Next under the ban-hammer: adjectives, the first 20 elements in the periodic table, and words more than 8 letters long.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lets try that again. Do you always base your comments on your opinion of President Trump instead of fact? Because that's what you're doing. You have an opinion that Trump is not very intelligent (your use of the crack about 'words more than 8 letters long').Let me ask you this Ms. Nature Mom. Do YOU have a multi-national corporation that you built from practically nothing? Are YOU a multi-billionaire? No?Then I guess Trump, who is all of those things, is smarter than you. His IQ is approximately 168, what's yours?
If you genuinely believe Trump’s IQ is 168 and that he was a successful businessman who built his fortune out of the dirt from nothing then you’re beyond help. Both assertions are demonstrably false and teeter dangerously close to delusional. Godspeed.
Try reading my actual comment rather than what you 'think' is there. I did not say he built "his fortune out of the dirt from nothing", I said from 'practically nothing'. The money his father fronted him was a drop in the bucket compared to what The Trump Organization is worth today, so that qualifies as 'practically nothing'.As for his IQ, CNN, of all channels, reported a story in which MENSA, the genius registration and organization, confirmed that Donald Trump's IQ was an average of 168.People like you always say that people like me, who rely on facts, are delusional, when it is actually people like you, who tote the Party Line who are. Godspeed to you as well.
Got a link for that CNN/Mensa/Trump IQ thing? All I find is they offer him to have an IQ-off with Tillerson.
My friend, he’s the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
This article by the little known and even littler cared for Bangor Daily News is a perfect example of 'fake news', in which the article is loosely based on fact but then draws conclusions and add extra info. Yes the word list included those seven words that were not to be used in budget proposals - not in government in general, just in budget proposals. This was according to a person who spoke "on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly".If the person was NOT authorized to speak publicly, WHY were they speaking at all?This article was a 'fluff piece' designed to fill space, that's all.
They're not "authorized to speak" because they are a scientist in the Trump administration. One kind of budget document is a grant proposal. Want money to study zika? Better not mention that you're trying to protect fetuses, another banned word.You're trying to play the "Trump is a success" card. I'll believe it if he ever releases his tax returns. You're also (and I find it a little hard to believe) trying to play the "Trump is smart" card. That's not a card.Look up Trofim Lysenko on wikipedia. Then come back and tell me how throttling science makes a country great. I'll wait.
The article didn't come from the little known Bangor Daily News. It came from the Washington Post. However, figuring that out from the link would require skills (reading, awareness, deduction) not be be found among the ilk of Trump supporters. Coincidentally, those words are next on the ban list.
The Gent also lies that he has a masters in economics and and MBA. Best to just ignore him.
and now they'rehttps://www.statnews.com/2017/12/16/forbidden-words-fda-cdc/shriveling up, pretending they never tried to do this.Fatwa against mentioning climate change still in place though.