I guess she shouldn't have been so...

(▪▁▪)

(▪▁▪)>┌■-■

(┌■_■)

lawless.


YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

and here I was thinking that an entire video with Lucy Lawless in the title could actually go without mentioning 'Xena' and 'lesbian'... so close.

@renatojj

Church has high interested in religious candidates being elected. Most of the debates going on in politics are based on religious philosophy. Few off the top of my head are abortion, creationism, and women's rights. They've been going against the grain of the Constitution trying to get creationism which is a arguably religion based subject taught in schools. Which in turn possibly gets them more followers, which in turn gets them more tithing and more people in their "group" giving them more power. In fact I would argue they are specifically trying to erode the line between church and state with these arguments, injecting religion based reasons into many of the arguments.

Big media networks push for things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 where the reason for the bill is not actually what ends up happening. It was supposed to deregulate and open up the market for competition and instead it allowed them to reconsolidate by buying up competitors. And they largely don't fight with censorship on curse words because generally it drives off their audience, and those networks that don't have to censor curse words charge for the privilege of hearing them and seeing some nudity to boot. And they also support SOPA-like bills which are essential a blanket tool to censor the web....they also support monitoring and traffic shaping on the networks they control...which is another potential avenue for censorship.

You'll have to be more specific on what you're getting at......all these groups are eroding divisions we built through regulation and have been doing so steadily since the 80s at every opportunity across industries.

I've already shown that given the chance, they buy up competition to remain a monopoly. Look at ISPs, look at all the oil companies we USED to have. Look at the media conglomerates that own the majority of your radio stations ( I think there's two major radio networks, but they have like a million different stations under the same banners so it LOOKS like choice). How the record labels and movie industries are all tied together and often even tied into the same parent company that owns your ISP. Cell phone industry, ATT trying to buy T Mobile which would have brought it down to 3 major providers and they did it in the name of "better service" but still haven't announced plans to build out their infrastructure since the deal went through...why? Because it wasn't about better service, it was about buying up a competitor that offered plans at prices people preferred.

When people are unhappy with their ISPs they've tried to form local government run coop non-profit ISPs, and they get sued by the huge companies who refuse to service their area. It's happened multiple times. With regulation, they would have to provide internet to those places in a timely manner instead of preventing people from doing their own thing.

Did GoDaddy pay dearly for supporting SOPA? I heard they lost 30k subscribers at some point, but did they really? You'll have to show me on that. GoDaddy did lots of terrible things before it, yet they were still a huge provider and still are. They cybersquat on domain names people search for and allow you to buy them at "auction" from them when you try to look up if it's taken or not..they snatch it up to sell to you. They also give away people's domain names with no repercussions and a myriad of other things. Sounds like it needs a regulatory body with some teeth on it to make them act right or shut them down.

Unions are actually a really good way to fight monopolies and under the table deals, but they've been systematically villified. And unions aren't monopolies if they aren't mandatory, and most places are not fully unionized anymore. Often times they will have sections with union employees to do government work and non-union to do non-government work. Non-union guys make half the rate of union guys usually, and have less protections in place to keep themselves from getting shafted. But I don't really see how a union is a monopoly when there are lots of unions and lots of individuals in a union who make decisions for themselves and not as a collective like a company would. IE a company has a "head" that directs it and unions are a collective of individuals. Companies are people after all, unions are not (they are made up of people).

There are laws governing behavior usually based roughly on societal standards. Like pot being illegal is kind of against most of the societies beliefs, yet it remains illegal is an example of where it doesn't quite track. But overall we have laws that say you can't write a check that you know won't cash. Drunk driving, trespassing, vandalism, theft.....yelling fire in a crowded building.......setting off the fire alarm for fun.....etc. Giving people the finger isn't against the law....well probably not in most places so that might fall under social pressure. But we see that social pressure fails miserably at stopping bad behavior, so we have laws to enforce behavior...like not stealing and not murdering. This is society and people holding other people to standards, without the law to judge and convict them by the only thing you have left is personal interpretation and meeting out punishment by each individual or vigilante justice.

If you don't regulate business there is nothing stopping them, because nothing about our market is free. You can't have a free market without perfect information. You can't know every possible thing going on, so you will never have perfect information even if it was possible. So you will have swindlers and knock offs, pyramid schemes, etc. And without laws and regulations on these things, you will never be able to punish the company for what they did in a court of law.

Even if they were 100% above the board honest, they'd still be sourcing their materials from overseas and getting inferior materials to what you are paying for. It happens to the military all the time right now. They buy a bunch of nuts and bolts and some of them are chinese knockoffs that fail well after the installation is done and the machine is in operation. They can't catch them because china is basically lawless when it comes to producing goods for knock off purposes. It could just as easily be a US source doing it if we de-regulated everything and made no way for people to sue them into oblivion...because the damage would be done as soon as you buy a knock off and it fries the rest of your stuff.

The definition of "free market" right now means they want to be able to buy stuff cheap as shit from overseas and charge you US built prices for it. And when it comes to financial industry "free market" means they want to have speculation upon speculation to where the financial industry has 10-100x more money leveraged than what actually exists. It's a house of cards if they can just inflate it without any kind of acceptable risks being enforced.

Let's skip over the lawlessness and millions of "the 99%'s" taxpayer dollars wasted arresting the rabble and cleaning up the feces, and get to the point:

The housing/economic collapse is the result of idiot carter and liberals deciding in the 70s that "everyone" should have a house whether they can afford one or not. The same sh1t law, the "Community Reinvestment Act" was strengthened by idiot clinton.

What did these fking idiots think the banks would do when ORDERED to lend money to anybody, and don't worry, big govt has your backs and will make everything "risk-free"?

Well here we are, and true to form, the banks, complicit in this socialist scheme, got a nice payout from the taxpayers.

I want to kill the thieving motherfkers as much as anyone, but why blame the banks when it was government that created this "fairness" bullsh1te to buy votes, and enriched banks with promises of "no-risk" investments and threats if they didn't comply?

In essence, the occupoopers are demanding government institute fairness at gunpoint, as a reaction to a needless crisis caused by...government fairness at gunpoint.

Actress Lucy Lawless arrested in oil-ship protest:

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120227/ENT09/202270374/1361/Actress-Lucy-Lawless-arrested-in-oil-ship-protest

So, after reading this nonsense, I had to respond.

1) If you "know JC" and "believe in Him", going out and murdering a
few dozen people should not allow access to Heaven. So, by not
murdering said people, you are in fact "earning" your way in by acting
within the guidelines of said religion which also include "knowing JC"
and "believing in Him". The notion that someone who is of sound mind
and practices a religion that can then go out and break all the
guidelines set by it and still get in via grace is no place I would
want to exist for eternity.

Matthew 7:21-23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Hebrews 10:26-27

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

Being a Christian isn't a free pass to sin. Anyone who is doing something like you described will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

2) If following God prevents mental illness (depression is a mental
illness), why does reading all of your commentary depress me so?
Shouldn't I feel better simply by reading all this nonsense? Plus I
think you should poll your fellow church goers to see how many are on
mood stabilizers or hit the bottle hard in the evenings. I don't
think strength = heavy drinking or pills.....or counseling or
therapy...or any other coping mechanism for that matter. I think
you'll find your list of people walking with the Lord is very small,
and that seems like they are forsaking him by their actions and
therefore would be denied entry into Heaven. It just doesn't make
sense for people to have to rely on external factors to stave off
depression if walking with Him prevents mental illness, so the only
other explanation is they are faking it.

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

2 Timothy 1:7

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

No one is perfect and everyone has their speciai challenges but if someone is abusing medication and alcohol, they are definitely not following the Lord. Often times people have many areas in their life that they will not turn over to the Lord and they end up in situations like you're describing because of it. When you step out from under Gods protection you invite spiritual oppression into your life.

Atheists have a higher suicide rate. I argue this is because they
don't have the guidelines of a religion stating that suicide is a
unforgivable sin and that they are not fearful of missing out on
heaven/virgins/whatever. It's far too simple an answer to explain
away suicide as the forsaking of faith. But it's rather depressing to
know that your life has to remain shit because religious people hold
sway in many decisions that are contrary to scientific
evidence....preventing others from alleviating suffering. Stem cells,
certain drugs, scientific research, etc.

The problem is the evil that dwells in the hearts of men, which is universal and trancends all borders, boundaries, religions, creeds, races, and other human demarcations. To blame religion for all the evil in the world is to be looking at the symptom and not the cause.

It strikes me as supremely arrogant to assume that your will and wish
is the will of your deity, and that free will of others should be
suppressed because they aren't in lockstep with your beliefs.

It's not for my benefit that I tell you any of this, it is because I care about you and because the Lord commanded me to do so. I am telling you what Gods word says, not what I say.

I am not quoting you because you asked me to, although I think its pretty ridiculous to talk to someone you're ignoring and then tell them not to talk to you.

after watching this, the main thing that strikes my mind is what if buehler had just been some ordinary joe shmoe and not a west pt grad/army vet/stanford mba...

would he be in more serious trouble? would this have still made the news? if so, to the same degree? and what does that say about our media?

he'll have all charges dropped, i'm sure, if the police dashcam doesn't show him intentionally spitting on the officer... but i doubt he'll have any tortious legal claim

aside from all of that... this whole snafu just highlights for me again how aggressive us police officers can be -- i've spent close to two decades as an american living in asia, thirteen of those years in taiwan... the difference between the police at home and those here is night and day...

patrol cars here actually drive around, very slowly, with their police lights lit at all times - this struck me as odd initially, but i came to realize that it acts as a deterrent to lawlessness - there're also no speed traps, and if you're stopped by the police, they're always very courteous... almost apologetic

there are a few downsides to this though... they're slow to respond to calls for help, and practically do backflips in order avoid any sort of paperwork on their part

i often wonder about what the cause of such differences (i.e. aggressiveness / discourtesy) between the two might be -- part of it is certainly the fact that everyday americans have ready access to firearms, whereas the only armed taiwanese are gangsters -- another aspect i suspect is the level of officer empowerment by the local government (e.g. us officers are given an enormous amount of power to be used and/or abused, while taiwanese police for the most part act as society's shepherds in uniform)

how to reconcile these differences, and perhaps reach a happy medium?

>> ^spoco2:

Why the hell are so many cars in Russia videoing the entire time?


Because Russia is both highly technological and completely lawless?

I was thinking more about this guy

http://youtu.be/7syx26QtQIM

To a health care rally.>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

People taking to the streets to demonstrate - it's crazy, radical, violent and lawless
As is typical with Prog-lib-dytes, this ignores the 400+ actual examples of craziness, radicalism, violence, and lawlessnes. Congratulations on flunking Common Sense 101 and Remedial Reading.
displaying this website's bias
Of course Big Government is biased. Videosift is biased. CNN is biased. Fox is biased. MSN is biased. Now - at least you haven't flunked Remedial Reading like Drax, but you still flunk Common Sense 101. The bias of Big Government as a website is rather irrelevant compared to the CONTENT of the listing. Maybe you should - you know - actually read the 400+ independant news articles from the AP, NYT, CNN, NBC, Fox, and many other news outlet from which the unbiased and accurate list of OWS crimes was compiled. Your call. You can keep pretending that OWS was just a bunch of people 'taking to the streets' if you want. Fact and reality tells quite a different story though. But - as I say - facts and reality are foreign to the typical Prog-lib-dyte, so I wouldn't be surprised if you keep trying to ignore them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

People taking to the streets to demonstrate - it's crazy, radical, violent and lawless
As is typical with Prog-lib-dytes, this ignores the 400+ actual examples of craziness, radicalism, violence, and lawlessnes. Congratulations on flunking Common Sense 101 and Remedial Reading.
displaying this website's bias
Of course Big Government is biased. Videosift is biased. CNN is biased. Fox is biased. MSN is biased. Now - at least you haven't flunked Remedial Reading like Drax, but you still flunk Common Sense 101. The bias of Big Government as a website is rather irrelevant compared to the CONTENT of the listing. Maybe you should - you know - actually read the 400+ independant news articles from the AP, NYT, CNN, NBC, Fox, and many other news outlet from which the unbiased and accurate list of OWS crimes was compiled. Your call. You can keep pretending that OWS was just a bunch of people 'taking to the streets' if you want. Fact and reality tells quite a different story though. But - as I say - facts and reality are foreign to the typical Prog-lib-dyte, so I wouldn't be surprised if you keep trying to ignore them.


You are very, very confused.

People taking to the streets to demonstrate - it's crazy, radical, violent and lawless

As is typical with Prog-lib-dytes, this ignores the 400+ actual examples of craziness, radicalism, violence, and lawlessnes. Congratulations on flunking Common Sense 101 and Remedial Reading.

displaying this website's bias

Of course Big Government is biased. Videosift is biased. CNN is biased. Fox is biased. MSN is biased. Now - at least you haven't flunked Remedial Reading like Drax, but you still flunk Common Sense 101. The bias of Big Government as a website is rather irrelevant compared to the CONTENT of the listing. Maybe you should - you know - actually read the 400+ independant news articles from the AP, NYT, CNN, NBC, Fox, and many other news outlet from which the unbiased and accurate list of OWS crimes was compiled. Your call. You can keep pretending that OWS was just a bunch of people 'taking to the streets' if you want. Fact and reality tells quite a different story though. But - as I say - facts and reality are foreign to the typical Prog-lib-dyte, so I wouldn't be surprised if you keep trying to ignore them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I think this looks more like some extreme members of the tea party... Looks more Tea Party to me...
You mean the ONE guy who ONE time expressed his 2nd Amendment rights and legally took a pistol (openly in a holster) to a meeting? As opposed to this...
http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstre
et-the-rap-sheet-so-far/
OWS was (and stil is) far more violent, radical, crazy, and lawless than the Tea Party ever was. Members of OWS are far more likely to engage in violence and subversive actions.


Guy taking a gun to a meeting - it's a right.

People taking to the streets to demonstrate - it's crazy, radical, violent and lawless.

Thanks for clearing that up winston.

I think this looks more like some extreme members of the tea party... Looks more Tea Party to me...

You mean the ONE guy who ONE time expressed his 2nd Amendment rights and legally took a pistol (openly in a holster) to a meeting? As opposed to this...

http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

OWS was (and stil is) far more violent, radical, crazy, and lawless than the Tea Party ever was. Members of OWS are far more likely to engage in violence and subversive actions.

thanks for the response my friend.
you need to realize something,for it will save you a huge amount of time.
i am already aware of your theosophy so you dont have to reiterate every time we converse.
more practical that way.

Sure, always a pleasure my friend. I didn't get notification of your reply, otherwise I would have replied to this sooner. If I am reiterating anything it is to respond to bold claims and assertions about Jesus or the word of God that you're making.

I understand that in your eyes you have dissected the scripture for its "true" meaning, and that in comparison, you think I am rubbing two sticks together. Before I became a Christian and had gnostic beliefs, that is the way I approached scripture as well. I am not ignorant to your point of view, or your methodology. What I am trying to tell you is that by searching for the "true" meaning you have lost the true meaning.

i knew you would have a strong disagreement with not only my take on sin but how i dealt with those in a crisis of faith.
was to be expected. please remember that condensing 40 years down in to a few paragraphs much will be lost. so the answer would be:
no hell (not the version given by the church)
nor satan (again,not the version given by the church)
but i do not teach that salvation is a solo job.christ was the way and the light.
the path has been lit we need but to follow.
love and forgiveness are the first step towards that goal.

John 10:1

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber.

The first step is to submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. What we need foremost is Gods love and forgiveness; that is how we are validated as human beings. This is the reason I am disagreeing with you, because you are distorting what Jesus said. You're teaching people to make up their own gospel, and thus, their own Jesus. This is what is called idolatry. You're teaching people to make Jesus into a false idol. Don't like the idea of eternal punishment? No problem! Jesus didn't really mean that..He loves you and accepts you just the way you are. Don't like the idea of Satan? No problem! Evil is just a state of mind..you don't really have an enemy trying to destroy you. God would never allow that, He loves you!

What you're doing is divesting Jesus and His word of its authority and teaching people to be a judge over scripture. Instead of conforming to Gods standards, you're teaching people to make God conform to their standards, and showing them how they can justify it. It's wrong, and you're doing them more harm than good, because what you're teaching them is in fact in opposition to everything Jesus taught us to do.

i dont really understand your disagreement with my internalization/externalization example

because then you turn around and kind of make my point and even back up MY perspective.
that was interesting.

I disagree because it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. No, it is not what I happen to call the Holy Spirit and you call something else. I am talking about the literal Spirit of God, who has a mind and is God Himself. I am talking about the Spirit who searches the deep things of God, and leads into all truth. It isn't a metaphor I am using. This is where we're disagreeing. The Holy Spirit is the one who transforms us into the image of Christ, and apart from the Spirit we are chasing our own tails.

You say the Holy Trinity = body mind spirit. This is the problem with gnosticism, that it makes all sorts of connections that aren't really there. By making these kinds of associations you are actually divesting it of its true meaning. The Holy Trinity is God, there is nothing to compare God to, or associate God with. God is God and no one and nothing is like God. The equation isn't body mind and spirit in any case, it is body soul and spirit.

http://bible.org/seriespage/man-trinity-spirit-soul-body

nor do i understand your reticence to being called a baptist.it is what most closely aligns to your theosophy.sometimes we need labels to help us relate.thats why i use gnostic.
ah well.not a big point really..was just curious.

They are closer to what I believe than other denominations but what they believe doesn't represent what I believe. That's why I reject the label. I am simply a follower of the Way, a disciple of Jesus Christ.

i was thinking of a long line of questions but feel they not express the revelation i desire.
so.let me ask you this ONE question:
did god create us so he could be worshiped?

God created us to be in relationship with Him, which includes love, worship, fellowship, and service. He didn't create us because He needed anything, He created us out of the abundance of His goodness.

Let me ask you a question. Do you feel God isn't worthy of worshipped, or that He doesn't want to be worshipped?

This is something people bring up, that they don't feel they should have to worship God. My position is, if you don't feel like worshipping God then you clearly don't know Him. He is worthy of all honor, all praise, and all glory.

i have to admit being a bit tickled by some of your responses.they actually fit quite well from a gnostic perspective.i know you didnt mean them that way..hence me getting the giggles.
so i agree in spirit.we ARE all ONE.
this is why i end many of my letters with:namaste
what a great word.

2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

We are one when we are joined together in Christ. The body of Christ is the unity that God has set apart for Himself, separate from the world. We are all made in the image of God, true, but the spirit apart from Christ is dead in its sins and is incapable of pleasing God. The family of God is made up of adopted sons and daughters, and outside of that, there is no fellowship or unity.

OH.almost forgot (because "someone" keeps using bullet form responses)
when it comes to the bible the only thing i really give any authority to is the ministry of jesus.
the old testament is the old covenant and lets be honest.god is kind of a huge dick in that book.jesus made it irrelevant.and i have read all the gospels i could get my hands on,researched the meanings,the mistranslation,other theologians hypothesis and came to two conclusions:
1.jesus was most certainly here.
2.the bible is an incomplete text,fascinating as it may be.(boring to most though,but im a dork).

It might have skipped your attention but Jesus verified the Old Testament as the truth. He verified Genesis, Noah, Jonah, and many other things. It most certainly is not irrelevent for that reason, and for the reason that it is the prophecies in the Old Testament that predict the coming of Christ, prophecies which Jesus literally fulfilled. You can read the entire OT as being a type of the Messiah to come:

http://videosift.com/video/True-and-Better

However you might see the actions of God, He was dealing with a stubborn and evil people, who defied Him at every turn. Remember when He brought Moses up on the mountain? What is the first thing the israelites did? They made a golden calf and worshipped it saying "here is the god who brought us out of egypt." This was after God had done all of these mighty miracles before them. If anything, God was way too lenient.

I'm glad we can at least agree that Jesus was here. So let me ask you two 1/2 questions:

1: why don't you think Jesus is literally God (not someone who attained it, but is the literal creator of this reality)?
1a: was He raised from the dead, and if yes, by whom and for what purpose?
2: why is the bible "incomplete"? What do you think is missing?

ps:great book for ya right here.
http://frimmin.com/books/cosmicchrist.php

I've actually seen and read similiar books to these. They attempt to turn Christianity into a universalist enlightenment religion. The 12 steps to being as God is. It is to believe everything in general without believing anything in particular. It is the same thing the serpent said to Eve:

"ye shall be as gods"

Saying, we have to become as Christ to fix the Earth. That isn't what Jesus taught. He taught us that we are servants serving in His house, and that He has been given all authority under Heaven and Earth. He said in very plain language that He is the judge of the living and the dead, and that He is going to return to this fallen world and establish His Kingdom.

There is only one Jesus Christ, and we're not it. Why do you ignore the scripture that talks about His Lordship over Heaven and Earth but then embrace everything else?

and look up christ conciousness.
thats where my general theosophy lays.

It is indeed true that we need to have the mind of Christ, but again we can't do that without the Spirit of Christ. I think it is a noble pursuit to want to be like Jesus, but you can't do that by just emulating Him. You need His Spirit, the one that raised Him from the dead. We don't get the Spirit of Christ unless we are born again and confess Jesus as Lord. It is all a work of God, and apart from Him we can do nothing.

Galatians 5:22-23

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I hope you don't see my reply as being too harsh, because I am stating the truth of what I believe, just as you are. If you have taken any offense, please accept my apology. I don't compromise on truth, and I am only meeting you with it at the places where you have drawn the lines. Take care my friend.

>> ^enoch

>> ^marbles:

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:
When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:
I think it would be a good idea.
I feel the same way about free market capitalism.
It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.
If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.


think you'll find that it's the move towards a more free market that made things worse, from deregulation in the 70's onwards. governments and presidents Preached about the reduction of big government, and letting the market do what it wants.
Granted, its never strictly speaking been, a free market, because you still had government taxing (though as Wolff has pointed out in the video, shifting the burden completely away from business, and therefore, the market) but what you can say is this:

history now tells us that the more free the market, the worse things become....what makes you think having a 100% free market would make things perfect?
It would be total anarchy. The wealth divide would become incomprehensible.

It's all there, in history. The proof to end all these arguments is there, because it's already happened. Regulation, after the great depression, immediately improved things for America, taxing the wealthy, using that money to put in infrastructure that made america a superpower.
Deregulate everything, and watch the western worlds decline (for the majority).
That is what happened, you cannot argue a situation that actually happened.

All you need is a government that isn't corrupt, that doesn't pander to the free market and peoples desires to win elections, but instead holds certain ideas to be true. The death of idealism was supposed to make individuals free, instead it produced a new kind of control that made things a lot worse for the majority of people.
I believe science will ultimately find out the definition of 'human flourishing' and therefore create a new idea of what is actually best for a society.