Congratulations! Your comment on Kids Cover "46 and 2" By Tool and Kill It has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on Kids Cover "46 and 2" By Tool and Kill It has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your video, Kids Cover "46 and 2" By Tool and Kill It, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 6 Badge!

Your video, Kids Cover "46 and 2" By Tool and Kill It, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

About the song from Wikipedia:
The title (46 and 2) references an idea first conceived by Carl Jung and later expounded upon by Drunvalo Melchizedek concerning the possibility of reaching a state of evolution at which the body would have two more than the normal 46 total chromosomes and leave a currently disharmonious state. The premise is that humans would deviate from the current state of human DNA which contains 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes. The next step of evolution would likely result in human DNA being reorganized into 46 and 2 chromosomes, according to Melchizedek.
Furthermore, the song references a wish to experience change through the "shadow"; an idea which represents the parts of one's identity that one hates, fears, and represses, this exists as a recurring theme in the work of Carl Jung.



My shadow's

Shedding skin and
I've been picking
Scabs again.
I'm down
Digging through
My old muscles
Looking for a clue.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own confused
And insecure delusions
For a piece to cross me over
Or a word to guide me in.
I wanna feel the changes coming down.
I wanna know what I've been hiding in

My shadow.
Change is coming through my shadow.
My shadow's shedding skin
I've been picking
My scabs again.

I've been crawling on my belly
Clearing out what could've been.
I've been wallowing in my own chaotic
And insecure delusions.

I wanna feel the change consume me,
Feel the outside turning in.
I wanna feel the metamorphosis and
Cleansing I've endured within

My shadow
Change is coming.
Now is my time.
Listen to my muscle memory.
Contemplate what I've been clinging to.
Forty-six and two ahead of me.

I choose to live and to
Grow, take and give and to
Move, learn and love and to
Cry, kill and die and to
Be paranoid and to
Lie, hate and fear and to
Do what it takes to move through.

I choose to live and to
Lie, kill and give and to
Die, learn and love and to
Do what it takes to step through.

See my shadow changing,
Stretching up and over me.
Soften this old armor.
Hoping I can clear the way
By stepping through my shadow,
Coming out the other side.
Step into the shadow.
Forty six and two are just ahead of me.

Question - anyone know what that sound is at 0:46 and again at 1:46? Some sort of interference? Dit da dit dit da dit, etc.

Both Michaels, 46, and Consiglio, 28, said frustration over the way they were allowed or told to do their jobs — something that has been steadily mounting for the last four years — became too much for them.

“There was a constant disrespecting and belittling of staff and we both felt there was a lack of knowledge from ownership and upper management in running a newsroom to the extent that I was not allowed to structure and direct them professionally,” Michaels explained. “I couldn’t do everything I wanted to as a news director. There was a regular undoing of decisions.”
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/11/20/news/bangor/anchors-away-at-wvii-cindy-michaels-tony-consiglio-resign-on-air/

Also this, from here (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/)

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

I said God allows evil to exist because He gives people the freedom to choose. It is better to have freedom and allow for evil than to have no freedom and be forced to act in a certain way. That in itself would be evil. I also said God can use that reality for beneficial purposes. Just because there is evil doesn't mean that God can't use that to fulfill His purposes. He isn't limited by evil. Evil is not a necessary part of His creation, but since humans keep choosing it, He works with it.

God destroyed the entire world in a flood that left 8 people alive. God is sovereign over His creation and we are under His law, and His judgement. Specifically, His condemnation was against wickedness:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

He is not immoral for enforcing His law on immoral people. You seem to want to argue that people should be allowed to do whatever they want, and anytime God might punish someone, He shouldn't be allowed to. God would be immoral if He just let people do whatever they want..it's because He is just that he has laws that He does enforce.

>> ^Skeeve:
You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.
And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?

You said god allows evil to exist so people will "know" him. If he can stop evil, but does not do so, he is not a good being.

And your morality response is an absolute cop out. As far as we know, Hitler never murdered anyone. But because he ordered the deaths of millions we consider him evil. Your god ordered the deaths of an entire people (1 Sam. 15:2-3), the theft of property (Numbers 31:7-18), the abduction and rape of virgins (Deuteronomy 20:10-14) and the slavery of anyone not born an Israelite (Leviticus 25:44-46) and yet you consider him good? God specifically mentions the people of Samaria and that "their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" (Hosea 13:16). How fucked up do you have to be to think this is a benevolent god?
>> ^shinyblurry:

What I admitted to is that God allows you to have matches, and warns you that you could burn your house down, but if you ignore the warning He will still save your life..and you probably won't play with matches again in the future. If you listened to God you never would have burned your house down in the first place. God created a world in which evil did not exist; that He allowed us to screw up and bring it into the world means we have the freedom to choose. To take that away means we have no choice. What you are advocating is that God doesn't allow you to have matches, or if He does, to continually prevent you from abusing them. That isn't freedom.
As far as God breaking His own commandments, He would really only be subject to two of them, since the rest couldn't apply to Him. Lying, and murder. He never done either. He has never lied. He has killed, but it was never murder. Murder is to kill unlawfully. Under the law the penalty for sin is death. So if you want to point to places in the bible God took life, that was entirely lawful. Over 2 million people are born and die every day..giving and taking life is something God does all the time. That He is patient with us even though we are sinners shows His mercy. That He sent His Son to take our place so we could be forgiven and obtain eternal life shows His love.
>> ^Skeeve:
If I allow someone to burn your house down, only so that I can run in and save you when it is on fire so that you like me, am I a good person? You just admitted that your god does the same thing - allows evil to exist so humans will like him - so how can he be good? Why would anyone worship such a horrible creature?
As for the argument from morality that you have provided, if you provide me with something that is objectively evil, I will provide you with the bible verse in which your evil-ass god commanded someone to do it.>> ^shinyblurry:
Debunked? You're not a very good philosopher if you don't think there are any counter-arguments to this claim. First, the assumption here is that God and evil are mutually incompatible, or that God couldn't use evil to achieve His goals. If the entire purpose of your existence is to know God, and evil facilitates that, then God is capable of using it for beneficial purposes. Second, it presupposes that evil actually exists. So, if there is evil there also must be good, and there must be a moral law differentiating between the two, which leads to a lawgiver.
>> ^Skeeve:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)
This garbage was debunked 2300 years ago.

Always enjoy popping a left wing groupthink bubble... Reagan was correct, and Stewart is dead wrong. It has been repeatedly established that increased taxation results in decreased economic activity, and subsequent strangulation of tax revenue. What Stewart (et al) ignore is that America has the #2 highest business tax rate in the world (39.25%) behind only Japan (39.54%). And then the left wonders why 'evil' companies choose to operate in places like Hong Kong (15%), China (25%) and India (30%).

And the 'evil' rich? Our top tax rate is 39%. That's lower than Germany (49%), Japan (50%), Italy, and the UK (50%) - but it is higher than S. Korea (35%), India (30%), Finland, Argentina, Brazil, et al. The US is very middle of the road (leaning to high) in regards to top tax rates. This is statistical fact as opposed to Stewart rabble-rousing. The top 5% of U.S. wage earners pay over 60% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay a whopping 97.1%. The poor aren't paying squat.

To listen to Stewart you'd think businesses & the rich pay nothing, and the poor are the ones paying all the taxes. That is a left-wing delusion peddled which only the stupid and inattentive could possibly accept. The rich are the ones paying the taxes. So when a tax CUT happens, it is attacked as a 'cut for the wealthy'. Yeah, the wealthy get it because they are the only ones PAYING it. The only place you can 'cut' taxes for the poor & middle class is gasoline, state, social security, medicare, and medicaid. And yet oddly, no one on the left ever proposes alleviating THAT tax burden.

When you make a nation a friendly environment for business and wealth it results in wages, jobs, industry, growth, and (yes) TAX REVENUE. The "tax the rich to prosperity" concept the left ascribes NEVER works. A heavily taxed wealthy class combined with a low/un-taxed middle & poor class results in a disincentivized lower & middle class, inflation, depression, stagnation, low productivity, shrinking population, business flight, and eventual economic collapse.

Everything Stewart says here is baloney. No one is saying "no taxes on the rich and kill the poor!". Fiscal Conservativism advocates reasonable, sensible economic policy friendly to business, investment, and wealth. Such a method benefits everyone. America became great because it welcomed and rewarded business, wealth, ingenuity, creativity, and hard work. Countries like Germany (52% taxes) the UK (50%), France (50%), Italy (46%) and so on are the ones that have screwed up royally by stifling these attributes in their populations via socialization.

>> ^rich_magnet:
Pause it at 0:46 and see how many subliminal religious icons you can count. Very pan-theistic this Scientology.


That's nothing, pause it at 0:23 for some real Tyler Durden mischief.

Pause it at 0:46 and see how many subliminal religious icons you can count. Very pan-theistic this Scientology.

Who are these people and what positions do they hold?

1. @0:00
2. @4:30 standing next to Michelle Obama
3. @6:02
4. @8:33 next to Hillary
5. @8:43
6. @10:33
7. @11:29
8. @11:58
9. @12:45
10. @14:27
11. @15:53
12. @18:42
13. @19:43 what is he reading
14. @20:25
15. @22:05
16. @22:59
17. @23:01
18. @24:01
19. @25:17
20. @26:10
21. @26:39
22. @26:55
23. @28:12
24. @28:44
25. @28:46
26. @29:54
27. @30:40
28. @33.33
29. @34:03
30. @35:38
31. @36:24
32. @38:16
33. @38:34
34. @40:24
35. @46:16
36. @47:41 All four of them
37. @47:46 and them to
38. @48:03 The kid in uniform shaking hands
39. @49:14
40. @49:52
41. @51:50
42. @53:55