No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.

Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]

But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Plenty of traffic cones once he goes for the down the street view. And one smashed flat near his car. And plenty on other side.

They put them out about 2 car lengths apart so their equipment and trucks can get into the work area when needed without mowing down a huge row of cones or dragging them into the work.

Old lady or young inexperienced person..I could see them thinking cones aren't ACTUALLY designating the work area. But dude with an expensive ass car should be old enough to realize that he shouldn't drive in the fucking work space. It's dangerous as hell to the workers in there and all that heavy equipment sitting there should be a pretty good indicator that people shouldn't be driving there if the cones don't spell it out clearly enough.

And I say this as someone whose done driveways and parking lots, but not a whole lot of street asphalt. You can put up sawhorses and barricades and if there is one space that's the size of the car despite there being NO OTHER WAY IN......someone will drive into that hole. And you can see fellow crew members walking AROUND designated areas that are marked and have "do not cross tape" around 95% of it...and someone will walk into it. And 99.999% of the time, the person not paying attention yells about suing and what not when they made the mistake often times with us yelling and waving at them to try to get them to stop.

Ever get a piece of tar stuck to your shoe on a hot day? Imagine walking into a blocked off area where the tar has been freshly poured and it varies between slippery when it's super hot and super sticky when it's cooling down. You got jokers walking into that stuff....it smells horrible...hell it even steams and bubbles at times. Then if you seal a parking lot? It's basically black paint with chemicals that react to sunlight to bake it in. We had some old ladies walk into it...FALL, get it all up and down their back from head to heel and on their hands...while people are yelling at them, waving, and people running around the workspace so they don't ruin the job we just spent 3 hours doing to stop them.

I'd say that if someone can't see clear indicators that something is up on the roadway and they should use more caution and not assume everything is the same as yesterday, they are not fit to drive. It's like seeing a bouncing ball in the street and speeding up because who would have thought a kid might be chasing that ball?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:

The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.
There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.
There's no consensus? yeah, right....
>> ^coolhund:
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."
This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.
But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.

>> ^coolhund:
This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "
The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.
You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.


And that doesnt change a thing.

Of course, nobody is denying that climate change isnt happening, because climate has always changed.

I didnt say everything was right what critics say. Thats science. However, you can start by "debunking those 450+ studies one by one, because that article you linked didnt debunk one of them but instead just tried to personally discredit 3 people who they think are too dangerous to their cause.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Its very easy to say what you are saying. Just like creationists. You cant debunk it. "God told me so, prove me wrong!". That you think climate science is a science that is even known well by humankind and thus can be easily proven, proves alone that you dont have a clue. Again: Climate science doesnt even know properly how clouds are created. And studies that try to explain this partly (Svensmarks), and thus attack the "consensus" of the corrupt, get dismissed like its some atheist in a church trying to explain how resurrection is impossible.

There are enough facts plus satellite data, but as long as people like you prefer to get their money taken from them (thats what this is all about, if you still havent noticed), there is nothing objective science can do about it. You have no idea how many billions the global warming market is already. Not only the "scientists" that get paid for every mention of AGW in their studies and articles by the IPCC, but also normal people who make a living by selling stuff that is supposed to decrease CO2 emissions and levels.

This is so thick of an political and economical part of our society already, that, even if you had 100% undeniable facts, people would still not believe you. Its sad that youre one of them. Again: This is not science anymore. Science is falsifiable, but people like you just are saying the Al Gore bullshit "The debate is over" and are bringing old and already debunked arguments (even not used anymore by IPCC). I dont know why you are so ignorant and and stupid to support a new religion, but it makes me very sad every time I am confronted with so much ignorance. I know this last part has nothing to do with the issue, its just my own feelings, since ignorance has been the sole cause of problems on this earth. I didnt even know theres actually a site like this that promotes discrimination of scientists by putting their own bullshit on it and claiming their are wrong and calling them childish names like Christy Crocks. Reminds me of those republican kids that invent stuff like "libtard" or "obamallama". Very objective and scientific. It gets sadder and sadder each day.

Oh and btw, we are experiencing a cooling now it and will last until about 2020 to 2040. Lets see what new "scientific facts" will pop up to support your religious opinion until then. I am seriously excited.

Oh yeah about your last link:
It proves that you dont understand how things work: The IPCC is an organization, that has no need to exist, if there is no AGW. Thats like me putting up an organization that claims that computers, like they are right now, kill us all and I'm getting paid by several governments to say that. I have enough money to buy people and studies that support my claims. But not only that, my idea is that good, I will get support from the economy, because my view is opening MANY new ways to make new profit, because many things will have to change. I will also get the mass media on my side, because being a friend of the bad computers that kill cant be good. People who criticize my views will be bad people and part of the bad computer industry that only wants money. Perfect propaganda material.

However, its prolly funny for you (worth to ignore I mean) to see that the bad oil companies are part of the climate change lobbies. They make lots of money off the AGW hype too. The high energy prices alone, that are part caused by this hype, lets them laugh themselves into sleep every night.

As I said, the system is far more complicated than the simple picture you posted there. And thats why it is so easy to keep the true agenda hidden. And no, its no conspiracy. Its the way this system works. You want to keep your job, or you want to get a better paid job... you just have to get rid of a few minor ideologies and then you have a good life for the rest of your life. No more need to scrounge up supporters every month to get your fundings for your studies. Its what everyone wants. And if youre one of those guys who actually believes in AGW, which is quite common these days due to Al Gores indoctrination movie and the mass media following it, its even more straight forward.

Oh and btw, I think America is very easy to fool with things like this. Take the biofuel for example. It is nowhere near being actual "biofuel". It actually harms our eco-system. Palm oil, clearing of the rain forest to make space for more plantations, high food prices, waste of water, etc come to mind. Other countries like Germany are more skeptical about things like this and have proven once again, that they are right, even though your country (and many other who benefit from it) are still claiming there is also a "consensus" on this matter. How ironic.

>> ^coolhund:


The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 studies which oppose it.

There might be hundreds of scientists and 450 studies that oppose it, but there are thousands of scientists and countless studies for it.

There's no consensus? yeah, right....

>> ^coolhund:

Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."

This is correct, and if Einstein was wrong, one good parsimonious hypothesis backed by experimental evidence would absolutely prove him wrong. Same with AGW.

But every competing hypothesis describes the reality less accurately.


>> ^coolhund:

This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).
After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-
change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)
The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”


The full quote is "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point. It is difficult to predict where ice storms will occur and identify vulnerable populations. "

The potential effects of climate change are certainly an unknown. The fact that it is happening? not so much. And Christys skpeticism has been pretty soundly debunked, although at least he's one of the few that's actually qualified to speak on the matter.

You still haven't addressed my other point about why you believe the scientific community is making this up.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^coolhund:
its a major scientific controversy
No, it's not.
It's the same tactic they use with creationism. "Teach the controversy" and so on.
The scientific consensus is that climate change is real and man-made. There isn't really an argument within the scientific community about this (at least, not from anyone who's actually studied the science).
Hell, even the Koch brothers own study agreed with AGW.
Just apply occams razor.


The consensus is non-existent. There are hundreds of scientists who oppose it. There are over 450 peer-reviewed studies which oppose it.
Oh and just btw: A consensus doesnt mean anything, because physics are not democracy, as Einstein said very nicely once:
"If I was wrong, one would be enough."

This AGW hype is no science. As climate scientist and former IPCC lead author Prof. John Christy of UAH put straight:
For example, we were told by the IPCC that „milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” (TAR WG2, 15.2.4.1.2.4).

After the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, we are told the opposite by advocates of the IPCC position, „Climate Change Makes Major Snowstorms More Likely” (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-makes-snowstormsmore-likely-0506.html)

The non-falsifiable hypotheses works this way, “„whatever happens is consistent with my hypothesis.” In other words, there is no event that would „falsify” the hypothesis. As such, these assertions cannot be considered science or in anyway informative since the hypothesis' fundamental prediction is „anything may happen.”

ChasoEngine said:those that have disagree with you. Appeal to authority? Yes, but I wouldn't ask a climate scientist to write software.

I'd ask you to be very specific about what I've said which relevant experts disagree with me on. Go back and look at the very first article I linked to. It is the relevant experts on statistics disagreeing with and correcting the climate scientists that went off and tried to work too far outside their area of expertise and wound making a mistake that seriously altered their results. The short version is the method they applied was well known to be biased for zero if the constraints were not met, which in the situation used was exactly the case. It is EXACTLY why Mann's original hockey stick graph showed very flat temperature anomalies in his reconstruction from 1000-1800AD. You can verify this by using google scholar to look at Mann's own new work following some of the advice of the article I linked and applying a more appropriate method. It's flagged as the EIV line on the graphs, and it shows several times in the last 1k years where the temperature anomaly from the reference date exceeds what we've experienced recently.

Chaos Engine said:Emphasis mine. Do you have a source for that figure? I don't know if you read the link I posted but it would seem to contradict that figure. Besides, even if CO2 is a small contribution, sometimes a small sway can dramatically affect a system.

I'm glad to hear that you believe in reducing our dependence on coal and oil. Frankly, I think it will run out before we stop using it (and it will run out in my lifetime).

I can't find the article I went off originally but here's a different one. It does vary from the range I gave a little but I think it still is consistent with the spirit of everything I've said. It pegs H2O at 71% and CO2 at 29%, the consistent thing I've seen in the multiple journal based estimates I've seen though is that H2O at a minimum carries double the influence of CO2.

We aren't going to run out of coal anytime soon. Even oil we won't run out of soon. What we may run out of soon is cheap oil, but once a certain price point is hit up here in Canada we've got more oil than Saudi Arabia stored up in the tar sands. It's messy, dirty, expensive and a much greater concern to the environment IMHO than CO2 emissions, but it's a big supply. I am hopeful though, as I said before, that in 20 years nobody is going to want gas powered cars anymore because electric will be cheaper, more reliable, more powerful and basically better in every meaningful way.

@ghark and I think your urge to paint everyone with the same brush makes you miss the forest for the trees.

Forget for a moment about Democrats and Republicans, how should stuff like this work?

Canada has tar sands, and someone wants to extract the oil from them. Should they be legally forbidden from doing that, even if they legally acquire the rights to the land?

Once they extract the oil, it needs to be transported somewhere else to be refined. The biggest refineries are in Texas. Should they send it by boat? By truck? By train? Are those safer and less ecologically damaging than a pipeline? Should America legally forbid the importation of crude oil from Canada?

I'm definitely on the same side as the protesters when it comes to ecological concerns, but I don't see how blocking the construction of the pipeline itself solves any sort of ecological issue. The issue is that there's enough demand for oil that it's now profitable to extract it from fucking tar sands. The solution to that isn't to outlaw the extraction & transportation of that oil, it's to lower demand by taxing the bejeezus out of oil & gas, and use the revenue to subsidize alternative energies and/or public transportation.

Why is that an unthinkable, unmentionable strategy, even for environmentalist protesters?

A protest against Keystone XL only seems like something our corporate overlords would sponsor, so the conversation never moves on to substantive policy that would really make a difference.

That you (and other progressives) are treating opposition to Keystone as some sort of litmus test for who's "with us" and who's "against us" is just icing on the cake for them.

The more divided and demoralized we get, the easier it is for them to keep consolidating power.

>> ^marinara:

i don't expect people to know this, but fluoride in the water acts just like the active part of the prozac molecule (the Fluoxetine) molecule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prozac


Maybe most people don't know it because there's no actual evidence of it? Just more CT whackery...like chemtrails, vaccines causing autism, and grays living in underground cities.

Sadly, most people clearly don't know enough about chemistry to realize that sodium flouride is a totally different animal than Flouxetine. The structure of chemical compounds has far more to do with their effects than the composition. Or else there would be no difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates, "Would you like one lump of tar, or two in your tea?"

(example stolen from a post in James Randi's forums, and modified slightly).


NONE of which has the slightest bearing on this video. My apologies for allowing/assisting the diversion.

He's done HWHAT!? Lemme just grab my pitchfork, you get some tar and feathers!
>> ^longde:

Yeah, if he was writing nasty newsletters against atheists and europeans, I'm sure you'd feel the same say. >> ^gwiz665:
Smear campaign in full bore? Go americans, kill your one reasonable candidate.
( more reasonable that the rest, at least)

>> ^quantumushroom:

Disclaimer: I like pr0n as much as the next dude and think hooking should be legal.
However, I hate the fascist dehumanizing element which seems to have become the standard, and hate even more the mainstreaming and glamorization of the pr0n "lifestyle" as legitimate theater.
Pr0n has its place, but if it's such a life-affirming industry then the "stars" wouldn't be drugging and drinking--and occasionally diseasing--themselves to death.
Pr0n is a useful poison; far less useful than other poisons. As for the rest of these clever comments, open mic night is on Thursday(s).

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The problem is "right and wrong" doesn't return after the camera stops, either.
You got an example of how Belladonna's wronged the world?



I actually agree with your general point, that porn actors are increasing being held up as some sort of role models for a glamorous, exciting life for people who want to get a kick out of breaking a fading taboo. However, pointing to porn is a generalisation, plenty of other entertainers are just as bad and there are those in porn who are fine, and the question was about Belladonna specifically, whose life we know nothing about (if I may presume!). Porn actors are probably statistically among the worst in terms of drug abuse and mental health, but I don't think individuals should tarred with this brush.

I am guessing the health/drugs stat, I think that's a fair assumption. Also, I assume you originally meant "right and wrong doesn't return" to be what's right and wrong for her (e.g. potential drug abuse), rather than how she'd wronged the world.

>> ^jbaber:

Welcome to our world. Christian's outside of the recent American fundamentalist fad have to be tarred with the same brush as them. We're not allowed to say

"Christians aren't like that. Christians are like x, y, and z."

because it's not true. Nope, we've got to swallow it. All we can say is "Hey, we're not all like that." which is as wimpy as it sounds.
If atheists want to be honest, that's all they can say, too.

If anything, "we're not all like that" probably applies even more to us (atheists) than the religious. Religions tend to come with centrally-distributed dogma, leading the followers of any one religion to hold similar, if not identical, views and opinions. There are certainly positions which tend to be widely held among atheists, but there is no central authority steering us and so I think we have conflicting views and opinions more often.

*books

Welcome to our world. Christian's outside of the recent American fundamentalist fad have to be tarred with the same brush as them. We're not allowed to say

"Christians aren't like that. Christians are like x, y, and z."

because it's not true. Nope, we've got to swallow it. All we can say is "Hey, we're not all like that." which is as wimpy as it sounds.

If atheists want to be honest, that's all they can say, too.

>> ^A10anis:

Let's be clear, atheists have NO agenda. Atheists would prefer to be quiet on the subject....

I wonder if "a thousand years" is a code for "we kept it as far away from George Lucas as possible." Because I'd be okay with that.
>> ^westy:

"The Old Republic, players will explore an age thousands of years before the rise of Darth Vader">> ^Morganth:

The Empire returned? I thought this was a thousand years before Natalie Portman said we ushered it in with thunderous applause.