>> ^Boise_Lib:

"Do you know who wants to have sex with men with really big muscles? Other men with really big muscles."
-- Craig Ferguson
This guy may be looking at the wrong team.
You should try saying that in front of a man with really big muscles.

OMG I could loose my videosift virginity!?!? That's really far too generous of you! Of course I'll accept but I feel guilty because you're doing the majority of the work. I'll give you full props of course.>> ^alien_concept:

Fancy losing your P? I'm downloading it right now and will upload it to YouTube asap, will send you the link if you would like
In reply to this comment by PalmliX:
Yes I've been looking for that one for a while now too...>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^PalmliX:
GREAT sift!!! I love Louis Theroux and have been anxiously awaiting his newest work. Thanks so much!

His newest work is Extreme Love, a two part series, looking at autism and dementia and as usual is complete gold. Nothing to sift yet, I've been looking for months now, but I'm sure you could find it somewhere

>> ^probie:

If it reacted that way to garbage, just imagine if you threw Sarah Palin in there...


You're right, why settle for just any old trash when we can throw in some white trash, still not a virgin though.

Take them, we have plenty! >> ^Zawash:

Watch out - you just angered him - now he requires even more virgins!

Watch out - you just angered him - now he requires even more virgins!

@shinyblurry
yaaaay.a video argument.
well allow me to retort:




i always find it interesting when people assume that i get my information from zeitgeist.as if the idea that i studied under a biblical scholar is something to not even be considered.

as for defending the sabbath as being sunday. might i suggest that when you use a souce *cough* wikipedia *cough* that you may wish to read the article in its entirety.

achary s has sourced ALL her claims in zeigeist and provides it:
(ok ok.its from the you tube page.too lazy to link diving for all her sources)
The New ZEITGEIST Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) Transcript
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes concerning 'Zeitgeist, Part 1'
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

The Mythicist Position - video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w

'The REAL Zeitgeist Challenge'
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge.html

9 September 2009 Listen to Acharya S on Peter Joseph's blogtalkradio. Show begins Wednesday September 9th at 3PM Eastern (12PM Pacific)
Acharya appears from 4PM Eastern (1PM Pacific)

This show is now ARCHIVED here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Peter-Joseph

Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/christinegypt.html

Listen to Acharya on blogtalkradio - Truth or Fiction? Show April 4 2009: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/7hunder/2009/04/04/truth-or-fiction-with-very-sp...

Listen to Acharya talk about her new book on Gnostic Media - Podcast 21 March 9 2009: http://www.gnosticmedia.podomatic.com

31 July 2008 - Listen to the streaming radio interview with Acharya on Black Op Radio...Show #385 Part 1
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html - thank you Len

Cette vidéo avec des sous-titres français: http://tinyurl.com/594awz

The Companion Guide to ZEITGEIST, Part 1 is a 49-page ebook containing a scientific investigation of some of the facts from Part 1 of the ZEITGEIST movie, dealing with the comparisons of ancient religions and Christianity.
http://www.StellarHousePublishing.com/zeitgeist.html

http://www.TruthBeKnown.com

Acharya's blog post "Zeitgeist Part 1 Refuted? - NOT!" -
http://tbknews.blogspot.com/2008/04/zeitgeist-refuted-not.html

The sun/son issue was addressed long ago in Acharya's FAQ's:
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=4835#p4835

Zeitgeist Part 1 & the Supportive Evidence
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2997

"Astrotheology of the Ancients"
http://truthbeknown.com/astrotheology.html

Special thanks go to Freethinkaluva22 for providing tremendous assistance with the research.

Was Krisyhna's mum, Devaki, a virgin?
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1597

The Origins of Christianity
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/originsofchristianity.pdf

shiny.
you know i have no interest in changing how you believe or perceive the world around you.
your faith is your own but please put a tad bit more time into rebuttals when concerning my posts.
apply to boston university and get your degree.i hear their theology courses are top notch.
ooooor continue to play whack a mole with every post,comment or inference that challenges your world view based on limited religious and biblical understandings.
i am sorry if that offends or hurts you but i read your posts and it is painfully obvious that you dont know what you are talking about concerning religious history.

so.try seminary school.
graduate and then our arguments can become legendary!

oh.and another thing.scholars are still unsure of the exact date of resurrection.
just sayin....

Correct! The Way of the Dragon. Great karate schmaltz, that. And Chuck gets killed at the Colosseum in Rome after a great preening match with Bruce Lee. But Enter the Dragon . . . not.

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^silvercord:
Chuck Norris wasn't in Enter the Dragon, Dusty. He was, however, in the Virgin Islands. Now, they are just the Islands.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068935/

>> ^silvercord:

Chuck Norris wasn't in Enter the Dragon, Dusty. He was, however, in the Virgin Islands. Now, they are just the Islands.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068935/

Chuck Norris wasn't in Enter the Dragon, Dusty. He was, however, in the Virgin Islands. Now, they are just the Islands.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho:

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

http://news.health.ufl.edu/2012/18504/multimedia/health-in-a-heartbeat/women-taking-birth-control-pills-for-reasons-other-than-contraception/

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

Your poll, you missed out on one little thing in it...

"*Among the 62 percent of Americans who have heard about the mandate*, 48 percent said they support an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions if they object to the use of contraceptives, the survey found. Forty-four percent said the groups should be required to cover contraceptives like other employers."

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

And it doesn't matter because majority rule doesn't determine whether something is unconstitutional. Majority votes don't tell what is good policy for the US necessarily either.

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left.

FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

"Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

So he's not an extreme liberal, but these views are extreme liberal, and you believe he's likely to take off his costume and become the true hardcore communist everyone should fear in his second term... but he's NOT an extreme liberal?

Dude, which is it?

>> ^shinyblurry:


Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.
There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause
Not according to this poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/po
ll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/
Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.
That's just scratching the surface.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.
>> ^heropsycho:

powered by the tears of young virgin maidens

>> ^ulysses1904:

Is this still considered fresh and entertaining? Endless videos with deep discussions about pop-culture horseshit? Tarantino started it with the "Like a virgin" scene in RD and since then pop-culture has been eating its own feces.


Yes. Yes it is.

Is this still considered fresh and entertaining? Endless videos with deep discussions about pop-culture horseshit? Tarantino started it with the "Like a virgin" scene in RD and since then pop-culture has been eating its own feces.