2 Dec 2025 9:33 am
Blackvegetable » 02 Dec 2025, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑ A "rogue" admiral, apparently.
Hegseth Ordered a Lethal Attack but Not the Killing of Survivors, Officials Sayl
Amid talk of war crimes, the details and precise sequence of a Sept. 2 attack on a boat in the Caribbean are facing intensifying scrutiny.
At the White House on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, read a statement that said Mr. Hegseth had authorized the Special Operations commander overseeing the attack, Adm. Frank M. Bradley, “to conduct these kinetic strikes.”
She said that Admiral Bradley had “worked well within his authority and the law directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.”
under the bus he goes....
The Scumbag Administration.
Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?
A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors
Predictions:
Deal:Let me prove how predictable you narcissists are. Watch this:
1. Phase 1: You will say that you answered it.
Phase 2: I will remind you of :"are these your words?" from yesterday and if "will" is future tense.
Phase 3: You will deny that I showed you, because of your meltdown with my link provided...and then you will say "I didn't ask for a link."
Repeat
2. Your next move will be to claim that you answered it by giving your definition, to which I replied that isn't the question...etc...etc...blah...blah...blah..
3. You will also say that you answered through your non-answers.
Moron.
Deal: If Veghead can prove that he answered the survivorship multiple choice question, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back for as long as I live. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.
Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.
Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post:
[/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...
From which you are running...