Natural banana: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg

God -> Bible -> God. Checkmate!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'check, checkmate, clay' to 'check, checkmate, clay, chess, claymation, pieces, board, game, stop motion' - edited by maatc

Meh.

Just to let everybody know, I STRONGLY suspect that the hillary forum linked above, is filled with false posters. I've been zooming and zipping around the net today and keep seeing the same terminology being used on multiple sites. "Game Set Match" "Checkmate" "gamechanger" etc. It looks to me like the fightin' 101st keyboarders are hard at work.

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.
I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.


Hmm, well, I would still be a little worried about where the money does end up coming from. But it is at least a step in the right direction. Though, I don't think they could ever get on TV without actual sponcers...perhaps radio though.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Ahh, there is a part 3. Cool. Does this news station happen on cable TV? Anyone know what name it would be listed under?

As NetRunner said it's web only. They are still a very new organization and working up to a full cable news program. The special thing about them is they don't accept advertisements, corporate sponsorship or government subsidies. They rely purely on donation from viewers. This means that they are totally independent and can offer Real News. Paul Jay the founder explains it better.

I really hope this model succeeds, but it will need donations.

>> ^Crosswords:
I've been noticing a slight shift in the news media's direction. At first everyone was ZOMG POOR GEORGIA, HOW DARE RUSSIA, and now I'm starting to hear the occasional oh yeah Georgia kind of attacked south Ossetia before Russia invaded.
Also; the Bush administration's prediction for how the situation would develop was wrong?!! Say it ain't so! Seriously have they gotten anything right?


And who even knows if they are getting it right now? It's a mess, most likely never know beyond what people with bias tell us

I'm not so sure they're liberal edged, they take Obama to task pretty hard at times, though they do somewhat buy into the "neocons are crazy warmongers" thing, but IMO that's just the truth.

The guy they're interviewing for this series on US/Russia relations is actually from the American Conservative magazine, which sounds like a funny name for a liberal rag to me. They say he's one of their big donors, too.

TRN is entirely funded by donations, BTW.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's web only. http://www.therealnews.com/


Ahh thanks. They seem to always have kinda a liberal edge, and im more a libritarian. But I remembering watching an interview on BBC and liked the idea of it being non-big business funded. Makes me wonder where they money is coming from though.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's web only. http://www.therealnews.com/


Ahh thanks. They seem to always have kinda a liberal edge, and im more a libritarian. But I remembering watching an interview on BBC and liked the idea of it being non-big business funded. Makes me wonder where they money is coming from though.

>> ^thinker247:
Must you Canadians continually mock our savage ways?


We used to mock the Belgians, but then they started with the "Yo momma" jokes, and we shut up.

Must you Canadians continually mock our savage ways? Maybe we want the banks to tell us to leave when we don't have the funds to cash a check. Maybe we're just a bit masochistic that way.

>> ^Payback:
"72% of GDP was private spending, and 105% was poor people" They need to spend some of that cash on a calculator...
FUN FACT: Up here in the frozen tundras of Canada, a cheque from the government, for any purpose be it tax refund or employment insurance or whatever, is cashed without any fees or charges by the established banks BY LAW. It is even PRINTED on the back of the damn cheque. No bank can refuse to cash it if you have proper GOVERNMENT ID, you need no past history with the bank, and they must cash it, even if you owe them money, they aren't allowed to keep ANY of it.
...and still the retarded masses up here take these cheques to Money Mart and their like for "$6 on a $100". What gets me is the Money Stores make you come up with more proof than a bank would, so it's actually harder and more bothersome to do...

Checkmate!

"God created the bible, so that PROVES he exists! Checkmate!"

Seriously..one of the last things the preacher says is "If i jump off this building here, i'll splatter on the sidewalk. Whether i believe in Gravity or not." How is that, in any way, going to prove his point?

I dont understand the preachers logic. all he's doing is spouting how god "Commands" all men to repent, but if god is as forgiving as everyone says, why wouldnt god just forgive you for sinning anyway?

If god is turly the omnipitent being, why would he force any of his creations to suffer for all eternity, why would he not just forgive them and prove to them the path to light is there when they die?

And if the devil wants people to be evil on earth, why wouldnt he just make hell more appealing to go to?

unless that means god and the devil are working together, but then you'd think "But, if the devil is so evil, why would he work with god, the entire being of light and good, why would a being that evil help god, rather then try and piss him off by sending the evil-doers to heaven to run amock up there?" to me, the entire story is full of little missing details..

Apologies for such a late reply - I've actually been trying to find references to Vernice Kuglin's "demonstrating successfully that she was not aware of the relevant (case) law." I just noticed that you stated "illegal" as opposed to "legal," above.

As for what makes it illegal for her to pay Federal Income Taxes - well, that's quite evident in the Constitution - the Federal government was given no power of taxation over the people. That is what her lawyer argued for her during the case that she won, at least.

In your second paragraph, you note that "The Supreme Court changes the Constitution by offering new ways to interpret it," but just by this statement, you are negating the ninth amendment - that the Supreme Court does not have the power, either, to deny or disparage rights retained by the people - therefore, according to that one amendment, they can only interpret it two ways - in favor of giving people more rights, or of not interpreting it at all.

I want to thank you, actually - and at some point, I need to buy you a drink. You've helped at least myself see a lot of historical relevance in what is about to happen in the United States quite soon - a relevance that otherwise I would have overlooked - that the American people are not going to simply sit back and let happen what will, but will hold debates, in very much the same manner that you and I have now, and will learn what there is to learn about these issues.

I think you minimize the value of the strive for independence of the United States that began with the memes created by the founders of this country, and I don't think you understand just how long of a duration these challenges have lasted. This game has been in play since prior to the founding of this country, and prior to the founding of most every country currently in existence today. Those in opposition to it(the inherent slavery of 70+% of the population) vastly outweigh those that actually favor it - I think people know, now, that this game has been played for too long - far too many see the correlation between the past and the present now.

I also hold the opinion that you have not paid much study to the reason for the independence of this country - "taxation without representation" is the commonly referred term, but, in effect, the founders of this country created it to be independent from the corporatization that was occurring in Britain, as a result of the rise of the Bank of England.

At this point, it's a very long-played game of Chess, and it'll be interesting to see what "checkmate" is.

Again, you point to societal mores that have changed in the past 200 years as evidence that one should not trust or abide by the general theme or the Constitution, nor the basis for which it was created. Fact of the matter is, through legal methods, all people are now counted as onw whole person, and no longer 2/3rds. Why you would bring the same irrelevant statement up again is beyond me.(also, if you haven't noticed, the "President" has been elected by the select few for centuries, as originally, the founders of this country did not have a way to count each and every vote. Nowadays, the popular vote usually guides the electoral, but not always[as in the case of the last 2 Presidential elections])

The Constitution is as much as, if not more, relevant now than it was when it was written. It needs to be updated to account for new developments and technologies made/acquired over the centuries, but it's message has not, and will not, lose "relevance."

But like I said, I owe you a drink.

"If we can hit that bullseye, all the dominos will fall like a house of cards... checkmate!" Comedy gold.

That's a well-researched, thoughtful argument you posit, bl968. But allow me to retort:

"Shut up, shut up, shut up, CUT HIS MIKE."

Game, set, and checkmate.