By FITSNews || He’s always been the only real taxpayer champion among South Carolina’s Congressional delegation, but for a long time U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint was in desperate need of some “personality growth hormone.”
Scratch that … homeboy needed a full-on personality transplant.
Seriously, people, it’s one thing to be wonkish, but DeMint was downright unbearable – boring to the point a lobotomy would have been infinitely preferable to listening to him drone on about federal fuel taxes and matching funds for blah blah yawn.
Fortunately, the years have been good to DeMint’s charisma-challenged persona – no doubt a result of the inner confidence that must come with having emerged as South Carolina’s most popular politician.
Wait … Jim DeMint?
That’s right … as Palmetto State voters have wised up to what’s going on in Washington and Columbia, S.C., DeMint has emerged as one of a handful of Republicans whose voting record actually matches the words that come out of his mouth.
On Tuesday, though, DeMint opened his mouth – or rather his Tweet – to poke some fun at somebody who richly deserves it.
What did he say?
Referencing the spate of blizzards in and around our nation’s capital, here’s DeMint’s Tweet:
It’s going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries “uncle”
Ha!
How awesome is that?
Pic: The Onion
By OhNoNotAgain February 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Awesome?
Only if he can back it up.
I’ll give you billion to one odds he can’t.
And it’s just another subtle rehash of the “There can’t be global warming here because it’s sooooooo cold” argument.
Which means DeMint either wasn’t paying attention in science class when they talked about the seasons, or he’s also a product of a bad school system.
By HMMM February 10, 2010 at 2:34 pm
A staffer wrote it. A staffer with a personality.
By Another Opinion February 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm
I could care less if a politician is as boring as a slug if they’re honest and representing their constituents properly. There’s been enough BS from the likes of Sanford and others to last an eternity.
Regardless of whomever is trying to cash in on the climate issue, it is a fact that our environment is in trouble. Over 50% of the world’s forests have been cut down. There is indeed a hole in the ozone. We have decimated this planet to a large degree. Changes need to be made.
By Cheravian February 10, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Now that bloggers have done the work the lamestream media wouldn’t, and exposed the fraud that is anthropogenic* global warming, it makes you wonder if ol’ Al’s sorry he ever invented the internet…
*manmade – for you peepuls edumukated in the SC publik skools, that there is whut it meens
By Pat Hendrix February 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Now if Jimbo could just grow a brain! That would be really awesome!
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm
OK…For all of you that always defend global warming..
Now is your chance to explain how this works in some kind of reciprication world.
Last year all the “Climate Pros” said lack of snow was proof of global warming.
This year a reord blizzard is proof of global warming.I admit I dont work at NASA.So please explain how again this is supposed to work.
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Pat Hendrix..Why when you cant explain these silly progressive gimmics you turn to personal attacks??..We all just want to learn how this works.
Or should I just say nanny,nanny,boo,boo..
By Hal I. February 10, 2010 at 3:57 pm
LFM-
Temperate regions will get less snow than they have in decades past; however, more snow has been predicted in regions cold enough to support it for some time now (higher temps = more moisture in atmosphere). Think of it as a line drawn on a map of the U.S., with snow being likely above it and unlikely below it during a given winter. As that line moves north due to increasing global temperature, areas below it will be gradually less likely to receive snowfall. But areas above it will likely receive greater amounts due to an atmosphere w/ significantly more moisture.
Whether you attribute this to man or not is irrelevant.
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Another Opinion…It is not a fact.There are more forests today than 100 years ago.You need to stop getting your facts from sesame street.
Of course we all would like cars that did not pollute or shit that did not smell.But our technology isn’t there yet.The best way to get there is to free up technology.Do away with the cronyism and corporatism in this country…stop taxing the hell out of everything and we will get there a lot sooner
By Pat Hendrix February 10, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Hey Liberty,
The University of South Carolina basketball team beat the #1 rated University of Kentucky Wildcats two weeks ago. Hence USC is the best team in the country. By the way, you notice they don’t have snow in Canada for the Olympics? Or that this by far the hottest year on record in Australia? Hmm, that must be conclusive proof of something…perhaps the value of changing the BCS formula? Same logic. Kind of like when you conflate socialism, the NAZIs and Stalinist Russia. I’m sure 2009 Sydney Australia is just like Berlin in 1939 or Russia 1943. Pfft.
By Pat Hendrix February 10, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Cheravian,
Can you provide the links to the bloggers – eyes rolling – that overturned the scientific concensus that climate change is a hoax?
Did it look like this?
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nfl_meteorologists_warn_steaming
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 4:21 pm
The US Agriculture Department says today America has 749 million acres of forest land. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.We have more forest now. Technology now allows us to grow five times more food per acre, so we need less farmland. And so, lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.
By Snowdog February 10, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Liberty for Me,
You are truly dumb! I have no idea how you would teach second grade much less work at NASA.
The concept of chance variation was explained to you in a very recent post. Weather varies. Warm and cold spells come and go. When there are more warm ones than cold ones, the overall trend is for warming. None of this precludes cold spells from happening. There is also a spatial aspect to climate; that is, warm weather and snow droughts are currently happening in the Canadian Rockies (tune in for the olympics next week if you don’t believe me), simultaneously to the snow surplus experienced in DC.
Now who said lack of snow last year was proof of global warming? Nobody reputable that I know. Maybe you should go back to second grade science class — or have an intellect like Sid explain it to ya’. If not, write the above paragraph on your hand (like Sarah Palin) for future reference. It gets old having to repeat such simple shit for you.
By Old Bike Dude February 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm
I’m no climate expert, hell I have trouble predicting the weather for the next 2 hours but I recently read of how the NorthWest passage is becoming a more reliable west/east and east/west route through the Arctic ocean. This has been made possible due to significant ice shrinkage and the melting of older ice and the quick thaw of it’s replacement. As these new routes become available they pose new problems for those agencies that must deal with catastrophies at sea. The Coast Guard Commandant, the NOAA administrator, and White House officials visited the area last August in order to survey the needs and assess the risks.
It is certainly plausible that one could logically determine that these new routes are a result of climate change and global warming.
By Another Opinion February 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Liberty,
All right, I’ll just agree with you. There’s absolutely no problems whatsoever with anything in the environment. No dangers at all from oil spills, nuclear waste, the rain forests aren’t being cut down at an alarming rate, species dying off by the bookoos, nothing.
THE WHOLE DAMNED WORLD IS DOING JUST FINE. NO PROBLEMS ANYWHERE. LET’S KICK OUR FEET UP AND CELEBRATE. JACKASS.
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Snowdog.UHHHH..Did I imagine this???
http://www.breitbart.tv/flashback-clips-snow-levels-cause-democrats-to-demand-urgent-action/
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Another Opinion ..I did not say that.We cant run our own country.We sure cant fix the world.Lets start with our country.When we are the model of how to fix things,maybe then we can maybe help others.
By Old Bike Dude February 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm
@LFM Forest now versus forest in 1920. Well did they factor in Alaska and Hawaii?
By Old Bike Dude February 10, 2010 at 6:37 pm
But back to the original OP. Yep that Demint is a ball of fire. He could put Billy Mays to sleep…well I mean if Billy..you know.. wasn’t already dead. Jus sayin.
By Snowdog February 10, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Liberty,
Maybe you should get your science news from science books instead of political blogs — watch the Discovery Channel instead of FOX News. I checked the index in my high school weather text. Sorry, it didn’t mention Republicans or Democrats. I sorta got the feeling that weather was happening independent of political ideologies.
PS: While US forestation indices have slightly increased, global forestation indices have gone way down. I think you’ve heard about the chopping down /burning of the Amazon forests?
By BadNewsMulvaney February 10, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Unbelieveable. JIM DEMINT is our savior, my ass. Jim Demint is a lunatic. He openly says he doesnt represent our state, but we give him praise. The only think I can say is Thank God he believes in term limits, which means he damn sure better not run for reelection six years from now, but Im sure he’ll change his tone by then.
I dont disagree that global warming is extremely overhyped, but to believe that years of pollution dont effect our world is crazy.
By SnakeMD February 10, 2010 at 7:43 pm
I heard Jay Lenno is trying to buy DeMint’s one liner. I thought it was pretty good line. It wasn’t a scientific statement, it was simply a jab at one of your political opponents. A tag, so to speak. In classical rhetoric freshness of expression can be used in such a way that it is facetious or mocking i.e. as a play on words. Henry Peachman, in 1577 wrote a book called The Garden oF Eloquence that is classic in explaining the origins of one liners.
By Liberty For Me February 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Snowdog…My whole point is these knee-jerk yahoos spewing bullshit to run a control and money scam.I have no qualms with a study saying our overall temp has risen 1/3 of a degree in a century.What is your argument.
About the forest…We live in the U.S.not in the rainforest.Seems to me we don’t have authority to control other peoples trees..or are you of the neo-con perspective of we should invade their country to control their trees.Or are the trees somehow a threat to our safety?? Are these trees terrorists??
By jan blotchsky February 10, 2010 at 8:52 pm
De Mint drives the statists nuts!
He knows their cards, and they can’t handle it!
By tree hugger February 10, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Where are these forests? Everywhere I look I see the trees getting cut down as farmers try to make a few quick bucks from some pines or some money grubbers turn beautiful countryside into tract housing for yuppies. There is a big difference between old growth forests with hardwood trees and softwood pines that are grown for 5 years. The South has never been big on conservation and there used to be old growth trees that were 10 feet in radius. If memory serves, there is such a tree in one of the Georgia state parks. This line about 3 trees being planted for every tree harvested takes nothing into account that matters. You chop down a single big hardwood and somebody comes along and plants 3 pine trees. These pine trees are not cared for and are left to wither or bloom without any help or watering. The care is left to Mother Nature. If 2 of those trees die, you have 1 pine left that will never amount to the glory or hardness of the hardwood. Chop down all the trees and provide less wind breakage and all the people can’t figure out why there are more tornadoes. A few more forests might reduce some of these things. No doubt wood is needed for commerce, such as napkins, toilet paper and pizza boxes. That makes it a challenge to keep enough trees going. Bamboo should be more used. You can even make flooring from bamboo, which is a superior renewable resource. A bunch of assembly line placed pine trees can not compare with a real nature old-growth forest. There’s also the pre-liberal, pre-human, pre-politically correct needed biodiversity.
By Snowdog February 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm
That would be 4/3 of a degree per century LFM, not 1/3. The rate of increase is also accelerating. You are misquoting me.
Who are these knee-jerk Yahoos? Al Gore’s opinion carries little more weight with me than yours (ok, maybe a litle more).
As for trees, I have long suspected that many of em are terrorists. You may have something here.
By rodmiller February 10, 2010 at 10:15 pm
I’m no climate expert, but I am a farmer.
My income depends on God and the weather.
Weather is always changing.
Climate, is constantly changing, too, just not as dramatically as weather.
What caused the earth to be born?
What killed the dinosaurs?
What melted the glaciers to produce mountains and canyons?
Not man.
Not by a long shot.
By R February 10, 2010 at 11:08 pm
If global warming or climate change or whatever you tree humpers want to call it really exists then how come so many global warming scientists are getting busted left and right for lying, making data up, attempting to quash descent, destroying research and data that doesn’t support their new religion of global warming? Not to mention the British High Court found that Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” contained substantial errors and couldn’t be used in British schools unless a film of alternative viewpoints was also shown. While I believe there is some human effect on the climate, those scientists who have been running around preaching gloom and doom have done serious damage to your claims when they act in such a unprofessional manner by making up “evidence.”
By sid February 10, 2010 at 11:59 pm
That’s the State Climatologist of Georgia? Talk about wasting tax dollars. He may actually be less impressive than Old Homophobe Dude.
By OhNoNotAgain February 11, 2010 at 1:12 am
I don’t know if you were in any way referring to my post that started this today.
But I didn’t say the record snow proves global warming, when some people last year said the lack of snow proved it.
What I said is the DeMint post is a subtle rehash of the argument, made by too many conservatives to count this winter, is that the record cold and snow this winter DISPROVES it.
I posted a few weeks back about the record HIGH temps right now. There is a heat spell in Australia right now.
you see, at this time of year, it’s cold here. But it’s hot there.
Well, it’s freaking amazingly cold here now, is it not? And what’s doing on the other side of the globe? Whatever the opposite of a cold snap is. A real burner of a summer.
It’s cold now because it’s winter. Nothing more, nothing less. It is very cold now. And the record heat in Australia and points south of the equator might be proof of global warming. I don’t think so.
I’m stating, in a specific, limited thing, that you can’t disprove global warming based on this snow.
Same way you can’t throw out the theory or the hypothesis just because one team of scientists was shown to be cooking their books. There are TONS of scientific teams working on this. They do not all share their raw data. They are sharing their conclusions.
I’m not saying it’s real or not. It might be a LOT like psychiatry. Something that is scientific, in that it has elaborate methods and equipment and formula, without being an actual science.
But there’s too much uncompromised data to abandon the hunt for the truth. SHould we all convert to solar panels because of it? Of course not. But we should probably examine every alternative energy just because it may lead to something else.
By Mike at the beach February 11, 2010 at 1:33 am
Man, the Global Warming nuts get pissed quick, don’t they? As is most often the case in political discourse, the global warming debate has devolved into two polar opposite, extreme positions. As is also usually the case, I would be willing to bet that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My bet is (and trust me I can read, so save the inevitable ad hominem attacks regarding my education level, ancestry, etc.) that it’s closer to the “we should all calm down and take a breath” end of the spectrum. Both sides inappropriately use weather anomalies to buttress their position, more so in the Global Warming movement though, I believe.
It’s no accident that both sides of the debate are almost entirely homogeneous- the lefties blame any possible warming entirely on man and believe taxation and the Green Police will be our salvation. The right wingers won’t even entertain the notion that our activities MAY contribute (even a little) to climate change. In my opinion, both positions represent hubris on a grand scale. The public debate has been hijacked, but I know smart, make that brilliant, folks on both sides.
The same textbooks to which everyone keeps referring also mentioned warming and cooling spells throughout the development of the planet (entire Ice Ages, even, if I recall correctly from my undergrad Historical Geology course). Did my SUV cause those as well?
There’s been plenty enough monkey business on the part of the Global Warming crowd to make me want a little better info before we go wrecking the world economy any more than it already is. I don’t think that’s crazy. Besides, I am just old enough to remember having the bejeebers scared out of me as a kid in the 70’s reading pieces (by many of these same scientists) warning of our impending ice age…
By Old Bike Dude February 11, 2010 at 7:46 am
Mike wrote,”The same textbooks to which everyone keeps referring also mentioned warming and cooling spells throughout the development of the planet (entire Ice Ages).”
Absolutely true that we have all studied the different climate (not weather) patterns of earth’s history. So as our furry friend Bugs would say, “What’s all the hubbub Bub?”
The politicization of a scientific issue. Just as political groups have done with medical issues (AIDS), religious/moral issues (abortion), and sports (NCAA football).
The left is trying to smother us in data,including questionable data. Climate change has happened before and it will happen again, so left wingers need to calm down.
The right faces a couple of problems which forces them to deny climate change in the face of scientific data and (as mentioned in an earlier post)actual changes in the earth’s landscape due to warming. First they have their self imposed duty to disagree with anything proposed from the left even to their own detriment. Secondly, they decided some years back to get in bed with evangelicals. Now those folks believe the earth to be about 5000 years old. So all this dinosaur and ice age stuff can’t be real and you can bet the right would rather have those votes than admit otherwise.
By Pat Hendrix February 11, 2010 at 7:59 am
Hey Mike,
There was a single article in 1970s. It was in Time. You can easily find it because it has been endlessly flogged by the flatworld crowd.
In any event, there have been ice ages and warming periods throughout history. They, however, were changes that happened over thousands of years. Not dozens. That’s what those geology books say.
In any event, I have zero doubt nothing will be done about climate change. There is no political will. It’s the lack of fossil fuels that scares that shit out of me. In 10 years, it will be a global trainwreck when we discover there’s not enough to go around.
By Liberty For Me February 11, 2010 at 8:15 am
I think most of you agree with me and some don’t even know it.No snow one year,more snow the next year is not proof of anything…So when politicians stop standing up and making these batwing crazy statements maybe we can talk seriously about the issue.
There is no way politicians have the answer to anything.And to have them have control of energy and double my taxes does nothing to benefit anyone but them. It would help to speed up the destruction of what little economy we have.
Our water and air quality gets better every year not worse…The more technology we have the faster we will get to perfection .So what hinders technology??? Not the free market that’s for sure..
By Houseguest February 11, 2010 at 8:17 am
Global warming isn’t about the weather suddenly becoming warm all over. The experts had said, as was described by someone above, that weather would become more severe. If the area supports snow, there would be more of it. If the area is normally warm, it would be warmer. And in general termperatures would rise gradually. What makes you think that suddenly, all snow would stop when we’re talking about small increments of increase? The problem is, minor increases, say from 31 degrees to 33 degrees means that water starts to melt. Voila.
As for personal, anecdotal evidence, I have sailed in regattas in March and October every year for the past 30. 30 years ago, we froze our fannies off and when camping, woke up to frost. Nowadays, we’re all wearing shorts. What’s that called, if not warming?
Finally, as far as having more forests than before – whatever ‘before’ is supposed to mean. Think about how much land we now occupy with everything we’ve built. Most of that was forest ‘before’. There is LESS forest now. Simple.
By Elmo February 11, 2010 at 9:26 am
Snowdog and others,
DeMint has the courage to be a critic of global climate change. Please google and read about ,”The head of the UN’s climate change panel – Dr Rajendra Pachauri – is accused of making a fortune from his links with ‘carbon trading’ companies ” to understand how the sham works and who profits from the pseudo science of global warming.
Now that the IPCC leadership have been uncovered as frauds,there is not a reputable agency who has unbiased independently verifiable temperature date to support warming over the last 100 years. Isn’t it amazing there is no data to support global warming? Isn’t it amazing that the world has actually been cooling since 1998? I don’t think any reputable scientists dispute the recent cooling trend.
Snowdog , if you have a simple temperature graph of the last 100 years you feel is truthful from data that is verifiable and hasn’t been tampered with or been put together by the IPCC, please post it.
By countryboy February 11, 2010 at 9:34 am
I’m no environmental expert but it seems to me countries such as China and India, with their booming economies and lack of pollution controls, are contributing far more than western countries to global pollution problems. The USA, Canada and Western Europe have been reducing pollution for decades. I agree with continuing to clean up our own country (at the pace we have been) but disagree with using taxpayer money to clean up other countries. India, China and others already have taken our jobs, are we now supposed to pay for cleaning up their pollution from that manufacturing? That is exactly what the UN, Al Gore and others would have us do. And speaking of Al Gore, WTF does that career politician know about global warming?
By Snowdog February 11, 2010 at 9:48 am
Weak Sid. Didn’t you say your had an IQ above 99 percent of the population? You need to prove this. I, for one, thought you were a reptile given your confusions in our previous calendar discussions.
By JP February 11, 2010 at 9:56 am
Did anyone else hear about the ice age a little ways back. How about the Medieval Warm Period? All this global warming stuff is just progressive bs. The temperature on the planet has always fluctuated. Now it’s proven that it has nothing to do with CO2 levels. By the way, isn’t CO2 good for plants? Don’t we exhale CO2? The Global Warming farce was just a progressive wet dream to gain more control and work toward more of a centralized government. Thank the good lord the whole climate change hoax has been disproved.
By Liberty For Me February 11, 2010 at 10:02 am
Houseguest…People that support global warming “policies” was the point.Claiming one thing then the other…contradicting yourself does not prove anything.As far as your observation..you did the same thing.”slight change”..would not be from freezing to shorts in 30 years…and lastly..
So you are in favor of doing away with civilization to restore forests to the standards of cavemen?? More ramblings from a rambling mind….The point is we are increasing forests every year..It is not an issue
By countryboy February 11, 2010 at 10:56 am
Interesting reading:
http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/
By Snowdog February 11, 2010 at 11:48 am
Elmo,
Recently, I cited
Lu, Q., R.B.~Lund and P.L.~Seymour (2005). An Update of United States Temperature Trends, {\em Journal of Climate}, {\bf 18}, 4906-4914.
as one example of a detailed and well-thought out study of US temp data. You should really check this out before making your “reputable scientists claims”. And its got lots of nice graphs for you.
PS: If the world’s actually been cooling since 1998 why would 2000-2009 be the warmest decade ever (WMO)?
By Ynotfirst February 11, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Demint is probably snowed in inside the humble C Street house getting his own brand of religion.
He certainly never helps his constituents which is also part of being a ” good Senator”.
By WorkingTommyC February 11, 2010 at 2:32 pm
QUOTE BY PAT HENDRIX: “Kind of like when you conflate socialism, the NAZIs and Stalinist Russia.”
While we’re organizing, why not put them all into the folder marked “TYRANNY?”
Too simplistic for you? Well, NOT conflating them is making a distinction between mass murderers based on the size of their mustaches.
After all, what’s the need if you’ve already got the different names of the countries and the leaders involved in stark illustrations of remarkably similar tyrannical governments?
If it REALLY turns you on, though, go ahead. Sounds like you’ve made a hobby out of it already.
Unfortunately for you, such inefficient and superfluous categorization on your part would do little to explain why businessmen in 1930s Germany were reading Marx in order to understand how things worked under Hitler.
Sounds to me like there is a longstanding historic precedent for such conflation.
But, just so you can show off your expertise, we’ll test you later. Your test will consist of printed out pictures of fascist, socialist, and communist leaders throughout history with their mustaches digitally removed from the facial images. You get to use a crayon to fill in their mustaches to the correct size and shape.
It’s sort of an audio/visual connection you can make with your favorite tyrants. I’m sure this will do a lot to improve your self-esteem. (HINT: Mao Tse Tung is a trick question! :)
By sid February 12, 2010 at 12:59 am
What discussions, Snowdud? Remind me, as they must have been so scintillating that my mind simply did not have the ability to retain them. That, or you were such a bore/disappointment that I automatically erased them from memory. I’m betting the latter, if we even had any discussions. The egghead from Higher Education I remember. You clearly remember me, but some other moron had to remind me of you, and I still don’t recall you. I’m sure you’re equally impressive in whatever else it is you actually do.
By Snowdog February 12, 2010 at 9:06 am
I see why you’re so popular with your peers Bitch Sid. A A little lithium might help.
By sid February 12, 2010 at 1:53 pm
So, as I thought, you are truly nobody, Snowdud. You can’t explain yourself, defend your claims, or even present an original idea. You clearly follow my postings, while you deeply wish anybody cared, good or bad, about what drivel you present. Sadly, for you, nobody does. You are less than insignificant in the big picture. Nothing you do or say has any impact on anyone else. As for peers, those who do not like me simply fear me, and are well beneath me by virtually any measurement known to man. It’s kind of like in sports. Clemson football is not too popular with USC fans because USC is so often dominated. Now, if you want to ignore my challenges to you to present your defense, then consider yourself dominated. You don’t even have the courage to play. How sad.
By Liberty For Me February 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm
WorkingTommyC …Man you are on a roll..
Sid…You too are really bringing on the comedy relief..
Did you ever notice people who support socialism are the opposite of what they think they are??..They are some truly miserably,hate filled people.
By Snowdog February 13, 2010 at 11:10 am
It is so fun to jerk you around Sid.
By Snowdog February 13, 2010 at 4:50 pm
And let me exit this Sid with the following:
I do not care to debate/discuss with you as I do not regard you as a peer. You seem to know who I am, but I can only judge you from your words, which so far, have been juvenille. I would bet any amount of money that I am more successful in my occupation than you are in yours.
By sid February 14, 2010 at 12:22 am
It would likely be your greatest insult to me to state that you consider me a peer, so I thank you for the unnecessary clarification. Technically, however, I don’t know who you are. Some moron from another discussion claimed to know who you are while trying to claim I was involved in a debate that never took place. If he is correct, then you are simply a glorified Willard Scott, in my opinion, and I would be thoroughly insulted if someone thought I was your peer, as it would lower my standing considerably.
But you have confirmed my earlier post about you, which is also nice of you to do. You don’t have the courage or integrity to even try to engage in an actual discussion of facts. And the idea that you find my comments to be “juvenille” is really laughable. This, coming from one (if you are who moron claimed you are) who is supposed to be in his declining years, have several degrees, an “important” (actually meaningless) state title, yet resorts to calling people with whom he disagrees “truly dumb,” and can’t come up with anything original to call me, so goes schoolyard with someone else’s “Bitch Sid.” Yes, you are the standard for maturity.
Tell you what. Once you address my simple requests (you can handle simple, can’t you?), I’ll be happy to delve into your intriguing challenge regarding “success.” We’ll have to set up some parameters, though, as simply doing well in your occupation is not really a good measure of true “success.” After all, you could be the world’s greatest fry cook, and would that make you more “successful” than an average surgeon? Or, to put it in terms more relatable to you, is Al Roker more successful than Sonny Perdue? Perhaps “influence” would be a good starting point. Or we can look at salary, time to reach the level of comparison, or any other factors. I’ll give it some thought, as well as the amount of the wager, and when you address my requests, we can get into ironing out the parameters of “success.” Or you can just skulk away and continue to monitor my posts, looking for an opening to try to engage in a “mature” dialogue. Good luck!