All the non dancing stuff and technical aspects timing of the lights and the general structure and design of when the lights went on and off and the basic layout of people was really really good.

the specific dancing and raw dance moves were very pore though still the top point more than made up for it and if they are people that don't normally dance doing it then they did really well.

>> ^Enzoblue:

I wish human women looked this good. Skin pore removal ftw!


Actually at 17 seconds in they reveal her neck and clavicle area and it does appear to have fine details.

I wish human women looked this good. Skin pore removal ftw!

>> ^therealblankman:

HOW FUCKED UP IS A WORLD WITH FUCKING HOMELESS CHILDREN?!? ESPECIALLY IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!!!
Despicable.
As for this young woman, I wish her all the best. I hope that she can have all her hopes, dreams, ambitions and goals fulfilled.


because unregulated capitlisum works perfectly in fact if we ferther deregulate markets and increase the amount of corporate involvement in government then I'm sure things will only get better ( not like that lead to exploitation of uneducated pore people and the market crash in 08)

Its max lol that she is homeless in USA and how USA has massive homeless issue, total fail I mean UK is pritty shitty with its wealth gap but at least after WW2 it became far harder to be homeless and has a basic welfair state still intact ( mind you conservatives and retards are curently doing away with it privatising the NHS and removing other things that are proven to benefit all of a society )

In the uk people are generally only homeless because they are mentally ill chose it and or slipped though the under funded system , but not simply because they are pore or out of work.

Whats mental is the argument against welfair that some people will be lazy and scrounge and yes sure there will be but you know what I would happily pay tax for 4 scroungers if that means 1 non scrounger gets support from it. I would also happily have 10 people getting housing bonofit inappropriately if that means 1 person is not made homeless. once a person is homeless its very hard for them to get even a basic job or contribute to society at all, if you save 1 person from being homeless and they just get a minimum wage job the economic benefit from that is worth hundreds of thousands if not millions over there life.

Allso helth and all these things affect everyone if you dont have free helth then STD's spred to evan the rich people same with environment based desizes and a pore populations tendency to resort to hard drugs fact is if you dont spred welth pore people will do hard drugs to escape there shit lives and a % of rich people will get drawn into that directly or indirectly.

The reason is this , in general most african countries are pore so the only the ritchest fsamilies in africa will get to send kids to USA and given the distance and cost they have to make the most of it or they will get boloxed by there family they will also be aware of how fucked they might be if they don't get a high degree.

the same thing happens with indean and Chinese students or allot of students that are studying in another nation to there own , if you are going to another country to specifcsly study something chances are you have a specifc motivation and will be sumone that will work harder at the given subject.

another factor is that forghen students in a given nation are often older and have held jobs and so have more maturity and drive than your average native student thats just progressed through the schooling system . In uk you find allot of Scandinavian students that come into degrees have more knowlage and practical skills than some of the lecturers and are simply doing the degree for the paper at the end that says they have a degree/masters.

We are at a time where you can easily pick up a 1970s standerd of knowlage from the internet alone its all there years of lectures and free acces to reeding materals , grante din the 70s you could get allot from books but the internet offers a streem line way to learn and comunication with people that can help guide you where as pre 80s you would realy have to be told what books to get or buy acess to the knowlage and tutorship.

>> ^quantumushroom:

These occupoopers have no idea how wealth is created or basic economics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep.
BTW, how is 4 more years of the kenyawaiian a "win"? Hurry up and ask him before he goes on vacation again.


They don't need to know (but I'm sure many of them have as good idea as anyone else)


Fact is there protest is legitimate , wealth is not spread proportional to social impact of work , the super rich are not taxed fairly and Reaganomics don't work and have been catagoricaly proven not to work.


Even though the protesting will likely not achieve many direct results and allot of the protesters will be clueless what it has done is to get middle america to pay attention to the economical exploitation and wealth inequality that exist , where as before the protests there wouldn't even be a conversation.

father more The protests have made transparent to many people that america is accentually 90% Corporatocracy and 10% democracy.

"omics, but that's the genius of Progressivism, creating ignorant, reactionary sheep. "

If things progress for the better how is progressivism bad ?

How can progressivism lead people to be reactionary sheep more than any other idoiligy . The only thing that's creating sheep In USA is mindless media like fox news , the pore quality of education , some aspects of religoin and a total lack of critical thinking + scepticisum.

bit of a missed opertunity , music was good , but really half arsed effort with the projected video looked like a 1990's cinema promo video or some 1990s theme park 3d video.

Just using basic colours but lighting multiple buildings up in time with the music would be infinetly better , often for music visualization the more minimal and selective things are what have the most impact.

the whole building projection working with the architectural can work well but evan then i think the more minimal effects are the most striking , like having water pore down the building or making it look like the building has changed shape as a whole by blocking parts off , or lighting features of the building up like the windows in a way to make it look like the building is doing stuff rather than sumone simply projecting an image on the building.

When you do need to peel and cut garlic, it helps if you wash it off with cold water and soap first, then hot. It will keep the pores on your hands closed while you get the majority of it off. That way the smell won't stick around so easily. I assume this is why people don't like peeling garlic because as far as physical effort, isn't it pretty easy? I mean... come on.

>> ^shuac:

>> ^westy:
this is actualy a prity pore way to demonstrait evolutoin , and this tv show is utter shit . Im all for science education and sometimes this show demonstraits things well but for the most part its just dense.
compare this tv show with tomorrows world for example ( which I what I think they are trying to aim for)
Its a shame to me how educational programs for kids on bbc seem to have gotten worse over time with less and less content and facts.
I mean programs like mithbusters are 100x better than this.
with any luck kids will just get information and education of the internet and just abandon tv as it becomes less and less relivent in peoples lives.

Westy, it's one thing to merely say it's pore but you've got to demonstrate why it's pore. Er, poor.


Its pore for the following resoins .

1) creationist morons would take an example like this and say "LOOK IT PROVES AGENCY AS CENTAINT BIENGS HAVE TO TRACE THE LINE AND THIS IS ANALAGOUSE TO GOD"


2) it dosent relay explain or comment on how things change more or less from environmental factors , the core princapel of evaluation is that you have random changes that acour but depending on how beneficial these changers are to contune to exist in an enviroment denotes if something chenges in one way or another or sticks over time.

3) all it deomstraits is "noise" and degradation of something over time , its a grate example for lossy file formats and data curption , but I don't think its a good example for evolution, I am prity sure there are other ways that are as simple or more simple that would describe evolution to sum one in a better way.

>> ^westy:

this is actualy a prity pore way to demonstrait evolutoin , and this tv show is utter shit . Im all for science education and sometimes this show demonstraits things well but for the most part its just dense.
compare this tv show with tomorrows world for example ( which I what I think they are trying to aim for)
Its a shame to me how educational programs for kids on bbc seem to have gotten worse over time with less and less content and facts.
I mean programs like mithbusters are 100x better than this.
with any luck kids will just get information and education of the internet and just abandon tv as it becomes less and less relivent in peoples lives.


Westy, it's one thing to merely say it's pore but you've got to demonstrate why it's pore. Er, poor.

this is actualy a prity pore way to demonstrait evolutoin , and this tv show is utter shit . Im all for science education and sometimes this show demonstraits things well but for the most part its just dense.

compare this tv show with tomorrows world for example ( which I what I think they are trying to aim for)

Its a shame to me how educational programs for kids on bbc seem to have gotten worse over time with less and less content and facts.

I mean programs like mithbusters are 100x better than this.

with any luck kids will just get information and education of the internet and just abandon tv as it becomes less and less relivent in peoples lives.

That's a laugh..the first thing you did in our "debate" is try to argue I am a troll. Then we had a little contentious back and forth in which my answers were perfectly adaquete..the problem was that you copped out and ran away. Here is our final exchange:

"@shinyblurry

I was going to leave you in the metaphorical pit of self-contradiction and nonsense you had dug yourself into, but then you had to go insult my eloquence... jk, I was going to address your answers anyway:

Would you condemn and punish someone's child for something their parents did? Why should anyone respect - much less worship - a being whose moral standards are far inferior to those of the worst among us humans (or "sinners" as you call us)?

2. "Special Revelation"... and yet it is those who use reason and evidence who are "arrogant", or have a "fevered ego", right? But let me try to grasp this "Holy Spirit" thing once and for all:

Basically, a Christian cannot deny the HS, otherwise he was never a Christian? But one can only reject the HS if they have it, i.e. if they are a Christian... do you see where this is going? Moreover, this suggests a deterministic outlook: some have been chosen, the rest can suck it (you did not answer the part of my question which asks what happens to those that are not "chosen").

So God makes an exception, giving them the knowledge of good and evil only so that they do not obtain the knowledge of good and evil... Even if this fantastic extrapolation of yours was not a direct insult to the textual integrity of the Bible (which is about the only integrity that thing has got), it would only confirm my point vis-à-vis God/religion's reliance on blind obedience.

Which brings me to another tasty tidbit of yours:

He doesn't coerce your love, but he will let you reap the consequences of the evil that you do [...]
Mafia boss says: you don't have to pay up, but I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't.

Does the irony escape you?"

My reply:

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?

You never answered to any of this. This was your final reply:

Shiny quoted conserva-facts-don't-affect-me-pedia.com; conversation ended. You fail.

You used the excuse that I had quoted conservapedia about zooasterism to Enoch to run away from our debate. So please get off your high horse..and you never provided an intelligent or comprehensive position..most of it was simply rooted in your amatuer understanding of scripture.


>> ^hpqp:
You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).
Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).
Yours satanically,
Lucy Furr
edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.
>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic
al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.

You'd really crack me up if I didn't know you were dead serious. Remember our very first debate Mr Shiny? The one under you first sifted video? There was no quoting Leviticus, instead I provided serious questions to the ideology stemming from the Creation and Fall myths, to which you were unable to adequately reply. As for spewing Bible verses, it's a two-way street, although you definitely take it more than anyone else here, and with the added stupidity of actually thinking that an ancient collection of ideological, mythological and historical texts - compiled and edited over hundreds of years - is actually the divinely inspired word of your sky dictator. So yeah, sometimes myself and others will quote contentious scripture just to remind you that it's only manmade text (although even you go to some lengths to try and make the worst of it make sense... (re: your attempt at rationalising having to marry one's rapist)).

Most people who tried to have an intelligent debate with you here have given up. If you still can't understand why, maybe you should pore over your responses to people's questions and have a long, hard think (yes, I know that's hard).

Yours satanically,

Lucy Furr



edit: I missed part of your comment when first responding... nobody "created" us, shiny. Most secular humanists and atheists come to the conclusion that religion is bullshit all by their lonesomes, usually in their childhood or teens.. you know, when rational thought starts to outweigh parental authority. While it's nice to have speakers defending reason with arguments we could only dream of formulating so eloquently - speakers who certainly helped some who were already in doubt to make up their minds - it's not as if one needs a prophet. Maybe one reason why you have the impression you're always debating Dawkins and Hitchens is because their arguments are some of the most salient against religion, arguments that have been made since the ancient Greeks btw.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I already told you, if you go to the minute mark that I provided you will find someone talking directly about it. If you don't want to do that, or you don't believe the person in the video, that's your problem. It doesn't change the fact of what Dawkins said.
As far as arguments, I have many. I never get that far with you though. Your idea of a rational debate is to quote contentious verses in Leviticus. If you want to talk about one trick ponies..
I don't want to generalize atheists but the fact is dawkins and hitchens created a lot of you, and I feel often times I am debating them instead of the person I am talking to. In any case, it doesn't matter..I was just somewhat amused that you seemed to think that atheists are never illogical or say anything stupid.

>> ^hpqp:
Pretty rich coming from someone whose whole argument boils down to "personal revelation nananana!!!" and "God/the Bible says it so ITS TRUE!!!" All your gross generalisations based on personal experience (which could very much be made up for all we know) are but chaff to the wind, shiny.
And no, I'm not going to sit through 1h20 to try to find something that you claim Dawkins said; it's your evidence, you provide it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes, atheists actually do construct arguments which merely appeal to authority and engage of all sorts of logical fallacies, all the time. You seem to be under the illusion that atheists are in general more intelligent than the average person. I debate atheists all the time all over the internet and I can safely put that theory to rest for you. It's more that atheists are completely blinded by their certitude and think that everything they say is just so forceful and compelling, like they are the sole possessors of logic and reason in the world. After you speak to few hundred or so you start to see the group think they all share and that most of their ideas are originating from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. Many of you just parrot the things they say in their debates almost word for word.
As far as your evidence, it's buried somewhere in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw
If you go to 1 hour 17 you'll find someone talking about it.
edit; I will admit I speak to some very bright people, people are people after all..but atheism is not an exclusive group of deep thinkers..if you think that you haven't been around the internet lately.
>> ^hpqp:
[citation needed]
This is not the first time you put words in Dawkins' mouth you know.
edit: and even if Dawkins, Hitchens and the FSM all got together to argue for the historicity of Jesus, they would have to bring compelling arguments to the table. Unlike some religious people, atheists don't just go "oh since Dawkins says it it must be true, no need to think/research for myself!!"
>> ^shinyblurry:
Even Dawkins admitted Jesus is a historical figure. There are virtually no historians who support that view, so scratch probably and insert "extremely unlikely".
>> ^hpqp:
Well, considering that the Jeebs is probably a fictional character altogether , it's not surprising that there is differences between the ways different authors imagined him to be.
http://religion.videosift.com/video/Lecture-Examining
-the-Existence-of-a-Historic

al-Jesus
>> ^messenger:
People in power usually do represent God in Jesus' parables. That's why this one seems so odd to me. Maybe I just haven't read enough of them to realize that Jesus himself preached violence against beings other than fig trees. (Mark 11: 12-14)>> ^hpqp:
That nobleman stands in for God/Jeebs in that parable. But you should ask shiny, for him we're all slaves to the all-powerful dictator, only some of us (that is the evil atheists) are rebellious against his power.