>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Yogi
You do understand the show takes millions of dollars, months of traveling, and thousands of people outside the main cast to produce. Right?
"Man why can't they film year round, non-stop and release 30 episodes a season?"


Then you don't make 1 season = 1 book. You spread it out longer. I wasn't thinking about the practicalities I was merely making a criticism that I believe is fair. If you watch it it's a LOT of exposition, and it becomes trying.

You could be right that it's not possible to do it in the way I'm saying it should be done, I think it needs to be pointed out though that I like it and I want it to take it's time in order to the better.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yes! Greatest show on television in many..many years.


Yeah it's a very good show but I hesitate to call it the greatest because there's simply not enough of it. Seriously you're cramming a book into 10 episodes...I haven't even read the book and I can tell this is getting silly. Just about every scene is CRAMMED with as much exposition as they can muster, it literally feels like there's guys with a camera going "OK Lets go over here and establish what's going on with these people, just the bare minimum and ok done next group of people!"

I love a lot of these characters...I love this world. I wanna hang in it, chill in it, listen to their conversations and their storylines. Not be kicked from one side of the continent to the other while they give me the cliff notes of what the hell is going on in this universe.

What a bubble bath! Why I near Jimmy Riddled my round the houses when he said the guv's prayer.

Riddle? Your hippy moron parents named you RIDDLE?!?! Cheese and Rice!

Gingrich is calling for the video to be corrected --

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/politics/gingrich-calls-for-withdrawal-of-ad-against-romney-and-bain.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23

Mr. Gingrich’s comments on Friday came after a host of news reports disputed the film’s accuracy, including The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, which gave it the worst possible rating of “Four Pinocchios.”

The video, “King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” is riddled with inaccuracies, half-truths and omissions, according to a review of corporate documents and interviews with industry analysts.

*rolls eyes at ancient fanboy arguments*

"The 500000 glitches are nowhere near game breaking!!!!"
"It's not as buggy as this other game!!!!"

We get the game quality we deserve, gentlemen. Stop settling for less. The game is fucking riddled with bugs, and most of them reek of lazyness. Little things that they MUST have seen and just thought "ah fuck it, they'll eat any old shit up"

Great game otherwise, but it DOES matter.

doompity doo ... ive got another riddle for you

This reminds me of a riddle...what was it?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'riddles, paranormal, rainn wilson, portland, oregon, viral' to 'riddles, paranormal, rainn wilson, portland, oregon, viral, Portlandia' - edited by Trancecoach

Cheers for the promote!

In reply to this comment by volumptuous:
*promote

Altho the 'final verdict' isn't in, I believe The Gay is genetic. Of course, that opens up another can of worms. Is homosexuality a genetic defect to be 'cured'?

"In what way are my rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others?"

Which rights are we talking about? Gays have all the rights of anyone else, including creating their own legal family. The 'right' for gays to officially marry under the law is the one exception, but that 'right' had never existed before.


>> ^therealblankman:

Even if being gay is a choice I don't understand how that fact serves as a basis for discrimination and oppression. At that point it's quite akin to a freedom of speech issue and while I may not be gay I'll defend to the death your right to be so. Get down with your bad gay self.
And as for our resident deep thinker @quantummushroom : riddle me this... in what way are your rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others? Or are you simply saying that Gays should just STFU and quit shoving it into your face? http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-hom
osexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/
I for one don't believe this for a second, just putting it forward for argument's sake

Even if being gay is a choice* I don't understand how that fact serves as a basis for discrimination and oppression. At that point it's quite akin to a freedom of speech issue and while I may not be gay I'll defend to the death your right to be so. Get down with your bad gay self.

And as for our resident deep thinker @quantummushroom*: riddle me this... in what way are your rights diminished by guaranteeing those same rights and protections for others? Or are you simply saying that Gays should just STFU and quit shoving it into your face? http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/

*I for one don't believe this for a second, just putting it forward for argument's sake

Friendly reminder, there is a God and He loves you, and so do I. Looks like you're using new words too. Did you invent parroticaly all by yourself?

>> ^hpqp:
Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use evil laughter
Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.
Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?
I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea goes off to find pr0n
>> ^shinyblurry:
@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

Heh, I'm just going to keep this gem of a comment, for further use *evil laughter*

Lookitchu, shiny, all full of new words you can parroticaly throw back at the first person who calls you out, how cute.

Just a friendly reminder: there is/are no God/s. When people like @SpaceGirlSpiff or myself talk about God/s it's the concept we are discussing. A bit like when fans of Star Wars debate about the fundamentals of the Force, and whether Darth Vador is redeemable or not. Now imagine someone comes to the discussion and claims Obi Wan showed himself to them, revealing knowledge that was later confirmed by watching the Star Wars Trilogy (the original, of course; the prequels are akin to The Book of Mormon). See where this is going?

I must admit, every time you accuse someone else of being illogical, irrational, condescending, arrogant, prejudiced, etc., it makes me smile and shake my head slowly. Oh well, I'm off to do something more productive than talking to a godbot. Hmmm, a devilish diddle sounds like a good idea *goes off to find pr0n*

>> ^shinyblurry:

@SpaceGirlSpiff
Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.
Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.
You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.
You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.
You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.
On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.
In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.

@SpaceGirlSpiff

Spacegirl, your former post is riddled with logical fallacies. False analogies, begging the question, non-sequiturs and strawmen fallacies. You provided absolutely no rationale for any of your conclusions. You simply dictated the terms of the discussion as if everything you said was factual and justified. This alone makes your entire post irrational, and unfounded. Then you go on to unfairly characterize me as an unthinking animal or a mindless automoton in one giant Ad hom, dodging the debate completely, saying in the height of arrogance that I am not even worthy of a reply.

Let's go over this again. You asked, how do I know I am not following the wrong deity? My answer is personal revelation. Why do you think this is unreasonable, or irrational? If God exists He is quite capable of revealing Himself to whomever he chooses. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational reason to believe the bible is true. I explained that before I even read the bible, God had personally revealed to me certain facts about Himself which were confirmed later by the bible, and this is the reason I know the bible is accurate. Whether you consider that rational or not is a separate question. It is an appropiate and reasonable answer to your inquiry.

You stated Satan has the power of deity. I countered with the fact that the activities of Satan are restricted by God and that he cannot do anything without permission. A god that has to ask permission isn't a god. Again, this is a reasonable answer.

You go on to say God commands the slaughter of innocents. I reply that there are no innocents on a fallen world. So I reject your premise on the outset, as it is simply ignorant of even basic scripture. You say God condemns people to hell unless they bow, which is also grossly inaccurate. God condemns all sin, and it is unrepentant sinners that go to hell.

You further state that God commits genocide, another unproven and inaccurate assertion. You need an argument showing how God is morally culpable for executing His judgement and sovereign will before you can claim genocide. You go on to say job was punished to prove a point; i pointed out that job himself realized that nothing he had belonged to him, but rather it belonged to God and it was His right to give it or take it back, and that this was a lesson for the church, that God is not our debtor, but its rather the opposite. During the trial, God used this experience to teach at least 4 other people who came to argue Job back into obedience. It also presumes that job was punished unfairly, which is untrue. Job was a sinner, despite being very loyal, and moreover during the trial he sinned even more. I will further point out that God restored job to even greater heights after this was over.

On the last bit, you state an incoherent false analogy about a corrupt dictator who provided his subjects with a book declaring himself to be god and prevents outside communication. Well, there is plenty of communication going on in this world and plenty of books which all maintain different ideas about who God is. God isn't preventing any of that. A corrupt dictator allows no freedom of choice, you are obviously free to reject God your entire life. You make a number of false correlations about reason and logic and removing blinders, but none of these conclusions follow from the premise, which is a false analogy to begin with.

In short, spacegirlspiff, your post leaves much to be desired in terms of rationality and your personal attack on me further shows that this debate is based not on logic but on your personal prejudice against Christianity and God in general.