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.

(Washington Post)   FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 99
    More: Unlikely, Fox News, Bret Baier, obamacare  
•       •       •

6659 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2014 at 5:50 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



99 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-20 04:03:37 PM  
Classy.
 
2014-03-20 04:15:07 PM  
Any URL with "blogs" in it tells me that it's not news, it's just someone's opinion.
 
2014-03-20 04:56:11 PM  
The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!
 
2014-03-20 05:34:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Classy.


Acclaimed.


ginandbacon: The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!


wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net

/oblig
 
2014-03-20 05:42:50 PM  

fusillade762: DamnYankees: Classy.

Acclaimed.


ginandbacon: The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 850x478]

/oblig


LOLOL
 
2014-03-20 05:50:32 PM  
Rest assured Obamacare is the worst mistake since Jesus f*cked Mary Magdalene.
 
2014-03-20 05:52:59 PM  

make me some tea: fusillade762: DamnYankees: Classy.

Acclaimed.


ginandbacon: The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 850x478]

/oblig

LOLOL


Tee hee...
 
2014-03-20 05:53:24 PM  
Thanks for the retraction, Fox News.

Now, when do you all get around to all the rest of your mistakes, misleading articles and out-right lies?
 
2014-03-20 05:59:38 PM  

fusillade762: DamnYankees: Classy.

Acclaimed.


ginandbacon: The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 850x478]

/oblig


MOAR HEAR

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not accidentally blow up vowels in his own name.
The chupacabra does not deliver presents on Cinco De Mayo.
Bangladesh is not an 80s metal band.
Pot pie is legal in every state.
Jason Collins was not turned gay by a Washington Wizard.
Rick Moranis was never put on death row for shrinking his children.
New York exists outside the mind of Billy Joel.
Lena Dunham is not a girl ventriloquist.
Croquettes are not female crocodiles.
Rice and beans are edible. Ricin beans are not.
Smurfs are not elected.
Smurfs are not appointed.
Smurfs are cartoons.
4 and 3 aren't "basically the same thing".
Zach Braff is not the sound a trumpet makes.
 
2014-03-20 06:00:20 PM  
 
2014-03-20 06:03:24 PM  
One gets the impression that some of these people are starting to believe their own bullshiat. Dangerous territory
 
2014-03-20 06:04:37 PM  
It so horrible that Obamcare is not covering a set of people that Republican governors could cover if they wanted to and that the Republicans fought a supreme court battle so they wouldn't have to be covered.

How horrible of Obama forcing Republicans to do all those things.
 
2014-03-20 06:05:51 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


Sweet Jesus.
 
2014-03-20 06:07:31 PM  
Among those who'd be left out of the party, Baier continued, were indigent folks in Republican-led states that had opted out of the Obama administration's Medicaid expansion. Such individuals faced a certain double jeopardy, in Baier's formulation: "For those people, they not only face the prospect of not having health insurance coverage despite Obamacare, but now they will have to pay a penalty because of it."

Even if true - EVEN IF - the failure to expand medicaid can hardly be blamed on Obama or Obamacare.

And yet he someone managed to never mention exactly who refused the expansions.
 
2014-03-20 06:08:02 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


wow.

that actually explains a lot about Fox News viewers AND the derp that Fox News provides for them.
 
2014-03-20 06:22:04 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


I started counting the number of logical fallacies in those responses but I gave up.

Therefore, I will just say it is all of them.
 
2014-03-20 06:25:30 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


Holy crap. That's just sad.
 
2014-03-20 06:25:55 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-20 06:37:31 PM  

elchip: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

Sweet Jesus.


The dancing parrot is awesome.
 
2014-03-20 06:48:53 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


In sure whoever posted that story has been fired.
 
2014-03-20 06:50:35 PM  

BMFPitt: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

In sure whoever posted that story has been fired turned to salt.


stay on target.
 
2014-03-20 06:53:56 PM  
Fake, but accurate.
 
2014-03-20 07:00:01 PM  

AirForceVet: Thanks for the retraction, Fox News.

Now, when do you all get around to all the rest of your mistakes, misleading articles and out-right lies?


They don't have that much air time.
 
2014-03-20 07:06:20 PM  
*cuts Fark headline by two words*
Hmm. Hell must have frozen over.
*checks current  temperature in Hell*
35? Really?

I am surprised.
 
2014-03-20 07:10:39 PM  

cmunic8r99: AirForceVet: Thanks for the retraction, Fox News.

Now, when do you all get around to all the rest of your mistakes, misleading articles and out-right lies?

They don't have that much air time.


wouldn't it be funny if someone with ethics bought the channel and made them do corrections for every lie and misleading thing since they started back in the 90's?
it would take years but it would be some epic crow to be eaten.
 
2014-03-20 07:12:20 PM  

cmunic8r99: AirForceVet: Thanks for the retraction, Fox News.

Now, when do you all get around to all the rest of your mistakes, misleading articles and out-right lies?

They don't have that much air time.


They pile up faster than the corrections could be issued.  And the more important thing to note, is that even when you issue a retraction, the first impression left by the original statement is usually what sticks.
 
2014-03-20 07:23:14 PM  
sorry to interrupt, but why are these weird cookies coming up in my browser that have nothing to do with the website I'm looking at?

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

I go to look at that article and I get a cookie for www.dogshow.com??

What the barking chocolate f*ck?

I am getting extremely tired of this crap.
 
2014-03-20 07:28:12 PM  

make me some tea: elchip: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

Sweet Jesus.

The dancing parrot is awesome.


Yes!

As for the screencaps of derpy comments... wow. Just wow. Unbelievable. Humanity, I am disappoint.
 
2014-03-20 07:29:21 PM  
goddamn browser settings....NO!! NO goddamn third party cookies!! FARK YOU, browser!!
 
2014-03-20 07:34:37 PM  
I truly do not understand why Fox News-only viewers aren't storming the White House with pitch forks and torches.  If you buy into this radical muslin socialist atheist nazi communist dictatorship nonsense why *aren't* you taking the government back by ammo box?

Outside of being a bunch of cowards, obviously.
 
2014-03-20 07:37:50 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


I just...what the ever loving f*ck have I read right there? Jesus, no wonder my Dad told me he stopped reading and watching Fox News recently.
 
2014-03-20 07:40:20 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: make me some tea: elchip: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

Sweet Jesus.

The dancing parrot is awesome.

Yes!

As for the screencaps of derpy comments... wow. Just wow. Unbelievable. Humanity, I am disappoint.


More evidence that Twitter is the realm of idiots and assholes. 'Tis a silly place.
 
2014-03-20 08:12:47 PM  
FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare

When are Obama and the Democrats going to do the same?
 
2014-03-20 08:12:55 PM  
So, the new talking point will be that Obamacare still leaves millions uncovered? That'll be interesting for the GOP media arm to push.
 
2014-03-20 08:15:25 PM  
Bold text added to highlight something of a journalistic innovation - i.e., editorializing within a correction.

Innovation? Anyone remember the Dan Rather, "Fake but accurate" claim?
 
2014-03-20 08:20:42 PM  

gaspode: One gets the impression that some of these people are starting to believe their own bullshiat. Dangerous territory


Naw. They are starting to realize they've maxed out their viewership.
 
2014-03-20 08:30:13 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...
 
2014-03-20 08:30:22 PM  

grumpfuff: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

I started counting the number of logical fallacies in those responses but I gave up.

Therefore, I will just say it is all of them.


This is a safe assumption.
 
2014-03-20 08:34:27 PM  
sorry bout my blathering in here folks.

Yeah I did RTFA.

Holy....something.
 
2014-03-20 08:38:22 PM  

bobothemagnificent:


Wow you're really sensitive, aren't you?
 
2014-03-20 08:41:49 PM  

physt: bobothemagnificent:

Wow you're really sensitive, aren't you?


He's just pissed that people stopped replying to his clowncaronfire account.
 
2014-03-20 08:41:59 PM  

Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...


That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.
 
2014-03-20 08:45:51 PM  
Here's what I don't get. They refuse to accept that our universe could "spontaneously happen" but they insist that a being capable of creating our universe spontaneously happened.
 
2014-03-20 08:56:43 PM  

ShuyaNanahara: physt: bobothemagnificent:

Wow you're really sensitive, aren't you?

He's just pissed that people stopped replying to his clowncaronfire account.


Plus the shryke account was put in timeout for name calling in the Limbaugh thread. Got really upset when people started quoting easily verifiable facts about fox news, Roger Ailes and Rush.
 
2014-03-20 09:12:14 PM  

"We're sorry we got caught lying about __________. We'll certainly do it again."

 
2014-03-20 09:15:29 PM  

jjorsett: Bold text added to highlight something of a journalistic innovation - i.e., editorializing within a correction.

Innovation? Anyone remember the Dan Rather, "Fake but accurate" claim?


Sure do: CBS interviewed Marian Carr Knox, a secretary at Ellington Air Force Base from 1956-1979 and Killian's assistant on the dates of the memos. Although Knox felt the memos reflected the truth about Bush's alleged service failures,[90] she also stated she did not type the memos, they were not written by Killian, and that she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time in the Guard.[92] Knox said, "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said. "I probably typed the information and somebody picked up the information some way or another."  The New York Times' headline, including the phrase "Fake but Accurate," became a widely used derisive comment from right-leaning critics of CBS.

S
o here you are, jjorsett, years later still parroting your right-wing talking points that you were told to believe.  But I appreciate the opportunity you've given to state once again, George W Bush deserted his unit during the Vietnam War - there is no evidence that he ever reported for duty with the Alabama National Guard and thus he deserted his unit.  Thanks, jjorsett, and keep up the good work.

img.fark.net
 
2014-03-20 09:20:33 PM  

grumpfuff: Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...

That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.


Yeah, Bishop Ussher's timeline idea was one of the first things we learned about in my Anthropology class. It really helped explain where the problems with the YEC idea were. He more or less had to guess at times because the Bible was kind of vague, yet they still put so much stock in it.
 
2014-03-20 09:24:29 PM  

Tony Snark: ShuyaNanahara: physt: bobothemagnificent:

Wow you're really sensitive, aren't you?

He's just pissed that people stopped replying to his clowncaronfire account.

Plus the shryke account was put in timeout for name calling in the Limbaugh thread. Got really upset when people started quoting easily verifiable facts about fox news, Roger Ailes and Rush.


I knew I shouldn't have missed that thread.
 
2014-03-20 09:30:44 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)




Oh dear.
 
2014-03-20 09:37:06 PM  
The 6PM news hour on Fox is reliably hysterical. As of late they've taken a break from leading the show with Benghazi or Obamacare because of the missing plane, but it's usually concentrated derp.
 
2014-03-20 09:39:49 PM  

jjorsett: Bold text added to highlight something of a journalistic innovation - i.e., editorializing within a correction.

Innovation? Anyone remember the Dan Rather, "Fake but accurate" claim?


Not proven conclusively to be real != Fake.
 
2014-03-20 09:40:16 PM  

Mikey1969: grumpfuff: Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...

That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.

Yeah, Bishop Ussher's timeline idea was one of the first things we learned about in my Anthropology class. It really helped explain where the problems with the YEC idea were. He more or less had to guess at times because the Bible was kind of vague, yet they still put so much stock in it.


While I knew of it beforehand, the first time it came up in "academia" was in a Philosophy of Religion class, as an example of how not to do things.
 
2014-03-20 10:01:33 PM  

jjorsett: FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare

When are Obama and the Democrats going to do the same?


Once they actually tell lies about the ACA.
 
2014-03-20 10:05:11 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


Holy wow. This does explain a lot.

I think my favorite one is: "Science is the liberal tool. Evolution and big bang are pure communist satanic propoganda! accept Jesus or perish. Everything is in Genesis." 35 upvotes ....
 
2014-03-20 10:15:25 PM  
As I understand it, his position is that if states don't expand Medicaid to cover more poor uninsured individuals, it is Obamacare's fault that those individuals remain uninsured.
 
2014-03-20 10:42:58 PM  
You know, you don't HAVE to watch it...
 
2014-03-20 10:54:41 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare

When are Obama and the Democrats going to do the same?

Once they actually tell lies about the ACA.


Are you actually requesting that someone photoshop a burn on you that has one of the most famous Obama quotes as its theme?
 
2014-03-20 10:56:28 PM  

GoldSpider: You know, you don't HAVE to watch it...


And Republicans don't HAVE to get gay married, either.
 
2014-03-20 11:07:39 PM  
Well, I guess I can acknowledge a rare act of honesty from an organization widely known for being deliberately and blatantly dishonest.

Congratulations for doing the right thing once in a long while... I guess.
 
2014-03-20 11:13:51 PM  
fta Bold text added to highlight something of a journalistic innovation - i.e., editorializing within a correction.

You're new to Fox News, aren't you
 
2014-03-20 11:21:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: Well, I guess I can acknowledge a rare act of honesty from an organization widely known for being deliberately and blatantly dishonest.

Congratulations for doing the right thing once in a long while... I guess.


It's like when people in Maury's audience clap for the guy who say's he's gonna take care of his kids after dodging paternity tests for 3 years.
 
2014-03-20 11:27:12 PM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


I wish that I could be surprised by this.
 
2014-03-20 11:34:11 PM  

grumpfuff: Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...

That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.

What really gets me is that those railing against the Big Bang Theory 'cuz Jeezus & Byebull have absolutely no idea of what the Big Bang Theory replaced, namely, the former Steady-State Theory (now Steady-State Hypothesis at best). That was the previous en vogue theory of cosmology, which held that, yes, the Universe is expanding because spacetime itself is expanding, but that this has been happening since negative eternity. New space, time, matter, and energy are being constantly created, so that the Universe, while getting bigger, remains the same basic density. There was no beginning of time: no moment that was its own present, had a vast future, yet no past at all, no uncaused cause,

The Big Bang Theory says that, yes, there was indeed a beginning of time, a first moment with no past, an Uncaused Causer. It requires a moment of creation. It leaves room for a Christian-like Creator God. The Steady-State Hypothesis did not. Christians should actually like the Big Bang Theory, at least compared to what it replaced!

This new gravity waves evidence, as well as the discovery decades ago of the Cosmic Background Radiation, have pretty much put paid to the Steady-State Hypothesis even as viable hypothesis, let alone Theory. Christians should be celebrating this!
 
2014-03-20 11:37:27 PM  

Bane of Broone: theknuckler_33: Well, I guess I can acknowledge a rare act of honesty from an organization widely known for being deliberately and blatantly dishonest.

Congratulations for doing the right thing once in a long while... I guess.

It's like when people in Maury's audience clap for the guy who say's he's gonna take care of his kids after dodging paternity tests for 3 years.


That guy would have to needed to have had a long history of children born from women to whom he refused to provide care while admitting his parenthood to a most recent child for whom he declared support to even come close to being a similar analogy to what Fox did.
 
2014-03-21 12:01:43 AM  

logic523: Zeppelininthesky: jjorsett: FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare

When are Obama and the Democrats going to do the same?

Once they actually tell lies about the ACA.

Are you actually requesting that someone photoshop a burn on you that has one of the most famous Obama quotes as its theme?


"If you like your plan, you can keep it" *unless greedy insurance companies cancel it and blame it on the ACA to jack up prices*

Besides, there is no provision in the letter of the ACA law that made the insurance companies cancel their plans. In fact, there were provisions to grandfather the policies that were enacted before 2010.
 
2014-03-21 02:17:30 AM  

COMALite J: grumpfuff: Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...

That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.
What really gets me is that those railing against the Big Bang Theory 'cuz Jeezus & Byebull have absolutely no idea of what the Big Bang Theory replaced, namely, the former Steady-State Theory (now Steady-State Hypothesis at best). That was the previous en vogue theory of cosmology, which held that, yes, the Universe is expanding because spacetime itself is expanding, but that this has been happening since negative eternity. New space, time, matter, and energy are being constantly created, so that the Universe, while getting bigger, remains the same basic density. There was no beginning of time: no moment that was its own present ...


I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.
 
2014-03-21 02:50:45 AM  

grumpfuff: I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.


Far too much credit.  There's a lot of reading to be done in that thing, so they know it's wrong based on what their preacher of choice and those guys on the radio and internet tell them it says.
 
2014-03-21 03:12:46 AM  

Arumat: grumpfuff: I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.

Far too much credit.  There's a lot of reading to be done in that thing, so they know it's wrong based on what their preacher of choice and those guys on the radio and internet tell them it says.


and even then, it always somehow coincides with what they want/already believe. If it doesn't then the preacher of choice just made a mistake.
 
2014-03-21 03:16:29 AM  
Huh, so Ted Koppel IS a robot.
 
2014-03-21 03:26:16 AM  

Arumat: grumpfuff: I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.

Far too much credit.  There's a lot of reading to be done in that thing, so they know it's wrong based on what their preacher of choice and those guys on the radio and internet tell them it says.


That was sort of the end-goal of my point. I didn't mean to imply they were reading the Bible, I meant more along the lines of someone told them what the Bible says, and it matches what they already think(namely, SCIENCE IS FOR LIEBRULS!!!), and therefore, reasons.

log_jammin: and even then, it always somehow coincides with what they want/already believe. If it doesn't then the preacher of choice just made a mistake.


That's a bingo.
 
2014-03-21 03:55:41 AM  

jjorsett: Bold text added to highlight something of a journalistic innovation - i.e., editorializing within a correction.

Innovation? Anyone remember the Dan Rather, "Fake but accurate" claim?


Lying again, huh, asshole?
If your views are, in any sense, correct - why do you always have to lie to support them?
 
2014-03-21 05:10:19 AM  

Kittypie070: goddamn browser settings....NO!! NO goddamn third party cookies!! FARK YOU, browser!!


One could say dealing with browser updates that reset your preferences and third party cookies is a lot like herding cats... With out a laser poster or a can opener...
 
2014-03-21 05:19:02 AM  
Bang the drum 24/7.  Then, in a single 15-second segment, apologize for being so loud.  Then go right back to banging the drum.
 
2014-03-21 05:42:09 AM  

bobothemagnificent:


That needs to be shooped so that the dot is troll face.
 
2014-03-21 05:49:50 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: I truly do not understand why Fox News-only viewers aren't storming the White House with pitch forks and torches.  If you buy into this radical muslin socialist atheist nazi communist dictatorship nonsense why *aren't* you taking the government back by ammo box?

Outside of being a bunch of cowards, obviously.


I'm still waiting for those second amendment solutions.
 
2014-03-21 05:50:02 AM  

The Why Not Guy: GoldSpider: You know, you don't HAVE to watch it...

And Republicans don't HAVE to get gay married, either.


And they're butthurt idiots for the same reason.
 
2014-03-21 06:15:43 AM  

DORMAMU: Kittypie070: goddamn browser settings....NO!! NO goddamn third party cookies!! FARK YOU, browser!!

One could say dealing with browser updates that reset your preferences and third party cookies is a lot like herding cats... With out a laser poster or a can opener...


I've had surprising success with a cheap plastic vuvuzela.
 
2014-03-21 07:14:32 AM  

lockers: Rest assured Obamacare is the worst mistake since Jesus f*cked Mary Magdalene.


"She was asking for it!" - Phyllis Schlafly
 
2014-03-21 07:52:39 AM  

grumpfuff: COMALite J: grumpfuff: Mikey1969: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

What absolutely blows me away is that those people could still fit the idea of God into the Big Bang, they just have to attribute TBB itself to him, it's not really that hard to do. It means they can't be Young Earthers, but they've even been given an 'out' there when people say that "God time" is different than time for us.

All these opportunities for them to accept science and still reconcile it with their beliefs, but instead they fight like hell to rationalize a system that hasn't made sense for at least a hundred years...

That's what amazes me. I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence. But apparently that's too complicated for these idiots. They'd rather take the word of some dude from the medieval period who calculated the time since creation based on what he thought the Bible said. I wonder how many YEC idiots don't realize the 4000 BCE date is from some dude, not from the Bible itself.
What really gets me is that those railing against the Big Bang Theory 'cuz Jeezus & Byebull ...

I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.

DORMAMU: Kittypie070: goddamn browser settings....NO!! NO goddamn third party cookies!! FARK YOU, browser!!

One could say dealing with browser updates that reset your preferences and third party cookies is a lot like herding cats... With out a laser poster or a can opener...


What a laser poster might look like:
www.laserfest.org
 
2014-03-21 08:07:36 AM  

runwiz: As I understand it, his position is that if states don't expand Medicaid to cover more poor uninsured individuals, it is Obamacare's fault that those individuals remain uninsured.


And that isn't even what his correction was about. Those individuals who make enough to qualify for Medicaid in those states already meet the standards to qualify for a hardship exemption already written into the bill. And in his correction he conflates this with Obama extending the hardship exemption to anyone with a cancelled private market plan: that hardship exemptions was a delay of the individual mandate rather than something that was already in the original bill for the people Baier was saying would suffer from forced purchasing of insurance.
 
2014-03-21 08:34:53 AM  
A hardship exemption for living in a red state. ...yeah, sounds about right.
 
2014-03-21 08:45:14 AM  

the opposite of charity is justice: I truly do not understand why Fox News-only viewers aren't storming the White House with pitch forks and torches.  If you buy into this radical muslin socialist atheist nazi communist dictatorship nonsense why *aren't* you taking the government back by ammo box?

Outside of being a bunch of cowards, obviously.


Because TINSTAAVC.
 
2014-03-21 08:48:17 AM  

jjorsett: FoxNews expresses regret at getting caught misleading their viewers about ObamaCare

When are Obama and the Democrats going to do the same?


And were done!
 
2014-03-21 10:07:19 AM  

Dr Dreidel: fusillade762: DamnYankees: Classy.

Acclaimed.


ginandbacon: The first retraction in the history of Fox!!!!!

[wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net image 850x478]

/oblig

MOAR HEAR

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did not accidentally blow up vowels in his own name.
The chupacabra does not deliver presents on Cinco De Mayo.
Bangladesh is not an 80s metal band.
Pot pie is legal in every state.
Jason Collins was not turned gay by a Washington Wizard.
Rick Moranis was never put on death row for shrinking his children.
New York exists outside the mind of Billy Joel.
Lena Dunham is not a girl ventriloquist.
Croquettes are not female crocodiles.
Rice and beans are edible. Ricin beans are not.
Smurfs are not elected.
Smurfs are not appointed.
Smurfs are cartoons.
4 and 3 aren't "basically the same thing".
Zach Braff is not the sound a trumpet makes.


Some of SNL's best writing ever.
 
2014-03-21 10:22:48 AM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


Am I the only one who absolutely wants to smack anyone who thinks that the word 'theory' means 'hypothesis'?
 
2014-03-21 11:32:46 AM  

grumpfuff: I know plenty of Christians and Jews who have absolutely no problem with science. Simply put, they accept everything science says all the way back to the Big Bang, and then they add "And God made the Big Bang." Boom. Problem solved. Old earth, big bang, and creationism all reconciled with a single sentence.


That doesn't reconcile anything.  That's the classic "god of the gaps" argument.  God gets smaller with each successive thing we learn.  We have the Big Bang - what happens if and when we discover states around or even before the Big Bang such that it wasn't "God" that did it, and we identify the natural process, multiverse theory, or non-inflation theory that changes our understanding of that moment?  You can't reconcile that with the idea that the Big Bang was a special moment created by a deity.  God has to get smaller.  Or, more reasonably, removed from consideration as a relevant factor.  This process has been happening for hundreds of years as we learn more about astronomy, cosmology, biology, neurology, etc.

In addition, most religious thought has little to do with reconciling physical or biological creation with their moral system.  It has more to do with modern ethical issues, faith, divine intervention, the problem of evil, miracles, etc.  You can fix the minor issue of the Big Bang, sure.  It has little effect on your day to day activities.  But what about the daily conundrums, beliefs in angels, demons, original sin, and authority of church doctrine that affect non-trivial issues in the everyday life of the faithful?

The only want to reconcile religion and science is to gloss over all of the detail, and accept a significant number of inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance.  They concede more and more ground each year to allegory, metaphor, and misunderstandings of the past, and alter what it is to believe in a deity.  We do a very good job of it.  But just because there are a fair number of people who are able to hold both in their head and sleep at night doesn't mean they're reconciled.  There are just a lot of things people are willing to ignore to hold belief in the supernatural in the absence of evidence, and the overwhelming evidence in science and observation that directly contradicts it.
 
Bf+
2014-03-21 11:39:12 AM  

Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)


Farked.
Anyone have a mirror?
 
Bf+
2014-03-21 11:52:16 AM  

Bf+: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

Farked.
Anyone have a mirror?


Nevermind... working now.
 
2014-03-21 11:53:35 AM  

Khellendros: We have the Big Bang - what happens if and when we discover states around or even before the Big Bang such that it wasn't "God" that did it, and we identify the natural process, multiverse theory, or non-inflation theory that changes our understanding of that moment?


If that happens, I'll say OEC believers can no longer reconcile their belief with science as easily.

Khellendros: But what about the daily conundrums, beliefs in angels, demons, original sin, and authority of church doctrine that affect non-trivial issues in the everyday life of the faithful?


I don't recall mentioning anything about those. I simply pointed out that one can easily reconcile OEC with the Big Bang. OEC is not unique to Christians, so those "daily conundrums" may not even exist.

Khellendros: overwhelming evidence in science and observation that directly contradicts it.


Seeing as one of the basic tenets of epistemology is that you cannot prove a negative, I'd be curious to see what consists of "overwhelming evidence" in your mind.
 
2014-03-21 12:16:18 PM  

grumpfuff: I don't recall mentioning anything about those. I simply pointed out that one can easily reconcile OEC with the Big Bang. OEC is not unique to Christians, so those "daily conundrums" may not even exist.


Your contention was that you knew lots of Jews and Christians that had no problems with science, then pointed out the method they used to do it.  My argument was that it doesn't reconcile anything, and they just gloss over the many, many contradictory elements.  I further contended that it does nothing to address the other issues they face in their everyday lives that are heavily contradicted by evidence.


grumpfuff: f that happens, I'll say OEC believers can no longer reconcile their belief with science as easily.


You've made my point - it's god of the gaps.  Their belief gets smaller, their god gets smaller, and continues to be reduced to an appeal to ignorance.


grumpfuff: Seeing as one of the basic tenets of epistemology is that you cannot prove a negative, I'd be curious to see what consists of "overwhelming evidence" in your mind.


Perhaps an overstatement on my part.  Apologies.  Let me rephrase - the complete LACK of evidence for any type of creationism by a deity, compounded with a mass of evidence for natural processes in every part of cosmology.
 
2014-03-21 12:42:48 PM  

Khellendros: they just gloss over the many, many contradictory elements


Examples?

Khellendros: other issues they face in their everyday lives that are heavily contradicted by evidence.


Such as?

Khellendros: You've made my point - it's god of the gaps.  Their belief gets smaller, their god gets smaller, and continues to be reduced to an appeal to ignorance.


Yes, they will continue to do it. This surprises you why? I was not posting about their attitudes. I was posting about my attitudes towards them.

Khellendros: Perhaps an overstatement on my part.  Apologies.  Let me rephrase - the complete LACK of evidence for any type of creationism by a deity, compounded with a mass of evidence for natural processes in every part of cosmology.


Much better.
 
2014-03-21 01:06:25 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: bobothemagnificent:

That needs to be shooped so that the dot is troll face.


I just want to say he is no relation. And I wish he would stop sending me the Fwd: fwd: fwd: emails
 
2014-03-21 01:34:30 PM  

qorkfiend: grumpfuff: Witty_Retort: FOX picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue:

FOX News Reports ACTUAL SCIENCE! Creationists Go Out Of Their Ever-Loving MINDS! (With Screenshots)

I started counting the number of logical fallacies in those responses but I gave up.

Therefore, I will just say it is all of them.

This is a safe assumption.


Eh, I highly doubt you'll find a golden mean fallacy in there.
 
2014-03-21 03:04:46 PM  

grumpfuff: Khellendros: they just gloss over the many, many contradictory elements

Examples?


Creation myths, age of the Earth/Universe, length of human life, origin of sex/gender, origin of species from a singular pair of developed humans, assertion of the human soul, assertion of consciousness after death, assertion of angelic/demonic entities, assertion of original sin, existence of heaven and hell, existence of a personal god, the problems of evil paired with omnibenevolence and omniscience, reconciling story of Noah with biological evidence, transubstantiation... etc....etc....etc.

There isn't a single element of the derived religious elements of the bible that is upheld by observation and evidence.  There are definitely moral and ethical elements that are useful from a philosophical angle.  I will not argue against that.  But the assertions made of the physical world, and the effect of the supernatural on the physical world - there is no evidence to support it, and claims that have testable elements today are found to be demonstrably false (firmament, celestial mechanics, rib-people, common singular ancestor, on and on).

But those that hold to religion still believe some subset of the above, even if they eliminate many due to scientific observation and education.  They all draw different lines in the sand, but they still conform to the cultural norms, rituals, or beliefs that dictated by belief in such ideas.  Ideas that that absolutely zero basis in evidence, or are even demonstrably false.
 
2014-03-21 03:38:39 PM  

Khellendros: Creation myths, age of the Earth/Universe, length of human life, origin of sex/gender, origin of species from a singular pair of developed humans,


All things that many believers take metaphorically, not literally. In the case of age of the Earth, there is literally nothing in the Bible about how old it is. 6000 years old is some farkwit from the Medieval times deciding he knew exactly what the Bible meant. And what about religions that have squat to say about any of the above?

Khellendros: assertion of the human soul, assertion of consciousness after death, assertion of angelic/demonic entities, assertion of original sin, existence of heaven and hell, existence of a personal god


I was unaware these had been proven false and that they were somehow contradictory with modern science. Rather, I thought they were non-scientific claims, and therefore science has no opinion on them.

Khellendros: reconciling story of Noah with biological evidence, transubstantiation

See point 1.

Khellendros: There isn't a single element of the derived religious elements of the bible that is upheld by observation and evidence.  There are definitely moral and ethical elements that are useful from a philosophical angle.  I will not argue against that.  But the assertions made of the physical world, and the effect of the supernatural on the physical world - there is no evidence to support it, and claims that have testable elements today are found to be demonstrably false (firmament, celestial mechanics, rib-people, common singular ancestor, on and on).


The Jews built a temple in Israel.

Khellendros: the problems of evil paired with omnibenevolence and omniscience


I saved this one for last because it is a huge pet peeve of mine.  The problem of evil is not some grand "GOTCHA!" against religion. First of all, the problem of evil can only really apply to the Abrahamic faiths. By definition, any religion that has more than one deity is immune to the argument. Even then, Jewish theologians often discount one or more of the "omni" traits. The Bible says God is jealous, and that's not the trait of a perfectly good being. It also says he didn't know where Adam and Eve went. An omniscient god would know that. I vaguely remember a similar argument in Islam, but I don't remember it well enough, so I won't use it. Let's just say the problem of evil only applies to Christianity and Islam. You still have the free will defense(I don't buy the omniscience=no free will argument, but that's a whole separate monkey). The only part of the problem of evil that holds up under scrutiny is the problem of natural evil(hurricanes, floods, etc).

Khellendros:But those that hold to religion still believe some subset of the above, even if they eliminate many due to scientific observation and education.  They all draw different lines in the sand, but they still conform to the cultural norms, rituals, or beliefs that dictated by belief in such ideas.  Ideas that that absolutely zero basis in evidence, or are even demonstrably false.

You're not offering arguments against religions in general. You're offering arguments against one specific interpretation of Christianity.
 
2014-03-21 04:06:31 PM  

grumpfuff: Khellendros: assertion of the human soul, assertion of consciousness after death, assertion of angelic/demonic entities, assertion of original sin, existence of heaven and hell, existence of a personal god

I was unaware these had been proven false and that they were somehow contradictory with modern science. Rather, I thought they were non-scientific claims, and therefore science has no opinion on them.


Something does not have to be "proven false" to be at odds with science.  Any claim of existence without evidence is at odds with science.  Basic burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim of existence.  Any claim of phenomena or existence requires evidence.  If not, it's meaningless.  Yes, this is a form of the argument of Russell's Teapot.  The logical position of any positive assertion without evidence is not "maybe" or "I don't know".  It's "no".  See my below discussion on spiritual claims.


grumpfuff: You're not offering arguments against religions in general. You're offering arguments against one specific interpretation of Christianity.


I used that example as the most relevant to U.S. culture.  Generally or specifically, the full or a subset of these beliefs exist in all generally acknowledged denominations of Christianity.  I'm not claiming that everyone in the faith accepts all of these ideas, I'm arguing that an extremely large majority believes in some subset of them.  While I accept that there are likely some extremely small organizations that manage to maintain claim on being Christian and not believe in ANY spiritual or supernatural premise, I'm arguing against the 99% that do.  Similarly formed arguments work against any claim of spiritual or supernatural properties of all major religions on the planet.

grumpfuff: And what about religions that have squat to say about any of the above?


All modern religions of any size - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc all have significant spiritual and pseudo-scientific claims of some subset of healing, energies, spirit connections, deities, miracles, souls, heavens, hells, that have direct, physical connections and effects on the physical world.  Yet these claims have no evidence.
 
2014-03-21 05:59:30 PM  

Khellendros: Something does not have to be "proven false" to be at odds with science.  Any claim of existence without evidence is at odds with science.  Basic burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim of existence.  Any claim of phenomena or existence requires evidence.  If not, it's meaningless.  Yes, this is a form of the argument of Russell's Teapot.  The logical position of any positive assertion without evidence is not "maybe" or "I don't know".  It's "no".  See my below discussion on spiritual claims.


Meaningless. Exactly. Because the claim "Humans have eternal souls" cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific question, and ergo science should have no answer to the question. It's no different than saying "My opinion is x." You can't read my mind and cannot prove if I am lying or not, so again, its a meaningless statement.

Science does not answer a meaningless question with "No." It answers it with silence, because it does not have anything to say on the matter.

Khellendros: All modern religions of any size - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc all have significant spiritual and pseudo-scientific claims of some subset of healing, energies, spirit connections, deities, miracles, souls, heavens, hells, that have direct, physical connections and effects on the physical world.  Yet these claims have no evidence


How do they have any direct effect on the physical world(ok, maybe healing and energies)? If someone posits the existence of a hell, and that hell exists outside the physical world, why would you expect it to have any sort of meaningful interaction with the physical?

Again, as far as science is concerned, they are meaningless questions because they cannot be tested.
 
2014-03-21 09:41:51 PM  

grumpfuff: Arumat: grumpfuff: I notice you are committing the major error of assuming fundies have any understanding of the history of science. Shame on you. They don't know what science says or said. They just know it's wrong, because (what they think of it at least) Bible.

Far too much credit.  There's a lot of reading to be done in that thing, so they know it's wrong based on what their preacher of choice and those guys on the radio and internet tell them it says.

That was sort of the end-goal of my point. I didn't mean to imply they were reading the Bible, I meant more along the lines of someone told them what the Bible says, and it matches what they already think(namely, SCIENCE IS FOR LIEBRULS!!!), and therefore, reasons.

log_jammin: and even then, it always somehow coincides with what they want/already believe. If it doesn't then the preacher of choice just made a mistake.

That's a bingo.


I always get a kick of out their relentless decrying of science on the internet via their computers (in their well lit and climate controlled houses, most likely with their satellite television blaring)
 
2014-03-21 10:35:53 PM  

grumpfuff: Khellendros: Something does not have to be "proven false" to be at odds with science.  Any claim of existence without evidence is at odds with science.  Basic burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim of existence.  Any claim of phenomena or existence requires evidence.  If not, it's meaningless.  Yes, this is a form of the argument of Russell's Teapot.  The logical position of any positive assertion without evidence is not "maybe" or "I don't know".  It's "no".  See my below discussion on spiritual claims.

Meaningless. Exactly. Because the claim "Humans have eternal souls" cannot be falsified, it is not a scientific question, and ergo science should have no answer to the question. It's no different than saying "My opinion is x." You can't read my mind and cannot prove if I am lying or not, so again, its a meaningless statement.

Science does not answer a meaningless question with "No." It answers it with silence, because it does not have anything to say on the matter.

Khellendros: All modern religions of any size - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc all have significant spiritual and pseudo-scientific claims of some subset of healing, energies, spirit connections, deities, miracles, souls, heavens, hells, that have direct, physical connections and effects on the physical world.  Yet these claims have no evidence

How do they have any direct effect on the physical world(ok, maybe healing and energies)? If someone posits the existence of a hell, and that hell exists outside the physical world, why would you expect it to have any sort of meaningful interaction with the physical?

Again, as far as science is concerned, they are meaningless questions because they cannot be tested.


But there's a meta-argument that I think you're missing.  They are only meaningless questions because they cannot be tested...   after the goalposts were moved to where they couldn't be with whatever the current technology was at the time.

Religion has always made very strong, falsifiable claims about the material world.  That souls had weight.  That the sun orbited the earth.  That hell existed deep under ground.  They could do this with impunity because science was unable to prove or disprove them either way, and remained silent.  The "god of the gaps" ruled supreme.

But as science has caught up, we have found new ways to disprove many of these claims.  In response, religion has continually moved the goalposts and fled to weaker and weaker claims about how the world works.  It used to be inconceivable that anyone could prove the earth revolved around the sun... and then suddenly, we could, and did.

So I think we need to be very careful to contemplate the arc of history and the track record of religion's claims when we talk about what can, and can't be tested.  Even if we often can't conceive of how they could be today.
 
Displayed 99 of 99 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report