I made the mistake of leaving the passenger area in the Kansas City airport and had to go back through with the picture thingy. Everyone had to be scanned.

I wasn't emotionally prepared for it and got pretty upset. Said I didn't want to do it. I was then told that I would have to be patted down if I opted out, and that it was pretty invasive. So I went for the scan, but I really felt violated. I even walked away without my stuff, because I wanted to get away from there as soon as possible.

Maybe because everyone has to be scanned at that airport the TSA folks didn't flip out like these folks did.

It was horrible though. I learned my lesson. No more leaving the passenger area when going through Kansas City.

Ugh. Ugh. UGH.

This one is fixed!

In reply to this comment by residue:
*dead

Then he could have easily said " There's no one that wants to get this all sorted out more than I do."

But no, he said he wanted his life back. What do you think his life consisted of before this?

1. Caring compassionately for sensitive ecosystems and the families of impoverished fishermen?

2. Makin' money.. insulated from any blemish or fuck off he is directly responsible for as CEO.

..and possibly maybe giving a lecture or two on how to boost BPs image with "green" branding

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

>> ^enoch:

this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.
i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?

It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.
Lemme give an example.
You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.
Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.
It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]
Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.
I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.
Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?
Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..
[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. ire ]
..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:
Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.

Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?


genji,
your first sentence says it all.
there is no need to delve further.
the only thing you have managed to convey is your ability to think in two dimensions.
*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Carl-Jung-Speaks-About-Death

>> ^enoch:


this is not only intellectually dishonest but intellectually lazy.

i am rambling here so i will end this on this note:
disagree with jung all you wish but respect the fact that this man pushed the envelope.asked the questions that have no solid or easy answers and attempted to define consciousness.
where is YOUR contribution to this?
where are YOUR questions?
and would you have the courage to put your ideas out into the public arena?
or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?


It's really difficult for me to grasp the fact that anyone still argues such moot subjects, like it's somehow the truth of reality.. possibly.. maybe.

Lemme give an example.

You spend your entire life searching for noah's ark. As a result, one day you uncover the ruins of a previously unknown civilization.

Great, your research has embiggened world culture & history. Nevertheless it's still based in a dumb premise.

It's dumb because of our understanding that floods leave evidence.
No evidence of a global flood = no ark = issue resolved.
No need to .. ahem.. "push the envelope" any further on that one. =]

Jung may have contributed to the understanding of consciousness thru his search for the divine. But it's still stupid to say he was "edgy" for investigating questions for which we already have the answers.

I.E.
Q. Is there divine life after death?
A. No, your mind & personality is dependent on your physical brain.

Understanding all of that.
Rationalize to me how it's intellectually dishonest or lazy to avoid asking questions about a subject that is of little or no practical value or meaning?

Sayin' shit like "would you have the courage.. or will you stay in the relative safety of your own certitude?" just makes you sound like a nutter/zealot..

[Are you willing to live in the relative safety of your certitude that flying hot pink unicorns DON"T exist.. you lazy mainstream conformist, you. *ire*]

..and forces you out of the discussion.
Cause in all practical circumstances we can assert:

Gravity exists. Divine consciousness after physical death does not.


Does that clear up some people's general dismissal of jung's theories here?

Oh, Winstonfield. Your obviously-biased rhetoric becomes a tiresome trudge. Palin doesn't have people thinking she's an idiot just grabbed out of nowhere. She created that visage herself by saying things like that she has foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from her house. The truth is, no matter how well she memorizes boilerplate talking-points, no one will trust her after her faux 'debate' with Biden where she just chose to ignore the questions and spout more bolierplate. And the bullshit about 'real America'. Shes just a mire of partisan idiocy. I feel sorry for people who trust this woman when she's shown from the get go that she's just a sham. I must say, having her as some sort of figurehead in your country makes others in the world exceptionally pitiful of you. That someone who has no ability to defend their beliefs, no ability to govern in ways that are not corrupt, no common sense of when to speak and when to not could become such a venerated figure in some circles is so sad.

Maybe she'll go to school and take a trip somewhere outside of the States for the first time in her life. Maybe she actually has some sort of hidden potential that she just needs time to make shine. It's possible. It seems very unlikely, but it's possible. Maybe she'll help inspire those wallowing in ignorance who look up to her. Help them out of their ignorance by being an example of a changed person. I would welcome that. But from what she has shown and is continuing to show, she chooses to be someone who wears their ignorance like a badge of honour. Like it's a good thing that sticking to one's guns that a mastery of foreign policy could come from a vision of, and not a walk to, the other shore. Until she has made it clear that she has chosen knowledge instead of her particular brand of uninformed but active vexation, she will continue to keep her self-made visage of ignorance. And rightfully so.

SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
Birds Fly

WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Father

WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
9 Shake Break Bounce

HOW DO YOU FEEL TODAY?
El Wraith

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
Andantino

WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Possibly Maybe

WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
Flim

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR PARENTS?
Quite Inside

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Guinnea Pig 3

WHAT IS 2+2?
BWV 540

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
Powaqqatsi

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Autumn In New York

WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Lesson I for Good Friday

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Resurrection

WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Truck Driver Divorce

WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Serra Pelada

WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Rock This Town

WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Boo Who?

WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Pearly

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
Anstromm Feck-4

WHATS THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
I'm Out Deah

HOW WILL YOU DIE?
Magnetic Rag

WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
O choruscans stellarum

WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
Naught More Terrific Than Man

WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
Extraordinary Machine

WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
Bleeding Heart

WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
The Ozone

DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Cocaine And Toupees

IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Jill's America

WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
Versuchung Des Heiligen Antonius

^Renaming would indeed be great, if possible..
Maybe *business would be a good compromise, I like it better than *money

Another possible description:
This channel highlights videos dealing with trade and finance, economic research and business practice.

>> ^Flood:
Winstonfield,
Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.


Flood, it's not worth your time.

To pennypacker here, anyone who says a nice thing about Obama is a zombie. And anyone who says something negative about Bush has "Bush Derangement Syndrome".

Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.

And yet, this single action is proof that Obama is "able to make better judgements"? And people have "never heard this before"? Politicians toss out cheap, meaningless 'apologies' every 2 seconds. Oh - and BO'll "fix it so it never happens again"? Bullogna with a capital bull.

To see people get all moist over something as cheap, cheesy, fake, and baldly political as this is nauseating. They're saying it shows how wonderful BO is. I say it is just one more example of how he's as slimy, low-down, base and manipulative as Rove or Cheney ever were. Obama is NOT a different kind of politician. Whenever he is confronted, he gets testy, dismissive, and belittles those he disagrees with. He is not willing to listen to competing ideas of philosophies except as lip service. His administration to date has the elegance of a toilet plunger. To witness citizens gladly abandoning reason, sense, and even basic THOUGHT just because they are so desperate to like the guy is repulsive.

Like the fact that he apologized? Fine. Whatever. But you're stopping short. The reason you guys were so DESPERATE for a Bush apology was so that you could have something to use to hold him ACCOUNTABLE. Impeachment.. Removal from office... Prosecution for 'war crimes' or whatever. You rejected the apologies Bush did offer because they were not tacit acceptance of consequence. And yet now that Obama comes along and does the same thing somehow it is all different and better and gives you warm fuzzies? Pathetic. So are you also willing to make BO accept the consequence of trying to put a tax-dodging felon on his cabinet?

Winstonfield,

Maybe... just MAYBE... I mean, it might be possible... maybe even highly probable... that when someone supports a single action performed by Obama, then that doesn't imply that this someone automatically supports every action performed by Obama.

^dag
I don't see why breeding brainiac dogs wouldn't be possible.
..maybe not ethical, but F^ck, we created the pomeranian, so were all going to hell anyway.

I'm going to upvote this even though I got through but a portion of it.

I'd like to see people discuss this and show what is ACTUALLY known and unknown about him, what of this is just pure fabrication, and what is possibly true.

I get the whole trying to scare people because he hung around with extreme leftists (possibly, maybe, whatever), but I don't actually care, and actually find I like him better if he did... at least he has an understanding of social justice then.

You kind of have to watch Yahtzee's reviews knowing that his game preferences tend to be quick-fixes in that he seems to hate almost every type of game that has a long in-depth or convulted storyline (ie. he hates almost all RPGs) and that you have to take ZP as it is; which is just one person's (biased) view on games.

I mean, I almost had a brain aneurysm when I heard that he hated Planescape: Torment. I think I've gotten over it though.

Possibly.

Maybe.

Ah dammit. *Goes to find a rock*

Possibly maybe. It might be Immature of me to say, but this Bachelorettes' Frosti Pagan Poetry makes me Violently Happy.