The usual suspects.

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim.
No, that's not empirical evidence in anyone's definition of it... not one bit. You 'invited him in', you 'get some feeling'... that's not proof, that's you feeling stuff. Not empirical evidence.

It is exactly the definition. If it is untrue, nothing will happen. If it is true, God will come into your life and change you. That is empirical verification. It isn't "some feeling". It is a supernatural encounter with God which will utterly transform your life. You're simply arguing from ignorance, here.

So no comment on what Penn said?
Yeah, he has a view that if you really believe in the bible and you really believe that people will spend eternity in damnation if they don't repent. If you really believe that. Then it is upon you to actually try to save people from that fate. He felt that this man did that for him out of kindness and did it with a kind heart.

Now I bet (in fact I'm sure he's talked about such things) his views on people telling others that they're horrible people for being gay, that they are an abomination, that they should never be able to be married (which is a man made construct, nothing to do with a 'god')... and for people who do that in a way which makes others uncomfortable. I bet he has a problem with that.

I think his point was that this man believed what he does, this man felt that Teller deserved to 'be saved' and tried to help him be saved in a really NICE way. He didn't badger him, he didn't verbally attack him as being godless... he just gave him a gift that he hoped would help him find 'his truth'.

Now it won't at all, Teller will never become religious, but he saw the man came from a good place.

What you do here is entirely different. Any video on evolution or science or anything that goes against your world view is shat on by you. That's abusive, that's combative, that's not trying to save people.

And you didn't mention why you posted a version of the video with him reiterating that he's an atheist rather than the full one.
His point was, if you believe that Jesus is God, and His words are true, you are going to tell people the gospel. He may agree or disagree with how a particular person may do that; that isn't the point. Jesus told people flat out what was right and wrong, He talked about hell, and He told people the truth. There are many biblical examples of sharing the gospel, and I am in line with them.

It's amazing though, as you get through insulting me throughout the thread, that you are going to say I am abusive and combative because I post my opinions on science videos. That's kind of a joke, I think. I can't post anywhere or say anything without getting flak from the usual suspects. It doesn't matter what it is. Perhaps you prefer an echo-chamber where everyone agrees with you all the time, but suprise, it's a diverse world out there and a diversity of viewpoints.

I didn't mention why I posted the shorter video because there was no conspiracy. That's the video I initially found, I figured shorter was better than longer, and I posted it. It turns out that the longer one was posted on here already, so even if I had wanted to, I couldn't have posted it. Also, don't say Penn will never give his life to Jesus Christ. I believe that he will. If he is thoughtful enough to understand evangelism from the chistian viewpoint, somewhere in his heart he is open to knowing God. God can change a heart in the blink of an eye.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^eric3579:

22. The Usual Suspects
37. Titanic
70. matrix
80. big lebowski


You didn't get Zombieland? For Shame!

22. The Usual Suspects
37. Titanic
70. matrix
80. big lebowski

>> ^bookface:

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Failed compared to what?
There are plenty of people who know enough about economics to intelligently dispute Krugman's (or Keynes') theories. Based on the comments above, I'd guess none of them are posting here.
To be fair, I doubt there are are many economists camping out and beating bongos either. Most of the economic theories held by individual protestors are as unsupported as the ones on the sift. That does not invalidate their general unhappiness with the political system or their desire to see certain measurable inequalities in our economy addressed.

A good question. People in the US need to remember one glaringly obvious fact: socialism, communism, and the like didn't bring the world economy to its knees. The corporatist and capitalist criminals on Wall St. and the beltway did that. I don't know that any one of these economic theories is the solution to our situation but let's be clear: criminals brought us where we are today and not marxists, keynesians, or any of the other usual suspects.


P.S. no one needs a degree in economics to know they're getting ripped off by the 1% and friends, but playing a bongo does take some practice. Have you ever successfully played a hand drum? It's tough. Wait until you try tabla, buddy :-)

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

Failed compared to what?
There are plenty of people who know enough about economics to intelligently dispute Krugman's (or Keynes') theories. Based on the comments above, I'd guess none of them are posting here.
To be fair, I doubt there are are many economists camping out and beating bongos either. Most of the economic theories held by individual protestors are as unsupported as the ones on the sift. That does not invalidate their general unhappiness with the political system or their desire to see certain measurable inequalities in our economy addressed.


A good question. People in the US need to remember one glaringly obvious fact: socialism, communism, and the like didn't bring the world economy to its knees. The corporatist and capitalist criminals on Wall St. and the beltway did that. I don't know that any one of these economic theories is the solution to our situation but let's be clear: criminals brought us where we are today and not marxists, keynesians, or any of the other usual suspects.

Who would've guessed? The usual suspects apologizing for government sanctioned murder.

Secret panel can put Americans on ‘kill list’ without any oversight
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
Abse
nce of Evidence: The Progressive Policy of Imperial Murder
Obama Provides Terrorists a Safe Haven While Hailing Death of Al-Awlaki

Partly from following your discussion with QM on the Republicans pro life or pro death video, I found a talk by one of the men responsible for abolishing the death penalty in Australia, and as it has 8 votes I very much hope you either enjoy it or start a huge flame war with any of the usual suspects on it's comment page Or both, that would be good too.

http://videosift.com/video/Barry-Jones-Reprieve-speech

I would've sent on the link sooner, but forgot whose comments prompted me to post it

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Usual-Suspects-Kevin-Spacey-Spoofs-Himself-on-SNL

@Boise_Lib? @Lawdeedaw? Either of you around? Verify and isdupe?

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by bareboards2. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I hope these asshats are better at analysing American issues than this drivel. The 'looters' weren't protesting shit, we've had lecturers and uni students and kids of bankers as well as the usual suspects... Simple fact is the police lost control and people realised there was a chance for free stuff, mostly dumb kids who will now stand a small chance of getting nailed. In the meantime the wanker bankers keep driving the economy forward, not a great idea to kill them then. Shit it must be nice to see everything in 2 dimensions.

@bareboards2 Hmmm, those issues don't really seem related at all to the issue at hand. For one, to compare the death penalties as a punishment criminals is hazardous to your own argument. Are you saying abortion is a punishment to children? I don't think that is a comparison you want to make. I don't see how welfare factors into it, at all. If I don't think people should be murdered, it doesn't follow that I should have to support via welfare every person whom isn't murdered.

Also, you confuse "caring" with "allowing". For instance, I am for prostitution being legal, but I still think it is horrible. It is like saying you can't have jails because you believe in liberty, and jail violate liberty. It depends on what is MORE important, and those who are supporters of pro-life choose to favor life that can't speak for itself...a subjective position, but one they feel morally obligated to protect. I should also point out this is a week case. A majority (according to many polls) of people are wishy washy when it comes to saving the life of the mother vs the baby. This is actually a point where both sides of the issue see more eye to eye on that rabble rouses would have. Rape and abuse also fall into that rather large majority of pro-lifers are more aligned than pro-choicers would usually suspect.

The entire issue of child birth is also inconsistent for pro-choice people as well. Most pro-choice people are against third term abortions, which is very inconsistent indeed. If it isn't a baby till it is born, then why? Because like most issues,, for many, this is about emotion more than thought out beliefs from both sides. Don't be so hard on pro-lifer, you might find you have more in common than what you think. Just prevent the hardliners from taking over the conversation, and I feel like you might be one of those hard liners for the camp that I fight for, which I why I say anything at all.

That these come from a society of arts surprises me not. Having studied art at the University of Fine Arts, the lightness on facts and analysis and heavy on the self-righteous and judgmental brings me back to the kind of simplistic discussions that we were encouraged to pursue in the Uni (as long as, you know, you cover everything with a shiny coat of complicated words or nice pictures - can't have anyone going around exposing our hypocrisy by making sense).

Art has divorced itself from reality since post-modernism, perhaps even before. The argument made here that enlightenment ideals have failed and we need some new bogus spiritual (and I'm using the word in a broad sense, not talking just about religious spirituality) way of looking at the world just sounds to me like a perfect way to plunge the world into a new dark age of thought.

Enlightenment didn't fail, it was corroded over time by the usual suspects - greed, ignorance, selfishness. It doesn't need replacement, it needs renewing. "Every generation needs its own revolution" because conditions and forces on the terrain are always changing, but the ideals of reason and progress, have no doubt, are eternal and the only tools that can save the naked ape. Lazy thinking bestows us no miracles.

Isn't it "figureS of merit"? Oh no wait, "values of the figure of merit" gah, that's a mouthful.

Also, I would totally not kidnap westy.. *cough* I'm just a usual suspect.