Santa Claus Gets Beard Caught In Shopping Mall has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Santa-Claus-Gets-Beard-Caught-In-Shopping-Mall

Lost on The Internet - Santa Claus Edition has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals on that post.

Santa Claus Gets His Beard Caught on a Rope, Gets Rescued has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Santa-Claus-Gets-His-Beard-Caught-on-a-Rope-Gets-Rescued

>> ^mintbbb:

Luckily there seems to be a lot of copies going around! Thanks, fixed!
>> ^ant:
dead -- "This video has been removed by the user..."
Wow, it was fine last night before 10:36 PM PST and passing out since I had the video buffered. It gets an upvote before declaring it dead!



You're welcome.

Luckily there seems to be a lot of copies going around! Thanks, fixed!

>> ^ant:

dead -- "This video has been removed by the user..."
Wow, it was fine last night before 10:36 PM PST and passing out since I had the video buffered. It gets an upvote before declaring it dead!

Your sour grapes are so delicious. Your tears are like nectar.

I'm so full of your tears and your sadness and yet I still want more. Keep it come'n!>> ^lantern53:

I think Rush is right.
The Democrats are the party of Santa Claus. Vote Democrat, get free stuff.

I think Rush is right.

The Democrats are the party of Santa Claus. Vote Democrat, get free stuff.

Happy Santa Claus, Hood, and Goose-Day, birthday human!

"Its not Santa Claus..." I was thinking the same thing. Its a shame his mum didn't realise she was a lesbian at 13. Probably would have saved her a sham marriage and a dumbass son.

Christians complaining about being discriminated against because of their discriminatory beliefs.

*promote

for that Santa Clause line. Love it.

>> ^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.

I remember realizing how awful some nursery rhymes and kids songs were. Like the Three Little Kittens. They lost their mittens, as children do. That's life with kids. But they lose dessert privileges. And to compound it, the fact they were lucky enough to find their mittens suddenly erases their previous wickedness and they get to have dessert again. If that wasn't enough of a giveaway, it was first published in the U.S. in a book called, "New Nursery Songs for All Good Children"

And "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" has the same issue. Children who are unhappy are being bad and won't get presents. It doesn't say, children who don't steal, or who don't bully, or anything vaguely moral. No, it's whether you cry and pout or not that determines whether you get a little tin horn or a little toy drum. In fact, a strict reading of the lyrics shows this behaviour doesn't even determine whether you've been naughty or nice this year, but whether you in fact are naughty or nice inherently.

These two were written by failed parents, clearly.

>> ^bmacs27:

I think he probably was discussing something to the effect of "it has less scientific purpose or efficiency than robotic exploration of space." I don't think he's ever said anything like "it's too expensive relative to other government programs." He's always been an advocate for an increased science budget. I just think he knows that the scientific reasoning for manned space exploration (especially low earth orbit) is poorly substantiated. It's more like a PR campaign for science funding, and a recruitment tool for kids.
Honestly man, you come across as cynical as anybody on here. I'm sorry if I'm the first to break the news, but there is no Santa Claus.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bmacs27:
I find this funny though, because he came out so adamantly against the manned-space program at first. He called it a joy-ride for jocks. Someone must have smacked him around and said, sorry, scientific satellites don't sell, and you're our sales guy. Get with the program.

You really believe that? Jesus there's some cynical fucks on here.



Hey! I didn't give you permission to point out my hypocrisy alright! Just you watch yourself buster.