birdog1960

as orton said, it's a crappy question. it presupposes that the themes are capitalist. drop the labels and describe it as it is. a society built on selfishness alone. not sustainable- simple as that. we are seeing it in action right now. all the wealth flows into a few hands. surprisingly, not likely including the hands of many rand supporters. judging from fanboys here there's no lack of misplaced confidence in believers that some day they'll be in that number (when the saints go marching in). oops, a religious reference- forboden!

translation: one of the biggest and most visible public supporters has disavowed her beliefs. he would be a better source of reference than someone who has considered it bs all along.

ask paul ryan.

here's what i think about words used in this thread recently: it was wrong to digniy the word "dishonest" with "intellectual".

you want to argue sementics because you can't effectively argue the point. i get it. it's an old, cheap trick and one that you use repeatedy. doesn't matter if the walruses are on a stationary ice formation or a floating one in the past. many are not on any ice at all right now and that's because there's much less ice. but you already know that.

this: http://www.noaa.gov/features/monitoring_1008/arcticice.html. but you already knew that. intellectual dishonesty suits no one.

shrinking away from honest debate again huh? is the ice flow rapidly decreasing as noaa states or do you know better? and how?

anybody wanna cite examples in retrospect where he's be clearly wrong in his contentions?

read the article. it's from that liberal iconic publication business insider. not going to waste my time at some futile attempt to educate you.

really? do you ever look beyond the surface? do you ever consider implications?

and you are never good for any facts or data. just your opinion. it and about $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at mcdonalds. are you stating that you don't believe that the ice flow in alaska is significantly decreased. or that walruses are just happily unpredictable creatures that do thing like inhabit an island en masse just for a good picture?

we get a huge tray of em in my office about once a week. most of the staff go to the cafeteria those days. nuff said.

well, she is kinda cartoonish…i'm thinking an ugly version of natasha from bullwinkle. to be fair though, there are real people talking in oliver's video. real stupid people.

seems paul ryan is among them

you know who you are. http://dangerousminds.net/comments/john_oliver_hilariously_rips_ayn_rand_fans and then there's this: http://www.huffingto..._5909172.html :lol:

yellow mattered custard dripping from a dead dog's eye

someone forgot to tell the walruses it's a lie: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/35-000-walruses-crowded-together-151404142.html

i think having kolb as insurance with no backup plan is bizarre. he was always far from a sure bet as starter quality nil qb wherever he played.

this doesn't make me feel any better about management. kolb was meant to start last year while manuel sat? even without the retirement of kolb, this was a bizarre and stupid plan that i can only imagine a few of the very worst teams in the nfl considering. this alone but especially in combo with the manuel fail should get any gm fired.

a barrel of fish hooks

hsu research makes great subwoofers... haven't found a decent sub in appalachia. not likely to either. jersey mikes are terrible. agree with viola's as the best i remember.

yes.

the implication being that previous compaints are unjustified?.....

just out of interest, why do you think the wonderlic is administered to potential draft choices? is intelligence not part of personality and thus a psychological measure? read a bit about the vetting of jamarcus russell. he and his familty were interviewed extensively before the draft. i'd expect those interviews weren't done by guys moonlighting from their dishwasher jobs. after that disaster, you can bet that there's plenty more psychological evaluation going on pre draft. when maturity is questioned before a draft, who do you think is doing the evaluation? my point is that whomever is doing it isn't producing very reliable results. if sports psychology were as valuable you seem to believe, this wouldn't be the case. you may conversely want to ask yourself why you are so convinced of a relatively new disciplines value.

the field has been around for 15 to 20 years depending on who you ask. whatever did athletes do before sports psychologists were available? where are the results? there are so many variables in sports performance (especially team sports) that it would be impossible to measure the results. additionally, you're unlikely to hear of the failures near as often as the successes. i'll bet david duval tried a sports psychologist or two before he gave up on pro golf. the real proof is that sports psychologists and all of the "analytics" available can't accurately predict which players will be successful and which will be busts. they're no better than a coin flip especially with qb's. the wonderlic seems the most objective measure and strangely manuel and brees obtained the same low scores while fitz almost doubled them. this is far from hard science.