If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   House Republicans declare war on science   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 231
    More: Dumbass, House Republicans, humans, Dana Rohrabacher, group object, Mount St. Helens, Jim Sensenbrenner, Competitive Enterprise Institute, climate policy  
•       •       •

10006 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2013 at 5:05 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-14 12:52:25 AM
We already have a de facto science laurate
static6.businessinsider.com
 
2013-09-14 01:19:52 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one)


LOL
 
2013-09-14 01:23:00 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.


Domestic energy exploration and production is definitely related to science.  So is missile defense.  Republican vote for both of those!  Both of those scientific fields are despised by liberals/democrats.

Pharmaceuticals are also related to science, doncha' think?  That industry is constantly under attack by liberals/democrats.

Oh, btw.  Remember the atom smasher that was going to be built in the U.S. over a decade ago?  A Republican President put it in Texas.  Yeah, the project fell apart a few years later, but that was for a variety of reasons.  Nonetheless, it had the full support of a Republican President.


In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one), know that I'll just counter with genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration - there really IS a war on those two fields of science.


/also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA



You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.
 
2013-09-14 01:25:30 AM

Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA


Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?
 
2013-09-14 01:29:34 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.


I was going to say Climate Change, but apparently that's not true. In fact, two thirds of Republican and Republican-leaning voters disagree with the official Republican position on Climate Change. link

In fact, it appears at this point you would have to be a complete drooling moron to be a Climate Change denier.
 
2013-09-14 01:32:06 AM
because I care:In fact, it appears at this point you would have to be a complete drooling moron to be a Climate Change denier.

Which would perfectly describe every elected Republican politician in this country.
 
2013-09-14 01:32:58 AM
Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.
 
2013-09-14 01:35:07 AM
Neighborhood Watch:

*SIGH*

Hello,  Rush Limbaugh Sent Me. How long 'til you're plonked this time, y'think?
 
2013-09-14 01:41:13 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: Like Republicans would ever vote on anything related to science.


Domestic energy exploration and production is definitely related to science.  So is missile defense.  Republican vote for both of those!  Both of those scientific fields are despised by liberals/democrats.

Pharmaceuticals are also related to science, doncha' think?  That industry is constantly under attack by liberals/democrats.

Oh, btw.  Remember the atom smasher that was going to be built in the U.S. over a decade ago?  A Republican President put it in Texas.  Yeah, the project fell apart a few years later, but that was for a variety of reasons.  Nonetheless, it had the full support of a Republican President.


In fact, I can't think of one scientific thing that a conservative/Republican would be 'at war' with.  And before you say 'evolution' or 'stem cell research' (there isn't a war on either one), know that I'll just counter with genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration - there really IS a war on those two fields of science.


/also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA


I love how you are so insulated from reality. You do know the money that was allocated for the supercollider was actually redirected to the ISS?

Evolution:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/americas-o ngoing-war-o n-e_b_828655.html
War on education:  http://progressive.org/conniff0511.html
Stem Cell Research:  http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-503767_162-4853385.html  and  http://healthland.time.com/2012/08/21/legitimate-rape-todd-akin-and-o t her-politicians-who-confuse-science/slide/bush-bans-stem-cell-research /
Domestic energy production:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/22/president-obama-discusses-d o mestic-energy-production-new-mexico

I also know that your claim that the "liberals" are at war with the Pharmaceutical companies is totally bullshiat (spend 6 years in that field)

By the way, the only people opposed to genetically modified seeds are fringe groups that do not make policy in this country.
 
2013-09-14 01:41:15 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


So oil companies get to engage in political advocacy but not scientists?  Sorry, no dice.  My livelihood is intimately tied to what happens in Washington, and I deserve to have someone there lobbying for me just like everyone else does.
 
2013-09-14 01:44:17 AM

Mentat: Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA

Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?


*raises hand*

Ohh ohh ohhh pick me I know!

The Republicans made a total mess of the economy and cut spending despite the fact that short term spending in a depressed economy is the proven method to turn things around.
 
2013-09-14 01:46:19 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?


So are you proposing national elections for positions like NSF/NIH/NASA/CDC director, or just the complete elimination of all government scientific funding and research?
 
2013-09-14 01:47:06 AM
So, no science laureate then? How is our constitutional form of government supposed to survive that blow?

[grumpy_cat.jpg]
 
2013-09-14 01:48:29 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


Because people who are not scientists can dictate "science" to the people. This is a major cause of people denying things like evolution and global warming. The less an oil company can dictate policy against trying to fix global warming the better.
 
2013-09-14 01:48:45 AM

tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.



so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?
 
2013-09-14 01:55:31 AM

Neighborhood Watch: cloning humans for organ harvesting.


You really have absolutely no grasp of what is actually going on.
 
2013-09-14 01:56:46 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.

In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries f ...


The reason you are anti-science is because you stand against something that has been tested, confirmed, retested, confirmed and supports all of the observable evidence. It also has the support of 98% of the scientific field. There is literally no debate among scientists that global warming not only exists, that it is changing the Earth and that humans are a direct contributor. You also do not understand science. Science asks the question 'how', faith asks the question 'why'. Again, evolution has been tested, retested, and supports all of the observable evidence. It is as much of a fact as one can possible have. Those who have a problem with evolution, I think do no understand the difference between evidence and faith.
 
2013-09-14 01:57:18 AM

Neighborhood Watch: In the above examples, it is Republicans/conservatives who embrace the science... and not the other way around.


How you get any bites at all is a mystery to me.
 
2013-09-14 01:57:47 AM

Neighborhood Watch: It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.


Actually, that's exactly what it means.
 
2013-09-14 01:59:46 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Liberals want the old & infirm to hurry up and die (that's the cold, hard truth)


I am a liberal.  I grew up in a liberal household in a liberal corner of the US that had lots of liberal elected officials.  The vast, vast majority of my friends are liberals.  Literally none of them want this.  Literally zero of them.

So STFU and DIAF, you useless, mendacious twat.
 
2013-09-14 01:59:59 AM
I realize that many Republicans are waving their "science" diplomas from Bob Roberts University and those sorts of places but please tell the them to STFU.  Good lord, Christian universities are for f**k-tards.  Really.  You insignificant pieces of crap.

There were several dumbf**ks at UC when I was a student who just didn't understand physics.  They mildly passed their classes, but they just did not get it.  Then, they act as if they are experts on things because they got a an advanced degree in a very specific field that had nothing to do with what they were an "expert" on.  They are just as big of retards as those from Bob Roberts.

That being said, lawyers and congressthings are even below the retard level of those guys.  Why would anyone think that they could ever speak an truly cogent though except by accident?
 
2013-09-14 02:00:34 AM
Time to pull back into our monasteries and to keep the spirit of learning alive, fellow scribes.
 
2013-09-14 02:01:07 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


It's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.

In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries f ...


Also, please show me a liberal who wants old people to die. The only folks who are saying this are the ones that want to restrict and remove healthcare for poor folks, seniors and children. These are also the folks that want to defund the ACA, take away Foodstamps, and close places like Planned Parenthood. These are things that a lot of folks rely on to prevent health issues and treat health issues.
 
2013-09-14 02:02:38 AM
DREW. If you have any balls. BAN NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH as the troll he is. Seriously.


GROW A PAIR
 
2013-09-14 02:06:13 AM

log_jammin: tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?


What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin. Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?
 
2013-09-14 02:06:42 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky:  There is literally no debate among scientists that global warming not only exists, that it is changing the Earth and that humans are a direct contributor.


That's bullsh*t.


No, it is not.

http://epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

The only folks that doubt global warming are anti-science folks who regularly ignore evidence that contradicts their claim. They are also funded by the oil and gas companies.
 
2013-09-14 02:09:40 AM

mgshamster: log_jammin: tbeatty: and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


so who exactly is a non scientist posing as one for political purposes?

What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin. Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?


I love how some of them do not believe in evolution, even though it is the basis for literally every biological science. I do think that anyone who is on that committee should be an actual scientist that understands the concepts of science.
 
2013-09-14 02:14:35 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Damnhippyfreak: You seem to be conflating specific policy decisions and applications with the idea of a "scientific field".

For instance, genetically modified seed and domestic energy exploration are specific policy decisions based on the underlying scientific fields of genetics and geology/physics. One can be against specific applications of the scientific knowledge without somehow being against the knowledge itself. Evolution and stem cell research, on the other hand are in of themselves scientific fields of inquiry - opposition to these is not based upon their applications, but the scientific information itself.


I see your point, but I believe that you contradict yourself.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that liberals/democrats aren't against the 'science', they're just against what it can be used for - such as off-shore drilling, for example.  But then, I take it, you are claiming that Republicans/conservatives are simply against the science behind evolution and stem cell research for no particular reason.  That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


I don't think it's for no particular reason. What I'm thinking is that the kind ofconflation you were making isn't uncommon, especially on the right (but of course not limited to such). Being against the scientific fields of evolution and stem cell research is based upon the perceived challenges these fields present to religion and the abortion debate. The mistake is that if one does not like the implications of said fields, therefore one is against said fields.


Neighborhood Watch: Questions of religion & morality have everything to do with applications of science.  Two good examples would be the development of the atom bomb and cloning humans for organ harvesting.  If you oppose either one, are you 'anti-science'?


Bolded for emphasis. One can distinguish between the applications of scientific inquiry and the scientific information itself. If we take on your example of the atom bomb, atomic energy is an alternative application of the same scientific field. Same field, different application - one can be against one application and yet for the other. Again I caution you not to conflate applications of a science with scientific information itself.

While you're quite right to note that larger ethical questions should come into play, one has to be careful to what exactly they're applying to. We wouldn't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


Neighborhood Watch: t's my belief that Global WarmingTM is a hoax, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-science.  I believe in what the Bible says, but I don't have a problem with the overall idea of evolution.  The creation story in Genesis is vague & dream-like enough to incorporate it.  Most Christians feel the same way.  My problem with it is how the science of evolution is 'used' as an attack weapon (one of many) that's designed to inflict the maximum mental anguish on people of faith.  Whatever.


Maybe "anti-science" is not a very good term. I think what is meant is more that one is willing to give more credence to non-scientific kinds of information (such as religious belief) with subjects that are probably better accessed through science.

That aside, the attitude you're talking about in your last sentence is the reason why some appear to be against the science itself, a trap it looks like you're not falling into.


Neighborhood Watch: In the example of bio-medical research, conservatives/Republicans aren't against or 'at war' with it.  That's just ridiculous.  But embryonic stem-cell research does cross ethical boundaries for many people.  That's the way it is with medical science - I mean, using that example.


You have a good point here in that it's counter-productive to overstate or misrepresent the opinions of your perceived opponents - a good lesson you unfortunately seem to forget in the next paragraph.


Neighborhood Watch: For instance, Medical science is enabling people to live longer and longer and enabling premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages.  Liberals want the old & infirm to hurry up and die (that's the cold, hard truth) and think about what the liberal/democrat reaction will be when science soon enables a 90 day old (or younger) fetus to survive outside the womb and grow into a normal & healthy infant?

In the above examples, it is Republicans/conservatives who embrace the science... and not the other way around.


You seem to be basing this upon what is arguably a false impression of what you perceptive a liberal/democrat position. In addition, you're once again conflating an application of a science with the underlying scientific information itself.

Because you believe that Republicans/conservatives are in favor of the benefits of medical science does not mean that they are necessarily in favor of the underlying information, (evolution as part of said medical science is a good example).
 
2013-09-14 02:17:16 AM

mgshamster: What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin.


wait what? akin claims to be a scientist?

mgshamster: Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?


I....had no idea that existed. wtf???
 
2013-09-14 02:18:25 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeppelininthesky: The only folks that doubt global warming are anti-science folks who regularly ignore evidence that contradicts their claim. They are also funded by the oil and gas companies.


You're just wrong.

I'm not calling you stupid (or any of the names here that everyone is calling me), I'm just saying that you're being close-minded IMO.  I mean, you've literally shut your mind off from the possibility of being wrong.

That's not very 'scientific'.  In fact, it's the opposite.


Hmmmmm

I link actual data linked to literally thousands of studies that conclude that climate change is happening, and you link one article with no evidence.

Sounds legit.
 
2013-09-14 02:35:17 AM

tbeatty: Explain to me why we need a political appointee for science?  Is science dependent on ideology?  How about we leave political advocacy to politicians and not appoint political people posing as scientists to government jobs.


Unpaid positions with real scientists.  What is there to object to?
 
2013-09-14 02:35:55 AM

Zeppelininthesky: I link actual data linked to literally thousands of studies that conclude that climate change is happening, and you link one article with no evidence.


Actually, it's worse than that. From the article he linked:

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you.

It's actually a pretty good article. Storch is a reputable climate scientist and does a pretty good job of explaining some of the issues of climate science in layman's terms.
 
2013-09-14 02:38:04 AM

log_jammin: mgshamster: What about half the people on the Congressional Science Committee? Like Todd "Legitamite Rape" Akin.

wait what? akin claims to be a scientist?

mgshamster: Or anyone at the National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine?

I....had no idea that existed. wtf???


I'm not sure if he ever claimed to be an actual scientist, but he did (does?) serve on a science committee at the national level. There are also several creationists on the committee.

As for the NCCAM, yeah. Disappointing, ain't it? The con-artists are doing the same thing in my own state, with a government or for naturopaths who are dedicated on getting state approval to be primary and family practitioners, "because we don't have enough physicians."
 
2013-09-14 02:43:54 AM

mgshamster: I'm not sure if he ever claimed to be an actual scientist, but he did (does?) serve on a science committee at the national level. There are also several creationists on the committee.


Yeah. I'm aware of that, but it's not exactly posing as a scientist.

mgshamster: As for the NCCAM, yeah. Disappointing, ain't it?


I don't have the words...
 
2013-09-14 02:53:11 AM
So, democracy, eh? Where the puling quims who head one pissant "organization", clearly a teensy, tiny, pointless minority in the overall discussion, can have enough influence and power over a democratic government to pull legislation because it makes them pinch their peepees in anxiety?

Yeah, that's the GOP's idea of "smaller government" - fewer elected officials getting in the way of what the rich want to do, and we can't have high-falutin' ideas like "science" and "truth" rain on the parade of the rich.
 
2013-09-14 03:25:45 AM
Wait, NW is supposed to be a troll?  I always thought he was a satirist.

Is there some variant of Poe's law that covers trolls who are so bad that you assume they must be deliberately trying to sound like morons?
 
2013-09-14 03:46:34 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Mentat: Neighborhood Watch: /also, it wasn't Republicans who killed NASA

Gee, I wonder what could have happened in 2010 that made it difficult to fund NASA projects?

*raises hand*

Ohh ohh ohhh pick me I know!

The Republicans made a total mess of the economy and cut spending despite the fact that short term spending in a depressed economy is the proven method to turn things around.


BZZZT!  I'm sorry, the answer we were for was "Benghazi".
 
2013-09-14 03:58:41 AM

dookdookdook: Wait, NW is supposed to be a troll?  I always thought he was a satirist.

Is there some variant of Poe's law that covers trolls who are so bad that you assume they must be deliberately trying to sound like morons?


His attempt to transition from Trayvon Troll to standard derp spewer has been a rough one. Still. He gets the bites.
 
2013-09-14 04:07:50 AM
What am I missing?

I know both of you sides like to bash on each other at any opportunity, but... cmon.

War is a bit harsh of a term, seeing as they actually are debating a real war at the moment.  Cant you back off the rhetoric a tad?  So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.  Its a Laureate position, who cares?
 
2013-09-14 04:46:42 AM

Neighborhood Watch: It's not a 'War on Science'.  I agree with not creating yet another bs public figure (with accompanying staff & payroll) on borrowed money to help promote the democrat party.

Scientists are already free to travel the country on money-begging tours and preach the snake oil on Global WarmingTM .  God knows that nobody's been stopping them for the last decade.


The REAL war on science are the attacks on technological progress that actually benefit mankind, such as fracking, genetically modified seed, techniques that allow premature infants to survive at younger and younger ages and, of course, defense technology.


DNRTFA.  It's an unpaid position.
 
2013-09-14 05:16:17 AM
SCIENCE SAVE US!
 
2013-09-14 05:19:41 AM

I sound fat: War is a bit harsh of a term


no it's not. The Right has consistently been in a "war" against science for quite some time now.

I sound fat: So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.


they pulled the bill because...

the bill would give President Barack Obama the opportunity to appoint someone "who will share his view that science should serve political ends, on such issues as climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases."
 
2013-09-14 05:29:37 AM

I sound fat: What am I missing?

I know both of you sides like to bash on each other at any opportunity, but... cmon.

War is a bit harsh of a term, seeing as they actually are debating a real war at the moment.  Cant you back off the rhetoric a tad?  So they pulled a bill creating a non-productive position.  Its a Laureate position, who cares?


I think the outrage is more about Republican's making a mountain of a molehill. This is by all accounts a feel good bill that should pass easily since it doesn't really require Congress to actually do much of anything. Yet, nope. Climate change is science fact, and anyone who says otherwise is by all accounts anti-science. Throw in science budget cuts that are a direct result of Republicans who have been on the war path for spending cuts and I think that qualifies as a very hostile environment for science in the United States.
 
2013-09-14 06:13:47 AM
 
2013-09-14 06:19:27 AM

Curious: What others say about CEI:
The Business Insider: CEI's "Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change community."

so he's anti science, gotcha.


The CEI calls itself a Libertarian think tank but it takes funding from Big Tobacco and Big Oil and opposes any scientist that might cut into their bottom line.

That's pretty much all you need to know about those guys.
 
2013-09-14 06:48:43 AM
Is being the neighborhood watch around here an unpaid position?
 
2013-09-14 07:15:06 AM

robohobo: Neil Degrasse Tyson smirks at partisan hacks.


February 2009.  The Republicans have taken a sharp turn for the worse since then.
 
2013-09-14 07:17:52 AM

dangelder: Is being the neighborhood watch around here an unpaid position?


I sincerely hope so... but for some reason I doubt it.
 
2013-09-14 07:34:12 AM
Whoever's moderating these threads can't possibly not know that Neighborhood Watch is a troll, right? I mean seriously - I'm pretty sure trolls far less obvious than this guy have been given timeouts in the past.
 
2013-09-14 07:38:01 AM

Biological Ali: Whoever's moderating these threads can't possibly not know that Neighborhood Watch is a troll, right? I mean seriously - I'm pretty sure trolls far less obvious than this guy have been given timeouts in the past.


calling someone a troll like that will get your comments deleted.

or so I hear...
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report