Russia is making campaign adds and slogans for Trump. This time you just don't care since he got away with it last time.

Remember, the recent republican created report says clearly Trump's campaign colluded, coordinated, and worked in tandem with Russia, who committed hundreds of crimes in America to help Trump get elected because he's their man, a total pussy and pushover who can't stand up to Putin even when he puts bounties on our military, knowingly and with intent invited foreign powers to interfere in our elections, even publicly on camera, then outright lied in the impeachment hearings.

No they aren't, because it's not slipping. You admitted as much under two weeks ago, said he was articulate and "with it", then forgot what bobski #4 said and went back to " he's lost it, is unstable, can't speak without major gaffes...." while ignoring Trump's disjointed, rambling, inarticulate, unstable speeches illegally using public property for campaign functions.

They are PRETENDING it is, so for suckers who believe constant liars, they are making it slip in your mind, the only place it's true.

Slowing down videos to make people look out of it is a well known Republican ploy, so is editing videos to make speakers appear confused or rambling. Trump looks deranged and unstable live, constantly, no cuts and editing needed. You can find more flubs, lies, misunderstandings, and rambling in any Trump speech than any Russian compilation of all 40 years of Biden's public service, and he stutters, Trump doesn't.

I won't underestimate the stupidity of the American voter again, but without functional absentee voting (the same as mail in) and with Trumpanzees following his instructions to vote twice and just hope you don't go to prison for him, he's already invalidated the election. He might win, but only by multiple forms of cheating and massive suppression. It's possible, he's degraded the country enough to make it possible.

Btw, how did you like Trump's crisis actor at his event in Kenosha. When the owner of a burned camera shop refused to be photographed with Trump or used as part of his divisive political ploy, Trump just got another person to pretend to be him and went ahead with his photo op. You knew he would the instant the words "crisis actor" left his lips, he always does the thing he rails against.
The man holding the Rhodes camera book is not the owner of the shop. He sold it nearly a decade ago and has no connection, knowing this, Trump repeats "your store" and "we're going to help you" to the guy he hired to be a crisis actor. I bet you suddenly love crisis actors and see nothing at all wrong there, despite ranting against them in the past as disgustingly dishonest tricks only liberals play.

Please, another red tsunami. I'm begging you, give us another red tsunami. Landslides are miniscule by comparison, go big.

Meh, I don't like that analogy.

If it were an accurate analogy, both people would be holding the cup of tea at the same time.

As I said, the two people are working in tandem. So she and I would be holding the tea with both hands, and we would bring the cup to her mouth to drink and then mine, and so on. Or even if only one person is holding the tea and only receiving instruction;

Think about a time when you've fed someone else food or poured a drink into someone else's mouth. Ever give them more than they wanted? Not enough? Ever spill some of it on their shirt even though you never intended for that to happen?

Remember!!! It's like a game of Operation! Don't give them a drop more or less than they want when you're pouring tea into their mouth or your entire life will be ruined.

Try pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth for them, do it deliberately and without error, and then we'll talk. Finally, consider that pouring hot tea into someone else's mouth is arguably less complicated than interpreting physical cues indicating a desire to have sex.

Those kinds of over simplifications of the nuances of human behavior are just that, over simplifications.

@newtboy
@ChaosEngine

It seems I'm an outlier in my opinion then. I don't agree that one second after I said "no" that constitutes rape anymore than my wife grinding into me a few more times when I tell her something similar because I'm seeing cracks in the damn that are going to cause a tidal wave.

To be clearer, I'm laying out a definition argument. I don't feel rape should be defined that way. You can't interlock two sweaty bodies and reasonably expect to constantly have a hand hovering over an ejector seat button.

I'm uncertain about what exactly rape should be defined as, but, in spite of me feeling that what happened to me was an outcome I explicitly didn't want; at some point during the initial physical union of the male and female genitalia, permissions about what is suddenly okay or not okay with that intimate contact becomes EXTREMELY difficult to define. When two people seem to be working in tandem at that point, I assert that permission is intertwined and, as a result, confusing. (hence our debate)

It's because of that confusion that I'm so hesitant to assign blame for a miscalculation of affection/passion.
@newtboy I think this is where the question of intent plays a role.

pretty good....however as soon as i saw the uncanny tandem i suspected there were other cgi elements. It immediately looked wrong with three wheels.

Here's the real swirly.....Two tandem cunts in matching ski-gear downhill on black diamonds forcing the admins they dream will suck their cocks, stuffing my head into a prep-school bathroom toilet unable to defend myself against some shit.
Y'all run with that.

Alas, hope still for my own state of sequester which has told the Common Core to suck a dick.

Yeah, this common core bullshit is nothing but agenda-oriented think-tank implants/appointees working in tandem with politicians and their pals to guide the populous headfirst and forward into how to think like automatons and wage slaves without the capacity or will to fight the powers that bees.

Given that usually the guns would be acting in tandem, and that the turret spins to the left and elevates as the left gun blazes away, it's the only theory I've got. Well, unless the gunner hit the "deathblossom" button... *grin*

http://youtu.be/MLNvUsTBGyE?t=2m12s

I'm sure I'm not the first to be skeptical about this video. It would have been so much easier to film this stunt in reverse. I assume they just started with the epic splits and pulled the trucks closer together until JCVD was standing with the camera close in.

In fact, I'm skeptical even the best stunt-truck-drivers could pull off that reverse stunt, though the tandem may have had a special "trick" steerable rear truck to keep everything tracking straight.

Thanks for the info. Been looking into it for a while. Did a tandem free-fall a while a ago and I loved it.

As ever, the issue is finding the time for it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'paralyzed, mom, son' to 'paralyzed, mom, mother, son, surfing, tandem' - edited by calvados

Just think of the spin off products...

Pug Stomper, Squirrel Stomper, Rabbit Stomper, Budgie Stomper, Gerbil Stomper, Gecko Stomper

...and oh so many others. This product is limitless

Don't forget the tandem-operated Pig Stomper.

>> ^shinyblurry:


>> ^LukinStone:



You certainly are a master of quoting. Too bad you don't go the extra mile and use your brain to analyze what is actually being said, put it in context and honestly apply it to the discussion we're having. The weird thing I've noticed is you quote me, James Madison and the Constitution of North Carolina all in the same manner. Not really engaging much with the ideas and myopically drawing conclusions filtered through your allegiance to Christian dogma.

I guess I asked for it. Serves me right. When dealing with a Christian I should have expected every tiny detail to be taken literally. Let me be blunt: I was joking about getting into a quote war.

Let me try a different tactic to get us back on track. I think, at least within the discussion between you and I, three different points have been made:

1. Santorum's point, that Kennedy now supported by liberals or atheists or evil citizens was using the establishment clause to say people who believe in God can't participate in government.

2. My point, that Santorum is mistaken and the establishment clause is meant to keep organized religious groups from affecting changes based on solely religious beliefs.

3. Your point, which seems to be that Christianity has always existed and been an important part of American history. Let me be clear: On this, I agree with you. But not when you continue a step further, saying religion was meant to perform a controlling role in government and that government works better because of it.

Your point is related to the initial discussion, but the length you are willing to go with your conclusions is not. In addition, you take political ideas with many interpretations and cherry pick your support. This, I'll admit, is great for making a partisan argument. But, that's not my goal here.
Can you see how a more focused discussion is useful? I know I am a long-winded writer, and so, if you can't stay on track, I feel we'll be forced to trade dozens of pages back and forth as we're continually side-tracked.

I don't have time for that. So, this will be my last comment on this video (may all Videosifters rejoice!). I will give you the honor of last word between us, if you want it. I only offer one challenge: Make your argument without quoting any additional sources. At first, I was impressed that you went to the trouble to research, but now, it seems you are addicted to them. And I'm not convinced they are helping move the discussion along.

I can't let everything you've said fly, not coupled with the conclusion you so righteously came to. So, I hope that you'll forgive me when I pick and choose what I think has the most relevance to the discussion at hand.

Let's get back to the establishment clause and the free exercise clause.

Why is language like this in the constitution if, as you've so thoroughly proven, the founders were all Catholics…wait no, Quakers…wait Presbyterians…wait Baptists…oh, right deists…

I think the purpose of the establishment clause was to protect the country from any one religious sect from dominating the others. Because all of the founders were Christians (again, a point I never denied), even the ones who were influenced by Deism, the purpose of explicitly stating that there would be no nationally sanctioned religion was, initially, to keep one sect of Christianity from gaining control over the others.

Do you really have to ask, given how great you think Christianity is, how it is these (to varying degrees) religious men all compromised on this point? They understood that religious differences between Christians had taken their toll on European governments. This was a way to temper such strife. That handy link you provided, breaking down the religion affiliations of the founders, shows that a majority of them were Episcopalian/Anglicans. Do you think it was a valid concern that a Christian sect believing the King of England was the head of the church might be seen as a potential threat to our fledgling country?

I think the interpretation that sees the establishment clause as a protection against and for Christians addresses some other minor points you made. In a state like North Carolina, where Protestants dominated, their individual state's government could more easily make such religious restrictions without having to compromise with different sects. That, in the future, they were forced to change "Protestant" to "Christian" I think shows the national example, which was less tolerant of specific religious language, was more just. The North Carolinians, as well as other state governments, stubbornly held onto the word "Christian" because that's what they knew. Maybe the national founders didn't know how effective the language they used would turn out to be, but by employing the more secular god of deism instead of the specific one of Christianity, they protected the future of all Americans instead of just the most popular sect of the time.

And yes, I knew what I was doing when I included the letter from Jefferson as my sole quote. I'd hoped it'd cause you to pause and reflect, but you were too busy getting up on that high horse with Jesus to care.

I think the letter is a valid example of an instance where we have one of the architects of the Constitution explaining, in his own words, why it is written as it is. I think Jefferson's aim was to keep religion and state separate, and his opponents called him an atheist for it. As you pointed out and I agree, he was indeed a Christian.

Supreme Court Justices are entitled to their opinions and certainly deserve respect, but Rehnquist's support of your position is not the final word in this discussion. Justices are human like anyone else, and they often make mistakes. They are often politically biased. Upon further research, I found a much more harshly worded version of this letter and learned the political implications of its creation. It was indeed written by Jefferson to make a political point and to caution against aligning politics with religion, as the opposition party did at the time. He cautioned against things like proclamations of thanksgiving, such as the one by Washington you quoted in your initial post directed at me, as they were reminiscent of the proclamations made by the English monarchy.

Justice Rehnquist read the same words, no doubt had a better understanding of history than I and came to a different conclusion. I don't feel like I'm blaspheming when I say, on this, I think he was wrong.

There have always been opposing political parties, vying for power in America. Religion has always been used as a political weapon. That the ire against Great Britain was unpalatable enough for even the most religious of Americans to compromise and allow the establishment clause to be written as it was is no accident. I think it stands to as an example of how important the constitution is that, in the face of tyranny, the founders identified something they all held dear that had been corrupted by governments throughout history, and found a way to work around that problem.

I think to argue that the constitution needs to remain static, without an intelligent and modern understanding of the principles it puts in place, is childish. The founders essentially kicked the ball down the road concerning the issue of slavery. Some believed it morally wrong but saw it as too big of a challenge to tackle at the time. And, I imagine not many men believed in suffrage for female citizens, but that too was something future generations were able shape our laws to include. My point in bringing up examples like these is simply to show each generation's duty to interpret laws, and when necessary, to make changes. If the founders thought the benefits of allowing organized religion to guide the country, in an official capacity, outweighed the dangers, I think they would have explicitly stated so.

The fact that people, humans, immediately went back to using the tool of organized religion to divide each other and seize power is not surprising to me. Testing limits and making amendments is our prerogative as Americans. And, if anything, the wall of separation has proven to be a good idea, as we've only created more religions which have duped more people to believe more untrue things as time marches on.

FINALLY: Two points I have purposely overlooked. They, in my opinion, are outside the realm of this discussion. So, think of this as a Post-script.

1. All of your citations of a Christian god being mentioned by founders and their church-going activities.

As I've now said over and over, I accept that the founders were all Christians, to some degree. The language of government had, up until that point, been tied to that of religion. It makes sense to me that it took a while for the full intent of the separation between church and state to trickled down into the collective consciousness. I hope you can understand how this idea incorporates the foundations of early religious settlements in North America as well as church services being held in tandem with government work after the constitution was written. Obviously, a book could be written about it; I don't think it influences the primary discussion nearly as much as you do. I think the key with this one is that you take a breath and understand where I'm disagreeing with you.

2. Your last paragraph.

The idea that religion has influenced our culture and morals is not the issue here. The evolution of government has shown that organized religion has, in the past, been yet another institution no more intrinsically moral than any other institution established by man. Organized religion has been responsible for education and liberal reform. It has also been responsible for wars, corruption within communities of all sizes and has been used to justify inequality.

The idea of no government endorsement of Christianity is ridiculous? I'll do you one better. I think American history reflects an implicit endorsement of Christianity. And, going back further, before Christianity took hold in Europe, other non-Christian religions were tangled up with government and culture to the point these ideas couldn’t be considered without each other.

Where you see a "shocking moral decline" I see human rights being extended to all genders and races. All too often nowadays, organized religion supports authoritarian ideas. It often supports unhealthy psychology and grassroots movements that would be laughably anti-scientific if the situation weren't so serious.

Humanity might have needed ages of development aided by organized religion to figure out how to behave morally. But, we're smarter now. We can objectively consider our history and defer to our own individual morally whenever an ancient book that sometimes advocates slavery, infanticide and magic would tell us we are sinning for even thinking about how we can make things better. Don’t worry, though the "whole thing will crumble," we've got a solid secular foundation, preserving the ideas most important in building a better future.

I was interested in this talk when I heard her talk about the points she wished to address: (1) Are atheists actually angry?; (2) Why are they angry and is it valid?; and (3) Is this anger useful for the atheist movement?

Around the 15 minute mark, I became tired of what had become a crowd-pandering rant about what makes the speaker angry (self-classified by Greta as a rant at least twice later in this talk.) I kept skipping forward to find the end of the rant because I was interest in the other points she had promised to make. I'm not dismissing the validity of her individual points within that rant, but was wanted to hear her other points.

If you already know why atheists are angry, or don't need a warm fuzzy feeling from hearing someone rant about something you agree with, or just don't want to hear the rant in general:
SKIP FROM 6 minutes to 26 minutes.

I thought she made some excellent points when talking about the usefulness of anger within a social movement. People often idealize past social movement figures while ignoring what they don't know or don't wish to know. Also there tends to be a ignoring of the multiple groups working in tandem (although sometimes not more than of strangers taking the same bus to similar destinations) which created the social change that the history books lay to rest on the one idealized (idolized?) leader for one of the groups.

Simply great. What needs to happen in tandem is an overhaul of the air traffic control system AND human assisted, computer controlled flight. Simply put, to get the full benefit of a 3-d traffic arena, you have to think non-linearly, and humans aren't good at doing that quickly and safely. If all traffic was control via independent, yet, intercommunication systems...there should be no reason you couldn't take off and land on parts of the highway.

I agree. I try to imagine some of the challenges though:

Xbox Live talking to the PSN talking to Tranq.

Attempt at seamless, smooth integration/launch (when does this happen in games any more?)

Not trying to start the system debate, but it is known that for FPS games, the mouse and keyboard are superior input devices. This would cause a large rift in what a player could do, that another could not. With the supposed point of trying to reach a different audience, or make Dust more approachable for consolers, it would not mesh well introducing PC players.

I hear that Logitech has some of the better KB/M that work with a PS3.
>> ^Enzoblue:

Wicked idea. PS3 only is a shocker though.