>> ^westy:

Its simular how to how the top sim racers could probably beat allot of the profesoinal drivers out there.

Racing sims help you to get to know the track and your lines, but this is complete BS. Have you ever been in a race car? It's a completely different experience than a racing sim.

The only "gamer" to turn pro was Lucas Ordoñez. He was already an amateur racer, and it still took ~1 year of training. If you think you can take the best sim racer with no actual track experience, dump him in a real car for a month or two and expect them to do well, you are ridiculous.

@blankfist I don't really care what label you give yourself. If lumping you in with "the right" offends you so much, perhaps you should focus more on pulling the other people in that category back into line with something more like what you believe.

Since you never seem to be able to discern my inferences when they're not blunt and explicit, I would say that my point was that Obama-as-candidate was laying out a pretty modest platform of things liberals thought could and should be done in the 2009-2013 time period, not everything the left would ever like to do if given unlimited power to implement the policies they'd like to see.

Obama-as-President with overwhelming majorities in Congress has, predictably, fallen short of even those modest goals. I'd say on the policy level a lot of that was due to the rather high proportion of both caucuses coming from DINOs like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

That said, even if 2008's election had resulted in this fairytale fantasy where my specific conception of leftiness could be implemented switfly and irrevocably, I probably wouldn't have even thought to put farm subsidies on my list of Top 100 Things to Do.

In this world where even passing the most critical, common sense legislation there is (like cap & trade) requires major political battles, we're just not going to waste our energy on something that we don't think is particularly significant.

Ultimately, it's pretty much the same answer to either question at root (the politicians care more about making corporate donors happy than living up to the ideals they claim to hold true), but it does seem like it's more apt to ask why they survived under Bush than it is to ask why they haven't been eliminated by Obama since it supposedly is a priority for you guys, and the Republicans have far better party discipline than Democrats ever have.

Hi again, I know its been some time, but I've been really busy with my real-life stuff lately, but I wanted to give a reply to your last reply. Since your post was somewhat longish, I've extracted some quotes, but keep in mind I have read and considered your entire text.

"You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that."

Well, let me put it this way: I blame human nature for the existence of religion

"I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society(...) If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing."
Does religion really "bring" the good stuff, tho? Thats what I'm questioning, really. God would have to have been pretty darn sadistic to make more than one religion, so i think we can agree that atleast all except one religion is manmade. It is the thinking apes first and (in my opinion) worst attempt at understanding, and putting in order, the world around them. Morality is also a human construct, so is science, so is money, so is reason, community, logic, laws, politics etc. Its all man-made, and theres nothing wrong with man-made constructs, or, at least, there doesnt have to be. One of the problems of religion tho, is that it acts like a parasite on all these other constructs and concepts, and you seem eager to give it as much credit as possible whenever something goes right, and exempt it from any blame whenever something goes wrong. Take its affiliation with politics, for instance, and compare it to philosophy. How many advances in politics have been made because of religion, how often has religion been the deciding factor for GOOD whenever there is a shift in the moral zeitgeist.

No, the vast majority religious people are not blind dogmatists, but thats hardly anything religion should get credit for, is it? It's not the ayatollahs or the priests or the bibles or the qurans that are pushing to make people think for themselves, is it? Why should it? after all, religion is born out of revelation and dogma, and it depends on FAITH for it's survival. Its very existence depends on its followers ability to restrain their use of critical thinking.

The fact that religion can make otherwise extremely smart people believe claims that are indistinguishable to fairytales is yet another example of how religion manages to make exceptions for itself, by making it acceptible behaviour to brainwash children and excluding itself from rational discourse. It then goes on to hijack morality, compassion and love to claim as its own, while accepting no blame for the countless times it has done nothing but making a mockery out of all such concepts.

The truth is that we can do fine without religion. in fact, strike that, we can do better without religion, and history is a testament to this fact. Religion has proved to be an utterly unreliable source for knowledge about everything:

Creationists are mad to take its claims about nature and history seriously
Literalists are mad to take its claims about morality and law seriously
Conservatives are mad to take its claims about sexuality and abortion seriously
Moderates are mad to cherrypick and distort its claims about nature, history,morality,law,sexuality and abortion, And I would be mad to take them seriously

Hrm, tad off pon. Yes, children are prone to imagine what they are taught AND what they are not taught. My daughter at two and a half was pretending to be a nurse and talking about her awesomely pronounced "stethoscope" and blood pressure cuffs. But she WAS taught that--as you say. At three, however, it became all her imagination! I don't teach her half the fairytales she recites, yet she brings shit out of the closet that amazes me... Really deep too... She does this often, as smart children do.

We do not simply demand to understand as you so narrowly define humanities' natural instinct of belief. Otherwise, we would have flocked to science and would have abandoned religion hundreds of years ago. Look at how we flock naturally to the easier way of everything else in life (Such as technology,) and science certainly is easier than religion! However, we, as a species, do not do this? Ever ask why? Because we imagine, even to this date, and we do it well. Hell, we read imaginations, watch imaginations, even live imaginary lives every day! And you say we are just curious! Lolz, yeah, that’s why we watch Harry Potter too! Lolz.

No, it is not that we are curious---we dream, we fly, we bask in our own delusions. Thor did not just explain thunder---he was thunder and a way of life that excited people.

Do not get me wrong pon, I understand your dislike of religion and those that push/force it upon weaker people. Just like any government, religion is 100% a form of exerted control upon others.

Now, just to point out something, not all religion is based on threats. Buddhists, and hell, even Jehovah's Witness do not preach doom and gloom (My mother was/is a devote Witness and for that I became an atheist. However, they never once preached hell and eternal suffering.)

Also, if we did not have religion---the blame-peice of humanity and our woes and evils---we would still have our woes and evil. And probably the same amount too.

The world wars for control, finate resources and personal amusement. It does not fight over ideals, although we hide behind those ideals so we can feel virtuous.

Lastly, religion does not have to stand on its own logic. See, if god exists, he is the single most powerful creature to ever exist. And if he does not exist? He is the single most powerful IDEA to ever exist. Not much difference huh? Same effects...
You point out that religion cannot stand on its own logic… Well, faith is not logical anyways! Not logical at all. How many times as a boy did I have faith in my mother only to be deceived and let down time and time again? Hundreds, because she was constantly lying and I constantly wanted an honest mother. But, like a fool I believed. How many cancer patients have faith that they can get better? Should we tell them how insane their beliefs are? (Because their beliefs are insane.)

See, that's the beauty of faith. It deceives whether in religion, family, friends, health, etcetera. Everyone's mother will let them down, yet most will have faith nevertheless.

Just let it go pon, we have always had irrational faith and always will. Try to live the best you can until the day that you cannot live anymore. It is all we can do. Try to change the heart of man, not his faith.



>> ^ponceleon:
Sorry Lawdeesaw, but children are NOT prone to "believe" the way you mean it... they are prone to LEARN. It is only ADULTS that fill their mind with bullshit that make them christians, muslims, scientologists, etc.
In fact, religions have to resort to THREATS (you will go to hell) to brainwash their young into suspending their disbelief at all the crap that DOESN'T make sense.
Take my 4 year old god-daughter for example. She's constantly asking questions about her parents faith which they have to answer with "because God wants it that way."
Really? Fuck that. Religion can't stand on its own logic, so it had to start mostly with the mentally vulnerable, which usually equates to children which are impressionable by fairy tales and threats of eternal damnation.
<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/video/Ugandan-Minister-Making-A-Huge-Fool-Of-Himself#comment-1008434'>^Lawdeedaw</a>:<br />
Otay...<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Seric" title="member since May 20th, 2008" class="profilelink">Seric</a>; Good points. That is how I believe (Though I worded it differently.) I simply realize that when you take the plastic face away, these same men and women who use religion as a justification will still be just as hateful.<br> <br> @BiycleRepairMan; Thanks for furthering my point, albeit unintentionally. Hitler was allowed because of the evil of people (Even good people can be evil.) There was no mask, there was no reason "decent" people were psychotic. It just happened, mostly because they were sheep. See, without religion, people will move on to find another reason to hate, kill, murder, rape and plunder. Economy? Perhaps... Race? Sure. Humans will be just as evil.<br> <br> But religious people are insane? Are children insane because they believe in superstitions? Santa? You are insane kid!!! Tooth Fairy?! Insane, take this child to the asylum! (By your technical explanation, children are insane to you… ) You also discredit the billions of people religious and spiritual as insane... Well, I guess it is human nature to be insane which makes them the sane ones?! Crap, I am screwed.<br> <br> "Bigotry? Check. Racism? Check. Sexism? Check. Discrimination? Check. Superstition? Check. Martyrdom? Check. Obedience to authority? Check." I was unaware that all religions taught that stuff... Well, the Native Americans cannot be so preachy now can they! Druids too! Ha, in your face! Buddhists? Bwaha.<br> <br> Oh, and half the people don't follow the good parts of religion anyways... Why, because they are evil people. You give too much credit to the average person who hides behind a "good" idea... The average German was a psychopath because they allowed Hitler his rule; and so is the average American who walks by a man just ran over by a car---and takes a photo with his cell phone.<br> <br> @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon</a>; Explaining religion because it is a natural part of human thought is okay. Justifying actions because of religion is not. No one "justified" religion because of anything.<br> <br> Children are prone to belief because they are built that way. You cannot stop it, just curb it with time. It is built into us. I.e. explaining religion, not justifying it.<br> <br> On the uneducated part, my father, myself, brothers and all had an eighth grade education and guess what? Atheists all...<br></em>

Side note-God, my response is long... I hate long posts and so hate my own post...

There was a time when I would have insulted you for such a... magical fairytale-type post. However, age has tempered my youthful arrogance and I will attempt to be more respectful.

You have an illusion that is polar opposite from the fanatics who propose that God is our savior and that if everyone follows his word we will all be saved… (Your argument is that the belief in God is our destroyer and that if everyone abandons his word we will all be striving for the betterment of humanity…) You assume that religion is not the excuse for war but the problem itself... If religion is truly the excuse, as I claim, there will be more wars even if religion is abolished and all the wars that have happened, not in the name and constant glorification of God, but for other reasons, will repeat themselves. If religion is the problem, as you state, then wars will dry up and poof, comfort for the world. The betterment of mankind… Um, I need to write a self-help booklet with a title like that…

Think of your ideal utopia... and now, make it real. No wars, no conflict (like trade wars, where entire areas starve out, etcetera,) on massive scales leading to the degradation of other countries. Nothing interesting for the news huh? Just a few murders and social discord now and again? Just near-utopia? No massive riots when corporations cause the subjugation and poverty of millions... No mass rape in Africa? Can someone say boring!

Sorry, I can only respect your opinion so much. I understand your opinion but think it a little wishful thinking. I wish you were right on the money and that religion was the cause, but the rose-colored glasses are not for me. You asked an A/B question and the answer is a mix of A and B-We certainly would invade another planet and try to reason with them. If our terms (The complete surrender of their finate resources and land) of reasoning failed, we would kill them all and take their resources.

Christianity was the excuse we used on the Indians not because we truly believed in god, but because A-It is a form of control and B-It makes us the savior instead of the animal. As I said before, we cannot slaughter because of greed... we need another reason. In other words, religion is a tool and if broken, we will make another one.

Let's look at some wars fought around the world and why... Vietnam? The expansion of communism (Because, we Americans could not abide our competitor actually advancing.) Iraq? Boredom and glory. Rome's barbarity? Conquest. Germany? Racial superiority. The American Civil War? Expansion of Federal powers. The hundreds of mini-conflicts between warring peoples due to poverty? Starvation. The crusades? Religion. Does religion win over in history as the leading cause? Yes. Has religion been involved in the aforementioned wars as a secondary motivator?-No, not even motivator, I mean excuse?-Yes. Germany was supported by the pope and hunted a religious people---for the resources. (Also, just because those nations I used as examples may have been supported by the religious or purported to be religious, they did not fight under the constant "support" or glorification of God. In other words, those wars were fought for religion as much as Iraq was fought because of weapons of mass destruction…)

Will there be something to replace religion on a massive scale if the excuse dies? Yes. Reminds me of the episode of South Park when the world fought a war simply because they could not agree on the name of their all-atheist nation...

We grow bored, we bomb Iraq. We need oil? We take it. We need other resources? Here we come. Government subjects massive amounts of people to poverty? We burn it down. By we, I mean humanity. Oh, Germany is certainly more reasonable than a few hundreds of years ago... cept that whole gassing incident... and I know Africa, a country that sold their own into slavery for the most part, is more reasonable... cept the whole raping and tribal fighting. You know one tribe fights another because they believe male-anal penetration is wrong? Yet male-oral is okay... and the other tribe thinks male-oral is fine, but anal is wrong… so naturally, they both have to kill each other…

So disagree, it’s your right. I just see a lot of "religious" stubbornness in your argument that is equal to the other side's arguments... You are basing your guesses of what might be; I am basing my estimations on what has been...

>> ^Shepppard:
Disagree completely.
If you abolish religion then you have one goal - The betterment of humanity. If everybody is on that same page and not thinking about how their lord and savior will take care of everybody in the afterlife, they'll realize that we need to fix how things are now.
Think about it, no more wars in the name of gods, no people getting killed for changing their beliefs.
Oh sure, there would still be killings of sorts, people come home and find another man with their wife and they snap. But that's never going to change.
As for the Natives of the Americas, I got news for you. They were enslaved and sent to Boarding Schools where they were forced to learn... Christianity.
I'm not exactly done with that either. Truly, you think that the people a few hundred years ago were as reasonable as we are now? Picture this, we master space travel. We find a new world inhabited by Aliens. Do you think Earth would A) Kill them all, and declare it Earth II, or B) Try to trade and reason with them?
I'm pretty sure most of us would vote option B. With time we've gained knowledge. Almost everywhere has drifted away from "They're different then us, so we need to not trust them and/or kill them and claim it as ours."
Muslims are a large exception to this, and that's why it has to change.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
What I believe most atheists do not comprehend is this—we, the human race, are a species that must believe. It is that simple. Yes, individuals can unlearn belief in the odd and stupid things we think are real, but as a whole we must believe. We believed long before God and Jesus existed, and we will believe long after. We believe in odd and crazy things when we are children because our minds are fascinated by the unknown and this spurs experimentation.
Everyone who acts as though the destruction of religion would sooth the woes of the world is silly. Instead of religion, humanity will/has find/found other ways to reclassify themselves into groups and kill/enslave everyone not in their class. Examples include are but not limited to race, gender, ethnic background, eye color, hair color, wealth, etcetera. This would not decrease with a lack of belief and the reason is simple—because we love to classify. It is a natural survival instinct that is there for the allocation of finite resources. It is easy to kill an infidel in the name of God, however, it is hard to kill the guy next to you because you are bored and/or need his resources. Indians ring a bell? Sadly, the Indians were pagan, but, more importantly, they held our land! Had to die…
See, religion is the crutch that atheists use. I am atheist myself and find that behind the gun, behind the religion, behind the boredom that leads to mania, there is always an insecure killer.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I think The Sixth Sense had more general appeal than Unbreakable, but obviously I liked Unbreakable better. There's nothing wrong with TSS, mind you.
Signs was awful, I thought. The story wasn't bad, but I just didn't feel like it translated well to movie.
I really enjoyed The Village. Yes, there are holes and such in the story, but I enjoyed it in spite of them.
I fail to see how Unbreakable has a tacked-on ending.
I was also pleasantly surprised by Lady in the Water. It was unfortunate that it was billed like a kids movie, because it really wasn't. It was about a fairytale, yes, but it was far from a kids movie.
The Happening and the Avatar movie don't interest me, so I haven't and/or don't plan on seeing them.
>> ^Smugglarn:
Well I thought The Sixth Sense was contrived and forcefully understated.
The Village even more so and that film is kind of a missed opportunity not focusing on the reason why cults separate their members from society. What you get is pointless mystery story. Since you mentioned Hitchcock I could liken it to one of his television episodes, rather than any of his films.
Unbreakable is, with the exception of the clearly tacked on ending, his standout work.
I have avoided The Sham's later films like the plague.


I was referring to the "signs" at the very end in the sense giving the movie, which is essentially an origin story, a friggin epilogue.

I think The Sixth Sense had more general appeal than Unbreakable, but obviously I liked Unbreakable better. There's nothing wrong with TSS, mind you.

Signs was awful, I thought. The story wasn't bad, but I just didn't feel like it translated well to movie.

I really enjoyed The Village. Yes, there are holes and such in the story, but I enjoyed it in spite of them.

I fail to see how Unbreakable has a tacked-on ending.

I was also pleasantly surprised by Lady in the Water. It was unfortunate that it was billed like a kids movie, because it really wasn't. It was about a fairytale, yes, but it was far from a kids movie.

The Happening and the Avatar movie don't interest me, so I haven't and/or don't plan on seeing them.
>> ^Smugglarn:
Well I thought The Sixth Sense was contrived and forcefully understated.
The Village even more so and that film is kind of a missed opportunity not focusing on the reason why cults separate their members from society. What you get is pointless mystery story. Since you mentioned Hitchcock I could liken it to one of his television episodes, rather than any of his films.
Unbreakable is, with the exception of the clearly tacked on ending, his standout work.
I have avoided The Sham's later films like the plague.

Wow, aren't you Mr. Positive? Of course 1st gen technology is expensive, it is experimental and not massproduced. Give it 50 years and it will be cheaper but without the, so eloquently described, ultra-rich cocksucking assholes to pay for it and act as guinnea pigs who would develop it? Seeing as so much research goes into curing the ailments of the poor like Malaria, less money than is spent on an average skin lotion or hardon pill if I would venture a guess, as the poor can't pay for it and giving stuff away for nothing is a sure fire way to get poor yourself. Life sucks for the sick and poor compared to the rich and healthy, just ask the people in Haiti... (too soon?)

Oh, I almost forgot... Do you sell tickets to that fairytale land? I want to go there as it sounds wonderful! Candy and free cats! YAY!!

>> ^choggie:
The best part of these technologies in the current paradigm is that only ultra-rich cocksucking assholes will be able to afford it! Tony here knows it, but do you people who think the worlds a fairy tale land of gummy bears and free pussy think so???

look, i agree with her sentiment, and all power to her morality. The fact is, however, banks are a business. They exist to make money for themselves and the shareholders who contribute. I recall, many years ago, a TV discussion programme about banks. One guy, who was thousands in debt, blamed the banks for allowing him to make getting loans easy. A woman on the programme, quite rightly in my opinion, said "did the banks force you to get into debt? Was it their negligence, or yours, that you did not realise you did not have the ability to pay back your debt? and now you blame the bank for giving you the money you were asking for." In fairytale land we would ALL get what we asked for with no adverse consequences. This, however, is the real world. If you cannot hope to repay a debt, or you are subject to wishful thinking, don't incur it.Let's not, as seems to be the case these days, have laws that stifle free enterprise because of ignorance and stupidity.

Example Debate 3:

Unicornist: "What is your evidence for there being no unicorns"?

Theist: "Because unicorns only exist in fairytale books created by man."

Unicornist: "Good point."

Americans actually discussing the possibility of a national health care system seriously? I feel like I'm watching a fairytale. I tell you, watching the American health care debate is really excruciating.

Meanwhile, back in Norway: Everyone's covered and service is good. The costs are rising, but we're certainly not hitting 16% of GDP anytime soon.

>> ^blankfist:We were talking about using public streets without a license and you somehow equated that to stealing from Walmart.

Right, not your private streets (which you can still use however you like), but streets held by the organization which represents the interests of the public as a whole, not your personal interests/preferences. You seem to think that you, and random video asshat, somehow, have veto power over the the property claims of organizations which you are a stakeholder in, but you have not explained why you should have such power.

There you go again with the "state owns the road" stuff.

Okay, I am apparently talking right past you on this. Consider, just for the sake of discussion, how your argument changes if you replace "the state" with "john's toll road network". Why should john have to let you do whatever the hell you want on his roads? he charges very little to use them, he just has a whole bunch of penalty clauses in the toll contract if you don't use them as agreed, and he never forced you to use them, how is he in the wrong here?

In fact, those sorts of comments are antithetical to liberalism.

Lib-speak, which I acknowledge is vaguely termed, was intended to be short for Libertarian-Speak.

None the less, it is only antithetical to either of these ideologies if you accept the fairytale notion that the state is not a corporation(an organization of individuals with property held wholly in common), which owns property and provides services, just like any other.

The government is supposed to be in service of the people, and therefore the people "own" the property.

Just as the shareholders of Walmart "own" the inventory, and the retail space, the same rights apply.

Therefore, the people should have absolute freedom to use the property without damaging it or hurting others.

Why should that sentence apply to the holdings of the state, and not the holdings of Walmart?

...if we determine the contract to be wrong in nature, then we're stealing?

Thats pretty much the definition, if I feel that Walmart's "you have to pay for that" policy is wrong in nature, and I decide to disregard it, then I am stealing.

This is ridiculous. It's "PUBLIC PROPERTY"! It shouldn't be seen as "PRIVATE STATE PROPERTY"!

Property is the right to use, abuse and deny access to an object or space. "PUBLIC PROPERTY" as you seem to mean it, is more like the public domain, which anybody may use for any purpose, such as the mythical English commons. Roads and building, and similar made and maintained things are, of necessity, owned by somebody. Sometimes that owner is the state, sometimes it's Walmart, in both cases you need the owners permission to use them.

I don't know exactly how all of that works out, so it would be difficult for me to render an opinion. If it's truly "private property" and not "public property" then I'd imagine the cops shouldn't have jurisdiction.

The turnpike police work for the turnpike, they hand out tickets which you agree to pay when you get on the turnpike (read the back of the toll pass), just like the gov roads, only it's run by a private entity. Would you object equally to this arrangement?

^Maybe I'm speaking for myself, and my experience is atypical of the median, but the concept of first love, true love, pure love, essence of love, etc. that is presented in hallmark cards, fairytales, and teenage dramas really doesn't have much basis in reality.

Love isn't some starry eyed 16 year old on a first date. The love you are describing is the love that is presented to children as a sort of trick, to keep things moving along. Children need dreams and ambition, and a lot of that is presented to them at a young age.

True love, as I would define it, is taking responsibility for another person's life. There are many reasons one might be inclined to do this - some may be genetically biased, but everything else that is typically associated with love - caring, lust, affection, generosity, passion, adventure - the things that make it into the stories of "pure love" - you can have any of those things with a stranger off the street.

Loving someone is making a choice to share the consequences of their actions - no matter how poor, or unfortunate they may be. Love is enduring the frustrations of a long stint of serious illness, working 50 hours a week to provide for your family, or coping with the hardship of losing everything you own due to poor investments. There's really nothing glamorous or "magical" about it.

Infinite kindness ala Gandhi is not love. It doesn't take much to perform a single act of kindness. You can walk up to any beggar on the street and tuck $1,000 in his pocket; but would you take up begging right next to him, for the next ten years, if that's what it took to get you both safely out of homelessness?

Maybe I'm a sociopath, but it seems easy enough to explain without a divine spirit

As far as humanity goes, humanity is a concept. While it is not impossible to love a concept, why would you spend the single life you have trying to love the concept of humanity, when you could love an actual human?

Or do you mean you wish to love every human alive? If that is the case, what kind of meaning would your love really have?

Now in my younger days I used to sport a shag
When I went to school I carried lunch in a bag
With an apple for my teacher cause I knew Id get a kiss
Always got mad when the class was dismissed
But when it was in session, I always had a question
I would raise my hand to make her stagger to my desk and
Help me with my problem, it was never much
Just a trick, to smell her scent and try to sneak a touch
Oh, how I wish I could hold her hand and give her a hug
She was married to the man, he was a thug,
His name was lee, he drove a z,
Hed pick her up from school promptly at three oclock
I was on her jock, yes indeedy I wrote graffiti on the bus
First Id write her name then carve a plus,
With my name last, on the looking glass,
I seen her yesterday but still I had to let her pass

She keeps on passin me by...

When I dream of fairytales I think of me and shelly
See shes my type of hype and I cant stand when brothers tell me
That I should quit chasin and look for something better
But the smile that she shows makes me a go-getter
I havent gone as far as asking if I could get with her
I just play it by ear and hope she gets the picture
Im shootin for her heart, got my finger on the trigger
She could be my broad, and I could be her (nigga)
But, all I can do is stare...
Back as kids we used to kiss when we played truth or dare
Now shes more sophisticated, highly edu-ma-cated
Not at all over-rated, I think I need a prayer
To get in her boots and it looks rather dry
I guess a twinkle in her eye is just a twinkle in her eye
Although shes crazy steppin, Ill try to stop her stride
Cause I wont have no more of this passin me by

And I must voice my opinion of not even pretending she didnt have me
Strung like a chicken, chase my tail like a doggie
She was kind of like a star, thinking I was like a fan
Dude, she looked good, down side: she had a man
He was a rooty-toot, a nincompoop
She told me soon your little birdies gonna fly the coop
She was a flake like corn, and I was born not to understand
By lettin her pass I had proved to be a better man

She keeps on passin me by...

Now there she goes again, the dopest ethiopian
And now the world around me be gets movin in slow motion
When-ever she happens to walk by - why does the apple of my eye
Overlook and disregard my feelings no matter how much I try?
Wait, no, I did not really pursue my little princess with persistance;
And I was so low-key that she was unaware of my existance
From a distance I desired, secretly admired her;
Wired her a letter to get her, and it went:
My dear, my dear, my dear, you do not know me but I know you very well
Now let me tell you about the feelings I have for you
When I try, or make some sort of attempt, I symp
Damn I wish I wasnt such a wimp!
cause then I would let you know that I love you so
And if I was your man then I would be true
The only lying I would do is in the bed with you
Then I signed sincerely the one who loves you dearly, ps love me tender
The letter came back three days later: return to sender
Damn!

Magical evil dudes under the ground are REAL! LOL

You have all the relgio-zealots going nuts, as they actually believe in this shit. Sure it makes great entertainment in a dark fairy tale sense.. but they fucking think demons and the like are REAL.

Now who is the fucked up? The fairytale storyteller, or the zealot who thinks magical beings live underground and exist solely to torment us and scare us into subservience under a magical invisible sky god.