BST Users
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About playhard

  • Rank
    Senior Member


  • What I do for a living:
    Retired. Worked in electric utility plant engineering, construction, and maintenance.

Profile Fields

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southern New Jersey
  1. FWIW, the country of Israel (the government), is NOT shooting rockets at the moon. An Israeli private enterprise, SpaceIL did arrange to send an autonomous vehicle to land on the moon. It crashed on April 11, 2019. From the NYT: Moon Landing by Israel’s Beresheet Spacecraft Ends in Crash The spacecraft’s orbit of the moon was a first for a private effort, but the landing failure highlighted the risks of fast and cheap approaches to space exploration. From a Wiki excerpt: The SpaceIL is a Non-governmental organization made up of multidisciplinary team of Israeli scientists and space aficionados. The organization was formed to compete in the international Google Lunar X Prize competition. The SpaceIL team is developing a robotic spacecraft, built as a Microsatellite, weighing around 500 kg. It is designed to be launched and then land on the moon bearing the Israeli flag. To win, they must be the first to launch, fly, and land the spacecraft on the moon then transmit live video feed back to earth. If the team wins, they intend on donating the prize, about $30 million, toward space education.
  2. Here's a revealing 30 second video, from Obama himself. Not my words.
  3. Against protocol? That's a way with words.
  4. So you will agree that this is an exposure. Whether or not there are technicalities is not material. Ok, she skates. You win. Hillary evades prosecution. But, you will agree she is at fault and culpable for hiding and or destroying information that would be at odds with the security of the US. Thank you.
  5. I don't get it. Jeopardy video Daily Double question? Hint? You put your right hand in. You take your right hand out. You put your right hand in and you shake it all about. The Hokey Pokey Alex?
  6. By some measure, Barr pales in any political comparison. Pulled this from a web search: The attorney general Eric Holder has become the first sitting member of a president's cabinet in US history to be held in contempt of Congress after Republicans vented their fury over a bungled gun-tracking investigation. Seventeen Democrats, under pressure from the pro-gun lobby the NRA, joined 238 Republicans to carry a criminal contempt resolution against Holder. A currently serving attorney general has never before been censured in this way. So far, Barr can't make the same infamous claim as Holder.
  7. And, "therein lies the rub", to use a figure of speech.
  8. Racist statement. Perpetuates a stereotype.
  9. You might be late to the party and missed the earlier post of a Trump tweet. Below is a copy. I fact checked the tweet myself. It appears to be a genuine copy from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account. Pretty clear Trump is focused on California, which is a lost cause, with no mention of shipping all these undocumented people to these sanctuary counties in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania , Florida and North Carolina.
  10. Yes it was something, something of biblical proportions, to use a suited colloquialism. But sensational, well sensational is when the 9/11 event, the countless direct loss of innocent lives and the lives of those who knowingly and willingly jumped to their own deaths from the World Trade Center Towers, is minimized and not regarded as a supreme insult to the people of the USA. That's sensational.
  11. Either, or? I like multiple choice questions. Yes, I'll agree that Obama was weak on immigration and allowed, no... encouraged, illegal entry of parties across the border and into the US. But, your alternative proposition is equally true, if you believe the below photo was not "photoshopped".
  12. Last two (summation) paragraphs from Snopes on this subject, expose a partisan view in the post. There was child separation under Obama, but the post avoids addressing this inconvenient truth and it was never stopped under Obama. Why should it have been stopped, under Obama's reign? No one ever raised a cry. Obama was allowed to play by his own concocted set of rules and the media and his ilk were complicit in failing to bring any attention to his policies, whether during or after the fact. Snopes says in the second to last paragraph in an assessment asking "Did President Obama Oversee the Separation of 89,000 Children from Their Parents?: That means it is not possible to make a precise statistical comparison between Obama and Trump on this specific outcome. However, immigration experts and former Homeland Security officials agree that the rate of child separation under Obama (so there is a clear assessment by Snopes that there was child separation under saint Obama) is likely (what does likely mean?) nowhere close to what has been seen under Trump. Snopes only talked about the rate. They did not talk about the number, since Obama's child separation policy was never flagged for any period of time. The Jeff Sessions implemented zero-tolerance policy was flagged within about 1 month, or, "As a result of the new policy, 2,342 children were separated from their parents between 5 May and 9 June 2018" (per Snopes). And the last paragraph of the Snopes assessment: Criminal prosecution for improperly crossing into the United States was the exception (exception? Say it isn't so.) under the Obama administration (again, there is a clear assessment by Snopes that there was child separation under Obama) , whose policy largely (largely? What does Snopes mean when they say largely) limited that approach to known criminals and repeat offenders. Under the “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Trump and Sessions, criminal prosecution for any unauthorized border crossing is the rule rather than the exception. But there were exceptions and not just for criminals, but also for repeat offenders.
  13. You cherry picked your definitions, from where ever, and pitted the terms patriot and nationalist against each other, to suit your political slant. Referencing Merriam-Webster, here are the two not politically charged definitions that I found. Nationalism : loyalty and devotion to a nation especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. Patriotism love for or devotion to one's country While your definition and the Merriam-Webster definition share some common ground, your definition imparts a sinister connotation to the US nationalist, which M-W avoids, for some reason.
  14. It is preposterous to say that the wall offers "zero security". It is a wild statement to make. In and of itself, the wall is at a minimum, an impediment to anyone trying to scale or breach it to gain access to the property. In conjunction with either armed security or pan-tilt-zoom cameras, or both, the wall is an element of a diverse security system.