I remember my "judgement day." Greif.

I discovered for myself that I, unknowingly, had written my own bible. I created all the rules that I thought I should hold dear. Little did I know that one day I would be judged by own bible.

Then I lost someone I loved. I became suicidal. I could not bear the loss and the pain.

My plan was to drive head on into a semi truck, thinking that hopefully the driver would survive somehow. I drove back and forth on the highway I picked to end my life.

I imagined what the crash would be like and who it would affect. Then I pictured something that stalled my plan.

Upon crashing into the truck I envisioned the people I love being crushed and dismembered in slow motion. My parents, siblings, friends, as though they were in the car with me.

In my death I would be the only survivor.

I had destroyed the world. With a single bullet, I could have destroyed the world. To me, that meant one thing. If I had the power to destroy the world, then I must have the power to save it. The only thing standing in my way was the bible I wrote for myself. Forgiving others was the easy part.

Forgiving myself was not so easy.

The very thing that almost killed me was now the thing I had to believe in.

Love.

Pure. Simple. Without demands or conditions.

Every human needs love. "There lies the rub."

I snatched the pebbles from the Master's hand. It was time for me to leave.

God was no different than great works of art, music, poetry.

If there is a God, it must be me because I now have the only power God ever had.

Love.

Love how these idiot reporters never get the history of the games right.
So forget about all the other wolfs it just went from wof3d to this did it?
Also it would have been a more entertaining video if that that furry mammal on reporters head lept back and forth from his head to the bald chicks head.

Anyway Die Nazi Scum!!!!!

each video page has a place to opt in http://i.imgur.com/63UqHFA.png

and at the bottom of most/many pages there is a beta optout button.

I often go back and forth for different reasons.

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

Well I loved it. And I don't think he's a mediocre vocalist. He really has a great voice and fantastic mic control.

Also, the way he did this one, cutting back and forth was really a revelation. Now that "She knows" line actually makes sense to me. *promote

And with Daredevil AND Deadpool's reputation proceeding him in the MCU, it's really really REALLY time for Spidey to get in and own sum fase. Seriously.

Come on.

Pst! He's cool.

(Spiderman -- hey, I'm still waiting.)

k, I'll be over here pacing back and forth while the important people in Hollywood call all of the shots.

...How much longer? Oh man, come on!

I'll be on the side of the building if anybody needs me. *jumps off the top of the roof*

Wow! Those ankle movements, shifting back and forth as she slides under that vehicle with perfect balance at every point of her body... Amazing...

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

The 'tenuours connection' has not been debunked. The evidence president Obama had access to was enough to order Anwar's assassination from even.

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter met in person at the mosque Anwar was then an Imam at. Following that the shooter emailed Awlaki back and forth, but the contents of the email's has been kept closed. Anwar's praise and blessing of the attack immediately afterwards though is kind of telling.

That then combines with Anwar's past before that, where he was an Imam at 2 separate mosques attended by 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. One of those is the same mosque where he also met the Fort Hood shooter...

Or back even before that in the late 90's when he was running a charity that was later declared a front for funnelling money to terrorists.

That's an awful lot of coincidental contact with terrorists. Combine that with the fact he went full on cheer leader for it all once he left US soil seems to tell enough. He was an active participant and conspirator to at least Fort Hood, and possibly many more attacks on the US and it's allies.

I'm sorry to say it, but Jeremy Scahill is pretty guilty of selectively presenting and showing only the facts that fit his arguments and leaves out a mountain of other extremely relevant information that would be inconvenient to his narrative.

Came here to say exactly this.

I'll add that Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't just hiding out in Yemen. The Fort Hood shooter was emailing back and forth with him. The attempted bombings in Times Square and of Northwest Airlines flight 253 were also linked back to him. So yeah, there were absolutely guys in Yemen helping launch attacks on American nationals and American soil.

That all said, blanket bans on everyone from the country period is only A answer and mayhaps not THE answer, baby with the bath water and all. Most of our Islamic allies, and the highest percentage of victims of jihadist terrorism are the moderate muslims in those same countries.

Wow, I'm glad they switched it up. The original sounds terribly convoluted and confusing. I hate movies that jump back and forth in time to try to make you curious about what's happening, when really you're just confused having not been given enough information to have a clue about what you're seeing. I also hate the idea of knowing everything that's coming but the characters are completely in the dark. That's not a good movie in my eyes, but True Romance was excellent.
As made, it's my wife's favorite movie, and in my top 5.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

I kept switching back and forth to 3-D on my TV. I now have an aneurism.

Further to my post above, the back and forth, left vs right, petty bickering all serves to perpetuate the existing problems.

For instance, here in Canada statistics do clearly show that aboriginals are over-represented in crime statistics. Simply observing that statistic though already marks me as a racist in most circles and conversation/debate is supposed to shut down and your not supposed to talk about it.

The trouble is that the disproportionate crime rate isn't because skin colour influences the probability you'll become a criminal. Things like poverty and environment though absolutely do. The reality in Canada is that Aboriginal reserves have conditions that are much worse then comparable municipalities. The system of segregation of Aboriginal people on reserves has created a disparity and this disparity is at the root of the problem.

As I stated though, people aren't even supposed to discuss the issue because it's racist to say most of what I just did. The worst part is that refusing to talk about the problem, let alone working on resolving it, is allowing the continuation of a systematic disadvantaging of Canadians based upon their race.

Ha!
I'm just going by my limited experience from the 80's when I spent 2 weeks there. At one point we went to a public hot spring that had cement pools that the water cascaded down, making what looked like a giant set of stairs going down a hillside. Some kids were there, playing in a few by throwing small rocks back and forth. At one point, a 14+- year old boy stood up, and in a calm measured tone said "Excuse me. I would appreciate it if you would stop throwing stones."...and they did. We fell over laughing, knowing that an American teen has never once in all recorded history been so polite and adult when dealing with other kids, nor would American kids respond by stopping.
We didn't meet a single rude kiwi.

Gosh, that's a very good fake then. I can't see anything wrong with the motion, they got that right on. The way everything shudders when it steps, the pane of glass beating like a drum skin, the tethers lolling back and forth, a little bit of slip before the foot plants, the guy in back pulling the "tail" on reverse. Not saying it's impossible to fake, but that is some insanely technical animation.