>> ^bobknight33:

Why did he not do this the first 4 years? He had full control of the house and senate.


Your math is pretty far off the mark. Maybe you'd have benefited from those extra math and science teachers?

Democrats had control for the first two years of his term, but he does not control all Democrats, they can choose their own vote, and they often fought him on issues. After the first two years Republicans controlled house and senate and chose to spend every ounce of their political muscle fighting every one of his initiatives instead of trying to forge some kind of middle ground.

This stupid bill pisses me off to no end. I this case it actually effects me directly. I am not an overweight person. I am 5'10" and way about 150lbs giver or take 5 lbs depending on the time of year. I also have a severe hiatal hernia. I was born with it. When I eat, I am required to drink a large amount of fluid to allow me to swallow. Carbonated fluids make it much easier than non carbonated fluids. I end up in the hospital once every couple of years to have an emergency endoscopy because of this condition. 16 ounces of soda, minus all the room that will be taken up by ice, is no where near enough for me to finish a meal. So now, I have to keep going to purchase more drinks, costing me more money, and taking more time so my meal gets to get cold. All because I have a medical condition and because someone else thinks that they should get to tell people how much soda they are allowed to drink.

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

44 ounces?? Who the hell needs that? Seriously! What fat fuck would get upset for not being able to order 1.3 litres of soft drink at a subway?


Jon Stewart whined for awhile about it.

44 ounces?? Who the hell needs that? Seriously! What fat fuck would get upset for not being able to order 1.3 litres of soft drink at a subway?

>> ^swedishfriend:

Interesting tidbit: I recently was given a bag of the candy called Rollos bought at a local Target store. It was made in England. It had real sugar, real cocoa, but didn't cost any more per ounce than candy made in the USA that use cheaper ingredients, cheaper labor and doesn't have to be imported from Europe. I am sure Cadbury in England still makes a good profit on these bags that are imported into the USA so why the shitty wages and cheap ingredients here in the USA? I say this points to a difference in morality of corporations here in the US vs those in Europe. It isn't black and white of course but there is obviously some difference on a gradient.
This is the same for Swedish candy I bought at Ikea. Less or the same cost per ounce as Mars or Hershey chocolate even though labor and ingredients are more expensive in Sweden plus the product has to be imported (IKEA also adds 30-50% of profit on these chocolate bars, not sure how much my local Target or grocery store adds to their cost). What is sold as premium candy here is the quality of regular candy in Sweden. Why?
Greed at the cost of your customers is never a good idea for long term health of your company so I guess people at the top of these corporations are more greedy than smart. Not the kind of person that should be in charge of thousands of people's livelihoods.
Also interesting that a culture that is so hot for religion is less moral than a culture where churches are near empty. Makes sense to me. Organizations relying on getting people to stop thinking critically cannot be good for promoting morality after all.


Rolos are made by Nestle, just FYI. A global and far richer company than Cadbury's. But I'm positive your point still stands!

Interesting tidbit: I recently was given a bag of the candy called Rollos bought at a local Target store. It was made in England. It had real sugar, real cocoa, but didn't cost any more per ounce than candy made in the USA that use cheaper ingredients, cheaper labor and doesn't have to be imported from Europe. I am sure Cadbury in England still makes a good profit on these bags that are imported into the USA so why the shitty wages and cheap ingredients here in the USA? I say this points to a difference in morality of corporations here in the US vs those in Europe. It isn't black and white of course but there is obviously some difference on a gradient.

This is the same for Swedish candy I bought at Ikea. Less or the same cost per ounce as Mars or Hershey chocolate even though labor and ingredients are more expensive in Sweden plus the product has to be imported (IKEA also adds 30-50% of profit on these chocolate bars, not sure how much my local Target or grocery store adds to their cost). What is sold as premium candy here is the quality of regular candy in Sweden. Why?

Greed at the cost of your customers is never a good idea for long term health of your company so I guess people at the top of these corporations are more greedy than smart. Not the kind of person that should be in charge of thousands of people's livelihoods.

Also interesting that a culture that is so hot for religion is less moral than a culture where churches are near empty. Makes sense to me. Organizations relying on getting people to stop thinking critically cannot be good for promoting morality after all.

>> ^qfan:

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth.

Agreed. On the other hand, the unassailable mountains of evidence for evolution means his views (at least on evolution) are truth. Or at least as much as it's possible to have any scientific "truth".


>> ^qfan:

Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.
What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He's not saying parents can't tell their children about creationism, he's saying they shouldn't. You can dance around the issue all you want, and believe in creationism, the tooth fairy or santa claus, but there comes a time when you have to grow up and accept reality. Right now, there's no debate about evolution, simply because there is no valid competing scientific theory that even comes close to matching the evidence. That I have to even spell this out is pretty sad.

>> ^qfan:

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory.

There might be "thousands of scientists that believe in creation", but they represent a tiny percentage of the overall scientific community and almost none of them work in relevant fields. You wouldn't ask a plumber about aeronautical engineering, so don't ask a physicist about biology.

And if you ignore evolutionary theory, you are ignoring the science of biology. You are cherry-picking which evidence you accept because it doesn't fit your world view.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

I have already conceded that you do not need to understand evolutionary biology to build rockets.

>> ^qfan:

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution".

If you're going to quote me, at least do me the courtesy of doing it fully and in context. What I said was:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research.


I meant that Von Braun benefited from the study of evolution in the same way that every other human in the developed world did, through better medicines. It didn't really affect his work, but it did affect his life.


>> ^qfan:

Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

So what? He was wrong about evolution. Big deal. Newton was one of the greatest minds of all time and he got time wrong. Science marches on, and I'm confident that Von Braun if he had the time and inclination to really study it, would eventually have accepted the facts of evolution. And if he still chose to ignore the evidence because it didn't fit his world-view, well, that's sad, but it changes nothing about the truth of evolution.

>> ^qfan:

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.


It's not unique to the U.S., but it's more prevalent than any other developed nation. What he's saying is that the U.S. should know better.

Denial of evolution in and of itself is bad, but it's symptomatic of the larger issues of anti-intellectualism and non-rational thought. The people who made the U.S. the most technologically advanced nation are not the same people that believe in a talking snake.

Besides, he's talking about potential. Maybe somewhere in the bible belt the next Alexander Fleming is having their future taken away from them because they are being lied to (intentionally or not) by their parents and/or preachers.

@ChaosEngine "Well, aside from being a well-respected science educator, he's also a private person and thus entitled to an opinion. The same way that religious people seem to think they should be able to tell other people not only how to raise their children, but what their children should be taught in science class."

Side note: Being well respected doesn't mean his views are truth. Though yes, perfectly fine to have an opinion. I'm not disputing that.

What's in dispute is that he's telling parents not to share their beliefs with their own children. So we're not only telling creationists they can't share their views publicly in school, we also tell them that they can't share their views in private with their own children. It's extraordinarily dangerous thinking in the free world. These are private people who wish to raise their children with their own values. Bill is publicly preaching to parents (unlike those parents who are privately teaching their children) not to share what they believe in, all the while saying "When you're in love you want to tell the world about it." The man is amazingly hypocritical and sadly without an ounce of realisation about it.

He says "We need scientifically literate people...". The thousands of scientists that believe in creation are also literate in science, even in the evolutionary aspects, except they choose not to believe in evolutionary theory. Science is a method. Nothing more, nothing less. Creationists aren't ignoring science at all, they are ignoring evolutionary theory. Bill says "We need engineers, people that build stuff, solve problems...". The example of Wernher Von Braun puts this point to rest.

@ChaosEngine "If Von Braun had believed in a biblical theory of "intelligent falling" instead of gravity, his rockets wouldn't have gotten far. If he had actually studied the science, his conclusion might have been very different, but there's not a lot of call for evolutionary science when designing rockets, so he basically ignored an area of science that conflicted with his belief system because it didn't affect his work. You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution though, given it's the backbone of a lot of medical research."

You're confusing a lot of things here. First you say he ignored an area (evolution) that conflicted with his belief "because it didn't affect his work", then go on to say "You can be damn sure he benefited from the study of evolution". Von Braun, "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design,” “It is in scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life and man in the science classroom. It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happening by chance." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/656/1

Bill says that denial of evolution is unique to the US (which is already a very questionable statement in itself), then goes on to say that the US is the most technologically advanced nation (with a grudging acceptance that Japan might be slightly ahead). Again, another questionable statement and slightly elitist I might add So if denial of evolution is holding the US back, why is it the most technologically advanced? You could word it another way... denial of evolution and technological advancement do not correlate with one another.

>> ^kevingrr:

@criticalthud All those drugs have both good and bad applications. Same for pot/thc because quite simply it is a drug.
I'm for full legalization, but that doesn't mean I'll use a single ounce. I'll just be happy that police aren't wasting time busting pot dealers, users, & growers. Plus the tax dollars it generates should be pretty nice.
I'm kind of tired of healthy people advocating so strongly for pot. Quote all the studies you want but inhaling smoke of any kind into my body (including burning wood around a fire pit) has never seemed like the healthiest thing to do.
-Kg


yes but interestingly, pot has much much less going on in terms of side effects. In fact, no other drug with as wide a variety of medical uses has as few side effects. it's really not even close.
Nothing big pharma puts out can really compete in terms of variety of uses and total lack of negative side effects (and of course, cost).
this is a fact that very much surprised me after many years of dissing medical pot myself.
but honestly, compared to adderol, prozac, and ambien, it's a smarter alternative and lots of people use it to chill out and focus, as an anti-depressant, and as a sleep aid.

at this point, i use pot, mostly for it's psychoactive properties. no pharmies tho...that shit is wack.

@criticalthud All those drugs have both good and bad applications. Same for pot/thc because quite simply it is a drug.

I'm for full legalization, but that doesn't mean I'll use a single ounce. I'll just be happy that police aren't wasting time busting pot dealers, users, & growers. Plus the tax dollars it generates should be pretty nice.

I'm kind of tired of healthy people advocating so strongly for pot. Quote all the studies you want but inhaling smoke of any kind into my body (including burning wood around a fire pit) has never seemed like the healthiest thing to do.

-Kg

It's interesting to me that these two megastars seem to be fans of Nolan, just as fascinated by the details as anyone else... not an ounce of cynicism detected.

seamless.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I disagree. QT knows exactly what he is doing. Some of his films are dialog driven (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and some are genre and/or action driven films (True Romance, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds). I have no doubt he is capable of writing another Pulp, and that one day he probably will, but for now he is doing high-art pastiche of the classic exploitation dramas he grew up with. This is not to say that these action films are less good than his dialog films, they just have different aesthetic criteria.
He is much like Speilberg in this way, if polar opposites in dialog and style. Speilberg has his serious movies, and he has his homages to the serial action films of his youth.
Prediction: Eventually Quentin will eventually get his fill of action films and create another magnum opus, and likely get himself an Oscar in the process. I would absolutely love for him to take his favorite film of recent times, Battle Royale, and make an American-culture-specific version - not a remake of the film, but a remake of the concept as it would occur if it played out with American high schoolers.
Also, comparing QT to Shayamalan is blasphemy. Even Shayamalan's best work was an average film with a great twist. Shayamalan has never shown even an ounce of the writing or directing skills that QT has. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!1!>> ^lucky760:
Win.
I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.
(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)



I think even he knows he's lost something. Politely disagree, sir. *tip hat*

I disagree. QT knows exactly what he is doing. Some of his films are dialog driven (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and some are genre and/or action driven films (True Romance, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds). I have no doubt he is capable of writing another Pulp, and that one day he probably will, but for now he is doing high-art pastiche of the classic exploitation dramas he grew up with. This is not to say that these action films are less good than his dialog films, they just have different aesthetic criteria.

He is much like Speilberg in this way, if polar opposites in dialog and style. Speilberg has his serious movies, and he has his homages to the serial action films of his youth.

Prediction: Eventually Quentin will eventually get his fill of action films and create another magnum opus, and likely get himself an Oscar in the process. I would absolutely love for him to take his favorite film of recent times, Battle Royale, and make an American-culture-specific version - not a remake of the film, but a remake of the concept as it would occur if it played out with American high schoolers.

Also, comparing QT to Shayamalan is blasphemy. Even Shayamalan's best work was an average film with a great twist. Shayamalan has never shown even an ounce of the writing or directing skills that QT has. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!1!>> ^lucky760:

Win.
I no longer have any confidence Quentin will make another Reservoir Dogs- or Pulp Fiction-caliber film, and I've made my peace with that, but I will still eagerly await every one of his new projects with fervent anticipation.
(I just hope he never descends as far down as M. Night Shyamalan.)

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

Not a single ounce of wit exists in this man


You should watch the show. I have nothing but respect for anyone who dispises hippocracy in all forms.