grassy ass

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
*promote

I think it probably OVER-qualifies her. When you're the mayor of a tiny town, you're also the justice of the peace, policeman, garbageman, mailman, school teacher, dogcatcher, street cleaner, marriage counselor, and truant officer.

How many former VPs have had all THAT on their resumes?

Here's a story about the sub-prime crisis, this time with a nice ending.

The real news reports about a community service organization whose volunteers counsel victims to try and fight the terms of these horrible agreements.

http://politics.videosift.com/video/NACA-Counselors-Save-These-Peoples-Homes
sift it!

I was lurking and couldn’t resist posting a response to this deebub81. There is considerably more to Mormon theology than what is currently taught in Sacrament meeting or Sunday School every week. While the doctrinal points you cited from the video may seem salacious, they were not made up out of whole cloth. I will leave you with a few comments and choice quotes from Mormon publications. Many of these publications are available online – including the Journal of Discourses http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/– and I’d encourage you to authenticate the quotes from men Mormons consider inspired oracles of God for yourself.

A brief list of inaccuracies, requested of me on my profile (I don't mean to skip over anything or hide any doctrine. I just didn't want to write an essay. Let me know if you would like me to elaborate on anything.):

-We don't believe in any being higher than God the Father. We worship Him and His son Jesus Christ. Not countless gods.

We remember the numerous scriptures which, concentrated in a single line, were stated by a former prophet, Lorenzo Snow: 'As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become.'" (Mormon Prophet Spencer W. Kimball in "Our Great Potential" from the April 1977 Priesthood Session of General Conference

-We don't teach about any unidentified god and his wives.

-We don't teach anything in our doctrine about where God came from or that he lives on a planet with His many wives or "endless Celestial sex."


"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!...........It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God........yea, that God himself, the father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible...." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and History of the Church, 6:302-17)

"He [God] is our Father--the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being. It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being;" (Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333)

-Only one God was present at the council spoken of in the video with Lucifer and Jesus. God the Father.

Don’t know about this one.

-Lucifer DID want the glory for himself but he wouldn't have forced us all to become gods. He wanted to force us all to obey.

Agreed

-It was never mormon doctrine that black people were neutral before this life. We don't believe that black people are inferior to white people.


Though he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan. (Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McKonkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp102)


-"White and delightsome" is never used to describe the faithful followers of Jesus in the pre-mortal life. We believe that ALL who live or have lived on Earth, regardless of race or color or religion, were faithful to Jesus Christ's plan and chose to be here.


And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. (Book of Mormon --2 NEPHI 5:21)


-Adam is not Elohim. He is a child of God, as we all are. Eve was not a godess wife.


How much unbelief exists in the minds of Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our father and God ..Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation...I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle...' (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873)

-We believe that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was still a virgin. We don't teach anything about God having physical sex with her. We don't teach anything about how the miracle was performed, only that Jesus is Begotten of the Father.


"The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Brigham Young -Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115).

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in THE MOST LITERAL SENSE. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was SIRED by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 6).

-We don't teach any specific doctrine about Jesus' marital status or children. Especially not that he had "at least 3 wives."


"Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the 'grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.' After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, casing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were 'Mormons' " (Jedidiah Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346)"

"It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; . . .no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha, and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the least of it."

"I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass thought the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women, such as used to follow him, . . .he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode, not on as ass, but on a rail."

"At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot will probably cry, blasphemy! . . . Object not, therefore, too strongly against the marriage of Christ." (All the above statements: Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 259-260)

"When Mary of old came to the sepulcher. . .she saw two angels in white. and they said unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto them, Because they have take away my Lord, OR HUSBAND, and I know not where they have laid him." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)

". . .we apprehend that even greater troubles than these may arise before mankind learn all the particulars of Christ's incarnation-how and by whom he was begotten; the character of the relationships formed by the act; the number of wives and children he had. . ." (The Millennial Star, Vol 15, page 825)


-We believe that the Nephites and Lamanites are descended from Israelites. Not quite how it's said in the cartoon.

Agreed. Now if we could only locate some of that pre-Columbian Israelite DNA in America…..

-Joseph Smith was not a known treasure seeker. Neither was he known for any tales except his testimony about Mormonism.

Referring to Joseph as a young boy, his mother wrote "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them."(Lucy Mack Smith - Joseph's mother, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet 1854)

Joseph most certainly was a treasure seeker. Joseph met Emma while searching for treasure on the property of Josiah Stowell. In 1826, Joseph was taken to court for the crime of ‘glass looking’ which basically amounts to defrauding people into believing you can find buried treasure through a gift of second sight. There is a court document that has been recovered to prove this. Even later, after his ‘prophetic call’ when the Kirtland Safety Society illegal bank he founded was going belly up, he and a group of his inside circle headed back to Salem, Massachusetts to try to bail themselves out by finding a treasure that was supposedly located there. Although there is much to document these activities, interestingly, there is nothing to suggest he ever found anything.

-We believe that we will be judged by Jesus Christ because he was and is perfect, he suffered all, and atoned for our sins.

-I have never been taught that I will be a polygamist god.

While church leaders no longer allow the practice of polygamy here on Earth, they do allow a living man to be sealed to another woman after the death of his wife, or after divorce. This leads to the obvious situation of establishing multiple sealings on Earth that, according to Mormonism, will necessitate polygamy in heaven.

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants- the revelation on polygamy remains canonized scripture. The practice of polygamy was suspended on earth, but will be standard practice in the Celestial Kingdom (heaven).

-Joseph Smith himself never claimed anything about doing more for us than any other man.

-We absolutely do not believe that Joseph Smith did more for us than any other man, including Jesus Christ.

“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (Joseph Smith sermon, May 26, 1844)

The video was obviously designed to be as scandalous as possible, but just because something puts your religion in a bad light, do not assume it is untrue.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^oxdottir:
>>Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!

By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


DAMN RIGHT!



[Krupo resists urge to tag this video in the woohoo channel... reasoning: she succeeds]

The other rationale for not getting a woohoo tag, in general, is when the video features ENEMIES of Matt Groening (it being the MG & Friends Appreciation Society).

>> ^swampgirl:
HA! http://www.videosift.com/video/Kids-Try-The-Escalator-Spin-Trick
Ok, it got more than 20 votes..but essentially this proves my point


He fails. Upvote AND inclusion in the MG&FAS Woohoo family of videos (reason: aforementioned minor epic FAIL).



Don't be bitter SG, we're upvoting this one more because she's successful at it.

Love it. It stays. I dropped a comment here on the sift, too.

Thanks for the heads-up. Research has been so busy I haven't been on VS in months....

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
I submitted a video that is hot, and my inclusion of the science channel, very much on purpose, is controversial. I said I would like the determination to be made by you and not random star-invocations. Here is the video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Girl-spins-on-escalator

And here are some comments :

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


>> ^oxdottir:

Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


>> ^xxovercastxx:
By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


>> ^oxdottir:
Specious argument. Yes, many videos have gravity in them, no those videos don't usually show the existence of gravity producing a novel or surprising result. Should the Science Channel owner disagree, I would not complain.
I created the engineering channel partly out of frustration that there was no appropriate venue for cool gadgets, cool use of technology, and discussions of same. This is smack dab in the intended area, and I would know that better than anyone. Which doesn't of course, keep you from being snippy, but that's the interwebs.




>> ^rottenseed:
oh and this is nature too because humans are part of nature.
and sexuality because those tight jeans make her look sexy to me


>> ^oxdottir:
I removed those channels. If their owners really wanted them in, I wouldn't complain.
I am clearly from a different planet from some of you. To extend the metaphore above, a video that contained gravity as part of the world is not worthy of a science tag. A video taken of two disparate sized objects that were dropped off the tower of Pisa and which landed at the same time would be, even if no words were spoken. Rembar, whatever you want is fine with me.

I submitted a video that is hot, and my inclusion of the science channel, very much on purpose, is controversial. I said I would like the determination to be made by you and not random star-invocations. Here is the video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Girl-spins-on-escalator

And here are some comments :

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


>> ^oxdottir:

Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


>> ^xxovercastxx:
By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.
Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.


>> ^oxdottir:
Specious argument. Yes, many videos have gravity in them, no those videos don't usually show the existence of gravity producing a novel or surprising result. Should the Science Channel owner disagree, I would not complain.
I created the engineering channel partly out of frustration that there was no appropriate venue for cool gadgets, cool use of technology, and discussions of same. This is smack dab in the intended area, and I would know that better than anyone. Which doesn't of course, keep you from being snippy, but that's the interwebs.




>> ^rottenseed:
oh and this is nature too because humans are part of nature.
and sexuality because those tight jeans make her look sexy to me


>> ^oxdottir:
I removed those channels. If their owners really wanted them in, I wouldn't complain.
I am clearly from a different planet from some of you. To extend the metaphore above, a video that contained gravity as part of the world is not worthy of a science tag. A video taken of two disparate sized objects that were dropped off the tower of Pisa and which landed at the same time would be, even if no words were spoken. Rembar, whatever you want is fine with me.

>> ^oxdottir:
>>Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!


By that standard we could mark probably every video on the sift as science and/or engineering. Show me a video that doesn't feature gravitational forces in action. Show me a video that doesn't feature a lever, wheel & axle, or an inclined plane somewhere.

Science is usually rigorously enforced, thankfully. A number of the other channels are becoming catch-alls or the channel owner's favorites list. The frickin woohoo channel even says "anything else that we find suitable.." right in its description.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
nochannel happy femme comedy
How the hell is this science? And what part of this discusses engineering or demonstrates it?


Geeze, MG. She's using matched linear forces to provide a rotational spin, and the escalator gadget is being used emmergently. I'm slapping those channels back on, and if the science channel guy wants to eject it, let him. But as the engineering channel guidance counselor, THAT one stays!

^ You're right, I went off half-cocked about the idea of pro-life counselor, it should just be a counselor who lays out the options, and is supportive of the decision the mother makes.

I disagree with any assertion that there is something wrong with, or any moral reason not to, have an abortion during the first 3 months of pregnancy. Women should not have to jump through hoops like parental consent or talking to a pro-life counselor before having an abortion, Netrunner.

I don't think anyone on the pro-choice side of the fence is "pro-abortion". I think any reasonable person on either side of the issue agrees that they should be rare things indeed.

The whole abortion debate usually gets sidetracked into a religion vs. science debate, and while on a philosophical level it's an argument worth having about when exactly in the reproductive process the mass of cells should be viewed as a person, it really only has bearing when we talk about compromises like limiting how late into a pregnancy abortion should be legal.

When we're talking in the context of an absolute ban, it more goes to a practicality issue -- if a woman is determined to abort a child, removing doctors from the equation isn't going to do anything except make the situation more dangerous for the mother.

I'm fully in favor of requiring any woman who wants an abortion talk to a counselor who tries to convince them adoption is the moral choice, but I think ultimately it's up to the mother, because it simply will be no matter what laws or penalties you put in place.

I think all the energy expended trying to ban abortion should be aimed at trying to prevent the unwanted pregnancies, through realistic sex education, and ready access to contraceptives.

When it comes down to it, parents don't get to decide when their kids have sex, they just get to decide how much information they have about it, and how easy it is for them to get contraceptives.

Watching this, I can't help but be reminded of the counselor on south park - mmkay

From http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/camp-campaign

Are you shocked yet? Relax, the camp is fake, but the campaign is real.

Last week YouTube popped up a new video for Camp Okutta, a children’s adventure camp just outside of Toronto. It opens with a promising young camp counselor, with a group of scared kids…

The counselor throws a stone onto a patch of grass. Nothing happens. He throws another. A mine explodes. The video is scary, at first you think it could be a real camp.

Fortunately, the camp does not exist.

Canoe.ca says “A Canadian charity is hoping to bring home the plight of war-affected children with a provocative new campaign that asks Canadians to picture their own children shooting AK-47s and walking across minefields.”

At the end, the video directs viewers to the camp’s website, which goes into more detail about what campers will experience. Children who are homesick or afraid are fed amphetamines and a “rudimentary mixture of cocaine and gunpowder.” On good days, they eat plain rice or scraps of food left behind by the camp’s leaders.

The campaign is meant to draw attention to the estimated 250,000 child soldiers worldwide, War Child Canada founder Samantha Nutt said. “What we were trying to do was to really bring the issue home to North Americans in a new and creative way that would ask the question, ‘If this was a Canadian context and these were Canadian kids, what would our reaction be?”’ she said.

“We accept it as part of life in other parts of the world, and yet it is totally abhorrent and totally unacceptable.”

Nutt described the YouTube video and Camp Okutta website as “100 per cent based in reality,” from the images of children detonating mines, to the use of AK-47s, which are considered the weapon of choice for child soldiers because “they’re lightweight and so easy to use,” she said.

After the first night the video had 5,000 viewers and is since up to over 20,000. Shows you just how well viral marketing works these days.

Isn't it "Counselor"? Yeah, this episode was creepy.