Trump Nominates Sam Clovis, a Dude Who is Not a Scientist, to be Department of Agriculture's Top Sci

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
greg nr said:
ok, what does "boofed" mean?

yes, I need to get out more.
Click to expand...
I think he meant something other than the word boofed commonly is used for.

I've heard the term among whitewater kaykers to describe a move made when running a waterfall to avoid the hydraulic at the bottom. Similar to a move ski jumpers make. The kayak makes a sound like that when it lands.

Also

http://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=boofed
boof #boof #boofed #enema #ass #anus

To stick something up your butt, generally drugs but can include anything.
The only way to do E is to boof it.

Where'd the kitty go? I boofed it.

To abuse any licit or illicit substance via insertion into one's rectum.
Dude, I just saw Brian boofing some booze last night at a party. Rad!
#butt funneling #boofing #drugs #boof #boofed #drinking #alcohol
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Singlemalt said:
“I have looked at the science and I have enough of a science background to know when I’m being boofed. And a lot of the science is junk science.”
He seems to like the word "science", so there is that.
Click to expand...
Self described expert: "I have enough of a science background to know". Ummm, he read an article, maybe? Compared to 4 years undergraduate, 6 years to earn phD, with nearly straight A's. Then 10 or more years working professionally and he just "knows when he's being boofed". The arrogance is amazing.

I've worked for fuckers like that and when things go wrong, it's never their fault either. No accountability. If they can't blame a scapegoat then they trot out the "it was an accident, you can never be 100% safe". As if there was even an attempt to prevent it in the first place.

The worst is when said asshole dismisses analysis by claiming fear mongering or self interest on the part of the analyst.

This is way common in industry. It's why there are regulations in federal systems that require science-based decisions. Of course such a rule must be enforced to be followed and I have no doubt how the new science officer in chief will behave.
 
Last edited:
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I think he meant something other than the word boofed commonly is used for.

I've heard the term among whitewater kaykers to describe a move made when running a waterfall to avoid the hydraulic at the bottom. Similar to a move ski jumpers make. The kayak makes a sound like that when it lands.

Also

http://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=boofed
boof #boof #boofed #enema #ass #anus

To stick something up your butt, generally drugs but can include anything.
The only way to do E is to boof it.

Where'd the kitty go? I boofed it.

To abuse any licit or illicit substance via insertion into one's rectum.
Dude, I just saw Brian boofing some booze last night at a party. Rad!
#butt funneling #boofing #drugs #boof #boofed #drinking #alcohol
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was regional slang, but I remember "boof" being used to mean "butt fuck".

"Don't try to boof me, motherfucker."
 
dagwood45431

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Self described expert: "I have enough of a science background to know". Ummm, he read an article, maybe? Compared to 4 years undergraduate, 6 years to earn phD, then 10 or more years working professionally and he just "knows when he's being boofed". The arrogance is amazing.

I've worked for fuckers like that and when things go wrong, it's never their fault either. No accountability. If they can't blame a scapegoat then they trot out the "it was an accident, you can never be 100% safe". As if there was even an attempt to prevent it in the first place.

The worst is when said asshole dismisses analysis by claiming fear mongering or self interest on the part of the analyst.

This is way common in industry. It's why there are regulations in federal systems that require science-based decisions. Of course such a rule must be enforced to be followed and I have no doubt how the new science officer in chief will behave.
Click to expand...
Remember, "you're-doing-a heck-of-a-job" Brownie? It's as if the Orange Retard is stocking up on nothing but Brownies.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
dagwood45431 said:
Remember, "you're-doing-a heck-of-a-job" Brownie? It's as if the Orange Retard is stocking up on nothing but Brownies.
Click to expand...
The analogy is perfect, including the lack of accountability. Yeah, and how many were killed by that kind of incompetence?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Self described expert: "I have enough of a science background to know". Ummm, he read an article, maybe? Compared to 4 years undergraduate, 6 years to earn phD, with nearly straight A's. Then 10 or more years working professionally and he just "knows when he's being boofed". The arrogance is amazing.

I've worked for fuckers like that and when things go wrong, it's never their fault either. No accountability. If they can't blame a scapegoat then they trot out the "it was an accident, you can never be 100% safe". As if there was even an attempt to prevent it in the first place.

The worst is when said asshole dismisses analysis by claiming fear mongering or self interest on the part of the analyst.

This is way common in industry. It's why there are regulations in federal systems that require science-based decisions. Of course such a rule must be enforced to be followed and I have no doubt how the new science officer in chief will behave.
Click to expand...
One side note to this rant: There is a lot of money spent fixing disasters. Disasters cost a lot more than prevention. Also, prevention doesn't draw attention like rescues and heroism after disaster strikes. Just saying capitalism isn't a good economic model to apply to relatively low profit public works projects and research because the big profit lies in the clean up.
 
Singlemalt

Singlemalt

Well-Known Member
QtrNdaPuss said:
Too bad he didn't get a former employee of monsanto like a real politician would have nominated.
Click to expand...
It all depends on what the Pres wants accomplished. Given what I believe about Trump, this dude fits the bill: he will gut USDA, sell out to big Ag and generally ruin it for many years to come. When it's all over he'll go back to his public admin career without a hitch. Hiring a real scientist has it's drawbacks(from DJT view): said scientist has a vested interest in his/her future career, to science in general and to some level of trained ethics; thus the "sell out"/demolition may not be as complete as DJT would want.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
PetFlora said:
The OPs title suggests we've only had 'scientists' until now (thereby taking a shot at Trump). and that may well be, BUT, for more than 20 years Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, the use/implementation of genetically modified crops sprayed with all kinds of toxic, poisonous chemicals has increased. Farmers are taken to court for not using GM seeds. Most cannot afford to fight Big Agri

Most following this thread should know the importance of microbes, and soil amendments to enhance crop quality (and minimize attraction to pests), and yet they are not being used by Big Agri , instead it's GMOs, which were supposedly scientifically engineered to reduce/replace pesticides, insecticides

My conclusion, how much worse could he be?
Click to expand...
so not only did bush lie about killing bin laden, but now the science farmers use to push crop yields to all time highs are a conspiracy to make frogs gay?

just shut the fuck up, you pathetic trump apologist loser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top