It's hard to watch this slow train wreck as a passenger, innit?

If you aren't one of the folks decoding the semantics of the recent inane dialog of capacities, background checks, and "assault" cosmetics or the sputum gurgling from the craws of the likes of Feinsteins and Bloombergs, oh well.

Am I one of the only people who thinks Carrey's schtick looks increasingly awkward as he ages?

Wow. (Insert random U.S. City Here).

Ever been to Gresham Oregon? Rhode Island? How about Greeley, Colorado?? Why in FUCK is the state of Texas associated with inane, civilly and socially retarded folks with you BB?
Not the first time your labels reflect a rather insular world view.

Try making a simple list, of allll the things you associate with a particular region of the planet good and bad and when you get to Texas, try on your world without it having never been here-

Kennedy might still be alive if it weren't for Johnson, eh?? "Goddamn feral Texans!!"

(All wet cat facial expressions are funny)
Bitch-slap the owner of the cat maybe and chastise the news anchor for laughing at what? I know poor kitty hates life in her floaty but her cat-loving, orally-imprinted and likely obese OWNER is the asshole here....

*edit Oh my GAWWWWD and using the word clearly in writ or statement sounds so FUCKING sophomorically smug and pretentious....

What is "clear" anyhow, hmm?? Cleeeearly you have a clue! (See how fucking inane that shit sounds??)

It's satire, man.
My grip consists of the reality that the playing-out of the knee-jerk attempts to thwart insane people's abuse of firearms through the insanity of inane laws (see Connecticut's Governor for details) will culminate in those screaming for adjustments in current laws on mags and types of weapons having their asses handed to them on platters.

It's fun to watch really, this republic-experiment may yet again create a well-regulated militia.

In the spirit of Godwin, I propose a new internet law that describes the inevitability of the MSNBC false equivalency whenever a comment or topic criticizes FOX news.

I love ya, choggie, and VS is way better and more interesting with you here, but this dog just don't hunt.

I think the days of intrepid journalism are largely over for most of the news sources you mentioned, but there still are pockets of resistance to the inanity that passes as news in America. Regardless of whichever political ideolgy you most identify with, you cannot dismiss MSNBC as opposite but equal to FOX. MSNBC is most definitely liberal/progressive, but they wear it on their sleeve, and their spin is backed by facts and reality. FOX spins everything, and completely misinforms it's viewers fans by simply making shit up, not to mention the ubiquitous fear-mongering, the subliminal programming of their crawl, the always-angry, paranoid, petty, spiteful, and shrill talking heads, and the daily memo'd bullet points that are regurgitated verbatim and hammered into the brains of their veiwers all day long from show to show. The dolts on FOX and Friends have got to be the three DUMBEST people ever to thousand-yard stare into a camera. FOX is "news entertainment" at best.

There are infinite shades of gray between black and white, and MSNBC is definitely biased, but you can't say it isn't factual (the vast majority of time). If there was a true "equal but opposite" version of MSNBC, I would watch it. Unfortunately, FOX serves only as a source of amusement for me. "No Spin Zone" makes me giggle every time Papa Bear says it. It's brilliant parody.

That said, we agree that Americans are largely low information because low information is exactly what we get from the news sources readily available. But the "truth" is out there if one cares enough to go look for it.

For starters...
Al Jazeera
CBC News
BBC News
Christian Science Monitor
Reuters

Hmm. Stupid comments and ignorance.

Ok try this: When, with approval of the current administration in collusion with all parties interested and motivated to disarm anyone who they deem unfit or unauthorized I am broadcast an inane, retarded, insulting, dishonest, video propaganda piece complete with a minlktoast, pencil-necked freak speaking for "THE CHILDREN" and a drunk-at-noon VP with a track record of bullshit longer than a freight train, my common-sense and fundamental understanding of the nature of human beings kicks-in, and I begin to make perfect sense to similar beings and sound like a raving sociopath to the those so programmed through imprint, conditioning, and environment.

Again, seek professional help if you are unable make the leap on your own.

Fucking cunts and their televisions.....Rock's face tells all, his words, suck my balls-he's a goddamn tool, so's Peet, fuck her, and Bennett, prop his no-singing-ass up next to some cameras and clergy...you see where this inane bullshit is headed, right?...Oh You, with shit to say and a mind, should feel abused and insulted, from whatever country you're from....Some of us have to live here......

Wow, it's the insane attacking the inane....

@ Seltar - are you really that disengaged from or unaware of the common yet tragic events that occur that make your "Run, hide, call 911" statement completely inane? For a small sampling, go and have a look at the records of push-in or home invasion robberies for the greater Houston area over the past 4 years, especially on the west side. Nice new homes, expensive homes, deed restricted neighborhoods and prime targets for incredibly violent home invasion or driveway robberies. Where the fuck do you run and hide when the three dudes with guns, knives and bats decide to do target practice on you, your spouse or your kids? Am I supposed to use my own phone to call 911 or do I interrupt one of the mofo's that's busy punching my wife in the face to borrow his? If you are fortunate enough to live somewhere that crimes are few and the cops respond quickly, congratulations. If you don't, and believe that your response plan will keep you and yours free from harm, then congratulations on sticking to your moral standard, but for fuck sakes don't pretend for an instant that your run and hide idea is a solution or one that everyone should abide by. Wake up, take a look around the real world, even a little corner of it.

Just a bunch of teenagers on too much mountain dew, uttering inane things, and stuck in a false positive feedback loop. "Everything is funny." Move along, nothing interesting to see here.

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
I think that RB's humour has a place and this kind of platform is where it belongs. He uses his extensive vocabulary to confuse the fuck out of them and wraps it up in a childlike silliness which is completely non-threatening. Best way to get an interview out of wankpiles like this. He started off as an interviewer, and I've always enjoyed him as such, especially because underneath the inanity is a very thoughtful and kind man.

*promote!

Thank you very much for the promote!

I think that RB's humour has a place and this kind of platform is where it belongs. He uses his extensive vocabulary to confuse the fuck out of them and wraps it up in a childlike silliness which is completely non-threatening. Best way to get an interview out of wankpiles like this. He started off as an interviewer, and I've always enjoyed him as such, especially because underneath the inanity is a very thoughtful and kind man.

*promote!

Wow. I'm not here to argue whether or not evolution is true or not; thought I was clear about that. You're welcome to it over at talkorigins.org I, for one, don't think evolution is falsifiable since it isn't reproducible. I didn't say it didn't happen. Just that it isn't falsifiable. I can find evolutionists who both disagree with me and agree with me. It's just my position. Since the scientific method requires experimentation to prove the theory, well, I think there is a problem there. You don't. OK. I'm good with that. >> ^PalmliX:

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.
Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.
Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?
Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.
It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!
Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.
>> ^silvercord:
In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.

You can't apply the scientific method to evolution!?!? How exactly do you think the theory has come to exist? Without the scientific method there would be no theory of evoloution.

Of course the scientific method is in the hands of imperfect human beings, we created it, who else's hands would it be in? Yes humans are imperfect and that can sometimes lead to bad science, but the answer to bad science isn't no science, it's more science.

Should we just give up on science all together because humans aren't perfect? How else do you suggest we separate fact from fantasy? Truth from fiction? I really find your philosophy troubling because it seems to suggest that since we can't know everything, right away, perfectly, that we might as well not try?

Also I really don't care about some inane argument Dawkins made that has now been refuted. As I've said before, he's just one man and at the end of the day his opinions really don't matter, his thoughts on evolution in no way change the facts of evolution or the validity of the scientific method in general.

It's a silly semantic game that you play when you say 'I didn't hear Keller say there is or isn't a god, or evolution is bunk' etc... Yes he didn't use those exact words but the larger issue at hand is the same and you know it!

Finally, evolution isn't falsifiable? I stopped taking science after grade 10 and I can already think of a couple ways evolution could be falsified. For example, if we found an organism that couldn't have been formed from the evolutionary process, or if we found the fossil of an animal that existed in a time that would have been impossible by evolutionary predictions. I'm sure biologists have come up with a lot more.

>> ^silvercord:

In this clip I don't hear Keller say there is or isn't a God. I don't hear him say that evolution is bunk or not. I hear him saying that Dawkins argument is spurious for several reasons.
As I understand it, the scientific method requires that something must be falsifiable; evolution is not. I'm not saying evolution doesn't happen, just that you can't apply the scientific method to it. Also, the scientific method is always in the hands of humans. That is the fly in the ointment. Humans are hugely fallible. The method may be perfect, but the handlers aren't.
I think it would be beneficial to watch the entire talk so that Keller isn't being made the problem for pointing out the problem. There is a problem and it isn't Keller or me. It isn't you either. It's the fallibility of humans not being taken into account in this equation.