http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a73c447356/nuthin-but-a-glee-thang-with-heather-morris-matthew-morrison-sofia-vergara

Here's a link to the official site.... I'm watching it there. Maybe the embed can get fixed?

>> ^BoneRemake:

NEITHER HAVE YOU TASTED MY JESUS !

Since when did FOX start keeping partisan news clerics on staff? His mouth is moving, but no one is home. Here is another unintentionally self defeating argument from this moron's wiki page.

"Belief only makes sense if it is based on truth." -Father Morris, Fox News Head Cleric

Really? Faith requires evidence now? I could not have asked for a better Saturnelia gift. Thanks Father M!

>> ^SDGundamX:
I don't think your study would be very convincing to most people because no religions I know of describe prayer as a "wish machine." Most religious people would say that just because someone prays for something doesn't mean it will automatically or always be answered. Some would go so far as to say if the prayer isn't answered then clearly the answer is "no." This makes scientific investigation in the form your describing nigh impossible. At science's core is the idea that there are rules to how the phenomenom being studied work and that through observation we can observe these rules. While the effects of arbitrary decisions (i.e. someone who got prayed for gets better) can be observed, it is probably impossible to figure out how those decisions were made through observation only and without asking the decider directly.


Then why does he suggest that "if God DOES exist the benefits of prayer would be even greater?" It sounds to me like they have a fairly specific hypothesis about what the existence of God would imply about the physical world. Besides, I think Raverman's little caveat at the end was hinting that he was expecting this sort of response. The frustration is that somehow they get to use science to support their views, but never can it undermine them.

>> ^raverman:

So... the benefit is either self derived - placebo effect. Or delivered by god.
Hypothesis: If delivered by god, then, praying to an imaginary friend is 'silly'.
If you're going to use research to back up your religion. Lets test it further.
Four groups with an illness receive no treatment aside from ardent daily prayer.
- one group prays to God
- one group prays to Buddha (to prove if it's any god or just your god)
- one group prays to Chuck Norris (to prove if it's placebo or God)
- one group does not pray at all.
If all four groups are the same then the research is bull shit.
If there is no significant deviation between the 3 groups praying, then you can run tell that!
Is there really no one willing to fund a post graduate student to do a study to put this shit to bed once and for all?
Research Limitation: up front you agree not to say "God is Mysterious" if you don't like the results.


Unfortunately, one of these studies will not occur in the modern world. You see, us scientists(read: doctors) have these rules called "ethics" which do not allow us to withhold an effective treatment in the name of a research study.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Father Morris: It's Not Healthy to Have an Imaginary Friend, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^RedSky:

I like how religious people can never decide if God intervenes or not.


Well, we all know he doesn't! That would negate free will!

You just need to read the Great Bible he gave us to make our decisions. I'm going to go take my lithium and read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe". Toodaloo!

/Yes, it's actually "tout a l'heure", us silly Americans.

oooo! Thank you!>> ^SDGundamX:

Article about the study on LiveScience. (@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://fusionaut.videosift.com" title="member since September 9th, 2008" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#00ffbf">Fusionaut: The article partially answers your question.) Definitely worth a read as it tends to present a balanced view. I would be interested in reading the original paper to see the methodology used in more detail.

This...this is some precious stuff right here. Straight to the quote mining folder you go, Father Morris!

"Guess Who?"

by

Thomas Sowell

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.

Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

Whole generations have been "educated" to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.

Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: "The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history. But facts have taken a back seat to rhetoric.

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom's book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper-- and a lot more informative than most.

There are few historic events whose legends are more grossly different from the reality than the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And there are few men whose image has been more radically different from the man himself.

Some of the most devastating things that were said about FDR were not said by his political enemies but by people who worked closely with him for years-- Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau being just one. Morgenthau saw not only the utter failure of Roosevelt's policies, but also the failure of Roosevelt himself, who didn't even know enough economics to realize how little he knew.

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.

The Sound of Young America did a pretty funny interview with the creator Chris Morris: http://www.maximumfun.org/sound-young-america/satirist-chris-morris-writer-director-four-lions-interview-sound-young-america

>> ^acidSpine:

Hmmm does anyone remember the very first trailer ages ago. I swear he turned gay after a car accident in that one. I wonder if they changed it cause it was offensive or something.


Getting kinda sick of people taking offense at movies. It's a movie get over it. Besides everyone knows car accidents make you gay...if you're hit from behind. ZING!

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is non-profit group that has campaigned on behalf of the tobacco industry and in favour of Microsoft and against open source software.

CAGW has "received funding from:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Merrill Lynch & Company Foundation
Exxon Corporation (now ExxonMobil)
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Johnson & Johnson
F.M. Kirby Foundation
Philip Morris
RJR Nabisco (now part of the Altria Group)
Sears Roebuck & Company[9]
Others listed include:

John Deere Foundation
Eaton Charitable Fund
Columbia/HCA Foundation