I say he surrenders. I do support his role in trying to get the corporate oligarchy to crash and burn, but we can never know if he is a true rapist unless he faces the courts... Now, if he gets sent to the US and tortured, etc. Then people will know those rape charges were manufactured, and maybe... just maybe something will actually happen to help change the evil face of the USA

They should release dozens of "diplomatic pouches" (actually crates, big enough for a human to fit inside), only 30 seconds or so apart, while at the same time, hundreds of impersonators just walk about in front of the embassy, and surrounding streets, creating a huge confusion for the police. Meanwhile, other impersonators leave the embassy at the same time. Some through the door, others through the windows to pretend they are actually Assange trying to escape.

Previous to all that, Assange would have called a press meeting, to announce his surrender to the british authorities.

In the middle of the confusion, Assange, with black hair, slightly tanned, prosthetic nose and what not, comes out of the embassy pretending to be a reporter, with another person holding a camera pretending to be his camera-man. OR... he was in the first crate all along, and with the confusion he actually manages to escape because the police loses focus. The crate could actually contain a false bottom where he could hide if they actually got around to open it.


Or plan B: Assange, simply strolls out the door at any given minute, as if nothing was wrong, not even trying to be sneaky. He would be like Capt. Speirs in Band of Brothers.

Yeah, I don't agree with the first video but, if you take it as a given, what he says here makes sense.>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

hi 5!
In reply to this comment by laura:
You know, there really only HAS to be a meaning for things if you need there to be.
The truth is that everyone is being/doing exactly what they really want to be being/doing at any given time. Some people like to lead, some like to follow/surrender, some rebel, some like to be along for the ride, some don't care, and some like to analyze it all.
You ARE free, right now, meaning or no meaning, whether you believe in God or not.
Have fun driving yourselves crazy with that.

>> ^laura:

You know, there really only HAS to be a meaning for things if you need there to be.
The truth is that everyone is being/doing exactly what they really want to be being/doing at any given time. Some people like to lead, some like to follow/surrender, some rebel, some like to be along for the ride, some don't care, and some like to analyze it all.
You ARE free, right now, meaning or no meaning, whether you believe in God or not.
Have fun driving yourselves crazy with that.


i love you

You know, there really only HAS to be a meaning for things if you need there to be.
The truth is that everyone is being/doing exactly what they really want to be being/doing at any given time. Some people like to lead, some like to follow/surrender, some rebel, some like to be along for the ride, some don't care, and some like to analyze it all.
You ARE free, right now, meaning or no meaning, whether you believe in God or not.
Have fun driving yourselves crazy with that.

Batshitcrazy psychobabble.

So if a female Muslim decided to be an American Capitalist instead of following the strict and oppressive lifestyle of Islamic society..

In actuality, is she less free?

Sure she's free do whatever she wants: dress the way she likes, socialize with males, choose her own husband, not be subject to abuse and honor-punishments.

But is she truly free? considering that she will no longer be accepted by and free to engage in Islamic society?!

See what i mean?.. psychobabble

>> ^shinyblurry:

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

In context, it isn't cognitive dissonance. He started off by saying that you have to surrender freedom to the truth to get the deeper and richer freedom. Do you understand what he meant by that? For instance, let's say you decided to be an anarchist and did whatever you wanted instead of following the rule of law. Technically, you are exercising a lot more freedom as an anarchist. You are making your own rules, essentially. However, the truth is that you would actually be much less free, because once you gave up following the rules, you would no longer be accepted in the society. So, although you may be more free when you can do whatever you want, you give up that individual freedom to participate in the society, and that gives you a deeper and richer freedom. Truth can both destroy and liberate freedom. What matters is what we were designed for, what truth we have to surrender to to actually be free, which is what the video is talking about.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

holy shit.
"It is true.. that claiming to have the truth is a terrific way to destroy freedom.
And yet, there is a truth that we've gotta have to be free" ?!?!?!
You know what cognitive dissonance is.. right, shiny?

Indeed, it doesn't seem like he even gave them a chance to drop their (probably fake) weapons and surrender, just bang bang, oh, still moving? running away? bang bang bang. Sad.

>> ^Kofi:

Bloodlust. Why keep shooting after they have fled? Crazy gun nuts.

I read something recently about the old West towns. Guess what -- in a lot of them, you had to surrender your guns before coming in to town. Because they knew that GUNS KILL.

Walking around with a gun is scary to unarmed bystanders. They had common sense in the good ole days....

Hey Adam,

Thank you for sharing your background with me, and for your kind-hearted attitude. I haven't taken any offense to what you've said. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I'll relate some of my background to you first of all. I grew up in a secular home, and there wasn't any talk of religion in my household, for or against. There was a bible in my house, and although I attempted to read it as a child, I didn't get past the "begats" in Genesis. I thought that perhaps that was the entire rest of the book. I grew up knowing nothing much about religion, and so I was agnostic by default.

It wasn't until a bit later in life that I received revelation that there is a God. At the time, I had started to ponder what the truth actually was. I started to search for it, because I felt that the love was slowly draining out of this world, that things were going really wrong, and it got to the point where I felt personally convicted to stand up and do something. What, I had no idea, but more than anything else, I wanted to know the real truth.

It was very shortly after this that I received revelation from God of His existence. Although I wasn't precisely looking for God at the time, I believe that He gave me this revelation because I was searching for the truth. God showed me that He was there, and that He is personally interested and involved in my life, and that He loved me. Needless to say, this was utterly shocking, and as naturalistic materialist, my mind was blown. I found out in a moments time that all that I knew was in some way, wrong. There was no room in my worldview for a Spirit, but God shattered that mold.

He didn't come out and say who He was, though. Instead, He had me investigate all of the various religions, belief systems, philosophies etc that I could..everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism, and while I was doing this He gave me clues about Himself along the way. What I ended up believing was that none of the worlds religions were correct. I essentially believed that while they all might contain some element of thetruth about God, they were imperfect representations of who He is. I definitely did not believe that Christianity could be the one true faith. I had that picked out from the beginning as something I profoundly disagreed with.

Which is why it was the last religion I investigated. The actual truth was that I didn't know very much about it. I had, like many atheists do, a lot of things picked out of the bible which made me believe I could just dismiss it outright. It turned out though when I actually really read the bible that the understanding I thought I had was incredibly superficial (and self-deceiving). I had tried to read it before, but there was always veil there that prevented me from really understanding it. This time though that veil was taken away and everything became alive to me. The reason for this was that what I was reading was corresponding to those clues that God had given me about Himself that I had mentioned earlier. God had reinforced certain ideas and principles about Himself to me, which didn't really make any sense at the time (and indeed drove me crazy trying to figure out what He meant), but suddenly the meaning was unlocked and made crystal clear through what I was reading in scripture.

Because of that, I started to develop a simple faith in what I was reading. On that basis I put some faith in the bible as being at least potentially accurate, and I decided to give my life to Jesus Christ. That's when God showed me that is who He is. When I gave my heart over to Him, He supernaturally transformed me, and He gave me a new life free of anxiety, addiction and depression. He exchanged those things for peace and love and joy. Where there was darkness before, He had brought light.

So, that's my testimony. When you ask why didn't God reveal Himself to you at that time, a few things come to mind. The first is that everything is done in His timing. God has a plan, much bigger than our plans, and I believe that there were many things God wanted to show me before He brought me to Christianity. He wanted me to experience what I did so that when I became a Christian, I would be more effective in communicating with others who are seekers like I was. So that I would be able to relate to them better than someone who grew up in the faith could have. It could be the same for you, that God has had many things to teach you, to give a certain ministry to others, and for your own understanding.

Second, although you are a non-believer, you seem to have a genuine desire to know the truth, and to know, if there is a God, who He is, and what He wants from you. I believe God has placed that desire into your heart so that it would lead you to find Him, as He did in mine. I believe that you're asking me this question for a reason, and that reason is that God is reaching out to you. I would suggest to you that you pray to God and invite Him into your life, and ask Him to forgive your sins. Part of the Lords prayer is "Your will be done, your Kingdom come". Tell God, if this is so, that you're willing to surrender your will for His will in your life. I have prayed that God would hear your prayer and lead you to Him. I also recommend that you read the Gospel of John.

You're right, that from your perspective there may be no reason why you should believe one religion is any better than the other. I shared that view for all of the years I was searching. I can give you a lot of good reasons why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, but only God can change your heart.

What God doesn't expect is that you are going to figure Him out. Only He could reveal the truth to you. What He does do is give you opportunities in life to get closer to Him. They could be, for instance, situations that test your moral fabric. "What does he do when no one else is looking?" "How does he treat people when he has nothing to gain?". It's how you live your life that is proof of what is in your heart, and that is what God is interested in. I think that is what determines how close to Him you will get. What scripture guarantees though, is that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That you would have the desire to do that is a gift from above.

In regards to your forest question, God speaks to us in many different ways. A person doesn't need language to understand that there is a higher power. In Romans 1:18-21 it speaks to the fact that God gives a general revelation through His creation of His power and Godhead. How could this man learn about who God is? Well, no one is unreachable on this planet. God could lead him out, or lead someone in. He could give the man dreams and visions.

So I hope that is a satisfactory answer. I couldn't tell you precisely why God hasn't reached out to you before, but what I feel is that He is reaching out to you now. The question is, will you answer His call?

God bless you,

Joshua

>> ^PalmliX

>> ^kymbos:

For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.
But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).
The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.
Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?
Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.
Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.


That scene doesn't come off very well in the book either. I can't really tell you what happened in the book without spoiling it, suffice to say that a few more things happened between those two parts of the story. They handled it differently on the show than in the book, and I think they'll explain how it played out at the beginning of the next season. One note though: Robb did say in the show that any Ironborn except Theon could leave unharmed if they surrendered.

Sansa's story will also play out more, you're supposed to be confused.

As to the pace, that's just the way the books are written. It gets so bad that eventually, the two latest books take place simultaneously, with different characters. Book four: A Feast For Crows contains no Tyrion at all, you have to read through to the fifth book to find out what Tyrion was doing while the events of the fourth book were playing out. Weird huh? But I couldn't stop reading them.

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

I'm not really arguing in the first place, heropsycho. The fact that you feel you need to passionately defend president Obama, even against the benign implication that he is impolite (the video I provided has many valid examples of this(I bet you didn't watch it)) is proof of the cloud of divisiveness that permeates his presidency.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

If Obama is moderate, why are all of his appointees extreme left? The far left should be pleased with his presidency, but the portrait they are painting is of a disinterested narcissist who couldn't lead a dog on a leash. Everyone drank the Obama kool-aid in 2008; they even controlled congress for two years. They should be celebrating Obama, yet there is a definite schism.

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

Do you know where the spiking the football quote came from? President Obama. He used the anniversary of bin ladens death to score some cheap political points against Romney, and so he opened himself to the criticism. If he had handled it presidentially, as a strong leader instead of using it as a partisan political play, Romney would have had to eat crow that whole week.

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

So explain why the two examples I gave you wouldn't cause a reasonable person, let alone a paranoid one, to be skeptical?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

I'm not playing a card, I'm telling you what I believe. Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to do that. Neither am I much into politics, personally. I follow it, but generally the choices are "bad" and "worse". I don't think the republicans are any better than the democrats, in many ways. The fact is, this nation has fallen far away from God, farther every day, and so I expect judgment will be coming fairly soon. Prophetically, 9-11 was a warning:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Isaiah-Judgment-Foretells-Americas/dp/1936488191

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

No problem. When you can think of any besides Bin Laden, let me know. I don't consider Obamacare to be a plus; my mother is going to lose her current health coverage and end up paying much higher premiums because of it.

>> ^heropsycho:

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^heropsycho:
SERIOUSLY?!
Obama needs to be more polite?!
OBAMA ?!?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro
Not to mention a significant faction of the GOP accuse him of not being an American citizen. And that's persisting after he provided his birth certificate!
I'm not a leftwinger, or a Democrat for that matter, but you have to be out of your damn mind if you think that politics isn't civil enough because of Obama.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite



Obama is the most divisive president this country has ever seen. Even top democrats complain that he is a terrible leader:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/top-congressional-democrats-compl
ain-obama-not-leader
As far as where he was born is concerned, it's not as if the birthers have no reason to be skeptical:
http://ww
w.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

As for me, I accept whomever God has appointed. I pray for Obama, although I hope this will be his only term.

How would voting for Romney provide a 'solution' to the reality that the American news media has surrendered all thier integrity, professionalism, and objectivity in favor of biased, agenda-based activism?