Deranged Rhino
-
Posts
55,851 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Deranged Rhino
-
-
This is my new favorite thread
-
The difference between you and me: The facts don't terrify me. Every single fact is capable of changing my views. You can't say the same. It doesn't matter if you won't. You can't. I will prove it below.
I am an empiricist, and I've seen enough "big plans" from people who aren't qualified to make "big plans" in my work(16 Fortune 500 major projects so far, and yes, I've seen more good "big plans" than bad ones)...to be doubly skeptical of those, clearly unqualified, who claim they can "make things better" on a national scale, with their "big plans".
We are currently living in the "Great Society". How great is it?
How's the "war on poverty" going? How abotu the "war on drugs"? The promise/premise was it was going to be so "great", that all our problems would be solved...so...now...why do we need more? Obamacare is the same recycled nonsense.See? I'm an empiricist. If this was work, and the global warming and Obamacare projects were work projects, every manager on this board would cancel them immediately, and route their resources elsewhere. That's called: competence. They'd do it, because not doing it means: termination.
But, you can't cancel them. It doesn't matter if you wouldn't or won't. Your ideology demands incompetence and inefficiency, they are embedded. Your ideology is not about getting the answers, or solving the problem: your "political philosophy" is about abritrarily stealing resources/assets from some, and making enough others dependent on you, by giving them just enough to survive, but never enough to thrive, and break their dependence on you. Thus, when you make "big plans", why should anyone be shocked when they produce incompetence and inefficiency? If things are too competent/efficient, you run the risk of the poor/unionized becoming self-reliant, and no longer needing you.
You need the poor to stay poor, so you need incompetence and inefficiency...hence your solution to everything is government.
I would devote the resources to this, not because I'm afraid of the answer, but precisely because I want the answer, and, I fully recognize, as a competent manager, that this project is most likely to produce the best/most useful scientific results.
I like the part where you presume to know my philosophies and the opine on them with incorrect conclusions derived from your own narcissistic view point. You should teach that trick to the rest of the internet. I think they would find it novel and exciting.
-
13 posts, and I'm already hoping you break all your fingers.
With every keystroke, there's hope!
-
So Benghazi is no big deal? You have no problem with anything that happened at Benghazi? I mean, forget the fact that four Americans were left for dead by the WH and State Dept. Aren't you a little curious why we haven't caught the murderers? I mean, we've done everything but friend them on Facebook...but no arrests.
You're not curious about that?
Well, then obviously we should invade Yemen.
Never said it wasn't a big deal or that I had no questions about the events. What I did say was that people who use Benghazi as a rallying cry for political points (on either side of the spectrum) are nothing more than blowhards. I know PPP is the home of the blowhards, but when ill informed people continue to flaunt Benghazi as an example of political failure (and do so with a straight face) it reeks of bias rather than true outrage. Worse, it shows a complete lack of sophistication or understanding how the world works. People on the left who defend the administrations actions after the attack blindly are equally as disingenuous as those on the right who constantly use it as a scare tactic or political rallying call.
Revisionist much?
Iraq was a bipartisan effort, which went forward with congressional approval.
The fact that the evidence turned out to be poor is not indicative of malfeasance, but rather of an error. An error that two entire branches of the federal government committed together. Furthermore, there was no cover-up after the fact.
Thanks. Haven't had this good of a laugh all day. For the record, I never claimed that there was a cover up regarding the race to invade Iraq. What there was was an agenda. Denying the fact that certain players in the administration came into office with a unquenchable desire to oust Saddam and practice nation building in the sandbox is factually incorrect. Multiple sources, interviews and memoirs have come out in the 12 years since that clearly show there was a desire to go to war with Iraq even before September of 2001.
You can't have confirmation bias without a bias to begin with...
-
Hillary thought it was a good idea.
She absolutely did.
-
I love nonsensical talking points spewed by shills that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation and wholly ignores what was known at the time.
At least your affection for such ignorance explains why you keep bringing up Benghazi. One mystery solved.
Every time I hear someone make Benghazi into a political talking point it makes my aszshole twitch.
A neo-con reference! I miss the good old days when this board was filled with liberals idiots who referred to anyone to the right of FDR a 'neo-con'.
It's an apt use of the phrase considering the subject. Again, facts are hard things to run from.
Unless you watch cable news.
-
I'm sorry man you die with a needle in your arm you are the epitome of dumbass.
Funny. I tend to think the person who shows up in an RIP thread to call the deceased a dumbass is actually more of a dumbass.
Your point isn't without merit, just the timing.
-
Just the next prop for advertising Michael Bay's next crapatacular movie
The moon object, while entertaining, is less interesting to me than the Iranian Airforce's report on top secret US drones. Sure sounds an awful like the foo-fighters reported by pilots in WWII and Korea.
-
Ignorance
.
Ignorance is found when you ignore the mountain of evidence that has come out in the twelve plus years that clearly makes the case that the Bush administration, led by the neo-cons of the time, wanted to find a reason to "go after Saddam". Jeremy Schahill, Robert Gates and dozens of other journalists, provide first hand accounts and memoirs that all paint a clear picture of the mindset of the administration before 9/11 and immediately after.
Read sources outside of your usual bubble. You'll be amazed at what you can discover.
-
This is infinitely more interesting, if true, than whatever nonsense is coming from environtologists.
I say we divert all climate research funds to this project, as this is likely to give us more answers to a slew of questions.
I agree with you that this article and its contents are infinitely more interesting than continuing the tired, completely ridiculous debate over whether or not climate change is real and/or man-made. Of course, if you explore the implications of what this find might mean in the big picture sense of human evolution, you might find the answers even more terrifying to your political philosophies than the issue of climate change.
It's the old saying, "careful what you wish for..."
-
-
/sigh another troll.
Koko? Completely agree.
-
...and abandoning a US Ambassador and three others to die is hilarious.
...But sending 4,486 men and women to die in Iraq for a personal vendetta is a sound foreign policy, right?
-
I don't think... wait, I know... I'm not any better than him. But if I died from drinking too much, it certainly wouldn't be front page news. In fact, people would say "what a stupid drunk." But since he was good at make-believe, people will profess how sad they are.
Google any of the names killed in Afghanistan in link, and the only news stories you'll find will be from their local hometown paper. THOSE men and women are indeed better than me.
Why must it be a comparison?
-
It's a good story regardless of its validity...
Article one:
Audio Interview with NASA whistle blower:
http://www.turnerradionetwork.com/audio/NASAContractorExposesLargeSpacecraftAtMoon.mp3
Article two:
Then there was this little nugget over a month ago now from Iran. This one is perhaps the most interesting of all the articles. Originally published in Combat Aircraft Monthly then picked up by Forbes, the Iranian airforce claims to have engaged with several high tech US Drones which:
"...displayed astonishing flight characteristics, including an ability to fly outside the atmosphere, attain a maximum cruise speed of Mach 10, and a minimum speed of zero, with the ability to hover over the target. Finally, these drones used powerfuc ECM that could jam enemy radars using very high levels of magnetic energy, disrupting navigation systems."
In trying to tell the world of the USAF's secret drones, did the Iranians accidentally let slip an even bigger secret that we are most definitely not the only species flying crafts in the skies above?
Forbes Article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/14/did-iranian-fighters-battle-ufos/
-
RIP, Mr. Hoffman. One of the greats, gone too soon.
Stay classy, Arizona. Stay classy.
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by GreggyT
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
*Fixed the link... this is what I get for linking something from CNN.