Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 3, 2003

• #1,001

> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
just starting out - even an engineer. <

You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
think everyone's stupid!??

Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
28-31% Federal, 6.5-8% State, 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare (and
that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid). Then lets add in
property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.

Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.

Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
retirement.

Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" bull****,
pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,002

> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
anything else. >

Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,003

> I wasn't aware that morons were confined to one particular political
party. <

I stand corrected, Dori! ;-)

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,004

> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
to name-calling. <

Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with you
is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.

> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.

> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
commercial for Rush or Hannity. <

But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.

By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
Socialist indoctrination you've been fed you'll find that people in the
middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
that the left has managed to dominate, and **** UP, for over 50 years.

I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
HYPOCRITE of the first order.
Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
which he'd not convinced.

> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
this time for sure.

> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <

And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
irrelevant....)

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,005

In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>> What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.

Exactly! They need the votes. The greater the population, the greater
the stress on each individual, (be it from working more to keep the same
standard of living or struggling to get by) the less they are watched
and the easier they can keep their power.

 

P

Phil Breau

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,006

That's very funny. Seriously, I laughed. No, I wasn't that crazy. First of
all my Horizon wasn't worth the gas in the tank. Secondly, I had the weight
distributed evenly. The car in the link looks like it has over 1000 pounds.

To the other readers: have a laugh http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg



"TJim" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Like this?
> http://www.visi.com/~timf/Stupid.jpg
>
> --
> Jim
>
> "Phil Breau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Large SUV's are great for bad drivers. It will lessen the likelihood of
> > being fatally injured WHEN you get in an accident.
> > Read this article
> > http://www.divisiontwo.com/articles/parttimemom1.htm
> > I used my '89 Horizon as an SUV. True story: I put 4 6x6 16' long
timbers
> on
> > the roof racks. Weighed 500 pounds. Racks were rated for 100 pounds max.
> > Let's see you do that with your precious Hummer that you bought with the
> > inheritance money mommy and daddy left you with.
> >
> > Real men don't drive SUV's.
> >
> > "P e t e F a g e r l i n" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
> > > Georgoudis) wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> > > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> > > >car.
> > >
> > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> > > bought a very safe SUV.
> > >
> > > Go figure.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

R

rnf2

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,007

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
> resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
> anything else. >
>
> Bravo! Who'll be the first gallant politician to suggest population
control?
> Not a Democrat (for sure!) or Republican, thye need the votes.
>
>

They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
nominal.

rhys

 

T

Ted Mittelstaedt

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,008

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> The Ancient One wrote:
> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
been,.
> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>
> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
> mass/matter.
>

Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.

And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
into Iraq, because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.

This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
around
spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first
set of facts.

Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe
that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
view,
I have never once seen him do so.

Ted

 

T

Ted Mittelstaedt

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,009

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:LU_ob.81254$HS4.676258@attbi_s01...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> >> And then guess what happens when someone decides to build a wind farm
> >> near the homes of some rich liberals? They throw a hissy fit.
> >
> > And they'll badmouth mean old big business for moving their operations
> > offshore to survive. Guess that's a flaw in their plan they didn't
> > anticipate - but I'm sure they're working on plugging that "loophole" as
> > we speak to make the knocking down of our standard of living that you
> > speak of more robust.
>
> Actually both sides are doing things that hurt the standard of
> living for average citizens in the USA IMO. Each for different reasons.
> The left wants control of the people (gun control, control of the
> schools, control over thought and speech, control over how people
> live, etc), the right wants cheap labor at home (cheap illegal immigrant
> labor, direct job-to-job competition with china,india and others). But
> that's just my opinon.
>

Your mostly correct except that the right also wants control over thought
and speech, and how people live, etc. That is why they are passing
anti-abortion
laws, anti-flag-buring laws, uniforms in schools, etc.

Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do. And to tell the truth, in subgroups where
there are safety valves (ie: Mennonite, Quakers, Mormons) where people
who don't buy into the subgroup's belief structure can just leave, those
subgroups are actually very harmonious, within their group.

So, if your goal is real peace, and real goodwill among most people, just
get everyone to think, act, talk, walk and dress alike, and use the same
products, drive the same models of cars, work the same jobs, etc. etc.
Nirviana.

Ted

 

T

Ted Mittelstaedt

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,010

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers
resort
> to name-calling. <
>
> Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with you
> is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>

No, that's not why...

> Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
> because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
> Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
> which he'd not convinced.
>

That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
stupid.
A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that
"it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore so
I'm
free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the results of
the
general election came in all the liberal ****ups that voted for Nader
realized
they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the entire
Democratic
party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them seriously now.

Ted

 

T

Ted Mittelstaedt

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,011

"rnf2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> They've already done it, AIDs elimination aid grants to africa are merely
> nominal.
>

Of course, consider too that the sexually promiscious lifestyle prevalent
there
has greatly encouraged the epidemic. And I am not talking about a mere
10-20
different sex partners over a lifetime being worthy of note, I'm talking
about
a society where buying a different prostitute 3-5 times a week is not that
unusual.

AIDS is one of those population limiting devices that is about 80%
voluntary,
20% involuntary. If people don't want to die from it, they can tremendously
increase their odds against getting it by limiting multiple sex partners.

Ted

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,012

> Then when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
first set of facts.

> Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
believe that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his
world view, I have never once seen him do so. <

He'll therefore make an excellent leftist politician!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,013

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Basically what it boils down to is that everyone wants everyone else to
think the same way that they do...... So, if your goal is real peace, and
real goodwill among most people, just get everyone to think, act, talk, walk
and dress alike, and use the same products, drive the same models of cars,
work the same jobs, etc. etc. Nirviana. <

Now you understand the goals of Socialists, the far right and Osama as
well!
>
> Ted
>
>

 

G

Gerald G. McGeorge

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,014

> No, that's not why...

> > Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got
creamed because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent
him to Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green
vote which he'd not convinced. > >

> That's the real reason why. Republicans may be stupid but never this
stupid. <

Well, a lot of them voted for Perot, which is why Clinton won in '92.
Clinton never received as many votes as Gore or Bush did in '00 for that
matter. That simple fact weas forgotten by the delusional leftists.

> A vote in the general election for Nader was a vote for George Bush. What
happened was all the liberals out there talked themselves into believing
that "it's only I that is voting for Nader, everyone else is voting for Gore
so I'm free to vote my conscience without helping Bush" Then when the
results of the
general election came in all the liberal ****ups that voted for Nader
realized they outsmarted themselves and realized they had just set the
entire Democratic party back 20 years. That is why nobody is taking them
seriously now. >

Well, no, but I see your point. No one is taking them seriously because
they've done the typical political knee-jerk of turning to their radicals
for "leadership", appointing whiners like Daschle & Pelosi as leaders and
cranking on their old "tax & spend, cut & run" themes. Anyone with memory
remembers the mess they got us into when the liberals controlled the govt.,
and anyone with a paycheck knows it's not the rich that get screwed on
taxes, it's the poor slobs who actually try to hold & job & raise a family
that get to pay for every idiotic leftist patronage-centered program.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,015

Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> ...People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
> to protect it.

Oh - you mean like in California where they are protecting the
environment by not allowing the forests to be maintained properly - like
you said - "The onus of proof should be born by the ones who may be
destroying the environment not by the ones who try to protect it".
Meanwhile, 20 people die, lives are destroyed, and 2000 houses are lost
(not to mention the damage to the environment). Thank you to those who
are "protecting our environment" but who curiously seem to be doing the
most damage.

How about first proving that you aren't going to throw everything out of
balance and create an even worse nightmare by your efforts to tweak
things that you have no way of understanding to adequate depth the full
ramifications.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,016

In article <AXzpb.98929$e01.335314@attbi_s02>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Dianelos
Georgoudis wrote:
>> Climatic change is a tremendously complicated matter, but the basic
>> tenets are given:
>>
>> CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it traps solar heat in the atmosphere.
>> The modern world is spewing huge amounts of CO2 in the air.
>> The atmospheric content of CO2 has risen some 30% in the last 50
>> years. This is a huge amount for such a short time.
>
>> Climate models predict a rise in average temperature if the
>> atmospheric content of CO2 is significantly raised. Also it predicts
>> that ice caps will start melting.
>
>Climate models are based on temp rising with CO2 content. Just because
>it comes out of a computer doesn't make it accurate or fact.
>
>> Average worldwide temperature has risen in the last 50 years. Also,
>> ice caps are thinning by 3% a decade since the 70s.
>
>> These are facts. They are not conclusive. Some scientists believe
>> that there may be other reasons for this temperature rise, or even
>> that we are only observing a natural temperature variation. They may
>> be right. Still, it is also a fact that the great majority of
>> scientists believe that there is already a clear increase in global
>> temperature and that human activity is responsible for it.
>
>Well, here's today's news:
>
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994321
>
>I am sure parker will just call it a 'right-wing' publication
>or something to dismiss it all.

Why not read something a real scientific group says? IPCC, or EPA, or
National Academy of Sciences? Afraid?

>
>> People keep asking environmentalists to "prove" that the emission of
>> CO2 has caused in the temperature rise, but this is not the
>> environmentalists' task. They only have to point to the potential
>> dangers. It is the industries that are responsible for the CO2
>> emissions that must prove that their products will not affect the
>> environment in a disastrous way. The onus of proof should be born by
>> the ones who may be destroying the environment not by the ones who try
>> to protect it. Most industries have to prove the safety of their
>> product, so why should some industries be exempt?
>
>Have you, as a breathing human, puting CO2 into the atmosphere been
>proven safe? CO2 is part of the carbon cycle on the planet, there's
>nothing unsafe about it in and of itself.

Arsenic is natural too; want to eat a pound of it?


>So the question becomes how much
>CO2 being produced is too much if any? That's the question. With
>regard to CO2 the products are safe, just as with regard to CO2
>humans are safe. The question is do all these sources combined pose
>a problem? Are the things that take CO2 from the air overwhelmed?
>Will there be a balance point? etc etc etc. Do higher levels pose
>a problem as well?
>
>And that's the rub. that's where the *CONTROL* comes in. Where central
>authority will control CO2 output and thusly practically everything.
>
>> Oil and automobile industries will not be able to prove the safety of
>> their product in the short term, which does not mean that we should
>> all go back to horse carriages.
>
>Then we'd have to regulate the CO2 output of the horses. (Because we'd
>want to make sure more CO2 was being taken from the air than put back
>in)
>
>> It means that while there is
>> reasonable suspicion that the emission of greenhouse gases can
>> destabilize the global climate, the prudent response of society would
>> be to limit such emissions until the repercussions are clearer.
>> Corrective actions will be expensive which only proves that we are now
>> not paying the full cost our life style - we are shifting this cost to
>> future generations and this is not right. There is a bill to be paid
>> and it is cheap to try to avoid paying it.
>
>What it really gets down to is too many people. Not having enough
>resources to go around will IMO constrain human activity earlier than
>anything else.
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,017

In article <[email protected]>,
"C. E. White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Jonesy wrote:
>
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>> > Or, an idealist who gets his first pay check and realizes he's just spent
>> > 50% of his time working for the Government.
>>
>> Yet another right-wing lie.
>>
>> No beginning worker spends even half that amount to The Government.
>
>In defense of Gerald, it dpends on your loaction and the starting pay. I'd
guess some engineers in high
>tax staes could be approaching 50% when you include Social Security (both
sides, not just "your half") and

Then let's include the employer's property taxes and utility bills.

>state and city taxes. And if you include all the taxes you pay, both direct
annd indirect, I'd guess a lot
>of people pay more than 50% of their income to various governments.

Gee, if you right-wingers include everything anybody pays as YOUR taxes, I bet
you could get up over 100%!

>
>Ed
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,018

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Just like I said - when you have nothing to say, you right-wingers resort
>to name-calling. <
>
>Why is it you leftist assholes always think anyone who disagreees with you
>is a "right-winger"? No wonder no one takes you seriously any longer.
>
>> > I register as an independent and in '00 I voted for Nader.
>
>> B.S. Nader was well to the left of Gore, and you sound just like a
>commercial for Rush or Hannity. <
>
>But, Nader is not part of the Republicrat establishment, is he? Neither was
>Perot, who I voted for the previous two elections.
>
>By the way, if you can purge your shallow little leftist mind of all the
>Socialist indoctrination

If you're going to call people names, it hardly behooves you to **** and moan
when they call you names.


>you've been fed you'll find that people in the
>middle and on the right often have quite well formed positions on matters
>that the left has managed to dominate, and **** UP, for over 50 years.
>
>I hate to challenge your little leftist sensibilities, but Bill Clinton was
>not a liberal, he was just a politician wanting more & more power. He was a
>HYPOCRITE of the first order.

And gee, wasn't the country doing great under him?

>Al Gore lost becuase he couldn't carry his own State, where he got creamed
>because he no longer represented the values of the people who sent him to
>Washington in the first place, and because Nader sucked off the Green vote
>which he'd not convinced.
>
>> Given the crap the Democrats are putting up as leaders, I'll vote for Bush
>this time for sure.
>
>> Uhh-huh. As if there was a chance you'd vote any other way... <
>
>And that's the problem, isn't it Jonesey, too many people, indeed a MAJORITY
>of us, don't agree with you and your Socialist buddies! (Get used to being
>irrelevant....)
>
>
I doubt many agree with you and your fascist buddies either.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,019

In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But nobody is actually taxed at that rate from The Government. Especially
>just starting out - even an engineer. <
>
>You are an idiot! Of course you have to add ALL the taxes together, what,
>the non-Fed taxes isn't money taken away from you? Sheezus, do you :Liberals
>think everyone's stupid!??

So "the" government doesn't mean "one" like it logically should?

>
>Living in an urban area of this Country a moderate income family will pay
>28-31% Federal,

Wrong. You're confusing marginal tax rate with effective rate. Your first X
dollars aren't taxed, your next Y dollars at 15%, etc.


>6.5-8% State,

Again, you're confusing marginal and effective rates.


> 3 - 7% City, 6.2% FICA amd 1.4% Medicare

Up to a maximum.


>(and
>that does not include the other 7.5% FICA/Medicare paid by their employer on
>their behalf...that's not a tax on the employer, it's booked income to the
>employee, paid to the government as a TAX, stupid).

It's no more income to me than sales tax or property tax my employer may pay.


>Then lets add in
>property tax (if you're lucky enough to have anything left with which to pay
>a mortgage) which in the East can run more than the mortgage payment each
>month. Taxes thus run 55% or higher EASILY on a moderate income.

Let's add in insurance and price of groceries then.

>
>Wanna have a shock, my bushy-tailed, idealistic young College grad? Plug
>some numbers into Turbo Tax sometimes and see whats going to happen to you
>as your career advances and you get some raises! Easily 50% of every dollar
>you make will be gone to taxes somewhere.
>
>Where do you think all your liberal lies & schemes fall apart? At the ballot
>box, dummy, after everyone realizes "the rich" the Democrats (and some of
>their Republican buddies) talk about are really the middle class, trying to
>buy a house (or, even save the down payment while they pay $2k a month for a
>little aprtment somewhere), save for their kids college and their own
>retirement.
>
>Screw You and your liberal smoke & mirror "taxes on the rich" bull****,
>pal!!! Everyone has seen through this scam.
>
>
Most people view paying taxes in return for government sources as something
necessary. That's why they live in a society and not an anarchy.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Nov 4, 2003

• #1,020

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> The Ancient One wrote:
>> > ...until they are proven destroyed, which even the UN said they had NOT
>been,.
>> > (You need to read the news once in awhile Lloyd) then it must be assumed
>> > they still exist and are an imminent threat to US and World security.
>>
>> Lloyd was absent the day they taught the law of the conservation of
>> mass/matter.
>>
>
>Notice of course with Lloyd that he continues harping on the one solid
>lie in the mess - that Bush was lying about WMD - and uses the fact that
>Bush lied to make the claim that we should not have gone to war in Iraq.
>
>And notice how he completely ignores the moral reasons we had to go
>into Iraq,

Bush never gave those as reasons -- it was the threat against us.


>because those are not lies, and thus he cannot argue against
>them. Thus, since they prove that his conclusion - we shouldn't have gone
>to war in Iraq - is wrong, he ignores them.
>

So when are we going to overthrow the saudis? The Chinese? Does your
morality extend to all nasty regimes?

>This is how Lloyd argues, and it is very tiresome. He finds some verifyable
>facts out there, then builds an entire conclusion based on them and runs
>around
>spouting that his conclusion must be right because it's based on fact. Then
>when someone comes along and points out some other facts that are in
>conflict with his conclusion, he ignores this and just goes back to his
>first
>set of facts.
>
>Basically he gerrymanders the argument to prove his point. I really don't
>believe
>that he knows how to argue against any point that conflicts with his world
>view,
>I have never once seen him do so.
>
>Ted
>
>