UnderOveur

The man believes in his soul he is more intelligent than anyone else...just like my sister, who refers to herself as a "professional intellectual". Such people are completely full of themselves, and rarely (if ever) admit to making a mistake (much less offering any kind of apology). To be proven "wrong" is their greatest fear and loathing, so they will argue a point to death (as we have seen with Mr. Know-it-all).

I believe the point you are trying to make is a valid and good one, encompassed in this quote:

"There is a world of difference between truth and facts. Facts can obscure the truth."
- Maya Angelou

XHooker

I find it ironic nobody has come out and answered your question, especially considering the performance of Gates' predecessor.

DakBroadbent

Jungle's correct. Facts exist independent of our perceptions or misinterpretations (or misstatements), about them. The fact that old theories (which were never 'facts' if they were untrue), are discarded when proven inadequate does not bestow them with some mythical title of 'Former Facts.' Oh, and it doesn't matter how earnestly the believers believe their flawed 'facts.' To believe otherwise borders on endowing humanity with a sort of collective telekinesis. But then again, maybe the dinosaur bones really WERE placed there to test humanity's faith...

UnderOveur

Nothing "ironic" about it. Political discussion is verboten in this forum. In order to answer the disingenuous question, one would need to break the rules of the forum...which is very probably and precisely what said questioner was hoping someone would do.

Speaking of facts (or, more accurately, the truth...): the PC people are VERY Machiavellian (read: duplicitous).

UnderOveur

It was once believed to be "fact" that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Not "faith" nor "belief" that it was the center, it was considered and thought to be "a fact".

So much, then, for the infallibility of "facts".

Fact and truth are two very separate things, as has been pointed out.

DakBroadbent

It was never a fact that the center of the universe was earth. But you're correct; it was BELIEVED TO BE a fact that it was. That belief was incorrect.

PasserOGas

Heralded by whom? The average AF O-6 is a slicker sucker than almost any politician. Have you ever listened to them address a crowd? They almost never actually SAY anything. We call it "Colonelspeak". The O-5 (now O-6) who I personally witnessed covering up a rape by using is prosecutorial authority to focus on charging the victim (he succeeded in burying it BTW)is going to be lauded at his retirement by SOMEBODY as a great american. I wouldn't place too much faith in what is said at a retirement ceremony.

Again, I have to give my disclaimer, this only applies to Active AF leadership. I can't speak to other branches, and I know the Guard/Reserve is no where near this bad, although often corrupt in other ways. (Triple dipping, nepotism etc.)

Reference as an example the Wikipedia page of General Foglsong vs. the baseops thread (11 pages long) denouncing him as a terrible leader and officer.

Robert H. Foglesong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Foglesong Thread - Baseops Forums

Just one of the more onerous examples out there. My personal opinion, 90% of senior AF leaders are careerists out for themselves. Some of those guys somewhat care what happens to thier people and the mission, just not enough to DO something about it. 10% are genuinely good guys who care about the mission and the people, and will stand up to thier bosses/politicians/the press in order to protect what matters. These numbers get worse the higher in rank you go after O-6, with the exception (from what I've heard) of the current CSAF Gen Welsh. The guys who care all get out and go guard/reserve or quit the military completely in disgust.

UnderOveur

Yes. It was a lot like "Global Warming" is today. Consensus does not make truth.

Again, truth and fact are two separate things.

Sputnik

WTH are you talking about? You started a thread saying that Hagel would be bad for the DoD (yes, I'm paraphrasing). I'm asking why. How much clearer can I be? I have no opinion of him as SecDef, for or against.

Enlighten me, why do you think he'll be bad? Apparently it's obvious to you, it isn't to me (which is not my way of saying that I think he'll be good).

How is my asking why you think he'll be bad disingenuous?

UnderOveur

Nope. I didn't start this thread. I'm not about to argue with a person who can't even get the simple truth straight from the get-go. If you need reasons, Google them if you are so interested. It's already out there.