Global Warming Hoax

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

There's no presumption involved, it's a pretty well known fact. People in the natural sciences lean heavily towards the left and the applied sciences is heavily weighted with people who lean to the right.





http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

Unlike that completely unhinged rant from jammer, I won't put either one down. We wouldn't be where we are without those in the applied sciences like engineering, health care etc who put science to work in the real world. But they would be totally clueless without the work of those who discover and quantify the properties they use in their work. Jammer can froth at the mouth about those who "produce nothing" but that only shows his complete ignorance of both fields.

Lets take EROS as an example. They don't "produce" anything except data. They suck off the government teat and look at pictures and write reports all day. They don't "produce" anything jammer can hold in his hand so he thinks they're worthless. But ask the farmers, ranchers, oil companies, mining companies, developers and engineers who utilize the data that EROS provides free of charge and you'll get a very different answer. Their jobs would be much more difficult and inefficient without the work of those who "exist solely off the funding" that we provide.

Ask a doctor where he would be without the pure sciences. He can look at an x-ray and use it to diagnose his patient but that wouldn't be possible without the engineers who designed the machine he uses. And those engineers wouldn't have been able to design that machine without the work of those who discovered and quantified the scientific properties of x-rays. Then ask him about those who studied genetics, bacteria, viruses, immunology and on and on.

Ask the military where they'd be without the sciences.

Anyone who says scientists "produce nothing" only show how completely ignorant they are and how pathetic our school system is. Anyone who thinks we haven't gained anything from those who "study and think and produce nothing except reports" is a dumbass of the highest order. He might want to look into the long line of scientists who developed the knowledge base that enabled the engineers to come up with the technology that allows him to display his complete and utter ignorance to the world with the click of a mouse.

There are "makers" and there are "takers".  Parasites like you rant all of the time because you are deathly afraid that the "makers" will no longer produce so you can get your free handouts.  You parasitic moochers are pathetic.

Jammer wrote:There are "makers" and there are "takers".  Parasites like you rant all of the time because you are deathly afraid that the "makers" will no longer produce so you can get your free handouts.  You parasitic moochers are pathetic.

That's right, the world would be a lot better off without "takers" like Wilhelm Röntgen, William Crookes, Johann Hittorf, Ivan Pulyui, Fernando Sanford and Philipp Lenard. They were nothing more than moochers who contributed nothing of value to this world. Just think how much better the world would be if people hadn't supported them and their "work".

Anyone who has actually worked in the real world understands the progressive socialist leanings of most scientists.  Companies have annual budgetary issues that are handled in some sort of profit planning session and here is what you will find in almost everyone of them.

The conservatives who have technical backgrounds (and yes most of them are engineers) are in different disciplines of production, quality control, marketing, sales and management.  The progressive liberal parasites are almost always to be found in the lab or EH&S.  

The conservatives are all involved with how they can identify customer needs and fill them with quality products and services at the lowest cost possible while making a profit for the company.  While on the other hand the lab nerds and EH&S goof balls have only one input into the profit planning cycle and that is how much money will the business unit GIVE them next year.

They produce nothing and in the case of EH&S along with the liberal lawyers are trying to find reasons why the company shouldn't even be in business.  And the research jerkoffs will live in their cubbyhole wasting company resources inventing "white elephants" that nobody wants or needs to buy unless they get some good solid direction from a CONSERVATIVE somewhere in the company.

That is the type of person who fills the role of a "natural scientist".  However, many of these less than productive cretins go into the academic world.  Surprise - surprise, guess what?  Our college campuses are filled with these people who can't produce anything, so they teach instead.  And then there are the thousands of these nonproductive cretins who go into organizations that produce global warming hoaxes in order to scare the people and get more money handed to them.

Progressive liberals make nothing, they only take from the producers.  That is something that will never ever change.  So shut the money off to these pathetic parasites.

Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college. There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Jammer wrote:Anyone who has actually worked in the real world understands the progressive socialist leanings of most scientists.

Are you saying that nightlight doesn't work in the real world?

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area. What makes you think that and how many would suit you? You phony outrage is duly noted.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:There are "makers" and there are "takers".  Parasites like you rant all of the time because you are deathly afraid that the "makers" will no longer produce so you can get your free handouts.  You parasitic moochers are pathetic.

That's right, the world would be a lot better off without "takers" like Wilhelm Röntgen, William Crookes, Johann Hittorf, Ivan Pulyui, Fernando Sanford and Philipp Lenard. They were nothing more than moochers who contributed nothing of value to this world. Just think how much better the world would be if people hadn't supported them and their "work".

Ahh yes, there is nothing more productive than a progressive socialist slug like you with access to Google.  Well for every exception to the rule that you can find on Google, anyone who has worked in a large corporation will be able to grab the company directory and give you dozens if not hundreds of names of parasites who only took up space and collected a salary.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:There are "makers" and there are "takers".  Parasites like you rant all of the time because you are deathly afraid that the "makers" will no longer produce so you can get your free handouts.  You parasitic moochers are pathetic.

That's right, the world would be a lot better off without "takers" like Wilhelm Röntgen, William Crookes, Johann Hittorf, Ivan Pulyui, Fernando Sanford and Philipp Lenard. They were nothing more than moochers who contributed nothing of value to this world. Just think how much better the world would be if people hadn't supported them and their "work".

Hey liberal dumbass, you really should do a better vetting job on the poster children you parade out after doing your Google searches.  That Philipp Lenard was a beauty.

http://www.brucejhillman.com/the_man_who_stalked_einstein__how_nazi_scientist_philipp_lenard_changed_the_cour_123588.htm

But guess what, he was a member of the National Socialist Party and was Hitler's chief advisor on physics.  I maintain that you progressive socialist liberals are pure EVIL and thanks for helping to once again point out just how accurate that statement is.  And in a hundred years people will be reading the same type of stories about these wonderful scientists who came up with the global warming hoax and served as advisors to Obama.

Progressive liberals are pure EVIL.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who has actually worked in the real world understands the progressive socialist leanings of most scientists.

Are you saying that nightlight doesn't work in the real world?

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

I am saying you are a dumbass progressive socialist and are pure EVIL.  You dumbass wouldn't recognize a rhetorical question if someone pointed it out to you.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question

I maintain it is a complete waste of time for us conservatives to have discussions with progressive socialists because you are totally closed minded dumbass useful idiots.
You people are indoctrinated worthless parasites with totally closed minds.  No amount of facts or commonsense makes a difference with you - so I urge conservatives to abandon arguing with these pieces of shite and spend your time getting rid of them.

Don't work for a liberal
Don't hire a liberal
Don't buy anything from a liberal
Don't sell anything to a liberal
And for God's sake do not donate a penny to a charity that helps these scum.

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who has actually worked in the real world understands the progressive socialist leanings of most scientists.

Are you saying that nightlight doesn't work in the real world?

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

I am saying you are a dumbass progressive socialist and are pure EVIL.  You dumbass wouldn't recognize a rhetorical question if someone pointed it out to you.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question

You might want to note that in order to claim your comment was a "rhetorical question", it would have to actually be a question. Yours was not a question, it was a statement. Only a complete dumbass wouldn't know the difference between a question and a statement.

But I can understand why you wouldn't want a reply. According to your "rhetorical" statement I would qualify as one "who has actually worked in the real world" and your friend nightlight would not. I am well aware of the political schism in the various sciences but apparently, nightlight is not.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein  entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

Hey dumbass, you are the best proof statement a conservative could ever hope to find.  Thanks again for helping to prove the age old axiom that progressive liberals are incapable of ever arguing against a rule, they can only hope to find an exception to that rule and trot it out as their argument.

Age old axiom:   Progressive liberals never argue a rule, they always find an exception to the rule and then try to claim that is proof that a rule doesn't exist.  Never mind the 99% of the examples of the actual rule, that is meaningless to a closed minded fool we all know as a progressive liberal.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Anyone who has actually worked in the real world understands the progressive socialist leanings of most scientists.

Are you saying that nightlight doesn't work in the real world?

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

I am saying you are a dumbass progressive socialist and are pure EVIL.  You dumbass wouldn't recognize a rhetorical question if someone pointed it out to you.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetorical+question

You might want to note that in order to claim your comment was a "rhetorical question", it would have to actually be a question. Yours was not a question, it was a statement. Only a complete dumbass wouldn't know the difference between a question and a statement.

But I can understand why you wouldn't want a reply. According to your "rhetorical" statement I would qualify as one "who has actually worked in the real world" and your friend nightlight would not. I am well aware of the political schism in the various sciences but apparently, nightlight is not.

WOW - you are a bigger moron than even I thought possible.  It was not MY comment that I alluded to as a rhetorical question, it was the question from nightlight.   But thanks for playing along and once again proving my point that you couldn't identify a rhetorical question even if it was pointed out to you, WHICH I DID and you still didn't recognize it.

You are a pathetic joke.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein  entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

Hey dumbass, you are the best proof statement a conservative could ever hope to find.  Thanks again for helping to prove the age old axiom that progressive liberals are incapable of ever arguing against a rule, they can only hope to find an exception to that rule and trot it out as their argument.

Like I said, I agree with you. Everyone who has actually worked in the real world knows that only the stupid, lazy slugs go into quantum mechanics, chemistry or theoretical mathematics. Any dumbass can understand that crap, that's why those are the fall back classes for the college athletes looking for an easy path through school.

Jammer wrote:Age old axiom: Progressive liberals never argue a rule, they always find an exception to the rule and then try to claim that is proof that a rule doesn't exist. Never mind the 99% of the examples of the actual rule, that is meaningless to a closed minded fool we all know as a progressive liberal.

Cool, then feel free to set me straight and prove this "rule" exists.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Age old axiom:   Progressive liberals never argue a rule, they always find an exception to the rule and then try to claim that is proof that a rule doesn't exist.  Never mind the 99% of the examples of the actual rule, that is meaningless to a closed minded fool we all know as a progressive liberal.

Cool, then feel free to set me straight and prove this "rule" exists.

Why?  Nobody in their right mind gives you an ounce of credibility and besides I could provide all the proof in the world and you would merely find a single exception and claim that the rule was not valid.

My only concern with you is that you are pathetic even for a progressive socialist.  As a result, there is always the very remote chance someone will start feeling sorry for you because you are so incredibly stupid.   Therefore, I think we should request that the forum administrator ban all imbeciles and set a minimum IQ level of 10 to be able to comment on this forum.  That would put an end to you.

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass. Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science. But do keep up your feeble efforts. Your comments are laughable. You must be a complete imbecile.

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you. Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass.  Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science.  But do keep up your feeble efforts.  Your comments are laughable.  You must be a complete imbecile.  

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you.  Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Yes, I pointed out those exceptions and backed it up with data to prove it.

I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass.  Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science.  But do keep up your feeble efforts.  Your comments are laughable.  You must be a complete imbecile.  

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you.  Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Yes, I pointed out those exceptions and backed it up with data to prove it.

I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

You have proven NOTHING except that you are a moron.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass.  Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science.  But do keep up your feeble efforts.  Your comments are laughable.  You must be a complete imbecile.  

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you.  Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Yes, I pointed out those exceptions and backed it up with data to prove it.

I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

You have proven NOTHING except that you are a moron.

You mean the polling data that also proves you right, is wrong?

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein  entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

He was never accepted into the electrical engineering program but later achieved degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He is known for his work as a physicist.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein  entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

He was never accepted into the electrical engineering program but later achieved degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He is known for his work as a physicist.

Yes, I know. And like jammer says: "Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics."

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass.  Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science.  But do keep up your feeble efforts.  Your comments are laughable.  You must be a complete imbecile.  

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you.  Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Yes, I pointed out those exceptions and backed it up with data to prove it.

I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

You have proven NOTHING except that you are a moron.

You mean the polling data that also proves you right, is wrong?

Hey dumbass, you are embarrassing yourself.  Here is a copy and paste of what you said:

Paquette wrote:I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

And you were the moron trying to joke that I was the one who didn't understand what the E stood for in STEM.  You are nothing but a clueless twit.  They have special Olympics for certain types of people who are not able to compete in the normal events.  There must be some type of SPECIAL forum where morons like you can go and comment.

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

I will have to agree with you on this. Anyone can tell you that understanding biology, chemistry or physics is far easier that calculating the tensile strength of a hunk of iron. It's a well known fact that Einstein  entered academia because he was too freaking stupid and lazy to get that electrical engineering degree.

He was never accepted into the electrical engineering program but later achieved degrees in Mathematics and Physics. He is known for his work as a physicist.

Yes, I know. And like jammer says: "Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics."

And just why are we not discussing YOUR personal hero that you idolize, Philipp Lenard.  You know the one that was the progressive socialist member of the National Socialist party and was a natural scientist who helped produce the Holocaust for the world.   You were right, progressive socialist natural scientists have occasionally produced a few things.

You people are pure evil.

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Jammer wrote:Oh yeah and one more thing.  Why are more liberals scientists rather than engineers?  Well the lazy slugs couldn't make it through engineering school.  Everyone knows that engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics.  So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree way back when they enter college.  There is no reason to expect them to become more ambitious later in life, they are after all progressive socialists living off somebody else's work.

Maybe we should pose this question to gomezzz.

Unless I'm mistaken, your daughter is a chemist. Did she enter this field because she's a "lazy slug" who wasn't smart enough for engineering?

And while you're at it, maybe you could explain to jammer what the "E" stands for in a "STEM degree".

There are exceptions to every rule dumbass.  Of course there are a few liberals who became engineers and there are a few conservatives who went into science.  But do keep up your feeble efforts.  Your comments are laughable.  You must be a complete imbecile.  

But do keep smiling, your new EBT card replenishment will soon be on its way to you.  Keep "free lunching" you parasite.

Yes, I pointed out those exceptions and backed it up with data to prove it.

I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

You have proven NOTHING except that you are a moron.

You mean the polling data that also proves you right, is wrong?

Hey dumbass, you are embarrassing yourself.  Here is a copy and paste of what you said:

Paquette wrote:I'm thrilled to have conservatives working in the natural sciences, I just think we need more. Not just in the easy STEM fields like physics or chemistry but in the non-STEM disciplines like engineering.

And you were the moron trying to joke that I was the one who didn't understand what the E stood for in STEM.  You are nothing but a clueless twit.  They have special Olympics for certain types of people who are not able to compete in the normal events.  There must be some type of SPECIAL forum where morons like you can go and comment.

Did you click the link? Did you see the big STEM picture I posted for you?

Yes, I know what STEM means but when you said "...engineering is much more difficult than biology, chemistry or physics. So, most of these lazy slugs opt for the easy path to some type of STEM degree..."it sure doesn't sound like you're including engineering as "some type of STEM degree".

Now, do you really think theoretical physics is easier than engineering?

Jammer wrote:And just why are we not discussing YOUR personal hero that you idolize, Philipp Lenard.  You know the one that was the progressive socialist member of the National Socialist party and was a natural scientist who helped produce the Holocaust for the world.   You were right, progressive socialist natural scientists have occasionally produced a few things.

You people are pure evil.

Hero?

Idolize?

What a freaking drama queen.