He wasn't being a dick. He just wasn't telling these kids were little angels who get everything right (even when they're wrong).

He wasn't afraid to also teach them a bit of humility.

BTW, this was my favorite show growing up.

Primarily they are douche bags. /endsarcasm I say this from years of experience, both good and bad. Plenty of nice ones, but for every good cop there are a couple impatient asshole cop doing an arbitrary job at keeping the peace. But, really, the common denominator is that they are human. So I'm fair in my judgement and so I have decided to point my hate at most humans. Tolerate most people, yes, for the most part. If cops were a showed their humility as public servants, admitting to their poor decisions as they recognized them, then unacceptable behavior can be easily forgiven. Unfortunately pride fucks with even the best of mankind's heads.

Cops shouldn't let their personality quirks inform their decisions as law enforcement. Sort of like rulers should be philosopher kings. It's not realistic to think that this will change all that much over the years, but it is realistic to try and at least confirm to others that most interactions with cops will NOT end in your favor. They will, however, protect the shit out of you when actual f'ed up criminals show up. It's just a shame that (often) they take out the time in between on the common citizens, who could use some firm law enforcement without the macho bullshit.

My judgement is based off of the frequency of my interaction where I either should not have been at fault or was at fault in one way or another and treated as if I were were a hardened criminal, my opinion minimized and was downright insulted by their candid and inappropriate comments. (I was once derided for getting into an accident with my mother's car when I was 19. "You're still driving your mama's car?" That really helped my mental state after climbing from the now upside down wreckage.) There were several occasions where I was completely at fault and, in fact, most of these times I had a fairly nice and patient cop. But the number of bad interactions at inappropriate times outweighs this, so I can only assume that there are more bad cops than good.

>> ^valorumguygee:

Then stop going online. Assuming that all cops are like the ones specifically pointed out in videos about abuse is foolish and makes you look uninformed and silly.
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Zaibach:
>> ^mxxcon:
>> ^Bruti79:
Those cops must be tired of dealing with that guy.
TOO FUCKING BAD. Cops are getting PAID to respond to calls. IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, GET ANOTHER JOB. Powerhungry self-centered control freaks want this society to walk on their toes around cops. Fuck them!

Looks like someone got arrested recently lol!
nope, just getting more and more tired seeing power abuse.

Bragging about his humility was hilarious.

We're through the looking glass here, people.

I think the only way to do it is for crtlaltbleach to kill it and then ant to take the embed and fix his dead vid with it.

This requires humility, mutual respect and maturity - not what the internet is for.

>> ^kymbos:

This is fascinating. Is the fundamental religious critique of presidents focussed on their interpersonal behaviour because God is deciding on their policies and those aren't up for debate?
Maybe God is making Obama 'rude' to people too - should you be judging that?


The policies are up to debate, especially those which contradict Gods word, however the man himself should be respected. I don't have to agree with him, but I respect him because God put him there (and also because he is a human being made in the image of God). There is a good example of that from scripture regarding Daniels friends..you can see that even though they did not agree with the Kings policy, and were sentenced to death, they still treated him with honor and humility (because his authority was ordained by God):

Daniel 3:14-30

Nebuchadnezzar answered and said to them, “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image that I have made, well and good.c But if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.d But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was usually heated. And he ordered some of the mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their cloaks, their tunics,e their hats, and their other garments, and they were thrown into the burning fiery furnace. Because the king’s order was urgent and the furnace overheated, the flame of the fire killed those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace.

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He declared to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” He answered and said, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace; he declared, “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men. The hair of their heads was not singed, their cloaks were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Nebuchadnezzar answered and said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set asidef the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins, for there is no other god who is able to rescue in this way.” Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

" We are both blessed with an amazing talent, and we are proud to present this work of art"

Confidence comes out of humility, not arrogance. Saying she is amazingly talented reflects poorly on her.

You're welcome, but I think you took a wrong turn somewhere when you followed that link, because Hitchens lost that debate pretty badly. Don't get me wrong, because I think Hitchens did win most of his debates, if only on his rhetorical abilities, but on that one he floundered..which is particularly clear when watching from 1:19:00 or so when he was subject to direct questioning by Craig.

In any case, the fallacious claims are all on your side, considering the rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. Congratulations, you defeated me in your imagination..did you get a boost of self-esteem? I also wonder how a self-described militant antitheist could escape the label of zealotry?

Let's say that I told you that I buried one million dollars somewhere in your neighborhood, and I gave you the GPS coordinates for its location. I also told you that if you didn't dig up the money within 48 hours, it would go back into my bank account. The GPS coordinates are very convenient to your location and are on public property. All you would have to do is go and check it out for yourself.

But, instead of going over to the location to dig, you start doing some research. You interview a lot of people in the neighborhood and you find out that no one actually saw me bury the money. You also find out that many other people have claimed to have buried treasure in the past, and many of those claims have turned out to be false. Further, on the basis of speculation as to what I was doing that day, you dig around many other locations where I was said to have been. After this, you finally come to the GPS location and look for forensic evidence, such as foot prints, that I was there. You test the malleability of the dirt at the location to see if it feels like it had been dug in recently. In that 48 hour time period, you do absolutely everything except putting your shovel into the ground and directly investigating the claim. At the end of the time period, you tell me that on the basis of your investigation, you have rejected my claim as false. I take you over to the location, dig up a suitcase and show you the money. It would have been yours if you had just taken a leap of faith and spent 5 minutes of your time investigating it.

Do you think the way you investigated this made any sense? If not, then why you do you think that the way you investigate the question of Jesus Christ makes any sense? You want to investigate it on your own terms, in your own way, stubbornly refusing to even consider the only actual way you would find evidence for the claim; the way that He told us to find Him. In all the time you have ever invested in this, you have refused to do the one thing that could yield up the truth. Does that make sense?

Jesus specifically said you wouldn't find any evidence for God any other way. He said He is the only way, and if you want to know God, you have to go through Him. Why are you so against actually testing His claim to see if it is true? Do you think the Lord of all Creation is incapable of proving His existence to you? Is it because you would feel silly? Isn't it worth feeling silly for a few minutes to potentially gain an eternal reward? Isn't it worth stepping outside your comfort zone for a few minutes to potentially avoid an eternal consequence? The only thing which is stopping you is pride.

I wasn't spoon fed anything; I was agnostic for most of my life. I had no predisposition towards Christianity, and actually many against it. I was opposed to religion in general, and the claims of Christianity in particular. I did just what you're doing; I dismissed it, thinking I knew enough about it to rule it out, when it was all just based on my superficial understanding. My proof constituted a few verses taken out of context, my rejection of any judgment for my sins, and the hypocripsy I had seen in Christians in general. Yet, it wasn't evidence at all, it was simply what I preferred to be true.

Yet, God was merciful to me. He drew me near to His Son, and when I finally gave my life to Him, Jesus revealed Himself to me. He will do the same for you, if you came to Him in humility and asked Him into your life. If you just asked Him what the real truth is, instead of arrogantly believing that you have it all figured out, He would show it to you. He makes it plain to everyone that He exists, it's just that people write these things off or deny them to themselves because they don't want to submit to God. They don't want to believe it is true.

Only God can reveal Himself to someone; I can only point to Him. No amount of argument is going to give you faith. You have to choose to want to know Him, to want to know what the actual truth is. It's something that happens in your heart, when you desire to know the love of God, and you simply do not have any idea how much He loves you. It is what you are here on Earth for, to know that love of His; to be in relationship with your Creator.

I pray that you learn that and understand that. You have to realize that you don't actually know either way. Step outside your comfort zone and listen to your conscience, because it witnesses against you that you have sinned against a holy God. There is forgiveness for you, but it is your choice to receive it or not.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
I honestly don't know why I bother... oh well, here goes.
First off, thank you for the Hitchens video, I don't think I had see that one yet. Now I've seen it though, I see that Hitchens once again quite successfully defends against the vapid, circle jerk arguments which assert proof without evidence. In fact a Hitchensism comes to mind that I quite enjoy, which states that, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Good stuff. Simple. Easy to put to use.
Take for example Shiny's ridiculous assertion about Hitchens being in his make-believe after life.
Shiny: Oh no, the after life is real and you're going to burn in hell fire. I know it's real because the bible says it's so and the bible is the truth.
Inquiry: How do you know it's the truth?
Shiny: Because the bible says it's the truth.
Inquiry: What evidence do you have that it's the truth?
Shiny: The bible says it's the truth.
No evidence. Fallacious claim dismissed.
You may choose different words to express yourself, but this is the very essence of your circle jerk argument and like all other apologists and zealots, it proves nothing except your willingness to accept something without evidence.
You contribute nothing.
You advance nothing.
Your words are empty.
You merely wretch up that which was fed to you...
...and I have no appetite for your absurdly limited menu.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Most of the videos you have posted are home videos, which are generally discouraged on this site. There is a site rule about not self posting which was designed specifically to keep the home videos to a minimum, but you have found a creative work around by group voting each others submissions. Also, overly cutesy comments in large volume (e.g. "That kitty is a little slice of heaven." "With whip cream" "Don't forget the cherry on top" "mmm...cherries" "Kitty Sundae!" "lolzers") may not go over so well.
VS is a complex culture, and like any culture you should approach it with humility until you have earned the respect of the community. After that, you are welcome to come up with all the wild probie conspiracy theories you like. If you act aggressive or entitled like silverpoint16 did, you may run into trouble.
Happy trails.

Yeah, new guys! Our local stupid cat video cabal already has it's own voting group AND our own Queen of Cutesy Comments who already generates large volumes of vacuous drivel. So, until you've earned our respect by regularly upvoting said drivel and the accompanying videos, just watch your step! There's only so much * Cute to go around, and we were here FIRST!

I'm not a sinner. Your lot invented the concept either to claim superiority and power over others, or as a device to beat yourselves up with, and I simply don't accept your judgement. If God existed, then yes, I would have broken his laws many times. But he doesn't (see, that's my own assertion), so there's nothing to break. You certainly don't know better.

According to the word of God, you are a sinner. According to the word of God, I am a sinner. The difference between you and me is, I have asked God to forgive me, and have chosen to serve Him the rest of my days. I'm not on a powertrip; I'm no better than you are, or anyone else. God doesn't show partiality between persons. Whether you admit to being a sinner or not, you have done what is called sin. It doesn't make you any less guilty if you acknowledge or not.

It's not nihilism. It's just nature. Nothing's more natural than that. I know what wrong sex is. I don't do that. I am well in control, or certainly more than Mr. O'Neal appeared to be. And why would I limit myself simply because it's enjoyable? I like bacon, beer, ice cream and riding my bicycle. They all give me extreme pleasure and no suffering. Should I stop doing them simply because they give me pleasure? That makes no sense. No more sense than giving up sex would, considering I don't accept your assertions about God, and so neither do I accept your judgement of me.

You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters. The reason fornication is wrong, among other things, is because sex is a spiritual marriage between two people. When you join together with someone, you become one flesh. God designed sex to be between married couples only. God isn't against pleasure; my point was is that you do what makes you feel good; that is your priority. That is an inherently selfish mindset. Also, moral relativism is essentially nihilism.

Your religion is controlling your mind. I too am at rest in terms of my morality. As I've probably said to you in other threads, I'd love to know of some God-type thing, but just choosing to accept one religions's dogma isn't the way.

You would love to know God, that is, if He didn't require anything of you. It is because He requires you to modify your behavior that you don't know Him. God makes His existence plain to everything; you reject God because you don't want to know Him. You are suppressing the truth.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

Your idea of truth is something we can never really know for sure. In a word, relativism. Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it.

The word of God is inexaustible. There is more truth there than any person could discover in many lifetimes. Neither am I trying to bend the world to make it fit scripture. Scripture perfectly describes the condition of man, the nature of reality, and the spiritual realm. The world is only comprehensible through scripture.

You say I have the nerve to state what I believe to be true, yet you feel free to tell me I am wrong. You've made your unprovable assertion, the presupposition that there is no God, and from there you dismiss every claim to the contrary, with no evidence; there is nothing there except pathological skepticism.

We're all bad people, because we have all sinned. You think I am pointing the finger at you, which isn't true. All human beings have fallen short of the grace of God. I'm no different. I preach the gospel because I care what happens to you, and everyone else who doesn't know the Lord. You perceive it, incorrectly, as an attack (because the message convicts you), but they are actually the words that lead to life.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.

I absolutely believe Jesus Christ is God, that is true, and why do you think this is something I need to apologize for? You don't believe God is real, but I know that He is, and those who know Him of course will absolutely attest to the fact that He exists and that He loves you and has a plan for your life. You accuse me of not being humble when you are basing your criticism on your own presupposition, that there is no God. According to your own definition of humility, that is a very arrogant thing for you to say.

Your issue is that you believe the truth is some kind of unknowable morass and no one really knows what is going on. That's because your comprehension of the truth is that it's unknowable morass and you don't know what's really going on. Atheism is a religion for people who have no experience with God. The truth is knowable, and you could know God today, if you would serve Him. The fact that you won't is the reason you don't know Him. You regard your personal autonomy as more valuable than what is actually true; you prefer an illusion of control.

>> ^messenger:

I'm with you all the way about other people's frameworks. I love --LOVE-- talking to people who are figuring the truth out by any means, especially by means that are different from mine, or that seem opposed to mine. In fact, I love it so much that I've spent probably around 10,000 words (not an exaggeration) around the Sift in dialogue just with Shinyblurry alone --most of it very civil, and the majority of it (around 7,000 words) in this one vid's comment thread-- so I'd say that I have given him more than a fair shake.

My problem with SB is twofold: first, from where I stand, he is not trying to find any truth because, as he will tell you, he believes he already has complete access to all "The Truth" in the Bible and in his direct personal contact with God, and the book cannot be questioned, and neither can the nature of his "communication", so he's trying to make the planet, including us, change to fit his Truth, rather than the other way around; and second, he has the nerve tell us all that he's right, and so we're bad people --he literally calls us bad people-- for choosing to guide our lives by hearts rather than accepting the bible of his religion as the living word of God, which is demonstrably false -- or at least as false as any metaphysical claim can ever be "demonstrated" to be.

If he had the humility, at least, to say he can never be sure that his evidence is true, but that's what he very strongly believes, AND to act that way towards others, then he would be a very valuable contributor in these parts for adding his different view to our frequent comment threads on religious topics. But he doesn't do that. He talks humble, and in the same breath tells us without qualification that we are "fallen," and "degenerate". People slinging insults like that around should expect swift treatment from those he's insulting, and should be surprised and getting less respect than I have already shown him. I don't care what anybody's framework is, nothing gives you the moral authority to put other people down.>> ^heropsycho:

I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

It's so ironic that most of those republicans booing him claim to be Christian. The most central teachings of Jesus were nonviolence, pacifism, charity, anti-hypocrisy, humility, and the golden rule (which sort of implies the first four). In short, the exact opposite of what these republicans want from a politician. Read the sermon on the plain and the sermon on the mount. Those are the actual teachings of Jesus. The rest of the new testament is trivialities and supernatural horseshit.

I really find it hard to agree with someone who argues that because it was made available you should not be upset when someone takes from it and wastes it.

I mean we're talking a lot of money here, and they turned around and paid out bonuses and went on vacations with that money. Never mind they pay it back without interest, they used the profits gained from that money to benefit themselves. And now turn around and say they need more cash to "create jobs".......what's stopping them from using bonuses and corporate vacation costs to create those jobs? A million dollar bonus would certainly cover hiring extra employees for a number of years.

What they are saying is, it's OK to borrow money, intentionally wasting it on non-recovery related expenses because it was offered. This is like going up to any take a penny leave a penny, free candy at the doctor's office, sample tray at the supermarket.....taking it all and being surprised when people are pissed off at you because hey it said have some. And this is maybe 5 bucks worth of cost at most in any circumstance. These people took billions, frivolously spent millions that has been noticed and who knows what they did with the rest of it. Then turn around and complain about tax rates and how they need more money...and try to use job creation as the excuse.

There's just no defense for that. Especially when you realize many of their lower tier employees are lucky if they are ALLOWED to take their vacation days, use their sick days, or generally use benefits allotted to them as part of their employment package. Perhaps discouraged to use their vacation days except for certain windows or threatened with job loss if they use bereavement days. It's OK if they take your tax dollars to go on vacation and get paid, but it's bad if you try to use the benefits you should have every right to use that the companies provide as part of the employment agreement. You shouldn't use what you are entitled to, but they can use what they are offered...to excess and then blame you for it.

They shouldn't just let these organizations fail, they should dismantle them whether by breaking them up or dissolving their corporate charter. Teach the rest of the pack a lesson in humility, you exist at the will and sufferance of the citizenship not to exploit them.

>> ^Jinx:

I think what I find especialy repulsive about such places is that they have no humility. Its a giant phallus of a city, where wealth and power is flaunted as if it were something sacred. There is no shame in Dubai.
I've only been to San Antonio in the States. It wasn't too bad tbh, I certainly expected much worse from Texas. The US has its problems, but its far from the worst. I felt more discomfort in Mexico driving out of gated community into basically a slum 15 minutes down the road, or spending a month in Mexico City after a couple of Months in the south close to Guatemala.


I told a friend about driving through Texas and looking over across the border at little shack villages and such. He told me that they build those there on purpose to make us feel sorry for them. Yeah...yeah I know.