So what you're saying lilly is we should blame the radical 60's generation for destroying our culture? It really has to be one or the other. We had a great education system with high results and relatively low costs. In comes the department of education around the same time the 60's generation gets ahold of the education system and our scores falter. You can also attribute our decline to the exact moment Jesus was removed from schools. Take a look at that graph...wow it is actually quite supernatural if you ask me and I'm not incredibly religious. So either we blame 60's hippies or we blame the department of education. It just so happens that both are lefty's so it matters not because they go hand in hand. Removing DoE solves both.

*Yawn* I think it's time you went to bed Bill, your posts are quite tiresome. I would stop copying and pasting if you want people to actually take you seriously.

You do realize that many conservatives didn't like Bush's stance on global warming right? You keep pasting that thinking we will be like "oh like Bush? Okay, fine with me!", when we really didn't like his stance.

I know, usually...just take a look at all the conversations in here I ignored. Why waste my time on someone that isn't worth it? I come here to learn, not argue. I hope each day that I find a conversation that has Mo(or some other smart conservative/libertarian around here) arguing some intellectual liberal that can actually add to the conversation. When possible I will add my thoughts on the conversation and see if they can be triumphed by logic from the other side. A liberal around here named Thomas was fun to debate because we both brought things into question. But, you for example do not come here to discuss, but to play gotcha and you rarely add anything to the discussion.

And he's back again to prove my point...here I'll go slow here for ya Munck. Below somebody was showing how this is hurting the risk/reward factor for the dividends: "Why should government get 31.4% and shareholders get only 2.4%. Shareholders are at risk. For example, look at the stock market volitility. " Being the all-knowing liberal you are, your retort was: "Exxon is rated AAA by S&P. " So you used the S&P rating to prove your own point, but here above you distance yourself from it because it didn't suit your needs. Doublespeak. I honestly couldn't care less about your debating, but I usually just skip your stuff now.

The poor? I know plenty of them and pretty much all of them are poor by choice. They receive lots of government help and yet each weekday morning my family has 5 people waking up to go to work and they have none. You're telling me in this country, the most prosperous country, that is the best they can do? Why waste our time talking about someone who doesn't want to help themselves, doesn't create jobs, doesn't add anything to society, when we can show how businesses do all of the above and are penalized for it?

See what I mean? The point at hand is never what he will cover unless he can find some loophole to shove in some worthless point. When anything gets twisted around on him, suddenly he can't comprehend english and any small misunderstanding is what he focuses on. In this case his double speak is what got him in trouble so he justifies it by pointing at S&P. Really he is worthless to debate anymore because he offers nothing to debate. It is always some gotcha moment and never well thought out to boot.

Er, switch that imply and infer haha. Typed that fast.

Munck is always arguing like this. He infers something then backs out when we imply exactly what he was inferring. Down below when questioning the risk, he essentially says they are risk free because S&P graded them AAA, but then when a point it brought up making fun of his statement he says "So you agree that it was S&P that rated Exxon, not me." It's always the same with him...might as well argue grammar, it'll get you just as far.

Ah, so Munck likes Apple because they are his kind of people. It's kind of like the tolerance from the left. They are the most tolerant people around, unless you disagree with them. Exxon just happens to do something Munck despises, they sell oil, so to him they must be evil.