*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bungling-Sofa-Thieves

http://videosift.com/video/Bungling-Sofa-Thieves

Okthen-I shall in future follow these simple suggestions and consider the same, the word of 4 tiny gods little gee...Someone else may either return this, declare it dead and wait for the pool, or forever let Mr. Bungle fan's live performance languish indefinitely here.

Thanks y'all

I has opinions.

A music video should not be replaced with a live performance, IMO.

A live performance should not be replaced with a music video, IMO.

A specific live performance should not be replaced with a different live performance, IMO.

An audiosift with arbitrary background visuals (artist slideshow, static image, vintage footage, ironic footage, any other kind of 'filler' footage) should be able to be replaced with embeds that have different arbitrary background visuals. A short film set to a popular song would not be considered arbitrary background visuals, IMO.

It looks like you replaced a music video with a live performance, which is a no-no IMO.

This particular music video features Mike Patton in a Mr. Bungle shirt, which makes me happy. I like to be happy. Please make me happy.

Won't help, they'll still do it. I even had a professor recently bungle then/than in an email to the class.

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

>> ^shinyblurry:

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalys
is/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm


It's funny how imperialism works. The countries we occupy seem to side with the opposition, why is that?

You're correct though, the Iraqi government is kicking us out. Of course we will leave behind thousands of mercenaries and the CIA will have a shadowy presence. And the State department will be hiring 5,500 more security contractors to protect 17,000 civilians working for the American government in Iraq.

Sounds like to me this is the perfect opportunity for the US or Israel to stage an attack by Iran on Iraq or US troops. Remember the "Iran has become bolder" talking-point that was repetitively aired after the recent fake DEA-Saudi bomb plot.

What the administration is not telling you is that total withdrawlal of the troops was not the preferred plan. The plan was to leave a remnant of a few thousand behind to oversee training. But because our negotiaters bungled talks with the Iraqi government and failed to get immunity for the troops, they pulled them all out. Iraq also recently announced that it wouldn't be having any of our bases there either. So basically Iran has taken over, and this fledging democracy, which we completely failed to establish, is going to be overtaken by extermists and brought under sharia law. We are basically symbolically handing over the control of the country to Iran and leaving in shame and disgrace. God help the Iraqi people.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/589004/201110211900/Politicizing-Our-Exit-From-Iraq.htm

>> ^Porksandwich:

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.
In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.
And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.
Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.
And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.
But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?
It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.
If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.
I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.
Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.


I think your unemployment office offers a pretty good slice of the overall picture, at least where female employees are concerned. My theory (if you could call it that) is that women take those jobs because they're used to being underpaid for shit work. They're also used to being treated like shit by people they serve, and to society having a negative view of them in general. And I'm not talking about the experience of a lot of todays pampered little princesses. I'm talking about a deeply embedded genetic instinct. Perhaps the situation of the black employees could be similar.

One thing's for sure, the women in the office you go to aren't there because of some female affirmative action plan, and yet they're still out of balance with the local population.

Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.

In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.

And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.

Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.

And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.

But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?

It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.

If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.

I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.

Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.

Mr. Bungle always gets an upvote.

I remember who was in power at the state and local level and how they blocked or bungled relief efforts.

Democrats: The thinnest kids at fat camp.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:

The shot at Katrina felt a little unnecessary. I don't think either party would have been ready for that sort of disaster. They have enough financial/economic disasters as it is to not need to bring up natural ones.

JoeDirt wrote:

You don't think Christianity called for killing? You ever read any history? Or are you limiting your awesome view of western superiority to the last 400 years?

Christianity didn't call for killing, flawed human beings did. Compared to the forever-climbing death toll of islam, Christianity shines. And I write this not as a Christian, merely as an observer.

Oh, and your mulleted freedom of speech minus a scimitar on your neck indicates Western Civilization is indeed superior to sharia (f)law.

Explain the Oklahoma City bombing.

An angry loner killed federal employees to avenge a bungling ATF attack on innocent civilians. He did not kill in the name of Christ.

So, if you can't comprehend some small faction of extremists that were funded by CIA, Papa Bush and US-based Saudi corporations and US federal dollars and weapons dumped on the Saudis, you really are the biggest ostrich that ever wrapped themselves in the stars and stripes.

The global situation has always been screwed up and likely always will be. Once upon a time we funded taliban-types in Afghanistan to thwart the greater evil of communism (which liberals deny to this day was a threat despite 100 million murdered by communism worldwide). We helped saddam in the 80s to keep the new Carter-created ayatollah from seizing more power.

The left can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't know that this is even news. The Obamateur is as useless as ever, but this latest incarnation of the federal mafia is as incompetent and bungling as ever, more concerned with protecting its union voting base's interests.


November 2nd.