"They're on a buildup to detonation!"

"We'll beam aboard and stop it."

"You can't."

"Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we're all dead!"

Awesome flick.

Why is he singing about this white-trash shit aboard this sweet boat, anyhow?

In reply to this comment by ant:
Thanks. Welcome aboard. I love your kitten avatar. ;

In reply to this comment by PlayhousePals:
Hey now, you're pretty dexterous for Just an Ant! Thought I'd pop in and say hello. I've seen your distinctive red ant icon enjoying some of the same videos that I do. Enjoy your weekend!



That's my lil' Jake Fender, the youngest of my furry trio. He is VERY expressive as you can see

I used to be like: "come on... bieber's just a kid doing his thing, leave him be. who gives a fuck?"

but since after I watched an interview with him last week in which he said, and I shit you not, he had made his latest album (a christmas one) because god had come to him in a dream, and told him to.

.....................

8-o

Fuck you bieber. FUCK YOU. I'm all aboard the Bieber hate-train now.

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

You're right, the first wave of settlers weren't strongly committed Christians, although one of the first things they did upon arriving was join the Rev. Robert Hunt in a communion service. However everything else is the complete opposite of what you said. Indeed, John Rolfe was the first to establish the colony, but what you've left out is that he was a deeply committed Christian! He is the one who converted Pocahontas to Christianity and took her as a bride. He had a Christian purpose for Jamestown such as to "advance the Honor of God, and to propagate his Gospel." He also said:

"no small hope by piety, clemency, courtesy and civil demeanor to convert and bring to the knowledge and true worship of Jesus Christ 1000s of poor wretched and misbelieving people: on whose faces a good Christian cannot look, without sorrow, pity and commiseration; seeing they bear the Image of our heavenly Creator, and we and they come from one and the same mold. . ."

So yes, Christianity was there at the outset, and it continued to be the prevailing influence in shaping this country.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

If you won't listen to me, listen to the library of congress:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html


>> ^Hive13

@shinyblurry:

The Mayflower and the people aboard her were a deeply religious sect of people that did indeed flee to the colonies to practice their religion. I fully understand that.

What you, and most cherry-picking christians fail to acknowledge is that the Mayflower crew was not the first nor the second or even the third permanent settlement in the new world. Jamestown, roughly 20 years prior was established without pretense of religion by wealthy Europeans hoping to find gold. The were ill-equipped and not manual laborers so to speak and that's why the first Jamestown settlement was in dire straights. A second crew arrived and began growing tobacco, which, at the time, the sale of tobacco seeds was outlawed outside of Spain. John Rolfe acquired some and thus established the first functional, economically viable colony at Jamestown a full six years before the Mayflower even sailed from England.

Economy, money and enterprise is what established America, not some freedom from religious persecution as, again, Americans have been force fed for years.

I am not discounting what the pilgrims did at Plymouth. They did amazing things, especially with the Indians. I just want to clear that Plymouth was not what founded the colonies. They were not the first and were one of many.

Rear Admiral Yancy Graham: "Now, call me a prude if you want, but I don't think it's good policy for the Navy to hand over a billion-dollar piece of equipment to a man who has "Welcome Aboard" tattooed on his penis."

>> ^quantumushroom:

Awesome beats, rapping meh. A good effort.


Oh, an expert, great to have you aboard.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
HURRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
All aboard the HURR train.

HURRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
All aboard the HURR train.

All aboard the HURR train.

@marbles:

First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is. When two or more people agree to commit a crime, fraud, or some other wrongful act, it is a conspiracy. Not in theory, but in reality. Grow up, it happens.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but I used the term conspiracy theory, not conspiracy. Conspiracy theory has a separate and more strongly suggestive definition (this one from Merriam-Webster): "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators."

I openly acknowledge that the government of the United States has and does commit conspiracies, as you define the word. (You mentioned Operation Northwoods in a separate comment; a post on Letters of Note from few weeks ago may be of interest to you, too, if you haven't already seen it: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/08/possible-actions-to-provoke-harrass-or.html.) The actions described therein, and other such actions, I would aptly describe as conspiracies (were they to be enacted).

Definitions aside, my problem with posts like that of @blastido_factor is that most of their so-called conspiracies are easily debunked. They're old chestnuts. A few minutes' worth of Google searches can disprove them.

It may be helpful to distinguish between what I see as the two main "conspiracies" surrounding 9/11: (1) that 9/11 was, to put it briefly, an "inside job," and (2) that certain members of the government of the United States conspired to use the events of 9/11 as justification for a series of military actions (many of which are ongoing) against people and countries that were, in fact, uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The first I find no credible evidence for. The second I consider a more tenable position.


The Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world and somehow over an hour after 4 planes go off course/stop responding to FAA and start slamming into buildings, that somehow one is going to be able to fly into a no-fly zone unimpeded and crash into the Pentagon without help on the inside?

Once again, much of what you mention can be attributed to poor communication between the FAA and the government agencies responsible for responding to the attacks (and, for that matter, between the various levels of government agencies). And again, this is one of the major criticism levied by the various 9/11 investigations. From page forty-five of the 9/11 Commission: "The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet."

Furthermore, it seems to me that one of the biggest mistakes made by a lot of the conspiracy theorists who fall into the first cateory (see above) is that they judge the events of 9/11 in the context of post-9/11 security. National security, on every level, was entirely different before 9/11 than it is now. That's not to say that the possibility of this kind of attack wasn't considered within the intelligence community pre-9/11. We know that it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate). But was anyone adequately prepared to handle it? No.

In any event, when's the last time you looked at a map of Washington, DC? If you look at a satellite photo, you'll notice that the runways at Ronald Reagan airport are, literally, only a few thousand feet away from the Pentagon. Was a no-fly zone in place over Washington by 9:37 AM? I honestly don't know. But it's misleading to suggest that planes don't routinely fly near the Pentagon. They do.


And how did two giant titanium engines from a 757 disintegrate after hitting the Pentagon's wall? They were able to find the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board the flight, but only small amounts of debris from the plane?

In truth, I don't know enough about ballistics to speak for how well a titanium engine would withstand an impact with a reinforced wall at hundreds of miles an hour. But, if you're suggesting that a plane never hit the building, here's a short list of what you're wilfully ignoring: the clipped light poles, the damage to the power generator, the smoke trails, the hundreds of witnesses, the deaths of everyone aboard Flight 77, and the DNA evidence confirming the identities of 184 of the Pentagon's 189 fatalities (64 of which were the passengers on Flight 77).

Regarding the debris: It's misleading to claim that only small amounts of debris were recovered. This from Allyn E. Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer on the scene: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts." In addition, there are countless photos of plane wreckage both inside and outside the building (http://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+wreckage).


Black boxes are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition. Each jet had 2 recorders and none were found?

You help prove my point with this one: "almost always located." Again, I'm no expert on the recovery of black boxes, but here's a point to consider: if the black boxes were within the rubble at the WTC site, you're looking to find four containers that (undamaged, nonetheless) are roughly the size of two-liter soda bottles amidst the rubble of two buildings, each with a footprint of 43,000 square feet and a height of 1,300 feet (for a combined volume of 111,000,000 cubic feet, or 3,100,000,000 liters). (You might want to check my math. And granted, that material was enormously compacted when the towers collapsed. But still, it's a large number. And it doesn't include any of the space below ground level or any of the other buildings that collapsed.) Add to that the fact that they could have been damaged beyond recognition by the collapse of the buildings and the subsequent fires. To me, that hardly seems worthy of conspiracy.


Instead we invaded Afghanistan and started waging war against the same people we trained and armed in the 80s, the same people Reagan called freedom fighters. Now we call them terrorists for defending their own sovereignty.

Here, finally, we find some common ground. I couldn't agree more. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more ardent critic of America's foreign policy.

>> ^marbles:
First you need to acknowledge what a conspiracy is ...

Starting? I've been frothing for years now. Anyway, welcome aboard the outrage train. Woo woo!

>> ^bareboards2:

But surely you don't downvote every vid that isn't funny to you?
I thought a downvote meant active disapproval and censure, not a difference in taste?
Your downvote of my first vid I understood -- it was pretty out there and I knew that folks might be offended by it (although I hoped not.)
This vid was innocuous, I thought.
Of course, you are free to downvote whatever you like -- I am still learning the ways and the byways of the Sift. I was just deeply surprised by it.
Ah well. It was the Mammaltron's first vid -- maybe that is the true mark of arrival, being downvoted by ant!


>> ^ant:
>> ^bareboards2:
@ant! Why would you downvote this one?
Well, it doesn't matter -- the Dread Red was removed before this poor video went backwards....

It wasn't funny to me.



I do downvote anything I don't like even if they are unfunny.

BTW, welcome aboard. I do mostly upvote.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I concur. All aboard the Upboat! Toot!>> ^bleedmegood:

anyone with balls enough to post a video such as this on the sift deserves an upvote. troll or not, I hope i can help you on your way to losing that nasty red P of shame....