Originally Posted by
FreightDawgyDog
Didn't question your intelligence, just your lack of an intelligent rebuttal, but I think you are smart enough to know that already. I am sure you are quite intelligent, which begs the question...why you won't address the issues about baby boomers being the "Greediest Generation" in the editorial. Stop trying to make this about me. If you recall, the editorial pointed to "Age discrimination" law suits as just a part of the evidence that this generation cares only about themselves and not what happens to everyone else as a result. APAAD has the words "Age Discrimination" in their title!! So, tell me where the editorial is wrong and stop trying to make this about me. Personal attacks are the first sign you have nothing relevant to add to the subject. Prove me and the editorial wrong with your intelligent rebuttal. I look forward to your reply..
BTW.. love your Eric Stratton impersonation! Next your going to accuse me of bad mouthing the USA right!? Way to try and change the subject..
YouTube - bad mouth the usa
Your entire first post was a personal attack and you tell me;
"Personal attacks are the first sign you have nothing relevant to add to the subject. "
Is it just me or is there something wrong here?
The NY times piece was on the op-ed page. It's an opinion. Anything I wrote would also be an opinion. You don't prove, or disprove anything with an opinion. Besides we all know what opinions are like don't we?
The way you carry on about the age discrimination part of the title you would think that age 65 only applied to those born between certain dates. That everyone else still had to retire at 60. It does apply to those that come after.
What does the NY times think of discrimination suits filed by the EEOC against airlines on behalf of women and minorities? Were those people being greedy? Were it not for those suits cockpits would have remained white and male for many more years, and that would have been a bad thing. At least that's my opinion.