PLD

Just for the record, that was NOT my post.

Could very well be. I'll certainly take it into consideration. Obviously, I don't want to that to be true. So, I'll start by saying that I doubt it because my personality type is much more of a people pleaser (classic Virgo). I think I come across that way online because I am very to the point. The reader gets the response without any visual/verbal cues, and then frames the response in their reaction to it. Actually it would be very cool if Cujo or ACNewGuy could jump in here as they have both spoke with me extensively in person. Presently, I use almost no alternative energy. But, it's because the rising energy costs haven't outweighed the burden/cost of a switchover for me. When they do, I will make the cut promptly. I have researched the various methods extensively to the point of selecting the roof locations for solar, where in the basement the batter stacks go, and local ordinances for a backup generator. And if you will check awhile back, I was looking into small diesel engines to replace my pump engine (in preparation for biodiesel). That said, I never took umbrage to your complaints about gas prices. I think they suck also. My problem was with your line of thinking. That being that it is ok to ask your govenment to suspend private property rights for your personal benefit. I find it that type of Robin Hood behavior distasteful and offensive.

Ultra laze faire! And sadly, the Libertarians are haunted by nuts/wackos/loosers who want to hang onto our more essoteric positions like drug legalization. That's why they have not yet been a viable 3rd party (albiet the biggest)

That's your opinion, I disagree. If you will look back I was very clear that the context in which it was being used (and the thread as a whole) was economic. And government control (but not ownership) of the means of production is a premise of a fascist government. Even in the websters entry you posted (1 of 4 under fascism), you find the following. - severe economic regimentation - centralized autocratic government - exalts nation above the individual And suspending private property rights and taking control of a businesses profits for the benefit of the masses fits perfectly. Furthermore, socialism has a generic term to describe it. So, if I had used the term Nazi or Stalinista describe a socialist position, that would be inflamatory and unneccessary. Fascism, however, is the generic term. It's been used MUCH to frequently as a derisive term for those on the political right (quite opposite Jeff's politics I might add), but that does not make the term itself a negative. That is, unless one is a member of the politically correct crowd who believes that we should avoid all references that may possibly offend someone. For those people, I retract my statement. Jeff's polotical position is not a [label removed] one. Jeff is just "an adherent of the economic philosophy that government in intervention in the managenement of private commerical enterprises is not only a legitimate purpose of government but should be encouraged whenever those enterprises are not being sensitive to the needs of Americans lying in the lower middle bands of the socio economic spectrum". I'll search and replace those previous posts right away... NOT!

True. But you spoke in only very vauge generalities. Your whole post said only: - Devisiveness is bad. Fox is devisive. - Gas prices rise and fall with supply and demand. Oil companies suspected of taking part. - Our equipment runs on oil and I see no viable alternative. Now, if you start being specific about who is responsible, what they did, who should fix it, how to should fix it and you will start using labels. Lots of 'em. Democrats, Republicans, lobbyists, executives, labor, consumers, environmentalists. All labels. Labels serve a purpose. John is a [label removed], I am a libertarian. You are a Northerner, I am a Southerner. In just a few words I have saved volumes of typing and established a baseline for further conversation. For example, John is *probably* fond of Clinton, I am not. You drink unsweetened tea, I find it a horrible waste of good tea. I wash roofs/decks in December and January, you do not. Life without labels is just another facet of this disgusting attempt to be politically correct and water down life so that no one is offended anywhere, at any time. Sometimes you NEED to remove your head from the sand and take sides. As much as you (or any mod) might like it to be that way, courtesy and productivity are not always compatible. Particularly in politics and business. When people are discussing ideas where one's actions/voice/vote directly affects my life/family/wallet they become quite empassioned. Or at least they should. And it takes place everywhere from the living room to the boardroom. As an example, I would site our own congress. More than one round of fisticuffs has taken place on the house floor. In recent years, Senator John Glenn decked a constituent on the street. I'm certainly not suggesting that we settle this out back at the next PWNA convention. However, you cannot want people to be empassioned about important issues and then be surprised when they are. Ummm... I though this thread was in "The Clubhouse". As in, "Kick back and hang out at The Club House. Tell tall tales, share your stories, run your mouth" Sounds like the perfect place to discuss politics. If that's not the case, please say so and I'll not involve myself in future discussions of politics. You are being terribly (and intentionally, I believe) obtuse. Your total monthy fuel bill INCLUDES your office, your home, and other things that DO NOT consume petrofuels. If that total is say $2000/mo and you cut those bills to $1000 a month via alternative fuel methods, you have significantly affected your fuel bill. You have significantly reduced the impact rising fuel prices have on you. AND, you have reduced demand (remember supply & demand?). Untrue. You are *not* prohibited from manufacturing alternative fuels or employing alternative fuel technology. It is not only legal, but the big producers are required by law to buy any excesses you produce from you at retail prices. First, by inserting productively you have insinuated that all non-traditional methods are unproductive to discuss. That is simply not the case. However, if that is the frame of reference you choose to bind yourself into, then you are right, you have no options, you are just screwed. Are you serious?!? Either you have a special inside connection that makes you privvy to highly confidential information (which I do not believe for a second), or you believe that posting here will somehow cause the black helicopter guys to come looking for you (which I find laughable). Yes, oil companies support ANYONE (lobbyists and SIG's included) who will help increase their profits. It's what businesses do. And yes, politicians take "perks" to make stuff happen, it's what politicians do. But the oil companies, the builderburgers, and the tri-lateral commission are not sitting around trying to find a way to screw the world's gas users.

Actually, I stole ultra liberal from you rather than risk using a non-approved label. Wow. You want government intervention in personal issues AND economic issues. If I am reading you correctly [label removed] or a [label removed] but you are definitely not a [label removed]... I would suggest that you do some research, as none of the major perties fits yous demographic. Personally, I am a libertarian [note:label self imposed]. I am one of those bums who wants govt OUT of our socio-economic lives.

That, and if congress is out of the loop who is watching the executive branch? And if the info is too high security for the inspector gen of the NSA, exactly who does have clearance?

It's not at all like you might speculate. i.e. walk half as fast, but cut twice the path. I undersized once (27"/4gpm) and I can tell you that properly sized and smaller will go faster than larger and oversized. IMHO, I would go for the 16"er.

I agree about Condi. Jeb's a no-go because of the Florida election issues.

Don't get so excited. This thread self moderated about 2 pages ago.... As for labels, you can't have a political discussion of any depth without labels. Labels serve to identify your own position and that of others without pages and pages of repeated rhetoric. I am a libertarian, Mike is a conservative, Jeff is an ultra liberal with fascist tendancies. That says a tremendous amount in just a few words. As for name calling, I don't think it got out of line at all. One person hung a label on me that was colorful, descriptive, and probably justified. If the caller and the call-ee both agree that the name/label is appropriate, where in lies the problem? For another example, you guys up there might not take to kindly to being called a redneck, but there are a good number of people down here who wear it as a badge of honor...

Yep, never enough space. Ranger became an F150 F150 became a 6x10 trailer (and a pickup). 6x10 became a 6x14. 6x14 got overhead racks. Now I want a 7x16...

I agree also and I find their snobbery a bit offensive. I know it's wrong, but if they are real a-holes I sometimes cannot resist the urge to knock them down a notch or two. And that's when I weave into the conversation that I have a degree in applied physics from Ga Tech and formerly made over 200k/year as a director/founding partner for a multinational communication company. The looks I get are PRICELESS. And the response is nearly always the same; "Why did you quit?" To which I reply in a very polite and self-sacrificial tone; "My children and my family are far more important to me than money or power. And the fast track corporate life just demanded that I spend too much time way from them. So I quit. Now I am never more than 10 miles from home, schedule my work around my kids activities, and get to work in the fresh air and sunshine all day. Sure, it's been an adjustment getting by on about 1/2 what I used to make, but that is a sacrifice that I am willing to accept." And in the course of seemingly polite conversation, I have said/implied; 1. Despite my dirty/bleach stained clothes, I have an advanced degree in a subject that you probably failed. 2. I made as much or more than you at a very young age. That I do not now is by choice. 3. I care more about my kids than you do. 4. I still make enough money to be in the top 10% and I am 20 years younger than you. 5. I do what I love and love what I do. Before the flaming starts, I know it is wrong, hateful, boastful, ugly, and totally unchristianlike. And I'm really not the arrogant jerk this post makes me sound like. Or maybe I am, and I just don't want to admit it to myself. But either way, it feels GREAT whem someone is looking down their nose at you like garbage and with just a few words you can alter their paradigm so dramatically that you can feel their discomfort and humiliation hanging in the air like fog.

I have had this happen about 3-4 times in 3 years (on two different pumps). Symptoms are exactly as described. Full pressure with a closed gun, reduced flow and little pressure (and pulsing) after you open the gun. Until I fixed it the first time, I was with Russ and looking hard for air leaks in the intake. None found. Then I charged the system with hose pressure looking for water leaking at the intake. None found. But the problem cleared. My best guess is that it was trash in the check valve. Each time, the filter had caught alot of crud debris. Now when it happens I don't even think about it. I just unhook from the tank and flush the pump with 60psi hose water (3-5 min, open hose), followed by running the pump (again open gun) with hose pressure for a few minutes. Good as new.

Excellent post! Jeff: Yes, I have caller ID. :lgbounces

Ditto for me. I aspire for my company to be a succesful as yours. I'm serious about that too, it's not just sweet and gooey make up talk. As for what kind of sphincter I am, I'll leave that for you to decide. All I can say is, if the shoe fits... :)

This may be of interest to everyone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008#Speculated_Candidates Living or dead: Ronald Regan, followed by Ayn Rand. Living only: Condeleeza Rice. Please no: Hillary. She's a dead horse. The dems need to pull their head out of the ultra-liberal sandbox and find a candidate that can win. Only a democratic victory will offer the republicans some resistance and force them to stop gorging at the budgetary trough.

I did? I think the only personal attacks that have been lobbed here were when you called me an ahole. That's your opinion, and I can see why you might feel that way. No skin off my back. As for fascist, that is a political label. And while you may like to consider yourself a liberal, the views you have posted here fit the textbook definition of fascism (economically, at least). If that handle bothers you, only you have the power to change it. I can neither change your views, or the definition. As for the "be a man" statement; It was not intended as a challenge to your manhood. As you said earlier, I don't even know you outside this board. "be a man" was said in the context of "stand up take it like a man". If anyone had a right to be offended, it was Celeste, Pam, et.al. as is shows an obvious gender bias. If it bothered you, I can only offer that this thread has gotten way too far under your skin and hypersensitized you to otherwise innocuous comments. Because it is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. If someone elects to be chariable, good of them. Please do it with your own money and leave mine alone. I sense that of you. But the views you have espoused are not good for the country. In the short term, they are good for the individual. In the long term, they are disasterous for the health of the country. Being a liberal does not make you a fascist. And I don't call liberals fascists as a way of denegrating their positions. Although liberals and I disagree on ideaology, there is nothing wrong with being a liberal. As someone stated earlier, balance is a good thing. That said, government control of private companies is not a liberal idea, it's a fascist idea. And while conservative, liberal, and moderate are have their rightful places in the Amercian body politic, fascism, communism, etc do not. Fascism, communism, etc are contradictory with what makes America successful and great. Having been in the "inner circle" of three startup companies, I tend to agree. The corporations of today tend to see wider margins and lower operating costs as the only means of increasing revenue. Customer loyalty, and employee loyalty/productivity as a means of solid stable growth are far too intangible for the present crop of ADHD executives. Also, by going public too soon they have enslaved themselves to the quarterly earnings report. The end result is a company that pursues short term gains at any cost while completely ignoring long term corporate health. And much like a athelete living on steroids and speed, they swoop in, set amazing records, and burn out like a shooting star. It's definitely not a good thing for them or a capitalist economy. BUT, it's also not the place for goverment to fix it with regulation.

In fact, Russ Diamond, the Libertarian Party's 2004 candidate for both Congress (15th Congressional District) and Pennsylvania House (101st District), was recently named one of the Philadelphia Inquirer's three Citizens of the Year.

Several reasons: First, we were talking about decks. And stripping a deck is a ablative process. That is, a small layer of the substrate is being removed intentionally as a normal part of the process. To compare it to a car, you would be talking about washing the car before stripping the paint. And obviously, there's no point in that... Also, cars are a different animal. The experience road grime, oily tire spray, exhaust polutants, and other things that a house never sees. The paint on a car is designed not to oxidize and slough off. House paint does. Finally, the cleaning processes/tools may look the same, but that are very different. You do not wash your car with the same chemicals or level of agitation that you wash a home with. Ever washed you car with 2% bleach? Butyl? Hydroxide? Citriclean? By brushing, you are definitely offering a value added service. The house is definitely cleaner to some degree. Ken's point was that chems have improved to the point that you can get very close the same result w/o brushing. Today, most homeowners would much rather pay my rate for 98% and non-brushes, than your rate for 100% and brushed. And if you brushed rate isn't at least 2x my non-brushed rate, IMHO you need to re-evaluate your business.

Ummm.... Nope. That woman is a socialist through and through. Not sure who'll get the LP nomination, so I can't say if I'm voting Libertarian again in 2008. But, if some Demo or Repub takes a hard line stance on the Fair Tax I'd be hard pressed not to ignore ALL their other faults just to get that ball rolling.

I'm 100% for powders. Cheaper to ship, less space and weight on the truck, easier to clean up (IMHO). I'd buy bleach in powder form if it was available. Water is cheap and heavy. I'll supply my own, thanks. Taking the citrus house wash currently being discussed (in a different thread) as an example; Shipping to me for powders $18. Shipping to me for a 600# 55gal drum. Who knows. There is also the strength issue. I can make a powder damagingly strong if I wish. I can never make a liquid stronger than it is when I get it. Finally, cleanup/safety. I can fix a broken pail of HD80 with tape. I cannot do that with Remove. I can sweep up spilt EFC38 in a dust pan and reuse it. I cannot do that with bleach. If HD80 spills on my pants, I stand up and dust it off.

I thought you might find this chart from InflationData.com informative. Here's some things that you might notice. - Gas was highest under Jimmy Carter than any other time in history (including now). Jimmy Carter was not a friend of big oil. - Gas prices were roughly the same in 1949, 1956, 1979, and 1985 as they are now. - Gas prices 1918-1974 were higher than anytime during Bush's 1st 4 years. - Gas prices were cheaper under Reagans second term than any time previously since 1918. - Clinton boasts the cheapest gas prices recorded in his second term but they began a sharp rise in early 1999 that continued until 2001. - Prices fell sharply in Bushes first term, and rose sharply in the second.

Funny as in suspicious? Not at all. Bush was in the oil business. Cheney was in the oil business. At some point they became acquainted (or at least highly aware of each other) and they developed a mutual respect for one another. They also shared very similar business expereinces, which as a CEO means they shared many similar life expereinces Later, Bush was elected and he selected Cheney as a running mate. So yes, you are entirely correct when you say that GW and chenney and haliburton and big oil go hand in hand. But in all probability it is not any manner of conspiracy. Always be careful of looking backwards and finding coincidences. It is like seeing Jesus in the spagetti bowl AFTER someone points it out to you.

Might I suggest that you research the term a little more extensively. You might not find it so funny any more. An objective look in the mirror can be a very scary thing... You may not like my line by line response style, but unfortunately it is required because you try to insert ridiculous BS like this in the hope it will go unanswered. This is the type of response that is typical from someone who cannot support their position. The bottom line is this; You don't like gas prices and you have no intention of doing anything about it. Nothing except complaining to your elected represenative and trying to get them to take money from someone else (at the point of a gun) and give it to you. If you would just be a man and admit that, we can agree to disagree. But as long as you try to wrap that pile of dog squeeze in ribbons and pass it off as a bouquet, then I will keep pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies in your argument. No matter how you dress him up and romanticize him, ROBBIN HOOD WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A THIEF!

No. My replies are pointed, factual, and address your positions directly without vaugery or ambiguity. If that is being an ahole, they I plead guilty. As for being wrong, or twisted, they have been published here for the review of a few hundred people. If they are wrong or twisted, anyone is free to rebutt them at their leisure. So far, I have not see a great flood of responses correcting my posts. And I doubt that I will... Regretfully, your response is so illogical that I cannot even respond intelligently. But, I will make an attempt. You made a claim that big profits/big business causes corruption. I asked you to support that claim, and you toss out a few names from the headlines. Yes, the above statement is true. Those people (and others) were accused/indigted/convicted of varying criminal offenses. But, that does not addresss or support your position. I could respond by naming 500 companies and 50,000 executives who were NOT accused of corruption. Jeff, this is the third or fourth time you have thrown this out there. I assume that you hope that if it gets said enough times, I will let it slide. But I will won't. It's BS. If gas is costing you that much money, then you cannot afford NOT to find an alternative. Do you wash concrete with a wand? No. Was your surface cleaner cheap? No. You made a decision to spend money to reduce your operating costs. Does gas cost you money? Yes. Are there alternatives? yes. Are they less expensive? Maybe. If the only alternatives are more expensive, stop whining about how expensive the cheapest option is. If the alternatives are less expensive, then stop whining and go do something about it. You have every right in the world to dislike gas prices. I do also. But, that is not all you are doing. You are asking your elected official to take money from the gas companies at the point of a gun. And that is WRONG.