waitforufo
-
Posts
1615 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waitforufo
-
-
Wow...just wow. Why are you in a science forum? Doesn't the right believe in science? An hasn't science benefited from government support?
From Ike's farewell address.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
0 -
I was in Guadalajara last year and got the lowdown on this one. Mexico used to have a horrible problem with election abuse, unlike the US where it's just a made up scare tactic (like the rampant uptick in crime we supposedly had). They had to do something to bring back faith in democracy, and the ID cards did the trick. Also unlike what they've tried to do in the US, the Mexican voter ID is sort of the gold standard of IDs, right under a passport and definitely better than a driver's license.
Now here I thought that any mention of election abuse was simply a tactic to suppress votes. I mean come on, the burden of acquiring an identification to enable voting is extremely high, particularly to the poor. I guess Mexico doesn't have any poor people.
I know you think it's funny to watch people run into the goalposts when you move them like that. It's one thing to lose an election, but a terrible candidate doesn't win the popular.
But hey, it's just critical reasoning, after all.
Me thinks you wouldn't see it as terrible if Hillary was issuing executive orders today.
Are gag orders for the USDA, NPS and EPA, along with immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants without review, freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring are things you wanted from your federal government? What do you think it bodes for the state of science in the US?
That is exactly what I wanted from my federal government. Government supported science promotes only one thing, more government. Government science by it's very nature is biased.
-6 -
A terrible candidate by those criteria wouldn't have won the popular vote. A LOT is lost on you.
Please name a president who was elected by the popular vote.
My hope is that more Democrats, liberals and progressives move to California, Illinois, and New York so that Republicans and conservatives win more presidential elections. The true bonus in such a situation will be watching the never ending temper tantrums of the left. A spectacle that never stops bringing joy to the right.
0 -
IOW, you're arguing against people who obviously don't care how they win so long as they do, and are very proud of that. The ethics of the situation are lost on them.
I other words, the Democrats nominated a candidate so terrible that she lost the election to Donald Trump. The hilarity of the situation is lost on them.
0 -
Try moving to Canada. If that doesn't work try moving to Mexico - they really like Americans as long as they can pay.
I'm sure Canada and Mexico are off of their list as possible alternatives to the US. Both countries require identification to vote. How could they possibly move to such evil countries?
-3 -
Obsolete at what?
I remember reading back in the 90's that one US aircraft carrier battle group could be considered the fifth most powerful military force on the planet. If I recall the order was the United States minus one aircraft carrier battle group, the USSR, China, UK, and one US aircraft carrier battle group. (Maybe France was in the mix.) Number 5 is still a lot of power. You might recall back in the 90's a missile was launched from a carrier based aircraft what took out a satellite. At the time, the USSR did not have AWACS planes like the E-2 Hawkeye but instead relied on satellites. So take out their satellites and their forces are blind.
Aircraft carrier battle groups include guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and frigates. Many of these ships are equipped with the AN/SPY-1 radar. This radar can track satellites in space. Since the 90's my guess is they have ship based missiles that can target space based weapons. Just a guess. Anyway, high altitude targets are generally the easiest with which to deal. You can see them a long way off and have plenty of time to react both offensively and defensively. Low altitude high speed targets are more difficult. A mach three missile coming over the horizon 20 miles out only takes 32 seconds to reach your ship. In that time you have to acquire your target, select a weapons system, deploy a weapon, and hit it before it gets too close to your ship. But that assumes you don't have aircraft above you telling you that targets are beyond the horizon. Also these ships have close in weapon systems that can kick in as the target gets closer. Hidden land based anti ship missiles pose a bigger threat because they can deploy even closer to your ship. So some locations in the Persian Gulf present difficulties.
In my opinion the reason we have terrorism is because we have such incredible conventional forces. An enemy can't take on a modern military like the US in a conventional way. Once the US has air superiority that enemy is dead.
0 -
Reminds me of a Jim Gaffigan line about the stereotype of cops liking donuts so much and using it against them. You shouldn't do it because you know who else loves donuts? EVERYBODY.
Like fried chicken and watermelon. Who doesn't like fried chicken and watermelon? Yet, I have been to company picnics where black employees will go hungry instead of eating fried chicken and watermelon due to racist stereotypes.
It is funny about the personal pronouns though. Exactly the type of thing someone would jump on if they don't like you, but how does anyone get along without using "I" and "me"?
Many feel it is an indication of narcissism. Using an excess of personal pronouns gives the impression that the speech is all about the speaker. Many also find such a speaking style to be less persuasive than a speech given without the use of personal pronouns. It gives listeners more of an opportunity to to think "you may think that way but I don't."
0 -
Don't be afraid to commit
The interesting thing is that he really can trade in his wife for a new model.
Sad.
0 -
Why not marry your mobile phone or your laptop?
0 -
At this point though all we can do is focus on what we do next. No time machines exist to allow us to go backwards. Currently I am concerned about Turkey. It appears that President-Elects policy towards Syria will be to let Russia handle it. Which means Pro-Assad forces crush rebels. As that happens many will flee into Turkey. With a population a few times larger than Syria's the risks of war/terrorism/rebellion in Turkey would create a larger world crisis than Syria has.
No need to worry about Assad. His "days are numbered."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article31013325.html
0 -
So, it's ok for an incoming President to play catch-up with our nation's security than be prepared from day 1? That doesn't seem to be very Republican to me--however, not being a Republican myself, I guess I really wouldn't know.
As of today, Trump now has 12 days to be prepared from day 1. The inauguration isn't until January 20. January 20 is day one.
Whilst angrily and divisively identifying as Republican. Everyone else be damned.
The height of irony and epitome of ignorance.
Perhaps you don't know the definition of "identity politics."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/identity_politics
identity politicsPLURAL NOUN[treated as singular or plural] A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
0 -
You're not talking to "the left." You're talking to me, and I never made any such claims. Not even close.
I imagine it must be comforting to see the world so simplistically and in black and white like this. Unfortunately, I was born with a mind that understands nuance and trained to think critically.
Oh yeah, I forgot China claiming and militarizing the South China Sea, the Philippines telling Obama to go to hell and aligning with China, and stabbing Israel in the back at the UN. He even offended Canada.
By the way, don't you think Obama should have given a time certain for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan?
I'm not surprised that you are impressed with your own mind. Perhaps you should turn it on when looking at Obama's failures.
0 -
Curious: Your position as presented suggests ISIS would not have formed if we'd left 16,000 troops instead of 3,500. Is that correct? After all, we can all make up anything we want since that's not what happened. Why not 9,000 troops, or 6,471?
Gee, I seem to remember Gorge Bush being accused by the left of not listening to his generals in time of war. Accusations that were false. I guess listening to your generals doesn't apply to Mr. Obama.
Look you know as well as I do that Obama made campaign promises to pull out of Iraq. All he cared about was fulfilling those promises. In fact when he pulled out of Iraq he called it a great achievement. Well now he owns that achievement. Just like he owns his Syria redline and the consequences of not following up on it. In both instances the world learned that Obama is a coward. The world you see today, Aleppo, the refugee crisis, Iran's growing dominance in the middle east, North Korea's nuke assertiveness. These are all responses to his cowardice. History will not treat him well.
0 -
Here is the video of Paul Ryan laughing. Makes my day.
I've been waiting for your return and reply. What is your answer? As you may not recall or care, I asked the following:
Is there an answer or will you disappear from this discussion for another month?
Disappear? Well I hate to break it to you but I have a wonderful and fulling life. Work, family events, holidays fill my days. Take work for example. The end of quarter is always a busy time with lots of deadlines. Family events included snow skiing, snow shoeing, snowmobiling, and a wedding. Holidays included Christmas and New years. I participate in Science Forums primarily for fun. When other more interesting things come up I reduce or suspend my participation. When I come back I generally don't look back through pages of posts, many of which are stale, including my own, and respond to things which are now irrelevant to the current meandering of the conversation. Since you are still interested in a response, here goes.
Q: Why are you a supporter of Mr. Trump and how does his approach to governance, given his cabinet choices,specifically reflect or support your interests?
I'm a supporter of Mr. Trump because he ran on the Republican ticket and I am a Republican. I'm a supporter because he ran against Hillary Clinton, a corrupt politician who's is admired by her supporters for getting away with corruption. I'm a supporter because he is not a career politician, but a successful business businessperson. I really don't like politicians so Trump is a breath of fresh air. Finally I really think he want's to make America great again.
Q: Do you sincerely believe that a president-elect should be skipping any intelligence briefings before being sworn to office?
I think it is irrelevant. Obama is president until January 20. Trump still has 14 days to catch up on the minor changes to these intelligence briefings in the next 14 days. Currently I understand that setting up his cabinet is more important. It's hard for a president to take action against intelligence activities without a cabinet.
Q: It's my understanding that even Obama took every briefing offered before taking his oath of office. Why isn't Donald's refusal an issue with you?
See above.
Q: Do you think a person who set-up and managed a shell corporation for Russian should be our Secretary of State?
Did he commit any crime, particularly at the felony level? No. Also, as I have said, I love Exxon. They put a tiger in my tank.
Q: Do you honestly believe as Mr. Trump that the Russians did not interfere in our elections?
No, I do not believe the Russians interfered with our elections. Sure they exposed Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party for who they really are which I'm sure influenced many people, but influencing is not interfering, particularly when the information provided was truthful. In fact I appreciated the information.
Q: I'm most interested in your answer to the initial questions of whether you believe the president-elect truly represents you.
Absolutely. You see Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or whatever they are calling themselves these days believe that the primary source of societal improvement government. Nothing could be further from the founding ideals of the United States. The primary source of societal improvement is cultural. Individuals choosing to treat each other with respect and kindness while striving to improve themselves and their families. No laws required or government programs needed. While that is idealistic, it is the best way to culturally promote true liberty. When individuals fail in meeting our national ideals, we have law and order. Commit felonies and you are incarcerated. Don't commit felonies and you are free to do as you please. That reminds me of another reason I like Trump. He has no respect for identity politics. Here in the US, we should have one identity, American. You know. We call it the melting pot. It is our national motto. E pluribus unum.
By the way, you are much more likely to receive responses if you ask fewer questions.
0 -
It's over.
Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts was the first to rise. Amid grumbling from other members, Vice President Biden, who presided in his role as president of the Senate, gaveled the body to order. He noted that any objection must be in writing, signed by a member of the House and a member of the Senate.He asked McGovern if he had fulfilled all three. McGovern admitted the objection was not signed by a member of the Senate, and Biden threw it out."In that case the objection cannot be entertained," Biden said, and Republicans stood and cheered.Jamie Raskin of Maryland interrupted later. Biden cut him off, read the requirements again and asked if his objection was signed by a member of the Senate. Raskin, too, admitted it was not. This went on with others.Biden grew increasingly curt. At times, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan could be seen laughing behind him."It is over," Biden chided.0 -
Even your own link and the section you quoted says this was due to Iraq's divided government, yet you blame Obama and Clinton. Fascinating.
As I said...
= Why would Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spend the political capital on a SOFA agreement for fewer than 5000 troops, where our own military suggested a number between 16000 and 24000 troops?
So Maliki rejects the SOFA agreement based on the trivial number of troops offered, so you feel that Iraq is at blame. Fascinating.
0 -
And yet, it was Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton that failed to negotiate the status of forces agreement. Likely because he wanted to leave too few troops. Why would Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki spend the political capital on a SOFA agreement for fewer than 5000 troops, where our own military suggested a number between 16000 and 24000 troops.
Military commanders in Washington and in Baghdad pushed for a residual force between 16,000 and 24,000 to conduct counterrorism work and train Iraqi security forces.The White House, reports show, was not open to a force that size.The Obama administration was initially open to leaving up to 10,000 troops in Iraq after the scheduled pullout at the end of 2011, a controversial pitch that would have required approval from Iraq’s divided government to change the 2008 agreement, the Los Angeles Times reported. The troops were to be placed in Baghdad and other "strategic" locations around the country.It did not stay there. The New York Times detailed how the one-time goal of a 10,000-person force shrank before negotiations failed altogether.Obama ruled out the 10,000-troop option in an Aug. 13, 2011, conference call, according to the New York Times, and "the new goal would be a continuous presence of about 3,500 troops, a rotating force of up to 1,500 and half a dozen F-16’s."0 -
Hydropower is about more than just dams. People who wish to protect the environment are not some one-dimensional monolith who all think and feel the same. You only pretend they are so you can summarily dismiss them and treat them as subhuman.
You suggest that every single person who supports the environment thinks that hydropower is evil. Per the rules of this forum, the onus is on you to support that.
Of course, as we all already know, you won't support it because A) you can't as it's completely false, and B) you lack enough self-respect and respect for other members here to even bother trying.
No, I don't think people who wish to protect the environment are some one-dimensional monolith. Quite the opposite actually. One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment. That risk includes disrupting the natural beauty of the environment with man made things like powerlines.
Your response is proof to my point. You can't even name one dam? Who are you afraid to offend? How about the Three Gorges Dam? Grand Coulee Dam? Hoover Dam? Bonneville Dam? Denison Dam? Kentucky Dam? Garrison Dam? You can't pick one and say, yes we should keep this dam?
0 -
Mostly from hydropower...
Hydropower is evil. Ask any environmentalist. If you are an environmentalist and claim that hydropower is good, please list the names a locations of dams that you think shouldn't be removed or breached.
0 -
Sorry, what do 306 and 223 have to do with intelligence briefings?
Those numbers determine who is entitled to receive those intelligence briefings.
-2 -
No, he's not. This is just another BS false equivalence.
This has to do with NUMBERS. Some NUMBERS are bigger than others. So, when Trump skips 6/7 of his briefings, that number is bigger than the ~1/2 that Obama "skipped". And that "1/2"assessment is right-wing propaganda, since Obama chose to read written briefings rather than have people do a presentation.
If you can find a credible source that says Trump reads his briefings as Obama did (or that he reads much at all) then this is just more BS.
No, this has to do with skipping intelligence reports. Mr. Obama skipped them. I don't know how many Mr. Obama skipped while president elect. Do you? Besides skipping such meetings while president elect is of little consequence because there is still a president.
You know, you need to get over the fact fact the Ms. Clinton lost. 306 to 223. There are some NUMBERS for you. Your hope that electors would defect Mr. Trump end with more electors defecting or attempting to defect from Ms. Clinton.
Not only did it not happen, but more electors tried to defect from Hillary Clinton Monday than from Trump, by a count of eight to two. Three Democratic electors in Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado tried to vote for candidates other than Clinton. The electors' votes, however, were disallowed because of state rules binding them to the statewide popular vote winner.So again, what's next? Protest on 1/6/17 with the hope of shutting down the certification of the electoral college vote in congress, or a protest during the inauguration? Your never ending temper tantrum must continue. I'm enjoying it to much to have it end.
-2 -
Well its now semi official.
So what will be the next step for the NeverTrump people? The electoral votes are not counted in congress until January 6. Do you think the NeverTrump people will try to shut down congress on 1/6/17 or is their next step to make fools of themselves during the inauguration?
0 -
President Obama is criticizing President-elect Donald Trump for failing to attend what The Post calls “the most exclusive, and arguably most important, daily meeting in Washington” — the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) — warning his successor that without the daily intelligence brief, “you are flying blind.”
This coming from the same person who skipped more than half of his daily intelligence briefings in his first term. As I reported in this space in 2012, during his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his daily meeting to discuss the PDB just 536 times — an attendance record of 43.8 percent. In 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance dropped even lower, to just over 38 percent of the time.
Trump is just following in the footsteps of Mr. Obama.
-2 -
They are not the same transgressions. This is false equivalence, a dishonest debating tactic. You're the one doing it, so don't pretend you aren't responsible for what you post.
I take full responsibility for what I post, but lets review.
I posted the following.
Rules? Well in the age of Ms. Clinton, do "rules" have any meaning?
Based on that I received the following reply.
Such sarcastic comments that reflect fallacious narratives to deflect from the facts of what's being discussed is ugly and terribly disrespectful. At the heart of your post you are basically saying that while rules were broken you don't care because in this case your team got away with it. Sort of like when Trump said not paying taxes makes him smart. It isn't what is right or wrong. It is about what one can getaway with vs not getaway with. If that is how you feel than own up to it and accept it being pointed out how poorly that reflects on your moral compass, character, and integrity. Better than denying it and proving yourself ignorant, dishonest, and crass.
So lets take a walk down memory lane over at the Hillary Clinton topic.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98061-hillary-clinton/page-10#entry942673
A violation of rules isn't necessarily a violation of law or a criminal act. According to the FBI investigation led by a respected republican appointee, it's my understanding that Mrs. Clinton's email mishandling may have violated the rules but was not a violation of law or a criminally prosecutorial offense. What you may consider "evidence of three crimes", were merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality according the investigative arm of our government. Those were three mole hills that partisans want us to believe are mountains, which they are not according to a fair and thorough investigation. It's time to let this one go.
So Ms. Clinton set the new standard for violating rules. The are "merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality" and there for should have no relevance.
Your candidate, not mine.
I'll let you ponder that while the electoral college votes today.
0
Science in the US (split from Donald Trump)
in Politics
Posted · Edited by waitforufo
Where did I say I wanted there budgets eliminated? Where did the post I commented on say there budgets should be eliminated? I was commenting on the gag order. Here is the post I was commenting on.
Lets take a closer look at these links.
USDA
NPS
immediate elimination of competitively awarded scientific grants
The above links are from BuzzFeed. After the attempted coup la douche d'or, does anyone really pay attention to them? Does anyone believe them? They are fake news.
freezing of NIH, NSF, NOAA, USDA, USGS, etc postdoctoral hiring
This one is Fox News. I don't read Fox News. Do you? You believe them? I got as far as the headline and stopped. The headline says it is a federal government freeze on hiring. That's not shutting anything down, or even reducing budgets.
EPA
I couldn't be happier about this one. If there was ever a case to be made about public policy becoming captive to the scientific-technological elite, the EPA is perfect. Putting a gag order on the post Obama EPA has my full approval.