We may have gigantic penis' here in America, but Japan has us trumped on frenchura flies!

prove it, using a source that isn't fox news or some pathetic right wing blog.

no, your sister didn't get dropped, they can't turn away people anymore. It's on the greedy insurance companies, not Obama, quit blaming him and stop defending the people who are stealing your money while your sister gets sick.

You hate it when we blame bush, so take some of your own medicine. Obama did not shoot your dog, Obama did not come into your home and touch your stuff. Obama did not personally rip up your sisters insurance plan.

blame the greedy insurance companies who are getting rich off of your perpetual ignorance

We wanted single payer like the rest of the civilized world. It was the republicans that cried and whined like babies because their insurance lobbyist friends were upset they might not be able to afford that 2nd yacht. We're the ones that believe that people shouldn't be living like kings while the rest of us get sick.

And this is all just assuming you're not a gigantic paid shill for the Koch Brothers.

Looks like some Gigantism going on there. Like the guy who played Chewbacca.

Without getting into corporate practices, really, what does anyone have against GMO? Isn't genetic engineering supposed to be The Future and shit? I want a pet with a giraffe's head attached to a gigantic spider body. And I want it to speak French.

So you vote republican then in such matters? I'm guessing you probably don't so do you write someone in? The thing about government is that it moves at a slow pace. It wasn't even twenty years ago that the idea of equality for homosexuals was even a thing. So it's not like we got together one day and started voting for pro-marriage equality candidates because there were none. Gov't doesn't work that way. You voted for the least detestable person even if there were plenty of things you still didn't like about the guy.

That's why parties and how we have elections are completely and fundamentally stupid. The idea that we can take all the facets of our views on every controversial subject in america and boil it down to two parties is completely asinine. It also has nothing to do with how well someone can govern. ideology and governance are TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS! but we vote on ideology when we need to be voting on governance.

Don't forget Republicans are completely in the church's pocket as well.

Republicans were always the pro-business party It wasn't until they got hijacked by religious fundamentalists that they really went down into the depths of insanity.

It's the same thing with guns. There is no "take away the guns" party. As Bill Maher points out. There's the party that REALLY loves their guns and there is the party that likes guns. But yet, the fallacy of "omg, they're coming for our guns!" is reality for many people. It's a gigantic strawman.

yea that guy makes a lot of fake vids

Brad Jones of Cinema Snob is a gigantic crystal pepsi collector and drinker and he goes over the video and chugs an old crystal pepsi from his collection to prove there is nothing to it

http://thecinemasnob.com/2013/02/19/brad-tries-mountain-dew-game-fuel--chugs-a-crystal-pepsi.aspx

Funny, M. Night Shyamalan's name is nowhere to be found on this trailer.

I can't imagine why that would be the case. Maybe it's because he sinks ships worse than a gigantic iceberg and in the case of the trailer I think I found the tip:

"IT..HAS..FOUND..YOU."

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

So, so, so fake.

"I'll keep repeating 'don't open it?' to really establish that I deserve what's coming to me."

"I don't want him to see me peeking, but he's not opening the trunk. Oh well, I'll open the box anyway."

"Oh, dear, it's a box full of gigantic bugs. Instead of setting it down or throwing it to the side, I'll toss the contents directly upward in a poorly-choreographed dramatic manner. That should get rid of them."

"And darn all these modern cars with their fancy big-city doors that refuse to open from the inside!"

Pssh.

It looks to me like they're just transporting the hulls for fitting somewhere else. Still pretty darn impressive to look at.

That thing is gigantic.

I hope after the gigantic success of The Avengers, Whedon'd have more weight to his desires and maybe actually be able to bring it back

@enoch let me see, charity = helping people (preferably) in need. Disaster relief = helping people in need (due to some disaster). Help me understand why I can't compare the two.

@dgandhi did FEMA do such an amazing job after Katrina that I don't know about? Because there's a very long article on Wikipedia detailing all the criticisms, somebody should remove it.

Government is not wasteful just for being large, it's wasteful for being a monopoly. It's so easy to conceive of the evils of a single corporation becoming a monopoly, but when it comes to government, the issue strangely never comes up.

I understand that's most likely because we can't avoid government being a monopoly, it's the nature of the beast, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make it smaller.

You bring up good points about division of labor. What about competition, does that matter in modern society or will that also be overlooked?

If we use this $35B figure, which is allegedly what government needs to do disaster relief work poorly, can't we bring it down by subtracting all the money wasted, or will the private corporations have to operate at the same level of exorbitance?

Does it have to be a single gigantic institution, why can't smaller organizations be triggered in unison by a big disaster?

Also, why does it have to be entirely non-profit, what about the insurance business, doesn't it revolve around risk management and dealing with unlikely events like disasters?

Yes, we pay for a disaster relief infrastructure, but we don't have a choice in the matter, and that knowledge is what makes FEMA a disaster. In our moment of most dire need, we can only count on FEMA and nothing else. They abuse their privilege by being wasteful and inefficient.

Governments are not the only organizations capable of preparing and dealing with disasters, and they're very far from being the best at it.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-phones-union-boss-over-offensive-joke-20121011-27erg.html

It's all just so much political theatre.

Anyways, I'm not foolish enough to defend either data retention or the internet filtering crap. Did internet filtering actually happen? I thought is was just a waste of time.

Not great policy, but hardly what I'd call 'gigantic fuck-ups' or taking Australia 'so far backwards'. I think the NBN is far more substantive policy that will make far more difference to far more lives. But that's just me.

This Government has been bagged pillar to post, but in the end I think it's got a fair record of achievement under incredibly trying times. I think if Abbott had tried to form a minority government it would have lasted five minutes.

I find her repugnant and not because she's a woman...

A bit more info on the case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/speaker-australia-parliament-resign-text-message

Gillard has consistently used personal attacks (some of the certainly accurate) against Abbott to deflect attention away from her governments ongoing snafu's.

The slipper case is just the latest gigantic fuck up in a long line with Gillard's name all over it. This wonderfully outraged woman has steadfastly refused to fire the speaker knowing it would deprive her of another vote in an already slim minority government. The same guy that would say things like:

"Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty Cunts in brine!" he continued in his text message to former staffer James Ashby. "Been to thw (sic) fish shop yet to buy the bottle of shell less mussells (sic)?"

I'll be the first to admit that Abbott is neither a likeable person or good prime minister material, but with no viable third alternative, I'll take him and his misogyny over Roxon's 1984-esque data retention scheme and continual attempts to increase the states right at the expense of the citizens, Conroy's 'see no evil' compulsory internet filtering and the extension of the confounding NT 'intervention' scheme that continues to pump money in to a bottomless pit but doesn't actually result in better lives for the Australian Aboriginals it's supposed to help...

Gillard's character is plainly on display. She ignores the blatant sexism of the man she, and her AG Nicola Roxon, defended and refuse to hang out to dry, but when he is revealed to be exactly what she despises, she invokes her dead father and plays the "they're picking on me cos I'm a woman" card to try and divert attention from the trainwreck that is her government. She's not even a toenail clipping from Maggie Thatcher who took to the game of politics as if men had never owned it, never hiding behind the fact she was a woman.