Well, by that measure, I COULD think you were a complete snarky douchebag first, making personally insulting attacks for no reason other than you disagreed with my position...but where does that kind of thinking leave us?

As I still see it, you made a mistake in your logic, I said so and calmly explained how without name calling or insults (which continue in my direction). I don't see that as rude or insulting in any way, I'm sorry you do (but still don't get why).

Allow me to explain again, calmly, since you still don't seem to see my point...the cop started the stop with some attitude IMO (and not a helpful attitude), and much more important, he continued with the stop after seeing there was clearly no problem he needed to solve. If he was simply being a 'good guy helping' he would have nicely said 'OK sir, just making sure everything's OK.' and both gone on their way, not 5-6 minutes of posturing and snark.
If that doesn't convince you he wasn't just being a good guy, but instead was looking for something to cite the driver for, or a best exerting his power by 'holding' him without cause, nothing will.
It may have been his original reason for stopping the first time, even the second, but is evaporated the instant it's clear there's no problem, BEFORE he asks for ID and proof of insurance. That action denies the 'just trying to help' theory, it's not a 'helpful' action in any way. To me, that's applying logic, not telepathy.

If you really feel I'm a troll, please don't feed me, ignore me for gods sake! It's that simple. I would only ask that you note that I'm not the one of us who devolved into personal insults, nor will I simply because I disagree with your position. That's what trolls do. ;-)

beat me to it!
and with far less snark than i would have applied.

fist bump

Should I pull the snark about "not quite risky enough?"

Very nice, and the music was present too.

The opposite of this process = shop vac & Metallica </snark>

HA>> ^bareboards2:

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!
>> ^KnivesOut:
Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

I was being snarky. No snark button for titles!

>> ^KnivesOut:

Kudos to Chris Christie, but where does god come into the conversation? Neither he or the Scarborough guys mentioned it.

I'm guessing it was a Giant at bat. Tigers can't get the wood on the ball, yet. /snark

Check the exchange from 1:00 to 1:20. Buckley snarks, and Ginsburg has a hurt expression in his eyes, like he is ready to submit for just a brief second. But then Ginsburg sticks with it and you can see Buckley's attitude change until he's eventually won over. In the end Buckley is forced to formally concede. Victory: Ginsburg!

>> ^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.

snark snark sporfle!

hitchens voice will be missed.
i appreciated his brand of atheism because he didnt paint with a broad brush.
he was specific in his criticism.he went after the very thing that the fundamentalist holds sacred i.e:bible,torah,quran.
and he was right to do so.
those are tangible,material texts which can be touched,read and interpreted and therefore totally subject to analysis and NOT off the table just for the simple fact they are considered "holy" by some.

he exposed the contradictions.
the utter hypocrisy of so many churches so-called doctrine and because he used that tactic i never saw him lose a debate.
though some perceived the outcome different (dinesh d'souza comes to mind).
he had such a flair about him and his eloquence and ability to expose the religious rhetoric with a snark that was unmatched.i used to actually burst out laughing.

the debates i watched him in always came down to the most basic common denominator which was simply:we cant prove or disprove the existence of spirit or of god and to attempt to is an exercise in futility.game over.

shine on mr hitchens.

I'm just gonna link some of my favorite snark I've seen about this:

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/10/04/335174/the-racial-resentment-checklist/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/10/03/my-daddys-hunting-camp/
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/10/03/one-more-story-about-daddys-hunting-camp/

Fucking awesome

and now, for some snark: I'd crotch punch the mage for taking that goddamn long to cast her spell, and for having that low a shield spell

In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
It's long but the fight-scene is worth it. This looks very close to the source-material :-)

http://videosift.com/video/The-Dark-Eye-Movie-Teaser-TDE-is-a-G
erman-DnD-Better

Oh you don't like how they try to use personality tests, GPA, and the infamous "career day" to help kids decide? I'm still not sure what I could stand to do for the rest of my life, and that's mainly because everything they tried to tell me was not helpful and everything you look into is not what people claim it to be.

Which I view as a failing of colleges, since young people are paying money to go into things they only have a very vague notion of and unless their parents or a close relative do the job, no one is going to provide them with straight answers in a vast majority of the time. Assuming they even consider what careers to ask about or what questions to ask about said careers.

I hold it up as proof that colleges at this time are there to get people in and out of programs while milking them for as much as possible, but don't actually take the time to evaluate that their programs provide the building blocks the student would need to follow the job path they THINK they want. The colleges don't care if the students presumptions are wrong.

I also view elementary to high school as bypassing a lot of common knowledge, common sense, life skills, etc things kids should learn. Like electric safety and basic repairs, basic automotive/mechanic/tool usage, cooking/laundry basics, and probably the most important of all nutrition and exercise. You see people on the news having heatstroke and everything else because they don't drink enough fluids or don't realize that not sweating is a really bad thing. Plus proper stretching and all that. I mean I remember them having wood working classes, and it didn't even focus on things you might actually run into that you could repair on your own without having some major equipment.

Education is great, but too many people come out of high school and college with a lot of knowledge, no applicable skills to a field, and almost no rudimentary skills to speak of. And this isn't saying they should be trained for jobs, this is saying they have enough of a common life skill set that they can at least somewhat measure what is required in positions. Right now, everyone claims they can do everything and they really know very little.

But Im with you there on the TNG DNA job matching.....wish we had it. No politics, nepotism, and what not to throw a wrench into everything.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner 'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.

So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.
Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.
Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.
I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.

>> ^chilaxe:

@NetRunner 'everyone who qualifies for college should go for free.'
Just what we need, more lazy, talentless graduates with a heart-warming "culture studies" or "environmental studies" degree working for minimum wage at Starbucks.
I have too many friends to count who got useless college degrees and now, ten years later, are still doing nothing with their lives.


So free choice didn't make people lead full and productive lives? Imagine that.

Snark aside, I don't really see why more scholarships would change things. I'm not talking about making college compulsory, I'm talking about taking monetary cost out of the equation when discussing whether you go or not.

Remember that episode of ST:TNG where all the kids on the Enterprise got kidnapped by an alien race, and they did tests on their DNA, and then told them what their career would be and immediately put them to work? They were fun professions too, like musician, sculptor, engineer, etc.

I sometimes think I would've personally preferred that to having to figure out in my teenage years what kind of career would appeal to me, acquire the skills and training required by that career, and then find a job. It seems like our education system should expend a greater effort on that, rather than just presenting kids with ever-larger menus of classes to take and degrees to earn.