I defer to your opinion as i'm only assessing, who bond is, from my childhood viewing of 007 films. Not at all from Flemings books which ive never read.

Also my favorite "Bond' film may be 1967 Casino Royale. That film was a hoot Although nothing like your typical Bond film. http://videosift.com/video/Best-Bond-film-ever-1967-Casino-Royale-trailer
I did however see 'The spy who loved me' about ten times, when it came out.

Roger Moore? Controversial!

Personally, I think Dalton or Craig are closest to Flemings Bond, but Connery's movies were the best.

Craig got off to an excellent start with Casino Royale, but the others have been fairly average.

The best Bond movies ever, though, are the first three Bourne movies

my favorite part is when Lemon literally says, "Are you certain of the words you just said?"

Here's a hint you probably royally screwed up - if the moderator in a debate asks if you purposefully meant what you just said, you probably just sat on your own balls.

"He must be a royal with a sense of humor."

You might say that...

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/26/40/c7/2640c7091261c2fb4d28413c6e9e27e4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/dM5KZqm.png

Not 'shopped btw.

*ban2.0
Game Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCX2UGHLtWo

*related= http://videosift.com/video/Clash-royale-Legendary-Arena-Gabriel-vs-Chinese
*ban1.0
Game Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYNyNxf2nfg

Wait for it...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-17/priest-says-tim-minchin-song-hurting-abuse-survivors/7178606

"A Jesuit priest and human rights lawyer has accused Tim Minchin of endangering the integrity of the royal commission into sexual abuse after the comedian penned a song describing George Pell as "scum" and inviting the Cardinal to "come home and frickin' sue [me]".

Father Frank Brennan has warned that turning the commission into a "laughing stock" runs the risk of derailing proceedings.

"I don't think it's altogether helped by having songs about a key witness, calling him scum, and a buffoon, and a coward and that sort of thing before the commission does its task," Father Brennan told ABC's the Drum program.

"Because if we turn it into a laughing stock, then the big losers ... will be the victims themselves.""

Yeah, it's Minchin's song that's disturbing, not covering up child rape...

How very sad. I guess science wasn't the predominating theme at "The Royal Society" until after the second world war.

Well no, it's from the training course for minor ops for the Royal collage of surgeons UK.

Technically, the constitution allows the "United States" to own land. It does not name the government as an owner.

The government of the United States is not the United States. Being a republic, the United States is its citizens.

The government is a manager/caretaker of state's (people's) property, not an owner of property in and of itself.

Technically, the government doesn't even have any authority of its own. It's strictly a body that executes the state's (people's) will, and it does so by the state's (people's) authority - not its own authority (hence the Democracy part). (Officially, the government does nothing of its own accord - hence why in court it's 'the state vs whoever', not 'the government vs whoever').

So, technically, there is no 'government property' - there is only state (people's) property.

Actually, the reason that 'eminent domain' is 'eminent' (i.e. obvious - aka 'obvious domain') - is because the land has always belonged to the state - because the state is the only authority. You never actually own your personal land, you're simply entitled to be the sole occupant. You can buy/sell that right, but the land always has, does, and always will, belong to the state. So under eminent domain, the land is not actually taken from you, because it never belonged to you, hence why the state's domain is eminent (obvious).

In any case, land has this weirdness to it, where all land is state land, and everyone is the state, and no land is private, and all that ever happens is people are bestowed an authority to exclusively manage/reside on a given plot that they never really own. In any case, that authority ends up being functionally equivalent to actual ownership. The phrase 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck' comes to mind, because when you have a body of case law that treats property as if private property actually exists, then in a sense, it does exist for all practical purposes - so there is a disconnect between the practical nature of 'land ownership' and the official/ideological nature of 'the state (the people) having authority over all at all times'.

Also, this is why you can't have an allodial land title in the U.S.. So long as it's still U.S. land, it can never truly be privately owned. It's simply incompatible.

Interestingly, way back when before the U.S. was founded, private ownership of land was associated with monarchy - where some royal(s) individual(ly) literally owned the country. The path of events that eroded royal authority and empowered lower levels of society, was the same path that eroded [true] private land ownership, because it introduced the concept of inherent ownership/rights of some other groups (e.g. the people).

-scheherazade

What dirty bastards.
*promote so more people will know to not book with Royal Caribbean until they make a written pledge to never anchor over a live reef again, even if it's legal, and agree to pay to mitigate all the damage they've done here. It can't just be fixed, but there are some things that can be done to help minimize the lasting damage.

Douchebaggery of the highest order.

Tarantino is doing something really cool by bringing back the idea of the cinematic roadshow AND by making a film that is, by design, best seen with a 70mm projector (which only a few theaters in the country possess). Why does Disney care about ONE movie theater when they've got a worldwide release--especially as Star Wars is actually going to open in that theater anyway and be shown there for the first week, when the biggest returns will happen).

Seriously, I can't understand why Disney would do this, unless Tarantino royally pissed off some Disney executive who is now getting their revenge.

EDIT:

Was reading more about this on Reddit and learned that this likely happened because Disney is aggressively going to try to break the all-time box office record and therefore wants "all hands on deck" and the movie playing in as many theaters as possible.

Also, there are reports coming out that this was not a recent change but one that Disney forced through months ago, the evidence for this being that the Arclight theater in question was listed as available for the online pre-ordering of tickets for The Force Awakens over the holidays way back in October. However, it seems Tarantino was only informed of the change recently.

Screw your 'he deserved what he got' attitude. The police are not judge, jury, and executioner. It's their job to stop criminals and collect evidence...period. If they can't do that job without resorting to ACTUALLY nearly brutally killing compliant people, they shouldn't be cops, they should be cons.

Hitting the cop car is not "nearly killed two officers", they apparently weren't injured enough to require treatment, hardly "nearly killed" in my book.

"What if" arguments are the bastion of people who can't make an argument with the facts, so they feel the need to create new 'facts' to rail against, IMO....but OK, I'll play along...What if this video didn't exist? I suggest that the officers wouldn't even go on paid leave, the action that's been takes thus far...sending them on paid vacation.
How does one get THAT deal, screw up royally and criminally at your job in a way that's likely to cost your 'business' millions in damages, they'll stand by you and pay for vacation for a few months while they 'look into it'. WHAT?!?

If this is the treatment one can expect when criminals DO stop, as he clearly did at the beginning of the video, why on earth would anyone not continue to run like their life depends on it, which it nearly did in this case? That's not at all reasonable.

The love of a God didn't save me from trauma, sexual and gender identity issues, clinical depression, and the ever looming bipolar disorder. Living is hard, even if it's also simultaneously fun and easy for me to succeed; because the concept of my personal identity isn't flush with the expectations that society and my family have. Being myself almost always gets me in trouble and is misunderstood with sometimes violent repercussions. This forms further cognitive dissonance which is a psychological isolation that has physical isolation as a matter of course. Depression runs in my family, despite all of their love and adoration of Jesus. Southern Baptists, bless their hearts.

I'm sorry to hear about all of that poolcleaner. I think maybe you have the idea that Christians, according to the bible, are supposed to live pain free lives. That isn't what the bible says, though. Jesus promised that Christians would suffer, not only persecutions but grievous trials, physically and spiritually. A Christian is supposed to die to himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus.

That means a Christian can become depressed, or have gender issues, or any number of other infirmities or temptations. Christians can and do screw up all the time. People have a picture of churches filled with people who think they are perfect, but it is the opposite. Churches are usually filled with people who have screwed up everything royally, and God rebuilt their lives from the ground up. Churches are filled with people who know and proclaim that it is only by Gods grace and mercy that there is anything good happening in their lives; they are filled with broken people who are held together in the loving arms of almighty God. They fall apart sometimes and God puts them back together again.

There's almost nothing logical about anything you say. The only logic is that you make things make sense according to the Bible. If it's scientifically logical but goes against the teachings Christ or God, it's wrong. If the Bible can support the science, it's good!

The most destructive thing in a mans life is a lack of integrity. When you cheat, you aren't getting away with it because no one found out; you are going to reap a bitter harvest from the bad seed you have sown. A loss will occur, whether it is financially, or even mentally and emotionally, and it will far outweigh the temporary gains. It is the same with lying, hating, lusting, etc. Sin in our lives is destructive physically, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. The bible describes it in exacting detail and it matches reality because the true reality of mankind, what he is really like, and why, can only be found in scripture. The bible is right about everything it says about mankind. Although the bible does match our observations of the natural world, I think it is more remarkable how it matches the reality of the inner universe.

I don't know if think you think this is science or not, as far as the video goes. As far as I can tell it is speculation based on a few studies the author researched. Has anyone tested his theory?

You, on the other hand, make every excuse to prove your stupid philosophy is true and that science is wrong for not agreeing upon the truth of your hippy God love cult. Prove me to be objectively incorrect in my perspective and I will give up on my convictions. Because what is a conviction if it's a false one based upon circular logic and feel good analogies? Oh, them feels. Them Jesus feels. Jesus hippy love.

I'm not a Christian because I thought it was a good idea, or because it made me feel good. When I gave my life to Jesus, I didn't feel any differently at all, except perhaps with a realization of some things I had to change in my life. I became a Christian because God revealed Himself to me, and He showed me Jesus is the messiah. No one ever witnessed to me or explained the gospel in my entire life; it was entirely because of personal revelation that I became a Christian.

I'm not here to prove anything; I post when I feel motivated by God, and the intent of my heart is care and concern for your souls. I started coming here when I was a new christian, and I got into arguments with people over petty issues. To me, now, the real issue is where you're spending eternity and I am praying for that. Perhaps I will never be known on this forum as anything other than an unthinking zealot, but God knows I am sincere at least about that.

I've been pondering this a lot recently. Basically, I am the sole supervisor of a complex money making system - I've watched the Vice President manipulate the money in strange ways to make himself look efficient - another bullet-point on his LinkedIn page. All the while I'm not making anywhere close to what I should and they refuse to give me a raise - even though I single handedly bring in about $100k every week.

So - I just started coming to work super late EVERY DAY. And when I get called out for it, or threatened I just smile and say "definitely" in a real snarky way to anything they say because I know I have their fucking ballsacks in a cage and they can't do fucking shit about it.

So in the meantime, I bought 17 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains, it's completely off the grid, solar, grey water (still get good hotspot reception for sifting). Any day now, I'm just going to walk off the job and royally fuck the slave owner capitalist scum fucks and start living like a true patriot. Can't wait.

Politicians have been using "the Royal We" since the dawn of time. I'm sure by "I got this chart" he meant "my unpaid intern who secretly wants me to look even more like a douche got this chart".

"Plausible deniability"