>> ^heropsycho:

The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?




And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:

-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)

-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)

-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)

-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)

These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.




As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)

Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)

Is this not terrorism?

Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?

There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)

Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)

Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^Sagemind:

Give in to your inner 14-year-old!
You're sounding like an old man trying to justify away your inhibitions.:P
Movies like this are a 14-year old fantacy. It's a delve into all that is comic book cool. Super power invincibility, Cyberpunk, Steam Punk, Mech-Warriors, Martial Arts, Sci-Fi, Ancient Wisdom, Fighting for your life, Frailty, Wisdom, Sensuality, Sacrifice, Cute girls, Fantasy, Thoughts within thoughts and so much more. Like the ogre said, "The onion has layers!"
"Let's have hot chicks! with guns! fighting samurai! with more guns! and dragons!" - YES, Lets!
If you go into this movie, leave behind your common-sense brain and take with you, your fourteen-year-old brain. If you expect reality, you're watching the wrong movie!
>> ^ChaosEngine:
while there's no doubting Snyders technical skill, he really has no original ideas at all. This movie played like it was written by a 14 year old boy. Let's have hot chicks! with guns! fighting samurai! with more guns! and dragons!
Honestly, I went into it expecting mindless fun, so my standards weren't high. But not only was it boring, it was downright creepy, like watching an old man hit on a teenage girl.
edit: actually while I'm on this soapbox.... the costumes on the lead actress were borderline paedophilia. And she was rubbish.



The merits of hot chicks (babydolls creepiness aside) fighting dragons, steampunk nazis, etc are lost on me. Which was why it was so surprising that the whole thing was boring at best and lurid at worst.

Even watching the action sequences, you're aware that what you're actually watching is a fantasy within a fantasy. At one layer removed you are watching women forced into sex slavery and "reality" is not much better.

If you wanted to make a straight up action movie, with awesome set-pieces and a ridiculous plot, go for it. But what plot there was made the whole thing feel seedy.

I tried, believe me. I went with a bunch of mates. We had beer and ribs beforehand. And we still came out genuinely wondering if Snyder was that stupid.

Or maybe not...

and here is really the only excuse I can give this. Maybe it's meant to be creepy and weird. There's a infinitesimal chance that there is actually a meta-narrative, that the whole thing is a work of subversive genius; a commentary on how comfortable we are with fetishizing things that are in many ways genuinely wrong.

But somehow, I doubt it.

Give in to your inner 14-year-old!
You're sounding like an old man trying to justify away your inhibitions.:P

Movies like this are a 14-year old fantacy. It's a delve into all that is comic book cool. Super power invincibility, Cyberpunk, Steam Punk, Mech-Warriors, Martial Arts, Sci-Fi, Ancient Wisdom, Fighting for your life, Frailty, Wisdom, Sensuality, Sacrifice, Cute girls, Fantasy, Thoughts within thoughts and so much more. Like the ogre said, "The onion has layers!"

"Let's have hot chicks! with guns! fighting samurai! with more guns! and dragons!" - YES, Lets!

If you go into this movie, leave behind your common-sense brain and take with you, your fourteen-year-old brain. If you expect reality, you're watching the wrong movie!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

while there's no doubting Snyders technical skill, he really has no original ideas at all. This movie played like it was written by a 14 year old boy. Let's have hot chicks! with guns! fighting samurai! with more guns! and dragons!
Honestly, I went into it expecting mindless fun, so my standards weren't high. But not only was it boring, it was downright creepy, like watching an old man hit on a teenage girl.
edit: actually while I'm on this soapbox.... the costumes on the lead actress were borderline paedophilia. And she was rubbish.

But we all agreed that it was wrong to instaban bk33 (well, except for Burd).

The question becomes for you. @campionidelmondo -- How do you feel about being clear that what was said was inappropriate and if it were repeated, bk33 would be banned? Leaving it up to @bobknight33 to decide if he cares more about making racist "jokes" than he cares about continuing to be part of this community?

I really want to know your answer, if you are interested in delving back into this comment stream....

there are some things in life that will always remain constant.
the sky is blue.
the sun will rise..
and burdy will always get his panties tied in a knot about something or other that offended his tender sensibilities.
why?
because they are tender.
and yeah..BK could be a flaming dickwad but he was OUR flaming dickwad.
why ban when you can delve into utter humiliation?
more effective and faaar more entertaining.
banning is BOOORING.

I was apprehensive at first about 3 products but it is standard Blizzard format - they just decided to put the word out there before launch. I'm definitely not complaining now because Starcraft 2 is immensely replayable - one of the best game purchases I've made in years. I love the fact that you have to learn Blizzard games - what seems shallow at first glance actually has a fine degree of mechanics to it that the player can delve into if they want. And not to sound like a Blizzard fanboi because I am, but everything they release is incredibly well done & fine tuned (don't tell that to the WoW players) so I'm sure each expansion will have a bunch of innovations - big and small.

Though, my favorite expansion out of all Blizzard game expansions was Diablo II: Lord of Destruction with it's 800X600 glory. I was a little bothered by Diablo II because to me - at least on the rig I had at the time, the graphics didn't look as sharp as Diablo 1.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

@xxovercastxx

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?

>> ^shinyblurry:

3. What was your question?
Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.


You can quote the Bible all you want and tell us how you understand it, but without apologetics I'm afraid you've lost this crowd.

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.

atlas shrugged is one helluva pig of a book.
rand may be have been many things but it seems writer was not one of them.
this movie appears to follow in her inept footsteps.

her philosophy makes sense when you factor in the world she grew up in but i still find her philosophies bordering on sociopathy.
atlas shrugged tends to delve into the land of hyperbole far too much for my tastes.add to that the incredibly inept writing and reading that book becomes an exercise in stamina.
i do tend to agree with her stance that those who are willing to risk should reap the rewards..be they either good ..or bad but i tend to shy away when her philosophy takes that shrill note of "fuck you..i got mine".
go..
be productive.take chances..make all the money you desire.
but at what cost?
this is the question she never really addresses and is one of the main reasons i dismiss her philosophies.
they are entirely one dimensional and ignore so many factors as to be considered almost infantile in scope.

her entire philosophy can be broken down to one statement:
greed is good.
and i disagree with that statement.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION -- NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other's countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada's well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics --
especially in the 2008 Presidential race -- and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that "you
have to put an end on these things." The Liberals -- and
many media commentators -- seized on this as a major
Conservative "flip flop," with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that "I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007" and that "the
Conservatives can't be trusted on Afghanistan; they can't be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can't be trusted
on the economy." He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that "I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas."

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
"core" Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with "other international players"
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that "voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty -- do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?" The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the "worst
performing economy in the G8," while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP's Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are "the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track," but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
"top-to-bottom" review of Canada's regulatory system -- not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his "Green Shift" plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

"both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too." PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a "carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector" and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, "greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries." NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper "has no plan" while
"Dion's plan is wrong and won't work," unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who "clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don't," which he said had also been
"proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain."

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada's role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important -- and successful -- to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a "clone of
George W. Bush." Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

I'm not sure why I've never thought about it before, especially because I enjoy both genres for the same exact reason; rap and punk rock are parallels. evolving at the same time, with the same underlying message. often intimidating, foul mouth, anti-authoritarian messages from frustrated, disenfranchised youth. evolving under ground and the marketable parts of course creeping up for mass consumption, some becoming undeniably influential to culture at large (the clash, the ramones, NWA, public enemy, etc) and some delving into a complete absurdity and bullshit. and both still alive and well, both in their trumped up, for popular culture forms and in their raw forms on the street, drinking malt liquor, dressing outrageously and screaming "fuck the police".

how incredibly fucking beautiful!

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Okay. I know last year I took you for more a religiously indoctrinated theist.
Tho since you posted this I think I have you pegged more as one of my 311 lovin', new age spiritualist, hippie peers.
I know you guys all really want consciousness to be a fundamental unit of time and space..
..but it's not. There's no need.
Consciousness is simply the result of the electrical impulses that shoot from one cell to another.
No matter, no cells, no consciousness.
I think you guys just reeeeally want to think that your existence is more meaningful.
And that's alright but it's a waste of time & brain power.
You'll never know one way or the other.. so why waste so much thought on the assumption?


so because i posted a deepak chopra video it MUST mean this is my philosophy?
i posted a video about conjuring annubus..does that mean i practice solomonic magik also?
your logic is flawed genji.
i do not have to agree with deepak chopra to find his conflations interesting or see poetry in a persons desire to understand things that may be out of their reach.
the answers may change over time but i will always find the question FAR more interesting.it appears by your comment that we should not even ask the question,though you do not judge this either good nor bad...just futile..because we cannot know.
i disagree violently with that train of thought because if we dont ASK the question,the process to reaching an answer never starts and we risk stagnation.
we need to ask the questions...any question... and strive to answer that question.

what IS consciousness?
you say "Consciousness is simply the result of the electrical impulses that shoot from one cell to another."
now i disagree with that statement simply for its incompleteness but allow me to point out that your quote is not an answer but rather a statement pertaining to bio-mechanics but does not answer the question of consciousness.

as for me being a religiously indoctrinated theist...
uh...no.
i am vehemently anti-religion and while i have many reasons for this one of my main problems with organized religion is the stagnation of humanity,mentally as well as spiritually.
religion limits.
it confines and constrains the human spirit to a tiny ball of doctrine.
while religion does give some people a sense of peace and comfort,it is not the religious people that i am speaking of but rather the hiearchal doctrine makers of the church elite who perpetuate doctrine to keep people fearful and submissive in order to keep themselves relevant.
i teach cultural religious history NOT to perpetuate this system but rather to give a broader context using historical text that chips away at the doctrine put forth by the church as the UN-erring word of god.
i challenge the fundamentalist mentality that traps the imagination and stagnates the mind.
i seek to free my fellow man from the confines of religion.

i am a man of faith yet i am part of a community which is mostly atheist.
ever wonder why?
i dont preach..
i never attempt to convert..well..anyone.
you will never see me chastise a person for lacking faith or having faith in something i disagree with.
so why would i frequent a site populated by atheists?
statistics have shown that people tend to congregate with like-minded people..so what the fuck am i doing here?

one last thing before i go and this becomes a blog and no longer a comment.
a piece of advice in your future evaluation of people.
your first impression of me was that of me being a religious person and then it changed to me being a hippie new-ager,both were wrong.
the reason is presuming the intentions based solely (and simply) on a persons posts and random comments.
this is very....human,,but it also conflates perfectly to our discussion:consciousness.
now how could you possibly have a picture of me based on such little information?
quite simple..you based your deduction on your own prejudices and biases.
how did you get these biases? living,experiencing and learning.
but those biases had little..or nothing..to do with me.
so while presumption and assumption are integrally human and something we do naturally,it behooves us to refrain from following the first base impression and instead delve deeper.you WILL be surprised at what people will reveal to you (not always but often enough).

i hope this comment is received with the respect that was intended.
always a pleasure genji.
and thanks for the vote even though you disagreed with the content..very cool of you my friend.

*class bell rings* "Alright, well; If any of you are interested in delving deeper into the topic of atmospheric pressure, I have a more powerful vacuum and and an amazing latex Vacbed at home..."