Applying "truth in advertising" to obamacare

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

The bill was ultimately defeated but only after the justices had already conceded. I wish I still had my term paper I wrote on this when I was still a history major (Originally I was a double major in history and biochemestry until I realized I couldn't afford the debt of med school and changed to Nursing). I had a lot more documentation and original sources cited than this Wikipedia source. But on short notice this is the best I can do. My original paper took me three months to research.

Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some clarification from my last response--The entire act was not repealed, only portions of it--

from Wiki--

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[2][3]

[Guest 3pugguy]

Just as a little history lesson, I will tell the story of how these programs became "constitutional".

Roosevelt's "New Deal" was losing badly in the SCOTUS, basically every decision that was handed down. So FDR had a plan.

The US Constitution does not spell out the number of justices on the SCOTUS. So he proposed to keep adding justices until he could completely overule the court. Unfortunately, the Senate (highly dominated by Democrats) was willing to go along with this plan.

So, SCOTUS met with FDR and negotiated their decisions away to prevent this from coming to fruition. So, now all the decisions, not so suprisingly, started to go FDR's way. These cases, which were being decided by a blackmailed court, started setting precedent. Those decisions and their derivatives are still being used by the courts today.

So, when liberals talk about constitutionality of laws, such as Social Security, it has to be seen in light of the fact that it would have been declared unconstutional by an un-blackmailed court.

Here is another reference for the Judicial Reform (fyi, Wiki is generally not allowed as a ref for for school papers - and no, I am really not trying to be a jerk.)

Second Franklin Roosevelt Administration

I finished an MA last year and had that hammered into me when doing my thesis (talk about getting a barb eneman - crikey, write, rewrite, resubmit, get it reviewed...when it finally was accepted and considered satisfactory, it was like I won a prize.

You really peaked my interest with that information and please accept my thanks for bringing up FDR's actions for us to read about - it puts current events in a new light and again, appreciate your research and pointing it out.

And btw, also please accept thanks for earlier posts in this thread on "real world" medical issues from the medical professional perspective. I obviously cannot write for others, but I really appreciate input from those on the front lines of issues - be it medicine, law enforcement, military, etc.

Edited September 8, 2009 by 3pugguy

[Steelharp]

wiki is the least reliable source for anything because of the open editing parameters.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Best of luck with that. If nothing else, use it as a chance to understand how the opposition "thinks".

You are certainly welcome to participate in the discussions here, but please keep the "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric to a minimum, please. I understand the emotion, but it really does no good here.

Remember, this sub-forum is for "discussion and friendly debate about national and political issues."... it's not so people can thump your chest and let us know how tough your are, or try to shout down opposing viewpoints, no matter how much you disagree with them.

As long as an argument is showcased in a friendly manner, without personal attacks it will be allowed to persist. If you wish to

'defeat it', then use facts, logic and other friendly debate tools.

Remember, sometimes, heck, probably MOST of the time, we will end up having to agree to disagree... however, if you are only happy if you are declared the "winner", and anyone who disagrees is the enemy, then I am afraid you may find your stay in this portion of the forums short lived.

I hope everyone has a happy Labor Day!

+1

And because I know you are dying to know, my Labor Day was full of labor - thought it was going to rain, so I rushed to get things done. No rain, but glad to get things accomplished and feel I did something good with my time away from my regular job.

Hope your Labor Day was enjoyable and safe.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread (hijack over).

[Guest 3pugguy]

Heck, first start in the right direction - people on the dole don't get a vote. That might start reversing the trend of voting ever expanded and larger 'entitlements' Why the heck are they 'entitled' to what they never earned in the first place, anyway? What could possibly entitle me to the fruit of your labors, friend?

I have heard more than once people say (and these are people of many races but generally young - late teens to twenty somethings) they have no money and they don't know how they will take care of their kids (the people are often unmarried and/or a single parent who was not married to the mother or father).

When questioned on what type of work they do or did, the response all too often imho is - oh, I don't work; well, how do your survive. Because I am on ________ (fill in the gov't assitance program of your choice - Section 8 housing, etc).

I would be happy if these folks would quit having babies; the innocent child will be the one who suffers and has no understanding of why they are going without (and I DO NOT advocate not feeding kids and teaching them to read, get them in school, etc). I want the people who are having unprotected sex to get a clue and quit making babies.

I recall from a college course years ago that one of the BEST birth control methods they found (this was in a third world country, where women were held in low esteem) was EDUCATION for the women (and girls).

Otherwise, we have a cycle that is often repeated and the results are there for all of us to see.

That is why so often I think we are looking up the wrong end of the horse as a country and our ideas for helping are focusing on effect and not at all on cause.

Brief note, but that is my

And they can vote? Freedoms, I know, have to apply equally, but these are people who I would be a thousand dollars against a donut, couldn't label their own state on a blank US map.

[Guest 3pugguy]

wiki is the least reliable source for anything because of the open editing parameters.

yeah, my advisor made that painfully clear to us in our grad courses. One of the recent Jeopardy Tournanment of Champions said she was on there and the folks at wiki allowed her entry to remain.

But the info tntnixon put up is right I am sure - he is very on point about things, imho; but I was very interested when i read that and did some more searching. My ref is very thin.

I plan to go into our university online library and do some more research now for my own edification; it's down for maintenance over this holiday weekend.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Hear, hear!

+1 on the hear hear...

I would begrudge no hungry person a meal or sick person a medicine; but let's not confuse what is compassion with what is a right or a constitutional mandate.

[Mark@Sea]

I recall from a college course years ago that one of the BEST birth control methods they found (this was in a third world country, where women were held in low esteem) was EDUCATION for the women (and girls).

Here's a thought; How about we stop financially rewarding women for being unwed mothers?

It has been noted that if you pay for something, you tend to get more of it. Until the gov't, in its' infinite wisdom, decided to pay young girls for having children out of wedlock (and continuing said payments for only as long as the mother remained unwed, and the 'father' refrained from joining the household), unwed mothers were a) frowned upon by society and rare.

When the system changed their status from pariah to paycheck, the practice of having children out (way, way out) of wedlock bloomed. Nowadays hearing of very, very young girls having children in order to get that government bounty is rather common.

Fancy that...

[Guest thorn]

Here's a thought; How about we stop financially rewarding women for being unwed mothers?

It has been noted that if you pay for something, you tend to get more of it. Until the gov't, in its' infinite wisdom, decided to pay young girls for having children out of wedlock (and continuing said payments for only as long as the mother remained unwed, and the 'father' refrained from joining the household), unwed mothers were a) frowned upon by society and rare.

When the system changed their status from pariah to paycheck, the practice of having children out (way, way out) of wedlock bloomed. Nowadays hearing of very, very young girls having children in order to get that government bounty is rather common.

Fancy that...

I have a really good friend who grew up in St. Louis he's in his late 50's lifelong Democrat union guy; just like his father. Anyway we had this very conversation and in his open honesty admitted that that is why we need abortion. I'm telling you, you can't make this stuff up.

[Steelharp]

The only abortion I'm in favor of is retro-active; after someone has proven they're a pos.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Here's a thought; How about we stop financially rewarding women for being unwed mothers?

It has been noted that if you pay for something, you tend to get more of it. Until the gov't, in its' infinite wisdom, decided to pay young girls for having children out of wedlock (and continuing said payments for only as long as the mother remained unwed, and the 'father' refrained from joining the household), unwed mothers were a) frowned upon by society and rare.

When the system changed their status from pariah to paycheck, the practice of having children out (way, way out) of wedlock bloomed. Nowadays hearing of very, very young girls having children in order to get that government bounty is rather common.

Fancy that...

I've long wondered why the fathers aren't held financially responsible for these children. I suppose in the past it wasn't possible to determine with certainty if someone was the father of a child, but with DNA testing it is absolutely. In cases (probably most) where the father has no money he could be forced to pay into the system later if and when he does have money. This might do wonders to encourage young males to use contraception.

[Mark@Sea]

I've long wondered why the fathers aren't held financially responsible for these children. I suppose in the past it wasn't possible to determine with certainty if someone was the father of a child, but with DNA testing it is absolutely. In cases (probably most) where the father has no money he could be forced to pay into the system later if and when he does have money. This might do wonders to encourage young males to use contraception.

Ralph, are you missing the point on purpose, or are you a democrat?

(As an aside, your jabs at Fox News are particularly hilarious today, when it turns out the other networks and such liberal giants as the NYT mentioned the Van Jones controversy not once until after his resignation - and even now those who get their news solely from those sources are liable to be a bit puzzled about the affair. Liberals hate Fox because unfiltered, un-massaged facts disrupt their worldview).

Forcing 'fathers' to "pay into the system" just makes a bad idea slightly more financially palatable. You still have the root problem - unwed women bearing children for the sole purpose of jumping on the government gravy train. Young children being raised, if you can call it that, in single-parent homes because if the 'father' is part of the household then the payola stops. Only now, there would be the added bonus of loss of privacy and an expanded-once-again bureacracy in order to track the sperm donors and force them to contribute financially to a system which denies them any other attribute of fatherhood.

Myriad government social programs with (perhaps not so) unintended consequences. All of which turned small problems into disasters. Now letting the gov't 'fix' the best healthcare in the world is a good idea? Not to mention the financial hole these social programs have dug. Every "healthcare reform" proposal I've yet seen would put turbochargers on the steam shovels.

"It has never worked before, so lets do it again harder" isn't a recipe for sucess. It is a diagnosis of insanity. Obama as the "reverend" Jones, and the democrat party as the ushers passing the kool-aid...

If you are so enthralled with socialist healthcare, there are many examples of it in the world. Try Cuba. You'll probably die of something very treatable, but at least you can enjoy the cigars and senoritas before you go. I just want you to stop trying to drag me, my country and culture with you in this suicidal plunge.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Ralph, are you missing the point on purpose, or are you a democrat?

(As an aside, your jabs at Fox News are particularly hilarious today, when it turns out the other networks and such liberal giants as the NYT mentioned the Van Jones controversy not once until after his resignation - and even now those who get their news solely from those sources are liable to be a bit puzzled about the affair.

>>>What does the Van Jones controversy consist of other than the discovery that he signed a petition of some kind expressing suspicion that the Bush administration had something to do with 911--a feeling shared by many on the far right? That's a little bit looney so he was fired....end of story.

Liberals hate Fox because unfiltered, un-massaged facts disrupt their worldview).

>>>What other news sources do you get? If you really beileve Fox doesn't have a rightwing bias there's no point in arguing with you.

I believe to arrive at the truth about things you have to listen to both sides and use your own judgement, but to each his own.

Forcing 'fathers' to "pay into the system" just makes a bad idea slightly more financially palatable. You still have the root problem - unwed women bearing children for the sole purpose of jumping on the government gravy train.

>>>Then anything that would reduce the number of unwed women is a good thing right? It seems logical that if young males knew there would be consequences for their actions there'd be fewer babies. What about putting them in the military if they can't pay child support? Some consequences would be a deterrent. I find it hard to believe that most out of wedlock pregnancies are planned for the purpose of getting on the "gravy train." The gravy train ain't that comfortable. I think it's more likely because of ignorance, carelessness, inadequate access to birth control though no doubt you're right in some instances.

Young children being raised, if you can call it that, in single-parent homes because if the 'father' is part of the household then the payola stops.

>>>What's your solution?

Myriad government social programs with (perhaps not so) unintended consequences. All of which turned small problems into disasters. Now letting the gov't 'fix' the best healthcare in the world is a good idea?

>>>What's your basis for contending we have "the best healthcare in the world?" Certainly not in terms of access.

Not to mention the financial hole these social programs have dug. Every "healthcare reform" proposal I've yet seen would put turbochargers on the steam shovels.

>>>Example?

"It has never worked before, so lets do it again harder" isn't a recipe for sucess. It is a diagnosis of insanity. Obama as the "reverend" Jones, and the democrat party as the ushers passing the kool-aid...

>>>You must not be a Democrat:) What's your favorite flavor?

If you are so enthralled with socialist healthcare, there are many examples of it in the world. Try Cuba. You'll probably die of something very treatable, but at least you can enjoy the cigars and senoritas before you go. I just want you to stop trying to drag me, my country and culture with you in this suicidal plunge.

>>>I'll bet you've never seen "Sicko." Moore takes 911 rescue workers denied treatment here to Cuba where they get first class care--for free.

Mark, you're WAY too worried about what in the end is going to be a few common-sense changes to the way insurance companies are regulated--portability, interstate access, no denial for pre-existing conditions, no dropping you when you get sick. The Senate bill doesn't even have a public option so "socialist healthcare" is off the table.

Do you have health insurance?

Hope your day improves.

[Mark@Sea]

I'll bet you've never seen "Sicko." Moore takes 911 rescue workers denied treatment here to Cuba where they get first class care--for free.

Ralph, if you're using a Michael Moore film as a reference, you may want to reconsider. Seriously. I'd rather be hated than ridiculed.

Dude, really, tell me that was tongue in cheek.

My solution to unwed mothers? Well, its' pretty complicated... a government program turned an admittedly sad but small problem into a huge expensive problem. What could we possibly do about this? Its' a mystery to me. As long as women have a choice between paid unwed motherhood, and unpaid marriage or work, I suspect the problem will continue to expand.

Force the deadbeats to join the military? Ralph, contrary to whatever thoughts you hold dear about the US military, they are proud professionals, every one a volunteer, many with better skills and education than, say, your average musician. Why would you force them to accept and work with those hypothetical losers? Do you really dislike them that much?

On the other hand, why should a man be forced to provide child support when dear old mom doesn't want him there to start with? She was just looking for a sperm donor for her investment fund, you might say... Once she gets a successful deposit, the 'deadbeat' has to leave. Otherwise, she doesn't get that government green. Why blame that entirely on the male? Heck, why blame it on the male at all?

Best health care in the world in terms of actually providing care. If all you want is access, try Canada, try Great Britain - they have 'access' out the wazoo, for all the good it does them. Call your local cancer clinic, for example, and ask them how many foreign patients they have at the moment.

As for your request for examples of healthcare proposals worsening the public debt, I would ask you to refer to the Congressional Budget Office.

Really, if you have to have me provide a reference for acknowledged facts (like, say, gravity) then you aren't really interested in honest debate as such - and to be frank, I don't like you enough for banter.

[Steelharp]

Liberals hate Fox because unfiltered, un-massaged facts disrupt their worldview).

What other news sources do you get? If you really beileve Fox doesn't have a rightwing bias there's no point in arguing with you.

I believe to arrive at the truth about things you have to listen to both sides and use your own judgement, but to each his own.

Which is exactly what Fox does, the only network that shows both sides. Because they don't pander to the left, it's typical for folks like you to see it as "right wing bias." They're the only ones that don't pass the pablum. Yes, there are "right wing" folks on there, but there are also "left wing" folks. I challenge you to find a "right wing" personality on any of the other news outlets.

[Mark@Sea]

CK1, first, if you have a link, reference or source for your position on Fox News, please post it. Note, said reference should be credible.

Second, given the Rasmussen poll results below, would you care to re-examine your statement

"Thankfully the majority of the country disagrees with the current right-wing anti-progress conflict-mongering..."

Third, your

where the heck was all this political uproar over the last 8 years?! Nowhere...

I will kindly assume you've been in a coma or some dark corner of the earth where no cable TV, internet or newspapers were available rather than draw from that remark the conclusion it so richly deserves.

Finally,

Please stop pretending all this right-wing uproar isn't about what it really is, good old fashioned racism.

I'm interested in how you get from point A (people dislike socialism) to point B (people are racist). As your math teacher used to say, please show your work.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest Hyaloid]

Knock it off with the calls of racism... debate the issues or get the heck out of this forum.

[USMCJG]

Knock it off with the calls of racism... debate the issues or get the heck out of this forum.

Sorry Hyaloid, I shouldn't have risen to the bait. Apologies all around.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Sorry Hyaloid, I shouldn't have risen to the bait. Apologies all around.

I understand the emotion, really I do... thanks for the apology, now let's forget it and move on to the issues at hand!

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Liberals hate Fox because unfiltered, un-massaged facts disrupt their worldview).

What other news sources do you get? If you really beileve Fox doesn't have a rightwing bias there's no point in arguing with you.

I believe to arrive at the truth about things you have to listen to both sides and use your own judgement, but to each his own.

Which is exactly what Fox does, the only network that shows both sides.

>>>To be fair (and balanced), their straight news coverage is generally pretty much down the middle. It's the opinion shows where the one-sided propaganda really shines.

Because they don't pander to the left, it's typical for folks like you to see it as "right wing bias." They're the only ones that don't pass the pablum.

>>>Google Roger Ailes. They pander to the right with hot, steaming bowls of rightwing pablum on ALL their opinion shows. O'reilly shouts down the few liberals he hosts when they start winning the debate.

Yes, there are "right wing" folks on there, but there are also "left wing" folks.

>>>You call Alan Colmes "left wing?" Gimme a break. Their idea of balance is to find the most unattractive, wimpy, pathetic, milquetoast, intellectual lightweight available to represent the left. That's like if MSNBC would only have "Log Cabin" Republicans on their shows.

I challenge you to find a "right wing" personality on any of the other news outlets.

>>>You're way off there. I'm watching Pat Buchanan on Hardball right now--he's a regular. Matthews and Maddow have hardcore righties on all the time! Matthews did a respectful interview with the guy who brought a gun to the Obama rally a couple weeks ago. If you want to see some real, intelligent debate, watch MSNBC. Then there's Lou Dobbs, whatever the hell he is. The big three network evening news anchors are scared to death of alienating anyone and can't be called liberal or conservative--just useless. It boils down to intellectual honesty--sometimes the facts are liberal, sometimes they're conservative. I just want to know what the truth is.

Best

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Ralph, if you're using a Michael Moore film as a reference, you may want to reconsider. Seriously. I'd rather be hated than ridiculed.

>>>So, you haven't seen it then. Guess you can't speak about it knowledeably. The only thing you know about it is that you don't like Michael Moore.

Force the deadbeats to join the military? Ralph, contrary to whatever thoughts you hold dear about the US military, they are proud professionals, every one a volunteer, many with better skills and education than, say, your average musician.

>>>For God's sake I hope they're better educated than the average musician!

Haven't you noticed? The army has relaxed its standards considerably in the past few years. They pretty much take anybody who can walk without crapping their pants.

Why would you force them to accept and work with those hypothetical losers? Do you really dislike them that much?

>>>I don't dislike them at all. I admire and respect them. It's not their fault their former Commander in chief was an idiot. Build your straw man somewhere else.

On the other hand, why should a man be forced to provide child support when dear old mom doesn't want him there to start with? She was just looking for a sperm donor for her investment fund, you might say... Once she gets a successful deposit, the 'deadbeat' has to leave. Otherwise, she doesn't get that government green.

>>>Just how much do you think welfare pays anyhow?

Why blame that entirely on the male? Heck, why blame it on the male at all?

>>>I guess we need to protect all those "hypothetical losers."

Do I detect an air of male chauvinism here?

Best health care in the world in terms of actually providing care. If all you want is access, try Canada, try Great Britain - they have 'access' out the wazoo, for all the good it does them. Call your local cancer clinic, for example, and ask them how many foreign patients they have at the moment.

>>>How many people from Canada or Europe have you actually talked to about their experiences with healthcare? I've talked to a bunch of them and they all think it's nuts that we don't have some kind of universal coverage. Again I ask....do you have health insurance?

As for your request for examples of healthcare proposals worsening the public debt, I would ask you to refer to the Congressional Budget Office.

>>> From the CBO report on healthcare--

5

CBO

Significant savings seem possible because the available evidence implies that a

substantial share of spending on health care contributes little if anything to the

overall health of the nation. Therefore, experts generally agree that changes in

government policy have the potential to produce substantial savings in both

national and federal spending on health care without harming health. However,

turningthatpotentialintorealityinasectorthataccountsforone-sixthoftheU.S.

economyislikelytobeaprolongedanddifficultprocess.

Whatever...

RBG

[Mark@Sea]

Facts are neither liberal nor conservative. They may support ones' beliefs, or contradict them.

Not sure what post Ralph is quoting, but we've established that opinion shows are opinionated. We can, if necessary, demonstrate that other than Fox, the mainstream media are either selectively blind or are actively covering for the current administration.

Great. Lets' get back to the healthcare debate, shall we? In our last episode, Ralph was attempting to use a Michael Moore "mocumentary" as a credible source for the quality of socialist healthcare. Michael Moores' films have been extensively debunked by many sources; claiming his films are credible is a testament to the ability of the human mind to ignore contradictory facts.

Okay, in response I'll post a link to a Times article demonstrating the greater efficiency of a government-controlled healthcare system when it comes to handling patient complaints;

“The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.â€

Question a doctor and lose your child - Times Online

Maybe not such a great endorsement for government healthcare, if you're approaching from the 'quality of care' angle, but certainly a testimony to the ability of a bureacracy to cover its' ass. Again, why is government-controlled healthcare such a great idea?

And Ralph, to answer one of your off-topic questions, welfare demonstrably pays enough to allow a woman who has never worked a day in her life to afford a Cadillac escalade in the driveway and a 72 inch flatscreen TV in the living room.

To answer another one of your questions, my health insurance or lack of same has no bearing on the debate, and is a transparent attempt to switch the debate to a personal attack. On that matter, piss off.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Mark@Sea

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

CK1, first, if you have a link, reference or source for your position on Fox News, please post it. Note, said reference should be credible.

>>>I'll have to quote a wise man--

"Really, if you have to have me provide a reference for acknowledged facts (like, say, gravity) then you aren't really interested in honest debate as such - and to be frank, I don't like you enough for banter."

Second, given the Rasmussen poll results below, would you care to re-examine your statement

>>>Rasmussen is a Republican poll...look it up.

Third, your

I will kindly assume you've been in a coma or some dark corner of the earth where no cable TV, internet or newspapers were available rather than draw from that remark the conclusion it so richly deserves.

>>>Well, I have been living in Tennessee....Go VOLS!

Finally,

I'm interested in how you get from point A (people dislike socialism) to point B (people are racist). As your math teacher used to say, please show your work.

>>>The moderator has said we can't use the R word.

I can only say, I grew up with them, I used to be one, I know the mindset. In the absence of any other rational, fact-based reasons to hate the President as so many do, I have to assume that plays a part. The big flaw in your equation above is Obama is a hardly a socialist despite what Faux tells you. He's even a disappointment to a lot of liberals. "Socialist" has become a euphemism to some people it seems....

[Guest SUNTZU]

I think you're mistaking this debate with a game of UNO.

[Guest Ralph G. Briscoe]

Facts are neither liberal nor conservative. They may support ones' beliefs, or contradict them.

>>>OK fine....distinction without a real difference.

Not sure what post Ralph is quoting, but we've established that opinion shows are opinionated. We can, if necessary, demonstrate that other than Fox, the mainstream media are either selectively blind or are actively covering for the current administration.

>>>Your conventional wisdom of the right is not proof. Put up or you lose this point.

Great. Lets' get back to the healthcare debate, shall we? In our last episode, Ralph was attempting to use a Michael Moore "mocumentary" as a credible source for the quality of socialist healthcare.

>>>Tell me again, when did you see the documentary? Which particular points do you challenge? What's your evidence?

Okay, in response I'll post a link to a Times article demonstrating the greater efficiency of a government-controlled healthcare system when it comes to handling patient complaints;

“The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.â€

Question a doctor and lose your child - Times Online

Maybe not such a great endorsement for government healthcare, if you're approaching from the 'quality of care' angle, but certainly a testimony to the ability of a bureacracy to cover its' ass. Again, why is government-controlled healthcare such a great idea?

>>>Sounds bad if it's true. We can play dueling anecdotes till doomsday. No thanks.

Mark, I can see I'm no match for you in this debate.

You win, OK?

Later.