On one hand, it's Aronofsky, who I really like as a director, and have seen every movie except The Black Swan. The Fountain is actually one of my favorite movies.

On the other hand, it's one of the stupidest biblical stories for which I have absolutely no respect at any level.

Louis Armstrong - Basin Street Blues has been added as a related post - related requested by Norsuelefantti.

Basin Street Blues - Kid Koala (Nice Animation) has been added as a related post - related requested by Norsuelefantti.

Basin Street Blues - Pete Fountain has been added as a related post - related requested by Norsuelefantti.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Louis-Armstrong-Basin-Street-Blues
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Basin-Street-Blues-Kid-Koala-Nice-Animation
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Basin-Street-Blues-Pete-Fountain-1

Yo, play Ingress with me. It's an augmented reality game with two factions fighting over actual points of interest in reality: Post offices, fire departments, police stations, parks, college campuses, jamba fuckin juices.

Each location is a portal that you fight over and DESTROY for your factions. I am in the Orange County Resistance. If they want to stop us from playing, then they're going to have to stamp out all of our freedoms.

Fight the power peacefully and practice war in augmented reality!

@poolcleaner me: Garden Grove, Stanton, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Irvine, Costa Mesa. Civil Disobedience in the form of gaming.

"Grandmaster, fountain of all knowledge in the world" ... nice handle

It reminds me of the Maryland state tax on the amount of rainfall that falls on your property. But it's unclear to me what "water" here refers to. Is it the underground river going beneath my house? Is it Lake Michigan? Is it the collected rainfall in my wheelbarrow? Is it the ocean? Is it the water in the Las Vegas hotel fountain? Is it the reservoir?

"Ownership," in the legal sense of the word, for each of these may vary. Does the "government" own all of these? Is there a pragmatic and/or legal distinction between "owning" and "controlling?"

The Colorado River dries up before it reaches the ocean. California complains that not enough water reaches CA and that NV and others are using up too much of it. Who owns the water coming down the Colorado River?

uhm, because it's survival instinct to fear and hate "the other" It's not exactly rocket science.

but instincts don't go away overnight or because of a magic law.

I know you well enough though bob to know how you would answer that question though and that you're not saying it because you know you'd be run out of here.

It demonstrates perfectly why racism still exists. Sorry, but civil rights for minorities is still relatively new. We still have too many people alive that can remember when a black man couldn't drink from the same fountain as a white

If you were raised on that idea being normal, sorry, it just doesn't go away for many people. And guess what, those people teach their kids the same discrimination. They don't understand why they're supposed to hate them, but that's how they were taught even though they might even know any black people. Eventually they might meet a black and they have to make a choice as to believe what they were taught or to reject it.

Its going to take a few generations. We're not probably going to live a completely integrated society.

Gotta also remember it wasn't that long ago whites discriminated among themselves based on ethnicity. Whether or not you had a job depended on if you were Irish or Italian, etc. And they made all the same bullshit arguments against the other ethnicities that whites say about blacks and other minorities now. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. It's not much of an issue now because there are only a handful of people still alive to even remember when that was an issue.

There is something to be said for not doing things the way people say they are to be done, but that doesn't mean everything that's done wrong is automatically great.

Is Duchamp's The Fountain art? Yes... bad art. Art that has nothing to offer; Art that screams "I'm so shitty, I'm amazing."

Van Gogh also did things "wrong" but in doing so he captured and conveyed valuable things in a way that was new to the world. He poured his own tortured mind into his work and made it beautiful. It's a shame nobody was willing to recognize it until well after he was dead.

Sometimes the best you can do isn't very good and just you have to accept it. Find somewhere else to shine.

This neighborhood could use a fountain.

*audio

http://videosift.com/video/Awesome-fountain-pen-is-awesome#comment-1487741

Aside from the fact there is carpeting on the floor, I know of no water fountain that does no shoot twards a drain. Maybe in 3rd world countries but I believe it is a code violation in the US.

Personally I would prefer a water fountain like in the slideshow above. Most of them barely dribble out of the faucet.

Also, I'm pretty sure that's how they're supposed to work. The drain is for water dripping off your mouth.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

He got up and walked away, which is good. Driver obviously distracted by epic fountain of poo.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The parameters of marriage was determined by God at the beginning of His creation. We have turned away from God in these United States, and so we have turned away from the biblical standard, however, not as much as gay marriage proponents have stated. Even with the media saturation and the constant infiltration of gay special interest groups into the national discourse, we have these realities:
1. A gay marriage amendment has never passed at the ballot box. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, with the voters rejecting it 32 times since 1998.
2. Constitutional bans on gay marriage have been successful 100 percent of time at the ballot box, passing in 31 states, typically with wide margins. This includes liberal strongholds like California and Hawaii. 38 states ban it to some degree.
The people don't appear to want gay marriage, and they are strongly in favor of the biblical definition of marriage. If you don't want to accept the reality that God has defined marriage, then accept the reality that most people are not that hot for this, and they don't want to take the country in this direction.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If polygamy were legal, would it be a civil rights issue if he refused to bake one for a polygamous wedding? How about a cake for someone wanted to marry their dog, or their car? He believes marriage is between a man and a woman and refuses to make a cake for any other kind of wedding. This has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with his moral opposition to the corruption of the institution of marriage.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Don't try that shit, it's discrimination, you know exactly why he was refusing to make a gay wedding cake that type of lying isn't going to help your argument. 2nd it's not a double-standard to hand someone their ass when they say something stupid. You do something counter to the way a society has been going you get shouted down in the public square. We're moving towards legalizing gay marriage and giving equal rights to all americans, you go counter to that you're gonna get yelled at.
Sorry but you're wrong, it isn't discrimination. They were still able to do business there if they wanted another kind of cake, and I'm sure they're still welcome to do so. The man doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay marriage is immoral.
Also filth posted on message boards? Is this your first day on the internet? I'm pretty sure Justin Beiber hasn't done anything to anyone on the internet and still he's talked about worse than Hitler. You're in hyperbole country mother fucker, deal with it.
Now you want to continue discriminating against people and not doing your job to make cakes or hand out birth control pills than yeah your life is gonna be made harder. Too bad because you're lives are already way too easy as it is. Complaining about christian discrimination, bitch there's children dying in Africa, shut the fuck up.
So discrimination against Christians is okay, because people talk trash all the time and children are dying in Africa? In other words, you just wave your hand and make excuses..proving that you don't really think discrimination is wrong, so long as its against people you disagree with. It's clear you want equal rights for everyone except Christians.
>> ^Yogi

So blacks weren't being discriminated against on the buses and water fountains, because, hey, they could still ride...just not in the front of the bus and hey, they could get a drink...just not at this particular water fountain.
Sounds like the sequel to separate but equal.


You know what is the main flaw in the argument of Christians who claim that they have the sole right to define what the institution of marriage represents and who is permitted to access it?
Simply this:
Christians don't own, didn't invent, and have no right to control marriage. They don't hold the patent on it. Not the idea of marriage, not the word of marriage, nothing. The concept of marriage belongs to the human race and predates Christianity by millenia and continents. Therefore, they have no special rights or privilege to impose their definition of it upon the rest of the nation.
But don't take my word for it. You have google at your finger tips.



As much as I want to applaud you for shifting to a "fact" based argument with elements of reasoning as opposed to your pure belief based system of thought, I'm greatly confused as to where your statistics are coming from. I'm also a little irked that you forced me to do all the googling by the way. There are mountains of evidence that on every front, from the popular vote to constitutional challenges, that gay marriage is gaining support, not losing it.

Here, let me google it for you.

Just a few rulings on the constitutional level:

November 2003: the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.

August 4, 2010: Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. "Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment," Vaughn wrote in his opinion. "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents."

February 7, 2012: the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2–1 that Proposition 8, the 2008 referendum that banned same-sex marriage in state, is unconstitutional because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In the ruling, the court said, the law "operates with no apparent purpose but to impose on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority's private disapproval of them and their relationships."

On the popular opinion front:

A June 6 CNN/ORC International poll showed that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage being legalized at 54%, while 42% are opposed.

A May 22 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 54% of Americans would support a law in their state making same-sex marriage legal, with 40% opposed.

A May 17-20 ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% believe same-sex marriage should be legal, with only 39% opposed, a low-water mark for opposition in any national poll so far.

A May 10 USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken one day after Barack Obama became the first sitting President to express support for same-sex marriage,[14] showed 51% of Americans agreed with the President's endorsement. A May 8 Gallup Poll showed plurality support for same-sex marriage nationwide, with 50% in favor and 48% opposed.

An April Pew Research Center poll showed support for same-sex marriage at 47%, while opposition fell to an all-time low of 43%.

A March 7-10 ABC News/Washington Post poll found 52% of adults thought it should be legal for same-sex couples to get married, while 42% disagreed and 5% were unsure.[18] A March survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found 52% of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 44% opposed.

A February 29 - March 3 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 49% of adults supported allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 40% opposed.

One last note on a slightly different topic: religious groups funding anti-gay legislation, most notoriously, the Prop. 8 campaign in California. If Christians are going to use their funds as a group, not individuals, why are they being given tax-free exemptions? Why should people, such as myself, who don't share their beliefs, subsidize their political ambitions?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don't want the government to curtail the ability of the religious to practice their faith but I don't think the first amendment was intended to give religions the overwhelming competitive advantage of tax-free money at the ballot box.

This could be solved two ways: no more organizational level contributions to political campaigns, i.e. the close to 200k the Mormon Church donated to support Prop. 8, OR remove tax-exempt status from religions.

By the way, it might seem impossible to conceive of a time when tax-exempt status for religion wasn't taken for granted but it's been a controversial issue from the inception of America. For example, even President Grant and Madison were against tax-exemption for religions.