Very
lame argument on your part.
Not exact matches
No matter which side of the
argument you're
on, bashing her looks is
lame.
You're just perpetuating your sentiments with other posters based
on equally
lame arguments.
Best thing about this
lame argument, though - those of us that are more interested in finding readers than in getting a pat
on the head can just ignore the hysterics, get our stuff up, and let the audience decide.
I thought that was a good way of pointing out how
lame the
arguments are that are used by defenders of retirement planning tools based
on the findings of conventional - methodology safe withdrawal rate studies.
Of all the
lame arguments used to sell Americans
on the proposition that wind power, an industry propped up by Soviet - style production quota in 29 states and numerous other policy privileges, deserves another renewal of the 20 - year - old production tax credit (PTC), the
lamest is the claim that the PTC helps protect us from extreme weather.
How exactly are you proving your point when you admit (emphasis mine)... «yes, the temperature moved FIRST» and you make hidden conciliatory statements like... «for the MAJORITY of that time» and then you freely admit... «CO2 did not trigger the warmings» and then you rely
on the
lamest of hollow
arguments... «according to climate THEORY and model EXPERIMENTS» and then you stumble back to close with complete opinion and conjecture... «we may well» and «The likely candidates» Anyone with a brain will read your post and laugh - it's pathetic and you've actually done nothing but strengthen the skeptics
argument.
A creationist commenter
on a post of mine discussing
lame creationist
arguments first admitted that he did not actually read my post, and then began to repeat the same tired creationists lies and logical fallacies we hear over and over again.
As you would expect from someone who opposes a per tonne tax
on something he believes to be weightless, Abbott's
arguments were in fact
lame.