Your video, David Letterman - Anna Kendrick's Song and Cup Trick, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^alien_concept:

That is awful the fucking thing is like a third of her size! That's what happens when you let 12 year olds get pregnant...


Slides out alot easier than the next biggest brain's younguns......wish our spawn could loco-motate as soon as they stretched out the ol sticky-bun...pain in the ass rollin' and carrying them around for a year anna half!

I would send a letter back saying the same thing. Please never contact me again type of thing. What an ass. Also, Anna looks good with her hair up.

"Are there people that wanted to get attention?"

YES FOR FUCKS SAKES IT IS REDDIT! Are you kidding me? There are no doubt genuine posts in that thread, but I would wager many are trolls. It's what the community does when it comes to controversy. I also wouldn't put it past some of the men and women in that community to have made some of those posts posing as a rapist, like perhaps, maybe, the example Anna provided, in order to drill into peoples heads that they need to report anything and everything that happens to them to the authorities.

At the end of the day, I don't really know what's exactly what there but I've been on reddit long enough that I don't take every comment in a controversial thread to heart.

I think Anna and Cenk have sand in their vaginas. How would it be any different from Paypal or Google Checkout? You do know google has a checkout right? Facebook wants that action too.

haha, oh no! I'm not sure about "Quality" for that video, but thank you so much.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
:

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Hah! But no, seriously.
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/lantern53" title="member since August 6th, 2010" class="profilelink">lantern53 knows.. that depriving servers of a living wage and forcing them to bust their asses for 5% gratuity on a $130 check.. you know, builds character.
Struggling in quasi-poverty for years of your life is what the American Dream is all about! duh.
That's why Mitt Romney is such a great American and needs to be President.
He knows what it's like.. to force people to struggle. For their own good.
p.s. - Everyone knows that raising the minimum wage is just another Socialist/Marxist scheme by Obama to disenfranchise the Job Creators in this country.
While I completely agree that people should be paid a living wage, I don't really have a problem with tipping. People should bust their asses in their job, especially if your job is customer facing. Customer service in the USA is so much better than almost anywhere else I've been, (it's particularly bad in NZ)


Just a meaningless anecdote (just find it funny that you mention it):

I went to Sydney once (15 years ago) and the very first day, I went to a place called the Juba Cafe. My friend and I were surprised to find porridge on the menu, because all I knew of porridge was from Oliver Twist or Little Orphan Annie. Our server, who's name was Anna, was really surprised to hear it, so she bought us porridge to convince us it was good. It was. Then, after we ate (before we tipped her) she invited us over to her apartment for some wine that night. When we got there, she had invited all her friends over to meet "her new Americans." They gave us wine, we talked for a long time about NZ (where she was from) and they rolled me the first "baseball bat" that I ever smoked, with the the little cardboard filter in it and everything. They also introduced me to Aphex Twin (the "Richard D. James Album") and we bonded over Ween, which I was surprised to hear they knew all about, even in 97'. So, after we were completely blitzed, Anna and her friends took us out to dinner, where we ate and drank and talked for hours and didn't pay a dime while these guys all treated us to a great first night in their city. I'm not even sure how we got home, but they sure didn't let anything bad happen to us.

The reason I mention it, is that I would say it was, easily, the best service I've ever had in my entire life, anywhere. We had to leave town the next day and I never saw or spoke to any of those guys again. I really wish I'd kept in contact with them because I owe them so much more than a night out. I still roll a fat bat and pop in the Aphex Twin on a pretty regular basis.

>> ^probie:

Completely off topic, but I'd have them switch positions. Both of them are facing the camera with hair in their face. Anna not so much, but throw the other one a headband or a scrunchie or something. Just the director in me coming out.


*Ana

Just the editor in me coming out.

***This Post has been Edited***

Alos Ultra Orthodox Jews are just as bad as any extreme sect of a religion.

Completely off topic, but I'd have them switch positions. Both of them are facing the camera with hair in their face. Anna not so much, but throw the other one a headband or a scrunchie or something. Just the director in me coming out.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'glowsticking, poi, anna, skills, raver, underground, 952 crew' to 'glowsticking, poi, anna schlosser, skills, raver, underground, 952 crew' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^messenger:
Wow. I'm surprised to hear there are Christian churches that don't practice sacraments. Do you mean, none of them? No weddings, no communion, no confession, no confirmation, no last rites, no.... the other ones? Especially communion seems a strange omission since you were commanded by Jesus to do so. Or did you interpret, "Do this in memory of me" to only apply to the Apostles?


You won't find the word sacrament in the bible. Marriage, that is fine. Baptism too, although it isn't sprinkling like the catholic church teaches; it is full body immersion. Child baptism is not biblical. Christians should take communion, but not according to the pagan rituals of the catholic church, or regarding what they call the "trans-substantiation". The cracker does not literally become the flesh of Jesus, nor the wine His literal blood. It is simply something we do to symbolize our fellowship with Him, and the body of Christ.

The rest you have mentioned are nowhere to be found in the bible. They simply come from the traditions of the catholic church. It is not a Christian institution, and this is why neither you or your family has ever come to know Jesus Christ.

>> ^messenger:
With my question here, I was indirectly taking issue with your assertion that only if I pledge myself to Jesus can I truly commune with God. So in my question, my intent was to find out if you ever fully give yourself to any religion before Christianity, like become an active, fervent follower. I'm guessing the answer is no. If I'm right, then I don't see how you can say Christianity is the only way to commune with God. If I'm wrong, and you did fully dedicate your soul to some other religion first, then I'd simply like to hear about that experience.


My experience was, that after I became aware that God exists, He led me through the various religions and philosophies of the world over a number of years. He gave me clues along the way, leading me step by step, until He finally brought me to the bible. This was not a natural progression for me, because I had a big resistance to Christianity. It was actually one of the religions I thought was the least likely to be true. But He had given me signs beforehand about truth that was in the bible that I didn't understand at the time, so that when I started to read the bible, I could see it was His book. This gave me enough faith in it to give my life to Christ, and when I did, He supernaturally transformed my life. This isn't stated metaphorically; I mean it in a literal sense.

>> ^messenger:
I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.


What that means is that you don't know if there is a God or not. That makes you an agnostic and not an atheist.

>> ^messenger:
Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.


I understand I have my own burden of proof, but if someone wants to say that I am wrong, they are making a negative claim. It's up to them to provide reasons to substantiate their claim, and no, I don't think this need constitute absolute proof. If they're just saying "I don't know", then that is a different story. Most atheists don't want to concede that they don't know, because then they would have to admit that God could possibly exist, so they invent a new definition of atheism to obscure their true position.

>> ^messenger:
The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".


It depends on what you're trying to claim, about your own beliefs, or mine. Yes, I can relate to your position, having been there. That is why I describe atheism as religion for people who have no experience with God. I too was a true believer in naturalistic materialism until that veil was torn, and then I immediately realized that everything I knew, was in some way, wrong. Can you even conceive of such a thing, messenger? Do you care enough about the truth to be willing to let the tide take your sandcastle away from you?

>> ^messenger:
An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.


I wouldn't try to prove to you that Thor or Ra do not exist. I believe they do exist, but that they are not actually gods. They are fallen angels masquarading as gods, as with every other false idol.

>> ^messenger:
And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.


That's exactly the point; your conclusion is fallacious. You merely assume I am wrong because some people have made similar claims which were false. That is not a criterion for determining truth. If you had an incurable disease and only had a few days to live, and some people came to you promising a cure, and some of those claims turned out to be false, would you refuse to entertain any further claims and simply assume they are all false? I think not.

>> ^messenger:
Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.


What effort does it take to entertain a possibility? You could simply pray something like this:

Jesus, I admit that I do not actually know if you are God or not. I would like to know whether it is true. Jesus, if it is true then I invite you into my life right now as Lord and Savior. I ask that you would forgive me for all of my sins, sins that you shed your blood on the cross for. I ask that you would give me the gift of faith, and help me turn from my sins. I ask that you send your Holy Spirit to me right now. I thank you Jesus for saving me.

If you pray that and sincerely mean what you say, then I have no doubt Jesus will answer it.

>> ^messenger:
1. No. If that's true, he gave me my life, and he can take it away if he wants to, but I have no respect for Indian givers.


It's appointed one for man to die, and then the judgment. He isn't going to take away your life, he is going to judge the one you have. Do you believe that you should be above His law?

>> ^messenger:
2. No. I don't serve anyone. He can do what he likes. He made me the way I am -- someone who relies on empirical evidence and sceptical about all superstition, and if he doesn't like it, it's his own fault. He should love me the way I am. And if he does, he should just let me come into heaven because he loves me, not because he needs me to worship him. I don't like egotists any more than Indian givers.


That isn't true; you serve yourself. If God has a better plan than you do, and your plan can only lead to a bad end, why wouldn't you serve God?

Yes, God made you the way you are, a person who knows right from wrong and has sufficient understanding to come to a knowledge of the truth. He loves you, but not your sin. He gave you a conscience to know right from wrong, and when you deliberately choose to do wrong, it isn't His fault. Yet He is patient with you, because He wants you to repent from your sin, so you can go to Heaven. As it stands now, you're a criminal in His eyes, and you are headed for His prison called hell, and He would be a corrupt judge if He just dismissed your case. But He is merciful and doesn't want to send you there. That is why He has given you an opportunity to be forgiven for your sins and avoid punishment. He sent His only Son to take your punishment, so that He can legally dismiss your case and forgive you, but also you must repent from your sins. If you refuse to stop doing evil, why do you think you should be allowed in?

>> ^messenger:
3. Yes and no. Yes, if Jesus turns out to be God, then there'll be no faith required. I'll know it. You can't disbelieve something you know is true. But no, I wouldn't trust him. A god isn't by definition benevolent or omni-anything. If he told me to accept that anal sex is a sin, he and I would get into a debate about what "sin" really is, why he defined sins to begin with, why he created the universe such that people would sin, why sin displeases him, and how those people can be faulted for following God's own design. And if the only way he could convince me he was right was by threatening me with eternal torment in a pit of fire, and promising to reward me with eternal happiness if I agreed with him, then I'd think he must have a pretty weak argument if he has to resort to carrot and stick tactics. I likewise don't like people who resort to violence or threats of violence to make people agree with them.


There'll be no faith required when you die and see Jesus at the judgment seat, but it will also be too late to receive forgiveness for your sins. Neither is God trying to convince you that He is right, because your conscience already tells you that you are wrong. You know that you are a sinner, and that you've broken Gods commandments hundreds, if not thousands of times. You're acting like I don't know you are a human being. What are you possibily going to have to say to a Holy God with your entire life laid bare before Him?

@shinyblurry

If you don't know then you're agnostic. If you do know, then youre an atheist. There is no position inbetween I know and I don't know. It's that simple. That's why Hitchens had to admit "I do not therefore believe that God exists". The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

I think you know what I believe and don't, and what I know and what I don't. At this stage, I think definitions are just semantics, and I'm not going to explain again what those words really mean. So, here's my official statement with all the contentious words taken out: I don't believe that any description of God I've ever heard is true, and I don't know if my belief is accurate.

The attempted redefinition of atheism simply a tactic to avoid any burden of proof.

Seriously? You cannot claim to understand science, and then state that the burden for a non-claim lies with the person not making the claim. Scientist Anna says, "I believe the Higgs boson exists." Scientist Bob says, "I don't believe that the Higgs boson exists." Neither of them have any evidence. Anna is introducing a novel assertion about something. Bob isn't. Bob can ask Anne to prove it exists. Anne cannot ask Bob to prove it doesn't exist. Anne may, however, ask Bob why he doesn't believe it exists, since the Standard Model predicts its existence. If Bob shows why be believes the prediction is false, either by showing the SM has been used incorrectly, or stating he doesn't believe in SM at all, that's the end of his "burden" for that question. He does not have to scientifically prove the Higgs boson doesn't exist. He can't. It's logically impossible.

The theistic equivalent is you asking my why I don't believe in God. To this I tell you that to me, there's insufficient evidence, which is a position you should understand since it was exactly your own position until you got some direct evidence. That's the end of my "burden".

An equivalent for you might be if I asked you to prove to me that Thor and Ra don't exist. You couldn't. You could only give your reasons why you believe they don't exist. Same here. I'm in the same position as you, except I don't believe that Thor, Ra or Yahweh exist.

The point was how ridiculous it is to spend so much time doing everything you can to rule the claim out except to actually test it directly.

And my point is I wouldn't spend any effort trying to rule it out at all. I would just assume you're another false buried money promiser and move on. The reason I'm talking now isn't to rule anything out -- I never accepted the premise to begin with.

Especially considering that there is nothing to lose in testing it, and everything to gain. So no, it isn't logical.

Changing my whole perspective of the universe is an immense effort of mind. It's not "nothing". And why would I bother? Just to win an argument with you? Like I said above, I don't for a minute accept it's true, so I have no motivation for spending any energy proving it.

This is so true John Noble is an acting genius worthy of any award they are allowed to give him period!

Walter in the White House 2012!

>> ^spoco2:

Walter is the heart of this show. John Noble plays him so damn well, and movingly at times. Hurray for the Australian actor (Anna Torv is also Australian, and stunning)


>> ^Samaelsmith:

This show would be nothing without Walter.

Walter is the heart of this show. John Noble plays him so damn well, and movingly at times. Hurray for the Australian actor (Anna Torv is also Australian, and stunning)

Why is Anna Paquin looking at me like that?
She was smiling at me only 3 or 4 days ago