Summations Only

I understand that lawyers are supposed to file as many arguments as possible including some that conflict with other arguments. The reason for doing so is to avoid losing the ability to change legal strategies as new facts come to light. Often the initial briefs in the case are filed with sketchy information.However using arguments that are both spurious, and injurious to the client is certainly a bad idea. This argument among the funnier things I have read this weak. Looks like it was copied from a NASCAR brief defending against a case involving a flaming car landing on some spectators.

This is a favored tactic of yours; asking questions based entirely on your flagging memory alone. Do you actually know whether there were unfavorable headlines in the 1990s, or are you relying on that same set of recollections that could not recall any activity on gun control in the sixties?I have certainly seen more recent articles proclaiming Clinton's reforms a disaster at the time Obama was doing away with some of them. Who wrote those?

The question under discussion must include whether Trump has brought at least some of that negative treatment on himself. But stop ducking the question. Where is your evidence regarding the lack of articles criticizing Clinton's welfare reforms? If you'd like me to pull up your actual claim regarding not remember significant debates about gun control or the passage of legislation, I will be happy to do so. In fact, if you'd like me to point out other times you've used this same tactic, of making up crap, including in this very thread, I'd be happy to do that too.If you've got a point, back it up with some evidence. I don't think you have anything. But I am curious about how you are going to back up a posting of a negative claim.ABE:I want to clearly express my objection. Saying, "I don't remember X", does not establish that X does not happen. And more often than not, folks here respond with evidence of X. You do this so frequently that nobody here should rely on what you remember. I've pointed this out to you on several occasions, but you continue to use the same tactic again and again. Folks have caught you doing this in this very thread, and invariably, you don't back your memory claims up with evidence. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add explanation.

That's what I thought. Thanks.

The third problem is that emission standards are unrelated to controlling greenhouse gasses. There is no way to prevent the production of CO2 from gasoline because that is the desired result of burning hydrocarbons, so of course, nobody tries to tweak cars to eliminate CO2. We've discussed this exact point before, but facts roll off of marc9000 like water off a duck's back.Emission control is for smog. So marc9000 is actually complaining about not being allowed to pee in everyone else cornflakes (breathing air). For many folks, as long as Trump is deporting illegal immigrants, they will spot him a few screw ups, even when his policies screw them directly. If you are getting your news from alt-right spots, you likely have some alternative facts on what is really going on with the wiretapping.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The only way to reduce CO2 is to get more mileage per gallon. You cannot reduce the CO2 produced from burning a gallon of gas by doing emission control.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes, turning off your car and not burning fuel does reduce CO2. Is that really relevant to the discussion about emissions testing?

Have you forgotten your own position, marc9000. I will repeat it here for you. Describe any global warming regulations that address old vehicles.

Marc9000 thinks that having leaky windows, a bad furnace, and a polluting truck constitutes freedom.

If I have to breathe the junk put in the air by your polluting truck, then it is my business as well as that of the rest of the folks in my situation. So yeah it is an appropriate government matter.With regard to those other things, I have no problem with the government providing incentives for you to fix those things. Leaving them as they are is just plain idiocy on your part.

Do you think that covers things like promising health care that give better coverage and be cheaper than the ACA was just impetuous? Do you know even now what Trump was thinking when he said that? How in the world could anyone know that?

I'm not sure how this relates to my post, but the post was coherent, used paragraphs to improve readability, and is about the economy which is at least related to a discussion on the Trump presidency. I gave it a thumbs up for those points alone.Not really about the Trump presidency though.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The topic is Trump, and in particular whether Trump is susceptible to bribing/lobbying. Why wouldn't I have been talking about that?

Marc9000 said that Trump was unlikely to take money from special interests because he had donated a few 100Gs grand in salary. I suggested that we would have trouble knowing Trump's tendencies. The reason is because we don't know what Trump's financial interests are.Of course, when you don't follow the discussion, everything is an invitation for a nonsequitur.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ouch. Who has been briefing this man? First, he is surprised that national healthcare is difficult. Now he is grasping, apparently for the first time, that North Korea is a sovereign nation with priorities different than China's?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.