thats why i heart you SO mauz!
guys guys guys...
there is no need to bicker,there are 4500 religions on the PLANET.
why is everyone just picking on the semetic traid?
why not the religion where god is a neo-morphic turtle who holds the universe on its back?thats a good one to pick on.
attenborough clearly has a problem with christian dogma,and lets be honest,the book of genesis is pretty retarded by todays standards.maybe 3500 yrs ago it made a modecum of sense,today it just seems dumb.
then again most christians are totally unaware that the book of genesis is a metaphorical representation of the tree of life/tree of knowledge (da'ath).
would christian scholars keep that from their adherent believers?
noooooo that would be intellectually dishonest /snark.

doctrine and dogma should be examined and debated,and ultimately rejected if based on poor theology.it is the fundamentalist who cannot exercise this vital action,for to do so would,in essence,be rejecting god in their eyes.i believe attenborough was addressing these types of believers.
i also believe that some atheists are so confident in their own rational and feel so 100% positively RIGHT they too can come across with the fanaticism of a religious fundamentalist.
so let me give you the literal translation of "agnostic"..
it means "not-knowing".
speaking only for myself,i dont know.i may FEEL,i may THINK but ultimately..
i dont know.
the encounters i have with atheists,and being in the profession i am,i meet a LOT of atheists,the single most common thread is their abhorrance to religion and its inherent hypocrisies,contradictions,revisionist history and mind-numbing FEAR-mongering(semetic triad mostly).i cant necessarily disagree with them,because they are correct.the biggest problem i have had recently has been with the religious right.atheists just pepper me with questions,the religious right sends me subpeonas..talk about a WTF moment.
at the end of the day we are all agnostic,but boy o boy is it fun to poke at fundamentalists! so ends todays sermon..
dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!

>> ^enoch:
the media distorts the context by manipulating what they air to perpetuate a narrative?
ya dont say?/snark
while FOX may be adept,and lets be honest,prodigious with this form of manipulation,all giant media conglomerates are guilty of this tactic.
the only way to combat this blatant betrayal of public trust is to shed light on
their malfeasance.
which you have been doing admirably mr deputydog.
thanks my man,keep up the great work.


choggie?

the media distorts the context by manipulating what they air to perpetuate a narrative?
ya dont say?/snark
while FOX may be adept,and lets be honest,prodigious with this form of manipulation,all giant media conglomerates are guilty of this tactic.
the only way to combat this blatant betrayal of public trust is to shed light on
their malfeasance.
which you have been doing admirably mr deputydog.
thanks my man,keep up the great work.

Thank you, very interesting.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

^ Oh, you want facts, not mild snark. This article has a pretty good chart of Science spending over the last 50-ish years.

In short, what Tyson said is true, to an extent. Medical/Biological research funding went way up, but Bush always reminded people that it was to protect us from biological weapons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the money did come with strings attached that it be used for projects that would help on that front.

NASA funding went up slightly, but it came with the requirement that about a third of the total budget go to working on a manned mission to Mars, and/or nuclear rocketry.

Earth and environmental science, whose budget was already tiny, got cut by about a third, presumably because he didn't want it wasted on global warming research.

I assume it's a similar story with energy research which he all but eliminated for most of his tenure as President.

General funding for science also went up. I've heard no bad stories about that, so I'll just say good for Bush on that count.

The chart also puts paid to DeGrasse's claim that Republican Presidents generally fund science more than Democratic ones do. Kennedy/LBJ spiked it up, Nixon cut it back slightly, Carter boosted it up, Reagan cut it back. The Bushes and Clinton were backwards from the historic trend, but Clinton was trying to balance the budget, and Bush thought he was on a mission from God. Both were odd examples of their party.

Obama will likely bump these numbers to new highs, though I imagine the mix will be wildly different than under Bush.

videos down.figures....
must of had some truth in them,
nobody takes propaganda videos down.
/snark
krupo,what was the name of the series?
was it canadian?british?
man!now im not gonna be able to sleep till i find these vids LOL

>> ^RabidRobot:
Did anyone else find the SAIU kids self righteous annoying douchebags?


A little bit, yeah. I'm sure they're nice people but they have enough snark to cause a second biblical flood.

Okay, now this is a double standard. Biden said the same thing as Palin, just used more words to say it. He also left out the presiding over the Senate, tie-breaking vote bit.

I don't like Palin. I like Biden. But let's be fair. His answer is no different than Palin's.

(Now is someone out there going to insult me because I called for fairness? Why not pass on the snark, I'll consider it already done.)

I'm not sure what the snark is in the title to this, because my experience has been that Mr Damon is actually a pretty clever guy.

And to you twats who think eh shouldn't ahve a right as an artist to express his opinion: if you really feel that way then what gives you the right to express your braindead opinions here? Go fuck yourselves.

Bill O'Reilly needs to get tasered while being water-boarded. Your snark is ugly, and every comment I've read by you leads me to believe you're a fucking sociopath, hell-bent on shredding our constitution.

Say whatever snark you want about how she dressed or whatever other grade-school nonsense, but police brutality is not fucking funny. And these power-trippers should be in jail, being assraped by the very people they locked-up.

My first piece of snark is ; he looks like he's high!! Hah...probably not, but oh well.

Second, is, thank god he's turned around so much to the super vague and awesome notion of leaving it up to "doctors". I'm hoping this is code for "look man, there's way too many people locked up, and requiring billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for such a stupid piece of crap"

Yep, HOPE

>> ^quantumushroom:
If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously, it's this. This is why.
You got a 'P' next to your handle. I was annoying libs 'round here when you were in your crib shitting yellow mustard.
Raz me over pointing out a rather blatant "subliminal" sticker, which could just as easily have been out of the shot? Go back and count the number of anti-Fox sifts--no matter the content--and tell me with a straight face how I'm being nitpicky. HA.
ACLU? With its anti-religion agenda based on a fraudulent interpretation of the 1st Amendment, it's been making many people's lives miserable over nothing for decades. What do I care that this doof has been inconvenienced by the Big Government he craves? So has the "reporter"! Imagine a reporter with terminal cancer reporting on terminal cancer victims.
BTW, the misleading title of this sift makes one believe the TSA deliberately singled out the CNN reporter because he described them in an unflattering light, yet he has NO evidence, only an implication, kind of like "Bush lied." No evidence of a crime, therefore no impeachment.
Since over one milion people are also on the list "by accident", we can conclude they're all liberals working for the ACLU and/or CNN.


Wow! QM, I'm impressed. Reading that, you actually sounded reasonable and unprovocative. I think that's the first time I've actually seen some logic showing through in your arguments. Not that it hasn't been there all along, just nice to see it. Cheers! (no snark intended)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'green day, maudlin, time of your life, snark, Good, Riddance' to 'green day, maudlin, time of your life, snark, Good Riddance' - edited by lucky760

Tags for this video have been changed from 'green day, maudlin, time of your life, snark' to 'green day, maudlin, time of your life, snark, Good, Riddance' - edited by E_Nygma

eh../shrugs i dont think bush's feelings were hurt.he has already shown a propensity for not giving two s#!t$ about what the american public thinks or feels.but he has shown incredible generosity to those who would profit from war and death.you have to hand it to bush,he does take care of his uber-rich friends in high places./snark