….and no,Splinky, I won't stop defending GT when folks are picking on him because they don't agree with him.
1. his debate does not hold water and he has not been able to offer any credible evidence to back up his position. the "evidence" he has offeredis flawed research and opinion/conjecture. he needs to show numbers and he hasn't done that.
2. he's getting picked on because he's turning a blind eye to the counter evidence being presented to him not because it isn't valid info, but because he doesn't like that it invalidates his position.
3. while there have been a some jabs tossed about, he has been equal party to that. i'd dare say the way he opened up this debate invited the treatment he's received.
up till now i've been somewhat neutral in this "debate". and it really isn't debate as there's no evidence on GT's (and Farmer's) counter point to make it a debate, it's all opionion. sitting on the outside with nothing invested in the topic makes it easy to see this.
does that mean i think GT is a gasbag or a bad person? no, i actually like the guy and think he's a good dude. but, he's letting his own personal beliefs get in the way of rational thought. FFS, his first retort to CS was an assumption about an assumption that wasn't even there on CS's side in the first place! the vitriol with which he replied was completely unnecessary and he could have made his point without it. what did heavy pedal say just a week or two ago, attack the position not the person?
i get what you're trying to achieve here tacklebox but this is definitely the wrong example to use.
again GT's main premise is that there are too many lazy people sucking the gov't dry of it's money. he has brought ZERO evidence to support that while many of the others have brought evidence to supprt their position which is opposite his. the rest of the thread is just garbage name calling.