On 9/2/2014 1:43 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 9/2/2014 12:33 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>>>> On 9/1/2014 11:06 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "Mayo" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 9/1/2014 7:38 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>> OK,. you get an A for your Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, book report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you get an A+ for shooting from the rhetorical hip and being
>>>>>> unable
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> support and prove your points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Done.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with the ostrich position is it leaves your backside in a
>>>>> vulnerable state.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with shooting from the hip is you constantly miss the
>>>> target.
>>>>
>>>>> Not my fault you seem to be completely disconnected from the world
>>>>> around
>>>>> you. There is only one thing that explains this and that is that you
>>>>> never
>>>>> have had to think outside of the box you live in.
>>>>
>>>> Not my problem that you trade in heavily emotionally loaded fantasies,
>>>> ones that collapse under the lens of reality.
>>>
>>> Oooohhhhhhhhh emotionally loaded!
>>
>> Precisely, your rhetoric trades in emotive negativity and misconceived
>> notions.
>>
>>> I work in the realk world.
>>
>> How on earth do you manage?
>>
>> Your dogma is so fatally decoupled from reality that you must be in a
>> constant state of flux.
>>
>>> You work for mum and dad apparently.
>>
>> I'd briefly counsel you that in a boomer-heavy medium that would be a bit
>> of a logical improbability at best, chronologically speaking.
>
> Doesn't mean it doesn't include you.

Your alleged clairvoyance has failed you again.

>>>>> Your urbanity is based on disinterest and your disinterest is based on
>>>>> privilege.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>>> It has been my privilege to expose your unending torrent of lies,
>>>> misrepresentations, and outright hyperbole.
>>>
>>> Just where have you done that save to post a link to somebody's blog?
>>
>> Right the way through this thread, again and again.
>
> Sure, sure. Your opinion is admissible in a court of law is what you'll
> tell me next.

My factual cites on GM, the UAW, and the government directions regarding
the pensions were unambiguously accurate.

YOU are the one constantly trading in opinion, not me.

>> Tell us once more how the unions made contractual concessions to GM before
>> the bailout.
>>
>>>> Let's hear that sad canard again about how the union conceded to GM
>>>> before
>>>> the bailout, you lying turdbucket.
>>>
>>> Look who's emotrional.
>>
>> Look who's a rank liar.
>>
>
> A lie is a deliberate miscoinstruction of the truth in order to deceive.

Yes, I believe you deliberately misled regarding the UAWs role in GM's
failure.

> Just because you do not read the same material I do does not make me a liar.

How you choose to brainwash yourself is your own matter, what you do
when confronted with the actual facts is reprehensible.

> You argue like brain dead republicans.

And you natter and mislead like a bleeding heart lib.

> What are your thoughts on climate change?

The climate is in a constant state of change.

> How old is the Earth?

I think the 6 million year number has merit

> Will gays burn in eternal hell?

No, but pedophiles and abusers of all manner will.

>> You were caught, brought up short with am indisputable news link, yet
>> still maintain your mulish mendacity.
>
> A blog is not a news link. A bloig is a blog. An op-ed is not news either.

The link regarding the post-bailout union contract was from yahoo
finance news:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-UAW...068756496.html


DETROIT (AP) -- The United Auto Workers union won $5,000 signing bonuses
and the possibility of sweeter profit-sharing checks as part of a new
four-year contract with General Motors Co., two people briefed on the
talks said Saturday.The deal, which was reached late Friday, also
includes a $2- to $3-per-hour pay raise for entry-level workers over >

> No, you did not. You merely posted links to somebody's opinion which
> supports your opinion.

That is a complete fabrication.

The link posted above was from Yahoo finance news.

The data on GM profits came from Marke****ch.

Neither of the two is an "opinion", now is it?

> Yoiu just think your opinion is cold hard
> fact. Because .. well because you believe it ... that's why.

No, I researched the facts and posted them.

You presented zilch in terms of verifiable facts.

>> You, otoh, have cited ONLY yourself.
>>
>>> Your dogma was run over by my karma and now you grieve.
>>
>> Your karma is to be rebuked.
>
> My karma is in the shop getting the dents pulled out after sending your
> dogma to the ages.

I find the utter denial of reality you evince to be a ludicrous public
display of unbridled hubris.

>> If I did so in a dogmatic fashion it was entirely proportionate to the
>> flighty disinformation you so flagrantly tendered here.
>>
>>> Have a cookie. Mum just baked them.
>>
>> What, and risk eating GMO?!?!?
>
> It's good for you. I ahve somebody's opinion on that. Take it to the bank.

I think you were paid off by Monsanto.

>> Sorry, I'll have to get a permission slip from Monsanto.
>
> No just read the license agreement on the bag of flour. That's all they
> ask.

I can't, I'm too busy reading the New Yorker...