>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^kceaton1:
It goes beyond evolution though, if I'm getting this right. FOR HELL'S SAKE we can use the speed of light to see things FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR^100 older than 10,000 years!!! It's a fucking joke. If you believe this you are an idiot. Period! = .
It's not just light and carbon dating, we have LOTS of ways to show this place is WAY older...

You're forgetting the Law of God Physics which clearly states God can do anything including making the universe appear much older than it actually is for the purposes of fooling his human creations so he has a way of testing their loyalty when he's not asking them to kill their first born son and saying, JUST KIDDING, at the last minute.


The funny part about this stuff is that they typically say that God "moved the photons" (atleast the semi smarter ones will) and the STILL dumb ones will say that, well light was, you see going a different speed back then so it still all adds up...YOU SEE!!!

BUT THEN!...If you understand relativity correctly like me you understand that you can change the speed of light all the time you want. In fact make it go 1 ft/second! It doesn't MAKE A DAMNED difference in how we will STILL measure the time gone/go/will go by! People never get this at all and it really is the sort of thing were someone mumbles under their breath when they finally understand what I'm saying/going to say: "Is that not amazing!!!". You see mass and energy are the same thing and light is special, it goes the same speed EVERYWHERE, EVERY-TIME, ALL THE TIME--and this thing called "light" are these little tiny particles/waves called photons that as I said before, but not quite as directly, they literally ARE mass and energy, so the relationship between us and light is so fundamental it SHOULD blow your mind. But, so many people went through school and listen to their preachers and have no idea how vitally important that "little" discovery that Einstein made was!!! So, even we at 1 ft/s light speed STILL notice everything moving and everyone we know moving at that same "time" measurement of one second (funny isn't it; but, light is traveling at one second as well, how can this make any sense..!?!?! Well here it comes, it is called relativity and the fact that light is a constant and the other very important fact that our measurement of one second really measures...what?) as we are literally stuck in a cage (this "cage" is called The Universe) that cannot be tampered with. This is all due to that little fact that our perception of time IS relative and our view of one second can be EXTREMELY messed with, but to us it will always seem to be one second--even if 1 Billion years went by. The age of the Universe comes from the SHIFT of energy in the photons present that we can see coming from other places in any direction around us; so God would need to put THAT hologram there nothing else, BUT there is a giant problem in doing this (because due to our friends that want God to actively fuck us over for some reason--the hologram only extends technically 10,000 years out and "hides" the rest--if God put everything the way we see it and it isn't even an illusion--what can I say at that point if God was real I would join the Devil in less than a heart beat to overthrow his LYING, SADIST, and moreover EVIL ass!) If the hologram WAS there then: the hologram, it would need to be different in EVERY single direction you look; every time you move one Planck length (I might be wrong, maybe just the length of a photon) further out into space God would need to fix the energy distribution to make his illusion look correct... YOU HAVE no idea how absurd to the absurd degree this sounds, even GOD would spend his entire existence doing this because the job would require this long to do it: forever (until the UNIVERSE STOPS!). I'm not kidding it would be utterly ridiculous (from Earth his "image" would look right, on Mt. Everest, it would look wrong,; in space it would look wrong--in fact if you have sensitive enough equipment every square foot you took would somehow end up looking incorrect--we're talking about the cosmic background radiation, the little thing that lets us know how old our Universe is and that everything around us is moving away from us...

So that comes to the "putting the photons into place syndrome". For the most part I'm starting to think that these people like to abuse their brain in secret rooms with paint, huffing it until they collapse in a heap. in the morning they slowly scrub the white vinyl paint off their nose and mouth and go start with the blue. The problem with this is God had to of atleast put photons 13.5 Billion years out for this to even work--so in the end it falls so flat on it's face it makes no sense. If he was using a hologram, where is the border? Why do we detect gravitational anomalies when those have been proven to be real locally? It just goes on, and on, and on, and on.

I'd love to hear them explain why space may be full of Dark Matter or better yet why is "nothing" full of something called "The Quantum Foam"--you may have heard of "Vacuum Energy", same thing more or less--look it up it's fascinating and may even be the source OF "The Big Bang". Why can we pull photons (from "nothing") out of the Quantum Foam? According to lots of religious folks you can't create something from nothing, but WHAM, there it is! Sometimes, it just might be a bad idea to hold onto your old per-conceived precepts if they do not allow for change. BTW, the photon coming out of thin air was in a very well-known (now) experiment and is HIGHLY worth looking up; you can find details about it in my Videosift Blog (which is entirely about it).

You could disprove their crap all day. The truth is is that they did bad in their science classes, they just didn't get it and for some archaic left over juvenile resentment, they must have their righteous rite of "The Comeback Minister (or Preacher/Prophet/Father/etc...). So in revenge they are taking the easy way out and saying, "Hah, see I didn't need to learn that stuff from Mr. Scrampton in 12th grade! I'm a Minister now and I can just TELL you what is right, because I know it's right in my gut; especially after five cases of Budweiser!". Now they never tell you the truth. They lie, they tell you it "came" to them, like their a prophet now or something. ...Well if they can be prophets, why can't we? Oh wait, scientists do in fact fill this role and they do a good job at it. they constantly warn us of dangers and things the government should do. But, there are far too many damage control freaks with their own agenda running around and they seem to cling to religion as it satisfies very easily their questions, making it so they don't have to work to find the actual hard ones that exist and that we DO need.

It's not in the Bible that any of these idiots would tell us anything meaningful, nor the Koran, or any other holy book. So I find it strange that so many line up and then sit down and listen to these idiots blather on about the world and how to cure it and what it's ills are. They also as I said do a great deal of "re-education" in THEIR vision satisfying that old juvenile, washed up nothing who couldn't get over the fact that he wasn't good at science off the bat or maybe even when he tried too. This is the bane on America (and I would assume many other places, but America has a lot of this). They are teaching and re-teaching our people ridiculous notions and since they require very little work to understand, just community, people believe it--especially because it's being believed in numbers and that is the important part.

Now this was a longer post than what I wanted it to be and it also went past the scope of my original intentions. BUT, the reason why those statistics exist is due to the nature, the epidemic of how people are being re-taught forcibly (you think like us or you are no longer with us--it can have shocking community affects, especially when it becomes a inter-family problem...I know this EXTREMELY well due to my Mormon upbringing; when I became an atheist I was shunned and cut-off from the community, at first. they slowly let me back in when they realized I was an extremely good person, usually a better person than many of the people in the Church and so my neighbors finally no longer cared--cared what the churches stance was either--who or what I was, they took me for what I was--IT TOOK 20 years to happen!). So many people are started and taught young this is a HUGE problem, I know it's a major one with the Mormon church. You are baptized into the church at eight. You should hear the things they ask you to accept and agree to--they are things that only and adult with experience could properly answer (more like someone that is 25) yet an eight year old surrounded by their family and peers of course can give only ONE answer.

After that, you being to be taught all the incorrect things you could possibly think of. If you are even semi-devout like me (and this goes for many other religions as well) going to public school in Utah, the church has LITERALLY built seminary schools next to every High School and Junior High (and this is true outside of Utah too, as I'm SURE Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada--maybe more too, I'm sure they have them locally to attend--I'm sure many of these states have these institutions built right next door or somewhere for kids to attend) you will attend seminary due to the wishes of your parents (my parental situation was beginning to change--and for the better).

Still I attended seminary through grades 7-12 and could have continued in College, but I was agnostic by then...if not basically atheist, just not strong enough to say it. Seminary had it's wonderful parts, but the mis-information was a joke. luckily I was smart, very smart. So I was able to separate the information apart from each other and it allowed me to ask STRONG questions about my one time faith. These questions and their mis-information EASILY killed that religion for eternity, for me--for A LOT of reasons. Many of which, many of you know...easily. It came to ME slow. SO when i talk about helping other people you need to realize what we are up against. facts that do come to us easily usually don't to them and it typically has to do with their past. but, it is HARD to get them to talk about their past openly. For one thing there is no possibility of them being wrong or in danger of it. Somehow we MUST change this.

/Like I said longer, but I hope it was worth it.
/edited for more clarity and a few additions

Suffocatingly-nest.

Personally I'd suspect the hell out of that air filtration system....that it's picking up something at the higher altitudes that it's not able to deal with and creates the wrong mixture and pumps it to the pilots or flat out doesn't filter for whatever it's picking up.

If you've ever driven a vehicle with a leaky exhaust, you'll notice you feel fine for a long time and then suddenly you just kind of wake up and go...something is wrong. Roll down the window and feel almost instantly better and more clear headed even when it's crazy hot or cold out because the air is not contaminated.

True enough.>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
But, the only time suction would be a problem is if you were "sucking" on the bottle. If you drink from the bottle, as opposed to sucking on the bottle, you would have no issues with suction or vacuum. >> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
I guess it's been awhile since I've done this kind of thing, what are the straws for?

Finally my experience is put to value:
The straws fill up the bottle with air as you drink the fluid. Otherwise you would have to pause to let air rush into the bottle by taking your lips of it.
If there would be no air to take the place of the fluid you drink you would suck your face into the bottle due to the vacuum you create and live in the bottle for the rest of your days.


Turn a bottle upside down. The liquid glugs out of it, with the liquid fighting to get out past the air that's coming in. Now try the same thing with a straw. There's no glugging and the liquid comes out much faster and easier.
So, yes you can drink from a bottle without the straw, but you can't drink as fast without the straw. If you're really good you can suck the liquid out of the bottle so you can drink a bottle like that in just a few seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSr3AbY4HtM

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

But, the only time suction would be a problem is if you were "sucking" on the bottle. If you drink from the bottle, as opposed to sucking on the bottle, you would have no issues with suction or vacuum. >> ^luxury_pie:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
I guess it's been awhile since I've done this kind of thing, what are the straws for?

Finally my experience is put to value:
The straws fill up the bottle with air as you drink the fluid. Otherwise you would have to pause to let air rush into the bottle by taking your lips of it.
If there would be no air to take the place of the fluid you drink you would suck your face into the bottle due to the vacuum you create and live in the bottle for the rest of your days.



Turn a bottle upside down. The liquid glugs out of it, with the liquid fighting to get out past the air that's coming in. Now try the same thing with a straw. There's no glugging and the liquid comes out much faster and easier.

So, yes you can drink from a bottle without the straw, but you can't drink as fast without the straw. If you're really good you can suck the liquid out of the bottle so you can drink a bottle like that in just a few seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSr3AbY4HtM

>> ^Ariane:

Did Fukushima not teach you shills for the nuclear industry anything? Nuclear energy is far from clean or cheap. The cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds the cost of electricity it will produce which is why there has never been a privately financed nuclear plant EVER!


Yes, because wind and solar are ever so profitable aren't they. If you had a solar farm in Fukushima's place producing the same amount of power you'd have heavy metals seeping into the water supply across half of Japan. That doesn't even mention the fact that half of Japan, would have been permanently covered by those solar panels just to match the output of the Fukushima plant.

How many deaths are attributable to Fukushima by the way? Zero.

If you want to talk about long term health effects, please don't forget to add up the damage from burning thousands of tonnes of coal and dumping the smoke straight out into the air 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I know which poison I'd pick every single time.

Aw, now I want to learn how to do this!>> ^TheFreak:

Ok...I'm going to upvote for a stupid reason and you can believe me or not, whatever.
For years I've been making my credit card appear out of thin air when I pay for things. I've been doing it so long I don't even think about it.
For all the years I've been doing it I don't know that anyone's ever noticed. I consider that a testament to my success at pulling off the trick. Now that I watch this video I suspect that anyone who does notice is probably the type of person who thinks waaaaay too much.

Ok...I'm going to upvote for a stupid reason and you can believe me or not, whatever.

For years I've been making my credit card appear out of thin air when I pay for things. I've been doing it so long I don't even think about it.

For all the years I've been doing it I don't know that anyone's ever noticed. I consider that a testament to my success at pulling off the trick. Now that I watch this video I suspect that anyone who does notice is probably the type of person who thinks waaaaay too much.

what about the federal reserve and the 7 trillion created out of thin air! ive heard claims our country has been bankrupt since the depression... if they create money out of thin air at modest rates and loaned to banks (with the banks making a modest profit of.... 13 billion?) then how can our currency be honored? wars? i guess we can pretend for longer and go play skyrim! $60!

No...

Post as many links as you want. An endless supply of horseshit doesn't support your point at all.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ohio-public-employees-overcompensated-senate-bill-5/

Here, you can do some reading for a change. Because you obviously didn't read any part of the actual studies that the "articles" in your links refer to.

Arbitrarily adding on dollars to the wage amount to account for job security? Counting the money that public employees pay into their benefits as part of the benefits package? Completely making shit up out of thin air to satisfy your corporate agenda? They actually state right in their abstract that job security is worth "17 percent of pay", let's forget for a second that that statement doesn't mean anything. If they're implying what I think they're implying, then McDonald's workers are making millions. It's practically impossible to get fired from McDonald's. So why doesn't the study account for all those extra millionaires, hmmm?
Give me a fucking break.

And you're right that the aei study "mentions" education. I thought we were having a conversation about actual facts, not whether or not the word was included in the paper. You're dead wrong in that it uses comparable education levels to determine its conclusions. Making up a number to increase the appearance of public employee pay is not a comparison. Neither is only taking into account firms with one thousand or more people. Just because it says the word education in the paper does not mean it conforms to any scientific standard at all.

Oh, now now it's the union bosses who make "shady" deals behind closed doors. Well, I might agree with you there, but what happened to "the myth of the underpaid public employee"? And what about the fact that it's the politician who makes the deal in the end? If you're talking about thousands of areas where the government overspends, then why do you only focus on "entitlement programs" here on the Sift? You must be rallying about that other stuff on facebook eh?

And speaking of entitlement programs, when did the idea of "helping people" become "communism"? I wasn't aware that Jesus was a commie, but I sure was under the impression that governments existed to help all the members of a society, not just the ones with stock portfolios.

It's not un-American to want to help people. I think you might be the only person under that impression. But it sure is un-American to try and legislate away the right of a group of people to free speech. If you don't like what someone has to say, or if you don't like them sticking up for themselves, there are ways you can deal with them without taking away their rights.

And it's certainly looked down upon, (if not illegal) to make a contract with someone, and then back out because you can't cover your end of the bargain. And you're damn straight the taxpayers have to answer for the decisions of the people they elect to office. It's called accountability, in case you're wondering:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=accountability

@quantumushroom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
not only the canucks, my dear troll.

@luxury_pie

I'm ashamed that the ACLU made up 'hate crime' laws out of thin air; more so that it was Jews (in this case, liberal Jews) behind it. I don't know if they got their cue from more repressive regimes or we gave them the 'bright' idea.

I don't have as much respect for a country that still stops BOOKS at the border (no 1st Amendment). If Canada can't handle unpopular speech, just wait until the muslims start arriving en masse.

Oh, and you lefters are getting slack. Only -2 for these comments? It should be -4, minimum!

3,088 prizes available to be won. Retail value of all prizes is $3,375,790 and is based on the Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price as provided by our suppliers at time of quoting and includes related taxes.
-Prizes are tax free to Canadian residents.
-The cost of tickets is not tax deductible.

4.1. What is gross revenue?
Gross revenue is all monies generated through a gaming event, including total sales and interest income. Gross revenue minus prize costs and other expenses equals net revenue.

Expenses must not exceed 25 per cent of the actual gross revenue of the ticket raffle. Prize costs are not included in the 25 per cent maximum expense calculation.

Remember amount of money taken in does not equal profit. The profit after overhead was 2.2 mil
Overhead would include, Gaming License, Advertising costs, mail outs, tv ads, printing, office space, office staff.

Taxes - In Canada, all taxes are paid by the raffle holders.
I've looked everywhere but can't find the payable amount of taxes but from experience, I've heard it's around 40-50% but that number could be out-of-thin-air.

Sources:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bc%20canada%20raffle%20percentage%20tax&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEYQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pssg.gov.bc.ca%2Fgam
ing%2Flicences%2Fdocs%2Fguide-a-b-licence.pdf&ei=dCS0TrTFBsOviAL9yohw&usg=AFQjCNF6qX0nmj58LIveUYaTNaNlXt4reQ
&
http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/gaming/

>> ^Ryjkyj:

NO, seriously. Why is no one on the show refuting this statement? Is there something I don't know? Is this the latest bullshit that we're telling ourselves?


My understanding of the situation is if you take TARP, by itself, not the multi-trillion gift from the FED, and don't account for inflation, then the US government has more cash now than they put in.

It all depends what you mean when you say "the bailout".

We all paid in inflation for the the FED giving money out of thin air before TARP was even proposed, but nobody is even pretending to claim that we go that back, they are just pretending it did not happen.

At the end of the day TARP is a problem because it privileged banks over citizens, not because it cost tax dollars.

Congress could have simply handed $0.25T to Fannie and Freddy instead and told them to buy up all "toxic mortgages" at market rate, and then renegotiated them to keep people in their homes. We could have tippled our money, and gotten the poison off the bank balance sheets, stabilizing the banks, and benefiting the citizenry of the country.

The problem with that plan is that the big fish in the market profit from constructed scarcity, so any scarcity reducing plan like that goes right out the window.

The same way the "Black" voice was far too loud or the "Jew" voice wasn't loud enough in Nazi Germany. Majority rules is retarded when the majority of people are also retarded. You should never create or maintain a law that inhibits the rights of others when those same rights are shared by everybody else. I don't see the negative of allowing gays to marry. Really there is none. The bible isn't the constitution...nor should it or its tenets be given ANY merit in our law making.>> ^quantumushroom:

If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.

Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly.


Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

So, 4% plus 54% of gay sympathizers equals 58%, does THAT make THAT right?



EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population.

The Winners write the history. Mexicans are the result of Spain conquering Mestizo Indians, so you can take this silly 'blame game' back to the Stone Age if you want.

This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

I don't disagree, but bad people are typically not a nation's majority here or anywhere else. In America one is free to leave any time and I doubt one can find a better country.














>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.



Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?
EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.




Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.