Abortion

[CTguy]

The south inherently benefits from our tax system.  Since the north is more costly to live in, people are paid more and therefore taxed more...  when that money is sent to Washington it is not redistributed accordingly.  

People below the poverty line in the south earn the same as people below the poverty line in the north even though the cost of living is far cheaper in the south.  A meager salary that would be considered poor in the northeast would be fine in the South yet these people are entitled to welfare.  And who loses out?  Me.  

I'm sorry but these people don't even want to get an education.  I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to pay their way when all they can do with their school systems is try and get creationism taught in schools in Georgia and Alabama.  Then they wonder why jobs are outsourcing from those states and high skilled jobs don't come in.

I would like to see a regional tax system put into place.  Whereby everyone pays for some national things like national defense.  But by and large everything else goes into a regional pool.  So my tax money doesn't go towards funding schools in Georgia or welfare systems in South Carolina.  It goes against the principles of federalism that I am funding these types of christian-zealous school systems with my tax dollars.

Your whole premise is total off.  While it remains true that it is more expensive to live in the the north (for the most part) it is also true that the median income in the south is only half that of the north (for the most part).

That was exactly my point moron.  The median income is LOWER in the South.  Yet the cost of living is too.  Therefore southerners shouldn't be entitled to welfare since even though they earn less the cost of living is less and that should be taken into account.  

Obviously my example didn't get through to you.  Perhaps it is harder for people without economics degrees to understand these terms.

However lets use an example.  And while these numbers are probably close to national labels this is just an example not actual numbers.

Suppose the poverty line for a family is $15,000 a year income in the United States.

Suppose the average cost of living in the US is $20,000.  But that the average cost of living in the South is $10,000.

A ware earner in the South who makes say $12,000 a year would be considered below the poverty line and my money would go to help him/her/it.  However, that person is able to survive on their own since the cost of living in the South is $10,000.  They are at a $2000 a year surplus.

Now suppose someone in the North earns $16,000 a year.  That person would not be considered under the poverty line, even though due to the cost of living in their area they would be at a $4,000 a year deficit.  My money would not go to help a fellow northeasterner since by virtue of living in the northeast they are paid more, even though relative to the southerner they are "more poor."

I doubt this will ever get through to you, it is easy to make outlandish claims and then have 4 morons say Amen Brother to that as is usually the case with rhetoric from poor people (who I admit usually are democrats).  But give me a break, don't make it sound like there is any economic basis for your claims, what you stated in your argument to "contradict" me actually only backs up my claims.  By the way, even though I won't pretend I wrote a thesis on this, when I got my Masters Degree in Economics one of the Public Economics classes basically went over this premise in detail.  I don't think there is a serious debate among economists that the South benefits more from federal funding.

[12th Doctor]

The south inherently benefits from our tax system.  Since the north is more costly to live in, people are paid more and therefore taxed more...  when that money is sent to Washington it is not redistributed accordingly.  

People below the poverty line in the south earn the same as people below the poverty line in the north even though the cost of living is far cheaper in the south.  A meager salary that would be considered poor in the northeast would be fine in the South yet these people are entitled to welfare.  And who loses out?  Me.  

I'm sorry but these people don't even want to get an education.  I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to pay their way when all they can do with their school systems is try and get creationism taught in schools in Georgia and Alabama.  Then they wonder why jobs are outsourcing from those states and high skilled jobs don't come in.

I would like to see a regional tax system put into place.  Whereby everyone pays for some national things like national defense.  But by and large everything else goes into a regional pool.  So my tax money doesn't go towards funding schools in Georgia or welfare systems in South Carolina.  It goes against the principles of federalism that I am funding these types of christian-zealous school systems with my tax dollars.

Your whole premise is total off.  While it remains true that it is more expensive to live in the the north (for the most part) it is also true that the median income in the south is only half that of the north (for the most part).

That was exactly my point moron.  The median income is LOWER in the South.  Yet the cost of living is too.  Therefore southerners shouldn't be entitled to welfare since even though they earn less the cost of living is less and that should be taken into account.  

Obviously my example didn't get through to you.  Perhaps it is harder for people without economics degrees to understand these terms.

However lets use an example.  And while these numbers are probably close to national labels this is just an example not actual numbers.

Suppose the poverty line for a family is $15,000 a year income in the United States.

Suppose the average cost of living in the US is $20,000.  But that the average cost of living in the South is $10,000.

A ware earner in the South who makes say $12,000 a year would be considered below the poverty line and my money would go to help him/her/it.  However, that person is able to survive on their own since the cost of living in the South is $10,000.  They are at a $2000 a year surplus.

Now suppose someone in the North earns $16,000 a year.  That person would not be considered under the poverty line, even though due to the cost of living in their area they would be at a $4,000 a year deficit.  My money would not go to help a fellow northeasterner since by virtue of living in the northeast they are paid more, even though relative to the southerner they are "more poor."

I doubt this will ever get through to you, it is easy to make outlandish claims and then have 4 morons say Amen Brother to that as is usually the case with rhetoric from poor people (who I admit usually are democrats).  But give me a break, don't make it sound like there is any economic basis for your claims, what you stated in your argument to "contradict" me actually only backs up my claims.  By the way, even though I won't pretend I wrote a thesis on this, when I got my Masters Degree in Economics one of the Public Economics classes basically went over this premise in detail.  I don't think there is a serious debate among economists that the South benefits more from federal funding.

Okay, you elities, ass-munch, you want to fight that way.  I still fail to see your point because it is the STATES that hand out most welfare benifits and those are different from state to state.  True that there are federal benifs, but they make up a small minority of the acctual system and in the end, the benifs are still adjusted based on the cost of living for an area.  But, I guess people without political science degrees wouldn't understand that.

'Poor people'?   WOW what an asshole.  Dems on the board, I ask permision to do to this guy what you guys did to PD.  It think it is only fair since he can't seem to make a point without insulting everyone in the room.

[12th Doctor]

As for the thing about PD, I would like to state why he is acctually worse than PD.

1) PD was only 15, this guy is 21.

2) After going on one of his rants on which he would call everyone who was to the left of Rush Limbaugh a 'F***ER'  PD would usually make at least some effort ot appologize.. He has made none.

3)  PD would never insult someones economic status.

[Gustaf]

The south inherently benefits from our tax system.  Since the north is more costly to live in, people are paid more and therefore taxed more...  when that money is sent to Washington it is not redistributed accordingly.  

People below the poverty line in the south earn the same as people below the poverty line in the north even though the cost of living is far cheaper in the south.  A meager salary that would be considered poor in the northeast would be fine in the South yet these people are entitled to welfare.  And who loses out?  Me.  

I'm sorry but these people don't even want to get an education.  I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to pay their way when all they can do with their school systems is try and get creationism taught in schools in Georgia and Alabama.  Then they wonder why jobs are outsourcing from those states and high skilled jobs don't come in.

I would like to see a regional tax system put into place.  Whereby everyone pays for some national things like national defense.  But by and large everything else goes into a regional pool.  So my tax money doesn't go towards funding schools in Georgia or welfare systems in South Carolina.  It goes against the principles of federalism that I am funding these types of christian-zealous school systems with my tax dollars.

Your whole premise is total off.  While it remains true that it is more expensive to live in the the north (for the most part) it is also true that the median income in the south is only half that of the north (for the most part).

That was exactly my point moron.  The median income is LOWER in the South.  Yet the cost of living is too.  Therefore southerners shouldn't be entitled to welfare since even though they earn less the cost of living is less and that should be taken into account.  

Obviously my example didn't get through to you.  Perhaps it is harder for people without economics degrees to understand these terms.

However lets use an example.  And while these numbers are probably close to national labels this is just an example not actual numbers.

Suppose the poverty line for a family is $15,000 a year income in the United States.

Suppose the average cost of living in the US is $20,000.  But that the average cost of living in the South is $10,000.

A ware earner in the South who makes say $12,000 a year would be considered below the poverty line and my money would go to help him/her/it.  However, that person is able to survive on their own since the cost of living in the South is $10,000.  They are at a $2000 a year surplus.

Now suppose someone in the North earns $16,000 a year.  That person would not be considered under the poverty line, even though due to the cost of living in their area they would be at a $4,000 a year deficit.  My money would not go to help a fellow northeasterner since by virtue of living in the northeast they are paid more, even though relative to the southerner they are "more poor."

I doubt this will ever get through to you, it is easy to make outlandish claims and then have 4 morons say Amen Brother to that as is usually the case with rhetoric from poor people (who I admit usually are democrats).  But give me a break, don't make it sound like there is any economic basis for your claims, what you stated in your argument to "contradict" me actually only backs up my claims.  By the way, even though I won't pretend I wrote a thesis on this, when I got my Masters Degree in Economics one of the Public Economics classes basically went over this premise in detail.  I don't think there is a serious debate among economists that the South benefits more from federal funding.

Okay, you elities, ass-munch, you want to fight that way.  I still fail to see your point because it is the STATES that hand out most welfare benifits and those are different from state to state.  True that there are federal benifs, but they make up a small minority of the acctual system and in the end, the benifs are still adjusted based on the cost of living for an area.  But, I guess people without political science degrees wouldn't understand that.

'Poor people'?   WOW what an asshole.  Dems on the board, I ask permision to do to this guy what you guys did to PD.  It think it is only fair since he can't seem to make a point without insulting everyone in the room.

His actual VIEWS aren't as extreme as PD's, but his way of arguing and debating is just as bad, if not worse...you have the blessing of this YaBB God, lol.

[MarkDel]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

[Gustaf]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

Lol, that was a pretty pompus post, MarkDel... Looks like we might get a nice cat-fight then, huh? I am bringing the popcorn...

[12th Doctor]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

Thank you.  Exactly my point in my first post, but it appears that he couldn't read deeper into what I was saying.  This makes a good point, don't assume the intellegence of your audience.

[Gustaf]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

Thank you.  Exactly my point in my first post, but it appears that he couldn't read deeper into what I was saying.  This makes a good point, don't assume the intellegence of your audience.

I heard somewhere that one of the most common mistakes of public speakers is OVERestimating the beforehand knowledge of the audience and UNDERestimating their intelligence.

[12th Doctor]

The south inherently benefits from our tax system.  Since the north is more costly to live in, people are paid more and therefore taxed more...  when that money is sent to Washington it is not redistributed accordingly.  

People below the poverty line in the south earn the same as people below the poverty line in the north even though the cost of living is far cheaper in the south.  A meager salary that would be considered poor in the northeast would be fine in the South yet these people are entitled to welfare.  And who loses out?  Me.  

I'm sorry but these people don't even want to get an education.  I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to pay their way when all they can do with their school systems is try and get creationism taught in schools in Georgia and Alabama.  Then they wonder why jobs are outsourcing from those states and high skilled jobs don't come in.

I would like to see a regional tax system put into place.  Whereby everyone pays for some national things like national defense.  But by and large everything else goes into a regional pool.  So my tax money doesn't go towards funding schools in Georgia or welfare systems in South Carolina.  It goes against the principles of federalism that I am funding these types of christian-zealous school systems with my tax dollars.

Your whole premise is total off.  While it remains true that it is more expensive to live in the the north (for the most part) it is also true that the median income in the south is only half that of the north (for the most part).

That was exactly my point moron.  The median income is LOWER in the South.  Yet the cost of living is too.  Therefore southerners shouldn't be entitled to welfare since even though they earn less the cost of living is less and that should be taken into account.  

Obviously my example didn't get through to you.  Perhaps it is harder for people without economics degrees to understand these terms.

However lets use an example.  And while these numbers are probably close to national labels this is just an example not actual numbers.

Suppose the poverty line for a family is $15,000 a year income in the United States.

Suppose the average cost of living in the US is $20,000.  But that the average cost of living in the South is $10,000.

A ware earner in the South who makes say $12,000 a year would be considered below the poverty line and my money would go to help him/her/it.  However, that person is able to survive on their own since the cost of living in the South is $10,000.  They are at a $2000 a year surplus.

Now suppose someone in the North earns $16,000 a year.  That person would not be considered under the poverty line, even though due to the cost of living in their area they would be at a $4,000 a year deficit.  My money would not go to help a fellow northeasterner since by virtue of living in the northeast they are paid more, even though relative to the southerner they are "more poor."

I doubt this will ever get through to you, it is easy to make outlandish claims and then have 4 morons say Amen Brother to that as is usually the case with rhetoric from poor people (who I admit usually are democrats).  But give me a break, don't make it sound like there is any economic basis for your claims, what you stated in your argument to "contradict" me actually only backs up my claims.  By the way, even though I won't pretend I wrote a thesis on this, when I got my Masters Degree in Economics one of the Public Economics classes basically went over this premise in detail.  I don't think there is a serious debate among economists that the South benefits more from federal funding.

Okay, you elities, ass-munch, you want to fight that way.  I still fail to see your point because it is the STATES that hand out most welfare benifits and those are different from state to state.  True that there are federal benifs, but they make up a small minority of the acctual system and in the end, the benifs are still adjusted based on the cost of living for an area.  But, I guess people without political science degrees wouldn't understand that.

'Poor people'?   WOW what an asshole.  Dems on the board, I ask permision to do to this guy what you guys did to PD.  It think it is only fair since he can't seem to make a point without insulting everyone in the room.

His actual VIEWS aren't as extreme as PD's, but his way of arguing and debating is just as bad, if not worse...you have the blessing of this YaBB God, lol.

That makes me feel better Gustaf, since you are THE YaBB God.  Mr. more than 5000 posts.

Okay, gloves off fellas.

[12th Doctor]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

Thank you.  Exactly my point in my first post, but it appears that he couldn't read deeper into what I was saying.  This makes a good point, don't assume the intellegence of your audience.

I heard somewhere that one of the most common mistakes of public speakers is OVERestimating the beforehand knowledge of the audience and UNDERestimating their intelligence.

Well, stated.  That's what I meant.

[Gustaf]

The south inherently benefits from our tax system.  Since the north is more costly to live in, people are paid more and therefore taxed more...  when that money is sent to Washington it is not redistributed accordingly.  

People below the poverty line in the south earn the same as people below the poverty line in the north even though the cost of living is far cheaper in the south.  A meager salary that would be considered poor in the northeast would be fine in the South yet these people are entitled to welfare.  And who loses out?  Me.  

I'm sorry but these people don't even want to get an education.  I resent the fact that my tax dollars go to pay their way when all they can do with their school systems is try and get creationism taught in schools in Georgia and Alabama.  Then they wonder why jobs are outsourcing from those states and high skilled jobs don't come in.

I would like to see a regional tax system put into place.  Whereby everyone pays for some national things like national defense.  But by and large everything else goes into a regional pool.  So my tax money doesn't go towards funding schools in Georgia or welfare systems in South Carolina.  It goes against the principles of federalism that I am funding these types of christian-zealous school systems with my tax dollars.

Your whole premise is total off.  While it remains true that it is more expensive to live in the the north (for the most part) it is also true that the median income in the south is only half that of the north (for the most part).

That was exactly my point moron.  The median income is LOWER in the South.  Yet the cost of living is too.  Therefore southerners shouldn't be entitled to welfare since even though they earn less the cost of living is less and that should be taken into account.  

Obviously my example didn't get through to you.  Perhaps it is harder for people without economics degrees to understand these terms.

However lets use an example.  And while these numbers are probably close to national labels this is just an example not actual numbers.

Suppose the poverty line for a family is $15,000 a year income in the United States.

Suppose the average cost of living in the US is $20,000.  But that the average cost of living in the South is $10,000.

A ware earner in the South who makes say $12,000 a year would be considered below the poverty line and my money would go to help him/her/it.  However, that person is able to survive on their own since the cost of living in the South is $10,000.  They are at a $2000 a year surplus.

Now suppose someone in the North earns $16,000 a year.  That person would not be considered under the poverty line, even though due to the cost of living in their area they would be at a $4,000 a year deficit.  My money would not go to help a fellow northeasterner since by virtue of living in the northeast they are paid more, even though relative to the southerner they are "more poor."

I doubt this will ever get through to you, it is easy to make outlandish claims and then have 4 morons say Amen Brother to that as is usually the case with rhetoric from poor people (who I admit usually are democrats).  But give me a break, don't make it sound like there is any economic basis for your claims, what you stated in your argument to "contradict" me actually only backs up my claims.  By the way, even though I won't pretend I wrote a thesis on this, when I got my Masters Degree in Economics one of the Public Economics classes basically went over this premise in detail.  I don't think there is a serious debate among economists that the South benefits more from federal funding.

Okay, you elities, ass-munch, you want to fight that way.  I still fail to see your point because it is the STATES that hand out most welfare benifits and those are different from state to state.  True that there are federal benifs, but they make up a small minority of the acctual system and in the end, the benifs are still adjusted based on the cost of living for an area.  But, I guess people without political science degrees wouldn't understand that.

'Poor people'?   WOW what an asshole.  Dems on the board, I ask permision to do to this guy what you guys did to PD.  It think it is only fair since he can't seem to make a point without insulting everyone in the room.

His actual VIEWS aren't as extreme as PD's, but his way of arguing and debating is just as bad, if not worse...you have the blessing of this YaBB God, lol.

That makes me feel better Gustaf, since you are THE YaBB God.  Mr. more than 5000 posts.

Okay, gloves off fellas.

Lol, yeah. The Lord has spoken, etc.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

Yes, my post was intentionally pompous to make a point. I'm trying to show CTGuy that there are numerous people on this forum who can "play the education card" with substantial success, so I believe that this strategy that he employed in some of his previous posts is essentialy counter-productive.

Supersoulty,

I think CTGuy understood exactly what your point was, he was merely attempting to promote his particular point of view through the use of partial data that tended to bolster his case. He knew full well that his analysis was incomplete....he was just spinning as we like to say in the political game.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Yes, my post was intentionally pompous to make a point. I'm trying to show CTGuy that there are numerous people on this forum who can "play the education card" with substantial success, so I believe that this strategy that he employed in some of his previous posts is essentialy counter-productive.

Supersoulty,

I think CTGuy understood exactly what your point was, he was merely attempting to promote his particular point of view through the use of partial data that tended to bolster his case. He knew full well that his analysis was incomplete....he was just spinning as we like to say in the political game.

Lol, I got that.

I usually try to avoid bringing education, etc into debates, especially since there is no way to check people's claims.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

I think CTGuy understood exactly what your point was, he was merely attempting to promote his particular point of view through the use of partial data that tended to bolster his case. He knew full well that his analysis was incomplete....he was just spinning as we like to say in the political game.

Your more than likely right.  I'm sorry, I guess my fault was more assuming a certain level of achedemic integrity than assume he didn't have the knowledge.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

Sure there is. People can provide their real name and others can contact universities to verify that this person did in fact graduate from that particular institution.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

Sure there is. People can provide their real name and others can contact universities to verify that this person did in fact graduate from that particular institution.

OK, if they want to do that, then yes. But I could use Swedish credentials, and you'd be completely lost, lol.

[CTguy]

CTGuy,

A truly outstanding use of "smoke and mirrors" on your part. You have created an essentially truthful analogy, however you ignore one important fact that blows the  out of your overall point:

WELFARE ELIGIBILITY IS DETERMINED ON A STATE BY STATE BASIS, NOT BASED ON A FEDERAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE POVERTY LINE.

As a result, your logically coherent analogy means absolutely nothing within the context of reality.

By the way, in different threads, you have implied that you attended Harvard, and in other threads you implied that you attended Yale. Since you love to brag about your education, I would love to match mine up against yours. I also possess a number of quasi-useless degrees, including one from the Woodrow Wilson School, and I like nothing better than debating pompous, elitist, left wing pigs like yourself.

Show me one thread where I implied I went to Harvard?  I would never claim such a thing as I can't stand people from Harvard.  I went to Yale for my undergrad and NYU for my Masters degree.

The smoke and mirrors as you put it was Bullsh*t on your part.  Of course I would not expect you to understand the way the economy works but entitlement programs are not merely given to individuals as determined by a state level but we have government programs that funnel money to states, of which the South is the main beneficiary.  

The reason perhaps that you feel people from the northeast are arrogant towards you is because people with advanced degrees in a subject get sick and tired of debating with people who have a dogmatic religious view on life...  the kind who have barely mastered the English language.  

Next you are going to claim Evolution is bunk and Creationism should be taught in classroom...  as it is in many Southern PUBLIC schools.

[CTguy]

As to the claim I use partial data to bolster my arguments...  I am the only one who offers any data or knowledge on the subject...  While again, I said I did concentrate on public sector economics (but rather experimental economics) in graduate school, I at least bring something to the table here...

Whereas your pedantic little rants on the economy offer about as much as Brambilla when he claims to know anything about psychology.

It's people like you who tell PhD scientists they use "partial data" to teach evolution and then in a second breath say we should teach creationism that is based on hardly any data at all.

But I see the new tactic...  bash intistutions as liberal and elitist...  Hey, if you cant get into a good school just make it sound like everyone who goes to one is an elitist and it voids their knowledge.

[MarkDel]

CTGuy,

I assume your reference to me as "you people" implies that I'm from the South. Well, unfortunately I am not from the South. I moved to Florida less than two years ago. I was born and raised in Upstate New York. Like you, I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to attend an Ivy League school (Princeton), though I am humiliated by the idea that people will think of you and I as peers. Until 2002, the farthest south I lived was Washington, DC when I worked on Capitol Hill.

Contrary to the "straw man" you have created, I have no interest in teaching evolution or any other form of religious beliefs.

And just so you know, I turned down Yale when I got accepted at Princeton...

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

I would never ask you to provide that sort of data. I know you're an intelligent and thoughtful guy without seeing your academic credentials. Just because we disagree on some issues, it doesn't mean I don't respect your intelligence and your opinions. Unlike CTGuy, you don't go around flaunting your education while telling everyone else they're morons.

[12th Doctor]

CTGuy,

I assume your reference to me as "you people" implies that I'm from the South. Well, unfortunately I am not from the South. I moved to Florida less than two years ago. I was born and raised in Upstate New York. Like you, I was fortunate/unfortunate enough to attend an Ivy League school (Princeton), though I am humiliated by the idea that people will think of you and I as peers. Until 2002, the farthest south I lived was Washington, DC when I worked on Capitol Hill.

Contrary to the "straw man" you have created, I have no interest in teaching evolution or any other form of religious beliefs.

And just so you know, I turned down Yale when I got accepted at Princeton...

Quite the same here.  I'm from PA hardly a southern state.   I may not go to an Ivy League School, but i am getting my degree in Poli. Sci. under a man who is widely recongnized as one of the top 20 political scientist in the nation, Dr. David C. Kozak.  I have an IQ that averages around 145, depending on the test.  That's 5 points above genius in case you were unaware.

As for your points about Wel-fare, as I said, some welfare is passed-out by the fed, but most of it is state.  This was one of the innovations of the Wel-fare reform bill.  Anyone with even a limited knowledge of the system knows this.  So, I don't feel compeled to pull-out data charts to prove a pompous little man like you, to be incorrect.

By the way, I believe in the Bible AND evolutionary theory.  So F***-OFF, JACK ASS!

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

I certainly know who David Kozak is, National War College, right?

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

I certainly know who David Kozak is, National War College, right?

Yes!!!!  Did you study under him?

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

I would never ask you to provide that sort of data. I know you're an intelligent and thoughtful guy without seeing your academic credentials. Just because we disagree on some issues, it doesn't mean I don't respect your intelligence and your opinions. Unlike CTGuy, you don't go around flaunting your education while telling everyone else they're morons.

Lol, thanks, I was mostly joking anyway...at the age of 16 I don't have a lot of education credentials anyway...

[12th Doctor]

Gustaf,

I would never ask you to provide that sort of data. I know you're an intelligent and thoughtful guy without seeing your academic credentials. Just because we disagree on some issues, it doesn't mean I don't respect your intelligence and your opinions. Unlike CTGuy, you don't go around flaunting your education while telling everyone else they're morons.

Lol, thanks, I was mostly joking anyway...at the age of 16 I don't have a lot of education credentials anyway...

I often forget that you are 16, Gus.  You seem much older.