trump: oblivious moron or psychotically narcissistic oblivious moron?

Flossy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_(film)

Sorry; thought it was the idiot KayKKKan looking for a film. This one is excellent.

Greg

Yeah, I saw that one a long time ago. Starts out reasonably well, then gets sillier and sillier, ending in total absurdity, IIRC.

Kaykan was looking for intelligent movies, which is how I remember the ones I listed. Granted that it's been a long time since watching e.g. Alfredo Garcia.
 
Who needs fictitious violence depicted in movies if we get to observe brutal vandalism like this?

Counseled by Industry, Not Staff, E.P.A. Chief Is Off to a Blazing Start

Since February, Mr. Pruitt has filed a proposal of intent to undo or weaken Mr. Obama’s climate change regulations, known as the Clean Power Plan. In late June, he filed a legal plan to repeal an Obama-era rule curbing pollution in the nation’s waterways. He delayed a rule that would require fossil fuel companies to rein in leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas wells. He delayed the date by which companies must comply with a rule to prevent explosions and spills at chemical plants. And he reversed a ban on the use of a pesticide that the E.P.A.’s own scientists have said is linked to damage of children’s nervous systems.[...]

And he is doing all this largely without the input of the 15,000 career employees at the agency he heads, according to interviews with over 20 current and former E.P.A. senior career staff members. [...]

Instead, Mr. Pruitt has outsourced crucial work to a network of lawyers, lobbyists and other allies, especially Republican state attorneys general, a network he worked with closely as the head of the Republican Attorneys General Association. Since 2013, the group has collected $4.2 million from fossil fuel-related companies like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Southern Company, businesses that also worked closely with Mr. Pruitt in many of the 14 lawsuits he filed against the E.P.A.[...]

“It amounts to a corporate takeover of the agency, in its decision- and policy-making functions,” said Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a government watchdog group.[...]

Mr. Pruitt has begun what he calls his “back to basics” agenda for the E.P.A. — one that he has described to multiple people as an effort to rein in the regulatory efforts of the Obama era, which focused on invisible greenhouse gases from tailpipes and smokestacks. Instead, Mr. Pruitt has said, he wants to focus on “tangible” pollution — for example, the Superfund program, which cleans up hazardous waste at old industrial sites.

“I am making it a priority to ensure contaminated sites get cleaned up,” he said. “We will be more hands-on.” (His proposed budget for 2018, however, would cut the Superfund program by about 25 percent.) [...]

On March 22, he had dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with 45 members of the board of directors of the American Petroleum Institute, a body composed largely of chief executive officers of the oil and gas industry. At the time, oil and gas companies were pushing the E.P.A. to roll back a set of rules on methane leaks from drilling wells, which the industry estimates could cost it over $170 million.

On June 13, Mr. Pruitt filed a proposal to delay those regulations by two years, and the agency is expected to rewrite them. In the filing, he noted that the E.P.A. had concluded that a delay of the pollution rules “may have a disproportionate effect on children.” But he also said the rules would come at a significant cost to the oil and gas industry.

Saving the health of children, or sparing Big Oil some costs to clean up their operations somewhat. Pruitt has no doubt what aim to favor, and he took no chances with the health of Big Oil's bottom line.


So what is the reason for this being done? The regs are too onerous or just ineffective?

Greg
 
Yeah, I saw that one a long time ago. Starts out reasonably well, then gets sillier and sillier, ending in total absurdity, IIRC.

Kaykan was looking for intelligent movies, which is how I remember the ones I listed. Granted that it's been a long time since watching e.g. Alfredo Garcia.


Was that the original or the yank version you saw? I thought the original was excellent.

Greg
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LVatorman For This Post:

Moondoggie (Yesterday), X.O. (Yesterday)​


How about you three get ahold of your horses? I hold, anyone who would so much as imply to threaten those whose opinion differs - no matter how odious that opinion might be - with the force of the law and even death, is as un-American as it gets.
Well, calling someone a "treasonous bastard" is not, in and of itself, a threat. Whether true or false, it (or at least the "treasonous" part) is a statement of fact.

If however your point is that their votes are mere expressions of opinion and cannot suffice to make them answerable to the charge of "traitor", I am inclined to think you are correct, in most cases. It makes more sense to view the vast majority of votes for Agent Orange as either protest votes of one type or another, executed without taking the man seriously, or as desperate indications that something, anything, is better than the politics we have had thus far. Which of course is dead wrong, but is understandable.

I expect some people may well have voted for Trump in the hope/expectation that he would ultimately damage or even destroy our political system, and/or cause great harm and suffering, but I think their number must be very small.
 
Crikey; I haven't done that stuff since Uni circa 1977. It was fun but no idea now. I preferred Chemistry anyway.

Greg

It's a trick question for the board lunatic Evince, which of course she'll never go near in a million years.

There is no answer as it has only ever been solved for hydrogen.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top
 
Last edited:
Well, calling someone a "treasonous bastard" is not, in and of itself, a threat. Whether true or false, it (or at least the "treasonous" part) is a statement of fact.

If however your point is that their votes are mere expressions of opinion and cannot suffice to make them answerable to the charge of "traitor", I am inclined to think you are correct, in most cases. It makes more sense to view the vast majority of votes for Agent Orange as either protest votes of one type or another, executed without taking the man seriously, or as desperate indications that something, anything, is better than the politics we have had thus far. Which of course is dead wrong, but is understandable.

I expect some people may well have voted for Trump in the hope/expectation that he would ultimately damage or even destroy our political system, and/or cause great harm and suffering, but I think their number must be very small.

Isn't one McCarthy enough, Ken? And shouldn't, for anyone of a sane mind, throwing about the charge of "treason" - factually and legally wrong in this case - over differences of opinion be verboten, having learned that lesson of history?
 
Its a trick question for the board lunatic Evince. There is no answer as it has only ever been solved for hydrogen.

Sent from my iPhone 25S with cherries on top

Hey Bru; it confused me enough at the time. After copying about twenty boards of "proof" I recall the satisfied expression on the Prof's face. I wiped it out by asking a question about Page 1 Line three...the first two were his name and "Hamiltonian Proof". I stumbled through for the intro course and moved rapidly to Bio-Chemistry. Also did an Economics thing as well; those were the days. Lots of Rugby and cricket.

Greg
 
Well, calling someone a "treasonous bastard" is not, in and of itself, a threat. Whether true or false, it (or at least the "treasonous" part) is a statement of fact.

If however your point is that their votes are mere expressions of opinion and cannot suffice to make them answerable to the charge of "traitor", I am inclined to think you are correct, in most cases. It makes more sense to view the vast majority of votes for Agent Orange as either protest votes of one type or another, executed without taking the man seriously, or as desperate indications that something, anything, is better than the politics we have had thus far. Which of course is dead wrong, but is understandable.

I expect some people may well have voted for Trump in the hope/expectation that he would ultimately damage or even destroy our political system, and/or cause great harm and suffering, but I think their number must be very small.

I doesn't matter if it's a small number or not. If the intent or effect is to threaten the health of millions, especially children, even by delaying the effective date of anti-pollution rules, purely for the sake of multi-national corporation's profits as Olde posted above, it's treason. You can argue about whether or not the merits of common decency in political discourse are healthy after the anti-democratic oligarchy and their supporters' selfish ideology is destroyed.
 
Isn't one McCarthy enough, Ken? And shouldn't, for anyone of a sane mind, throwing about the charge of "treason" - factually and legally wrong in this case - over differences of opinion be verboten, having learned that lesson of history?
The historical fact of McCarthyism did not and could not eliminate the possibility of treason for all time. And you and I should both be wary of the "differences of opinion" excuse, seeing as how it has been abused on a regular basis for decades now when discussing anthropogenic climate change.

Opinion segues into fact; there are well-established yardsticks for differentiating the two in the hard sciences, fewer in the soft sciences, and very few when it comes to politics, but that does not mean that some voters did not see Trump very clearly for what he was, and is, but voted for him anyway.

Back this afternoon/evening....
 
The historical fact of McCarthyism did not and could not eliminate the possibility of treason for all time. And you and I should both be wary of the "differences of opinion" excuse, seeing as how it has been abused on a regular basis for decades now when discussing anthropogenic climate change.

Opinion segues into fact; there are well-established yardsticks for differentiating the two in the hard sciences, fewer in the soft sciences, and very few when it comes to politics, but that does not mean that some voters did not see Trump very clearly for what he was, and is, but voted for him anyway.

Back this afternoon/evening....

FFS The END IS NIGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................................NOT!!

Get a fucking new record PLEASE!!

Greg
 
Actually the end might be nigh....for me. Fuckwit coming out of a driveway nearly collected me on my bike; I blame AGW!!! Fucking fossil fuels!!

Greg
 
“This is infinity here. It could be infinity,” Trump answered in a rambling response. “We don’t really don’t know. But it could be. It has to be something — but it could be infinity, right?”
 
Owl'd You're Up!

What the fuck does that mean?? You didn't come up with that, surely!!!

Greg

You'll never figure it out on your own, you stupid nit.
Promise to leave this thread and I'll explain it to you. Here's a hint: Think UV!!!!!!
 
* "Think UV!!!!!" was Glug's explanation of the greenhouse effect. That led me to ask other denialists if they understood it. Seems to be a consensus of ignorance there.
 
Back
Top