Tom Arnold, like all the socialist swine in Congress, will be immune to the effects of Obamacare. The former is independently wealthy and the latter just poop in the pool, they don't swim in there.

Hannity's ass is also covered either way, so maybe there's something to what he's saying about not trusting government, which is the real American Way.

The American medical system is flawed, with room for improvement, but also somewhat free, and that's including all the socialized medicine already in place such as Medicare and 'caid, S-CHIP and the neverending massive fraud and abuse these systems have had since they were started.

It is foolish to believe government can do anything cheaper, faster, better than the private sector. As the liberals loved to point out, 8 billion dollars 'vanished' in Iraq. Do they think the same thing won't happen with Obama-scare?

Socialize medicine and you will get fewer doctors, less innovation, less availability and lower quality. You want a sneak preview of life under Obamacare?---look to the U.S. Post Office, which loses billions every year. Even though people use snail mail less and less, the price of stamps continues to rise.

As I recall, "The neverending story" had a lot of sequences with a gleeful boy riding a flying dog-dragon of some sort. Perhaps it was even in the credits sequence. In any case, to me this combination of syrupy pop theme and poorly-filmed aerobatics brings to mind the mood of those scenes quite vividly.

ah man can we get a cheezy 80s action flick/sci-fi channel? i used to go to the video store as a kid and pick them out based on their cover illustrations. why the neverending story, though? seems like a very odd pairing.

^You obviously don't understand moral authority. I can't believe it, but this is starting to sound like, "our party's scandals are not as bad as your party's scandals." I don't care what party they belong to: a dirtball is a dirtball.

...and I'm sorry I stooped to the level of partisan politics. This post just sucked me in. You've got neverending rationalizations and excuses for everyone in your party, don't you? You're right, some of the examples I gave were a few years back, but my point is that they're still active/in office.

I think Sanford should be run out of town, just like all of the dirtbags we're talking about. Sure, we've all got our own issues, but if you don't have your personal affairs in order then you shouldn't be in office. One doesn't accedentally cheat on his/her spouse. That's a pre-meditated offense. It should NOT be acceptable for somebody in office to lack integrity, regardless of who is directly effected by their sins/crimes/mistakes.

If they can't be trusted with something as simple as 'don't cheat on your wife,' and it's pretty easy NOT to cheat on your wife, then I don't want 'em! Saying "At least it was better than Iran-Contra" does not make it okay.

this was just A.W.E.S.O.M.E,thanks for contributing to this thread my friend.
and remind me never to engage you in an argument.
till next time..
namaste

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

I replied to your 'debunk' on that thread I think you approached my post from the understanding that i held myth, religion, soul, philosophy whatever, higher than science. And i think this was your error

Not being funny, but you were way off the mark.. please read the reply in an open frame of mind.. it really is sound science that i'm talking

In reply to this comment by mentality:
>> ^dannym3141:

All we have is AN understanding of how the brain works. It may not be definitive, we never made it to claim that we know exactly how it is intended to work.
Therefore how can we know that something damages it rather than enhances it?

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

That doesn't mean we know how it works. It means we've identified a pattern and a system in place that seems to accurately describe and predict how the thing works.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

How long ago did we think that we KNEW that the earth was the centre of the universe? Is anyone so arrogant as to claim that we know better NOW?

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

How do we know that what we think is true is true?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

>> ^dannym3141:

All we have is AN understanding of how the brain works. It may not be definitive, we never made it to claim that we know exactly how it is intended to work.
Therefore how can we know that something damages it rather than enhances it?

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

That doesn't mean we know how it works. It means we've identified a pattern and a system in place that seems to accurately describe and predict how the thing works.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

How long ago did we think that we KNEW that the earth was the centre of the universe? Is anyone so arrogant as to claim that we know better NOW?

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

How do we know that what we think is true is true?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Thanks for the promote!! I was very surprised that I couldn't find this one on the sift! It's just the "Song that Never Ends!" (and Dance )

In reply to this comment by arvana:
This is just hilarious. *promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Neverending Story, keyboard, play him off' to 'Neverending Story, Artax, Fatso, keyboard, play him off' - edited by JTZ

ZOMG: http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Neverending-Keyboard-Cat

>> ^enemycombatant:
Or is it a neverending intellectual circle jerk?


I want in! It'll be a way of celebrating our lack of religiously imposed sexual consciences!!!

I think I would be part of the target audience for this. I laugh when people make fun of hardline creationists. I also accept that there are reasons why these people are so steadfast in their beliefs and that some people are not quite so offensive in trying to deconstruct evolution with pseudofacts.

I still laugh at the jokes though

>> ^ElessarJD:
I think she's a smart girl and makes some valid points. But who is her audience suppose to be? Me? I'm already sold, so this is more entertainment than anything. If she's trying to convince people on the fence or those that are even further, she's doing a poor job with her sarcastic, condescending attitude. People tend to become defensive to that, rather than open-minded.


Who is the audience for 99% of the similar heavily upvoted videos on the sift? Is everyone really that committed to changing Quantum Mushroom's (or whoever else represents the right) wrongly held beliefs? Or is it a neverending intellectual circle jerk?

Somebody saw The Neverending Story and is still getting over it..

Thanks for that!

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
*promote