Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm hearing most of these to Dolly Parton's 9 to 5.>> ^kymbos:

I Ride On The Bus Into The City Everyday
I Sit On My Seat And I Dream Myself Away
I Dream I'm On An Island With That Foxy Lady Too
But When I Awaken I Must Be Mistaken I'm On Third Avenue
Won't You Take Me Away And Take Away Me
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2271423527665700099

I Ride On The Bus Into The City Everyday
I Sit On My Seat And I Dream Myself Away
I Dream I'm On An Island With That Foxy Lady Too
But When I Awaken I Must Be Mistaken I'm On Third Avenue
Won't You Take Me Away And Take Away Me

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2271423527665700099

I would not pray what you have suggested.

You're unwilling to do what you accuse me and other Christians of being unwilling to do. That's called hypocrisy.

For one, I do not need a lord or savior.

You don't know whether you need a Lord and Savior, or not.

Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Romans 1:18-21

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Scripture says God has already given you sufficient evidence of His existence, but you suppress that truth and that you're without any excuse, and I believe scripture.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something.

Is it possible that God could reveal Himself to you in such a way that you could know it for certain?

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation

Actually, it is. According to scripture, that is the only kind of investigation that will yield any results. Neither does it cost you anything. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If I am wrong, nothing will happen. If I am right, you will come to know the truth. That you're unwilling to take a minute out of your time to do that speaks volumes about your true position.

I do not need a lord or savior

Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation

You make plenty of claims. You're fooling yourself if you believe that you are at all neutral on this subject. You have a calculated neutrality, merely to justify your skepticism rather than a true neutrality. If you were truly neutral you would be open to the truth. A true agnostic neither believes *nor* disbelieves.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

I was a naturalistic materialist. When God revealed Himself to me, I found out that everything I knew (or thought I knew) was in some way, wrong. Can you personally conceive of that?

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I would not pray what you have suggested. For one, I do not need a lord or savior. Two, the god that you believe in should know exactly what it would take to prove its existence and unless those rigorous conditions are met, I will maintain my doubt.

Personal revelation, whether singular or continuous, is not, for me, a good measure of whether or not I should believe something. Demonstrable, reproducible, externally verifiable, logically sound, and consistency with what we can/do know about reality are, among others, the basis of what it takes for me to believe something. The god of the bible, as well as all supernatural claims, are none of those so therefore I cannot believe in its existence.

That kind of prayer is not meaningful investigation and my view is that of doubt and skepticism. “I don’t know” is a null position, a “0” in binary, and because it makes no claims to knowledge, my position does not require falsification. “I do not believe” and “I don’t know” is not a claim to knowledge. Claims to knowledge are what require a path to falsification.

If you were truly agnostic, you couldn’t have had a claim that would have been falsified since, as an agnostic, you would admitted that you do not know.

>> ^shinyblurry:

As a former agnostic, I was perfectly fine with the answer "I don't know". That was never a scary thing to me. At the time, I simply did not have enough information to say either way. I wasn't going to go beyond what I felt was possible to understand given our subjective bias. I only changed my mind when I received revelation of Gods existence. Neither was it a single revelation that I base my belief on, rather it is actually a daily revelation. I could no more deny Gods existence than my own reflection in the mirror. To know God is to know Him personally, and to know Him personally means that He is personally involved in the intimate details of your life.
My question to you is, are you willing to falsify your viewpoint? I already had mine falsified, which is why I became a Christian. I don't expect you to accept my personal testimony as absolute proof of anything. You can investigate the claim for yourself, by asking Jesus to come into your life as Lord and Savior. You can falsify your view this way:
Pray something like..Jesus, I don't know if you're there or not, but if you are there, I want to know you. If you let me know you are there, I will give my life to you. Please come into my life as Lord and Savior. Thank you God. Amen.
Are you willing to do that?
>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

I voted 'no', mostly because as a English-is-not-my-first-language I have enough problems with channels that exist already. I kind of get what might be 'obscure', to me 'quirky' sounds like 'perky obscure' , and with either one, I am not crystal clear. Not to mentions channels like 'grindhouse', 'debunked'.. not that I am likely to sift anything to go on to those channels anyway.

I just think it would be nice if it was crystal clear what goes to a specific channel. Maybe because I am also a blonde, I always have problems with my channel assignments. Luckily most people are helpful abd NICE and they add correct channels to my submissions, or change them to proper channels. All I am asking is that you are nice about it (and like I said, most people are).

But then, you should be nice about everything else too. I do not like rude comments abouut my channels, tags or titles. If you are rude, I am most likely to ignore you. This might be 'just online' , but rude comments are disrespectful and people should just try to be civil. But hey, I try not to read any comments because I know things can get pretty ugly in some fronts..

Anyway! Sorry shuac about not voting for your channel. I just would love to see something a bit easier to define. I hope you have several other choices in mind, I had plenty when I was making mine.

OK, we'll see how long it takes for me to start thinking I never should have posted this comment..

>> ^shuac:

Fuck that kid and his lawsuit should be filed up his ass.
Mistake #1: He immediately got out of the car with a hand in his pocket
If you do this, then you should not feign surprise that you're being yelled at. Cops are far less interested in talking to you than you might expect when you immediately get out of your car with a hand in your pocket. MUCH less interested than you think. They are more interested in getting control of a possibly hostile situation. There are far too many situations of cops being shot because they failed to gain control ( see below). If this is something you cannot understand, then stop reading this post and go out and get some more life experience. Armchair judging is fun and everything and it's shocking how little effort it takes, believe me...I understand the impulse.
Mistake #2: He failed to follow the cop's orders after being told dozens and dozens of fucking times.
Again, if this is something you feel is okie-dokie, then have at it, Hoss. Just don't get all litigious and expect any support from me (not that that's the gold standard or anything). The cop is under NO OBLIGATION to talk to the perp in such a situation. The kid forfeited the right to talk about why he was pulled over the instant he exited his vehicle with his hand in his pocket. And if you don't understand how hostile it is for someone to ignore a cop's repeated commands like this, then you are a fucking moron. I'm afraid it's that simple.

http://youtu.be/qoI4G1fWmEQ
http://youtu.be/rgXQK3NfRY4
http://youtu.be/2sxwvkVzhyA
http://youtu.be/MEpUtoUzE4U
So to sum up: this kid deserved to be tasered and I'm glad he was.


Those links of yours are so sad and very instructive of the kind of shit cops have to deal with and why they feel so threatened when someone comes out of the car aggressively with a baggy jacket and their hand in their pocket and ignoring lawful orders. I sifted all of them:
http://videosift.com/video/Two-cops-killed-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Texas-ranger-shot-at-point-blank-in-routine-speeding-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Police-officer-murdered-by-two-men-during-traffic-stop
http://videosift.com/video/Cop-shot-in-face-during-routine-traffic-stop-survives

Fuck that kid and his lawsuit should be filed up his ass.

Mistake #1: He immediately got out of the car with a hand in his pocket

If you do this, then you should not feign surprise that you're being yelled at. Cops are far less interested in talking to you than you might expect when you immediately get out of your car with a hand in your pocket. MUCH less interested than you think. They are more interested in getting control of a possibly hostile situation. There are far too many situations of cops being shot because they failed to gain control (** see below). If this is something you cannot understand, then stop reading this post and go out and get some more life experience. Armchair judging is fun and everything and it's shocking how little effort it takes, believe me...I understand the impulse.

Mistake #2: He failed to follow the cop's orders after being told dozens and dozens of fucking times.

Again, if this is something you feel is okie-dokie, then have at it, Hoss. Just don't get all litigious and expect any support from me (not that that's the gold standard or anything). The cop is under NO OBLIGATION to talk to the perp in such a situation. The kid forfeited the right to talk about why he was pulled over the instant he exited his vehicle with his hand in his pocket. And if you don't understand how hostile it is for someone to ignore a cop's repeated commands like this, then you are a fucking moron. I'm afraid it's that simple.

**
http://youtu.be/qoI4G1fWmEQ
http://youtu.be/rgXQK3NfRY4
http://youtu.be/2sxwvkVzhyA
http://youtu.be/MEpUtoUzE4U

So to sum up: this kid deserved to be tasered and I'm glad he was.

Meh, not impressed. Although I guess it depends on what he was smoking, those bongs make for hits that are easy as hell to take. Show me a man who will dig around his ashtray for used joints, roll em up and smoke em out of desperation and you might have something.

Well, I grew up with it and have been yelling at family members for years. It is only in the past decade that I finally figured out how to talk about it in a way that left me with my dignity intact.

Isn't it odd that it didn't "take" with me? I always knew it was wrong, I wasn't taught that it was wrong.

You ARE lucky not to have to hear it.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Glad to help push it up on the Top 15 where it belongs.

I'm lucky, I don't hear that kind of stuff from family members. I can imagine how uncomfortable and frustrating that must be. I really don't understand how people can think that kind of thing is even remotely defensible. It's as if they really think they shouldn't have to be embarrassed or ashamed about those kinds of thoughts.

In reply to this comment by bareboards2:
Thanks for the quality.

I just spent two days with my racist uncle, who ended up yelling in my face "you haven't lived with them, you don't know what its like!" because I wouldn't let him use the N word without me responding in some fashion (calmly responding, by the way -- fascinating to watch him get angrier and angrier when I just asked him reasonable questions. Did you know that the only good niggers are older? Dang.)

I am very very glad that this made Top 15. It is like a cool shower on a hot day after having to listen to him.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
*quality

>> ^Yogi:

I find this funny cause he's refused to go on Glee.


One day I'm going to watch a full episode of Glee to hopefully confirm it's as rubbish as I think it is.

>> ^acidSpine:

I can't determine if he's dancing ironicaly or not


Probably a little bit of both. There's a guy at work that fucking blasts epic sax guy (sometimes all day) to the point where now I just accept it and when I hear it I become insane like Ren and his chocolate bar soap, dancing and grinning MY LOVELY CHOCOLATE BAR

Your video, Dave Grohl dances to A-Ha's "Take On Me", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I've always been proud of a-ha. We beat Finland, at least.

The court accepts your guilty plea. However, it will still show no mercy. You are sentenced to listening to this on a continuous loop for the next five years. Bailiff, make sure his restraints are secure. >> ^Ornthoron:

Are we talking about guilty pleasures? This is mine:

Ha, I see you just voted for this. And I was just about to tell you.
No one can resist Norwegian '80s synthpop. NO ONE.