>> ^oritteropo:

Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
In reply to this comment by coolhund:
When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.
I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.
Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.
I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.
And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.



Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.

And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.

A voice or reason from this left leaning site. Stick around and teach these num nuts some truth.
>> ^lantern53:

Can't understand why anyone would want four more years of Obama. Romney could have two heads and I'd prefer someone like him with business experience.
Socialists know nothing but spreading a lower standard of living, as BHO has aptly demonstrated.

LOL I just love looking at the body language of how they are seated. Mitt crosses his legs like a dainty well behaved lady while his wife Ann sits with her legs open like a dude with a beer can lol

Government is not a business, nor should it be run like one. So a candidate with with business experience means absolutely dick.

As Gen has already pointed out, you obviously have no clue what socialism is. Even if you did, you obviously haven't been paying attention because Obama is not a socialist. He's a moderate republican

Getting off that paranoid tangent and getting back to the actual video. Gotta love Ann's bit about America losing if Romney loses. Because yeah.. its so reasonable to believe that the mustache twirling villain will win if Dudley Do Right doesn't win. Because yeah... the world is THAT black and white.

>> ^lantern53:

Can't understand bit why anyone would want four more years of Obama. Romney could have two heads and I'd prefer someone like him with busihess experience.
Socialists know nothing but spreading a lower standard of living, as BHO has aptly demonstrated.

If we let the people out of prison, who will operate the factories they are attached to? Where will we get our cheap paint and crappy fiberboard office furniture?

(In the United States)the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people. (...)

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 - ending court supervision and decisions - caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell" services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

Source=/globalreasearch.ca/Vicky Pelaez/2008

I know my momma loves me
I know my poppa loves me
I know the camera loves me
I can tell my brother loves me
I know that Boston loves
And San Francisco loves me
I love the city back,
I just can't help it, it's so lovely

I'm in my lucky underwear, i'm feeling debonair
If it's a lonely trip to heaven, I'm already there
I'm in the bedroom i'm like stepping like I'm Fred Astaire
I make it happen, battlerapping at my Teddy Bear
When I was twelve I'd leave my door open a crack
afraid if getting busted sneaking porno on my mac
I guess I was a freak
Until I got caught last week
(who's been loving you?)
I was reading Booker T, I threw the book at me
I go for the lookers but they never look at me
I would get a hooker if I could unhook her bra
I'd be looking soft as soon as she took her top. off
let's go rolling in a broken winnebago
stop and smoke a bowl out of a hollowed out potato
It's hash now, but it's hash browns soon
(who's been loving you?)

I know that Jesus loves me
I know that buddha loves
The fucking easter Bunny
and the ghost of gandhi love me
I know that santa loves me
I think my Aunties love me
I know my Grandma loved me
she thought I was handsome trust me

this insanity, that's heredity
it's my family, we can let it be
wish I pretended that mom and dad are dead to me
But i love my dad, that motherfucker read to me
my first words were "where's the love?"
mad smug, assed up on a bearskin rug
fashodo, mom'll show you the photo
(who's been loving you?)
I do embarassing better
I could wear a pink sweater
with a pair of slick pleather pants
derelicte e-va-ry day and it's well known
that I hop off stage with my cell phone
fake a dropped call when everybody's near me
and shout "I love you mom!" so everybody hears me
I need to and true nothing new but
(who's been loving you?)

Even though I owe them money
I think it's pretty likely
that my whole family loves me
My lovers tend to like me
I know my homies love me
My teachers loved to hate me
The haters love to fuck with me
the fickle love me lately

I'm a percussionist. I never knew guitar
it's cheesy, but I'm stunting like a superstar
it's easy man I'm hopping out a moving car
call me weezy cause I'm coughing at the hookah bar
I don't do cigars, but I got hella game
I can make a lady out of styling gel and cellophane
so you can yell my name, I make the bed frame move
(who's been loving you?)
me and my better friends are heading to the town strip
if they don't let us in we'll never take roundtrip
because I took an hour picking out my outfit
and then I took another slicking down a cowlick
and I like house sitting, but fuck it now's different
I'm going out and there ain't a bouncer for cowtipping
So I'ma tear this joint up
And i'ma party till the hoofs point up
(who's been loving you?)

this is for Charles Barkley
This is for Poison Ivy
This it's for Draco Malfoy
And it's for Bill O'Reilly
This is for Ned Mencia
It's for the corporate lawyers
it's for the backseat drivers
And for my friend Ann Coulter

Terrific! I imagine that Carl would have really liked this. (Anne? Nick? Sasha--Thoughts? As much as I enjoyed this, I hope the producers keep going and add more time and detail with the amazing journey from self replicating molecules to RNA to single cell organisms to polyps to fish, and also toward the end with what we know of hominid evolution. Very Cool!

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

@shinyblurry

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.

The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.

The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".

An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.

The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly.

And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.

Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical.

Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.

This is one of the most ridiculous spin jobs I've ever seen. Hilary Rosen was talking about Ann Romney not being employed outside the home, as in "work". I certainly didn't need Cenk to explain this to me, but he seems to be one of the very few in the media that understood what she said. The people that bought the spin on this comment, and acted all shocked and disgusted, should be ashamed of themselves. The "clarification" and apology were totally unnecessary.

Did Ann Romney ever have to worry about money, or get a job while raising her children? No. Case closed.

Besides for the cheesy Burning Man footage this is a really great doc on psychs. A lot of docs keep true with mystical experience but the way Ann describes it is in reality the way it is and a reason they are useful experiences not to be taken lightly. The whole part where she says one must face he/her inner shadows/monster and learn to accept them by working through them. A good psychedelic experience can be like a birth, a death - the happiest or the most distraught.

The first few times I took a psychedelic it was a little nerve-wracking because I wasn't sure what I might see in myself. I think many people are afraid of taking psychedelics because of that unknown factor. For me the tranquility in what I would call ego-death is what made me embrace some form of spirituality. Before taking psychedelics - "spirituality" was a four letter word that made me cringe.

The amount of ignorance and deception out there about psychs is staggering.

I'm *happy to have met Sasha & Ann (and a few of the other researchers featured in this documentary) and felt the effects of their work on my *brain, mind, and soul.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'MDMA, ecstasy, research, chemical, pihkal, tihkal' to 'MDMA, ecstasy, research, chemical, pihkal, tihkal, sasha, ann, shulgin' - edited by Trancecoach

Hollywood has finally caught on that sexy geek girls make them money hand over fist. Emma Stone, Zooey Deschanel, Anne Hathaway.. the list continues to grow.

And yes, redheads most certainly add a 2.5-3. I've seen women that would otherwise be a 6 but with red hair.. an easy 8.

Oh and Emma Stone gets another free point for that voice!

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^jonny:
>> ^soulmonarch:
>> ^gwiz665:
Dude! Nazi jokes are NOT funny! Anne frankly, I'm sick of them!
>> ^soulmonarch:
I confess, I did Nazi that coming.


Sorry... it seemed like the Reich type of joke to make under the circumstances.

Really gwiz, no reason to get in a Führer over a little joke.

If you don't cut it out, I'm goering to ignore you.


Puns are such a Löwenbräu form of humor.