OCinBuffalo

Fundamentally, there is a difference between "project" and "program". Projects have specific goals, and you pretty much know when you have met them. You can pay to maintain them once they are completed, but that never costs as much as the project itself. Programs can go on forever, provided you keep modifying/expanding their scope. There is no way to distinguish between a "maintenance" activity vs. a "new" activity if the scope is never or poorly defined. The highways are a project, and that's why we like them. They were built, and though we still maintain them, the overall goal is complete, and understandable from the beginning to the end. Medicare is a program, and nobody in the f'ing universe, including God, can define it's scope, much less its methods, which is why it's retarded. IF the Federal Government confined its activity to projects, and not programs, most of the issues I have read above would be resolved. Most of you would agree, or at the very least have little to quibble over. Unfortunately, Programs are how the Big Government jackasses make their corrupt payoffs. We can't eliminate all programs, but things would significantly improve if we reduced their size to fit a clearly defined scope.

Or how about the fact that you basically stated that it is your job to have a complete handle on these things, every day, all the time, as you demonstrate here.... .....and the "amateur"(I am being as nice as I can be with that) is arguing with the professional? We are back to the same thing: the informed opinion vs. the ignorant opinion. Results vs. wishes. The Varsity vs. the JV.

Perhaps you missed it? I posted a thread with quantifiable evidence that the further to the left you are, the less likely you are to know basic economics. Paul Krugman only proves that the further to the left you are, the more likely you are to deny basic economics. Incidentally, that thread did not include anything regarding the ability to calculate %s properly, or other 4th grade math skills, but I imagine a similar study would probably produce congruent results. Perhaps we should write Coach Gailey a letter reminding him that if he has to get to 5 wins before he can get to 10?

Nope. Reason? Please. Basing their opinions on the formal knowledge of the material? Ridiculous. They are psychologically and emotionally committed to the idea that government control/spending/picking winners is the only way to stimulate the economy. As this is proven wrong, again, as it has been so many times, they face having to do a lot of introspection. But, that is a word that is completely foreign to them. Rather than asking themselves why what they believe consistently fails, and how to improve it, they will simply hitch their wagon to the next straw that they can grasp. The problem is: that tactic is, for the first time, starting to fail. This is directly due to the new media. The "next straw" is being exposed as a fraud on some dude's website 15 minutes after they grasp it.

Exactly. And, we ALL have our awkward moments as a result. Consider: I got the famous "nod" from another traveler on a plane recently. The nod was in reference to a possibly Arabian group of men sitting near the front of the plane. Honestly? I thought we were kinda done with the "nod". Right after 9/11, the "nod" was pervasive, to the point of ridiculousness, and, that was certainly understandable and by no means "racist". That was simply "who else can I count on if I need to fight for my life?" So the first question is: Is the "nod" a racist thing to do now? Or: Was it always racist? Or: Is it never racist?

Little Barry's "engagement" plan has worked exactly as well as his "oil spill response" plan, his "provide leadership on health care" plan, and his "Keep Iran from getting nukes" plan. Abject failure. You really think that telling NASA to engage Muslims is going to produce results? Is it going to stop Iran from getting nukes? Is it going to stop Saudi Arabia from stoning women to death? Is it going to stop Syria from sending terrorists to train/equip in Venezuela? Russia, China, hell the Balkan countries are LAUGHING at your/Obama's idiocy when it comes to "engagement". They cannot believe anybody would be dumb enough to play Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale all over again. What happens if Iran gets nukes? Should we boycott the Olympics, and send the UN a nasty little note, Jimmy? Oh that's right, we aren't supposed to judge this administration on it's results. Far-left loons don't believe in judging anybody/thing by results, except Republicans of course, so I supposed we aren't allowed to judge this President by his 90% failure rate.

The suck part is we will never really know what happened until we are too old to care. This could mean any number of things. The only thing I would add is perhaps we don't want to expose our counter intelligence methods? They worked this time, no reason to drag them out into open court, and then have to come up with new ones? I prefer to look at it positively, and I have no reason to think this is something this Administration is doing wrong.

Every time I see 3.5, I start laughing. Now that was a thread.

Given your intentional obfuscation here and elsewhere? I am not buying this. One(1) example: Obama is legitimizing the regime in Iran, who CLEARLY doesn't have the support of its people, and whose "ideology" is: kill the Jews, and take on the Americans if they try to stop us killing the Jews. That's not what I, or any rational person, would call an "ideology". That's not the work of a deep thinker, that's the work of an idiot. That's what the KKK and the Iranian leaders have in common: abject stupidity. If they attack anyone with a nuke, or so much as think about at giving it away to terrorists we will end them. Backing us into a corner is sheer stupidity on their part. Every time anyone has ever backed us into a corner, because they thought we were weak(same old story) they have paid heavy. They are stupid for not learning their history. Why are we arguing with idiots, and legitimizing them by doing so? Of course not. Are you suggesting that all Muslims are not terrorists, that in fact only a few are, but we should be engaging ALL Muslims, using NASA, of all things, and treat them all the same? This is illogical, plain and simple. Why do we need to "engage Muslim countries in general" if there are only a few Muslim terrorists? Either the premise that "only a few Muslims support terror" is false, or, we don't need to be engaging whole countries of people and treating them all the same. Did anybody ask us to make Muslims feel better about themselves? Was there a UN resolution that I missed? Have you even considered how condescending this is? The assumption here is that somehow Muslims have a massive inferiority complex that needs to be addressed. Where is the evidence of that? Even if there is some, why on earth should we feed into it with blatant condescension? How exactly is an NASA engineer supposed to go about making a Muslim feel better about himself? Do a GoToMeeting? Hehe, knew you'd say this. Islam has had 1300 years to produce wisdom, knowledge, anything even close to a positive result. Communism lasted a little over 120 years(the 60 part was before it was actually implemented, get it?), and produced the T-34 tank, the first man in space, and the unholy AK-47, for Pete's sake. It's not even close. 1300 years and what do we get? Kill the heathen and make the Jews and Christians pay taxes! How long did it really take to come up with that one? Here we are 1300 years later, and how much wisdom or advancement has Islam given us, compared to anything else(Edit: they were able to make good steel in Damascus, forgot about that one)? The nuts, mind you THE NUTS, only, are saying the same things they were in the beginning, and all that has brought them in the modern era is getting their azz colonized by European powers, and the Jews whipping them with 5-1 against. Time to change the music. The results speak for themselves. Clearly the more closely you follow Islam, the more likely you are to get smoked, at everything. Your position is that all ideologies are =, and should be treated as such. Clearly they are not, especially when we judge them based on results. I don't want any American, and especially not NASA, to encourage bad behavior, or delusions of grandeur, or any more living in the past, for a bunch of people that are facing serious, TODAY, economic, political and social problems...in "Muslim nations in general" or anywhere.

As expected. Reading comprehension is important, especially for a mod, and especially for a guy who thinks he can give me a whipping on any subject. (see I can be just as dismissive and arrogant, it doesn't change the strength, or weakness in your case, of the argument) Re-read this thread and find me one place where I referred to the Old Testament, or, find me a place where I wasn't talking about Jesus. Every single time I have compared what Jesus taught, to what Mohamed taught, as in, New Testament vs. Koran. So, please cut the crap already. You are arguing against points I am not making. Ha! Now this is hysterical. Let's put aside the facts that you don't know me, what I do for a job, or that it involves constant, withering criticism, because your statement is so absurd it's funny. Yes, let's try and deal with the first part, and your ridiculous assertions that go with it: We both served in the Army. In what reality is the Army being a large entity not a good thing? Would you rather it be small? The fact is that some large entities are necessary, no matter what, so your assertion that all large government entities are bad is retarded. Some are, some are not, and that's the nuance you are missing. The simple fact is that "scope creep" is what kills large government entities and/or the political belief that large government is always the answer. Another fact is: often a large business model is the only way to go. How many Fortune 500 companies have you done work for? I assume 0, so I will tell you: while many are bloated, the majority simply need that many people to fulfill their mission. The assertion that St. Gobain, or Boeing, or GM, or Citi(group when I was consulting them), or Morgan Stanley, and many others, would better serve their customers/partners if they were small, or divided up into smaller companies is just as retarded as asserting that the Army would be better. I can say that with absolute certainty, because I know their business processes cold. No way, not ever, would any of them be better as smaller entities. Since we are talking about ass whippings, go ahead and test me.... With regard to religion: You keep extrapolating my simple point, and it's annoying. Is it possible for you to imagine that I may not care for big, organized religion any more than you do? The truth is I haven't made any lasting decisions about religion, yet, and I am not sure if I ever will. I highly doubt I will become a Muslim, because of my objections to what's in their book. I am simply stating the facts about what is written in these 2 books, as they are. My point is limited to: one talks about killing your neighbor, the other says just the opposite. Stop with the extrapolation. It's boring me. You act like conner, you get treated like conner, it's as simple as that. Another argument you have no rational response to. Not surprising. Go ahead and tell me how some idiot's bastardization of "turn the other cheek" and the Golden Rule and everything else Jesus said...justifies the literal instruction of "kill thy neighbor, and make sure to cut off his head, burn his skin and belly" and the rest of the crap, in the Koran. One has nothing to do with the other. Again, before you start, stop extrapolating and arguing points I am not making. Confine your response to what I am saying, or stop wasting my time. (Darin brings up the crusades and the Old Testament, again, in 5...4...3...)

Nope

This is the part of this I am really sick of hearing. The people who say this are the same people who will tell us we shouldn't have faith in God, because we shouldn't put our faith in anything we can't see... What fine clothes the Emperor has! Don't you agree?

I thought the liberals were all big fans of nuance. They kept saying that over and over WRT Bush = "he doesn't get the nuances". Ok, what's the difference here? All the things you listed are....virtuous. Ideals. Things we should strive for, but, as we are imperfect, things we can't always attain. Where's your liberal respect for nuance, there George W? The things in the Koran that were posted above are....evil. Things we should abhor, but, because some people can't deal with the fact that their ridiculous countries and civilizations went nowhere for the last 1300 years, while others thrived, instead of focusing on what needs to be done to fix that problem, they think its a good idea to haul these things out instead. Most hope to be more like Jesus, whether we believe in him, or his Dad, or not. Only psychotics believe that they are justified in killing anybody who isn't trying to kill them, especially when the "enemy" lives next door or in their friggin neighborhood.

Dude you are acting like the result of intensive political and economic academic and practical study spent over the course of 60 years, which is the Communist theory...before it was ever applied, not to mention after = Kill all the Black people cause we ain't like them! Now get me a beer! Seriously? You honestly think that this extremist Muslim ideology, where all you have to do is replace "Black people"(I will never use that other word) with Jews, and, beer with hash, should be treated the same as Communism? Really? Apparently all ideas and ideologies, regardless of whether they are the result of years of intensive study, or derived while taking a crap are the same, and should be treated equally? Man, I have spent all these years perfecting my designs, when all this time all I had to do was write something out in crayon, and I could have had the same result. By definition, you cannot be a religion of peace, if your religion's holy books are interspersed with instructions on how, when and why to make war. Once again, words mean things. Instructive words, by definition, mean what they say. I made the leap? You are the one that brought up Reagan/Communism? So, WTF are you talking about? WRT math and science: I don't remember learning Achmedean Geometry. I remember learning Euclidean. Right, OK, so if the angle isn't to engage "Muslim nations in general", so that they are less likely to support extremist views, then what is the angle? Randomly spending tax-payer dollars, via NASA, of all things, on "Muslim nations in general's" self esteem? What possible, logical, purpose does that serve? You are acting as if the ideas espoused by our enemies are worthy of considering as anything other than babble. I am saying we don't acknowledge babble, we ignore it, and we certainly don't legitimize these ideas, or these people, by "engaging or confronting" them as though they are somehow worthy of our time. We give them what they deserve: our scorn.

To sum it up: they simply don't believe in any of the things they are being criticized for not doing/caring about. If you don't believe in something, and you have any power at all, chances are you aren't going to do it. But, maybe that's too easy a way to think of it. I believe that many Liberals want to good things to happen for this country and its people. The problem is the methods they choose to bring those good things about are completely f'ed. The real problem is the petulance of the Liberals in DC, and those that make their living off of whipping up angst. Well, once again, their methods are going to screw them over when it comes time to campaign. Might be time to get new methods.

Let me make it even more simple for you all: Islamic Fascist : Muslim :: KKK/Bob Jones/David Koresh : Christian You can't tell me that the vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists, and then tell me, we have to reach out to ALL Muslims. This is illogical. If the first part of that is true, then the vast majority of Muslims don't need to be "reached", and would be offended that they are being lumped in with the bad guys. Please, let's at least apply SOME logic amidst all this sentiment. The fact that the Islamic Fascist has when and how to kill people in his instruction manual is part of the PROBLEM, and it hinders any solution. Talking about what Christians did/do, etc. is an obfuscation that doesn't address the fundamental issue: Islamic Fascists are trying to "take over the world", just like Dr. Evil, negotiating with them is exactly like negotiating with Dr. Evil, legitimizing them is like legitimizing Dr. Evil. Talking about what happened in the 13th and 14th centuries, doesn't change anything about the fact that we are dealing with the Muslim KKK today, who can cite chapter and verse in their book. If anything, it plays into their: "we want to go back to the time before we lost Spain" nonsense. It solves nothing, adds no value, and therefore is a waste of time. Why would we ever treat the KKK as some sort of legitimate entity that we have to negotiate with? Ever? Why are we treating the Muslim KKK differently?

The difference is clear as a bell. You are talking about "Muslims" and then you are talking about "Russia". The former is an undefinable entity, after all there are Muslims in this country. Are we negotiating with them? My friend in the Army who was Muslim would be pretty p.o.ed to find out that you think he needs to be negotiated with, or needs to be made to feel better about himself. The latter is a legitimate state with the presumed will of most of her citizens. Not to mention the fact that Communism, for all its faults, is a political and economic form of government. Government, not religion. Yeah, they are the exact same thing. Once again, you are being ridiculous here. Ideas? Ideology? Should we start negotiating with Charles Manson? After all, he has ideals and ideology. Fundamentally, what we do and how we deal with other COUNTRIES is one thing. Pandering to Muslims is quite something else.

I am absolutely certain that Jesus never said anything about killing anybody, for any reason, and I am absolutely certain that he didn't proscribe the method of exactly how to kill people. I am absolutely certain that he was the original "turn the other cheek" guy. Because he said it, in the book, if we are to believe his "biographers". Reagan was one of the best leaders we are likely to see in our lifetimes. Why? Because, unlike dopey Obama, he understood what was to be gained by negotiating with our enemies, and what wasn't. He never, ever, stopped attacking their immoral positions, often right in the middle of that negotiation. Obama, from what we have seen, and I think this will change in December/January, doesn't get that there is nothing to be gained by negotiation, since we aren't dealing with serious people here. In fact, treating these psychotics as anything but, LEGITIMIZES them. And by doing so, he is losing before he even starts. Their #1 goal is to have their retarded ideas attain the legitimacy that Communism had. These people have more in common with Dr. Evil than they do with Josef Stalin. Surely someone with your leadership skills can see this. You have missed the nuance here, and, since this is a thread devote to nuance , let me clarify it for you: Reagan was competing in the cold war battle over ideals, and has no bearing on today. Going out and establishing a joint medical/space research project with an established country like Brazil was a good way to stave off Communist interlopers. You are acting like these Muslim extremists are = to Communists, and they aren't. Would you give a space contract to Indiana, because they have a lot of KKK people, and you are trying to partner with the people there who aren't KKK? Or, would you simply go in, round them up an throw them in jail if they did something stupid?

Reading comprehension, for Pete's sake. This is the LAST time I am saying this, and the 4th time in this thread: People should only be judged by their ACTIONS. Get that through your skull. The words we have of these two men is what we have. If they are inaccurate, then I can't help you, go take it up with their apostles and followers. However, given that the post above CLEARLY shows that Mohamed instructs, never mind justifies, over and over and over in many different places in the book, Muslims to kill their neighbors, his meaning can't possibly be in dispute. Given that Jesus specifically says to love your enemies, over and over and over, his meaning can't be in dispute either.

The Old testament is not "coming from Jesus". Jesus Christ, are you guys even trying today?

Laughable. First of all I never said anything of the kind. Your characterization is as accurate as your spelling. Try using your head, and not your knee, re-read what I am saying and actually think about it.

Again, there is no literal "go kill people in your neighborhood" coming from Jesus. Clearly, that is literally stated by Mohamed. I am merely trying to make that distinction as plain as the words themselves. Every single thing you are referring to is a bastardization of what Jesus taught. The same simply cannot be said for what Mohamed wrote. It's really not that hard to see the clear difference, unless, you are intentionally trying to ignore the words that were used, and prefer to paint with a 10 ft. brush.

nah, you just can't argue with the logic. And you know it. Oh, and way to, again, lamely try to make this about me and not the clear logic that is confronting you.

Irrelevant to my point, still. There are a whole lot of people who "live by the book". Whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, comes down to their actions. Period. If one book says its OK to kill people who don't agree with you, and another says, THE EXACT OPPOSITE, then we can assume that the people who live by the first's actions will tend to be violent and immoral, and the second's? Well, anybody can bastardize anything. I suppose I could code viruses that would go after Microsoft, and find justification for that in an old programming textbook that instructs programmers to test their code before they deliver it. It wouldn't change the fact that my actions are those of a d-bag, and that the author of the text book in no way intended it be used that way. The difference is clear. One book literally instructs followers to kill, the other doesn't.

That is a fact, but again, it has nothing to do with my point. Since you are such a fan of nuance, let's do it this way: How far do I have to deviate from the teachings of Jesus Christ if I kill a Muslim neighbor? How far do I have to deviate from the teachings of Mohamed if I kill a Christian neighbor? Get it? Killing your neighbor is 180 out of what Jesus said = "love thy neighbor". -vs- "Make war on the infidels living in your neighboorhood". Just ask Darin: the above statements are the exact same thing. These are the words that were chosen. Words mean things. There is not "context" excuses here. These words are instructive, and therefore, mean what they say. You have to bastardize the teaching of Jesus to justify killing people. Mohamed? Nope. So, you are a real "black and white" kind of guy? When it comes to government? or all the time? I thought you were about looking a nuance?