Its just the shot glass' volume into the shaker and each of the colours has a different density.

Yes ?

First time I have self *promoted, but this is serious shit. People need to know. 15 aftershocks so far, up to 5.9 which is a hell of a shaker in, and of itself let alone 7.0.

Please, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has a condo in the Songhees. He was just floating over to Seattle, WA on business. Although, in the video he seemed to be heading towards Anacortes, so he probably has a cute little Parmesan shaker hidden away there.

So much for a warm and fuzzy roast. OK, we still have fuzzy.

If NeuralNoise’s friends think he looks like Woolverine, perhaps they think his brother looks like Chewy.

NeuralNoise seem to be quite friendly with future son-in-law, siftbot. ‘Guess putting some coins in ole sifty would make a good shaker while practicing the samba dance.

Since he did bring up the subject of amputees, it makes one wonder if making them amputees is part of the fetish? The Wolverine claw bit provokes my question.

Two of his five listed cherished possessions are hair and limbs. I would have thought some other body possessions would come before hair. Some aging guys around here might be a tad jealous of his coif.

Finally we have a roastee who actually lives in a country that includes the Amazon River, yet his list of fears does not include the Candiru. (See Roasts IX and X)

MadCow right in one respect. The NPP has not been oriented around 'accomplishments' for most of its existence. NPP awards given to people for accomplishments are the exception rather than the rule. The NPP is a political orientation award. It is a neolib award given to neolibs for pushing neolib dogma. When you keep that reality firmly in mind it makes perfect sense that people like Carter, Gore, and Obama would be thier boys. The NPP is an award that the European socialist left dangles to get movers and shakers to line up and march the way they like. It's that simple.

Just call it the "Neolib Puppet Prize". Bullseye.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'shaker boys, viewmanoid, rhythm, lights' to 'shaker boys, viewmanoid, rhythm, lights, easy listening' - edited by EndAll

This is supposed to be the actual "hidden" word, but a dozen combinations of any of those squiggles could be construed as the F word. I think it's much ado about nothing.

No - I deal in full truths. You simply don't like them. The reality is that acknowledging Isreal as a Jewish state does have implications and inherent problems for Palestinians. But the creation of a Palestinain state causes tons of problems for Isreal too so it isn't all one-sided. That's diplomacy. You give up something to get something.

The Palestinians want a state. That's reasonable. Isreal wants the Arab world to acknowledge it's right to exist. That's also reasonable. Both sides agreeing to this basic right of existence would be a great beginning. Initially it's going to be tough on both sides. They're both going to need to compromise. Isreal is at least starting the process and saying, "Here's what we want..." Now the Palenstinians need to step up and say, "OK you can exist, but we need these territories..." or make some sort of counter offer. That's how diplomacy works.

Quite frankly, the fact that the simple "we want to exist" request is the one that is being so flatly rejected is a real head-shaker to me. If Arab's can't even do that, then this is all pointless. There’s no reason they can’t just say, “We will acknowledge Israel as an official Jewish state, but we need “X, Y, Z” concessions in order to function as a Palestinian state.” What’s so hard about that?

This is more than a great movie; it helped change the way people think and feel about AIDS victims and gays. I'm guessing seeing it now won't have the same effect, but in 1993 it was a foundation-shaker.

Praise to one of the movers and shakers of teh internetz. Dag yo.

How was that rejected but this made it through?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Baby-Shaker-Iphone-game-delites-and-horrifies

i think he has a point that darwin changed the perception of nature from "god's gift" to "man's tool"... he did this along with several other movers and shakers in the industrial revolution, leading to consequences which liberals oppose. it's an interesting paradox (buried in a shitty video).

Have a glass of Kryptonite, Clark

Liquid Kryptonite recipe:

3/4 oz Midori Melon Liqueur
1 splash Vodka
3/4 oz Coconut Rum
3/4 oz Spiced Rum
3/4 oz Pineapple Juice

Kryptonite Directions
Combine ingredients with ice in a cocktail shaker. Shake and strain into a cocktail glass, and serve. ( I guess you could add a touch of green food coloring for show )

It sounds to me, gwiz665, as if your beef is not really with religion, but with malignant ideological authoritarianism. But this isn't a problem merely in religion. Communist China and the Russia are/were both atheist, and are both committed to the veracity of science, and yet their subjection to ideological authoritarianism has seriously set back scientific progress in both countries. Russia failed to study statistics after WWII, for instance, because it was perceived to be out of line with party ideology.

It has only been in areas of ideological tolerance--for both religious and scientific thought--that any major scientific advances have occurred in the last two hundred years. I believe your animus toward religion is misplaced. While religion has frequently been a transmitter of malignant authoritarianism, I would submit that this is not because of irrational elements within religion, but because of the widespread acceptance of religious thought. It was easier for authoritarian attitudes and ideas to spread through this medium as a result. If some other ideology becomes widespread, then it acts as the vector by which authoritarianism is spread. Communism acted as such a vector, as I noted, (Communism does not, in itself, mandate authoritarianism) as has nationalism in causing World Wars I and II.

Denouncing religion in favor of science will only render science itself subject to the same social and historical forces, thus perverting it and rendering far less effective.

In addition, your understanding of religion is, as I noted, extremely flawed. You do not seem to grasp the implication of "orthodoxy" versus "orthopraxy." Here it is: Primarily orthopraxic religions do not have creeds. Thus, there are no creeds to submit to. Only a general sense of what moral principles to act on, and the performance of a few ritual acts. This leads to vast diversity in all areas of thought, including the ethical. (Compare Stoicism to Epicureanism to Cynicism sometime. Then remember that they arose from the same culture with the same religion.)

"Supernatural" elements do not always require faith. "Faith" does not always mean "unquestioning belief."

During the Dark Ages--classified by historians as the first half of the medieval period, roughly 476 to 1000--there was relatively little religiously motivated violence. There was plenty of violence of other kinds, but Christianity was used as a tool to abate it to some extent. (There are exceptions, of course. There was the beheading of remnants of paganism in the Eastern Roman Empire, the bloody persecution by Charlemagne of pagans in the Saxon Wars, and the persecution of Norwegian heathens by King Olaf I. Without these three elements, there's a substantial chance some pagan religions might have survived.)

In the second half of the medieval period, the Crusades were not motivated merely, or even mainly, by Christianity. The Western Crusaders marching on Jerusalem murdered Christians just as readily as they murdered Muslims and Jews. They killed because they had been trained for war since childhood. Though there was a rise in violence caused by religion as evidenced by the Albigensian Crusades, which were religiously motivated, and the Inquisition.

I think it's obvious to some extent that aspects of most religions are in there to control the populace. But the same can be said of government. Government is far more explicitly "control over individuals way of life, their income, and their thoughts." Religion, in contrast, has far more often been an agent of change and rebellion in various cultures. That's how Christianity and Islam started--though there were elements of authoritarianism from the beginning. From a less authoritarian perspective, one also has Protestant Christianity, Sikhism, Mormonism, the Quakers, the Shakers, modern pagan revivalism, the Nation of Islam, Rastafarianism, Druze, and many more. Each of these religions was created explicitly to rebel against the authority structure of the day.

You really don't seem to have studied "religion" very much, Gwiz, and yet you're awfully quick to condemn it. I would recommend a great deal more study before consigning such an integral aspect of human experience to the great dustbin of history.

I'm always wondering what's more depressing: how easy those folks in Brussels can be influenced by lobbyists or just how incompetent the "movers and shakers" really are. There are videos online of "La Quadrature du net"-activists talking to them and they really have no idea of the consequences of their decisions.