Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick. You can tell a proper flick from its opposite, as it is both soft and quick and seems like there is a lot of it, which may or may not be an optical illusion. The danger be your cocks is full of bruisin’ if you fuck it up. There are a multitude of factors. I found a club in which a bunch of dudes do practice helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick.

At the totem of the storeroom I showed them how to relax and to tell a proper flick from its opposite as it is both soft and quick, strong as an apocalypse. Don’t knock it Miss. It is a ritual of manhood. A man should preserve it like canned good, not that there’s very much choice in the matter. Young boys innately know the joys of hey batter, batter, picking up stick to swing in a rock. Isn’t any shot because they know the grip flicks swish to their own cock quicker than they learn to love the lick of another boy’s lollipop, not undermine the sucking of dicks.

Live in love my brothers. Teach me some of your tricks. It is not my own area of expertise. I only know my own dick as I check to squeeze. I got on it tighter than you might expect, but if my rhyme is so tight how would I ejac-ulate is what you contemplate, but if you really want to know it ask your mom for the tape, because I came to cockcenteric Centrifusions, stretch out with your feelings and sense the hugeness. Oh, the impulse to prove this newtonian concept of the universe, whether through boners or non erect dudes rehearse their mystery over gravity, magically flinging their anatomy as they battle the old enemy of Adam and Eve, not the devil, not the serpent, but the apple, drop in the knowledge on their heads like my rappel du-tee-de you, mother fucker.

Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick. Can stop to check if you are rocking it properly, wouldn’t want to let you be flopping it sloppily, ladies in the house, don’t let us with the monopoly; Ying to the Yang, to the wang – to the follow me. Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick.

You can tell about the flick from its opposite as it is both soft and quick and seems like there is a lot of it. Don’t throttle it, ease up on throttle. You can got a lot of lift with a little bit of twaddle, which is like twiddle but from the bottom in the middle, pop-up to the top, flop back down like a griddle cake, or the smack with a little shake.

The more you practice helps you mitigate the inaccuracy of hitting shapes not exactly within the state of helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter helicopter dick. [https://lybio.net/c-command-helicopter-dick/comedy/]

There is the door ying yang... *ban

YT got Googled up the ying yang

@chingalara

"Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point"

- Actually the fact that I was installing an internal joke/ribbing into the comment stream is not a moot point, it as a very celebrated and basic point, also- you were brought aware of this point and then decided to point the comment I quoted above. Just so we are clear- grasping at air... or nothing because air is something you are grasping for anything for an argument, which equates to my standard of you being an attention whore.

ok what else what I thinking of ohh, scrolling above I read it. .

You and your character..and Int *cough* egrity

both of which you have little of here.

let me be clear as my final hello of the morning.

Your integrity here is null, your tenure here is null - chingalara??? why don't you sign is as choggie ? ! ? You have no tenure, I do not know why you were let back in, I have a clue why I was. you.. You offer nothing but the ying to a yang. and you never learn, ever. Deluded salt water taffy.

Now I must water some plants and let a rabbit out to frollic on my carpet.

Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

I think it's nonsensical that you believe in a one-size-fits-all majority rule governance for all people. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Agree to staunchly disagree.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Everyone is individualist. Everyone is collectivist. Trying to separate the two is just politics.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Individualists don't typically disbelieve in combined efforts of people. Science is a perfect example where working together works and works well. But that's mainly because science can exist without affecting any one person's life - in other words, it can exist without forcing people to fund it or believe in it or administer it or whatever else. But when you have a collection of people come together to tell other people how their lives are supposed to be lived, what they should pay for, how they should eat, how they should take care of their bodies, what wars they should fund and so on, then that's where individualists have problems with collectivists.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
How very sad and self loathing. Every individual has his or her own unique intelligences. By themselves, these intelligences might be modest, but join them together and you can create a sum bigger than the whole of its parts. This is how science works; many bits of information from many different people coming together to create a working theory. Does H. L. Mencken (or his inanimate skeleton) think science is pathetic? I don't know much about H.L. Mencken, other than the fact that Holden Caufield mentions him in the book, "Catcher in the Rye", but I think his opinion is in error here.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken

You love quotes, right?

>> ^shinyblurry:


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.


If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..
In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.
Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.
Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.
Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.
Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.
That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.


Indeed, that does just about sum it up.

Kceaton doesn't need to try to negate your Christian god's omniscience (assuming the proposition that he exists in the first place is true, which you haven't even attempted to demonstrate). You did that just swimmingly all on your own, assuming again, that you're not a liar or playing Devil's Advocate and earnestly believe what you just typed.

Thanks for saving anyone with any inclination to refute your imaginary friend a whole lot of time by doing it for us. Also, cognitive dissonance doesn't mean what you think it means. I would say that you were a fantastic example of it in action but that means you would need to actually recognize (in some form) the incongruity of your own silly, self-contradictory beliefs and/or be bothered by it.

The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

>> ^shinyblurry:

From a Christian perspective, the message itself is ridiculous because there is no way for human beings to create an ideal society. It doesn't matter if it is a democracy or a dictatorship. The ruler of this world is the Devil. Until Jesus returns, mankind will be subject to his rule, culminating when the Antichrist comes to power. This man does not understand the message and I doubt he is a real Christian.
As for all the wonderful people calling for Christians to disappear, etc, I'll make you a deal. If you don't use this guy as an example for Christians, I won't use you as an example for Atheists.


The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.

He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to *tempt* us (or if you wish, *we* let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.

I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".

There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...

Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.

To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ninja, n word, jerry, ying, slang' to 'ninja, n word, jerry, ying, slang, ninjer' - edited by calvados

am I missing something ? the only thought in my head right now is what the fuck. I wish I knew how to underline that last little bit. two word search on your tube within ten seconds found something WAYYYYYYYYYYYY more relevant then this nine minute long clip, last I remember the ying to this posts yang was two girls making out for four minutes......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrVf1DVHA3k kill this and put this one up i say.

>> ^fford:
Actually, the Constitution does allow the federal government to "rob one group of people ... to pay off others...."

>> ^quantumushroom:
The Constitution allows for no such thing, though since it's now ignored, the robbery goes on all the time.

Well, I was just using your words. But let's be honest. All taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. So, if you're going to call one instance of taxation and spending "robbing and paying off," then you're calling all instances of it that. So, unless you have some Constitutional law to back up the claim that Congress is not allowed to levy taxes and appropriate those revenues as it sees fit, then just concede the point. Ranting about it just makes you look silly.


>> ^quantumushroom:
There is legitimate taxation (with representation) for the feds to provide for the common defense and a few other things, but the massive robbing of Peter to pay Paul was never the Founders' intent.

If the Founding Fathers intended the phrase "promote the general welfare" to mean a bottomless Treasury providing for any and every whim of the people, they wouldn't have taken pains to listing specific powers in Article I, Section 8.

You talk about the Founders' intent as though they were some sort of hive mind of uniform thought. They disagreed heavily about what the role of the federal government was. If, when they came to a concensus, they had intended to strictly limit Congress' authority to spend revenues, they would have done so. Instead they did just the opposite by including the "common defense and general welfare" clause.

The general welfare clause is analagous to the 9th Amendment. Where the 9th Amendment notes that the previous 8 do not delineate all of the rights held by the people, the general welfare clause provides Congress with broad appropriation authority over and above those specifically listed. Realizing that it would be foolhardy to try to delineate all possible reasons for the Congress to appropriate funds, several very important ones are specifically noted, and then a clause is included to make sure that Congress was not limited to just those listed.


>> ^quantumushroom:
It is the height of naivety to believe any government claiming it only wants to "stop here" with power grab.

I don't believe any such thing. Of course all institutions will hold onto and try to expand their authority. But the logical conclusion of your point is anarchy. We create institutions and grant them power realizing that they will tend to grow and need to be limited. I agree with you that the federal government oversteps its bounds all the time. The Commerce clause is more abused than a foster child. But the reality of institutional power cannot by itself be a reason not to create an institution. Every agency of every government has this problem, especially those dealing with law enforcement. But we're not going to abolish them for that reason. We implement oversight, accountability, and reform when necessary.


>> ^quantumushroom:
The Obamessiah has already been caught admitting he wants socialized medicine in statements which he then modified or covered up depending on the audience at hand.

Government sponsored insurance is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine would entail all health care providers being government employees and hospitals being owned and operated by government agencies. Government sponsored health insurance is just what it says it is. Insurance. This already exists in nearly every other insurance domain - auto insurance, flood insurance, home owner's insurance in hurricane zones, etc. None of those insurance programs have displaced private insurers. (Flood insurance is solely available from the National Flood Insurance Program only because no private insurer will underwrite flood policies - you can't make money doing that.)


>> ^quantumushroom:
The destruction of liberty has been incremental over the past century. We're just about finished and this socialized medicine will be the near-death blow for a once-free society.
Stop pretending the federal mafia knows what's best for everyone. Let people suffer the consequences of their actions. Restore the balance of power between the federal dorks and State dorks. Disallow the federal mafia from using taxation as a weapon to punish whatever behavior the health and safety nanny-state prigs dislike at the moment. Accept freedom has inherent risks or move away to safety-helmet Europe whose civilization is d(r)ying out, and wait for the Muslims to take over.


Your arguments would carry much more weight if you didn't act like a child by using phrases like "Obamessiah," "federal mafia," "wait for the Muslims to take over," etc. Seriously, stuff like that just makes you sound like an ultra-right-wing nutjob. There are cogent arguments to be made against government sponsored health insurance, but when you embed them in language like that, they tend to be laughed at, as do you.