Yea, yea. I know. I need to get a life, but isn’t that what this whole forum is about?
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.
Since when is a high intelligence level presumed to be a requirement for leadership at the national level?
Great leaders do not have to have great intellects to do their jobs well; that’s what all the underlings are for to figure out how to accomplish the boss’ bidding.
I’ve never understood this “he’s smarter!” claim when the Democrats trot out an Al Gore or a John Kerry. It’s undoubtedly true, but why is it assumed to be a virtual coronation of the man as suitable for the Presidency?
For historical reference, compare the Presidencies of the highly intelligent Jimmy Carter to his successor the not-so-bright Ronald Reagan. It’s not too hard to pick out who the superior leader was, is it?
[quote]CC wrote:
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.[/quote]
He has a bachelor?s degree from Yale and a Masters degree from Harvard.
Not too many stupid people come from Yale and Harvard.
He is a Texan. Just like people from New York have a hard accent, people from Texas talk a certain way…
People from the south talk a certain way.
That doesn?t make them stupid.
He also doesn?t make every decision in this country.
Other people and other agencies make decisions and if they suck, then he takes the heat for it… I agree that he is the Capitan of the ship and should take the heat. but that doesn?t mean everything is his fault or that he is stupid.
Some people will never be happy with the things he does.
They hate him, just to hate him, for no other reason.
I personally think over all he is a good president, that has gotten a bad rap…
With that said, I am looking forward to a change in the white house.
My opinion is that respect was lost for the office during the Clinton years…
I’m only 31, so I don?t know how it was pre Regan/carter years… But did people bash the office as much as they do today??
I think people just have no respect for the presidency… Maybe a new guy will bring back that respect… Who knows?
[quote]blitzkrg wrote:
My opinion is that respect was lost for the office during the Clinton years…
I’m only 31, so I don?t know how it was pre Regan/carter years… But did people bash the office as much as they do today??
I think people just have no respect for the presidency… Maybe a new guy will bring back that respect… Who knows?
[/quote]
Reagan had so much respect for the Oval Office that he would not even remove his suit coat when there. Clinton was getting hummers and banging a chick with a cigar.
[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Since when is a high intelligence level presumed to be a requirement for leadership at the national level?
Great leaders do not have to have great intellects to do their jobs well; that’s what all the underlings are for to figure out how to accomplish the boss’ bidding.
I’ve never understood this “he’s smarter!” claim when the Democrats trot out an Al Gore or a John Kerry. It’s undoubtedly true, but why is it assumed to be a virtual coronation of the man as suitable for the Presidency?
For historical reference, compare the Presidencies of the highly intelligent Jimmy Carter to his successor the not-so-bright Ronald Reagan. It’s not too hard to pick out who the superior leader was, is it?[/quote]
Ronald Reagan was an imbicile.
The country would have boomed because of the new tech fields regardless. Reaganomics was undoubtedly the right move to further distribute and expand growth but it was not a genious revolutionary tactic, it was the obvious one. It would have been unnexusable not to push for the type of economic reforms Reagan implemented, none of which came from his mind but from the minds of his expert advisors and staff.
Also, Reagans administration was responsible for cooercing Gorbachev to dissipate the “Iron Curtain” and ultimately empty the Communist party’s treasury almost in it’s entirety. Gorbachev ubrubtly ended Communist policy in the USSR without any transition what-so-ever and left the Soviet Union in dissarray, removing any and all Soviet controls from the middle east and other border areas.
So what happens when you remove the Soviet pressures from the north and east while you have the U.S. trying to fill gap from the Arabian nations?
You have a monetary vaccuum.
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors.
Now these localized faction grow and are absorbed suddenly into essentially very few large factions. Why? Because of the sliver of Saudi based American shadow of influence.
That i the birth of the World trade center basement bombings in 1993. Only 2 years after the dissipation of the USSR an organization born on the borders of Afghinistan, funded by the U.S., bombs the world trade center:
and does it again, with far more devastating results, 7 years later.
Gorbachev, a god damn nobel peace prize winner, must take the bulk of the blame for this middle east conundrum, but without the safe money line esstablished by the Reagan administration he would have never had the oppurtunity.
Every time i hear Reagan’s famous “Bring down the wall” speach, i’m revolted by the abundtant ignorance of the cheering crowd then, and even more revolted by those today who heil Reagan as anything more than a good public speaker.
[quote]blitzkrg wrote:
CC wrote:
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.
He has a bachelor?s degree from Yale and a Masters degree from Harvard.
Not too many stupid people come from Yale and Harvard.
He is a Texan. Just like people from New York have a hard accent, people from Texas talk a certain way…
People from the south talk a certain way.
That doesn?t make them stupid.
He also doesn?t make every decision in this country.
Other people and other agencies make decisions and if they suck, then he takes the heat for it… I agree that he is the Capitan of the ship and should take the heat. but that doesn?t mean everything is his fault or that he is stupid.
Some people will never be happy with the things he does.
They hate him, just to hate him, for no other reason.
I personally think over all he is a good president, that has gotten a bad rap…
With that said, I am looking forward to a change in the white house.
My opinion is that respect was lost for the office during the Clinton years…
I’m only 31, so I don?t know how it was pre Regan/carter years… But did people bash the office as much as they do today??
I think people just have no respect for the presidency… Maybe a new guy will bring back that respect… Who knows?
[/quote]
Plenty of stupid people come out of Yale and Harvard.
Education is just a resource, it says nothing about your breadth of knowledge.
I do agree though that a president’s job is not to neccessarily be an expert or highly multicapable person himself, but to be appoint advisors and staff of the highest relevant capabilities.
Never-the-less a president must be an excellent public speaker, something Bush is not.
He lacks the basic understanding of the topics he addresses beyond what’s written on the page and has many nervous manorisms.
George Bush isn’t incompetant, he’s average among Americans; the same average Americans that didn’t even know where Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan where, much less their politics before the Bush administration.
[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Since when is a high intelligence level presumed to be a requirement for leadership at the national level?
Great leaders do not have to have great intellects to do their jobs well; that’s what all the underlings are for to figure out how to accomplish the boss’ bidding.
I’ve never understood this “he’s smarter!” claim when the Democrats trot out an Al Gore or a John Kerry. It’s undoubtedly true, but why is it assumed to be a virtual coronation of the man as suitable for the Presidency?
For historical reference, compare the Presidencies of the highly intelligent Jimmy Carter to his successor the not-so-bright Ronald Reagan. It’s not too hard to pick out who the superior leader was, is it?
Ronald Reagan was an imbicile.
The country would have boomed because of the new tech fields regardless. Reaganomics was undoubtedly the right move to further distribute and expand growth but it was not a genious revolutionary tactic, it was the obvious one. It would have been unnexusable not to push for the type of economic reforms Reagan implemented, none of which came from his mind but from the minds of his expert advisors and staff.
Also, Reagans administration was responsible for cooercing Gorbachev to dissipate the “Iron Curtain” and ultimately empty the Communist party’s treasury almost in it’s entirety. Gorbachev ubrubtly ended Communist policy in the USSR without any transition what-so-ever and left the Soviet Union in dissarray, removing any and all Soviet controls from the middle east and other border areas.
So what happens when you remove the Soviet pressures from the north and east while you have the U.S. trying to fill gap from the Arabian nations?
You have a monetary vaccuum.
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors.
Now these localized faction grow and are absorbed suddenly into essentially very few large factions. Why? Because of the sliver of Saudi based American shadow of influence.
That i the birth of the World trade center basement bombings in 1993. Only 2 years after the dissipation of the USSR an organization born on the borders of Afghinistan, funded by the U.S., bombs the world trade center:
and does it again, with far more devastating results, 7 years later.
Gorbachev, a god damn nobel peace prize winner, must take the bulk of the blame for this middle east conundrum, but without the safe money line esstablished by the Reagan administration he would have never had the oppurtunity.
Every time i hear Reagan’s famous “Bring down the wall” speach, i’m revolted by the abundtant ignorance of the cheering crowd then, and even more revolted by those today who heil Reagan as anything more than a good public speaker.[/quote]
How old were you during said speech?
[quote]deanec wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Since when is a high intelligence level presumed to be a requirement for leadership at the national level?
Great leaders do not have to have great intellects to do their jobs well; that’s what all the underlings are for to figure out how to accomplish the boss’ bidding.
I’ve never understood this “he’s smarter!” claim when the Democrats trot out an Al Gore or a John Kerry. It’s undoubtedly true, but why is it assumed to be a virtual coronation of the man as suitable for the Presidency?
For historical reference, compare the Presidencies of the highly intelligent Jimmy Carter to his successor the not-so-bright Ronald Reagan. It’s not too hard to pick out who the superior leader was, is it?
Ronald Reagan was an imbicile.
The country would have boomed because of the new tech fields regardless. Reaganomics was undoubtedly the right move to further distribute and expand growth but it was not a genious revolutionary tactic, it was the obvious one. It would have been unnexusable not to push for the type of economic reforms Reagan implemented, none of which came from his mind but from the minds of his expert advisors and staff.
Also, Reagans administration was responsible for cooercing Gorbachev to dissipate the “Iron Curtain” and ultimately empty the Communist party’s treasury almost in it’s entirety. Gorbachev ubrubtly ended Communist policy in the USSR without any transition what-so-ever and left the Soviet Union in dissarray, removing any and all Soviet controls from the middle east and other border areas.
So what happens when you remove the Soviet pressures from the north and east while you have the U.S. trying to fill gap from the Arabian nations?
You have a monetary vaccuum.
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors.
Now these localized faction grow and are absorbed suddenly into essentially very few large factions. Why? Because of the sliver of Saudi based American shadow of influence.
That i the birth of the World trade center basement bombings in 1993. Only 2 years after the dissipation of the USSR an organization born on the borders of Afghinistan, funded by the U.S., bombs the world trade center:
and does it again, with far more devastating results, 7 years later.
Gorbachev, a god damn nobel peace prize winner, must take the bulk of the blame for this middle east conundrum, but without the safe money line esstablished by the Reagan administration he would have never had the oppurtunity.
Every time i hear Reagan’s famous “Bring down the wall” speach, i’m revolted by the abundtant ignorance of the cheering crowd then, and even more revolted by those today who heil Reagan as anything more than a good public speaker.
How old were you during said speech?[/quote]
I was a small child, but i’ve seen it on video in totality several times.
[quote]blitzkrg wrote:
CC wrote:
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.
He has a bachelor?s degree from Yale and a Masters degree from Harvard.
Not too many stupid people come from Yale and Harvard.
He is a Texan. Just like people from New York have a hard accent, people from Texas talk a certain way…
People from the south talk a certain way.
That doesn?t make them stupid.
He also doesn?t make every decision in this country.
Other people and other agencies make decisions and if they suck, then he takes the heat for it… I agree that he is the Capitan of the ship and should take the heat. but that doesn?t mean everything is his fault or that he is stupid.
Some people will never be happy with the things he does.
They hate him, just to hate him, for no other reason.
I personally think over all he is a good president, that has gotten a bad rap…
With that said, I am looking forward to a change in the white house.
My opinion is that respect was lost for the office during the Clinton years…
I’m only 31, so I don?t know how it was pre Regan/carter years… But did people bash the office as much as they do today??
I think people just have no respect for the presidency… Maybe a new guy will bring back that respect… Who knows?
[/quote]
A Bachelor’s? This from a president who once used the word " commmon sensical". No really.
[quote]deanec wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Every time i hear Reagan’s famous “Bring down the wall” speach, i’m revolted by the abundtant ignorance of the cheering crowd then, and even more revolted by those today who heil Reagan as anything more than a good public speaker.
How old were you during said speech?[/quote]
His profile says he is a high school student. he was in diapers when Reagan was in office.
Reagan challenging Gorby to tear down the wall was amazing.
[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors…[/quote]
The Soviet Union went bankrupt. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not free up their money. Lack of money is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Militant Islam has existed for hundreds of years.
why is it that people try to blame everyone but who is actually responsible for 9/11.
blameing regan and gorby for all of this shit is a new one to me though…
Usama and his gang of homo’s are responsible for 9/11 and many of the previous attacks and bombings…
NOT gwb or regan or gorby.
Regan was a great president. Not only did he end russia, he ended germany to.
if he was so shitty, then why were there 8-10 hour lines to see his funeral?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors…
The Soviet Union went bankrupt. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not free up their money. Lack of money is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Militant Islam has existed for hundreds of years.[/quote]
In the 80s there was allready a huge influx of “illegal” Capitalist business in the Soviet Union, mainly in border republics. Capitalism was allready happening in the USSR.
People were holding these businesses by paying off the party(virtually, they were being taxed) to turn their heads as long as it was localized and not out in the open.
My grandfather controlled a business like this with his own hired workers. We could afford to spend almost $900,000 on renovations to my parents home and owned a car with a paid chaufer.
The whole tragedy was in that there was no utilization of this huge amount of funds and a great deal of the urban public had no clue. When Gorbachev declared a capitalist state the money just dissapeared, there was no infrastructure.
This is where the “freed up” money came from.
Those like my grandfather took what they had and left to start over in Europe, in Isreal, in the U.S.
What was left was essentially the emergence of Mafiate criminal controll over the borders which created a haven oppurtunity for the allready bitter militant Islamic factions that were otherwise controlled by a regular border army.
I am not saying that Reagan’s intentions were not aimed toward the best interests of the nation and am sorry about bluntly calling him an imbicile.
In retrospect,looking at the video of his speach it’s not so much the atmosphere itself that is saddening, but the realisation that the outcome was far less appealing then it is portrayed by the crowd.
[quote]blitzkrg wrote:
why is it that people try to blame everyone but who is actually responsible for 9/11.
blameing regan and gorby for all of this shit is a new one to me though…
Usama and his gang of homo’s are responsible for 9/11 and many of the previous attacks and bombings…
NOT gwb or regan or gorby.
Regan was a great president. Not only did he end russia, he ended germany to.
if he was so shitty, then why were there 8-10 hour lines to see his funeral?
[/quote]
Far more people went to see Lenin then Reagan.
You’re definitely right about the attacks themselves being the responsibilty of the individuals orcastrating them.
I’m not blaming Reagan for anything.
Reagan as president was the connection to the people and that’s about it.
I am however, blaming Gorbachev for the creation of Mafia controlled state by leaving the USSR in shambles.
In turn this provided an ideal atmosphere for those exact groups like Al Queida to thrive.
The only way the Soviet union could have been dissipated without the power vaccuum in the far and mid-east is with the U.S. taking a more or less totalitarian control of the region, which is fundamentally impossible in such a volatile region. This is why the balance held in the mid-east by mixed Soviet/U.S. influence was so essential and proved efficent as a stabilizer; where as we see now could not be held stable otherwise.
The United states asked for the end of the Soviet union without realizing the repurcusions in the mid-east.
Immediately, it was great for the U.S.
Now: not so much.
[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors…
The Soviet Union went bankrupt. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not free up their money. Lack of money is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Militant Islam has existed for hundreds of years.
In the 80s there was allready a huge influx of “illegal” Capitalist business in the Soviet Union, mainly in border republics. Capitalism was allready happening in the USSR.
People were holding these businesses by paying off the party(virtually, they were being taxed) to turn their heads as long as it was localized and not out in the open.
My grandfather controlled a business like this with his own hired workers. We could afford to spend almost $900,000 on renovations to my parents home and owned a car with a paid chaufer.
The whole tragedy was in that there was no utilization of this huge amount of funds and a great deal of the urban public had no clue. When Gorbachev declared a capitalist state the money just dissapeared, there was no infrastructure.
This is where the “freed up” money came from.
…
[/quote]
Militant Islam is funded with middle east oil money not missing Russian Mafia money.
The power vaccuum created by te collapse of the Soviet Union has helped the rise of militant Islam but it existed long before.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors…
The Soviet Union went bankrupt. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not free up their money. Lack of money is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Militant Islam has existed for hundreds of years.
In the 80s there was allready a huge influx of “illegal” Capitalist business in the Soviet Union, mainly in border republics. Capitalism was allready happening in the USSR.
People were holding these businesses by paying off the party(virtually, they were being taxed) to turn their heads as long as it was localized and not out in the open.
My grandfather controlled a business like this with his own hired workers. We could afford to spend almost $900,000 on renovations to my parents home and owned a car with a paid chaufer.
The whole tragedy was in that there was no utilization of this huge amount of funds and a great deal of the urban public had no clue. When Gorbachev declared a capitalist state the money just dissapeared, there was no infrastructure.
This is where the “freed up” money came from.
…
Militant Islam is funded with middle east oil money not missing Russian Mafia money.
The power vaccuum created by te collapse of the Soviet Union has helped the rise of militant Islam but it existed long before.
[/quote]
You said the Soviet collapse didn’t free up money.
I showed you how it did.
This isn’t missing Mafia money.
The cash that circulated inside the business like those my grandfather ran were to produce and sell common products like cltothing, appliences, houseware. After this type of business was evaporated newly emerging groups from the workers left from these business formed Mafiate groups utilizing the now exposed borders to open a large market selling federal munitions and military tech to militist Islamists that existed before but had very limited access to these munitions.
So now instead of flailing around machetes and the occasional stolen AKs, these militants had access to everything as simple as rocket launchers to light tanks in free exchange.
Militant Islam existed long before the Soviet collapse, but had nowhere near as many munitions before the USSR’s Sotuhern border exploded.
[quote]CC wrote:
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.[/quote]
Oh great, this got moved to the Politics forum. Look, when I made that post it was still in the Off-topic forum, well away from all the pissing matches that go on here.
I stay away from this part of the forum for a specific reason (and no, it’s not because I’m not intelligent enough to debate), so don’t worry about trying to bait me into an argument here.
I’ll leave with this. Never in my post did I say John Kerry would have been a better president. That seems to be a common mistake among many conservatives whenever the issue of the presidency comes up. If someones criticizes Bush’s work, they automatically assume that person must be a liberal or a “Kerry lover!”. News flash: many conservatives don’t like Bush.
It’s people who take statements and twist them up like that that make the rest of us conservatives look bad. Learn how to comprehend and take criticism for what it is: just criticsim.
And secondly, if you think Bush is intelligent simply because he has degrees from Yale and Harvard, then I feel terribly sorry for you.
[quote]Goal=Colossus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Goal=Colossus wrote:
…
Huge amounts of money previously controlled by the Soviet Union precipitating into localisized Ilamic factions profiting from border arms dealing and other similar eandeavors…
The Soviet Union went bankrupt. The collapse of the Soviet Union did not free up their money. Lack of money is why the Soviet Union collapsed.
Militant Islam has existed for hundreds of years.
In the 80s there was allready a huge influx of “illegal” Capitalist business in the Soviet Union, mainly in border republics. Capitalism was allready happening in the USSR.
People were holding these businesses by paying off the party(virtually, they were being taxed) to turn their heads as long as it was localized and not out in the open.
My grandfather controlled a business like this with his own hired workers. We could afford to spend almost $900,000 on renovations to my parents home and owned a car with a paid chaufer.
The whole tragedy was in that there was no utilization of this huge amount of funds and a great deal of the urban public had no clue. When Gorbachev declared a capitalist state the money just dissapeared, there was no infrastructure.
This is where the “freed up” money came from.
…
Militant Islam is funded with middle east oil money not missing Russian Mafia money.
The power vaccuum created by te collapse of the Soviet Union has helped the rise of militant Islam but it existed long before.
You said the Soviet collapse didn’t free up money.
I showed you how it did.
This isn’t missing Mafia money.
The cash that circulated inside the business like those my grandfather ran were to produce and sell common products like cltothing, appliences, houseware. After this type of business was evaporated newly emerging groups from the workers left from these business formed Mafiate groups utilizing the now exposed borders to open a large market selling federal munitions and military tech to militist Islamists that existed before but had very limited access to these munitions.
So now instead of flailing around machetes and the occasional stolen AKs, these militants had access to everything as simple as rocket launchers to light tanks in free exchange.
Militant Islam existed long before the Soviet collapse, but had nowhere near as many munitions before the USSR’s Sotuhern border exploded.[/quote]
The money fueling the Islamic terrorists has nothing to do with the Soviet Union or Russian Mafia or whatever you were trying to say.
It is coming from oil and from poppy seeds.
Russia has happily sold weapons to anyone that would stand against America for decades. This did not change due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
China and North Korea are also supplying weapons to the bad guys.
[quote]CC wrote:
CC wrote:
Pretty damn funny. It’s obviously edited to run in slow motion, but funny nonetheless.
Despite the fact that I’ve thought the guy is ridiculously stupid and incapable of running a country for a long time (and before you jump my shit, yes I am a conservative, so don’t even try to write me off as some “tree-hugging hippie liberal”), I’ve always found something endearing about GW. Like he’s a little kid who just doesn’t know any better.
I’ve never though the guy had bad intentions…he’s just not very intelligent.
Oh great, this got moved to the politics forum. Look, when I made that post it was still in the Off-topic forum, well away from all the pissing matches that go on here.
I stay away from this part of the forum for a specific reason (and no, it’s not because I’m not intelligent enough to debate), so don’t worry about trying to bait me into an argument here.
[/quote]
Come on. You know you want to waste your time in a silly argument.