Thanks, fixed it

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*dead?

>> ^highdileeho:
I always like to hear a politician giving their own personal opinion, especially one that they know isn't popular. Intergrity Integrity in politics?


His ass is out, I don't think he's bothering to run for reelection, and quite frankly, it was a farce that he was ever elected, that Grey Davis was ousted thanks to out-of-state cash, and that all this shit here has played out as long as it has...

The tea party is a a running joke. They were just a rag tag bunch of un-coordinated nutters who used the deadline to file a tax return to stand outside of the post office and protest the whole notion of taxes. They're a minority group, mostly tax-dodgers, probably a lot of mental illness like paranoid delusion, etc... No one really paid any attention to them... until Fox News decided to bring them to the mainstream by actually trying to organize events for them.

California's main problem is that CA's RNC is run by these tax activist nutters. They hold a very small minority of the legislature, but thanks to a very stupid 70's-era ballot proposal, tax code revisions need a supermajority to pass. The Californian economy is still one of the most productive in the world, but our antiquated tax code isn't allowing the state to get enough revenue to maintain operation.

The furloughs are a fucking joke too. My parents have friends who work for the state, and they now do friday's work on saturday - for overtime, which is costing the state even more. Thanks Arnold!

>> ^acidSpine:
Gets funnier every time? So how many times do I have to watch it before it gets funny at all?


The reason why I like this video is not because it is particularly funny on its own, but it will be awesome when I send this as a response to my boss's next overtime email.

I encourage this kind of trauma. Maybe, overtime, it'll change the social norm on needing to get married.

It would be interesting to see how the stress-levels at these companies compares to levels at companies that aren't betting on early deaths. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that these creeps are also among the places that require massive overtime, and other stressful policies.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

haha thanks. yeah i cant stand that kind of unscientific garbage.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

In reply to this comment by guymontage:

I WAS KIDDING! Did you not read the next line? However, I think being specialtive of data that comes from the distant past is prudent. If one did not question the geocentric model like Copernicus and Galileo, but rather agreed with the Aristotelian consensus would we be better off? Most of the tools we have for looking at the distant past are murky at best, so while useful always have to be taken in stride, which is what I have been saying all along.

Radio age dating, and stellar cartagrophy have all shown themselves to be off by large margins at times. For instance, the believed age of the universe has increased 5 billion years in my life time...a very large number when trying to make other measurements like cosmic inflation and other dependent things. Small and large variances would undo very fundamental understood physical properties of the universe. If the age of the universe changes by any amount, any new theory trying to explain cosmological inflation has to be reworked from scratch...or at the very least re-propagated.

I never said throw it out, I said approach it with cautious skepticism, the same would go for radio carbon dating. It is good for estimations and approximations, but the fact is the data sets could be wildly inerrant. For general things like tectonic tenancies and the slow moment of things overtime, this isn't as big of a deal. But for making very detailed climatic predictions about the overall direction and the results of said direction of the weather is putting to much credence in the information at hand.

If the science is bogus, it doesn't necessarily have to be disproven in a timely manor either. It was nearly two thousands years from Aristotle to Galileo, and that was with something that could bee seen, this can never been seen. Your mistaken my faith in God for my ability to use reason as well. I started an atheist and have a firm back round in science and scientific thinking. The modern movement of science by consolidation more resembles church that true empirical thought. I find that true science is dead, and what is alive now is conjecture by consensus. The empirical model is dead. Science now has more faith than most would care to comment on. Belief in aliens because of the large amount of space and large amount of planets is evidence of faith before empiricism. If you want faith, church is ok, but science is chop full of non-agnostic positions.

My desire is to not be ignorant. I find the current fear mongering as a play on ignorance. I find people defending the radical data as definitive as naive. But I also see pollution as a problem that should be corrected if not just for the sake of doing it or the planet; but for breath of fresh air in the morning, a commodity that is hard to price.

Try not to be jaded by people you assume I am like and look at my argument more fully next time. I don't think you read exactly what I said but you read more what you wanted to read from someone named like I am named. I also was very crass and kinda rude to start off my comments in that thread, so maybe I had it coming

Anyway, it is a problem that is bigger than any one of us, so us calling each other names or mocking each others believe systems is not going to get us anywhere. I will endeavor to not get sarcastic when on a mountain dew high if you will read my objections for what they really are, based in rational skepticism. When confronted with skepticism, my position is to remain as agnostic about projections about what I am skeptical about until that thing is resolved; it is the only logical position.

In reply to this comment by asynchronice:
"O shit, they had climatologists in the 300,000BC"

LOL...you've got to be fucking kidding me. Let's throw out carbon dating too. It's unverifiable! You weren't there ! And how do they know what stars are made of ? They can't verify it !

I don't get the defensiveness here. No debate corporations will use this data for profit. They will use ANYTHING for profit. And governments will always want to tax more of their citizenry. It has no import/relevance on the scientific facts being given. And if the science is bogus, then it will be disproven. PERIOD. That's just how it works. Just because you're spoiled and think the scientific community has to give you a day, a time, and detailed description of what will happen, isn't a reason to dismiss it. If you want that, go back to church.

It weirds me out that people go to great lengths to show how it is all a conspiracy to instill fear and get money; just look at the facts, and make up your own goddamn mind. And if you choose to be willfully ignorant, then do people a favor and stay out of the debate. Some of us actually want to understand what's going on.

>> ^EndAll:
perhaps with good reason. there's a lot of debate/controversy surrounding the vaccines.


Excuse me? There is just as much debate/controversy surrounding vaccines as there is surrounding Santa Claus - which is none, if we disregard arguments from children, ignorant or mentally handicapped people (sorry for adding you to this sorry bunch, mentally handicapped folks).

Here are a few points that solidify my argument, with a special (and simple) rebuttal to all the anti-vaccine conspiracy-theorists out there. EndAll, I can't believe you'd be one of them


* Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

* Reduced vaccination rates lead to higher incidents of infection. This has been illustrated in the U.K. following Wakefield’s bogus study, in Germany in 2006 (including two deaths in unvaccinated children – see http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187/en/index.html), in California (see http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm), in MN (where an unvaccinated child died from hemophilus influenza type b – see http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/50/28863/minnesota-child-dies-lack-hib-meningitis-vaccination.html).

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that “Big Pharma” makes lots of money from vaccines. If vaccination rates dropped, however, there would be an increase in preventable illnesses, many of which have high rates of complications resulting in hospitalization and expensive treatment. See the link about Germany above for information on costs associated with the measles outbreak there. The money to be made from the diseases far outweighs any money to be made from vaccines.

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that better hygiene has led to a decrease in disease, rather than vaccines. However, many of the diseases prevented by vaccines are airborne, and are not greatly impacted by improved sanitation or hygiene.

* Pro-disease anti-vaxers claim that too many antigens (the parts that make the vaccines work) are given at once, ignoring that infants and children are exposed to thousands of antigens every day by touching things and putting their hands or the object in their mouth, through absorption or by inhaling.

* They claim that combination shots should be avoided, and that parents should break up the vaccinations into individual vaccines and spread them out. However, this increases the total number of shots received, as well as exposure to those various “toxins” they hate so much.

* There have been no well-controlled studies establishing a causal link between vaccines and autism.

* There have been numerous well-controlled studies sponsored and run by various people and organizations around the world that have shown no link between vaccines and autism.

via http://antiantivax.jottit.com/

>> ^direpickle:
In other segments Bill's alluded to being one of the vaccine conspiracy theorists.


perhaps with good reason. there's a lot of debate/controversy surrounding the vaccines.

Your video, Bill Maher Overtime with David Cross, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

In reply to this comment by guymontage:

>> ^gwiz665:
^I think Bill is a fan of alternative medicine, because he really likes hemp. But that's just my observation.

I actually put hemp-ish medicinal use as soon-to-be-mainstream medicine. Especially with stuff like this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Does-Hash-Oil-Cure-Parkinson-s-Symptoms-Shaking
The only barrier is a legal one, not a scientific one

>> ^gwiz665:
What he said in the beginning:
"There's only medicine or not medicine"


Guess what, big pharmas don't know WHY things things work in many cases.

Viagra was to be a blood pressure medicine which attracted much attention after the trials. Why...^^^.

Many pharmas do not know WHY their product do what they do, they just make sure they do NOT do other (harmful) things to patients.

So I guess I missed something when private industry laid me off six months ago because money was tight, rather than requesting or requiring overtime...

It's just a stupid generalization that is neither accurate or meaningful.