>> ^entr0py:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Here's a more recent CNN story.
Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.


I'm glad there's a company line being towed on why an innocent person nearly died thanks to the war on drugs

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^jonny:
"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!

He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.
All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!
Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?


Here's a more recent CNN story.

Yes, he was handcuffed in the cell. The house that was raided seemed to be an MDMA distribution center, and the DEA claims they seized 18,000 pills, as well as several guns and cases of ammo. But it also wasn't the kids house; it seems he was just there with friends to get high. Which is why he wasn't charged and supposed to be released.

>> ^jonny:

"he spent in a 5 ft. by 10 ft. cell, where he could not spread his arms out wide."
How long are this dude's arms?!?!


He was handcuffed. Odd wording but it's the only explanation.

All they seized were some soft drugs - shrooms, weed, ecstacy, some other crap and "some weapons" ie. various things that you'd find in a normal house that can be used to fluff out the report and make sure such drugs are associated with violence!

Someone remind me again what's so terrible about taking those things in the privacy of your own property?

Sorry, but this needs some unnecessary censorship.

I've lived with _____ all my life and have been breeding ______ ____ for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my _____. Playing with ____ is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his _____ out and it's great fun. You can play with ____, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great _____ when they grow up.
Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.>> ^robbersdog49:


That's better.

>> ^critical_d:
I would recommend not using your hand to play with the kitten. This can reinforce behavior (it's ok to bite fingers) and this will be a problem when they get older and are capable of doing real damage. Try using a feather wand or any of those cat toys that have a string on a stick design. This will still allow you to play interactively with the kitty and the cat will focus on the toy as "prey" and not your hand. A win-win situation for the both of you!
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to help.
More info:
http://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
http://www.squidoo.com/cat-bites
>> ^messenger:
Question for experienced cat owners:
I love playing like this with kittens, especially encouraging them to bite me because I like how it tickles, and I find it cute how ineffectual it is. I've also heard that doing that trains cats to bite people whenever they play, a habit which they retain into adulthood and become those annoying cats that bite your guests. Is that really true, or is it just in the personality of the cat whether they'll bite as an adult?
Thanks!


I've lived with cats all my life and have been breeding pedigree cats for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my cats. Playing with kittens is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his claws out and it's great fun. You can play with cats, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great cats when they grow up.
Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.

>> ^critical_d:

I would recommend not using your hand to play with the kitten. This can reinforce behavior (it's ok to bite fingers) and this will be a problem when they get older and are capable of doing real damage. Try using a feather wand or any of those cat toys that have a string on a stick design. This will still allow you to play interactively with the kitty and the cat will focus on the toy as "prey" and not your hand. A win-win situation for the both of you!
Let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to help.
More info:
http://www.perfectpaws.com/cat_training_and_cat_behavior.html
http://www.squidoo.com/cat-bites
>> ^messenger:
Question for experienced cat owners:
I love playing like this with kittens, especially encouraging them to bite me because I like how it tickles, and I find it cute how ineffectual it is. I've also heard that doing that trains cats to bite people whenever they play, a habit which they retain into adulthood and become those annoying cats that bite your guests. Is that really true, or is it just in the personality of the cat whether they'll bite as an adult?
Thanks!



I've lived with cats all my life and have been breeding pedigree cats for about five years now. I can absolutely guarantee the temperament of my cats. Playing with kittens is a great way to teach them where the lines are. Biting is OK, as long as it isn't hard. They can learn where that line is. I can play fight with my big boy Leo (7.5kg Ragdoll) and he mouths me but never hurts me. He never puts his claws out and it's great fun. You can play with cats, but you do need to teach them where the lines are and be strict about stopping them when they do cross the line. Do this when they're little and they'll be great cats when they grow up.

Indiscriminate play without teaching is where the problem is but play-fighting with a great big bundle of fluff is great fun and well worth the effort. I just find it a bit more interactive than a toy on a stick.

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

This is some stupid shit.

I mean really does this video make a real argument ethor way for anything its just a bunch of fluff edited together makes no effort to cover the reality of the situation.

>> ^Barseps:

Adele, (although a good singer) is still just an updated version of the great
Alison Moyet.
Best live version of any song on the Sift I've seen so far.....
<div id="widget_1197042014"></div>


Go fluff your pom pom's somewhere else nay sayer.

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?
Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.
I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.
I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.
One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?
The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.
This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.
Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.
I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.
The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.
Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.
The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.
Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.
I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?

The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.

This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.

Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.

I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.

The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says

"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.

The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:

LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

It's interesting to read a response like yours.

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws? Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth. The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.
That you don't know what the truth is, or that you believe it isn't knowable, does not preclude me from knowing what it is. It is not beneficial to be ignorant of the truth.
The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of.
How do you go from "I don't know" to rejecting the existence of God? How does explaining a mechanism rule out agency? Do you understand what I meant earlier about the uniformity of nature?
"We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it".
Not if it's true.
It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.
It's not a God of the gaps when a Creator is a better explanation for the phenomena, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems and the information in DNA. It is an abominable act to dismiss the idea of Gods existence out of hand.
I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.
You certainly have faith in a naturalistic explanation if you reject a creator. Although a purely naturalistic origin is something you cannot prove and have zero evidence for, you believe it anyway, and reject a creator outright, by your own words. That is blind faith.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I'm convinced attacking Paul on these matters only strengthens his campaign. If you want to attack RP, attack the policies. There is plenty of substance to go after without the fluff set to dramatic music.

Also, I thought that CNN interview was atrocious. He answered the question, so you move on. Were they looking for something like, "actually I wrote all that stuff because I'm a bigot."

Totally agree. It would be interesting to see what brought the AM to the entrance to begin with. He should have let them in, the customers are pushing too hard but it is totally ridiculous these guys did not get in there. The time is posted and they should have compensated for a huge last minute rush. I think what may have happened is the rush was so intense and they were understaffed. That is mismanagement. Let them in.

I hate, hate, hate all big box stores, if I had to go in that piece of shit maze of animals I would know exactly what I wanted and GTFO; woulda taken ten minutes.



>> ^BoneRemake:

I would stop shopping there and write a nasty letter to their boss'.
I would not be so audacious to make a big fluff like that at the door, but I feel that Walmart manager is wrong, one hundred percent in the wrong, advertised hours are such an hour to such an hour, you do not deny customers entry so you can start wrapping up your till's and clearing the store early.

I do not think the guy should be fired or whatnot, maybe demoted as he obviously has no sense of customer service. Walmart is wrong-oh !

I would stop shopping there and write a nasty letter to their boss'.

I would not be so audacious to make a big fluff like that at the door, but I feel that Walmart manager is wrong, one hundred percent in the wrong, advertised hours are such an hour to such an hour, you do not deny customers entry so you can start wrapping up your till's and clearing the store early.


I do not think the guy should be fired or whatnot, maybe demoted as he obviously has no sense of customer service. Walmart is wrong-oh !

If its one of the types of advertising I am thinking this site hosts, then no one in the control room has the reigns on what is advertised. I recall there being a problem with certain adverts and a fluff being made about it and subsequently removed from our site, but I would think that is one of the adverts they have no control over whats presented.