OCinBuffalo

Well, this I can say for certain: Mitt would have been fired at Boston Consulting Group, long BEFORE he was asked by the ex-partners from BCG to join Bain, if he wasn't made of the right material or wasn't a good convincer. That's cause I know BCG quite well. If Romney wasn't material, he would have been gone in the first month. One of our rules is: NEVER let anyone know what you truly think. It's not your job to tell the client what you truly think about them, their business, the industry in general, etc. Who cares what you think anyway? Your job is to figure out what they need to hear, so that the project can be effective, and so that they can be effective, like a coach does. It does no good to take the focus off the problems and the client, and put it on you, or where you "stand". You aren't getting paid for grandiose opinions, you are getting paid for results. Why else do you think I come here? This is where I get to espouse my grandiose opinions. I have to think a lot of that governs Mitt's approach. Therefore, I don't see what you are saying as anything other than what we call "as expected". I fully expect Romney to get the results that the client engaged him to deliver(um, state-run health care in Massachusetts for example), while ensuring that no one knows where he truly stands. For us, that's merely called "performing up to standard". See, we don't do "best results possible", like lawyers. Or "results based on strict conformance to some preconceived notion/ideology". We only do results...as engaged, that you cannot get anywhere else because they simply don't have the grey matter to see it and then the implementation skills, part of which are political, to do it. See? Getting the right job done right for the client is what this is all about. What is the right job? Depends on the client, doesn't it? EDIT: I don't know why Mitt doesn't just come out and say this....but, if he did, he'd be breaking another rule: We don't talk about the how with clients, only the what, when, where, why, etc..

You can't possibly "know business" if you start out by defining "business experience", and business people, homogeneously. The point that is lost on Juror#8 most egregiously? Mitt Romney is a real consultant. Not some turd who has added the word "consultant" to the end of his/her non-consulting job = sales consultant, hair consultant. Unlike most politicians, consultants aren't merely lawyers, so they don't have a little room where they force the people they disagree with to go, and B word to guy whose only job is to listen to them, make a fair decision, and whose decision will be absolutely enforced going forward, or the threat of that. They don't have a set of rules that everybody has to follow or they risk losing money, going to jail, etc. No. Consultants have no such luxuries, and the good ones would never consider availing themselves of them if they did. They must "work through other people" none of whom work for them, and most of whom they start out with having a 2 strikes against relationship through no fault of their own. Ultimately a consultant has to be an elite convincer, not merely a coercer who can threaten people with their little room and their rules, and that's a much harder job. Anybody can say "I'll go tell the teacher". It's the kid who doesn't even recognize or present that as an option that has the superior skills, especially political. So, the notion that a trained and obviously successful management consultant's experience...is somehow a liability, in of all things....politics? When that's job #1 in management consulting? Yeah, that's highly absurd.

No, again, there's no argument here. You've already lost. There used to be an argument, but "it's all over now!" (love it when I can throw in a Stones quote) The only thing I am doing in this thread, is mocking the FUTILITY which is crying out to be mocked. You are new here so you aren't aware that FUTILITY is a constant theme for me. As in, the dishonorable tactics the left chooses to employ ALWAYS come back to squish them in the end, worse than if they had done nothing, or been straightforward. This is hysterical for any objective observer. You don't seem to get that, and despite Tom's annoyances and distractions, I feel I have succeeded in demonstrating, again, just how phony the self-righteous left is. I mean, a guy who is in charge, not just speaks, but is in charge of overseeing scientific ETHICS, lying, stealing and cheating? F'ing hysterical. Edit: and it's not schadenfreude...because they are intentionally doing it to themselves! Clearly you don't understand the concept of groupthink. IF groupthink was defined as everybodythink, then your political climate point would be valid. But, it's not, so your point is, by definition, ludicrous. Was everybody in charge of the Bay of Pigs? No, a group of people were. Just like everybody wasn't in charge of Global Warming. The definition of groupthink depends upon a GROUP of people, not all people. When a group of people fully commit themselves to and idea, and purposely attack all views and claims that come from OUTSIDE of the group, because they have chosen to lose their objectivity....that is when we see groupthink in action. It doesn't wash if everybody is in the group and their is no "outside" views. Get it? Now, short of me having to lmgtfy.com groupthink for you, it's far past time that you actually learned the concept properly for yourself.

Now I have to respond to this... I want you to know that you are keeping me from booze. Yes, and the President doesn't have " direct ways to get rid of, or minimize the influence of, the people who aren't buying in to his vision."? Um, as much as we'd like to think the branches are equal....not so much. You think a popular President can't make serious trouble for a specific Rep. in their district? Like suddenly having the OIG audit all Federal dollars flowing in there, and thereby holding up the entire process, and getting those who want go gain favor to pin it all on the Rep.? You think a Senator can't be taken out? Look at Arlen Spector: and all he did was threaten to trifle with Bush's SCOTUS nominees. Look at what almost happened to Joe Lieberman, and look what Obama is still trying to do to him. The point is, depending upon both the offense given, and the amount of political capital in their account, it's possible for both CEOs and Presidents to get rid of the offender. But it costs, sometimes a lot, to do it right. Usually that cost outweighs the benefit, and more likely you are stuck working with who you have. Sure there are certain people in Congress that aren't touchable, that doesn't mean all of them aren't. Actually most of them are. That's the flaw in your thinking: treating everyone in "Congress" as though they are the same. And, I assure you, that flaw in your thinking has nothing to do with my ego. Now, the real question is: are you going to admit that your thinking is flawed? And, honestly I don't really care whether you now walk it back. Now, its on to the bar. I'll check back tomorrow and see if you still think Nancy Pelosi = some 1st term Rep from the suburbs of Philly who won by 1%.

Shh. Just sit back, crack one and don't Fing ruin it for me, Mr. "The teacher leaves me in charge when she goes pee".... Actually, it's probably already Fed. Time to go out anyway....hopefully BF2 will provide....

A warming trend, or a man-made warming trend? Based on putting thermometers on the tops of buildings near roofing tar and in parking lots on asphalt? Why was that done? Was there any effort to control for that? What possible motivation besides cooking the data, literally, was there for that? But even if we assume the data was collected properly, the issue here the extension of a possible trend, into an obvious fabrication, into immediate political action. If I am a "denier", WTF am I denying? It's kinda hard to pin down when what you are claiming keeps changing, isn't it? I'll make it easy for you: I am denying that you and every other "warmist" have any credibility on this issue, and will continue, rightly, denying it until you prove otherwise. You have seen fit to cash in your benefit of the doubt and/or "just in case" status. That was a choice, and it has consequences. Thanks for the narrative from 2005 there buddy, is Pope John Paul still dead? I am sorry, but it's 2012 and here's the news: a large and growing number of scientists have now either reversed their position on man-made global warming or are now actively debunking it. In fact, there never was a "consensus", and that never mattered anyway, as the 16 climate scientists in the WSJ op ed accurately point out: science is not a democratic activity. Or, as DC_Tom demonstrates on a daily basis, it's also not a popularity contest. That you think you need to talk in terms of "all the world's climatologists" was the very thing that first set off my BS radar in 2005. If you are right, you don't need to try and peer pressure me into believing you. Do you think I give even the tiniest crap about what anybody else thinks when I know I am right? Nope. Why would I? See, those of us with a lot of experience being right in contentious situations, and winning because it's literally our job? We know you're full of ****. We don't need the details, we can play it blind. When we're right, all we have to do is state our case, sit back, smile and wait. Soon the other guy will trip into proving themselves wrong. It's absolutely about confidence, but it also requires actually being right, or, mostly right anyway. When you have to resort to "everybody's doing it"? We know-->you don't have it. You'll stay away, because you have no chance proving otherwise. Hey, you're the one talking in terms of "all the world's climatologists", and then telling me that isn't a text book case for potential groupthink...at the same time. Nice. Remember that part about tripping and proving themselves wrong? Oh, don't misinterpret, it's absolutely satire.... ....it's just that, you can't get the joke. Wait.....can't or won't? Hmmmm What is a timestamp? Do you know? EDIT: Believing you are clever, when in fact you are an unmitigated moron. Isn't that how we ended up with Obamacare? Didn't the Democrats "cleverly" pass it by "cleverly" circumventing Scott Brown's election? Then "cleverly" give all their constituencies and donors waivers, but then get caught? Weren't they being "clever" when they convinced themselves that it would become popular, once we all saw just how "clever" it was? See, if we merely replace "clever" with "stupid", we get the accurate picture of exactly how the Democrats got here. Ipso facto the belief that they are clever, when in fact they are idiots.

No, it's not that complex at all.... I just broke it down into it's most basic components so that even BF Round 2 could understand it. But that's just it. My theory is dependent upon the fundamental delusion of the far left: that are endlessly clever, when the reality is that they are in fact endlessly stupid. That is the most likely explanation of how a supposed McArthur genius...is tripped up by a F'ing timestamp. And, clearly my dependency has plenty of data to support it. You might even say it's: incontrovertible. Is it not? Seriously, well, as serious as I can say this without laughing....no I can't. It's just too funny. It's catalyzed hubris, and the best part is when they try to play it off like the 8th grade girls they are. I have another thought: that McArthur money would have been better spent on you, studying anything, to include 8th grade girls. Certainly you can conceive a timestamp. It's exactly like what happened with the Democratic momentum from 2006, the most likely explanation for blowing the massive lead they had is most certainly them being endlessly stupid. Same thing with the Global Warmists. At one point they even had Newt F'ing Gingrich buying in(um, example of a political type, being a political type), the only way you go from that, to where they are now, is if both they and what they are saying, are endlessly stupid. There's no other explanation that even approaches it....

I have respect for beer!

Specifics. ??? How is it the exact opposite. Heh. This should be good. In fact I can't wait. Not a situation where it would apply.....hysterical! How is that? I feel like Ricky Gervais waiting for what is about to come out of his idiot friend's mouth. Please, don't disappoint. Here, I'll help you: Which is more likely: that we actually have the data to accurately determine, incontrovertibly I might add, than man causes global warming, and that the missing heat is hiding at the bottom of sea -or- that the above corruption and collusion occurred for both monetary and political gain? ------------------------------ After that fun is over, here's my next post in advance..... Even if we assume that everyone is innocent in this, and that their intentions were 100% noble and selfless, which would of course necessitate that we throw out the Climategate emails, and a guy getting caught red handed stealing and lying in an effort to create an anti-Climategate, even if we deny that reality.....are you telling me you aren't aware of the concept of "groupthink"? Let's pretend that you are a serious person. IF that is so, your assignment is to look up The Bay of Pigs and The Challenger Disaster. This is what happens when we consider our ideas good on the sole basis that we thought of them. It is also what happens when all contradictory evidence and warnings that what we believe isn't so, are ignored, because we have irrationally deemed what we believe to be....incontrovertible, and then have seen fit to bet all our chips upon it. Now, even if we put aside all the batshit crazy, and immoral activity from the left on this...which is more likely: The first thing above.... -or- once again we are seeing the effects of groupthink?

Faulty comparison. The reality is: you are fooling yourselves if you believe CEOs firing their upper managers is any easier than firing Congress. CEOs are not some monolithic, all powerful thing. That is is myth. Most of the ones I have met are simply a person trying to do a job that's different than yours. Often the politics involved are just as brutal, usually they are worse, and, CEOs don't get to use the media to make their case. Now of course a CEO can fire a low-mid level employee, but so can a President. I have seen CEOs that are merely the mutually agreed upon person that the largest coalition of upper level managers have determined is acceptable. In that case, the CEO is absolutely a political position, mostly a referee, and they can forget about making hiring and firing decisions. Even when the person has the full power of the office, the only time CEOs can really fire people is when they first take the job. After that, firing the people they have chosen, or didn't think to check out, only serves to make them look like they don't know how to manage. That's why you see major house cleanings when new CEOs come in, even when they aren't warranted. The new CEO simply doesn't want to take any chances, because this is their only chance. And, let's not forget about the board. The President doesn't have a board to answer to. As in, a small group of people who are not short on self-esteem, whose presence on the board is rarely due to their ability to be CEO-->that's why they are paying the CEO. This small group can create chaos at the drop of a hat, and then blame the CEO for not cleaning up their mess. Most CEOs must deal with people that the board forces on them. Many times these people's only loyalty is the to the board member that inserted them. And, CEOs also have to deal with people who either have critical knowledge or political support from the group they represent, who therefore cannot be fired under any circumstance. Fixing this problem has become part of my scope more than once. This way, it's our fault when the annoying, insubordinate VP is separated, not the CEO's. But, even that takes months/a year. Get it? So please, if we are going to make comparisons between real business CEOs(um, not owners of car dealerships, and bars ), and the President, let's at least endeavor to do it properly. Moreover, Romney was a management consultant at BCG. So, I know he knows how to deal with people in large organizations. Unfortunately, even on the best of projects, 60% of what we do is politics. So, talking in terms of Romney's kind of business experience being a liability in politics is far past ridiculous. And, as a management consultant, I have spent the better part of my career dealing with/walking back the outdated, and often absurd, Lee Iocca thinking that most of the baby boomers espouse. Go ahead and bring your TQM in my direction, and you will leave that meeting with your ass shredded.

"I have respect for beer. I have respect for beer! "

I used to date a hipster chick, whose other job was wine manager for an eclectic restaurant in Philly. Needless to say I learned more about the industry than I ever wanted to, but, I basically drank myself silly for nearly free while this was going on, so it wasn't all bad. The major downside was: you could not go to dinner with this girl without rigamarole. Endless issues. This wasn't right, that wasn't right. That other server was being a B word, ours knows what she's doing but she's lazy, everybody hates the manager, etc. Initially it was sorta interesting, in an "inside baseball" kinda way, but it gets old, quick, when somebody keeps sending your food back, but, at the same time, has no issue with her plate being dirty...because it's been sanitized...whatever the F that means. As you know: I am about root causes. So, one dinner, before thinking I stupidly spouted this very idea. After all, the server had been acting retarded, but the food was quite good. I then proceeded to spend an embarrassing hour cursing myself while unmitigated hipster moron tried to implement my bright idea. She ended up getting tossed. Cussing out the manager didn't help. The lesson was: "never get out of the boat". I now happily go along with the rules, because I find tipping well gets you unexpected treats over the long term.

As Tom said, it's conjecture at best. But if we are objective, all the evidence points to: 1. A small group of scientists stumbled upon a convenient theory that not only had the right amount of scare factor to garner lots of money for research, it offered a political opportunity. 2. They used that money to solidify their positions in the scientific community because hey, he who makes the rain gets the fellowship at the university. 3. They used their newly gained position to gain even more money, word got around amongst the political types who give the money, and now these scientistd were able to bully other scientists 4. Some of the political types, being political types, recognized the political opportunity. 5. And so, they made a political deal with the scientists "give us what we want, and we will give you lots of money". 6. The political types expanded the opportunity, and other political types from other countries saw how it could be co-opted to suit their needs. 7. Meanwhile the domestic political types realized that they could gain seats and power if they could really push the theory from just a theory, to a "certainty". 8. Once this all came together, these scientists and politicians realized that the ends had become the only thing that mattered. There was too much to gain. And any means necessary, any lie, any theft, any distortion, any unfounded character attack, anything at all, became not only justified, it became...expected. Suddenly a failed Presidential candidate mattered again. Suddenly, a political party that was mostly getting killed in elections since 1980 had a chance again. Suddenly a bunch of scientists who weren't all that relevant or important, were some of the most important scientists in the country, and now celebrated as geniuses . And of course, the head of the IPCC saw a chance to make lots of money by fixing the game, which of course would allow him to begin his writing career, and let the world know about his inner sexual awesomeness. :lol: Occam's razor: based on what we know now, the above is clearly the most likely, and therefore probably correct. But, again, this is the far left we are talking about, so, not only was this doomed to fail, the ass was sure to fall out of it directly due to them doing idiotic things, and getting caught, or having them backfire. See, when you refuse to see the world as it is, it makes actually accomplishing things in the world damn near impossible. You keep tripping over stuff, bumping into things, and your thumb keeps getting stuck in your ass.

No. I like pate in some instances but this, IMHO, is gross.

Within my link, there's 2 links that the author refers to: a WSJ op ed signed by 16 climate scientists, physics guys, etc., and, their response to the attacks by warmists on the op ed. The quote comes from the response....and quotes one of the attacks. So basically its: idiot says missing global warming heat is actually hiding in the bottom of sea, in his letter--->quoted by the 16 scientists--->quoted by the RCP article-->quoted by me above. You asked for it, you got it. It's all there, all you have to do is read. How funny is it that, when confronted with the FACT that the amount of increased heat required to prove man-made global warming....is missing, the best they can do is say it's hiding at the bottom of the sea. Ahh, the far left. Their propensity towards unintentionally F'ing themselves over makes me smile every week. Perhaps I should make a cheeseburger rule, like DC_Tom, for them. Instead of cheeseburgers....what should it be?

Where's the quote that says they are only going to be off a little? Did my opinion say what was said by every single person they interviewed...or did the people who were quoted say it? Ridiculous. My opinion didn't conceive and implement this policy, nor does it have anything to do with the results that were obtained. Perhaps if they engaged me, or somebody like me-->it's not like there's a shortage of consultants in Britain, they would have avoided this failure. But, they didn't. Instead, they listened to clowns, and now they are getting clown results.

Yeah, this is a cogent analysis. Everything you said is irrelevant. The fact is that they expected X in revenue to be raised by raising the tax rates....and believe me, if they were only off by 20%....they wouldn't be coming out with a story that is obviously intended to manage expectations downward, because they know that they won't be anywhere near X. They quoted a myriad of people....where is the quote that says..."no, actually we will be right on target with out expectations, or only off by 20%?". There isn't one, is there? That means they know they are F'ed, and it's damage control time. Hint: when people are already saying whose policy it was....that tells you it's going to fail badly, and everybody is looking for a chair before the music stops.

Reading comprehension is important. It's not something I have to "admit" to....when I already clearly stated it above....didn't I? I have been saying that we should not raise taxes in a recession, or a recovery, or whatever this is....because that is based on rational expectations of what these tax increases will do to capital. We need capital, you raise taxes, you cut capital. Simple. Now, the problem is: if you spend government money, it may create some spending, but it won't create capital. It may have a short term effect on demand, especially if you can get hit the right Keynesian multipliers...but this is a short term approach. The massive, Obama, non-Keynsian Keynsian stimulus both failed to work, as expected, and, has no chance of fixing structural unemployment, also as expected. Why? Because investing in solar power companies is NOT Keynesian, therefore it has no chance of hitting the multipliers correctly. And, whatever structural jobs it creates...well? They're all gone, aren't they? Instead, it's merely venture capital minus a key factor--> the market research and due diligence that any real VC would actually perform properly prior to pulling the trigger. AND, structural problems to date have only been solved by supply side economics, as both Reagan and Clinton proved. Now imagine, if we hadn't done the stupid for the last 3 years, we'd be long recovered....and yes, we would expect a boom, at which point it would make sense to raise taxes, rates, or both, as a way to stave off inflation. So, in conclusion, the reason you haven't gotten your coveted, irrational, punishment taxation of the rich ....is directly due to the policies and people you support. Once again, the far left were in charge of all branches....and succeeded in getting exact opposite of what they intended. Nice work again, idiots.

Hmm. What about the truth that is clearly on display above? Or, are you going to tell me that somehow this is: 1. Bush's fault? 2. Not a labor party policy that has obviously failed, miserably? 3. Not predictable based on the Laffer curve? See the funny thing about proving a theory: You make a prediction based on it, and then when the data comes back that supports it, you can say that the theory has merit. This is economics, so of course we would need more cases...but that's my point, we already have them. This is simply one more example of what happens when you raise/lower taxes on "the rich" absent a solid economic basis. And, that's the best part. This is the "falsification" of the theory. If you raise taxes on the rich to exorbitant rates, you get less revenue, which proves, that if you cut them modestly, not exorbitantly, you can get more revenue. Ultimately, it's not about raising or cutting or about your stupid class warfare. The task at hand is to find the optimum rate that returns the most revenue. That's why: I'm not against raising taxes...IF AND ONLY IF....it's geared towards reaching that equilibrium....which is why Reagan/Clinton raising taxes made sense, exactly as much as Bush/JFK cutting them made sense. The difference here is: this is not some South American/Pacific Rim country that you can dismiss...this is a First World country who happens to be a financial capital of the world. You're F'ed....and you don't even know why because I doubt you understood anything I have written here.

Well, it's not like we don't have Buffalo, NY, Detroit MI, and basically every other dominated for decades by Democrats inner city as further examples of the effect of over-taxing and over-spending. I mean really, where the hell is the opinion here? 20 years ago...maybe. But now? We are way past opinion here. Oh, and speaking of Detroit....amazing that they have massively cut their state's spending, appointed managers in some cases to stop the corrupt local politicians from their endless graft...forced the state employee unions to contribute to their own benefits, cut taxes across the board and forced income taxes to be cut every year, have a strict austerity plan..... ....and now have a state budget surplus as their results. But I suppose those aren't facts, or the direct results of policies that target the problem ares and problem people, etc. 80% of Detroit's public schools cannot get a single kid to pass the ACT....and yet they f'ing dare to complain about money? Seriously, it's time to consider shutting that town down, or dividing it up into smaller cities...something. And meanwhile....what do you think spending a billion dollars on Buffalo is going to do, besides line the pockets of the same old corrupt Democratic clowns here?

Well on his way to being a conner. And to think, just a short time ago I was reluctant to put him on that list. It's hysterical that I can basically tailor a thread to the guy, notice the tense of my OP, and he walks right into it. That is...conneresque....we'll see....

:woot: No, that's what this thing called "reality" says. Or, is reality just an opinion for you? Or better, are you eternally stuck in hour #3 of an acid trip?

Raise taxes on the Rich...and end up getting a lot less revenue than expected, while pissing people off and driving investment/investors/key people out of your country thus killing growth, and ending up with even less tax revenue long term! Great Plan!!! Art Laffer....laughing at your stupidity...again. No, you really are idiots. The concept that if you over-tax people, you end up getting less revenue, not more, has been explained to you. It is not only common sense for those above the age of 13, it has been proven in the real world over and over, yet you still cannot grasp this relatively simple concept...hence you are idiots. Notice how they won't release the real numbers? Why do you think that is? Because the Brits don't want to be the latest and most irrefutable example of the Laffer curve's practical applicability. This isn't some South American country....this is the UK How many more real world examples will we need for you to get it? 3? 4? What's it going to take for you to understand first, and then accept, a concept that couldn't be more obvious? Oh, and for the twits....where's the opinion here? Hint: there isn't any. All we have is fact...."progressive" hubris-killing, irrefutable fact. Silly, silly liberal/progressive....the facts are your enemies....not mine. Yes, because....we aren't about actually solving the problem, which in this case is "the government needs more revenue". No, instead of solutions, we are only interested in our ideology. "demonstrate" "fair share" WTF? Forget about solving the problems....we have demonstrating to do!

RCP Article...or Obituary? This is hysterical. Absolutely hysterical. Many of you here have heard me say "if you want something done, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite"...right? Well, How many more examples do we need? It's quite possible that more would get done on behalf of these twits if they simply stayed home and didn't infest the streets and parks with their diseases, retarded "statements", failed attempts at manufacturing outrage, and just flat out lying, stealing and cheating. This is a scientist, with a f'ing McArthur grant no less, who oversees ethics in science....lying, stealing, and then cheating...all in a row. But we are supposed to believe that "science" is beyond question...because it's science? That's funny....sounds like the Catholic Church of the Borgias. And, how the F can a McArthur "genius" not comprehend the concept of a timestamp? I'll tell you: it's not that he didn't know about it, it's that he has such contempt for you, and is so "right", that he doesn't need to bother actually putting forth an effort in his scam, you are too stupid to know about meta-data, and, he is beyond your questions anyway. And you know what, forget this scandal thing. The real beating takes place in the WSJ op ed and especially the response: Yes, heat is being stored in the bottom of the F'ing ocean, because heat don't F'ing rise when we we are talking Global Warmin, son. It's possible for heat to be increased at the bottom...while not being increased at the top....by....F'ing magic. You know that pesky bottom...the same place where all the shovel ready/green jobs/Jimmy Hoffa/Mermaids/Sealabs are being concealed. The bottom of the ocean is of course a Republican, and gets all it's money from the Koch brothers.

Sure....all the time. The problem is: people like you don't know enough about the material to be able to distinguish my opinions from the facts I base them on. So, it all seems like a blur doesn't it? Here, I'll make it easy for you: Fact #1: There are always large #s of peasants in socialist societies. Fact #2: The per capita income in a socialist society always pales in comparison to that of free societies. (To help you along with the material...per capita means per person, so in this case we are talking income per person) See, I know the facts above are facts, because I'm educated, I have seen the data, I know how to interpret it properly, and would be able to tell if something was wrong with it...all by myself! In contrast, you have no friggin clue if the above statements are true, because you are ignorant, you wouldn't know what you were looking at even if you were presented with all of the relevant data, and therefore you are dependent on other people to tell you what your opinion should be. And that's why: everything is opinion....to you... Edit: Silly, silly, "progressive"....the facts are your enemies, not mine.