For the record I think Tosh's response was dickish and given her agitation, he might have seen an opportunity to take the high road. But he never does take it. That's his act. I don't think the onus is on any comedian to do so.

My dog corners a local cat occasionally - he stands and barks at it, while it hisses at him. The cat is big, but he's an English Springer Spaniel, about 5 times the weight of even a big domestic cat, yet he won't go within paw-swipe range unless his pack is right by him. I guess this dog wanted to play, and the cat knew it, otherwise they'd both be a lot more agitated and the child would be in danger.

>> ^legacy0100:

I'm just wondering, wouldn't the can be shaken up after all that spinning movement and cause it to overflow? You may end up having to wait for the can to settle down before opening it anyway, which may negate the time saved from fast cooling lol
If the spinning doesn't agitate the can and there is no overflowing, then there may be a use for this device. It's a fun little gimmick


I a lot of what makes cans get fizzy is shifting that pocket of air at the top of it through the liquid enough that it causes the carbonation to get agitated. Like if you took a can and just ran it between your hands smoothly it's not going to bubble over. And when they slide down convenience store shelving they aren't agitated either because the pocket of air is at the top and not running through the liquid like it is with a shake.

That's just my guess at it, because I often run cans between my hands if they are dirty to try to get some of the condensation so I can clean them a little and never end up with a fizzing over can. Plus if you've got a really good cooler and plenty of ice a can of pop can be far too cold to drink if it's really hot out...like an ice cream headache at times.

I'm just wondering, wouldn't the can be shaken up after all that spinning movement and cause it to overflow? You may end up having to wait for the can to settle down before opening it anyway, which may negate the time saved from fast cooling lol

If the spinning doesn't agitate the can and there is no overflowing, then there may be a use for this device. It's a fun little gimmick

@VoodooV
Humans can speak firmly, loudly, emotionally, impatiently and disrespectfully on subjects they care about. This doesn't mean they are angry, could just be passionate (lol, but also could be angry)

If you perceive Atheists as being angry in the face of Agnosticism, I suggest (where possible) informing them what your position actually is as I've met some and heard of others who erroneously thought it was a position of no opinion.. and that's what would get them agitated.

The number of times I've felt I've had to go in to bat for Agnostics is far greater than the times I've had to bat for Atheists, by these experiences I do understand the negativity, but feel some more recent comments were categorizing a bit extensively.. remember, some people are just assholes, regardless of their stance on a subject.

Main reason for this post: Atheism is not a religion. (think that was the first time I've gone bold on the sift)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

I don't like going to the dictionary, but I really want to distance Atheists and Agnostics as far from religions as possible.. had too many conversations where people try to tell me Atheist and Agnostic are the same thing and are also a religion.. *grits teeth*

So, in every dictionary definition you will notice that 'religions' relate to the having of a belief, not the lack there of (note that i don't actually doubt you already know this).
If you want to make this claim, then by the same logic you must also accept that you and I are also in the Afairyist religion, and the Aunicorn religion, Acookie-monster religion, and A etc etc religion (I took the assumption you didn't believe in some things, please do correct me if I'm wrong). Hopefully this points out how absurd it is to claim 'not believing something is real' is a religion.

It's incorrect on more counts than this (no practices/rituals, no rules/guidelines, no faith/acceptance of a supernatural entity) and imo comes from one of 2(3) things, either you're wrong and don't know it, or you're trying to agitate people. You've made too many good points for me to suspect the former without additional reason to suggest you weren't sure of the legitimate meaning of religion.

I don't like religions, and if by 'religion' you did know the meaning, and weren't trying to agitate people, then i suspect you were referring to the dogmatic fanaticism that some Atheists display.. in which case, OK, yeah, but would rather you just say we're 'whining little bitches that too-aggressively make their stance and don't shutup', that i could accept without posting.

Agree with everything you said in your previous post except 'Atheist religion', 'anger' and 'revenge'.

>> ^MichaelL:

Gulf War vet with two black belts?
Hmmm...
Tactically, you don't keep your hands down by your waist when an agitated aggressor is nose to nose with you. Had the thug swung first he would have tagged the homeowner. Within a couple of feet of each other, the first person to swing will catch the other -- it's not possible to see the attack and react within the fraction of a second you have to defend yourself.


Nah he's fine.

Gulf War vet with two black belts?
Hmmm...
Tactically, you don't keep your hands down by your waist when an agitated aggressor is nose to nose with you. Had the thug swung first he would have tagged the homeowner. Within a couple of feet of each other, the first person to swing will catch the other -- it's not possible to see the attack and react within the fraction of a second you have to defend yourself.

Considering everybody has a camera phone of some kind these days, you don't need agitated cops responding angrily every time someone uses one near them. And I'm totally sick of hearing the resisting arrest line every time someone flinches or acts like they'd prefer not to be beaten or tazed.

Isn't there a rule against cops being on duty after being hurt, or involved in something that might leave them pissed off afterwards?

Thanks for the excoriation!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
What say we publicly *excoriate FOX corporate agit prop.

What say we publicly *excoriate FOX corporate agit prop?

So you agree he's as batsh** crazy as a guy who pooped on a police car. WE AGREE ON SOMETHING!

>> ^quantumushroom:

Is he less sane than the occupooper who pooped on a cop car?
>> ^Kofi:
At least I know now that this guy is truly insane rather than just a political agitator.
Foucault would have a field day with this guy.

Is he less sane than the occupooper who pooped on a cop car?

>> ^Kofi:

At least I know now that this guy is truly insane rather than just a political agitator.
Foucault would have a field day with this guy.

At least I know now that this guy is truly insane rather than just a political agitator.

Foucault would have a field day with this guy.

@quantumushroom I almost feel like this wasn't even fair to you. You don't even understand what racism is.

You don't seem to understand that the thing you need to say here is that your objection to these programs has more to do with abstract ideas like economic policy or moral concerns, and that the comic highlights rhetoric that is at least equally valid, or possibly more appropriate when talking about who's really dependent on welfare than the rhetoric you and your tribemates actually use.

So instead you've swallowed the bait and make it totally clear that race is a primary motivating factor in your policy positions, and that racial agitation is a big part of how you sell those policy positions to others.

What WPP does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack.

Nope - I view the story from as many angles as possible, come to a conclusion, and then state my perspective from a position of informed certitude. I know this infuriates prog-libs, but I make no apologies for it.

Then that would clearly discredit all the protests worldwide

No - it would not discredit OWS. However, it would supply evidence that Mrs. McProtester was the kind of person Fox News said she was.

Who gives a &&&& what this woman is doing?

Her family, perhaps? A parent has responsibilities and obligations beyond their own selfish whims. If a person ditches thier responsibility without the family's explicit leave then others are not out of place for saying she lacks character. What is needed is more information - specifically the husband's side of the story. What cursory evidence we have seems to suggest that she left for OWS and her family was not exactly cool with it (IE reports that her husband is 'puzzled'). But without more data nothing definitive can be said.

The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these $$$holes are trying to stir up in the first place.

I've observed OWS and reached a reasoned conclusion that they're a bunch of prog-lib dupes and union astroturf who are mad at the wrong people. They have no plan, and many of them are attempting to agitate anger, resentment, and (in some cases) violence. I put it to you that it is more accurate to say that YOU are exactly the kind of drone that OWS is trying to stir up.

You are worrying about &&&& that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in.

Family solidarity and fidelity matters. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Her true character is as yet undetermined. I live what I believe in every day.

The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now.

I think that prog-libs are seeing things that don't exist with this crazy 'push their agenda' foolishness. This is Fox & Friends. It's a morning 'chatting idiots' show like Good Morning America. Look - just because someone on TV says something that is not flush with YOUR political perspective does not mean there is some sinister master agenda that seeks to undermine you.

There are multiple media studies that show the news media - as a whole - is far more slanted left than it is right - and that even FOX news isn't anywhere near as 'right wing' as prog-libs think it is. But even I don't think there the leftist slant is some 'agenda' the news media has. I think that the news media is simply populated by prog-libs who pick stories and portray them from a left-wing bias because that's how they think things are.

When a prob-lib journalist sees a bunch of prog-lib OWS protesters, they feel sympathy for them and report accordingly. When they see a bunch of conservative Tea-Party protestors, they despise them and report accordingly. And that's exactly how it all went down. The media mostly treats OWS with kid gloves and slobbers all over them because leftist like them. But the Tea Party was 'conservative', and so it got no such softshoe treatment. The TP has been entirely peaceful. Not one cop has been injured. Not once have they had to be tear gassed, or 'evicted', or otherwise cause trouble. But to the media they were a bunch of dangerous, evil, racist, thugs. But that isn't the media's 'agenda'. It is a result of thier perception bias.

For example - let's say you are a typical prog-lib. Compared to the national 'average', a prog-lib is way left of center. If we use a 100 point scale where 1 means "liberal" and 100 means "conservative" then a prog-lib is way down in the teens or twenties. So they see the world from that perspective, and their friend do too. So when they encounter an opinion that is actually "moderate" (say 50 on the scale) they see it as "right-wing" because it is so far to the right of themselves.

When you occupy a far-left opinion, pretty much ANYTHING you encounter other than similarly far-left opinions appears to be radical "neo-con" right-wing extremism. In reality, that is totally untrue, and most of the stuff they see as 'right-wing' is actually centrist. So when Fox & Friends expresses the rather centrist opinion that a woman who abandons her family is a bad person, prog-lib hackles go up because the woman is a fellow prog-lib and such a moralization is clearly some sort of 'right wing' agenda seeking to undermine the OWS group you empathize with.