The cop fucked up and now he's arrested. You can now unwad your panties.

And, of course, in Denmark the ad is already been accused of both racism and sexism. After all, there's a girl from Paraguay, and there are women taking off their panties.
*sigh*

I love how the progressives got together and created the UN, and all the progressives cheered, and the UN created Israel, and Israel said "let's treat this like it's real", and had a democracy and invited everyone in to participate, but the poverty pimps said they wanted to be in charge, so the progressives sent them money, which they used to buy hookahs and rockets and decided to aim them at the Jews, who decided enough is enough and fought back, something they didn't do in WWII.

Now the progressives have their panties in a wad again and blame Israel for defending themselves.

Goddamn boys.... you two and your fucking double-team on good people-You've both got it wrong, and you've both got ego issues larger than planets.

No newt, don't blame it on you, it's not about you at all. You seem to take everything to heart and personally, I have a legitimate beef with unilateral grudges. You both can't seem to derive meaning from the written word when it comes from someone you personally dislike, this poll was not posted as a public address siren to alert you and chicco to your need to let-fly your personal grudges against me. It was an honest appeal to the community as a whole, not an invitation to haters.

You want wanted my opinion, otherwise you wouldn't have chosen to shit all over me, RIGHT!!?? Well ya got it!!

Chicco still has a panty-knot about me that's fucking terminal because I hurt his fragile feelings and he refuses to speak to me in a mature manner, and YOU??? There's simply no inroad to understanding with someone who chooses the path you have taken, I have made several appeals and inroads to your humanity and civility, to no fucking avail, you simply can't process my personality, so you fucking discount me as a piece of shit person altogether, and choose the rude, uncivil, and douche-path....BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT!

I'm a fucking adult son, got a few years on ya,. grow the fuck up and keep your opinions of me to your fucking self, it's working out fine like that....




Again, I used my powers of resurrection for the OVERALL QUALITY AND BENEFIT OF THE sift, her users, visitors, newbies, etc....and I ask you....WHO THE FUCK ELSE DOES IT ANYWAY??!!

Go check recent comments and see how many people here even avail themselves of the power to fix dead pool videos...Very very few...

Fuck didactic and eternally litigious and sophistic examinations of users and their habits, SPECIALIZATION IS FOR INSECTS!!!

Wasn't saying any of this above panty-knotters, merely an intonation of things to come already in place,innocently served to the masses to remind us all that we're watching you,no where to run or hide from total real-time surveillance.

Also, a serious waste of technology for the sake of advertisement, misappropriation of funds with a view to instilling in the poopulation the reality of technology as a means of identification and eye-in-the-sky,one very goddamn light-post for your....safety. Bullshit.

You could use a $30,000 pair of bi-noc-u-lars that will tell you what type of plane you're focusing on with real-time heads-up of tail numbers ,points of origin and destination,etc....You can't buy one a gadget shop though now can ya??

No chaos, it's a serious problem that money is wasted on advertising when it could be used to oust assholes from power though....

To be sure, it does not take "studies" and "experts" to "prove" that smog turns healthy breathable air into unhealthy unbreathable air.

But, again, the consensus among proponents of man-made global warming pretty much all agree that the cause is greenhouse gases. And the consensus is also that cattle accounts for the main source of greenhouse gases. I honestly don't see how anyone concerned with man-made global warming can ignore this and, therefore, not be vegetarian (i.e., be congruent in their behaviors and beliefs).

I recommend reading "Hot Talk, Cold Science", endorsed by respected physicist the late Frederick Seitz, William Harper professor of Physics at Princeton, Richard Lindzen, meteorologist at MIT, written by physicist Fred Singer.

If you want to know where Prof. Singer is coming from, read this (and skeptics are not "deniers"- that's just a slur).

But before you freak out, let me restate, it matters not; clean air is good either way; do things that contribute to clean air (like end the state -- > good luck with that!).

(Better to read and have these discussions with actual working climate scientists than to bother with Internet pundits either way.)

There is also "consensus" as to the three types of "deniers." If anyone calls me a "denier," I'd be curious as to which of the three types of "deniers" you think I belong to (as indicated in the Singer article linked above). And you can then give me your scientific explanations as to why my stance is not valid.

This is something worth keeping in mind (from Singer):

"I have concluded that we can accomplish very little with convinced warmistas and probably even less with true deniers. So we just make our measurements, perfect our theories, publish our work, and hope that in time the truth will out."

The warmistas matter as much as the deniers. And the bottomline remains: what are you going to do about it anyway? As has been shown over and over, your "votes" don't count for much (or anything at all). So, what are you going to do about this (other than fume and get your panties in a twist on videosift)? The same is true with the "deniers." And the skeptics (i.e., true scientists).

Science also doesn't work by consensus. No real scientist will say otherwise. You either prove/falsify some hypothesis or you don't. You don't determine the truth in science by "consensus." Scientific consensus, as has been said, is itself unscientific.

There is no "consensus" on the acceleration speed of falling objects. There is no "consensus" on whether the Earth is orbiting the sun. There is no "consensus" on water being made up of H2O. These you can measure and find out for yourself. (In fact, Galileo had less than 5% "consensus" on whether the Earth orbits the sun at the time of his experiments. Facts matter. "Consensus?" Not so much.)

But,

“If the science were as certain as climate activists pretend, then there would be precisely one climate model, and it would be in agreement with measured data. As it happens, climate modelers have constructed literally dozens of climate models. What they all have in common is a failure to represent reality, and a failure to agree with the other models. As the models have increasingly diverged from the data, the climate clique have nevertheless grown increasingly confident—from cocky in 2001 (66% certainty in IPCC’s Third Assessment Report) to downright arrogant in 2013 (95% certainty in the Fifth Assessment Report).”

Still, this does not in any way equate "denial" of man-made global warming or whatever other "climate change." That is simply an unfounded conflation made up by the propagandists which so many here take on as gospel.

And it still does not let anyone "off the hook" about actually doing something that matters if you care about it so much.

Let me know if anyone finds any "errors" in the science of the NGIPCC articles and studies that I posted above.

Bottomline: who cares? None of the people who are attacking me here are going to do anything of any impact on the climate. It's just "talk, talk, talk" anyway. Do you buy plastic? If so, then who cares what you think about the environment?

These are not rhetorical or trivial questions! I expect answers! (not really)

Pragmatically, are you personally contributing to clean air or are you contributing to smog? I walk to work, I don't have children, I don't consume beef, and when I do use vehicles, I take public transportation and drive a hybrid. What do you do? What are your theoretical opinions contributing to anything of value? If you just want something more to freak out about (without actually contributing anything in any positive way), then you can enjoy your worry and stress and get your panties in a bunch on videosift. I have no interest in it.


And speaking of "geniuses:"

@9547bis said: "Denying basic physics is a bit harder, you see."

So, other than parroting something you read on a government website, can you in fact explain the "physics" you are so convinced of? What are the "physics" that "prove" man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming? And why do the warming models invariably prove to be inaccurate (according to physics)?

So, you know which is "bigger" between 5 and 15. I'm not as impressed with yourself as you seem to be. But perhaps you can explain the "physics errors" in this report?

Or this one.

This section specifically deals with the "physical science." What is it that you know that the experts don't. Perhaps you can demonstrate the scientific errors with which you disagree, and point out where they're inaccurate?

Or perhaps you don't understand anything that you aren't repeating from what some government hack tells you...

Something you failed to recognize is that "data" requires a rationalist theory by which to interpret it. Many people have not been getting that kind of education (as Google's HR knows), so the "data" can then be interpreted any which way to suit pre-conditioned biases and vested interests. That's not "science." In fact, that's where so-called "authorities" come in: the propagandists and those paid to tell "the people" how to interpret the "data."

Who amongst those taking issue with my posts (@dannym3141) follows this epistemological "method" of reading the "data" and interpreting it, and who simply repeats what some "authority" tells them is the case?

(And lest you think "the people" are innocent victims, know that they seem more like willing participants; the extent to which they can be "victimized" depends on the extent of their own personal vices: anger, greed, pride, envy, laziness, etc. I'm looking at you @ChaosEngine.)

You are a troll, or traul or troller or sometong with a stupid poopy pants opinion.

That is my opinion to have. Anyone on this site other than you can have whatever opinion of you as they seem fit, you can have an opinion but that would be a biased one to express.

I think you are just having a problem with it because of that status, but let it be known, he is a user, he has an opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as you do it in a fairly respectable manner, pretty sure that has been explained here.

The fact you are making an issue out of it solidifies your panties are in a wad and are just picking at something inert and trying to make it flammable.

" You calling me a troll is wrong " is an opinion, what you express their is exactly what you are saying Dag should not have.

Although I do not give much hope to those that worship idols to understand circular logic and logic in itself.

LETS BE FRIENDS BOB! do you like to barbeque ?

@eric3579, it's "Panti" Bliss, not Patti.

By the way, in case anyone is interested, this is the article that Panti found homophobic. I can't imagine where he got that idea....

Someone's got their clown panties in a bunch . . .

I'm just left wondering how many clown ho's can you fit into a pair of clown panties, I'm surprised only one left the room.

Your video, Clown Panties, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I understand exactly what he's doing. I'm pointing out that it's possible to cross lines, even with racial satire, and that those lines are gray and fuzzy and worthy of our thought, attention, and dialog. You seem to think that when it comes to racial satire, there shouldn't be any lines, whatsoever. That there's always some 100% correct answer to this kind of question, and that answer is "Colbert is righteous".
You're right, my example wouldn't air. Let's say it did though, and there was an uproar from a portion of the black community. Would you still be saying those folks essentially have their panties in a bunch and need to lighten up?

I always love when conservatives get their panties in a twist and create something like... ohhhh #cancelcolbert

Ban that movie... Boycott that... literally NOTHING that idiot could have done to make Colbert more popular.

why does everybody get their panties in a bunch when someone offers an alternative to dealing with cancers?

cancer treatment is NOT a black and white issue.
a change in diet as @Sniper007 suggested has been proven more and more to not only combat certain cancers but eliminate them altogether.

of course this course of treatment is a multi pronged attack and really only works in early diagnosis stages.
cannabinoid research over the past decade shows serious promise in reducing risks of cancer and reduction in overall cancer cell production in the body.

since many people here in the states do not have comprehensive,preventative health insurance the cancer is discovered far too late for some of what @Sniper007 is suggesting.

so chemotherapy is a last option.
and for those who do not understand why some here are calling chemotherapy "barbaric",let me clarify:

it is a controlled poisoning.
aaaaaaaand they are OFF!
who will die first?
is it the tumor or the body?

early diagnosis is the key but even in the latter stages cannabis can help eleviate pain and discomfort,as @Shepppard pointed out.