America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 10 years ago by victor809. 14 replies replies.
Classic Spin, Dodge, Point & Blame...
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 11:16 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555

She's hot tho... Beer


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2619367014001/what-a-waste-the-most-outrageous-examples-of-govt-spending/?playlist_id=86924

Film at 11... d'oh!
dubleuhb Offline
#2 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Sorry Drafter, you need new glasses. Nothing hot about that, she's just an oxygen thief.

Typical no argument I'll try to deflect outrage.
DrafterX Offline
#3 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 12:47 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
still want to see her boobs... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#4 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 2:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This was an example of three retards arguing retardedly over a retarded topic, without any information on any side to actually back up any of their retarded claims.

I'm sorry.
That was an insult to retards.

The young guy at best can be considered "well spoken".

Why would you think it is smart to take a title of a scientific study, make wild claims about how useless it is (without actually reading the purpose), and then demand a lawyer who has no interest or knowledge of the study come in and defend it. If that short-bus Hannity actually wanted to discuss the merits of those studies he was whining about, he would ask the grant author to come on and defend it.
Abrignac Offline
#5 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 2:36 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Here are my observations:

1) Government funded studies need some to meet sort of needs based threshold requirement prior to funding. Sorry Victor, though I do agree with you at times, you'll never convince me of the "need" for any of the studies discussed in that clip.

2) She is single and will be for a long time. He mouth can be muffled for so long at a time lest she will suffocate.
victor809 Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 2:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:
Here are my observations:

1) Government funded studies need some to meet sort of needs based threshold requirement prior to funding. Sorry Victor, though I do agree with you at times, you'll never convince me of the "need" for any of the studies discussed in that clip.

2) She is single and will be for a long time. He mouth can be muffled for so long at a time lest she will suffocate.


Hehehe....it's fine to disagree with me (usually means you're wrong, but it's fine). My point is that there IS a "needs based threshold" for all government grants supporting research. A grant proposal has to be drawn up and a group approves or denies the proposal based on: 1) whether they think the research will be successfully completed; and 2) whether they think the knowledge acquired will likely be worth the expected cost. The fact that these have been approved, suggests that a group of individuals (individuals with much more knowledge in those fields than you, I or Hannity ever will have) has made that assessment.

Hannity is disagreeing with that assessment based on a single sentence describing the study. He isn't actually pulling any more information in, with which to have an educated discussion. He's looking at the title, and then asking someone with no knowledge to defend it.

I actually felt stupider after listening to those 3 babble for a minute.
Abrignac Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 2:55 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
victor809 wrote:
Hehehe....it's fine to disagree with me (usually means you're wrong, but it's fine). My point is that there IS a "needs based threshold" for all government grants supporting research. A grant proposal has to be drawn up and a group approves or denies the proposal based on: 1) whether they think the research will be successfully completed; and 2) whether they think the knowledge acquired will likely be worth the expected cost. The fact that these have been approved, suggests that a group of individuals (individuals with much more knowledge in those fields than you, I or Hannity ever will have) has made that assessment.

Hannity is disagreeing with that assessment based on a single sentence describing the study. He isn't actually pulling any more information in, with which to have an educated discussion. He's looking at the title, and then asking someone with no knowledge to defend it.

I actually felt stupider after listening to those 3 babble for a minute.


The problem lyes in those who have the power to approve of disapprove the grants. Just because it gets approved doesn't mean it should have been approved. You as a member of that community know all well that there are some bull$hit studies taking place.

However, the fact that Hannity would have such a bumbling idiot on to "defend" the position speaks volumns of his own short comings.

It's unfortunate that anyone would give him or his opposite, Al Sharpton, the time of day.
DrafterX Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 2:56 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
victor809 wrote:


I actually felt stupider after listening to those 3 babble for a minute.



Think
How much money can I get to research this..?? This would be valuable to somebody right..?? Huh
victor809 Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 3:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Abrignac wrote:


However, the fact that Hannity would have such a bumbling idiot on to "defend" the position speaks volumns of his own short comings.



We can definitely agree on that. Why did this woman even think she was qualified to defend a study she clearly didn't bother reading either?

All three of those idiots needed to be locked in a room and horsewhipped until they read the grant applications front to back 10 times. At least then the discussion would have some shred of information guiding it.
Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 3:15 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
victor809 wrote:
We can definitely agree on that. Why did this woman even think she was qualified to defend a study she clearly didn't bother reading either?

All three of those idiots needed to be locked in a room and horsewhipped until they read the grant applications front to back 10 times. At least then the discussion would have some shred of information guiding it.



Blame it on CNN. There was a time when news reporting was a respectable profession. Then along came CNN and with it a venue for the talking heads. Nowhere near enough "news" happens to justify what, 6,8,10,500 24 hour news channels. News has become another circus side show. Thank you Ted.
Buckwheat Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Aug 21 2013, 3:27 PM EST
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Abrignac wrote:
Blame it on CNN. There was a time when news reporting was a respectable profession. Then along came CNN and with it a venue for the talking heads. Nowhere near enough "news" happens to justify what, 6,8,10,500 24 hour news channels. News has become another circus side show. Thank you Ted.



True. The funniest thing about all of these "news people" is that if all of the government "problems" went away they would be out of a JOB. They don't really want our government to change at all. They are as much a part of the "system of corruption" as congress, the president, etc... are. There's one born every minute. PT is rolling. fog
jpotts Offline
#12 Posted: Fri, Aug 23 2013, 12:45 PM EST
Joined: 06-14-2006
Posts: 28,811
victor809 wrote:

Why would you think it is smart to take a title of a scientific study, make wild claims about how useless it is (without actually reading the purpose), and then demand a lawyer who has no interest or knowledge of the study come in and defend it. If that short-bus Hannity actually wanted to discuss the merits of those studies he was whining about, he would ask the grant author to come on and defend it.


Pffth!

Anyone who knows anything about these talking head shows knows that many people with a specific agenda will NOT go on shows that challenge them.

Case in point: Mario Cuomo. That guy was / is a complete and total dunce, and I've seen people who were even partially on the ball pin him down in a matter of seconds. he is 100% completely agenda-focused, and will only go on shows where he is not questioned or challenged on anything that contradicts that agenda.

Ted Kennedy was another.

Grant authors, and people who do studies are no different. They have an agenda, and will only go on shows where they promote themselves to an audience that is like-minded, and will hail their "insightful" views. Which is the reason why most libtard talk shows that go out there to "discuss" issues make sure they pack the panel with like-minded libtards so they can gang-up on the sole conservative. They been doing that crap since the Sixties.

You are wholly taken in by agenda-driven science, Victor. Therefore it is little wonder you posted something this remarkably naïve (sp:?).
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted: Fri, Aug 23 2013, 12:55 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
jpotts wrote:
Therefore it is little wonder you posted something this remarkably naïve (sp:?).



he was feeling stupid at the time.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#14 Posted: Thu, Nov 21 2013, 2:26 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=golden-goose-awards-highlight-weird-sounding-science-with-big-benefits

This made me remember this thread....
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top