /><br />"<i>Not only have they, they are most likely to do so. <b>Buildings don't teeter over</b>. They fall DOWN.</i>"<br /><br />Who ever claimed they "teeter over" (like a tree)? Not me.<br /><br />But neither do they free-fall, and "pancake" upon themselves as if there were no resistance. They only do <i>that</i> when they've had help. And you know this. <br /><br />Film of Building 7 clearly shows the building failing with the initiation of collapse in the center and top. Sporadic damage at the south and southwest sides of the building, near the bottom of the structure, wouldn't have caused this. You know <i>this</i> too. Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-71955775514947883762012-08-22T17:56:52.471-04:002012-08-22T17:56:52.471-04:00No, I'm sure there are plenty of building desi...<i>No, I'm sure there are plenty of building designs where their structural integrity wouldn't have been compromised in the least</i><br /><br />Civilian buildings? None anywhere. Perhaps the NORAD command center, which is built under a mountain.<br /><br /><i>Of course, never in the history of highrise design has a building collapsed upon itself,</i><br /><br />Not only have they, they are most likely to do so. Buildings don't teeter over. They fall DOWN. <br /><br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-82535056808938311522012-08-22T16:32:13.382-04:002012-08-22T16:32:13.382-04:00John Myste: "I do suspect he has some kind of...<b>John Myste</b>: "<i>I do suspect he has some kind of security clearance, though.</i><br /><br />I have no doubt that he has a security clearance of some level. In the area I'm in, they're a dime a dozen.<br /><br /> <br />"It's what he does."<br /><br />Yes, it seems to be. Our little doughboy now claims to be in "military intelligence", so I'll add another proficiency next to his name.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, in my filing I now refer to him as James Bond. <b>;-)</b> Or..."Free007"Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-77840611103210265042012-08-22T13:10:18.430-04:002012-08-22T13:10:18.430-04:00Free0352: "So in sum, was the force of the WT...<b>Free0352</b>: "<i>So in sum, was the force of the WTC collapse enough to render Tower seven structurally unstable?</i>"<br /><br />No argument there.<br /><br /><br />"<i>In fact it was enough to render any building on Earth unstable, and then some.</i>"<br /><br />No, I'm sure there <i>are plenty</i> of building designs where their structural integrity wouldn't have been compromised in the least.<br /><br />But, hey, you're the demolition expert! <b>;-)</b><br /><br /><br />"<i>Thousands of tons of rubble in chunks that were school bus sized hit it after bouncing off the ground, traveling at terminal velocity...</i>"<br /><br />Pure speculation and conjecture on your part. What <i><b>is known</b></i> is that structural damage was limited to the south and southwest sides -- particularly to the lower stories -- which would have made any kind of vertical collapse, totally into its footprint, improbable if not impossible. Simultaneous and symmetric damage is needed to produce a collapse with the precise symmetry of the vertical fall of Building 7. This building had 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns. In order to cause the building to free-fall into its footprint, <i><b>all</b></i> of the core columns and <i><b>all</b></i> of the perimeter columns would have to be broken in the same split-second. <br /><br />Despite fire on several floors, this would be virtually impossible if the structural damage were limited to one side, and to the lower floors. Of course, never in the history of highrise design has a building collapsed upon itself, at free-fall, because of unsymmetrical structural damage or intermittent or scattered fire. It never happened before, and it hasn't happened since. <br /><br />Of course FEMA and NIST made sure all the evidence was swiftly and carefully hauled away and sold as scrap metal in China and India. Gee, even the FAA meticulously puts all the pieces of a fallen airliner together in order to put the case to bed. FEMA and NIST took the opposite approach, and as a matter of fact, nothing about Building 7 <i>is even mentioned</i> in the "official" 911 report. <br /><br />Even Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer <i>would've been envious</i> of <i>this</i> government's whitewash story.Jefferson's Guardianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16950868026721859555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-68682305149419764322012-08-22T11:59:16.991-04:002012-08-22T11:59:16.991-04:00Yes, Free. Perhaps you will one day win an legal a...Yes, Free. Perhaps you will one day win an legal argument with me. Alas, it has not happened yet. In every instance, you come out a little abashed. John Mystehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16263634313238599515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-70954644215977779642012-08-22T10:46:53.294-04:002012-08-22T10:46:53.294-04:00Hows that for science Myste?
I never claimed to b...Hows that for science Myste?<br /><br />I never claimed to be an attorney, just a humble former first year law student. That doesn't make me the smartest guy in the world... just smarter than you ;)free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-62226642652859675782012-08-22T10:43:56.494-04:002012-08-22T10:43:56.494-04:00You can do the math for yourself easily here. Tru...<a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html" rel="nofollow">You can do the math for yourself easily here.</a> Truth is, I have no idea what the total mass of BOTH towers was, or even if that is knowable. The velocity is knowable, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity" rel="nofollow">and you can look up the equation here.</a> I've played around with different factors in the equations, and all of them come up with this-<br /><br />The energy released upon impact of the towers was many magnitudes greater than that released by every explosive device used by the US Military save nuclear ordinance. Assuming a 450000000 kgs for both buildings falling 415 meters you get something like 18301500000000 Joules of energy. A gram of TNT releases 4100–4602 Joules upon explosion. That means the WTC collapse was the equivalent in force at point of impact as 4692 tons of TNT. Granted, a kenetic impact doesn't behave physically like an explosion. Explosions don't do damage with kenetic force but through atmospheric expansion (Blast Wave). However, I'm pretty sure a net force of impact of over 4.5 tons of TNT might shake the ground a little bit, and since our debris are bouncing, their force of impact is greater due to the greater change in momentum. <br /><br />So in sum, was the force of the WTC collapse enough to render Tower seven structurally unstable? Oh fuck yes. More than enough. In fact it was enough to render any building on Earth unstable, and then some.free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-7300224755201326052012-08-22T10:20:00.496-04:002012-08-22T10:20:00.496-04:00Jefferson,
You forgot that he claims to be an aw...Jefferson, <br /><br />You forgot that he claims to be an award-winning logician, though he repeatedly violates elementary concepts of the soft science of critical thinking and he claims to be a virtual attorney, though he cannot hold his own does not know much about the law. <br /><br />I do suspect he has some kind of security clearance, though. It's what he does. John Mystehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16263634313238599515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-51591626263054918002012-08-22T10:10:53.183-04:002012-08-22T10:10:53.183-04:00So, tell me how Building 7 went into a complete, u...<i>So, tell me how Building 7 went into a complete, unimpeded, free-fall again</i><br /><br />Thousands of tons of rubble in chunks that were school bus sized hit it after bouncing off the ground, traveling at terminal velocity- this being compounded with the earth quake millions of tons of debris falling at terminal velocity would cause. Nothing is really built to stand up to that.<br /><br />Which of course every major scientist on Earth agrees with. If you know even a little about building demolition you know that A: Buildings tend to collapse into their own foot pints and B: When this is not done in a controlled manner debris can cause serious damage to surrounding structures. This is why blast engineers get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do controlled demolitions. The trick isn't blowing up the building or getting it to collapse strait down into a footprint. Physics is on your side. The trick is doing so in a way that will completely collapse the building and NOT damage surrounding structures. I can't even begin to compute the stand off distance for structures the size of even one of the towers. Probably something like 500 meters. And they BOTH went down in quick succession. I'm only surprised most outlying structures weren't more heavily damaged. Its a testament to NYC building codes.<br /><br />Now lets move on to your silly theory that it was red or white phosphorus that caused the beams to be cut, and how that is freaking so impractical that it boarders on insanity to even consider it.<br />free0352https://www.blogger.com/profile/09930138880454672809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-43909285811876179452012-08-21T21:01:07.742-04:002012-08-21T21:01:07.742-04:00Dusty,
I think Blogger wigs out when the thread ge...Dusty,<br />I think Blogger wigs out when the thread gets over a hundred comments. <br /><br />Time for a new post.Dave Dubyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279370558997246976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-7121931406489311202012-08-21T20:55:59.543-04:002012-08-21T20:55:59.543-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698117410778232102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-92128933854002415772012-08-21T20:55:39.203-04:002012-08-21T20:55:39.203-04:00I was the first female program director in the ear...I was the first female program director in the early 80's which just proves it took those dipshits forever to quit being sexist sumbitches. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698117410778232102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-134372208798387606.post-46260889754759196272012-08-21T20:52:08.596-04:002012-08-21T20:52:08.596-04:00And they gave me one knowing full well I smoked po...And they gave me one knowing full well I smoked pot, so it isn't hard to get one Free. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698117410778232102noreply@blogger.com