|
They talked about Breitbart on Overtime in the context of Matt Taibbi's eulogy. Bob Lutz ruined about ten minutes worth of this episode but rescued himself a bit on Overtime by strongly supporting electric cars. Regarding climate change, I've asked climate change denialists about the hole in the Ozone layer and if they believe that it was caused by man. Invariably they say yes. Then I've asked why they think that could happen but the climate getting warmer due to greenhouse gases is completely out of the question. They never have a logical response. The difference, of course, is that when the science on Ozone depletion came out in the 70s, and then became a big issue in the 80s, there were much fewer corporations or politicians actively denying it and trumping up pseudo-science to confuse people. If the hole in the Ozone layer started forming today you can bet there would be half the population denying it even exists, or that if it does exist they'd deny that it's anthropogenic. DivisionPost posted:I don't pay much attention to Neil DeGrasse Tyson because he scares the poo poo out of me. 
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
Good to see Neil on again. Loved his huge roll-eyes when the global warming discussion started. Sad to see Bill on the "What has NASA ever given us besides Tang" bandwagon. It sucks that most public discussion on NASA or Space exploration ends in "lol nerds" or isn't taken seriously. A good excuse to post this link: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 09:21
|
|
|
A nicely solid ep, minus the GM guy in general. I was expecting a Breitbart clip on the starter mildly along the lines of Hitchens or some such instead of that random, sad Nader one. Just once, I'd like to see them drag on the first interview guest to the panel just for kicks---let them drag that chair over there or some such and just wing it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
You must be some kind of idiot to go on national tv and try to debate Tyson on global warming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 17:32
|
|
|
magiccarpet posted:You must be some kind of idiot to go on national tv and try to debate Tyson on global warming. Well you have to be some kind of idiot to deny global warming in the first place so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
RudeBoy posted:Sad to see Bill on the "What has NASA ever given us besides Tang" bandwagon. It sucks that most public discussion on NASA or Space exploration ends in "lol nerds" or isn't taken seriously. Yea, I just read that Obama's budget is nixing a planned 2016 and 2018 mission. http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/02/27/researcher-obama-budget-end-of-the-mars-program/ It's disheartening when we're spending billions in Afghanistan on a weekly basis. Good NASA link BTW.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
I love NDT but I wish he'd mention how absolutely goddamn miniscule the NASA budget is more. It's always the "we could spend that money here!!!" poo poo, and people think NASA gets like 25% of the federal budget. NASA's yearly budget is seriously like eight days in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
I dig NGT, his interview this week on NPR loving owned. He brought up all the technology advances that came about (microprocessors, etc) because of NASA and how we just loving blow it off now like "OH NERDS." I hope at least some kids were watching his Nova shows and I look forward to his take on Cosmos as well (I'm old enough to remember the first Carl Sagan version.)
Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Mar 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I love NDT but I wish he'd mention how absolutely goddamn miniscule the NASA budget is more. It's always the "we could spend that money here!!!" poo poo, and people think NASA gets like 25% of the federal budget. NASA's yearly budget is seriously like eight days in Afghanistan. But why spend money on high tech toys not designed for killing and maiming other people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
etalian posted:But why spend money on high tech toys not designed for killing and maiming other people? Because NASA invents guidance systems that make your weapons more accurate! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Because NASA invents guidance systems that make your weapons more accurate! Who needs accuracy when you can just drop more bombs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 13:46
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Because NASA invents guidance systems that make your weapons more accurate! ROBOTS TAKING OUR JOBS! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
Tyson will testify to senate on NASA on March 7th. Link
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 19:30
|
|
|
Former Human posted:They talked about Breitbart on Overtime in the context of Matt Taibbi's eulogy. Feeling too good lately? Too much trust in your fellow man? Just skip down to Matt's addendum to the story and the resulting comments. You're welcome. I'm also available to kick anyone in the nuts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 02:19
|
|
|
Stare-Out posted:Tyson will testify to senate on NASA on March 7th. Link You tell them, reverend Neill!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
richardfun posted:You tell them, reverend Neill!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
Eh, so did anyone think that last Pelosi video was kinda bullshit? With the Mississippi video, it all seemed more natural. The questions she asked were related to the questions in the recent poll. She went to different places and talked to different people. She insisted that the people in the interview weren't cherry-picked for the purpose of delivering a particular narrative. But the most recent video seemed geared to do just that. It didn't even seem like she spent half the time working on it. Probably because she claimed that the area she filmed was across the street from her house. Maybe she was feeling lazy? She talked to a doorman who was like "Yeah, they look LAZY to me! Why can't they work like ME?" (I wonder, has that doorman ever talked to any of the people he assumes are lazy?) She talked to maybe four people loitering outside of the building. Why not talk to the people inside? Why not talk to the people who work in the offices? Why not go to other places instead of ONE FREAKING SPOT? It just seemed to me like she was far more concerned with making the "left scream" than actually making a good companion piece to the video she did in Mississippi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
She sort of did this the last time she was on as a guest, that I caught, an odd sideline comment along the lines of "BOTH BOTH BOTH" prior to either video. I was expecting her to, you know, neighborhood crawl in general comparable to rural excursion from before. I can get the "my backyard" angle, but that's not really congruent with what she'd established in the first video. Otherwise, it was a meh episode to me---Ratigan seemed to be the only person lively aside from Holmes seemingly jumping at every chance to play mild contrarian. I want to think she used to be a more engaging panel member. Overtime was pretty worthless given they only asked like 2-3 questions then claimed to be out---really guys, I mean come on!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2012 13:45
|
|
|
Wow, I may be a terrible person. I can barely take this bald guy [Andrew Sullivan] seriously because of the sound of his voice. EDIT: Loved what he had to say about the Catholic take on hatred, though. That's always been my experience. DivisionPost fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Mar 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
I was a bit confused by Bill Maher's final New Rule on friday about how if you don't like something, just ignore it and go on with your life. Not for nothing, but isn't this the guy that made a whole documentary on religion because he doesn't like it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
fart blood posted:I was a bit confused by Bill Maher's final New Rule on friday about how if you don't like something, just ignore it and go on with your life. Not for nothing, but isn't this the guy that made a whole documentary on religion because he doesn't like it? He comments on stuff all the time, he does it for a living, what he was complaining about is trying to make people apologize or get them off the air. He points out how dumb religion is, but he doesn't want to make them shut up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Stare-Out posted:He's about to. I watched it. There was a ton of budget arguing before Dr. Tyson makes his appearance at ~100 minute mark. nickmeister posted:But the most recent video seemed geared to do just that. It didn't even seem like she spent half the time working on it. Probably because she claimed that the area she filmed was across the street from her house. Maybe she was feeling lazy? Maybe she said it in the past two episodes she's been on (I forget if she did) but what was the point of the videos besides "Hey look here's some dumb poor Republicans with no teeth. Tune in next week for some dumb poor Democrats eating Pringles?" Maybe it's her ode to Titicut Follies. nickmeister posted:Why not talk to the people inside? Why not talk to the people who work in the offices? Why not go to other places instead of ONE FREAKING SPOT? I have a feeling they wouldn't let her and cameras inside a gov't/unemployment office. ExiledTinkerer posted:Overtime was pretty worthless given they only asked like 2-3 questions then claimed to be out---really guys, I mean come on! It appeared that he got flustered after the guest made a joke about him knowing the gay neighborhoods in every metropolitan area and he started reading off the old cards again and then launched the ejection seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
nickmeister posted:Eh, so did anyone think that last Pelosi video was kinda bullshit? With the Mississippi video, it all seemed more natural. The questions she asked were related to the questions in the recent poll. She went to different places and talked to different people. She insisted that the people in the interview weren't cherry-picked for the purpose of delivering a particular narrative. I'd have loved it if she'd of asked these people more in-depth questions. Things like WHY a check is the only thing someone cares about when it comes to elections. I suspect the reason a lot of poor people are in it for the check and don't want to work is because of the uncomfortable reality that working in the US is kind of a scam. At least until you start to make a living wage plus benefits. I mean, think about it. You're an inner city kid with no money and no connections. You just finished high school but college is way too expensive for you to afford right now. Do you: A) Get 2 minimum wage jobs that don't provide benefits, take up 9/10ths of your day, treat you like absolute poo poo, and pay just enough for you to barely live (alone) in a God-forsaken rat-hole in the wrong part of a lovely neighborhood. This of course assumes they are hiring in the first place. or B) Bilk a system which clearly doesn't give a gently caress about you for all it's worth. I'd do B. I'm not even ashamed to admit it. Fake edit: I suppose I could also add "C) gently caress the whole thing and make money selling weed/stealing cars/etc.". Which probably happens a lot too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
The idea behind Alexandra Pelosi's videos was to point out that the stereotypes the left thinks about the right, and vice versa, are often true. What the two sides complain about really does exist. There are a lot of conservatives that vote strictly on close-minded religious grounds and hate Obama because he's black. And there are a lot of liberals (or, rather, people who take advantage of liberal programs) that want free money and don't care about giving back to society. All she needed to do was demonstrate these people exist, whether in the South or in New York across from her apartment. She wasn't out to do an in-depth documentary on cultural motivations and biases and income inequality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 02:09
|
|
|
Did anyone think that both these groups didn't exist? If so have you never left your hometown? Both halves of the segment came across as pretty lazy to me, it's no secret and hardly difficult to prove that stupid, lazy people exist everywhere in the country, and pointing this out just reeks of elitist audience pandering. It's not journalism, it's just like a lazy Sociology 101 final project. It would have been far more interesting to spend time asking average people questions about politics and issues and how their opinions were formed instead of playing "gotcha dummy!" with easy targets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
I agree. And there wasn't the flat out hatred that you heard form the right wingers. I also didn't get the whole 'creepy hip hop music' playing in the background while some guy stares at various girl's asses. That gave the impression that the southerners were at least good, hard working people who have a good reason to be racist, not just against people who take advantage of the system. I'm glad Maher at least told her that the people in New York had a stronger arguement, and Pelosi sat there like an idiot because she couldn't argue with him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
They should have Matthew Weiner on the show every week. EDIT: Also did anyone else cringe when the interview guest guy was like "whelp...buy my book for that answer  .
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Maher mentioned that they won't discuss the ruling on ACA until June was it? Is that typical to wait so long?ApexAftermath posted:They should have Matthew Weiner on the show every week. I cringe anytime I see a book on TV shows these days. I did think Weiner was pretty good. readingatwork posted:Get 2 minimum wage jobs that don't provide benefits, take up 9/10ths of your day, treat you like absolute poo poo, and pay just enough for you to barely live (alone) in a God-forsaken rat-hole in the wrong part of a lovely neighborhood. This of course assumes they are hiring in the first place. This is the truth for many people. I've witnessed people who work like a slave from morning to night in multiple jobs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
The "Use it or lose it" joke at the end ruled.
Fragmented fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Apr 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 03:11
|
|
|
I liked this Republican guy, they should have him on more. How is it that Reagan is when everything really went wrong yet it seems most of the people who actually worked for Reagan are the reasonable conservatives now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I liked this Republican guy, they should have him on more. How is it that Reagan is when everything really went wrong yet it seems most of the people who actually worked for Reagan are the reasonable conservatives now? From most interviews I've seen with Reagan's previous staff, most of them realize how wrong they were.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Make sure not to miss yesterday's episode if you want to see the smuggest douche ever. I'm not kidding - he makes PJ O'Rourke look tolerable. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
amaranthine posted:Make sure not to miss yesterday's episode if you want to see the smuggest douche ever. This guy was especially useless, since basically everything he said boiled down to "The gender gap/taxes/the Ryan budget is a serious issue for Romney but it's actually going to cost Obama the election because it's not a problem for Romney"
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
amaranthine posted:Make sure not to miss yesterday's episode if you want to see the smuggest douche ever. As soon as Bill introduced him, I thought 'huh, I didn't know a human being could be completely made up of douchy smugness. I found his behaviour alot more tolarable than his appearance though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
richardfun posted:As soon as Bill introduced him, I thought 'huh, I didn't know a human being could be completely made up of douchy smugness. Most of what he said was your usual Republican talking point, it was just the way that he said it. His stupid self-satisfied smile every time he said anything made me want to punch him in the kidney.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
amaranthine posted:My wife wanted to punch the TV as soon as she saw him, didn't even know who he was. I felt the same after his second sentence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 21:41
|
|
|
Watching the episode now and god this guy is a smug dweeb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Yeah, would've much rather had Tavis on the panel again, or Cornel West swoop down from the rafters after the book plug for it, than that incredibly smug guy that added nothing to it but smug. To his credit, such that it can be, he at least didn't go on a loud interrupting spree. Besides, PJ lost his mantle to that rear end Gillespie in his smug jacket back in last season.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo that picture of Marcus Bachman during new rules!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:07 |
|
|
ExiledTinkerer posted:Yeah, would've much rather had Tavis on the panel again, or Cornel West swoop down from the rafters after the book plug for it, than that incredibly smug guy that added nothing to it but smug. To his credit, such that it can be, he at least didn't go on a loud interrupting spree. That would have been way better yeah. Who was the smug little prick anyway? Some guy who runs a right wing website? Is it even a big one? Tavis Smiley is a guy I need to learn more about though. He perfectly articulated why I hate Obama/the democrats and why I hope the mandate is found unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 23:50
|
|