dallasalice (16723) 8 SFW Posts | 367 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2009-11-06 12:38:47 Comment Karma: -113 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from dallasalice

Comment on Profit vs. Humanity (2012-07-18 11:58:40)
Love me some profit.
Comment on Sitting Bull (2012-07-18 11:58:03)
Custer and the 7th Calvary might argue differently since they were wiped-out by Sitting Bull, one of the greatest Indian fighters in history. So either this quote is fake or he was bullshitting. Get it? Sitting Bull Shitting . . .
Comment on Never forget 9/11 (2012-07-10 23:58:34)
I know I keep repeating myself, but this cutting edge stuff just ROCKS. It's just so DEEP and meaningful.
Comment on rainbow oreos (2012-07-06 23:58:55)
Please, everyone is prejudiced in some way and they are lying if they say otherwise. Or so deluded that they cannot see their own prejudice. Doesn't matter if they are believers or not.
Comment on rainbow oreos (2012-07-06 23:57:26)
Funny, blacks are the ones who call conservative blacks "oreos" for acting white on the inside.
Comment on SEE. . . We're Not Racist! (2012-07-03 11:05:25)
How did they get a hold of Michelle's dildo?
Comment on Sam Harris Quote (2012-07-01 21:22:41)
I suppose this is a very meaningful statement to those who care what he thinks . . .
Comment on what's a socialist (2012-06-22 20:43:20)
Ahhh Wonkette, the must-go place for the absolute objective truth. I checked it out and now I remember it. The shirt was meant to mock the left doing exactly what this e-card tries to do. If you oppose Obama you are defacto a racist. It was about owning the subject and not letting it be used against you. Wonkette knew that, but why let it get in the way of a good story. Sarcasm if you will.
Comment on what's a socialist (2012-06-22 20:37:47)
I agree you have to absolute right to say it. Having the right to do something doesn't meant one should do it, however. I'd keep to saying in online though. And anonymously. Otherwise chances are you will regret it. Not fair, but that's the way it goes . . .
Comment on what's a socialist (2012-06-22 15:07:57)
Free speech means having to listen to or read offensive stuff sometimes. People have a right to say it and you have a right to tune it out. That said, it probably doesn't really help draw readers to this site and in fact will drive some away.
Comment on what's a socialist (2012-06-22 14:30:10)
Love the "you can't disagree with Obama without being a racist" thing, though it's rather more crudely put here than most places. Still I understand it being used now. When all else fails - and all of it IS failing - go with what's worked before. Cept it's just not working this time, is it?
Comment on what's a socialist (2012-06-22 14:26:48)
I haven't seen that. Got a link to where I can see it?
Comment on Scarlett Johansson is Solid Gold (2012-06-14 13:09:51)
Those puppies just scream, "Free us, free us" I tell ya . . .
Comment on global warming changes the Earth (2012-06-13 12:03:27)
Well, since someone called me on the theory versus fact definition issue, it has a lot to do with it. As I noted above, something is an accepted scientific theory when most scientists agree. They take a hypothesis proposed by one guy and then do their own peer reviews. I'll use the example of Darwinism since I was called a creationist up above, which I am not by the way. Darwinism is an accepted theory - fact if you will - but that term is really too rough for science since theories, even though accepted at one point can be disproved at another. In my opinion it's just a way to make the scientific method easier to understand for lay folk. Regular people know what a fact is and to them it can't change. Scientists know they can (and often do - salt was bad for us, now it's good). Nearly all scientists agree with Darwin's theory and it is not debated - hotly or not - for the most part (save for creationists, of which few are scientists). AGW is hotly debated among scientists worldwide and it has been discovered that much of the proof offered by scientists (including so-called objective peer review) to support the theory has been falsified, so it does matter. Yes an occurrence of something is a fact. Ten people see an apple fall from a tree and that incident is a fact (it's a fact even if one sees it, but independent witnesses are always welcome). But the theory of why it falls - gravity - is something no one can really see. It's a hypothesis that Gallileo first came up with and which was ultimately accepted by other scientists (Newton)and which then became scientific theory - or fact. So, again, without getting all bogged down in things. AGW is not a fact. It's not even an accepted theory in that about as many scientists disagree with it as do and much of the data supporting it is wrong - falsified even. Add in the observable "facts" that the polar ice is not getting smaller and the sea levels have not risen even remotely as high as has been claimed by AGW supporters over the past decades, and I feel confident in saying it is still just a hypothesis and not a theory or fact. And the photo is obviously doctored.
Comment on global warming changes the Earth (2012-06-13 11:11:11)
First a quick definition: "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis." Secondly, anthropological global warming is not a fact. It's a theory which is hotly debated by scientists worldwide and from recent investigation, more often supported by falsified data. So bog yourself down in nonsense if you like but both the photo and anthropological global warming are bullshit.